You are on page 1of 10


2, JUNE 2013

Multicriteria Optimal Sizing of Photovoltaic-Wind

Turbine Grid Connected Systems
Mohammed Alsayed, Mario Cacciato, Member, IEEE, Giuseppe Scarcella, Member, IEEE,
and Giacomo Scelba, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Power generation systems (PGSs) based on hybrid vr Wind speed measured at the reference
renewable energy are one of the promising solutions for future height Hr .
distributed generation systems. Among different configurations, ξ Wind speed power law coefficient.
hybrid photovoltaic-wind turbine (PV-WT) grid connected PGSs
are the most adopted for their good performance. However, due to PW T.m ax Maximum available output WT power.
the complexity of the system, the optimal balance between these two PW T.out Actual output WT power.
energy sources requires particular attention to achieve a good engi- vci , vra , vco Cut in, rated, cut out wind speeds.
neering solution. This paper deals with the optimal sizing of PV-WT ρ, A Air density, swept area of the rotor.
by adopting different multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) op- Cp Efficiency of the wind turbine.
timization approaches. Sensitivity of MCDA algorithms has been
analyzed, by considering different weighting criteria techniques ηW TInv ., ηM ech Inverter efficiency, mechanical compo-
with different fluctuation scenarios of wind speed and solar radi- nents efficiency.
ation profiles, thus highlighting advantages and drawbacks of the α, β, γ Coefficients approximating the genera-
proposed optimal sizing approaches. The following study could be tor emission characteristic.
assumed as a powerful roadmap for decision makers, analysts, and Iint Initial investment.
policy makers.
P VC , W TC Investment costs of 1-kW PV, WT in-
Index Terms—Design optimization, hybrid power systems, mul- stalled power.
ticriteria decision analysis, photovoltaic systems, wind generation SVPV P , SVW T P , Salvage present values of PV, WT, and
OMPV P , OMW T P , Operation and maintenance costs pres-
OMPGS P ent value related to PV, WT, and PGS.
Cgrid Cost of the required grid energy.
VOC , ISC Open-circuit voltage and short-circuit P VP PV installed power.
current. P VSV PV salvage value for each kW.
FF Fill factor. P VOM PV operation and maintenance costs for
NPV PV modules number. each kW.
ηPVinv . PV system inverter efficiency. W TP WT installed power.
TA Ambient temperature. W TSV WT salvage value for each kW.
NOCT Nominal operating cell temperature. W TOM WT operation and maintenance costs
ISC.STC Short-circuit current measured under for each kW.
standard test conditions. β, γ, Ψ Inflation rate, interest rate, escalation
VOC.STC Open-circuit voltage measured under rate.
standard test conditions. NPV , NW T , NP Lifespan for PV, WT, and PGS project.
KI Short-circuit current coefficient. wjs Subjective criteria weight.
KV Open-circuit voltage coefficient. k Criteria final score.
Tref PV panel temperature of 25 ◦ C at refer-
ence operating conditions. I. INTRODUCTION
v Wind speed at the height HW T .
ONSIDERING sustainable energy development chal-
C lenges, hybrid renewable energy (HRE) is believed to
be of high importance in the future power generation systems
(PGSs). Despite technical and economic ongoing work, HRE
Manuscript received August 28, 2012; revised December 6, 2012; accepted
January 13, 2013. Date of publication March 14, 2013; date of current version
PGSs have already proven environmental and social benefits
May 15, 2013. Paper no. TEC-00420-2012. recognized worldwide.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical, Electronics Engineering, Among several alternatives, grid connected hybrid
and Computer Science, University of Catania, Catania 6-95125, Italy (e-mail:;; gscarcella@
photovoltaic-wind turbine (PV-WT) PGSs show high poten-; tial, limiting the power output fluctuations of single source PGS
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online contribution. Optimal design of these systems needs careful at-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2013.2245669
tention, requiring tradeoffs between decision criteria to enhance
a sustainable energy development.
0885-8969/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE

Technical literature is rich in contributions proposing meth- II. SYSTEM MODELING AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
ods developed to achieve the optimal sizing of hybrid PGSs.
In this section, the mathematical models used to simulate
Different approaches have been used in the past based on dif- different PV-WT size combinations, as well as design technical
ferent methods: particle swarm optimization (PSO) [1], genetic
constraints are presented.
algorithms [2], [3], mixed integer nonlinear programming [4],
The main goal of PGS is to satisfy the load demand and
hybrid simulated annealing-tabu search algorithm [5], and other enhance a sustainable development. When HRE sources are
contributions focusing on optimizing hybrid PGS costs, main-
abundant, the extra generated power, after having satisfied the
taining specific technical performance [6]–[10]; the main goal
load demand, is considered with zero economic value in the
of the presented methods is the reduction of system costs by following analysis. In fact, it is assumed that the HRE plant have
applying economic-environment and/or techno-economic opti-
to be designed in order to fit as best as possible the load profile,
mization algorithms. Basically, a single objective function to be selling extra energy to local utility companies at no convenient
minimized is considered; this function is mainly represented by cost conditions. On the contrary, when energy sources are poor,
the total system cost; the other technical-environmental require-
the energy shortage is fulfilled by the grid. Hence, load demand
ments can be included in the optimization sizing process by profile is an important input to be taken into consideration in
following two approaches: The first way is to consider such re- the formulation problem, and is considered as known data of the
quirements as additional constraints, while the other approach is
based on the conversion of the additional requirement units into
costs to ensure unit consistency, and then add such variables to
the objective function. The latter methods are not always prac- A. PV System Model
tical since some of the system variables might not be easily Power produced by the PV plant PPV can be calculated
unified into a single unit. Moreover, in both approaches it is through the following relationship:
assumed that all system requirements/variables have the same
importance with respect to the final decision. PPV (t) = NPV VOC (t)ISC (t)ηPVinv. F F (t) . (1)
More insightful approaches have been presented in [11]
and [12] where, by using a multiobjective PSO or genetic algo- Since VOC and ISC are strictly depending on the operating
rithms, authors are able to simultaneously optimize more objec- temperature TC and the global irradiance G relationships (2)–(4)
tive functions (environment, economic, and technical) in order are used to take into consideration such dependences [13]:
to find the Pareto set, which is considered the optimal solution
set. Hence, these methods provide different PV-WT configura-
VOC (t) = VOC.STC + KV (TC (t) − Tref (t)) (2)
tions candidate as the best one, leaving the final decision to the
decision-maker preferences, which might not be a simple task; G(t)
ISC (t) = {ISC.STC + KI [TC (t) − Tref (t)]} (3)
moreover, also in this case, the same importance is assigned to 1000
all criteria. Basically, most of the already proposed solutions NCOT − 20
could not be able to extract the best combination of PV-WT TC (t) = TA (t) + G(t). (4)
system, which is the best compromise among different nature
criteria, yielding to a suboptimal solution. B. Wind Turbine System Model
In order to overcome some of the aforementioned limita-
tions, in this paper, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) The power output of a WT is determined by the wind speed
approaches are exploited in order to define the optimal siz- distribution; the latter can be calculated using [14]
ing share between PV and WT power generation systems. The  ξ
proposed solution allows us to achieve the optimal sizing by HW T
v (t) = vr (t) . . (5)
simultaneously applying different criteria (technical, economic, Hr
environmental, and social), without the need to convert them
into a unified unit. Moreover, sensitivity of the proposed algo- The output power produced from WT is then calculated by
rithms has been analyzed, by considering different weighting
criteria techniques and different fluctuation scenarios of wind 1
PW Tm ax (t) = ρAν(t)3 CP ηW TInv. ηM ech. (6)
speed and solar radiation profiles. This procedure can be ap- 2
plied either during the design of a new hybrid PGS or during ⎧
⎪ 0 v(t) < vci

the evaluation of different expansion alternatives of an already ⎨ PW T.m ax vci ≤ v(t) < vra
existing system. PW T.out = . (7)

⎪ Pr vra ≤ v(t) ≤ vco
The paper is organized as follows: Analytical models adopted ⎪

in the following analysis is shown in Section II, while MCDA 0 vco < v(t)
mechanism and the proposed optimization approach are de-
scribed in Section III; simulation results of a practical case are The aforementioned PV and WT mathematical models have
presented in Section IV, and finally, conclusions are shown in been used to predict and simulate the generated power associated
Section V. to different PV-WT alternatives.

C. Design Criteria
In this paper, different design criteria have been chosen to
be optimized, reflecting environmental, economic, and social
performance of the proposed PGS.
Environmental Criteria—Emissions Reduction (C1 ): The at-
mospheric pollutants reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) and
nitrogen oxide (NOx ) emissions, achieved by adopting HRE
sources to fulfill the load instead of fossil-fueled thermal units,
is estimated in ton/h emission as [11]
T  Fig. 1. Applied membership functions for social acceptance (SA).
Emss. = α + β Pout (t) + γ Pout (t) (8)
t=1 t=1 TABLE I
where T is the analyzed period which is equal to 8760 h (one
Economic Criteria—Estimated Costs (C2 ): This design cri-
terion is calculated as the sum of initial investment, operational
and maintenance, and energy bought from the grid costs minus
the salvage value of the PVs and WTs. Calculation of this per-
formance criterion, labeled in the following as EC, is achieved
by using the following equations [11]:
Iinv. = P VP P VC + W TP W TC (9)
 N P V The profiles displayed in Fig. 1 have been used in the proposed
1+β case study, where the maximum allowable installed WT power
SVPV P = P VP P VSV (10)
1+γ has been imposed to be equal to 200 kW; moreover, wind turbine
 N W T power systems whose power rated sizes are 10, 30, and 50 kW
1+β have also been taken into consideration; since the minimum
SVW T P = W TP W TSV (11)
1+γ number of WTs is imposed, the combination of the three wind
SVPGS P = SVPV P+ SVW T P (12) turbine sizes allows a maximum possible number of WTs equal
to 5. As regards the land use calculation, it has been assumed

N PV  i
1+ψ that 1 kW of installed PV power requires 10 m2 [16], while
OMPV P = P VP P VOM (13)
1+γ land required by wind turbine is evaluated by considering the
installation regulations and rules of thumb. Total land required

N WT  i
1+ψ for PGS is the sum of that required by PV and WT.
OMW T P = W TP W TOM (14) Social criteria analysis models can vary from site to site, as the
local community acceptance or resistance is strongly dependent
OMPGS P = OMPV P + OMW T P (15) on the site category.
Cgrid = Egrid Ecost (16)
D. Design Constraint
EC = + Cgrid . (17) The total energy lost (TEL) due to extra power generation
from HRE system is minimized by imposing the regulation that
Social Criteria—Social Acceptance (C3 ): Social acceptabil- such a quantity should not exceed a specific threshold THR over
ity (SA) is included as social performance evaluation criteria a defined analyzed period T , which is assumed here to be 8760 h
in order to take into consideration the social resistance to the (1 year). The following equations impose this constraint:
installation of hybrid PV-WT PGS. In this context, land use and ⎧ T
visual impact have been included as social negative effects, as ⎪
⎨ (EPGS (t) − LD(t)), if LD(t) < EPGS (t)
well as electromagnetic interferences, acoustic noise, shadow TEL = t=1 (18)
flicker, and eco-system disturbance [15]. ⎪

⎩ 0, else
In this paper, the social criteria technique is performed by
using a fuzzy logic algorithm, where the land used area of PGS 0 < TEL ≤ THR (19)
and the number of required WT are the input variables, while
the output of this algorithm is a social acceptance indicator. where EPGS is the energy generated by PGS and LD is the load
Membership functions applied to input and output quantities demand. The total energy lost due to extra generated power is
are shown in Fig. 1, while applied fuzzy rules are shown in sold to the grid according to the adopted system energy manage-
Table I. In this paper higher priority is given to PGS installation ment strategy. Therefore, the proposed optimization approach
with the minimum number of WTs fitting the required power. considers extra installed power as unjustified additional cost

associates score to the considered criteria (1 to the most impor-

tant criterion, 2 to the next, and so on). Then, all the decision
makers’ scores are summed to define the criteria final score, by
using the same criteria scale. Starting from this scale, the weight
of the criteria ranked to be jth is [18]
wjs = . (21)
n k
k =j

Entropy is an objective weighting method that depends only

on X, where higher variation between the criteria performance
column (alternatives) leads to higher weight value. Entropy can
Fig. 2. Graphical representation of TEL. be performed by applying the following steps [19].
1) Calculation of the index value Pij using
which also causes social acceptance penalty because of extra 
equipment installed, and so, it should be minimized. The value Pij = Xij Xij . (22)
of THR is strongly dependent on the PGS energy production i=1
and has been considered in this paper equal to 0.5% of EPGS . 2) Calculation of output entropy Ej using
Fig. 2 shows the graphical representation of TEL.

Ej = −z Pij . ln Pij (23)
As aforementioned in the introduction, the proposed design z = 1/ ln(m) (24)
procedure exploits MCDA in order to achieve the optimal sizing m
of PV-WT PGS under different criteria. as 0 ≤ Pij ≤ 1, then 0 ≤ − i=1 Pij ln Pij ≤ ln(m), thus
MCDA methods perform a comparison of two or more al- 0 ≤ Ej ≤ 1. j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
ternatives against two or more criteria where each criterion has 3) Calculation of entropy variation dj for index j using
an importance defined by its weight in the final decision. The d j = 1 − Ej . (25)
problem can be formulated as indicated in the following equa-
tion [17]: 4) Calculation of the objective criteria weight wjb of index j
Criteria = [ c1 c2 ··· cn ]  n

Weights = [ w1 w2 ··· wn ]
wj = dj dj where 0 ≤ wj ≤ 1 and
wjb = 1.
j =1 j =1
⎡ ⎤
A1 X11 X12 ··· X1n (20) (26)
A2 ⎢ X 21 X22 ··· X2n ⎥ The two aforementioned weighting methods can be suitably
X = .. = ⎢
⎣ ... .. .. ⎥
. ⎦
.. combined by using two different approaches: the additive syn-
. . .
thesis combination weighting method (ASCWM) and the multi-
Am Xm 1 Xm 2 ··· Xm n m ×n plication synthesis combination weighting method (MSCWM)
where X is the performance matrix, Xij is the performance of [20].
ith alternative against jth criteria, n is the number of criteria ASCWM and MSCWM are calculated using
and m is the number of alternatives. A1 to Am are the possible
alternatives. In this research, Xij are determined by means of ASCWM = (q × wjs ) + ((1 − q) × wjb ) (27)
PV-WT alternatives simulations. ws .wb
In order to solve multicriteria problems, the definition of MSCWM = n j sj b (28)
j =1 wj .wj
criteria and alternatives, as already given in the previous section,
is required; in addition, the weights associated to criteria and where q (0 < q < 1) is a linear combination coefficient defining
performance matrix are requested. the importance of wjs and wjb in ASCWM [20].

A. Weighting Methods B. MCDA Algorithms

The proposed design procedure adopts different weighting Three different MCDA algorithms are used in order to eval-
methods in order to make possible a sensitivity analysis of the uate the best PV-WT design: weighted sum method (WSM),
results. In the following, a brief description of such methods is technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
provided. method (TOPSIS) [19], and preference ranking organization
Smarter is a subjective multiattribute choice scoring the method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE II) [17].
model technique; it depends on the judgment of decision maker/s The main difference among them is related to the mathemat-
based on their experience and preference. Each decision maker ical calculations for ranking alternatives.

WSM is the most commonly used MCDA method in energy

systems. In order to apply WSM, X needs to be normalized
by using the following equation in order to convert it into a
dimensionless matrix:
⎧⎛ ⎞
⎪ xij − Min
⎪ i ⎠

⎪ ∀j ∈ J

⎨ Max − Min
i i
rij = ⎛ ⎞ (29) Fig. 3. V-shape criterion preference function.

⎪ xij − Min

⎪ ⎝ i ⎠ ∀j ∈ J 
⎩ Max − Min
i i A− are calculated by

where rij is the generic element of the normalized X, J is the 

performance evaluation vector where the criterion is considered s+
i = (vij − A+
j )
2 (35)
j =1
a benefit (the higher the value, the better the performance) and J 
is the performance evaluation vector where the criterion is con- n
i = (vij − A−
j )
2 (36)
sidered a cost (the lower the value, the better the performance). j =1
In our analysis J consists of C1 and C3 , while J consists of C2 .

After that, WSM scores are calculated using where A+ i is the ideal performance of the jth criteria, and Ai is
the worst performance of the jth criteria.

Finally, the relative closeness degree of alternative Ai to A+
WSMscore = wj .rij (30)
j =1
TOPSISscore is calculated by
where wj is the weight of criteria j. WSMscore equals the final TOPSISscore = s− +
i (si + si ). (37)
score for the alternative i; the highest alternative score is the
best PV-WT design solution. The best alternative has the maximum closeness degree
TOPSIS is based on the principle that the best alternative among all alternatives.
should have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution A different MCDA method is PROMETHEE II, where alter-
and the longest distance from the nadir or negative ideal solution natives are compared against each other in a pair-wise approach
in geometrical sense. according to preference function. PROMETHEE II scores are
The first step to apply TOPSIS is the normalization of X calculated as follows.
using Performance differences between each alternative and all
other alternatives are calculated in pair-wise bases using


m 2
rij = Xij Xij2 (31) dj (a, b) = xaj − xbj ∀a, b ∈ A (38)
where dj (a, b) is the difference between alternatives a and b
where rij is the generic element of the normalized X.
with respect to criteria j.
The second step is to obtain the weighted normalized X using
After that, preference value Pj is calculated using
vij = wj .rij (32) 
Fj [dj (a, b)] ∀j ∈ J
Pj (a, b) = (39)
where vij is the generic element of the weighted normalized X Fj [−dj (a, b)] ∀j ∈ J 
and wj is the weights vector.
The third step is the calculation of the positive ideal solution where Fj is the preference function; in the following, a V-shape
A+ and the negative ideal solution A− using criterion preference function is applied as shown in the following
⎧  equation and Fig. 3:

⎨ Max vi j |j ∈ J

A+ = v1+ , v2+ , . . . , vn+ =   (33) 0 if d ≤ 0

⎩ Min vi j |j ∈ J  ⎪


⎨ d
⎧   Fj (d) = if 0 ≤ d ≤ p (40)

⎨ Min v |j ∈ J ⎪
⎪ p
i j

A− = {v1− , v2− , . . . , vn− } =   (34) 1 if d > p

⎩ Max vi j |j ∈ J 
where p is the threshold of strict preference; different values of
where vj+ and vj− are the positive ideal and negative ideal criteria p can be applied for each criteria, defining a vector Pvalue :
performance among all alternatives.  

The positive distance s+
i and the negative distance si between pvalue = p1 p2 p3 ... pj . (41)
alternative Ai and positive and negative ideal solutions A+ and

Then aggregated preference indices are calculated using

Π(a, b) = Pj (a, b).wj (42)
j =1

Π(b, a) = Pj (b, a).wj (43)
j =1

where П(a, b) represents the preference degree of alternative a

with respect to b; similar consideration is valid for П(b, a). After
that, the outranking flow can be calculated using
φ+ (a) = Π(a, x) (44)

φ− (a) = Π(x, a) (45)

where φ+ and φ− are the positive and negative outranking flows,

respectively, and (m − 1) is the number of possible alternatives
facing alternative a in a pair-wise comparison.
Finally, the complete ranking for each alternative is calculated
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the proposed optimal sizing method.
PROMscore = φ+ (a) − φ− (a) (46)
where PROMscore is the complete ranking for alternative a. It fixed step-size Z increments and decrements with respect to the
is the balance between positive and negative outranking flows initial power level. According to each power level, a simulation
where higher value means better alternative. When PROMscore of the system is performed in order to determine the design
is positive, alternative a is more outranking all the alternatives constraint EPGS and all criteria. Power level able to minimize
on all the criteria, while when PROMscore is negative, alternative TEL constraint also satisfying the condition TEL<THR is cho-
a is more outranked. sen as the optimal one for that PV-WT share. This operation is
performed for each PV-WT share alternative and the results of
C. Design Procedure these elaborations are transferred to the performance matrix X.
Starting from X, different weighting vectors can be defined
The proposed approach allows us to systematically evaluate
to highlight the consistency of the optimal sizing PV-WT design
different alternatives of grid-connected PV-WT PGSs in order
to achieve the optimal design, satisfying as best as possible all
In addition to SMARTER and ENTROPY weighting meth-
ods, the procedure can take into account also weighting vectors
After having defined criteria and constraints that must be
with one dominant criterion.
considered, solar radiation and wind speed, load demand and
Known weighting vectors and performance matrix X, MCDA
technical data regarding PV and WT power systems are needed.
algorithms are applied in order to detect the optimal sizing
Alternatives are generated, basing them on a fixed step-size
PV-WT design configuration. The proposed procedure exploits
variation of the shared power between PV and WT systems.
the aforementioned MCDA algorithms in order to achieve higher
Basically, PV-WT combinations sweep from the complete use
confidence level of the optimal design solution.
of PV system till reaching 100% of the installed WT power
Final step is the evaluation of the output results achieved
system; starting from 100% dependence on the PV system, the
by applying MCDA methods. Depending on the considered
next alternative is generated by adding a certain step size to
weighting method, different PV-WT alternatives could be the
the WT power system and subtracting the same amount from
best candidate according to the decision-makers preferences.
PV plant, continuing on this procedure until 100% dependence
Fig. 4 presents the flowchart of the proposed approach.
on WT technology is reached. The step-size value is chosen in
order to achieve a suitable number of alternatives.
The next step of the design procedure is to detect the best
power level associated to each PV-WT share (alternative); in The proposed optimal sizing approach has been applied to
fact, depending on the sharing factor, EPGS profile able to bet- real data. Wind speed, solar radiation, temperature, load de-
ter fit LD curve is different, since EPGS is equal to the sum of mand profiles, and technical data are shown in Table II and
the energy produced by the two generation plants. The initial Fig. 5. The total annual electrical energy demand is equal to
installed power levels for each PV-WT share is assumed to be 932.5 MWh. PV modules and WT technical specifications are
coincident to the average value of the annual load demand pro- shown in Table III, while other environmental and economic
file; after that, other power levels are determined considering data used in the following study are presented in Table IV.



Fig. 5. Wind speed, solar radiation, temperature, and load demand profiles.


Defined the PV-WT share combinations, optimal power lev-

els have been identified for each alternative, by simulating the
PV-WT analytical models and considering step-size variations
equal to 10% of the load standard deviation (32 kW).
Results of these simulations are transferred to the perfor-
mance matrix X shown in Table VI. In particular, the terms
TABLE IV listed below the column C3 indicate the social acceptance
TECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC DATA degree, while the other two columns report the emission re-
duction C1 and PGS costs C2 .
It is interesting to note that comparing alternative A and alter-
native G, a considerable variation of the energy produced from
the two different configurations is observed in Table V; in fact,
alternative A is able to produce almost double the annual energy
of alternative G. Despite this advantage of alternative A, which
will strongly improve its performance with respect to criteria
C1 (Table VI), note that G is still a nominated optimal solution
due to its better performance with respect to C2 and C3 . Hence,
the optimal PV-WT combination can be strongly affected by
criteria far from production interests, such as the social criteria.
From solar radiation and wind speed profiles, it is also pos- The next step is to define the weighting vector. Choosing a
sible to calculate the capacity factor associated to PV modules suitable weighting vector is a critical issue due to its obvious
and WTs. Capacity factor is determined by simulating the sin- effects on the optimal decision. In order to analyze the impor-
gle equipment subjected to the input environmental profiles. In tance of weighting methods in the determination of the optimal
this case study, the capacity factor associated to PV modules is solution, different weighting methods have been considered in
12.6%, while that related to 10, 30, and 50-kW WTs are 31%, this paper and are shown in Table VII.
23%, and 20%, respectively. It can be noticed that X can include criteria with high perfor-
Eleven alternatives have been identified as indicated in Ta- mance variation and other criteria with relatively low variation;
ble V; this number depends on the chosen step size to guarantee in the latter case, Entropy can provide weights whose values are
an acceptable resolution of the results. almost equal to zero, like C2 . This condition also affects the



Also weighting methods achieved as combination of the pre-

vious ones provide the same results.
Different results can be achieved when different weighting
vectors are purposely considered in the MCDA algorithms.
In particular, when higher variability weighting vectors listed
in the last four rows of Table VII are adopted, the results of
MCDA are that shown in Fig. 7; in this case, MCDA algorithms
have been applied to X by assigning equal importance to all
criteria and also considering the cases where in turn a weight
of 50% is assigned to one criteria and the weights of the other
two criteria is 25%. In this way, it is possible to highlight which
alternatives are more affected by each selected criteria.
Fig. 6. Analysis results—subjective, objective, and combined weights. In this purposely created scenarios, PROMETHEE and WSM
provide different results compared to TOPSIS. In particular,
when the equal weights condition and PROMETHEE/or WSM
are applied, alternatives G, J, and K can be considered as good
candidates for the optimal design solution, while alternative C is
the optimal PV-WT share only when weighting configuration is
C1 (50%), while it is relatively weak with respect to economic
and social criteria performance, as shown in C2 (50%) and C3
(50%) scenarios.
When investment cost is considered more relevant compared
to the other criteria, the optimal PV-WT design solution achieved
by WSM and PROMETHEE moves toward alternative K, as
this is the combination minimizing PGS cost. The same alter-
native can be also considered the optimal one when C3 (50%)
Fig. 7. Analysis results—equal, C 1 (50%), C 2 (50%), and C 3 (50%) weights.
scenario is taken into consideration. In fact, PROMETHEE pro-
vides alternative G, J, and K as good candidates, whose score
results achieved by applying combination weighting methods is very close. Hence, comparing the two MCDA algorithms
as MSCWM. results, alternative K can be considered the best solution of
Different weighting methods of Table VII have been pur- scenario C3 (50%). Differently than WSM and PROMETHEE,
posely exploited by the MCDA algorithms treated in previous TOPSIS continues to provide alternatives C as best PV-WT de-
sections, and the results of these elaborations are reported in sign configuration except when C3 (50%) is considered, show-
Figs. 6 and 7. In particular, Fig. 6 shows the scores achieved ing less sensitivity to weighting coefficient variations. In the
applying the first four weighting methods listed in Table VII, latter scenario, TOPSIS provides J and K as best alternatives,
where PROMETHEE II makes use of Pvalue = [20000, 1000, like the other two MCDA algorithms.
25]. Hence, the latter analysis can be considered as a powerful tool
From Fig. 6, the optimal alternative related to these four giving important information to the decision makers regarding
weighting vectors is C whenever MCDA algorithm is used, how much benefits/sacrifice is gained/lost with respect to each
while alternatives A and B can be assumed as good solutions. criteria when choosing the final decision.
Looking at Table VII, it can be noticed that in all of the four Finally, sensitivity analysis regarding input data has been
weighting vectors, C1 is the most important criteria, very far performed by considering the effects of variations in measured
from C2 and C3 . Hence, smarter and entropy algorithms have wind speed and solar radiation profiles; in particular, the pro-
given more importance to emission reduction, almost nullify- files’ averages have been shifted by ±10% assuming different
ing the influence of cost investment. This happens because in- weather input data combinations, as indicated in Table VIII.
vestment cost variations among all alternatives is very limited The results of this sensitivity analysis are shown in
compared to the other criteria, as clearly evident in Table VI. Fig. 8, considering the weighting method ASCWM. Note that,

hybrid wind/PV systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 13, no. 1,
pp. 70–75, Mar. 1998.
[10] R. Chedid, H. Akiki, and S. Rahman, “A decision support technique for
the design of hybrid solar—wind power systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 76–83, Mar. 1998.
[11] L. Wang and C. Singh, “Multicriteria design of hybrid power generation
systems based on a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 163–172, Mar. 2009.
[12] Y. A. Katsigiannis, P. S. Georgilakis, and E. S. Karapidakis, “Multiobjec-
tive genetic algorithm solution to the optimum economic and environmen-
tal performance problem of small autonomous hybrid power system with
renewable,” IET Renewable Power Generat., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 404–419,
[13] A. Kornelakis and E. Koutroulis, “Methodology for the design optimiza-
tion and the economic analysis of grid-connected photovoltaic systems,”
IET Renewable Power Generat. J., vol. 3, pp. 476–492, 2009.
[14] J. Twiddel and T. Weir, Renewable Energy Resources, 2nd ed. New
York, USA: Taylor & Francis, 2006.
Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis to wind speed and solar radiation profile variations. [15] E. Hau, Wind turbines, Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Eco-
nomics, 2nd ed. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
[16] Z. Sen, Solar Energy Fundamentals and Modeling Techniques: Atmo-
independently on MCDA algorithms and considered input data sphere, Environment, Climate Change and Renewable Energy. New
profile variations, alternative C is the best PV-WT configuration, York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
[17] J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:
confirming the robustness of this design solution to input data State of the Art Surveys. New York, USA: Springer Science + Business
variations. Media, Inc, 2005.
[18] W. Edwards and F. H. Barron, “Smarts and smarter: Improved simple
methods for multiattribute utility measurement,” Elsevier J. Org. Behav.
V. CONCLUSION Human Decis. Processes, vol. 60, pp. 306–325, 1994.
[19] R. V. Rao, Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using
Optimal sizing of PV-WT grid connected PGSs can be Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods.
achieved by performing the proposed analysis, where different New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
MCDA algorithms exploiting different weighting methods have [20] J.-J. Wang, Y.-Y. Jing, C.-F. Zhang, and J.-H. Zhao, “Review on multi-
criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making,” El-
been applied. The proposed procedure gives decision maker the sevier J. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., vol. 13, pp. 2263–2278,
flexibility to include any kind of criteria, allowing him/her to 2009.
verify the effect of these criteria on the optimal solutions, under
different input data sensitivity scenarios. This procedure can be
considered a viable guidance in the design process.

REFERENCES Mohammed Alsayed received the B.Eng. degree in

industrial engineering and the M.Eng. degree in clean
[1] V. Sánchez, J. M. Ramirez, and G. Arriaga, “Optimal sizing of a hybrid energy and energy conservation engineering both
renewable system,” in Proc. Ind. Technol. (ICIT), 2010, pp. 949–954. from An-najah National University, Nablus, West
[2] T. Senjyu, D. Hayashi, N. Urasaki, and T. Funabashi, “Optimum con- Bank, Palestine, in 2005 and 2008, respectively. He
figuration for renewable generating systems in residence using genetic is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in energetics
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 459–466, from the University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Jun. 2006. From 2006 to 2010, he was with an engineering
[3] Y.-Y. Hong and R.-C. Lian, “Optimal sizing of hybrid wind/PV/diesel consultancy firm as a Technical Manager and as a
generation in a stand-alone power system using Markov-based genetic part-time Lecturer at An-najah National University.
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 640–647, Apr. His research interests include distributed generation,
2012. renewable energy, and optimization techniques.
[4] Y. M. Atwa, E. F. El-Saadany, M. M. A. Salama, and R. Seethapathy,
“Optimal renewable resources mix for distribution system energy loss
minimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 360–370, Feb.
[5] Y. A. Katsigiannis, P. S. Georgilakis, and E. S. Karapidakis, “Hybrid sim-
ulated annealing—Tabu search method for optimal sizing of autonomous Mario Cacciato (S’97–M’00) received the Master
power systems with renewables,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy, vol. 3, degree in electrical engineering (cum laude) from the
no. 3, pp. 330–338, Jul. 2012. University of Catania, Catania, Italy, in 1996, and the
[6] T. K. Saha and D. Kastha, “Design optimization and dynamic performance Ph.D. degree in electronic engineering from the Uni-
analysis of a stand-alone hybrid wind–diesel electrical power generation versity of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy, in
system,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1209–1217, 2000.
Dec. 2010. In 2000, he was with the Department of Electri-
[7] M. Bashir and J. Sadeh, “Optimal sizing of hybrid wind/photovoltaic/ cal Engineering of the University of Rome – “La
battery considering the uncertainty of wind and photovoltaic power using Sapienza” as an Assistant Professor. In 2004, he
Monte Carlo,” in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Environ. Electr. Eng. (EEEIC), moved to the Department of Electrical and Electron-
2012, pp. 1081–1086. ics Engineering and Computer Science, University
[8] R. Belfkira, C. Nichita, P. Reghem, and G. Barakat, “Modeling and optimal of Catania. In 2011, he became an Associate Professor where he currently
sizing of hybrid renewable energy system,” in Proc. Power Electron. teaches power electronics. He is the author of more than 80 technical pa-
Motion Control Conf., EPE-PEMC 13th, Poznań, Poland, 2008, pp. 1834– pers published on journals and proceedings of international conferences. His
1839. main scientific research interests include power electronics, control of elec-
[9] W. D. Kellogg, M. H. Nehrir, G. Venkataramanan, and V. Gerez, “Gener- tric drives, electromagnetic compatibility, renewable energies, and hydrogen
ation unit sizing and cost analysis for stand-alone wind, photovoltaic, and applications.

Giuseppe Scarcella (M’99) received the M.S. and Giacomo Scelba (S’04–M’07) received the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni- Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Uni-
versity of Catania, Catania, Italy, in 1995 and 1999, versity of Catania, Catania, Italy, in 2002 and 2005,
respectively. respectively.
In 1999, he joined the Department of Electri- He is currently an Assistant Professor in the
cal, Electronic, and Systems Engineering, Univer- Department of Electric, Electronic and Computer Sci-
sity of Catania, as a temporary Researcher, working ence, University of Catania. His current research in-
on sensorless control of electrical drives with high- terests include sensorless control, digital signal pro-
frequency signal injection. In 2001, he obtained a cessing, ac drive control technologies, and control
permanent position as an Assistant Professor, in the techniques for renewable energy systems.
same department, where, since 2005, he is an As-
sociate Professor in the areas of power electronics, electrical machines, and
drives. He is the author or coauthor of more than 100 technical papers pub-
lished on journals and proceedings of national and international conferences
and holds several national and international patents. His current research inter-
ests include sensorless control of electrical machines, advanced control, digital
modulation techniques, efficiency optimization techniques, and electromagnetic