Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Optimal sizing of photovoltaic pumping system with water tank

storage using LPSP concept
Yahia Bakelli a,⇑, Amar Hadj Arab b, Boubekeur Azoui c
a
Applied Researches on Renewable Energies Unit, B.P. 88 Gar Taam, Ghardaia, Algeria
b
Renewable Energies Development Centre, B.P. 62, Bouzareah, Algiers, Algeria
c
Engineering Science Faculty, Hadj Lakhdar University, Batna, Algeria

Received 30 September 2010; received in revised form 24 November 2010; accepted 30 November 2010
Available online 28 December 2010

Communicated by: Associate Editor Nicola Romeo

Abstract

This paper recommends an optimal sizing model, to optimize the capacity sizes of different components of photovoltaic water pump-
ing system (PWPS) using water tank storage. The recommended model takes into account the submodels of the pumping system and uses
two optimization criteria, the loss of power supply probability (LPSP) concept for the reliability and the life cycle cost (LCC) for the
economic evaluation.
With this presented model, the sizing optimization of photovoltaic pumping system can be achieved technically and economically
according to the system reliability requirements. The methodology adopted proposes various procedures based on the water consump-
tion profiles, total head, tank capacity and photovoltaic array peak power. A case study is conducted to analyze one photovoltaic pump-
ing project, which is designed to supply drinking water in remote and scattered small villages situated in Ghardaia, Algeria (32°290 N,
3°400 E, 450 m).
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: PV water pumping system sizing; Loss of power supply probability (LPSP); Life cycle cost (LCC); Remote areas; Motor-pump model

1. Introduction from the ground. Diesel, gasoline, and kerosene pumps

Water is the primary source of life for mankind and one
of the most basic necessities for rural development. The
rural demand for water for crop irrigation and domestic
water supplies is increasing. At the same time, rainfall is
decreasing in many arid countries, so surface water is
becoming scarce. Groundwater seems to be the only alter-
native to this dilemma, but the groundwater table is also
decreasing, which makes traditional hand pumping and
bucketing difficult.
As these trends continue, mechanized water pumping
will become the only reliable alternative for lifting water
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +213 29 87 01 52.
E-mail address: bakelli_yahia@yahoo.fr (Y. Bakelli).
(including windmills) have traditionally been used to
pump water. However, reliable solar (photovoltaic (PV))
and wind turbine pumps are now emerging on the market
and are rapidly becoming more attractive than the
traditional power sources. These technologies, powered
by renewable energy sources (solar and wind), are espe-
cially useful in remote locations where a steady fuel sup-
ply is problematic and skilled maintenance personnel are
scarce.
In the most Algerian rural region, there exists substan-
tial solar potential to use photovoltaic sources of energy
for supplying water pumping system. Thus, the photovol-
taic water pumping systems (PWPS) are very appropriate
to use because of the availability of solar radiation and
water in the no deep underground sheet particularly the

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2010.11.023
 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294
one that the groundwater represents the major source for
water supply.
In the last decades, efforts are being made in Algeria as
well as throughout the world to supply water to meet
drinking and irrigation needs in remote regions. Thus, for
rural applications, various established models (Badescu,
2003; Hadj Arab et al., 2004; Hamidat et al., 2003; Hami-
dat et al., 2007; Hamidat and Benyoucef, 2008), sizing tech-
niques (Hadj Arab et al., 2004; Hamidat and Benyoucef,
2009; Martiré et al., 2008; Odeh et al., 2006) and optimiza-
tion methods (Ghoneim, 2006; Glasnovic and Margeta,
2007; Kaldellis et al., 2009; Meah et al., 2008; Odeh et
al., 2006; Qoaider and Steinbrecht, 2010) of photovoltaic
water pumping system (PWPS) have been reported in the
literature.
In this paper, the photovoltaic water pumping system
optimization sizing model, is developed based on the loss
of power supply probability (LPSP) and the life cycle cost
(LCC) concepts. The LPSP technique, which is considered
to be the criteria for sizing, is the probability that an insuf-
ficient power supply results when the PWPS is unable to
satisfy the load demand. Using the LPSP objective func-
tion, the configurations of a PWPS which can meet the sys-
tem reliability requirements can be obtained. There are two
sizing parameters in the simulation, i.e. the capacity of PV
system and the capacity of the water storage tank. The
optimum configuration can be identified from the set of
the above obtained configurations by reaching the lowest
life cycle cost (LCC).
2. Photovoltaic pumping system description
Water pumping for irrigation and water supply for rural
communities represents an important area of stand-alone
PV systems; these systems usually consist of a photovoltaic
generator, source of water, a water storage tank, and a DC
pump (see Fig. 1).
The role of batteries is here played by the water storage
tank and the electric power load demand L in now replaced
by water demand. If expressed in Wh/day, this represents
the energy needed to pump the required volume of water
demanded by the user into the storage tank. These consid-
erations show that PV pumping systems can be sized in a
similar way than PV systems with other applications
(Markvart and Castaner, 2003).
3. PV generator model
The hourly output power of the PV generator with an
area APV (m2) at a solar radiation on tilted plane module
Gt (W/m2), is given by (Markvart and Castaner, 2003):
P PV ¼ gPV APV Gt
where gPV represents the PV generator efficiency and is gi-
ven by (Habib et al., 1999; Kolhe et al., 2003):
gPV ¼ gr gpc þ ½1  bðT c  T cref Þ
289
where gr is the reference module efficiency, gpc is the power
conditioning efficiency which is equal to 1 if a perfect max-
imum power tracker (MPPT) is used. b is the generator effi-
ciency temperature coefficient, it is assumed to be a
constant and for silicon cells the range of b is 0.004–
0.006 per (°C), Tcref is the reference cell temperature (°C)
and Tc is the cell temperature (°C) and can be calculated
as follows (Markvart and Castaner, 2003):
 
ðNOCT  20Þ
Tc ¼ Ta þ Gt ð3Þ
800
where Ta is the ambient temperature (°C) and NOCT is the
nominal cell operating temperature (°C). gpc, b, NOCT and
APV, are parameters that depend upon the type of module
used. The data are obtained from the PV module
manufacturers.
4. Pumping subsystems model
The mathematical models of the inverter and the motor
pump set are described in a great number of research
papers. Thus, we can quote (Daud and Mahmoud, 2005;
Hadj Arab et al., 2006; Kou et al., 1998; Mezghanni et
al., 2007; Pande et al., 2003). These models describe the
characteristic of each component of the pumping subsys-
tem as the inverter, the motor or the pump. But these mod-
els do not give a direct relationship between the operating
electrical power of the pumping subsystem and the water
flow rate of the pump. In this paper, we use a mathematical
model which directly links the output water flow rate Q
versus the input operating electric power Pa and total head
h. This model is based on the analysis of the experimental
results of two types of pumping subsystems (Hamidat et al.,
2007; Hamidat and Benyoucef, 2008).
The equation of the used pumping model is given as
follows:
P a ðQ; hÞ ¼ aðhÞQ3 þ bðhÞQ2 þ cðhÞQ þ dðhÞ ð4Þ
where a(h), b(h), c(h) and d(h) depend on total head and
can be described by the following equations:
aðhÞ ¼ a0 þ a1 h þ a2 h2 þ a3 h3 ð5Þ
bðhÞ ¼ b0 þ b1 h þ b2 h2 þ b3 h3 ð6Þ
2 3
cðhÞ ¼ c0 þ c1 h þ c2 h þ c3 h ð7Þ
2 3
dðhÞ ¼ d 0 þ d 1 h þ d 2 h þ d 3 h ð8Þ
where ai, bi, ci and di are the parameters of the model and
depend only on the pumping subsystem type.
The calculation of the instantaneous water flow rate Q
according to the power Pa is obtained from the Eq. (4)
using the Newton–Raphson method with a constraint of
ð1Þ
d  Pa(Q) > 0. At the kth iteration, the instantaneous Q
is given by:
F ðQk1 Þ
Qk ¼ Qk1  ð9Þ
ð2Þ F 0 ðQk1 Þ
290 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294
PV module
PV Panel
Power
Conditioning Unit
Fig. 1. Block diagram of a stand-alone PV water pumping system.
where
F ðQk1 Þ ¼ aQ3k1 þ bQ2k1 þ cQk1 þ d  P a ðQk1 Þ
where F 0 ðQk1 Þ is the derivative of the F ðQk1 Þ.
5. Water storage tank model
Water storage tank is sized to meet the load demand
during non-availability period of renewable energy source,
commonly referred to as days of autonomy. Normally the
number of days of autonomy is taken to be 2 or 3 days.
Depending on the PV production and the load require-
ments, the state of charge of water storage tank can be cal-
culated from the following equations:
Water storage tank charging,
SOCðtÞ ¼ SOCðt  1Þ þ ½EPV ðtÞ  EL ðtÞ=gconv   gtank
Water storage tank discharging,
SOCðtÞ ¼ SOCðt  1Þ  ½EL ðtÞ=EL ðtÞgconv  EPV ðtÞ
where SOC(t) and SOC(t  1) are the states of charge of
water storage tank (Wh) at the time t and t  1, respec-
tively; EPV(t) is the total energy generated by PV array after
energy loss of controller (Wh); EL(t) is the energy hydraulic
demand at the time t (Wh); gconv and gtank are the conver-
sion efficiency and charge efficiency of water storage tank,
respectively, gtank is taken equal to 1. At any time t, the
charged quantity of the water storage tank is subject to
the following two constraints:
0 6 SOCðtÞ 6 SOC max
Storage tank
Tap
To distribution system
Pump
The maximum state of charge of the water storage tank
SOCmax corresponds to different days of autonomy (Wh).
ð10Þ
6. Optimal sizing criteria for photovoltaic water pumping
system
In the existing literature there are a few methods to eval-
uate the photovoltaic water pumping system (PWPS) such
as loss of load probability (LLP) (Hadj Arab et al., 2004;
Hamidat et al., 2003). In order to select an optimal combi-
nation of a PWPS to satisfy the daily water demand, eval-
uation may be carried on the basis of reliability and
economy of power supply. The proposed methodology
for evaluation of PWPS is based on two following
concepts:
ð11Þ
 LPSP concept for the reliability criteria.
 LCC for the economic evaluation.
ð12Þ
The configuration with the lowest (LCC) is taken as the
optimal one from the set of configurations which guarantee
the required reliability of power supply.
6.1. Reliability criteria based on LPSP technique
In this study, reliability of the system is expressed in
terms of loss of power supply probability (LPSP) which
is the probability that an insufficient power supply results
when the photovoltaic water pumping system (PV array
ð13Þ and water storage tank) is unable to satisfy the load
 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294
demand. The LPSP technique is considered to be the tech-
nical implemented criteria for sizing and evaluating a pho-
tovoltaic water pumping system employing water storage
tank. The methodology used can be summarized in the fol-
lowing steps:
(a) If the water quantity pumped by PV array is greater
than the load for a particular hour. In this case, the
surplus is stored in the tank and the new state of
charge is calculated using Eq. (11) until the full
capacity is obtained; the remainder of the available
energy is not used.
(b) When the hourly water demand is greater than the
available water pumped by the PV system, the tank
will be used to assure the water demand. In this case,
the new state of charge at hour t is calculated using
Eq. (12).
In case (b), if the state of charge of the tank is empty, the
deficit called loss power supply (LPS) at hour t, can be
expressed as:
½EPV ðtÞ þ SOCðt  1Þ
LPSðtÞ ¼ EL ðtÞ  ð14Þ
gconv
The loss of power supply probability (LPSP), for a con-
sidered period T (1 year in this study), can be defined as the
ratio of all the (LPS(t)) values for that period to the sum of
the load demand. This can be defined as (Rajendra and
Natarajan, 2006):
PT
LPSðtÞ
LPSP ¼ Pt¼1 T ð15Þ
t¼1 E L ðtÞ
A LPSP of 1 means that the load will never be satisfied
and the LPSP of 0 means that the load will be always sat-
isfied. From the above-described situations, a program is
developed in MATLAB to size the components for each
configuration, for a particular LPSP specified by the user.
The program input data set consists of hourly solar irra-
diation on a tilted plane, hourly mean values of ambient
temperature, desired LPSP, the water requirements during
the year and specifications of the system devices. Using the
developed program, a set of system configurations, which
satisfy the system power reliability requirements, can be
obtained. The optimal one is subsequently predicted on
the basis of the minimum LCC.
6.2. Economic criteria based on LCC concept
It is pertinent that economic analysis should be made
while attempting to optimize the size of PWPS favoring
an affordable unit price of power produced. The economi-
cal approach, according to the concept of life cycle cost
(LCC), is developed to be the best indicator of economic
profitability of system cost analysis in this study. The
LCC is defined as the total cost of the whole PWPS. Four
main parts are considered: PV array, the set motor pump,
291
the tank, and the converter. According to the studied sys-
tem, the life cycle cost (LCC) takes into account the initial
capital cost (ICcap), the present value of replacement cost
(Crep) and the present value of maintenance cost (Cmain).
Thus, LCC may be expressed as follows:
LCCðDAÞ ¼ ICcap þ C r^ep þ C main ð16Þ
6.2.1. The initial capital cost
The initial capital cost of each system component con-
sists of the component price, the cost of civil work, instal-
lation and the connections. In this study, the civil work and
installation costs are taken as 40% of PV generator price
for PV part and 20% of the set motor pump price for motor
pump part. Then the initial capital cost for the hybrid sys-
tem, (ICcap) is given by:
ICcap ðDAÞ ¼ C PV  C Unit;PV þ C tan k  C Unit; tan k
þ C motpump  C Unit;motpump þ C conv
 C Unit;conv : ð17Þ
where CPV, CUnit,PV are the total capacity (W) and unit cost
(DA/W) of PV array respectively; Ctank, CUnit,tank are the
total capacity (W) and unit cost (DA/W) of the tank
respectively; Cmotpump, CUnit,motpump are the total capacity
(W) and unit cost (DA/W) of the motor pump set respec-
tively; and Cconv, C Unit,conv are the nominal capacity (W)
and unit cost (DA/W) of the inverter respectively; and C0
is the total constant cost including the cost of civil work
and installation.
6.2.2. The present value of replacement cost
The present value of replacement cost of a system com-
ponent is the present value of all the replacement costs
occurring throughout the system lifetime. As the life period
of the motor pump set and converter are shorter than PV
system and tank; the replacement cost of the motor pump
set and converter have to be included in the cost analysis of
the PWPS. Considering the inflation rate of component
replacements (f0) and real interest rate (kd), the present
value of replacement cost (Crep) can be determined as fol-
lows (Soras and Makios, 1988):
N rep 
X N =N þ1
ð1 þ f0 Þ i rep
C rep ¼ C Unit C nom ð18Þ
i¼1
ð1 þ k d Þ
where Cnom is the nominal capacity of the replacement sys-
tem component (motor pump set in (W) and converter in
(W)); CUnit is the unit component cost (motor pump set
(DA/W) and converter (DA/W)) and Nrep is the number
of component replacements over the system life period.
6.2.3. The present value of operation and maintenance cost
In its general form, the present value of operation and
maintenance cost of the pumping system C O&M is
expressed as (Groumpos and Papageorgiou, 1987):
292 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294

Table 1
The costs and lifetime aspect for the system components.
Component Unit price (DA/W) Maintenance cost in Lifetime (year) Real interest rate, kd (%) Inflation rate, f (%)
the first year%
PV arraya 294.91 1% of price 25 8 4
Motor pumpa 210 3% of price 10
Water tanka 42,000 (DA/m3) 1% of price 25
Convertera 50.071 0% of price 10
a
Mean value of the literature data.

8  h iLp
< 1þf1 1þf1 and the generation is assumed to keep constant in each
C ðO&MÞ0 k d f1
1  1þk ; for k d –f1
C O&M ¼ d ð19Þ hour interval.
:C  Lp ; for k d ¼ f1
ðO&MÞ0

where f1 is the inflation rate for operations; k d is the annual
real interest rate and Lp is the system life period in years.
C ðO&amp;MÞ0 is the operation and maintenance cost in the first
year. It can be given as a fraction “k” of the initial capital
cost (CIC). C ðO&amp;MÞ0 is expressed as:
C ðO&MÞ0 ¼ k  C IC
In this study, it is assumed that all prices escalate at the
same rate.
The following unit price, maintenance cost and lifetime
of each component (PV array, motor pump set, water stor-
age tank and converter) in this study are assumed as men-
7.2. Impact of power reliability on system configurations
The relationships between system reliabilities and sys-
tem configurations are studied. Figs. 2–4 show the results
of the relationship between system reliabilities or LPSP val-
ues and system configurations for different heads. Fig. 2
ð20Þ
shows the relationships for a head equal 6 m. In this figure,
the curves are hyperbolic nature. Each point of them repre-
10
LPSP = 0%
9 LPSP = 0.3%
8
LPSP = 1%
LPSP = 5%
Number of PV modules

tioned in Table 1.
7

6
7. Results and discussion h = 6m
5
7.1. Case study 4

3
The recommended methodology has been applied to
2
analyze a stand-alone PV water pumping system, which is
designed to supply water for drinking and irrigation in 1

Ghardaia, Algeria (32°290 N, 3°400 E, 450 m). 0

1 2 3 4 5
The technical characteristics of the PV module and
Number of storage days
motor pump used in the studied project are listed in Tables
2 and 3. The load profile is assumed to be constant with a Fig. 2. System configurations for different LPSP for head h = 6 m.
total daily requirement of 6 m3 of water.
Hourly data of solar irradiation on the horizontal plane
as well as ambient temperature recorded at Ghardaia 13
LPSP = 0%
(Algeria) for the year 2005 are used in system unit sizing 12 LPSP = 0.3%
LPSP = 1%
11 LPSP = 5%
Number of PV modules

Table 2
10
Specifications of the PV module.
9
Type Voc (V) Isc (A) Vmax (V) Imax (A) Pmax (W) h = 14m
8
Shell-SM55 21.7 3.4 17.4 3.16 55
7

6
Table 3
Specifications of the motor pump. 5

Type Motor Nominal Range Maximum 4

power (W) voltage current (A) 3
(V) 1 2 3 4 5

Floating centrifugal DC 400 0–48 13 Number of storage days

and multistage
Fig. 3. System configurations for different LPSP for head h = 14 m.
 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294 293

17 6
x 10
LPSP = 0% 2.5
60
16 LPSP = 0.3% h = 6m
LPSP = 1% h = 14m
15 LPSP = 5%
50 h = 26m
Number of PV modules

2
14 LPSP = 0.3%

Number of PV modules

Life Cycle Cost (DA)

13 40
h = 26m 1.5
12
30
11
LCC for h = 6m
LCC for h = 14m
1
10
20 LCC for h = 26m
9

8 10
7
1 2 3 4 5
0
Number of storage days 0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of storage days
Fig. 4. System configurations for different LPSP for head h = 26 m.
Fig. 6. System configurations and life cycle cost for LPSP = 0.3%.
sents a couple (number of PV modules and number of
storage days) that guarantees the desired water demand.
In the case of a zero value of the LPSP, the corresponding
curve is called curve of autonomy of the system: each point x 106
of this curve represents a combination which ensures the 60 2.5
h = 6m
total autonomy of the system. The areas above the curves h = 14m
are also configurations that can ensure the required power 50 h = 26m
2
Number of PV modules

reliability. It also shows that when the system reliability is LPSP = 1%

Life Cycle Cost (DA)

higher; the system configuration (number of PV modules 40
1.5
and number of storage days) is higher too for the same
capacity of water tank. A similar situation happens to 30
LCC for h = 6m
the system for heads 14 m and 26 m (Figs. 3 and 4), but LCC for h = 14m
1
compared to the system with h = 6 m, the PV module 20 LCC for h = 26m
and number of water storage tanks are more moderate. It
means the pumping system with more water tanks (5 days 10
of storage capacity) can meet the load demand with less
supply failure. 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of storage days
7.3. Impact of system configurations on the LCC
Fig. 7. System configurations and life cycle cost for LPSP = 1%.
The configurations meeting different desired LPSP
requirements under different heads are obtained from the
6 6
x 10 x 10
60 2.5 60 2.5
h = 6m h = 6m
h = 14m h = 14m
50 h = 26m 50 h = 26m
2 2
Number of PV modules

LPSP = 0% LPSP = 5%
Life Cycle Cost (DA)

Life Cycle Cost (DA)

Number of PV modules

40 40
1.5 1.5

30 30
LCC for h = 6m LCC for h = 6m
LCC for h = 14m
1 1
LCC for h = 14m
20 LCC for h = 26m 20 LCC for h = 26m

10 10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of storage days Number of storage days

Fig. 5. System configurations and life cycle cost for LPSP = 0%. Fig. 8. System configurations and life cycle cost for LPSP = 5%.
294 Y. Bakelli et al. / Solar Energy 85 (2011) 288–294
simulation results. After the technical criteria, the life cycle
cost (LCC) is utilized as the economic benchmark. The
simulation results are demonstrated, and the relationships
between the LCC and water reliabilities as well as the sys-
tem configurations are analyzed. In Figs. 5–8, the curves
bellow in solid symbols show the results of the relationship
between system reliabilities or LPSP values and system
configurations for different heads (already presented in
Figs. 2–4). Whereas, curves given by the hollow symbols
in Figs. 5–8, represent the life cycle cost (LCC) under dif-
ferent configurations. Obviously, one point with the mini-
mum LCC value occurs in each curve which means the
best configuration for one certain LPSP value for desired
head. This configuration is considered as the optimal one
which meets the system reliability requirement with the
lowest LCC value. On the other hand, a meticulous exam-
ination into Figs. 5–8 shows that the lowest LCC is found
when the water storage tank and the number of PV mod-
ules are both moderate. It is also shown that the LCC
for h = 6 m is lower than 14 m and 26 m for the desired
LPSP of 5%, 1%, 0.3% and 0% (in the studied case) because
the number of PV modules is more moderate.
8. Conclusions
In this present study, an optimal sizing model is devel-
oped to optimize the capacity sizes of different components
of a stand alone photovoltaic water pumping system using
water tank. The recommended model consists of three
main parts: the submodel of the pumping system, the tech-
nical submodel developed according to the loss of power
supply probability (LPSP) technique for system reliability
evaluation and the economic submodel developed based
on the concept of the life cycle cost (LCC) which is consid-
ered as a good indicator of economic profitability in the
field of renewable energy. A set of configurations meeting
the desired LPSP can be obtained by using the LPSP sub-
model. The configuration with the lowest LCC gives the
optimal one.
A case study is conducted to analyze one pumping sys-
tem, which is designed to supply water for drinking and
irrigation located in Ghardaia, Algeria (32°290 N, 3°400 E,
450 m). The algorithm input data set consists of hourly
solar irradiation on the horizontal plane as well as ambient
temperature recorded at Unit for Applied Research on
Renewable Energies (UARER) Ghardaia (Algeria) for
the year 2005, the desired LPSP, water load requirements
during the year and specifications of the system devices.
A stand-alone PV water pumping system is simulated by
running the developed program and the relationships
between system power reliability and system configurations
have been studied. The optimal configurations of the
pumping system are determined in terms of different
desired system reliability requirements (LPSP) and the life
cycle cost (LCC).
References
Badescu, V., 2003. Time dependent model of a complex PV water
pumping system. Renewable Energy 28 (4), 543–560.
Daud, A., Mahmoud, M.M., 2005. Solar powered induction motor-driven
water pump operating on a desert well, simulation and field tests.
Renewable Energy 30 (5), 701–714.
Ghoneim, A., 2006. Design optimization of photovoltaic powered water
pumping systems. Energy Conversion and Management 47 (11–12),
1449–1463.
Glasnovic, Z., Margeta, J., 2007. A model for optimal sizing of
photovoltaic irrigation water pumping systems. Solar Energy 81 (7),
904–916.
Groumpos, P.P., Papageorgiou, G., 1987. An optimal sizing method for
stand-alone photovoltaic power systems. Solar Energy 38 (5), 341–351.
Habib, M. et al., 1999. Optimization procedure of a hybrid photovoltaic
wind energy system. Energy 25, 919–929.
Hadj Arab, A., Chenlo, F., Benghanem, M., 2004. Loss-of-load proba-
bility of photovoltaic water pumping systems. Solar Energy 76 (6),
713–723.
Hadj Arab, A., Benghanem, M., Chenlo, F., 2006. Motor-pump system
modelization. Renewable Energy 31 (7), 905–913.
Hamidat, A., Benyoucef, B., 2008. Mathematic models of photovoltaic
motor-pump systems. Renewable Energy 33 (5), 933–942.
Hamidat, A., Benyoucef, B., 2009. Systematic procedures for sizing
photovoltaic pumping system, using water tank storage. Energy Policy
37, 1489–1501.
Hamidat, A., Benyoucef, B., Hartani, T., 2003. Small-scale irrigation with
photovoltaic water pumping system in Sahara regions. Renewable
Energy 28 (7), 1081–1096.
Hamidat, A., Benyoucef, B., Boukadoum, M., 2007. New Approach to
Determine the Performances of the Photovoltaic Pumping System.
Revue des Energies Renouvelables ICRESD-07 Tlemcen, pp. 101–107.
Kaldellis, J. et al., 2009. Experimental validation of autonomous PV-based
water pumping system optimum sizing. Renewable Energy 34 (4),
1106–1113.
Kolhe, M. et al., 2003. Analytical model for predicting the performance of
photovoltaic array coupled with a wind turbine in a stand-alone
renewable energy system based on hydrogen. Renewable Energy 28 (5),
727–742.
Kou, Q., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 1998. A method for estimating the
long-term performance of direct-coupled PV pumping systems. Solar
Energy 64 (1–3), 33–40.
Markvart, T., Castaner, L., 2003. Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics:
Fundamentals and Applications. Elsevier Science & Technology.
Martiré, T. et al., 2008. A simplified but accurate prevision method for
along the sun PV pumping systems. Solar Energy 82 (11), 1009–1020.
Meah, K., Fletcher, S., Ula, S., 2008. Solar photovoltaic water pumping
for remote locations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12
(2), 472–487.
Mezghanni, D. et al., 2007. Bond graph modelling of a photovoltaic
system feeding an induction motor-pump. Simulation Modelling
Practice and Theory 15 (10), 1224–1238.
Odeh, I., Yohanis, Y., Norton, B., 2006. Economic viability of photovol-
taic water pumping systems. Solar Energy 80 (7), 850–860.
Pande, P.C. et al., 2003. Design development and testing of a solar PV pump
based drip system for orchards. Renewable Energy 28 (3), 385–396.
Qoaider, L., Steinbrecht, D., 2010. Photovoltaic systems: a cost compet-
itive option to supply energy to off-grid agricultural communities in
arid regions. Applied Energy 87 (2), 427–435.
Rajendra, A.P., Natarajan, E., 2006. Optimization of integrated photo-
voltaic – wind power generation systems with battery storage. Energy
31 (12), 1943–1954.
Soras, C., Makios, V., 1988. A novel method for determining the optimum
size of stand-alone photovoltaic systems. Solar Cells 25, 127–142.