Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Electrical Engineering, Omar Al-Mukhtar University, P.O. Box 919, El-Bieda, Libya
Department of Automation and Systems Technology, Aalto University, P.O. Box 15500, 00076 Aalto, Finland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 August 2010
Received in revised form 4 September 2011
Accepted 16 September 2011
Available online 22 June 2012
Keywords:
Microgrid
Multiobjective optimization
Load management
Mesh Adaptive Direct Search
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a generalized formulation for determining the optimal operating strategy and cost
optimization scheme and reduction of emissions of a MicroGrid (MG). Multiobjective (MO) optimization
is applied to the environmental economic problem of the MG. The proposed problem is formulated as a
nonlinear constrained MO optimization problem. The proposed problem takes into consideration the
operation and maintenance costs as well as the emission reduction of NOx, SO2, and CO2. The MG considered in this paper consists of a wind turbine, a micro turbine, a diesel generator, a photovoltaic array, a
fuel cell, and a battery storage. The Multiobjective Mesh Adaptive Direct Search (MOMADS) is employed
to minimize the cost function of the system while constraining it to meet the costumer demand and
safety of the system. A comparison is made with Multiobjective Sequential Quadratic Programming
(MOSQP). The results demonstrate the efciency of the proposed approach to satisfy the load and to
reduce the cost and the emissions.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The need for more exible electric systems, changing regulatory
and economic scenarios, energy savings and environmental impact
are providing impetus to the development of MGs, which are predicted to play an increasing role in future power systems [1]. One
of the important applications of the MG units is the utilization of
small-modular residential or commercial units for onsite service.
The MG units can be chosen so that they satisfy the customer load
demand at compromise cost and emissions all the time.
The management of the MG units requires an accurate environmental economic model to describe the operating problem taking
into account the output power production. Such a model is discrete
and nonlinear in nature, hence optimizations tools are needed to
extract the best compromise solution between the operating costs
and emission.
The environmental/economic problem is conicting in nature.
In reality, the environmental/economic problem is a multiobjective
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
2. Optimization model
CFP
The power optimization model is highlighting the following
points. The output is the optimal conguration of a MG that takes
into account technical performance of supply options, locally available energy resources, demand characteristics, and environmental
levels. Small-scale power generating technologies under consideration include PV, WT, DG, and FC. To run the model, the following
items have to be dened:
The power demand by the load.
Locally available energy information: This includes solar irradiation data (W/m2), temperature (C), wind speed (m/s), as well
as cost of fuels ($/l) for the DG and natural gas price for supplying the FC and MT ($/kWh).
Daily purchased and sold power tariffs in ($/kWh).
Start up costs in ($/h).
Technical and economic performance of supply options: These
characteristics include, for example, rated power for PV, power
curve for WT, fuel consumption characteristics DG and FC.
Operating and maintenance costs and the total emission: Operating and maintenance costs must be given ($/h) for all emissions; the total emission must be given in kg/h for DG, FC, and
MT.
Multiobjective optimization is a method to nd the best solution between different, usually conicting objectives. In the MO
optimization problem we have a vector of objective functions. Each
objective function is a function of the decision (variable) vector
[13]. Mathematically the environmental/economic problem is formulated as follows:
Find the output generator power vector P = [P1, P2, . . . , PN]0 that
minimizes the function:
FP fCFP; EPg
Subject to
729
N
X
C i F i Pi OMi Pi STC i DCPEi IPSEi
i1
where
F(Pi)
Ci
Fi
OMi
STCi
Pi
DCPEi
IPSEi
To model the purchased and sold power, two different conditions are considered. The following equations dene these
conditions:
X
DCPEi C p max PL
Pi ; 0
X
IPSEi C s max
Pi PL ; 0
where Cp and Cs are the tariffs of the purchased and sold power
respectively in ($/kWh).
3.1.1. Objective constraints
Power balance constraints: To meet the active power balance, an
equality constraint is imposed
N
X
Pi PL P PV P WT Pbatt 0
i1
hk Pi 0
k 1; . . . ; q
g j P i 6 0
j 1; . . . ; p
6 Pi 6 Pmax
;
Pmin
i
i
8i 1; . . . ; N
where
PL
PPV
PWT
Pbatt
The
The
The
The
730
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
MicroGrid Central
Controller
PCC
SD
Feeder 3
Feeder 2
Feeder 1
Load
LC
LC
LC
Load
Load
Wind
Turbine
Load
Diesel
Engine
Load
LC
LC
Fuel
Cell
Load
Load
Load
PV
array
Heat
load
Charger
Controller
LC
Load
Micro
Turbine
Battery
Pmin
6 Pi 6 Pmax
;
i
i
i 1; . . . ; N
where
Pmin
i
Pmax
i
EP
on
T off
t1;i =T t1;i is the unit off/on time, while ut1,i denotes the unit off/on
[0, 1] status.
The number of starts and stops (estartstop) should not exceed a
certain number (Nmax).
estartstop 6 Nmax
N
X
102 ai bi Pi ci P2i fi expki P i
11
i1
T on
t1;i MUT i ut1;i ut;i P 0
T off
t1;i MDT i ut1;i ut;i P 0
10
731
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
are available from the manufacturer. A charger controller is required to limit the depth of discharge of the battery, to limit the
charging current supplied to the battery, and to prevent overcharging, while making use of the power from the other microsources
when it is available.
minP2X CFP
12
CF X
CFP if P 2 X
1
otherwise
13
minP CF X P
14
The feasible region X can be nonlinear, non-convex, non-differentiable, or disjoint. There are no hypotheses made on the domain, except that the initial point must be feasible. The convergence
results depend on the local smoothness of CF (and not CFX, which
is obviously discontinuous on the boundary of X). They also depend
on the tangent cone at the limit point produced by the algorithm.
The proposed optimization method is compared with the results obtained in [2022]. It also incorporates an explicit cost minimization criterion applied to the MG architecture as well as
minimizing the emission. The formulation in this work seeks the
most environmental/economical generation to satisfy the load demand and the constraints. The problem is decomposed into two
stages, starting with building the system model, which is an important stage to understand the problem. The next stage is the application of the algorithm developed. The algorithm consists of
determining at each iteration the optimal use of the resources
available, such as wind speed, temperature, and irradiation as they
are the inputs to the model. If the produced power from the wind
turbine and the photovoltaic cell is less than the load demand, then
the algorithm goes to the next stage which is the use of the other
alternative sources according to the load and the objective function
of each one.
14
full load
load remined from the PV,WT
12
Load (KW)
Initialization
The user denes the starting point and the initial mesh size.
The algorithm initializes other parameters for subsequent steps.
Quest for an improved mesh point
Global search (optional): evaluation of CF over a nite subset of
points dened by the mesh.
Local poll (mandatory): denition of a poll set and evaluation of
CF over points in that set.
Parameter update
Parameters are updated.
Termination
If some stopping criterion is reached, stop; if not, go back to step
2.
10
8
6
4
2
10
12
14
Time (hour)
Fig. 2. Hourly load.
16
18
20
22
24
732
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
2
Emission
1.2
1.5
Cost
0.8
0.5
0.6
Cost [$/h]
1.2
Emission
1.15
Cost
1.1
1.2
1
10
15
1.05
25
20
10
15
20
4
3.5
Fig. 3. Convergence of cost and emission objective functions using MOSQP and
MOMADS.
Emission [kg/h]
MOSQP
MOMADS
2.5
2
1.5
Cost [$]
Iteration
Time [hour]
Emission [kg/h]
1.25
1.4
Iteration
1.8
MOSQP
MOMADS
Emission [kg]
Cost [$/h]
1.4
Emission [kg/h]
1
0.5
2
3
Operating Cost [$/h]
Fig. 6. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOSQP and for P = 0.12 and S = 0.
10
15
20
Time [hour]
Fig. 4. Hourly operating cost using the MOSQP and MOMADS.
CP hCFP 1 hEP
15
subject to power balance, and upper and lower limits on the generation. Here h 2 [0, 1]. Value h = 1.0 implies minimum operating cost
and full emissions. We obtain the optimum solution of the operating cost objective. The importance of the emission objective increases when h decreases. Then the optimum solution will move
toward the optimal emission objective value h = 0.0, which implies
minimum emission with no attention being paid to operating costs.
The optimum solution of the emission objective is now obtained.
Function C is minimized for successive values of h to cover the entire range from 0 to 1, the two objectives are given the same
weights. For non-dominated solution points, an improvement in
one objective requires degradation of the other objective. The proposed model is highly nonlinear. Since each generator has different
behavior that inuences the operating cost, the solutions are diverse and acceptably distributed over the trade-off curve.
Figs. 69 show the relationship (trade-off curves) of the operating cost and emission objectives of the non-dominated solutions
obtained by MOSQP and MOMADS approaches for different purchased and sold tariffs. Considering the denition of the multiobjective problems, a non-dominated solution becomes a feasible
solution. Then at least one of the objective values is better than
Table 1
The objective functions when optimized individually.
PL (kW/day)
Case 1
Case 2
171.4009
171.4009
TE (kg/day)
TC ($/day)
OG (kW/day)
SP (kW/day)
PP (kW/day)
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
149.9198
12.3885
68.6616
13.0826
76.1973
124.6914
61.3615
113.7293
241.9197
36.0860
144.3805
42.5693
70.5188
00.0000
17.8455
00.0000
14.8635
135.3149
27.0204
128.8316
Where TE, total emissions; TC, total operating cost; OG, total optimal generated power; SP, total sold power; PP, total purchased power.
733
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
14
Load
Optimal Generation Case 1
12
Power [kW]
Emission [kg/h]
8
6
4
2
0
4
Operating Cost [$/h]
10
15
20
Time [hour]
Fig. 7. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOMADS and for P = 0.12 and S = 0.
Fig. 10. Effect of purchased power tariffs on the MG optimal operation using
MOMADS.
14
Load
12
Power [kW]
Emission [kg/h]
3
2
8
6
4
2
0
10
15
20
Fig. 11. Effect of purchased power tariffs on the MG optimal operation using
MOSQP.
3.5
MT
FC
DG
2.5
Power [kW]
Emission [kg/h]
10
Time [hour]
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
6
Operating Cost [$/h]
10
Fig. 9. Trade-off in cost and emission using MOMADS at scenario 3 and for P = 0.16
and S = 0.1
10
15
20
Time [hour]
Fig. 12. Power generation distribution using MOSQP.
are located along the left and lower boundaries of the feasible domain as minimization is desired. The operating costs of the nondominated solutions thus appear to be inversely proportional to
their emissions, as illustrated in Figs. 69.
Table 2 and Figs. 10 and 11 show the effect of changing the purchased and sold tariffs on the optimal setting of the MG. There are
734
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
Table 2
The effect of the purchased and sold tariffs on the optimal generation.
Load (kW/day)
Case
Case
Case
Case
1
2
3
4
171.4009
171.4009
171.4009
171.4009
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
MOSQP
MOMADS
112.5081
127.1114
117.7365
117.7365
110.7196
112.4749
111.2769
111.2769
58.5862
61.3490
60.4168
60.4168
51.0058
64.5349
56.3351
56.3351
40.3235
49.4893
44.6083
44.6083
47.3697
47.1226
47.5260
47.5260
Table 3
Cost savings and emissions reductions of the MG using multiobjective optimization Scenario 3.
Average cost and emissions
Case
Case
Case
Case
A
B
C
D
MOSQP
MOMADS
Cost ($/day)
Emissions (kg/day)
Cost ($/day)
Emissions (kg/day)
Cost (%)
Emissions (%)
95.3091
68.6616
113.7293
53.5643
229.4895
61.3615
13.0826
58.9397
47.0079
20.3604
65.4281
53.5643
187.6880
19.5600
28.7189
11.7628
97.32
42.15
135.46
10.90
449.00
46.79
68.70
28.14
49.3980
48.3012
44.0851
41.8015
1.0968
00.0000
2.2836
00.0000
2.27
0
5.46
0
all together four cases. In case 1, the effect of the changing the purchased tariffs is studied. The sold power is rst 0.04 $/kWh and the
purchased tariff is 0.1 $/kWh. In Case 2 the value of the purchased
tariff is increased to 0.16 $/kWh and the sold is the same as in Case
1. Considering the purchased tariff values, it was noticed that when
the tariff is low, it was preferable to buy as much power from the
main grid as possible. However, when the tariffs were higher, it
was more economic to generate the required power from the MG
according to MOSQP and MOMADS approaches.
In Cases 3 and 4, the purchase power tariff is kept constant at
0.12 $/kWh, while the sold tariff was 0.0 $/kWh in Case 3 and
0.04 $/kWh in Case 4. It is noticeable that the MG generates more
power when the sold tariffs are increased and MOMADS optimization algorithm is applied. In the MOSQP, the small variation of the
sold power tariff has no signicant effect This leads to conclude
that the MOMADS is more effective when the variation of the sold
tariffs is small. The higher values of the sold power tariff make it
possible to produce more power to meet the load demand in
MOMADS.
Table 3 illustrates the cost savings and emission reductions of
the MG using different cases and compares them with the proposed MOMADS technique. The results obtained using the proposed technique to minimize the total cost and total emissions is
5
MT
FC
Power [kW]
DG
Minimize
P
xCFP 1 xkEP
16
where k is the scaling factor and x is the weighting factor. The scaling factor k is used to balance the two objectives. The increase of the
scaling factor favors the predominance of the total emission objective function over the total operating cost objective function. The
value of k = 3000 was found to be the best compromise between
the two objectives. In this study the weighting factor x is selected
to vary randomly x = rand[0, 1] and k is chosen to be 3000. With the
proposed MOMADS method, the total operating cost and emissions
are reduced to 48.3012 $/day and 41.8015 kg/day respectively compared to MOSQP. MOMADS is more capable of handling the multiobjective optimization problem of the MG when the problem
becomes more complex, e.g, when more constraints and purchased
and sold power are considered.
It is also noticeable from Figs. 12 and 13 that MOMADS has a
good distribution of the powers given to the micro-sources.
8. Conclusion
10
15
20
Time [hour]
Fig. 13. Power generation distribution using MOMADS.
F.A. Mohamed, H.N. Koivo / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 42 (2012) 728735
References
[1] Hernandez-Aramburo CA, Green TC, Mugniot N. Fuel consumption
minimization of a microgrid. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2005;41(3):67381.
[2] Kothari DP, Dhillon JS. Power system optimization. second ed. Prentice Hall of
India Private Limited; 2011.
[3] Liu G, Yang J, Whidborne J. Multiobjective optimisation and
control. Baldock: Research Studies Press Ltd.; 2003.
[4] Andersson J. A survey of multiobjective optimization in engineering design.
Technical report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkoping
University, LiTH-IKP-R-1097, 2000.
[5] Elmusrati M, Riku J, Koivo H. Multiobjective distributed power control
algorithm for CDMA wireless communication systems. IEEE Trans Vehicular
Technol 2007;56(2):77988.
[6] Zhang W, Liu Y. Multi-objective reactive power and voltage control based on
fuzzy optimization strategy and fuzzy adaptive particle swarm. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2008;30(9):52532.
[7] Barin A, Pozzatti LF, Canha LN, Machado RQ, Abaide AR, Arend G. Multiobjective analysis of impacts of distributed generation placement on the
operational characteristics of networks for distribution system planning. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 2010;32(10):115764.
[8] Manisa Pipattanasomporn. A study of remote area internet access with
embedded power generation. Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, PhD-thesis, December 2004.
735
[9] Mohamed Faisal A, Koivo Heikki. System modelling and online optimal
management of microgrid using mesh adaptive direct search. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2010;32(5):398407.
[10] Nanda J, Kothari DP, Lingamurthy KS. Economic emission load dispatch
through goal programming technique. IEEE Trans Energy Conv 1988;3:2632.
[11] Nanda J, Lakshman H, Kothari ML. Economic emission load dispatch with line
ow constraints using a classical technique. IEE Proc Gen Inst Transm Distrib
1994;141(1):110.
[12] Huang CM, Yang HT, Huang CL. Bi-objective power dispatch using fuzzy
satisfaction-maximizing decision approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1997;12:171521.
[13] Miettinen K. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 1998.
[14] Azmy AM, Erlich I. Online optimal management of PEM fuel cells using neural
networks. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2005;29(2):10518.
[15] Abido MA. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for power dispatch
problem. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 2006;10(3):31529.
[16] Talaq JH, El-Hawary F, El-Hawary ME. A summary of environmental/economic
dispatch algorithms. IEEE Trans Power Syst 1994;9:150816.
[17] Morgantown W. Emission rates for new DG technologies. The regulatory
assistance project. <http://www.raponline.org/ProjDocs/DREmsRul/Collle/
DGEmissionsMay2001.pdf>.
[18] Audet C, Dennis Jr JE. Mesh adaptive direct search algorithms for constrained
optimization. SIAM J Optim 2006;17(1):188217.
[19] Abramson MA, Audet C. Convergence of mesh adaptive direct search to second
order stationary points. SIAM J Optimi 2006;17(2):60619.
[20] Mohamed F, Koivo H. Online management of microgrid with battery storage
using multiobjective optimization. In: The rst international conference on
power engineering, energy and electrical drives (POWERENG07), 1214 April
2007, Setubal, Portugal.
[21] Mohamed F, H Koivo. System modelling and online optimal management of
microgrid with battery storage. In: 6th international conference on renewable
energies and power quality (ICREPQ07), 2628 March 2007, Sevilla, Spain.
[22] Mohamed F, Koivo H. Microgrid online management and balancing using
multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE power tech, 2007, 15
July 2007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
[23] Michel V, Sascha B, Britta B, Herve C, Nipon K, Franz K, et al. Expandable hybrid
systems for multi-user mini-grids. In: Proceedings of 17th European
photovoltaic solar energy conference, October 2001, Munich, Germany. p.
23305
[24] Zahedi A, Kalam A. Balancing cost and performance in a PV /wind/battery
hybrid power system. In: Proceedings of Australasian universities power
engineering conference (AUPEC00), Brisbane, Australia, 2000. p. 2803
[25] Abido MA. Environmental/economic power dispatch using multiobjective
evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2003;18(4):152937.