EE Hafeez PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/319143047
Energy Efﬁcient Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in the Smart Grid

for Demand Side Management
Thesis · July 2017
CITATION READS
1 357
2 authors:
Ghulam Hafeez Nadeem Javaid

COMSATS University Islamabad COMSATS University Islamabad
13 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 1,076 PUBLICATIONS 6,544 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Underwater Wireless sensor networks View project
Sensor Networks View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nadeem Javaid on 16 August 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Energy Efficient Integration of Renewable
Energy Sources in the Smart Grid for Demand
Side Management
By
Ghulam Hafeez
CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB
MS Thesis
In
Electrical Engineering
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology

Islamabad – Pakistan
Spring, 2017
Side Management
A Thesis Presented to
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad
In partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of
MS (Electrical Engineering)
By
Ghulam Hafeez
Spring, 2017
ii
Side Management
A Graduate Thesis submitted to Department of Electrical Engineering as partial

fulfillment of the requirement for the award of Degree of M.S (Electrical
Engineering).
Name Registration Number
Ghulam Hafeez CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB
Supervisor
Dr. Khurram Saleem Alimgeer,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Electrical Engineering,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT),
Islamabad Campus.
June, 2017
Co-Supervisor
Dr. Nadeem Javaid,
Associate Professor,
Department of Computer Science,
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT),
Islamabad Campus.
June, 2017
iii
Final Approval
This thesis titled

Side Management
By
Ghulam Hafeez
has been approved
For the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad
External Examiner: __________________________________________

Dr. Shahzad Saleem
Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, FAST NUCES, Islamabad
Supervisor: ________________________________________________
Dr. Khurram Saleem Alimgeer
Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Islamabad
Co-Supervisor: _____________________________________________
Dr. Nadeem Javaid
Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, Islamabad
HoD: _____________________________________________________
Dr. M. Junaid Mughal
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Islamabad
iv
Declaration
I Ghulam Hafeez, CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB hereby declare that I have produced the

work presented in this thesis, during the scheduled period of study. I also declare that I
have not taken any material from any source except referred to wherever due that
amount of plagiarism is within acceptable range. If a violation of HEC rules on research
has occurred in this thesis, I shall be liable to punishable action under the plagiarism
rules of the HEC.
Date: _________________ Signature of the student:
_____________________
Ghulam Hafeez
v
Certificate
It is certified that Ghulam Hafeez CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB has carried out all

the work related to this thesis under my supervision at the Department of
Electrical Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Islamabad and the work fulfills the requirements for the award of the MS
degree.
Date: ________________
Supervisor:
____________________________
Dr. Khurram Saleem Alimgeer
Assistant Professor
Co-Supervisor:
____________________________
Dr. Nadeem Javaid
Associate Professor
Head of Department:
____________________________
Dr. M. Junaid Mughal
Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering.
vi
DEDICATION
I dedicated this thesis to my parents who supported me in every field of my life. Without
them I was nothing and I am nothing. So, in every aspect of my life I would wish to be
with them and their moral support encourages me everywhere when I was alone.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am heartily grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Khurram Saleem Alimgeer and co-
supervisor, Dr. Nadeem Javaid for the continuous support, motivation, and immense
knowledge from the beginning. His guidance helped me in doing research and writing
of this thesis.
Besides my supervisor and co-supervisor, I would like thanks to everyone who

supported me in any respect during the completion of my thesis especially my research
mates and friends, for their assistance before, during and at completion stage of this
thesis work.
Ghulam Hafeez
viii
ABSTRACT
Energy Efficient Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in

the Smart Grid for Demand Side Management
With the emergence of the smart grid (SG), the residents have the opportunity to
integrate renewable energy sources (RESs) and take part in demand side
management (DSM). In this thesis, we introduce generic home energy
management control system (HEMCS) model having energy management control
unit (EMCU) to efficiently schedule household load and integrate RESs. The
EMCU based on genetic algorithm (GA), binary particle swarm optimization
(BPSO), wind driven optimization (WDO), and our proposed genetic wind driven
optimization (GWDO) algorithm to schedule appliances of single home and
multiple homes. For energy pricing, combined real time pricing (RTP) and
inclined block rate (IBR) is adopted, because in case of only RTP there is a
possibility of building peaks during off peak hours that may damage the entire
power system. Moreover, to control demand under the capacity of electricity grid
station feasible region is defined and problem is formulated using multiple
knapsack. Energy efficient integration of RESs in SG is a challenge due to time
varying and intermittent nature of RE. In this thesis, two techniques are used to
handle time varying and intermittent nature of RE. First one is energy storage
system (ESS) that smooth out variations in RE generation. Second is trading of
the surplus generation among neighboring consumers. The simulation results
show that our proposed scheme can mitigate voltage rise problem in areas with
high penetration of RESs and reduce electricity cost and peak to average ratio
(PAR) of aggregated load.

ix
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Hafeez, G., Javaid, N., Zahoor, S., Fatima, I. and Khan, Z.A., 2017, June.
Energy efficient integration of renewable energy sources in smart grid.
In International Conference on Emerging Internetworking, Data & Web
Technologies (pp. 553-562). Springer, Cham. Download
2. Naseem, M., Abid, S., Khalid, R., Hafeez, G., Hussain, S.M. and Javaid, N.,
2016, November. Towards Heuristic Algorithms: GA, WDO, BPSO, and BFOA
for Home Energy Management in Smart Grid. In International Conference on
Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications (pp.
267-278). Springer International Publishing. Download
3. Hafeez, G., Khan, A.W., Judge, M.A., Iqbal, Z., Bukhsh, R., Khan, A., and
Javaid, N., 2017, July. Optimal residential load scheduling under utility and
rooftop PV units in the smart grid. In International Conference on P2P,
Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (pp. 553-562). Springer, Cham.
Download
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
2 Related Work 4
2.1 Load scheduling and RE integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Agent based home and building energy management . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Different techniques for DSM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 System Model 12
3.1 HEMCS model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Power usage and consumption model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Appliances classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1 Power elastic appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2 Time elastic appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3 Essential appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.4 Pricing model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 RE integration model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 GEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 SEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.3 TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 ESS model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5.1 SEC ESS model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5.2 TEC ESS model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Problem Formulation 22
4.1 Scheduling problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.1 Mapping scheduling problem to knapsack . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Cost model and trading problem formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 Proposed Scheme 27
5.1 GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2 BPSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3 WDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4 GWDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Simulation Results and Discussions 35

6.1 Feasible region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.1.1 Feasible region for electricity cost and energy consumption . 37
6.1.2 Feasible region for electricity cost and waiting time . . . . . 38
6.2 Electricity cost analysis for different scheduling schemes . . . . . . . 39
xi
6.3 Power consumption profile for different heuristic based EMCU . . . 40
6.4 Tradeoff analysis of electricity cost and user comfort . . . . . . . . . 41
6.5 PAR performance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.6 Average waiting time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.7 Aggregated cost comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.8 Cost analysis with RESs and without RESs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.9 Trade off analysis of ESS and TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.10 Reverse power analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.11 Fluctuations with respect to ESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7 Conclusion 48
8 References 50
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Smart power system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2 System model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3 RE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1 Flow chart of GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2 Flow chart of BPSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 Flow chart of WDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4 Flow chart of GWDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1 RTP signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.2 Feasible region of cost and energy consumption . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.3 Feasible region of electricity cost and waiting time . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4 Electricity cost per timeslot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.5 Energy consumption profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.6 Electricity cost and user comfort tradeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.7 PAR analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.8 Aggregated cost analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.9 Average waiting time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.10 Cost versus percentage of users utilizing RESs . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.11 ESS storage capacity versus TEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.12 Reverse power flow versus percentage users with RESs . . . . . . . 46
6.13 Fluctuations versus ESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Summary of load scheduling and RE integration related work . . . . 6

2.2 Summary of agent based energy management . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Summary of DSM techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 Parameters of GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2 Parameters of BPSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3 Parameters of WDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1 Description of appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

6.2 Multiple homes appliances description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3 Conditions for feasible region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.4 Coordinates of feasible region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.5 Peak power consumption analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.6 Single home PAR analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.7 Multiple homes PAR analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.8 Single home total cost comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.9 Multiple homes total cost comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
Traditional electric grids are designed to carry power from generation system,
through transmission system to a large number of consumers. Moreover, tradi-
tional electric grids are inefficient to meet the modern challenges like, renewable
energy (RE) integration, distributed generation (DG), and demand side manage-
ment (DSM). In this regard, SG has emerged as smart solution that includes tra-
ditional power system and information and communication technologies (ICTs) to
form a platform in which the consumers and utility interact via two-way communi-
cation [1]. SG also incorporates RE sources (RESs), energy storage system (ESS),
smart meters, distributed storage (DS), and sensors. SG encourages user partici-
pation in energy savings, cooperation through demand response (DR) mechanism,
and energy efficient integration of RESs [2].
RESs are greener alternative to fossil fuel and key contributor to SG, so therefore,
in recent years, energy efficient integration of RESs has increased. It was recorded
in 2014 that wind, solar, and biomass power plants provided 60% electricity gen-
eration in Denmark; about 30% of electricity demand in Portugal was supplied by
nonhydropower renewable; Spain had 29% RE generation. However, energy effi-
cient integration of RESs in SG poses significant challenges such as, from RE side
and from power grid side. From RE side, RE generation have non-dispatchable,
stochastic, and intermittent nature due to varying weather conditions. From power
grid side, voltage and frequency fluctuations are due to stochastic and intermittent
nature of RE. However, this method is not cost effective with high penetration of
RESs. Energy storage and load scheduling by DR are cost effective to mitigate
stochastic and intermittent nature of RE generation [3]-[5].
DSM has been developed since early 1980s to balance the time varying demand of
consumers and generation capacity of power system. They formulate the optimal
scheduling of appliances as genetic algorithm (GA) in [10], to reduce electricity
cost and peak to average ratio (PAR) in a setting with real time pricing (RTP)
plus inclined block rate (IBR). However, objectives are achieved at the cost of
user comfort. Other relevant work in [11], utilizes heuristic based energy man-
agement controller (EMC) to optimally schedule appliances in presence of time of
use (TOU) plus IBR tariff in order to achieve the objectives: electricity bill reduc-
tion, PAR minimization, and user comfort maximization. However, while reducing
electricity bill and PAR, user comfort may be compromised. The binary particle
swarm (BPSO) based EMC in [12] for home energy management system (HEMS)
in presence of TOU tariff and RESs are used, to schedule appliances in order to
increase electricity bill savings. However, electricity bill savings is increased at
the expense of user comfort. The intelligent residential EMS (IREMS) is used to
optimally schedule schedulable appliances, size RESs, and ESS. Electricity cost is
reduced and the revenue is increased using GA in [13]. However, despite of its
importance, proper classification of residential appliances, consumers, in order to
motivate consumers to trade excess power generation with other consumers and
to schedule appliances to achieve related benefits has not been well investigated.
Hence in this paper, we focus on energy efficient integration RE, DSM for appli-
ances proper scheduling and trading/cooperation among consumers with excess
power generation in order to handle time varying nature of RESs and align the
stochastic demand with supply. We design generic architecture to efficiently sched-
ule household load and integrate RESs for single home and multiple homes to cope
2
the gap between demand and supply and increase the revenue. Our main contri-
bution is as follows:
1. We design HEM control system (HEMCS) model having EMCU to sched-
ule household appliances scheduling under DSM frame work. Furthermore,
appliances are classified into two categories smart appliances (SA) and tra-
ditional appliances (TA). For scheduling, SA are further classified into three
categories: power elastic appliances, time elastic appliances, and essential
appliances. The EMCU schedule appliances for single home and multiple
homes based on GA, BPSO, wind driven optimization (WDO), and our
proposed genetic wind driven optimization (GWDO) in order to reduce:
electricity cost, PAR, and tradeoff between electricity cost and user comfort.
2. We handle the challenge (stochastic nature of RESs) in RE integration us-
ing ESS and trading among consumers with excess power generation. For
this purpose, residential consumers are divided into three categories: Grid
energy consumer (GEC) consumes only grid energy, smart energy consumer
(SEC) consumes energy from power grid, RESs, and ESS, and trading energy
consumer (TEC) trade/cooperates energy with neighboring consumers. In
addition, consumers with excess power generation compete to trade excess
generation to other consumers to increase the revenue.
The remaining sections of the thesis are organized in this manner. In Chapter
2 related work is described. Chapter 3 focuses on system model. Problem for-
mulation is discussed in Chapter 4. Proposed scheme is discussed in Chapter 5.
Simulation results are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 concludes the thesis.
Finally, thesis is referenced at the end.
3
Chapter 2
Related Work
4
In order to optimally schedule house hold appliances and energy efficiently inte-
grate RESs numerous techniques have been presented by authors.
The methods to smooth out fluctuating nature of RESs are addressed in [7]. One
of the method is ESS which make RE energy smooths. The other scheme is
cooperation among RE generating consumers. All methods addressed, facilitate
energy efficient integration of RE and minimize cost of energy exchange within
the grid. However, reduction in the number of peak power plants and frequency
of interruption are not addressed. One of the scheme to handled RE fluctuations
using fuel-based generators as a backup. However, this method is not cost effective
and environment friendly. Some of the latest techniques are discussed below.
2.1 Load scheduling and RE integration
In [8], electric power quality problems are handled by author due to integration
of RESs. The engineering complexity in the integration of RESs to the grid is
twofold: (i) voltage and frequency deviation from their nominal value are due
variability in the nature of RE, and ii) harmonics which are caused due to the
power electronic devices. This paper comprised of two sections: (i) power quality
problems due to integration RERs such as solar panel and wind turbine, and (ii)
various approaches to handle these challenges such as FACTS and VSM. However,
the appliances scheduling and cooperation between the RERs are not considered
by author.
Li Tianyi et al. in [9] addressed energy management and scheduling of load with
RE integration in order to reduce system cost. Optimization method like lyapunov
handled stochastic problem of RE. In addition, they use real time algorithm for
joint load scheduling and energy storage control in order to minimize overall system
cost within finite time horizon. The simulation results demonstrate that scheme
is efficient in achieving the desired objectives within finite time horizon. However,
the authors ignored cooperation among RE generating consumers and appliances
classification.
In [10], the authors investigated residential scheduling of load for DR in HEMS.
The set of residential appliances are scheduled in order to reduce the electricity bill
and alleviate PAR. They introduce EMS in home area network (HAN) based on
SG and combine RTP with IBR model for EP. They use a GA for solving nonlinear
optimization problems. The results show that the scheme efficiently reduces both
electricity bill and PAR. However, the proposed scheme achieves the objectives at
the cost of user comfort.
Heuristic based EMC with RESs are utilized in [11]. TOU tariff with IBR is
used for EP. Problem is formulated using multiple knapsack (MK). The heuristic
based EMC is effective in terms of electricity bill reduction, PAR minimization,
and user comfort maximization. Simulation results show that all designed models
significantly achieve the required objectives and hence increase sustainability of
SG. However, the following issues are not addressed by the authors: (i) frequency
of interruption, and (ii) demand curve smoothing.
5
An incentive based optimal energy consumption scheduling algorithm for residen-
tial users is proposed in [12]. DR with TOU pricing program is used to reduce
the energy demand during peak hours. BPSO is used for scheduling of appliances
based on HEMS and RESs in order to increase the electricity bill savings. However,
the issues of user comfort and challenges in integration of RESs are not addressed.
The literature review of load scheduling and RE integration is summarized in table
2.1.
Table 2.1: Summary of load scheduling and RE integration related work
References Techniques Objectives Limitations

All the methods Reduction the
The methods to
addressed number of peak
smooths out
facilitate RE power plants
fluctuating Game theoretic
integration and and frequency of
nature of RESs approach
minimize cost of interruption are
are addressed in
energy exchange not addressed
[7]
with in the grid
Mitigation of
power quality Appliances
Power quality issues such as scheduling and
challenges due voltage cooperation
FACTS, VSM between the
to integration of fluctuation,
RESs [8] frequency DRESs are not
fluctuation, and considered
harmonics
In [9], energy
Lyapunov Minimize overall User comfort
management
optimization system cost and PAR are
and scheduling
and real time within finite time ignored
of load with RE
algorithm horizon
integration
The complexity
Optimal power of system
Electricity cost increased due
scheduling
GA and PAR division of
method for DR
reduction scheduling time
in HEMS [10]
horizon
An efficient Electricity bill Frequency of
heuristic and PAR interruption and
Heuristic demand curve
approach minimization and
algorithm, MKP smoothing are
utilizes EMC user comfort
with RESs [11] maximization not addressed
An incentive PAR, user
based optimal To increase the comfort, and
BPSO, DR, RESs
scheduling for electricity bill
TOU integration are
residential users saving
[12] ignored
6
2.2 Agent based home and building energy management
S. L. Arun and M. P. Selvan in [13] proposed intelligent residential EMS (IREMS)

for dynamic DR in smart building. The IREMS schedule schedulable appli-
ances during the low-price slots while considering operational dynamics of non-
schedulable load, intermittent nature of RESs, and maintaining the power demand
subject to various constraints in order to reduce the electricity cost. The RESs
and battery storage system are optimally sized by the using GA. Furthermore,
the IREMS ensures the effective utilization of RESs by optimally controlling the
battery operation and properly time scheduling the schedulable loads. However,
energy trading between RESs consumers and main grid are ignored. An intelligent
multiagent control system (MACS) is proposed in [14], for energy management in
home and large building in order to maximize comfort of users. Intelligent MACS
with heuristic optimization is designed for reducing the energy consumption with-
out compromising user comfort and pressure on the environment. A graphical
user interface (GUI) facilitate users to input their preferences and monitor the
results. Agents are divided into four types to coordinate and perform optimally.
The simulation results show that intelligent MACS is efficient in achieving the
objectives. However, the issues of minimizing appliances waiting time, minimizing
PAR, and demand curve smoothing are not described.
Agent based control for decentralized DSM (DDSM) in SG is addressed in [15]. A
smart home model and DDSM mechanism is used to manage demand on large scale
in SG. Evolutionary game theoretic techniques (EGTTs) are used to motivate the
consumers to adopt agent based SM. In this mechanism, the agents coordinate in
decentralized manner to optimize the consumption pattern. The results show that
proposed scheme is efficient in terms of: (i) peak demand reduction, (ii) carbon
emission, and (iii) efficient integration of RESs. However, the authors ignored
performance of power grid, reduction in the aggregated power consumption and
appliances waiting time. The summary of agent based scheduling is listed in table
5.1.
2.3 Different techniques for DSM
Authors presented in [16], an effective model to cope the gap between demand
and supply for users of three sectors in order to reduce PAR and electricity cost.
Load scheduling problem is formulated as convex problem and effectively solved
using heuristic evolutionary approach. The scheme provides benefits for both grid
and consumers in terms of objectives. However, the issues such as user comfort,
reduction in power consumption, and pressure on the environment are ignored.
In [17], residential power scheduling for DR in SG is proposed to optimally schedule
a set of two types appliances in order to minimize the tradeoff between electricity
payments and user comfort. Load scheduling under three modes of operation are
formulated as an optimization problem using integer programing. In addition,
optimal scheduling of appliances are achieved by using integer liner programing
(ILP). The simulation results show the scheduling strategy is effective in achieving
7
Table 2.2: Summary of agent based energy management

Mitigating Energy trading
IREMS for
intermittent between REG
dynamic DR in
GA nature of RESs users and main
smart building
and reducing grid are ignored
[13]
electricity cost
An intelligent
multiagent
control system Reducing energy Minimizing
(MACS) is consumption PAR and
Heuristic demand curve
proposed in [14], without
algorithm smoothing are
for energy compromising
management in user comfort not described
home and large
building
Agent based Peak demand Trading and
control for reduction and cooperating
decentralized EGTTs efficient between REG
DSM (DDSM) integration of user are not
in SG [15] RESs mentioned
PAR and Reduction in
electricity bill power
An efficient Heuristic reduction for consumption
model of DSM evolutionary residential, and pressure on
[16] approach industrial and the environment
commercial are ignored
sectors
8
the desired objectives. However, the proposed scheme achieve objectives at the
cost of system complexity and execution time.
The authors focus on scheduling of residential load and energy selling/cooperation
with RE resources (RERs) in [18]. Load scheduling of must-run and controllable
appliances using dynamic programing and sell/cooperation of energy using game
theoretic approach are modeled in this paper. They formulate load scheduling
and energy cooperation among consumers in order to increase the revenue, re-
duce the electricity cost. The simulation results show that scheme is effective in
achieving desired objectives. However, the challenges in the integration of RERs
are not mentioned. In [19], authors investigated the opportunities and challenges
of integrating RESs into SG system. With the integration of RESs the objectives
achieved are as follows: (i) increase reliability of grid, (ii) reduce number of peak
power plants. However, the stochastic nature of RE is an obstacle for the RESs
integration into SG.
The authors proposed energy cooperation optimization in microgrids with RE in-
tegration in [20]. In this paper, the energy management problem is handled by the
cooperation of two microgrids. First, energy management is preformed through
the off-line optimization by assuming that microgrids net RE generation, aggre-
gate load, and ESSs capacity are perfectly known ahead of time. Both microgrids
energy cooperation and ESS can help to mitigate intermittent nature RE and
thereby reduce net energy cost. Second, they performed energy management in
the real-time cooperation of microgrids, through two on-line algorithms of low
complexity namely store-then-cooperate and cooperate-then-store. The simula-
tion results show that on-line algorithms perform optimal energy management
very close to the off-line optimization. However, the power quality problems due
trading/cooperation energy with main grid are ignored.
The DSM architecture in [21], for residential sector is proposed in order to re-
duce PAR, electricity bill, and appliances waiting time. GA is used for appliances
scheduling based on EMC in presence of bounded constraints. The cost and wait-
ing time are inversely related. Peak formation is avoided using RTP+IBR scheme.
Results proved that proposed model outperform for single and multiple users in
terms of objectives. However, they ignore the following issues: (i) user comfort,
(ii) balance between supply and demand, and (iii) reliability and sustainability of
the grid.
The authors proposed DSM framework in [22] using load scheduling of residential
sector to improve cost savings. The cost efficient load scheduling for demand side
is performed using fractional programming while taking into account day ahead
bidding process and RTP scheme. For implementation purpose, they incorporate
DRESs and analyze their impacts on cost efficiency. Results authenticate that load
scheduling affect consumption behavior and provide cost efficient profile. However,
user comfort is compromised by reducing the electricity cost.
The authors in [23] presented algorithmic and strategic aspects to integrate demand-
side aggregation and energy management methods. They proposed demand side
participation (DSP) through aggregator which directly interacts with EMS for
load scheduling. Moreover, they design a generic residential demand side aggre-
9
gation (RDSA) model by combining demand side aggregation with HEMS. The
results show that the scheme efficiently reduces cost for both end users and utility
company. However, the objectives are achieved at the cost of user comfort and
PAR.
In [24], the authors presented sizing, analysis of RE, and battery systems in the
residential microgrids. Mixed ILP (MILP) is used for optimal load scheduling with
high penetration of RESs in residential microgrids. Stochastic model is developed
for intrinsic stochastic behavior of RE and the uncertainty involving electric load
prediction. The aforementioned, technique is used to increase the load flexibility,
reduce the computational burden, and electricity cost. However, the vehicle to
grid application and user comfort are ignored.
Load scheduling of residential sector under RTP using DR scheme is proposed in
[25]. Objective function defined for electricity bill and user dissatisfaction are for-
mulated by convex programing. Regularization technique is proposed to deal with
schedule-based appliances (SAs) for which on/off status are governed by binary
decision variables. The problem is formulated using CP in order to reduce cost
and user dissatisfaction. Simulation results show efficient reduction in electricity
cost and users dissatisfaction; however, the issues of peak formation, appliances
waiting time, reduction in the number of peak power plants and integration of
RESs are not addressed.
Energy management for residential SG with centralized RESs is presented in [26].
The optimal energy scheduling aims: (i) optimally utilize the RESs to achieve
tradeoff between system wide benefit and the associated cost, (ii) how volatility
of RESs influences its optimal use. Authors proposed special monotonic structure
for scheduling problem and the poly-block approximation algorithm to determine
the optimal utilization of RE to lower the marginal cost. The proposed scheme
optimally utilizes the RESs to achieve tradeoff between benefit and cost, however,
user comfort and frequency of interruption are not addressed. The DSM techniques
are summarized in table 5.2.
10
Table 2.2: Summary of DSM techniques

Minimizing the The system
Residential
tradeoff between complexity and
power
ILP electricity execution time
scheduling for
payments and are increased
DR in SG [17]
discomfort
Reduce the
The load Approximate electricity cost,
scheduling and dynamic and consuming Power quality
power trading in programming the excess issues arises due
systems with and game generation locally to trading
high penetration theoretic reduces the excess REG
of RERs [18] approach reverse power
flow
off-line Power quality
Energy optimization problems due
Mitigate the
cooperation and on-line cooperat-
intermittent
optimization in optimization ing/trading
nature RESs and
microgrids with (store-then- energy with
reduce the total
RE integration cooperate main grid are
energy cost
[20] ,cooperate-then- ignored
store)
Users comfort,
balance between
Generic DSM supply and de-
model for PAR and cost mand,reliability
GA, RTP, IBR
residential user minimization and
[21] sustainability of
the grid
Fractional
Novel concept of
programming
cost
while taking User comfort are
efficiency-based Cost
into account day compromised
residential load minimization
ahead bidding
scheduling
process and
framework [22]
RTP scheme
Sizing and
analysis of RE Increase the load Vehicle to and
and battery flexibility and user comfort are
MILP, DR
systems in the reduce the ignored
residential electricity cost
microgrids [24]
11
Chapter 3
System Model
12
A smart power system composed of a service provider and demand side having res-
idential sector, industrial sector, and commercial sector containing a large number
of consumers as shown in Fig. 3.1. However, we specifically focus on residential
sector. The electricity demand of residential sector is fulfilled by RE generation,
ESS, power imported from electricity grid station, and by trading among RE gen-
erating consumers.
Commercial
Sector
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Residential Power line
Service
provider sector LAN
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Industrial
sector
Figure 3.1: Smart power system
3.1 HEMCS model
HEMCS comprises of: EMCU, smart meter, electrical appliances, and in home
display and monitoring control unit (IHD and MCU) as shown in Fig. 3.2. The
EMCU receives RTP, DR, and price incentive informations from utility company
through smart meter. Smart meter is one of the key factors in the SG which have
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) that is responsible for bi directional com-
munication between electricity grid station and consumers. The communication
between electrical appliances and EMCU is performed via various communication
technologies such as ZigBee, Z-Wave, and Wi-Fi etc. Moreover, AMI collects and
transmits consumption data from the smart meter to electricity grid station and
from electricity grid station, RTP, DR, and price incentive information are de-
livered to smart meter. The EMCU based on GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO
schedule electrical appliances while considering objective function, constraints,
and control parameters. In addition, all electrical appliances, generation system,
and control center give informations to the EMCU to read and process information
for further action as shown in Fig. 3.2.
3.2 Power usage and consumption model
Let the set of all appliances is denoted by Atn = {SA ∪ T A} such that, SA =
{Aspe ∪ Aste ∪ Asea } and TA like, fan, television, and computer. Moreover, Aspe =
{AC, W C, RF }, Aste = {W M, CD, W m}, and Asea = {EK, EI, OV } are sets of
power elastic, time elastic, and essential appliances, respectively, for single home
with fixed operation timeslots (OTS) and power rating and multiple homes with
13
RE sources
Renewable energy
Generation
system
Distribution Transmission
system system
Control center
SM EMC
Power flow
IHD &
Communication links MC
Two way flow
SA TA
Figure 3.2: System model
random OTS and power rating. The scheduling time horizon one day is divided
into 120 timeslots, in other words the minimum scheduling timeslot is 12 minutes
and one hour has 5 timeslots. Daily scheduling time horizon is represented by the
symbol Th = {1, 2, 3, ........, T } and 1, 2, 3, ........, T represent day timeslots from 1
to 120. For each electrical appliance i, energy consumption at each timeslot t, is
given as follow:
Eci (t) = {Eci (1), Eci (2), Eci (3), ......., Eci (T )} (3.1)
where Eci (1), Eci (2), Eci (3), ......., Eci (T ) denote the energy consumption of each elec-
trical appliance i, at each timeslot t, during scheduling time horizon. Daily aggre-
gated energy consumption of each electrical appliance i, is given below:
T
X
ETi = Eci (t) (3.2)
t=1
where ETi denotes aggregated energy consumption.
3.3 Appliances classification
In this section, appliances classification are discussed. Appliances is classified into

two categories on the bases of energy consumption and interaction to EMCU.
Detail explanation of classification is given as:
14
SA: This refers to the class of appliances which have wireless transceiver and data
processor to use the wireless communication technologies (i.e. ZigBee, Z-Wave,
and Wi-Fi) to receive real-time data from smart meter via EMCU to control or
modulate their operation. These appliances make the function faster, cheaper,
and more energy efficient. These appliances are further classified into three types.
3.3.1 Power elastic appliances
This type of appliances have elasticity in their rated operating power such as, air
conditioner, water cooler, and refrigerator. These appliances operate at minimum
power during on peak hours and operate at rated maximum power during off-
peak hours in order to reduce peak power consumption, electricity cost, and PAR.
In addition, waiting time of these appliances is less as compared to time elastic
appliances. We represent such type of appliances by Aspe , its energy consumption
is denoted by ETpe , and pir is the power rating. The energy consumption of power
elastic appliances is given as under:
T
ETpe = (pir × Xt )
P P
(3.3)
i∈Aspe t=1
where Xt is an indicator which indicates the status of an appliance, if it is equal

to 1 the appliance will be in on state otherwise appliances will be in off state.
The daily electricity cost of power elastic appliances can be find from the following
formula:
CTpe = ETpe × ϕ(t) (3.4)
where CTpe denotes electricity cost of power elastic appliances and ϕ(t) is electricity
cost per timeslot.
3.3.2 Time elastic appliances
Unlike power elastic appliances, these appliances have fixed rated power and have
elasticity in their operation time. These appliances are allowed to run at any
time with in the user defined timeslots in order to reduce electricity cost and
PAR. In addition, these appliances can be interrupted, shifted, and shutdown
any time if needed. Such type of appliances complete their operation in disjoint
time interval and interruption of operation does not impact completion of task.
For example, washing machine, clothes dryer, and water motor are modeled as
time elastic: users require their water tank be full of water by given deadline
or washing machine must complete their task before clothes dryer deadline. This
type of appliances are represented by Aste and their energy consumption is denoted
by ETte . The energy consumption of time elastic appliances in each timeslot of day
is calculated as:
T
ETte = (pir × Xt )
P P
(3.5)
i∈Aste t=1
15
The daily electricity cost of time elastic appliances can be computed by the fol-
lowing formula:
CTte = ETte × ϕ(t) (3.6)
where CTte denotes the electricity cost of time elastic appliances.
3.3.3 Essential appliances
Essential appliances include; electric kettle, electric iron, and oven having fixed
rated power mentioned at their name plate by manufacturer. These appliances
cannot be interrupted, shifted, and shutdown during operation until to completion.
Moreover, for such type of appliances it is only possible to delay its operation before
to start its operation and delay interval is very less as compared to time elastic
appliances. These appliances have prespecified scheduling time horizon in which
electrical appliances operate in order to enhance comfort of users. It is represented
by Asea , having power rating pir , and net energy consumption is Ecea . Daily energy
consumption calculation is defined as follows:
T
ETea = (pir × Xt )
P P
(3.7)
i∈Asea t=1
The electricity cost can be calculated from the following equations:
CTea = ETea × ϕ(t) (3.8)
where CTea denotes the electricity cost of energy consumed by essential appliances.
TA: Unlike SA, this refers to the type of appliances which can be operated and
controlled manually without any interaction to EMCU. These appliances are used
by the consumers manually if needed such as, electric bulb, fan, television, and
computer etc. TA cannot be scheduled, because they do not communicate and
interact with EMCU, whereas appliances that can be scheduled by EMCU is only
SA.
3.3.4 Pricing model
Various pricing schemes are available for electricity cost calculation such as, TOU,
RTP, critical peak pricing (CPP), and critical peak rebates (CPR). When only
RTP is used, there is a possibility of building peaks during off peak hours, because
most users want to operate during off peak hours to reduce its electricity cost and
this resulting the damage of the entire electric power system. So therefore, we
use combined RTP, IBR, and bonus/penalty schemes in our proposed scheduling
strategy to effectively reduce electricity cost, peak power consumption, PAR, and
enhance reliability of the power system. For example, consumers want to reduce
electricity cost and then schedule to operate most of the appliances in home during
timeslots 0-30 (12am-6am) due to low EP. However, peak power consumption and
the aggregated power consumption at these timeslots may exceed the threshold of
16
IBR and penalty may be added. Combined RTP and IBR function is defined as
under:

ϕ(t) if 0 ≤ pitc ≤ pth
RP I(p) = (3.9)
κ × ϕ(t) if pitc ≥ pth
where pitc denotes appliances aggregated power consumption, pth is threshold power
consumption and whenever aggregated power consumption exceeds the threshold,
electricity cost increased by a constant positive value κ.
3.4 RE integration model
Greening the power system aims to accommodate large-scale integration of RESs

such as, solar and wind. RESs integration is a practice of developing efficient
ways to deliver RE to grid and neighboring consumers at the time of need in
order to enhance revenue and reliability of the power system. One of the ways
is, ESS that is capable of storing RE to smooth out fluctuations in RE. The
alternative way is, trading surplus generation among neighboring consumers. For
this purpose residential consumers are divided into three categories on the basis
of energy consumption; RE generation, ESS, and energy trading: GEC, SEC,
and TEC, where GEC consumes energy that is taken from electricity grid station
and they neither cooperates nor generates their own energy as shown in Fig. 3.3.
The SEC generates their own energy, as well as takes energy from electricity grid
station, and from neighboring RE generating consumers to fulfill their electricity
demand. Unlike the SEC, the TEC generates, stores, and trade their energy with
other consumers. The detailed description is as follows:
GEC
SEC RESs + ESS
Electricity
grid station TEC RESs + ESS
nTEC RESs + ESS
Figure 3.3: RE model
3.4.1 GEC
The GEC depends only on grid energy and cannot take part in trading or gen-
erating its own RE. The aggregated energy demand of GEC is Dg (t) units per
timeslot. The energy demand of GEC is bounded as Dg (t) ≤ Dgmax . The GEC
17
only serves the load using grid energy Eg (t) = Dg (t). The GEC uses RTP and
price incentive information in order take part in DR program to reduce electricity
cost and peak power consumption by shifting their load from on peak hours to
off peak hours, because these consumers are dependent on electricity grid station.
The aggregated energy consumption of GEC can be calculated by the following
formula:
T
X
Eg = Eg (t) (3.10)
t=1
3.4.2 SEC
The SEC fulfills energy demand by generating its own RE, draw energy from ESS,
borrowing energy from neighboring RE generating consumers, and from electricity
grid station. The energy demand of SEC per timeslot is Ds (t) unit. The energy
demand per timeslot should not exceed maximum demand Ds (t) ≤ Dsmax . The
energy demand of SEC is fulfilled in the following manner. Firstly, the SEC fulfills
its demand by generating their own RE. In case, if energy harvested by SEC is
deficient i.e. Rs (t) < Ds (t), then SEC uses all harvested energy to serve its load.
The unsatisfied demand is denoted by
Ds (t) − Rs (t) = Dsu (t) (3.11)
The SEC fulfills unsatisfied demand by the following manner:

1. Draws energy stored in its own ESS
e
The SEC draw Bd,s (t) units of energy from its ESS to serve unsatisfied
demand.
2. Borrows energy from neighboring TEC
The SEC takes surplus energy of Rs,T (t) units from TEC in order to fulfill
unsatisfied demand.
3. Transfer energy from electricity grid station
In case, the energy drawn from its own ESS and borrowed from TEC is
insufficient to satisfy the residual demand, then SEC transfers Eg (t) units
of energy from electricity grid station.
The sum of the energy drawn from ESS, energy transferred from TEC, and energy
transferred from electricity grid station must satisfy residual demand as clear from
the following equations:
T
e
Rs,T (t) + Eg (t) = Dsu (t)
P
Bd,s (t) +
t=1
T T (3.12)
e
P P
Rs (t) + Bd,s (t) + Rs,T (t) + Eg (t) = Ds (t)
t=1 t=1
The second case, when harvested energy exceeds the demand Rs (t) > Ds (t) then
SEC does the following:
18
1. The excess energy is stored in its ESS to facilitate energy efficient integration
e,min e e,max
of RESs. The storing energy in ESS is bounded as Sb,s < Sb,s (t) ≤ Sb,s .
2. Stop borrowing energy from neighboring TEC.
3. Stop transferring energy from electricity grid station.
where Eg (t) is the energy taken at each timeslot from the electricity grid station,
Rs,T is the electricity bought at each timeslot from neighboring TEC, Rs (t) is the
e
RE harvested at each timeslot by SEC, Sb,s (t) is initially stored energy in ESS.
3.4.3 TEC
Unlike the SEC, TEC fulfills its energy demand by generating their own RE, trad-
ing with neighboring RE generating consumers. Furthermore, the trading among
the consumers facilitates energy efficient integration of RESs. The aggregated
energy demand of TEC is DT (t) and is bounded as DT (t) ≤ Dtmax . TEC fulfills
its energy demand and trades energy in the following manner. If the harvested
energy is deficient RT (t) < DT (t) then unsatisfied demand is calculated as:
DT (t) − RT (t) = DTu (t) (3.13)
1. Draw energy stored in its own ESS

e
TEC uses Bd,T (t) units of energy from ESS in order to fulfill demand of
unsatisfied load.
2. Exchange energy among the TEC
The TEC can borrows RT,n (t) from the neighboring nTEC to serve residual
load.
3. Transfer energy from electricity grid station
In case, energy from ESS and energy borrowed from TEC is insufficient to
meet or satisfy residual demand, then TEC borrows Eg (t) units of energy
from electricity grid station.
The unsatisfied demand is equal to the sum of energy taken from ESS, neighboring
TEC, and electricity grid station as clear from the following equations:
T
e
RT,n (t) + Eg (t) = DTu (t)
P
Bd,T (t) +
t=1
T T (3.14)
e
P P
RT (t) + Bd,T (t) + RT,n (t) + Eg (t) = DT (t)
t=1 t=1
where DTu (t) shows the unsatisfied demand of TEC, RT,n (t) is the energy exchange
e
among TEC, and Bd,T (t) is the energy drawn from its own ESS.
In case, when energy is sufficient or no load condition or harvested energy exceeds
the demand RT (t) > DT (t), then the surplus energy is stored in ESS or trades
energy with other consumers, so that energy can be efficiently utilized and revenue
can be increased.
19
3.5 ESS model
The ESS is used to smooth out fluctuations in RE generation, in order to efficiently

utilize RE and enhance reliability of power system. The SEC and TEC have
installed ESS in their premises in order to facilitate energy efficient integration of
RESs. The modeling of ESS for SEC and TEC are as follow:
3.5.1 SEC ESS model
The ESS greatly contributes in energy efficient integration of RESs, increase safety,
reliability, and assist ecofriendly environment. We consider the energy model for
the ESS at SEC premises. At SEC, the ESS evolves as:
e e e
Sb,s (t + 1) = Sb,s (t) − Bd,s (t) + Sse (t) (3.15)
e
where Sb,s (t) is the initially stored energy in ESS of SEC, an amount of energy
stored in ESS of SEC at each timeslot is Sse (t) , and Bd,s
e
(t) unit of energy drawn
from its own ESS. The energy availability constraints to the ESS of SEC is as:
e e
Bd,s (t) ≤ Sb,s (t) (3.16)
We impose charging, discharging, and finite battery capacity constraints at each

timeslot on ESS as:
e e,min
Bd,s (t) ≥ Sb,s
e e,min
Sb,s (t) ≥ Sb,s
e e,max
Sb,s (t) ≤ Sb,s (3.17)
e,max e,min
Sb,s > 0 & Sb,s ≥ 0
e,min e e,max
Sb,s < Sb,s (t) ≤ Sb,s
e,min
where Sb,s is the minimum limit of battery discharge of SEC, finite capacity or
e,max
maximum limit for charging of battery is denoted by Sb,s .
The practical assumption on capacity of ESS is given below:
e,max e,max e,min
Sb,s ≥ Bd,s + Sb,s (3.18)
where the maximum energy that can be drawn from ESS of SEC is denoted by
e,max
Bd,s .
3.5.2 TEC ESS model
TEC installed ESS to store the harvested energy to smooth out fluctuations in RE
and facilitates energy efficient integration of RESs in order to increase the revenue
and reduce wastage of energy. The ESS charging evolves as:
e e e
Sb,T (t + 1) = Sb,T (t) − Bd,T (t) + STe (t) (3.19)
20
e
where Sb,T (t) is initially stored energy in ESS of TEC, an amount of energy stored
in its own ESS is STe (t) at each timeslot t, and Bd,T
e
(t) units of energy drawn from
its own ESS.
The energy availability constraints of TEC ESS is as follows:
e e
Bd,T (t) ≤ Sb,T (t) (3.20)
The charging and discharging of ESS are bounded between the upper limit and
lower limit is as follow:
e e,min
Bd,T (t) ≤ Sb,T
e e,min
Sb,T (t) ≥ Sb,T
e e,max
Sb,T (t) ≤ Sb,T (3.21)
e,max e,min
Sb,T > 0 & Sb,T ≥ 0
e,min e e,max
Sb,T < Sb,T (t) ≤ Sb,T
e,min
where Sb,T is the lower limit of battery discharge, the finite capacity or upper
e,max
limit for charging is denoted by Sb,T , and battery charging and discharging of
ESS at each timeslot is bounded in between these two limits.
The practical assumption on capacity of ESS is given below:
e,max e,max e,min
Sb,T ≥ Bd,T + Sb,T (3.22)
e,max
where Bd,T denotes the maximum energy that can be drawn from ESS of TEC.
21
Chapter 4
Problem Formulation
22
In this chapter, load scheduling and RE integration problem is formulated. In
general, it is difficult to formulate and solve joint optimization problem of load
scheduling and RE integration, so therefore, we formulate them individually.
4.1 Scheduling problem formulation
The load scheduling problem formulation is performed using knapsack approach.

We first give brief overview of knapsack problem formulation. The knapsack prob-
lem is a combinatorial problem (finding an optimal object from a finite set of
objects), where a number of objects are associated with a value and weight. The
object must be packed such that the value of object within the knapsack is max-
imized. The knapsack have n objects; each object i, from the set of n objects
having two attributes, its value and weight. Knapsack has a capacity constraint,
which represents maximum weight that knapsack can support. Knapsack problem
is a standard problem template in computer science and numerous problems have
been mapped into this problem.
4.1.1 Mapping scheduling problem to knapsack
The mapping of scheduling problem to knapsack problem is outlined as:

• The m knapsacks correspond to timeslots Th
• The n objects show n appliances that must be packed.
• The weight of each object represents the energy consumed Eti by each ap-
pliance in each timeslot.
• The value of object is cost.
• The capacity is the weight which knapsack supports, correspond to maxi-
mum energy that can be drawn from electricity grid station in any timeslot.
For consumers, electricity cost, peak power consumption can be controlled
in order to ensure that utility is not overstressed.
Now we provide mathematical model for our scheduling problem considering elec-
trical appliances, objective function, and constraints using knapsack.
For SA, we define Stsa = (rtn , wtn ) state of SA at each timeslot, where rtn indicates
the number of remanning timeslots of SA, wtn shows number of waiting timeslots
for which operation of appliance can be delayed. Where Xt ∈ {0, 1} is an indica-
tor, for on and off status of appliances. The state of appliances at next timeslot
i
t + 1, St+1 , can be computed from its initial state Sti .
For power elastic appliances Aspe , starts operation immediately and shows elastic-
ity in its power in order to achieve our objectives. The mathematical model for
state of power elastic appliances are as:
Stpe = (T o
s , 0)n
pe (rt − 1, 0) if Xt = 1, rtn ≥ 1 (4.1)
St+1 =
(0, 0) otherwise
23
The time elastic appliances Aste , operation can be delayed and interrupted if re-
quired. The mathematical model for the state of time elastic appliances are given
below:
Stte = (Tso, β − α − Tso + 1)
te (rtn , wtn − 1) if Xt = 0, wtn ≥ 1 (4.2)
St+1 =
(rtn − 1, wtn ) if Xt = 1, rtn ≥ 1
The Eq. 4.2 ensures initial and next timeslot status of Aste .
Essential appliances Asea , tolerate delay before it to start operation. State of
essential appliances are mathematically modeled as:
Stea = (T o o
s , βn− αn − Ts + 1)
ea (rt , wt − 1) if Xt = 0, wtn ≥ 1 (4.3)
St+1 =
(rtn − 1, 0) if Xt = 1, rtn ≥ 1
In scheduling problem our objectives are to minimize electricity cost, peak power
consumption, PAR, and tradeoff between the electricity cost and user comfort.
The objective function is formulated using knapsack as follows:
min F (CTe , Apr , Cw ) (4.4)
where
X T
X
CTe = pir (Xt × ϕ(t))
i∈SA t=1
X
Peak = max ( (pir × Xt ))
i∈SA
T
1 XX i
Average = ( (p × Xt ))
T i∈SA t=1 r
Peak
Apr =
Average

µ × t × (Tso − Ai ) for Tso ≥ Ai
Cw =
0 otherwise
subjected to:
X
(Eti × Xt ) ≤ Capacity (4.4a)
i∈SA
X
Capacity − (Eti × Xt ) ≥ 0 (4.4b)
i∈SA
X X
Eti,unsch = Eti,sch (4.4c)
i∈SA i∈SA
24
X X
CTe,un−sch ≥ CTe,sch (4.4d)
i∈SA i∈SA
X X
Tso,i,unsch = Tso,i,sch (4.4e)
i∈SA i∈SA
Xitun−sch 6= Xtsch (4.4f)
The constraints 4.4a, 4.4b ensure that aggregated energy consumption of all set of
appliances should not exceed capacity of electricity grid station. Energy consump-
tion before and after scheduling must remains constant as indicated by constraint
4.4c. To show that scheme performs efficiently than unscheduled in terms of elec-
tricity cost is indicated by 4.4d. To ensure that operation timslots before and after
scheduling must be equal as shown in constraint 4.4e. The position (status) of
appliances before and after scheduling will not be the same, to ensure appliances
are scheduled properly as in 4.4f.
4.2 Cost model and trading problem formulation
The ESS and trading among consumers facilitate energy efficient integration of
RESs. So therefore, we formulate trading and cost model for energy transferred
from neighboring TEC and from electricity grid station. For transferring energy
e
from TEC to SEC, the cost of per unit energy transfer is denoted as Cs,T (t).
Similarly, electricity cost per unit of energy exchange among neighboring TEC
e
during any timeslot t , is CT,n (t), and cost of energy transfer from electricity grid
e
station to consumers is Cg (t). The net cost of energy transfer from TEC and
electricity grid station during any timeslot t , are modeled as follow:
Cost = min(CostGEC , CostSEC , CostTEC ) (4.5)
where
T
X
CostGEC = Cge (t) × Eg (t)
t=1
T
X
CostSEC = Cge (t) × Eg (t) + e
Cs,T (t)× Rs,T (t)
t=1
T
X
CostTEC = Cge (t) × Eg (t) + e
CT,n (t)× RT,n (t)
t=1
The objective of controller is to design and tune system control parameters such
that, cost of energy transfer is minimized, subjected to consumers trading and
ESS constraints as follow:
subjected to:
e
Cs,T (t) < Cge (t) & CT,n
e
(t) < Cge (t) (4.5a)
25
e,max
Cge (t) ≤ Cge,max & Cs,T
e
(t) ≤ Cs,T (4.5b)
T
X
e
Bd,s (t) + Rs,T (t) + Eg (t) = Dsu (t) (4.5c)
t=1
T
X
e
Bd,T (t) + RT,n (t) + Eg (t) = DTu (t) (4.5d)
t=1
Sse (t) ≤ Rs (t) (4.5e)
T
X
STe (t) + Rs,T (t) ≤ RT (t) (4.5f)
t=1
T
X
e e e
Sb,s (t + 1) = Sb,s (t) − Bd,s (t) + Sse (t) (4.5g)
t=1
T
X
e e e
Sb,T (t + 1) = Sb,T (t) − Bd,T (t) + STe (t) (4.5h)
t=1
e e
Bd,s (t) ≤ min (Sb,s (t), Sse,min) (4.5i)
e
Bd,T e
(t) ≤ min (Sb,T (t), STe,min) (4.5j)
e,max
Sse (t) ≤ min (Sb,s e
− Sb,T (t), Sse,max ) (4.5k)
e,max
STe (t) ≤ min (Sb,T e
− Sb,T (t), STe,max) (4.5l)
The cost of energy transfer from TEC and electricity grid station is bounded as
in Eq. 4.5a, Eq. 4.5b. When the consumers trade/cooperate surplus energy to
satisfy residual demand, so solution obtained will be an optimal. The Eq. 4.5c,
Eq. 4.5d show residual demand of both SEC and TEC, it will be met under the
objective function. In case of surplus energy, an amount energy stored in its own
battery and an amount of energy donated to neighboring consumers will be less
than energy harvested by consumers as in Eq. 4.5e, Eq. 4.5f.
26
Chapter 5
Proposed Scheme
27
The household appliances are scheduled using GA, BPSO, WDO, and our proposed
algorithm GWDO under utility and rooftop PV units. Our proposed algorithm
GWDO is comparatively examined with others heuristic algorithms in terms of
electricity cost and PAR. The detail description of these algorithms are as follow.
5.1 GA
GA is an optimization algorithm inspired from genetic process of living organism.

The genetic chromosomes of GA represents on and off status of appliances and
length of chromosomes shows number of appliances to be scheduled. Parameters
of GA are initialized as shown in table 5.1. Once the population is randomly gen-
erated and fitness is evaluated according to our objective function, new population
is generated by applying crossover and mutation steps of GA. In crossover step
two parents are selected to create new offsprings. To avoid repetition and create
randomness in the results we use mutation. After crossover and mutation fitness
of offspring is evaluated. Current results of fitness are compared with previous
results in order to achieve global optimal solution.
Table 5.1: Parameters of GA
Parameters Values
Population size 100
n 9
Number of iterations 100
Pc 0.9
Pm 0.1
5.2 BPSO
PSO is a nature-inspired optimization technique which uses swarm intelligence

concept to effectively solve large scale nonlinear optimization problems while an-
alytical methods suffer from slow convergence and curse of dimensionality. BPSO
algorithm is a modified version of PSO algorithm and it deals with binary values.
As our data is of binary nature, so BPSO algorithm is more suitable [15]. For
example, birds flock in search of food. When the birds move in search of food
they have some specific position and velocity. The EMCU based on BPSO mainly
depends on four factors initial position, initial velocity, particle best position, and
global best position among all particles. The parameters of BPSO is initialized
as shown in table 5.2. In next step initial position matrix is generated randomly,
position of each particle represents a candidate solution. The velocity is computed
using the following formula:
vi = vmax × 2 × (rand(swarm, n) − 0.5) (5.1)

Position matrix is a solution matrix which shows the status of appliance while
velocity controls the population generation. Initially generated position matrix
28
Figure 5.1: Flow chart of GA
29
Table 5.2: Parameters of BPSO
Parameters Values
Swarm size 9
n 9
c1 2
c2 2
wi 2
wf 0.4
vmax 4
vmin -4
is evaluated by fitness function (objective function). Best values on the basis of

fitness function for current iteration are defined, as pbest. A collection of pbest
values from all iterations are evaluated by fitness function to find global best
(gbest). These gbest values are the status of appliances on which cost and PAR are
minimum for a particular timeslot. Velocity formula is very important as it consists
of the control parameters of algorithm that changes the convergence behaviour of a
solution. These control parameters include inertia factor, acceleration coefficients,
previous, and current best position values. These parameters are carefully selected
as shown in table 5.2.
Values of velocity are in real numbers so they are converted into a binary state to
obtain the status of each appliance. To convert into binary, sigmoid (Sg ) function
is used, which is defined as
1
Sig(j, i) = (5.2)
1 + e−vnew
By applying Eq. 5.2 position matrix is updated as follow

xnew = 1 if rand(1) ≤ Sig(j, i)
(5.3)
xnew = 0 if rand(1) > Sig(j, i)
Fitness is evaluated on a new position, this process continues until the stopping
criteria is fulfilled. At the end of this process, we get ”gbest” values which are the
optimum solution for scheduling of our appliances.
5.3 WDO
WDO is a nature-inspired optimization technique based on atmospheric motion

of wind. When the wind blows, it equalizes the horizontal imbalances. In this
algorithm, we consider small air parcels as a candidate solution that are moving
in N-dimensional space which experience different type of forces [16]. Parameters
of WDO are initialized as shown in table 5.3 with the given values,
In next step initial position matrix is generated randomly which shows the status
30
Figure 5.2: Flow chart of BPSO
31
Table 5.3: Parameters of WDO
Parameters Values
Population size 20
n 9
RT 3
g 0.2
α 0.4
dimMin -5
dimMax 5
vmax 0.3
vmin -0.3
of appliances. Similarly, the initial velocity is generated which is mathematically

defined as
vi = vmax × 2 × (rand(populationsize, n) − 0.5); (5.4)
This initially generated position matrix is evaluated by fitness function (objective

function) and state of the appliances for a particular timeslot are achieved, then
velocity function is updated. In WDO velocity function is different from BPSO.
In this function, we consider four different forces as control parameters. These
parameters include gravitational force, pressure gradient force, coriolis force, and
frictional force. In [16], an equation is derived for updating the velocity by using
these control parameters. At each iteration velocity and position, values must be
updated. Using Eq. 5.5 new position of air parcel for each iteration is defined as
xnew = xcur + unew ∆t (5.5)
Here ∆t is step time which is equal to 1, velocity at each iteration must be bounded
by its maximum and minimum values which are defined as

umax if unew > umax
unew = (5.6)
−umax if unew < umax
After updating velocity function again new ”position” matrix is generated and
evaluated. This process will continue until stopping criteria is fulfilled. At the
end of this process, we get ”gbest” values which are the optimum solution for
scheduling of our appliances. Fig. 5.3 shows the implementation of WDO.
5.4 GWDO
GWDO is our proposed algorithm which is a hybrid of GA and WDO. We choose

these two algorithms because simulation results of GA and WDO show that, GA is
effective in PAR reduction and WDO is effective in cost reduction. So we combine
32
Figure 5.3: Flow chart of WDO
33
the features of GA and WDO so that resulting algorithm should reduce both cost
and PAR. Working procedure of GWDO consists of two phases, in the first phase,
we follow all the steps as in WDO which are explained above. In next phase,
genetic operations (crossover and mutation) are applied to gbest values of WDO.
It improves results because crossover and mutation are applied on the best values
instead of random values.
Start
Initialization
Population size, max number of
iterations, coefficients, boundaries
and pressure function definition.
End
Generate random population
Yes (position) and velocity
Generation< Evaluate pressure on air parcels

max. generation (Fitness function)
No
Initialize loop for finding current best
Generate new population
Yes
i < popsize
No
Is mutation Yes i = i+1

finished
No
Fc(i) < F pr(i)

No
Assign Fitness Yes
Fpr(i) = F c(i)
Mutation
Record current best
Update velocity by using best values

Select one offspring and check velocity limits
Yes Generate new population
Is crossover No
Select two individuals
finished? Parent 1 Parent 2
Crossover
Figure 5.4: Flow chart of GWDO
34
Chapter 6
Simulation Results and Discussions
35
In this chapter, we present simulation results and assess the performance of load
scheduling via heuristic techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO) interms of
electricity cost, PAR, and waiting time and energy efficient integration of RESs.
In our simulation settings, we assume that the scheduling time horizon one day
is divided into 120 timeslots, in other words the minimum scheduling time is 12
minutes and one hour has 5 timeslots. Daily scheduling time horizon is represented
by the symbol Th = {1, 2, 3, ........, T } and 1, 2, 3, ........, T represent day timeslots.
RTP signal is midwest independent system operator (MISO) daily EP tariff taken
from federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) as shown in Fig. 6.1. From
RTP signal it is clear that timeslots 30-45 (6-9am) and timeslots 85-100 (5-8pm)
are on peak, timeslots 50-70 (10am-2pm) are shoulder peak, and rest of timeslots
are off peak as shown in Fig. 6.2. The RTP is used to motivate consumers to
shift their appliances schedule from on peak hours to off peak hours in order
to reduce electricity cost. We assume that EMCU receives RTP, DR, and price
incentive information from utility company via SM and keeping in view objective
function, constraints, control parameters, and user behavior in order to schedule
SA for single home with fixed OTS and power rating and for multiple homes with
different OTS and power rating as mentioned by authors in [27]. The residents
usually prefer to reduce electricity cost and obtain bonus without compromising
comfort. For this reason residents set some control parameters for SA such as,
scheduling time horizon, OTS these are the timeslots in which appliances operate,
start time of interval α, end time of interval β, and power rating is listed in table
6.1. The control parameters can be set on the IHD and MCU and transmitted to
EMCU for further processing. The control parameters for multiple homes are listed
in table 6.2. We performed comparative evaluation of scheduled appliances based
on heuristic EMCU in order to achieve our desired objectives for single home and
multiple homes: minimize electricity cost, PAR, and tradeoff between electricity
cost and user comfort. Energy efficient integration of RESs is facilitated by ESS
and trading among consumers in order to reduce the cost and reverse power flow.
The detailed description is as follow:
Table 6.1: Description of appliances
Category SA OTS Power rating (KW)

Power elastic Air conditioner 75 [0.8 1.5]
Water cooler 70 [0.5 1]
Refrigerator 60 [0.18 0.5]
Time elastic Washing machine 40 0.7
Clothes dryer 40 2
Water motor 36 0.8
Essential Electric kettle 20 1.5
Electric iron 30 1.8
Oven 25 2
36
Table 6.2: Multiple homes appliances description
Category SA Mode1 Mode2 Mode3 Mode1 Mode2 Mode3

OTS OTS OTS power power power
(KW) (KW) (KW)
Power elastic Air conditioner 75 55 45 [0.8 1] [1 1.5] [0.8
1.5]
Water cooler 70 50 40 [0.01 0.5] [0.5 1] [0.01 1]
Refrigerator 60 40 30 [0.18 0.5] [0.5 1] [0.18 1]
Time elastic Washing machine 40 20 10 0.38 0.5 0.7
Clothes dryer 40 20 10 0.8 2 3
Water motor 36 16 6 0.8 1 1.2
Essential Electric kettle 20 10 5 1.2 1.5 3
Electric iron 30 10 5 1 1.1 1.8
Oven 25 15 5 2 2.15 2.4
RTP pricing scheme

30
RTP pricing
25
20
Cost (cents)
15
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (slots)
Figure 6.1: RTP signal
6.1 Feasible region
The feasible region is an area defined by specific set of coordinates in which objec-
tive function satisfy all inequality constraints. The region satisfies all restrictions
imposed by inequality constraints and none of the constraint is violated. The
solution find by objective function, with in this region will be feasible solution
otherwise not.
6.1.1 Feasible region for electricity cost and energy consumption
We find feasible region for cost and energy consumption in order to set boundaries
for our objective function. For this purpose, we consider RTP signal ranging from
0.081 to 0.271 cents/KWh and range of power consumption 1 to 9.1 KWh to set
constraints as listed in table 6.3.
These coordinates will set the constraints as demonstrated below, which bound
37
Table 6.3: Conditions for feasible region
Conditions Electricity cost (cents)

Min. power, Min. price 0.081
Min. power, Max. price 0.27
Max. power, Min. price 0.74
Max. power, Max. price 2.50
scheduled load and electricity cost with in the feasible region.
0.081 ≤ CTi ≤ 2.1 (C1)
1 ≤ ETi ≤ 9.1 (C2)

where constraint C1 represents that maximum cost at any timeslot is 2.1 cents,
which ensures that scheduled cost should remains under 2.1 cents at any times-
lot. The energy consumption of scheduled load must remains within the range
indicated by constraint C2. The net energy consumption of all set of appliances
should not exceed capacity of electricity grid station. The aggregated electricity
cost is encircled by the coordinates P1, P3, P6, and P2 as shown in Fig. 6.2.
Whereas, the feasible region is bounded by the coordinates P1, P3, P4, P5, and
P2. The cost lies at any timeslot within this region is feasible and minimizes net
electricity cost.
P6(9.1,2.5)
2.5
P4(9.1,2.1)
P5(7.7,2.1)
Electricity Cost (cents)
1.5
P1(1,0.24)
0.5
P3(9.1,0.74)
P2(1,.08)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Energy consumption (KWh)
Figure 6.2: Feasible region of cost and energy consumption
6.1.2 Feasible region for electricity cost and waiting time
The electricity cost and waiting time are inversely related i.e. when waiting time
is zero electricity cost is maximum and vice versa. The range of delay which our
system can tolerate is 0-10 timeslots, electricity cost set coordinates with respect to
waiting time as listed in table 6.4. The region encircled by coordinates P1, P2, and
P3 is feasible region, any solution within this region is feasible. Where P1 ensures
that, when users do not wait infact may pay more. When users can tolerate delay,
electricity cost decreases with respect to waiting as indicated by coordinates P2
and P3 of feasible region. The coordinates set constraints, that define boundaries
38
Table 6.4: Coordinates of feasible region
Case Coordinates
Min. waiting time, cost P1 (0 78)
Avg. waiting time, cost P2 (5 41)
Max. waiting time, cost P3 (10 39)
of feasible region as shown in Fig. 6.3. Any solution of scheduled load under the
feasible region is indicated by P1, P2, and P3 are considered acceptable solution.
0 ≤ wtn ≤ 10 (C3)
0 ≤ CTe ≤ 78 (C4)
where constraint C3 ensures that waiting time of the scheduled load must be in
between 0 and 10 timeslots. Aggregated electricity cost of scheduled load must be
with in the boundaries of feasible region indicated by constraint C4.
80
P1(0,78)
75
70
Electricity cost (cents)
65
60
55
50
45 P2(5,41)
P3(10, 39)
40
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Waiting time (slots)
Figure 6.3: Feasible region of electricity cost and waiting time
6.2 Electricity cost analysis for different scheduling schemes
The daily electricity cost of unscheduled and scheduled appliances for a single home
and multiple homes are shown in Fig. 6.4. For unscheduled load electricity cost is
high during the timeslots 30-45 (6-9am) and 85-100 (5-8pm), because consumers
use more appliances in these timeslots that tends to lead high electricity cost of
2.1 cents and 1.4 cents. We conclude from simulation results, that even under
combined pricing scheme, consumers, who do not adjust their power consumption
appropriately may not actually get benefit and in fact pay more cost. The GA
based EMCU minimizes cost as compared to unscheduled by shifting time elastic
appliances from on peak timeslots to off peak timeslots. The BPSO schedules
appliances in presence of combined pricing scheme and user defined constraints to
avoid peak price slots and hence reduce electricity cost. The reduction in electricity
cost, in case of BPSO is more as compared to unscheduled and scheduled based
on GA. The maximum daily electricity bill per timeslot is reduced from 2.1 cents
to 0.6 cents with GWDO, that is 71.4% reduction in percent decrement. So, our
39
8
Unscheduled Unscheduled
2 GA GA
7 BPSO
BPSO
WDO WDO
6 GWDO
Cost per timeslot (cents)

GWDO
1.5
Cost per slot(cents)

5
4
1
3
2
0.5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (slots) Timeslots
(a) Single home (b) Multiple homes
Figure 6.4: Electricity cost per timeslot
proposed GWDO outperforms as compared to unscheduled and scheduled based

on GA, BPSO, and WDO as shown in Fig. 6.4a. It is clear from simulation
results, that GWDO has most stable, regular, and optimal cost profile. Electricity
cost per timeslot analysis for five homes is shown in Fig. 6.4b. We analyze the
electricity cost profile of different homes while considering their different OTS and
power rating of appliances. The appliances are scheduled using GA, BPSO, WDO,
and GWDO in order to reduce electricity cost and PAR. The simulation results
show that the reduction in electricity cost per timeslot in case of GWDO is more
as compared to other heuristic techniques.
6.3 Power consumption profile for different heuristic based EMCU
The daily power consumption profile of unscheduled and scheduled load based
on GA, BPSO, WDO, and our proposed GWDO for a single home and multiple
homes are shown in Fig. 6.5. The power consumption of unscheduled appliances
is high during the timeslots 30-45 (6-9am) and timeslots 85-100 (5-8pm), because
consumers do more activities in these time horizons, that results in high electricity
cost and PAR. The EMCU based on optimization techniques such as, GA, BPSO,
WDO, and our proposed GWDO schedules appliances, while considering objective
function, user defined constraints, RTP, and control parameters in order to reduce
electricity cost, PAR, and waiting time. It can be seen from Fig. 6.5a, that peak
power consumption of unscheduled appliances is relatively more due to random
operation and without taking into consideration EP that eventually lead to more
peak power consumption and electricity cost. However, scheduled load must be
within the bounds defined by the feasible region as shown in Fig. 6.2. On the
other hand, electricity cost and peak power consumption are relatively less using
optimization techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO), considering various
factors (EP, on/off peak timeslots, user preference). The peak power consumption
of unscheduled and scheduled (GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO) 9 KW and (7
KW, 6.3 KW, 6.1 KW, and 5.9 KW) are, respectively. The GA schedules time
elastic appliances during timeslots where EP is low. The BPSO scheduler shifts
appliances from on peak timeslots 30-45 (6-9am) to off peak timeslots 10-25 (2-
40
10 40
Unscheduled Unscheduled
9 GA GA
BPSO
35 BPSO
8 WDO WDO
GWDO 30 GWDO
7
25
Load (kWh)
6
Load(KWh)
5 20
4
15
3
10
2
5
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time (slots) Timeslots
Figure 6.5: Energy consumption profile
5am). The results show that our proposed GWDO has more suitable, stable, and
optimal load profile than unscheduled and scheduled load using other techniques,
because GWDO employs properties of both GA and WDO to properly tune con-
trol parameters. The percent decrement between unscheduled and scheduled load
is listed in table 6.5. The five homes load profile is shown in Fig. 6.5b. We have
five number of homes and take different OTS, rated power and evaluate the perfor-
mance using GA, BPSO, WDO, and our proposed GWDO. We take different OTS
and power rating, because in different homes users behavior and appliances are
different. The heuristic based EMCU efficiently schedules appliances, while con-
sidering, objective function, stochastic behavior of users, constraints, and control
parameters in order to reduce the electricity cost and PAR. Moreover our proposed
GWDO outperform than other heuristic techniques as shown in Fig. 6.5b.
Table 6.5: Peak power consumption analysis
EMCU Peak load Difference Percent decrement

(%)
Unscheduled 9 - -
BPSO 6.3 2.7 30
WDO 6.1 2.9 32
GA 7 2 22.3
GWDO 5.9 3.1 34
6.4 Tradeoff analysis of electricity cost and user comfort
User comfort is related to both electricity cost and appliances waiting time. The
appliances scheduled based on GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO lead towards low
electricity cost as compared to unscheduled, because heuristic techniques are de-
signed keeping in view objective function, constraints, and control parameters.
Generally, electricity cost and appliances waiting time are inversely related. So,
heuristic based EMCU try to minimizes tradeoff between electricity cost and user
comfort. In addition, by applying user comfort constraints on objective function,
41
75 270
Unscheduled
Unscheduled
GA
GA 265
70 GWDO
GWDO
WDO
WDO
260 BPSO
BPSO
65
Cost (cents)
Cost (cents)
255
60
250
55
245
50
240
45 235
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Waiting timeslots Waiting timeslots
Figure 6.6: Electricity cost and user comfort tradeoff
performance of heuristic techniques (GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO) enhanced

in terms of user comfort and electricity cost. For single home and multiple homes
the electricity cost is high if appliances waiting time is zero and low if appliances
waiting time is greater than zero as shown in Fig. 6.6a and Fig. 6.6b.
6.5 PAR performance analysis
The relationship between unscheduled and scheduled load with respect to PAR
for single home and multiple homes are shown in Fig. 6.7. The PAR minimization
emphasis on allocating appliances a time horizon to level the peak load over given
range of time. The EMCU reduces PAR using DR incentive, combined RTP and
IBR, power elasticity, and shifting loads from high peak price timeslots to low
peak price timeslots. The PAR of unscheduled and scheduled load based on GA,
BPSO, WDO, GWDO are 2.25 and 2.09, 1.7, 1.55, 1.35, respectively. Furthermore,
difference between unscheduled and scheduled using GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO
are 0.16, 0.55, 0.7, 0.9, respectively. Fig. 6.7a shows the PAR analysis for five
homes per day. The load scheduled based on GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO in
presence of different OTS and different power rating reduces the PAR as clear
from Fig. 6.7b. Moreover, the percent decrement of GWDO is more as compared
to other heuristic techniques as listed in tables 6.7, 6.6.
Table 6.6: Single home PAR analysis
EMCU PAR Difference Percent decrement

(%)
Unscheduled 2.25 - -
BPSO 1.7 0.55 24.4
WDO 1.55 0.7 31.1
GA 2.09 0.16 7.11
GWDO 1.35 0.8 40
42
2.5 14
12
2
10
1.5
8
PAR
PAR
6
1
4
0.5
2
0 0
Unscheduled WDO GA BPSO GWDO Unscheduled WDO GA BPSO GWDO
Figure 6.7: PAR analysis
Table 6.7: Multiple homes PAR analysis
EMCU PAR Difference Percent decrement

(%)
Unscheduled 130 - -
BPSO 90 40 30.7
WDO 85 45 34.6
GA 115 15 11.5
GWDO 81 49 37.69
80 300
70
250
60
200
Total cost (cents)
Total cost(cents)
50
40 150
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
Unschedule WDO GA BPSO GWDO Unscheduled WDO GA BPSO GWDO
Figure 6.8: Aggregated cost analysis
6.6 Average waiting time
Time elastic appliances have more average waiting time (i.e. 10 timeslots), because
these appliances are delay tolerable and have time elastic nature. Unlike time
elastic appliances, power elastic appliances tolerate flexibility in power and having
minimum waiting time. Essential appliances have less waiting time as compered
to time elastic and more waiting time as compared to power elastic appliances as
shown in Fig. 6.9.
43
11
10 Time elastic appliances

Essitential appliances
9 Power elastic appliances
Average waiting time

7
0
1 2 3
Smart appliances
Figure 6.9: Average waiting time
Table 6.8: Single home total cost comparative analysis
EMCU Total cost (cents) Difference Percent decrement

(%)
Unscheduled 71 - -
BPSO 41 30 42.25
WDO 39 32 45.07
GA 64 7 9.85
GWDO 37 34 47.88
6.7 Aggregated cost comparative analysis
The comparison of unscheduled and scheduled load with respect to electricity cost
for single home and multiple homes are shown in Fig. 6.8. The electricity cost
per day of unscheduled and scheduled load based on GA, BPSO, WDO, GWDO
is 71 cents and 64 cents, 41 cents, 39 cents, and 37 cents, respectively, as shown
in Fig. 6.8a. The electricity cost per day of unscheduled load is high 71 cents,
because in unscheduled case most appliances operate during timeslots in which
EP is high. All heuristic techniques follow objective function, constraints, and
control parameters to schedule appliances, that results reduction electricity cost
as compared to unscheduled load as listed in table 6.8. The percent decrement
of GWDO is more (47.8%) as compared to the unscheduled and scheduled load
GA, BPSO, WDO, because it applies genetic operation (crossover and mutation)
of GA on best values of WDO rather than on random values. The cost per day of
five homes is shown in Fig. 6.8b. The EMCU based on GA, BPSO, WDO, and
GWDO schedule load using objective function, constraints, control parameters,
users different OTS, and power rating in order to reduce electricity cost. The
simulation results show that electricity cost of GA, BPSO, WDO, and GWDO
scheduled load are, 260 cents, 220 cents, 150 cents, and 131 cents, respectively. The
percent decrement of GWDO is more as compared to other heuristic techniques
as listed in table 6.9.
44
Table 6.9: Multiple homes total cost comparative analysis
EMCU Total cost (cents) Difference Percent decrement

(%)
Unscheduled 271 - -
BPSO 220 51 15
WDO 150 121 44
GA 260 11 11
GWDO 131 140 48
6.8 Cost analysis with RESs and without RESs
The cost as a function of percentage of users with RESs is shown in Fig. 6.10. As
the GEC depends only on energy of electricity grid station with 0 % RESs, so in
fact may pay more cost of 250 cents. The SEC fulfills its demand by generating RE,
drawing energy from ESS, and transfering energy from utility company, however,
do not take part in trading; in fact pay more cost as compared to TEC 210 cents.
On the other hand, TEC RE generation matches the aggregate demand store
or trade energy with other users to reduce their pay off cost to 150 cents. The
percentage decrement of TEC as compared to GEC and SEC are 40 % and 24 %,
respectively.
250 GEC
SEC
240 TEC
210
180
Cost (cents)
150
120
90
60
30
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of consumers with RESs
Figure 6.10: Cost versus percentage of users utilizing RESs
6.9 Trade off analysis of ESS and TEC
For a given storage capacity of ESS cost of energy exchange decreases with th
increase in number of TEC because greater number of TEC are available to share
energy among neighboring consumers as shown in Fig. 6.2. It can be seen from the
Fig. 6.11 that for a given number of TEC there exist an optimal storage capacity
of ESS. It is evident that as the number of TEC increases optimal storage capacity
of ESS decreases.
45
18
17
ESS storage capacity (KWh)

16
15
14
13
12
11
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of TEC
Figure 6.11: ESS storage capacity versus TEC
6.10 Reverse power analysis
The efficient utilization of RESs in consumers premises encourage users to trade

excess energy with neighboring consumers and grid. The trading energy to grid
and neighboring consumers inject reverse power flow which causes voltage rise
problem, which may damage the entire power system. To evaluate the effect of
our proposed method on the reverse power flow due gape between supply and
demand as shown in Fig. 6.12. The reverse power flow is significantly reduced
for our proposed method. The reverse power flow is maximum when TEC trade
energy with grid and less when trade with neighboring consumers. The simulation
results show that our proposed scheme significantly reduces reverse power flow as
compared to other scenarios.
200
Trading with grid
180 Trading with neigboring
Proposed method
160
Reverse power flow (KW)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of users with RESs
Figure 6.12: Reverse power flow versus percentage users with RESs
46
6.11 Fluctuations with respect to ESS
We plot fluctuations in RE as a function of ESS as shown in Fig. 6.13. We

ensure that as the capacity of ESS increases the fluctuations in the RE decrease
causes smooth generation. We also ensure that aggregate energy production of
TEC matches the net load and to store or exchange energy is to compensate
for fluctuations in RE. With no ESS the RE has 100 % fluctuations and with
maximum capacity of ESS very low fluctuations exist in RE.
100
90
Fluctuation in RE (%) 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
ESS (KWh)
Figure 6.13: Fluctuations versus ESS
47
Chapter 7
Conclusion
48
In this thesis, we proposed techniques for DSM and energy efficient integration of
RESs in SG. We considered the problem of load scheduling and energy efficient
integration of RESs. An EMCU based on heuristic algorithms (GA, BPSO, WDO,
and GWDO) is used to schedule appliances in order to achieve desired objectives.
We adopt combined RTP and IBR to increase stability of the system. Further-
more, energy efficient integration of RESs is facilitated using ESS and trading
among consumers. Simulation results show that our scheme is useful in terms of
reducing: electricity cost, PAR, tradeoff between electricity cost and user comfort,
peak power consumption. Moreover, our proposed scheduling solution for DSM
and energy efficient integration of RESs is useful for both utility company and
consumers. Furthermore, our proposed system model is suitable for power grid
designer in choosing the optimal combination of ESS and trading to integrate en-
ergy efficient integration of RESs in order to meet the cost criterion and reduce
reverse power flow.
49
Chapter 8
References
50
Bibliography
[1] Saad, Walid, et al. ”Game-theoretic methods for the smart grid: An overview
of microgrid systems, demand-side management, and smart grid communica-
tions.” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 29.5 (2012): 86-105. Download
[2] Logenthiran, Thillainathan, Dipti Srinivasan, and Tan Zong Shun. ”Demand
side management in smart grid using heuristic optimization.” IEEE transac-
tions on smart grid 3.3 (2012): 1244-1252.
[3] Christian Roselund, and John Bernhardt, Lessons learned along europes road
to renewables, IEEE Spectrum, May 4, 2015.
[4] Xiaodong Liang, and Bagen Bagen, ”Probabilistic planning and risk analy-
sis for renewable power generation system”, Proceedings of CIGRE canada
conference, cinnipeg, manitoba, August 31-September 2, 2015.
[5] Hart, Elaine K., and Mark Z. Jacobson. ”A Monte Carlo approach to generator
portfolio planning and carbon emissions assessments of systems with large
penetrations of variable renewables.” Renewable Energy 36.8 (2011): 2278-
2286.
[6] Khalid, Adiya, et al. Optimized home load management with reduced cost and
peak to average ratio in smart grid with demand side management. Energies
10.1 (2016): 1-28..
[7] Lakshminarayana, Subhash, Tony QS Quek, and H. Vincent Poor. ”Cooper-
ation and storage tradeoffs in power grids with renewable energy resources.”
51
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 32.7 (2014): 1386-1397.
[8] Liang, Xiaodong. ”Emerging power quality challenges due to integration of re-
newable energy sources.” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications (2016).
[9] Li, Tianyi, and Min Dong. ”Real-time residential-side joint energy storage
management and load scheduling with renewable integration.” IEEE Transac-
tions on Smart Grid (2016): 1-15.
[10] Zhao, Zhuang, et al. ”An optimal power scheduling method for demand re-
sponse in home energy management system.” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid 4.3 (2013): 1391-1400.
[11] Rahim, Sahar, et al. ”Exploiting heuristic algorithms to efficiently utilize
energy management controllers with renewable energy sources.” Energy and
Buildings 129 (2016): 452-470. Download
[12] Ullah, Ihsan, et al. ”An incentive-based optimal energy consumption schedul-
ing algorithm for residential users.” Procedia Computer Science 52 (2015):
851-857. Download
[13] Arun, S. L., and M. P. Selvan. ”Intelligent Residential Energy Management
System for Dynamic Demand Response in Smart Buildings.” IEEE Systems
Journal (2017): 112.
[14] Wang, Lingfeng, Zhu Wang, and Rui Yang. ”Intelligent multiagent control
system for energy and comfort management in smart and sustainable build-
ings.” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 3.2 (2012): 605-617.
[15] Ramchurn, Sarvapali D., et al. ”Agent-based control for decentralised demand
side management in the smart grid.” The 10th International Conference on Au-
tonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. International Foundation
for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2011.
[16] Awais, Muhammad, et al. ”An efficient genetic algorithm based demand
side management scheme for smart grid.” Network-Based Information Systems
(NBiS), 2015 18th International Conference on. IEEE, 2015. Download
[17] Ma, Kai, et al. ”Residential power scheduling for demand response in smart
grid.” International Journal of Electrical Power &. Energy Systems 78 (2016):
320-325.
[18] Samadi, Pedram, Vincent WS Wong, and Robert Schober. ”Load schedul-
ing and power trading in systems with high penetration of renewable energy
resources.” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 7.4 (2016): 1802-1812.
[19] Phuangpornpitak, N., and S. Tia. ”Opportunities and challenges of integrat-
ing renewable energy in smart grid system.” Energy Procedia 34 (2013): 282-
290.
[20] Rahbar, Katayoun, Chin Choy Chai, and Rui Zhang. ”Energy cooperation
optimization in microgrids with renewable energy integration.” IEEE Trans-
actions on Smart Grid (2016).
52
[21] Khan, Muhammad Asghar, et al. ”A generic demand side management model
for smart grid.” International Journal of Energy Rsesearch 39.7 (2015): 954-
964. Download
[22] Ma, Jinghuan, et al. ”Residential load scheduling in smart grid: A cost effi-
ciency perspective.” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 7.2 (2016): 771-784.
[23] Chapman, Archie C., Gregor Verbi, and David J. Hill. ”Algorithmic and
strategic aspects to integrating demand-side aggregation and energy manage-
ment methods.” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 7.6 (2016): 2748-2760.
[24] Atia, Raji, and Noboru Yamada. ”Sizing and analysis of renewable energy
and battery systems in residential microgrids.” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid 7.3 (2016): 1204-1213.
[25] Tsui, Kai Man, and Shing-Chow Chan. ”Demand response optimization for
smart home scheduling under real-time pricing.” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid 3.4 (2012): 1812-1821.
[26] Wu, Yuan, et al. ”Optimal energy scheduling for residential smart grid with
centralized renewable energy source.” IEEE Systems Journal 8.2 (2014): 562-
576.
[27] Gao, Bingtuan, et al. ”Game-theoretic energy management for residential
users with dischargeable plug-in electric vehicles.” Energies 7.11 (2014): 7499-
7518.
[28] V. Krishna, Auction Theory, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Academic, 2009.
53
View publication stats

EE Hafeez PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EE Hafeez PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Energy Efﬁcient Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in the Smart Grid

Thesis · July 2017

Ghulam Hafeez Nadeem Javaid

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Underwater Wireless sensor networks View project

Sensor Networks View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology

COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad

of the requirement for the degree of

A Graduate Thesis submitted to Department of Electrical Engineering as partial

Name Registration Number

Ghulam Hafeez CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB

Energy Efficient Integration of Renewable

has been approved

For the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad

External Examiner: __________________________________________

I Ghulam Hafeez, CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB hereby declare that I have produced the

Date: _________________ Signature of the student:

It is certified that Ghulam Hafeez CIIT/FA15-REE-030/ISB has carried out all

Besides my supervisor and co-supervisor, I would like thanks to everyone who

Energy Efficient Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in

management (DSM). In this thesis, we introduce generic home energy

management control system (HEMCS) model having energy management control

EMCU based on genetic algorithm (GA), binary particle swarm optimization

optimization (GWDO) algorithm to schedule appliances of single home and

station feasible region is defined and problem is formulated using multiple

knapsack. Energy efficient integration of RESs in SG is a challenge due to time

system (ESS) that smooth out variations in RE generation. Second is trading of

the surplus generation among neighboring consumers. The simulation results

(PAR) of aggregated load.

6 Simulation Results and Discussions 35

3.1 Smart power system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.1 Flow chart of GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.1 RTP signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.1 Summary of load scheduling and RE integration related work . . . . 6

6.1 Description of appliances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.1 Load scheduling and RE integration

References Techniques Objectives Limitations

S. L. Arun and M. P. Selvan in [13] proposed intelligent residential EMS (IREMS)

2.3 Different techniques for DSM

References Techniques Objectives Limitations

References Techniques Objectives Limitations

Figure 3.1: Smart power system

3.1 HEMCS model

3.2 Power usage and consumption model

Two way flow

Figure 3.2: System model

where ETi denotes aggregated energy consumption.

3.3 Appliances classification

In this section, appliances classification are discussed. Appliances is classified into

3.3.1 Power elastic appliances

where Xt is an indicator which indicates the status of an appliance, if it is equal

CTpe = ETpe × ϕ(t) (3.4)

3.3.2 Time elastic appliances

CTte = ETte × ϕ(t) (3.6)

where CTte denotes the electricity cost of time elastic appliances.

3.3.3 Essential appliances

The electricity cost can be calculated from the following equations:

CTea = ETea × ϕ(t) (3.8)

3.3.4 Pricing model

3.4 RE integration model