This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
A Consensus-based Distributed Computational
Intelligence Technique for Real-Time Optimal
Control in Smart Distribution Grids
Kumar Utkarsh, Student Member, IEEE, Anupam Trivedi, Member, IEEE, Dipti Srinivasan, Senior
Member, IEEE, and Thomas Reindl
AbstractIn real-time large-scale optimization problems, such
as in smart grids, centralized algorithms may face difficulties in
handling fast-varying system conditions, such as high variability
of renewable-based distributed generators (DGs) and
controllable loads (CLs). Further, centralized algorithms may
encounter computation and communication bottlenecks while
handling large number of variables. To tackle these issues,
consensus-based distributed strategies have been proposed
recently. However, distributed computational intelligence (CI)
based techniques can provide a much better near-optimal
solution within fewer iterations of the algorithm, which is a
critical requirement in smart grids. Therefore, in this paper, a
consensus-based dimension-distributed CI technique is proposed
for real-time optimal control in smart distribution grids, in which
large number of DGs and CLs are present. The proposed
approach considers each DG or CL as a separate private entity,
which is more relevant from the perspective of smart grid
optimization. In the proposed consensus-based framework, each
DG or CL is associated with an agent, and each agent is allowed
to communicate only with its neighboring agents. The
effectiveness of the proposed approach in terms of convergence,
adaptability and optimality with respect to a centralized
algorithm and a benchmark algorithm is shown through
simulations on 30-node and 119-node distribution test systems.
Index TermsComputational intelligence, distributed control,
particle swarm optimization, reactive power control, smart grids.
I. INTRODUCTION
C ONSENSUS based optimization forms a very important
part of distributed computing literature. In consensus
problems, the primary objective is for a group of individuals
with varying opinions to reach a common understanding.
Consensus is especially important in situations where
individuals value privacy, and are reluctant to share their local
information with a centralized entity. In networked systems,
consensus plays a key role in enabling individual entities to
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation under
Grant R-712-000-032-281.
K. Utkarsh, A. Trivedi, and D. Srinivasan are with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117576 (e-mail: utkarsh.k@u.nus.edu; eleatr@nus.edu.sg;
dipti@nus.edu.sg). T. Reindl is with the Solar Energy Research Institute of
Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117574 (e-mail:
thomas.reindl@nus.edu.sg)
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
get an independent estimate about the global value of a desired
variable. As such, averaging consensus has been extensively
used in literature for estimation [1].
A. Applications of consensus-based distributed algorithms
Consensus-based distributed optimization algorithms find
use in a wide variety of areas, such as in intelligent
transportation systems [2], energy management in smart grids
[3], [4], synchronization of coupled oscillators [5], and control
of multi-robot systems [6], among others. An important
application of consensus-based distributed algorithms is in the
optimization of large-scale systems with a very high number
of control variables. In this framework, consensus-based
algorithms provide a platform in which the need for a
centralized optimizer is obviated and computational effort is
evenly spread across multiple entities.
B. Brief introduction to smart grids and the real-time optimal
control problem
The future power system infrastructure will differ
significantly from the present one, with increased integration
of especially-renewable-based distributed generation sources
(DGs), variable controllable loads (CLs), and communication
and control capabilities. Thus, the large number of
controllable equipment present in the future power system will
result in increased degrees of freedom, and can help to further
optimize the desired objectives. This future power system,
appropriately named as a smart grid, will utilize the
aforementioned resources to make electricity generation,
transmission, and distribution more reliable, secure, and as
efficient as possible [7].
However, the ever increasing penetration of DGs and CLs
in smart grids will introduce such scalability and variability
issues which the existing centralized control architectures may
be incapable of handling [8], [9]. Secondly, there will be
privacy concerns, wherein DG and CL owners will be
reluctant to share their local information to a centralized entity
[7], [10]. Therefore, recently, there has been an increasing
focus on developing distributed algorithms to tackle such
issues. Further, in real-time optimal control in smart grids,
power loss minimization and voltage regulation are two
important problems that the system operator needs to solve
[8], [9], [11], [12]. In a power distribution system, power loss
minimization can be viewed typically as the cost minimization
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
aspect, because a lower power loss results in a lower
electricity purchase from the external grid. On the other hand,
voltage regulation is the technical aspect, in which voltages
are to be typically regulated within a certain range around the
nominal value, to maintain a reliable electricity supply to the
loads. Therefore, in this paper, our focus is to solve these
problems in a real-time and distributed manner.
C. Existing consensus-based distributed techniques for real-
time optimal control in smart grids
Several authors have recently proposed consensus-based
distributed strategies to tackle the real-time optimization
problem in smart grids considering reactive power availability
of DGs. In [11], power loss is assumed to be a function of
voltage magnitudes and the DGs reach a common utilization
ratio to minimize voltage deviations. In [8], [13], a dual-
decomposition based feedback algorithm to minimize power
losses with voltage constraints is presented considering X/R
ratio of power lines to be the same. In [3], power loss based on
general loss coefficients is minimized using an equal-
incremental criterion based algorithm. In [14], distributed
dual-decomposition based algorithm is developed to minimize
operation cost of DGs, however, system power loss is ignored.
In [9], a distributed sub-gradient based algorithm is developed
under several assumptions to control voltages and minimize
power losses. While, in [15], [16], voltage control is achieved
using proportional reactive power sharing while considering
power lines to be lossless. The literature survey on real-time
optimal control in smart grids shows that the existing
consensus-based distributed algorithms are developed under
several assumptions, which may not hold true in realistic
power networks.
D. Distributed computational intelligence techniques for
high-dimensional problems
In comparison to the existing consensus-based distributed
optimization techniques, distributed computational
intelligence (CI) based techniques can provide a near-optimal
solution for high-dimensional problems within fewer iterations
of the algorithm [17], which is a critical requirement in smart
grids with a high penetration of renewable DGs and CLs.
Therefore, as a part of distributed CI techniques to deal with
such problems of high dimensions, distributed evolutionary
algorithms (EAs) have been developed.
Distributed EAs have been further classified as population-
distributed or dimension-distributed [17]. Population-
distributed EAs assume each agent to consist of a probable
solution vector, say a particle in particle swarm optimization
(PSO) or a chromosome in genetic algorithm (GA), i.e.
where D is the number of control variables involved in
optimization. Therefore, in population-distributed EAs, each
agent needs information about all the D control variables.
However, in a real scenario, the D control variables may
belong to separate private entities and, therefore, it is much
more reasonable to associate an agent with each of the D
control variables. This is the rationale of dimension-
distributed EAs, in which agents correspond to the dimensions
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
(i.e. control variables) of the solution vector. Thus, dimension-
distributed EAs are truly distributed implementations with
respect to a practical problem, in which each dimension is
controlled by a separate controller or agent.
Existing works on dimension-distributed EAs can be further
classified [17] as utilizing either coevolution models or game-
theoretic multi-agent models. The game-theoretic multi-agent
model requires global objectives to be expressed as a sum of
local objectives of agents, which may not always be possible
[18]-[20]. In the coevolution model, on the other hand, an
agent needs to know the variables of other agents as well,
which may lead to violation of privacy [21]. Also, an agent
performs several generations of evolution of its primary
variable (corresponding to its own dimension), while
considering secondary variables (corresponding to other
agents dimensions) to be clamped. This results in the
evolution being performed with respect to outdated secondary
variables. Then, in the communication phase, each agent
updates its secondary variables, which need to be broadcast by
other agents, resulting in extra communication time overhead
[22], [23].
E. Proposed approach and Contributions
The literature survey presented above indicates that real-
time optimization involving distributed EAs is an emerging
topic in computational intelligence. Thus, in this paper, we
propose a consensus-based dimension-distributed CI technique
for real-time optimal control in smart distribution grids. The
major contributions of this work can be summarized as
follows:
1) It proposes a consensus-based dimension-distributed CI
algorithm for optimization in a large-scale system, using
only realistic assumptions.
2) In this work, an agent exchanges estimated states of the
system with other agents, rather than the control variables.
This results in the privacy of individual agents being
maintained, which is particularly important in smart grid
scenarios.
3) In comparison to existing works on dimension-distributed
EAs, the proposed algorithm ensures minimum
communication overhead, while being able to handle any
generalized global objective function.
4) To the best of our knowledge, the proposed consensus-
based dimension-distributed CI algorithm has not been
studied in the context of real-time optimal control in
smart grids so far.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
explains the real-time optimal control problem in smart grids;
Section III provides details about the proposed fully
distributed CI algorithm for real-time optimal control in smart
grids; Section IV provides simulation studies for the proposed
approach; and finally Section V concludes the paper.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
In this section, the problem formulation for real-time
optimal control of DGs and CLs for power loss minimization
and voltage regulation is presented, before which a description
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
of the envisioned system is provided.
Fig. 1. Physical power system layer (power lines shown in blue) with DGs
and loads; and cyber layer with agents and communication infrastructure
(shown in black dotted lines).
A hypothetical section of a smart distribution grid with
several DGs and loads is shown in Fig. 1, in which power
lines are overlaid with communication infrastructure and each
node is being monitored and controlled by an agent. It is noted
that the DGs are coupled to the grid usually through power
electronic converters, which are designed to provide fast
response and efficiently transmit energy from the DGs to the
grid. These converters are designed for maximum active
power availability of the DGs, and since DGs normally
operate at a capacity lower than their converters rating, the
remaining capacity of the converters can be utilized to provide
reactive power support to the grid. The same is true for CLs,
where their converters can be utilized to provide reactive
power support to the grid. Therefore, our aim in this paper is
to utilize the reactive power injection/absorption capability of
such controllable equipment (i.e. DG and CL converters) to
efficiently achieve the overall objectives.
Thus, the control variables in our problem are reactive
power injections/absorptions of power converters of DGs and
CLs, which are located at different nodes in the power system.
Further, we assume that each agent on a node can
communicate only with its neighboring agents (i.e. agents on
nodes connected physically with power lines), as shown in
Fig. 1. Now, if the ith DG or CL is supplying/receiving an
active power to/from the grid, and its power converter rating
is , , then the reactive power availability of its power
converter, , , can be defined as follows:
2
2
, = (, 2 )
A. Objective function
In this paper, the objective function is to minimize active
power losses in the power system using optimal reactive
power injection/absorption from DG and CL converters:
(2)
=1 =1
where is the number of nodes in the power system, is the
voltage magnitude at node i, and and are conductance
and angle difference, respectively, between nodes i and k.
B. Constraints
1) Voltage constraints: Voltage magnitude at each node i
needs to be in limits.
< <
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
3
where and are the minimum and maximum allowed
operating voltages.
2) Reactive power constraints: The reactive power
availability of DG or CL converters is constrained.
( []) (, ) (4)
where , is calculated according to (1), and z is the present
iteration.
3) Reactive power ramp-rate constraints: Reactive power
change between two consecutive iterations needs to be
constrained.
[ 1] [] [ 1] + (5)
where is the ramp-limit of converter i.
C. Relation between control variables and states
In this work, we have considered reactive power (i.e. ) of
DG and CL converters as control variables. However, in
power systems, phasorial voltages, i.e. , of each node are
considered as states of the system. They are related according
to the following equation.
= ( ) (6)
=1
It is clear from (6) that the control variables and the state
variables have a non-linear relationship, and thus we need to
make use of the following proposition, which provides an
approximate relation between node voltages and
active/reactive power injections at the nodes.
Proposition: Node voltages relate to active and reactive
power injections/absorptions at the nodes as follows:
2 [(2: , 2: )]1 2 2
[ ] = 0 1 + [ ] (7)
0
where the phasorial voltage at node i, 1 = [1, ,1] , Y is
the admittance matrix, and 0 is the nominal voltage at the
slack node 1.
Proof: Firstly, it is noted that, in a power system, if
active/reactive power injections/absorptions were zero at all
nodes, the voltage at all the nodes would be equal to that of
the slack node [24]. Now, integrating the differential grid
model in [25, Section II], with initial conditions as
aforementioned, (7) can be obtained.
(1)
D. Decomposition method to increase computation speed
In a properly designed power system, a small change in the
power injection/absorption at a particular node does not affect
the entire system equally. Thus, for a particular node i, the
whole power system can be divided into two parts-the set of
nodes which are strongly affected (set- ), and the other set of
those nodes which are very weakly affected (set- ). These
sets of nodes can be determined using the -based
decomposition method on the matrix [26]. Therefore, to
enhance computation speed of the proposed algorithm, we put
a constraint such that the active/reactive power
injection/absorption at a node i only affects nodes in set- ,
but not the nodes in set- .
(3)
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
III. PROPOSED CONSENSUS-BASED DIMENSION-DISTRIBUTED
CI ALGORITHM FOR REAL-TIME OPTIMAL CONTROL OF SMART
GRIDS
In this section, the proposed consensus-based distributed CI
algorithm for real-time optimal control of smart grids is
presented in the context of a generic large-scale global
optimization problem. Firstly, consensus algorithm is
discussed, which is used by the agents to estimate the states of
the system. Secondly, a framework for a generalized large
scale optimization problem is discussed, and finally, the
proposed algorithm is presented.
A. Consensus Algorithm
Consider a connected graph G with N nodes and E edges, in
which each node is assumed to be controlled by an agent. Any
two agents are considered neighbors iff they have a common
edge , and each agent can communicate with its
neighboring agents only. Now, let [] denote the
estimate of a parameter maintained by agent k at an iteration z.
The value may represent any quantity that the agents are
trying to reach a consensus on. We say that a network of N
agents has reached consensus iff | | , , =
(1 ), , where is a very small positive number.
According to the consensus algorithm, each agent k updates its
estimates using the following discrete-time model:
[ + 1] = , []
=1
where , represents the communication coefficient between
agents k and l. It is noted that , is non-zero only if the two
agents are neighbors. Thus, the combined consensus algorithm
can be written as:
[ + 1] = []
where C is a matrix composed of elements , , , =
(1 ), and is the column vector containing all .
According to the proof in [1], if the matrix C is doubly
stochastic, i.e. all its rows and columns individually sum up to
one, and if the eigenvalues of C are less than or equal to 1,
then all the will converge to a common estimate as given
below:
1 scale non-linear problems while not suffering from the curse
[] = [0] , = (1 )
=1
The matrix C can be made to fulfil the aforementioned
conditions by using the metropolis algorithm [1].
B. Framework for a generalized large scale optimization
problem
Now, let us suppose that the generalized global objective
function to be minimized is as follows:
min ()
where N is the dimension of the control variable vector,
. Although the global objective function f(x) is generalized
enough to capture all possible functions, it is more convenient
to write the function f in terms of a state vector, say vector
, of dimension M.
min ()
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
4
Further, the elements of state vector y may be dependent on
one or more elements of vector x, represented appropriately as
follows:
1 1
[ ] = [ ]
= (: , ) (13)
=1
where is a matrix relating control variables x to states y. It is
noted that (13) is a linearized form of relationship, which
could be derived using suitable approximations. This relation
is equivalent to the relation (7) in Section-II, with the state
vector y corresponding to voltage vector V, and control
variable vector x corresponding to reactive power vector Q.
In this paper, we have implemented a dimension-distributed
implementation of particle swarm optimization (PSO), which
is an instantiation of a CI algorithm. It is noted that the steps
involved for implementation of the proposed distributed PSO-
based algorithm can be translated into equivalent steps for a
similar population-based CI algorithm as well.
C. Brief description of the standard PSO algorithm
PSO [27] is a direct search and stochastic optimization
technique that is based on the behavior of a social group of
animals. In PSO, the decision of an ith particle , where
N is the dimension of the solution hyperspace, is influenced by
(8) three factors: the particles own velocity, the best known
solution found by the particle, and the best known solution
found among all the particles. The basic equations that the
standard PSO uses for a particle i are as follows:
[] = . [ 1] + 1 . 1. ( [ 1])
+2 . 2. ( [ 1]) (14)
(9) [] = [ 1] + [] (15)
where z is the present iteration, and are velocity and
position, respectively, of particle i, w is the inertia factor, 1
and 2 are two positive numbers, rand1 and rand2 are two
random numbers uniformly distributed in the range [0,1],
is the best solution found so far by particle i, and
is the best solution found among all the particles. PSO
and its variants have been shown to efficiently solve large
(10)
of dimensionality or slow convergence [28]. Therefore,
inspired by its properties, we will next present the proposed
consensus-based dimension-distributed PSO algorithm.
D. Proposed consensus-based dimension-distributed PSO-
based algorithm
In the proposed algorithm, N agents are considered
corresponding to N control variables in a system, with each
(11)
agent i corresponding to a control variable (i.e. reactive
power output of a DG or CL converter in the formulated
real-time optimal smart grid control problem). Each agent also
maintains P probable values of its control variable in the form
of a column vector. Hereafter, we will refer to each such value
of the vector as an element. Now, for each of its P elements,
an agent has to estimate its contribution towards the state
(12) vector y of the system using (13). Specifically, an agent i, for
each element {1, , }, will estimate its contribution as
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
(: , ) and will share this estimate with neighboring agents
using consensus algorithm to get an updated estimate of state
vector y. In the context of the formulated real-time optimal
smart grid control problem, each agent i, for each element p,
will estimate its contribution towards the voltage vector V in
the system using
(: , ) and will share this estimate with
neighboring agents using consensus algorithm to get an
updated estimate of the voltage vector V. This framework is
also depicted in Fig. 2, where the element vectors and the
estimated state vectors of two agents i and j are shown.
Fig. 2. Framework of agents for the proposed distributed algorithm.
It is noted that the real-time optimal control problem in
smart grids is a dynamic optimization problem, in the sense
that the system parameters (i.e. active power
generation/consumption of DGs and CLs) vary with time.
Therefore, let us consider a control-horizon , which is
divided into H control-cycles, and assume that the system
parameters are varying across these control-cycles. Further,
we consider that in each such control-cycle {1, , }, the
system remains static (i.e. the system parameters or the active
power generation/consumption of DGs and CLs remain
constant), and the agents perform several iterations of the
proposed algorithm until convergence to optimize the system
for this control-cycle before moving on to the next control-
cycle + 1. Considering the dynamics in the system, we will
now present the execution steps of the algorithm to be
performed by each agent i in the control-horizon .
Step-0 (Commencement of control-horizon ): Let us
consider this step as the starting point of the control-
horizon , i.e. this step is the beginning of control-cycle =
1.
Step-1 (Initialization): The agent i initializes a column vector
of its probable values, according to the following:
[0] = , + 2 , (, 1)
where = [1 , , ] is a P-element column vector, ,
is the maximum allowed value of the control variable , and
(. ) generates a column vector of random numbers
between 0 and 1. It is noted that is analogous to the reactive
power of DG and CL converters. For each element p in the
column vector obtained in Step 1, the agent then initializes its
estimates of the state vector (or equivalently the voltage vector
V) as follows:
,
1 [0]
[ ] = (: , ) [0]
, the allowable range. This allows the elements to keep
[0]
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
5
Step-2 (Synchronization): The agent then communicates with
its neighboring agents and updates its state estimates as
follows:
,
1 [0] , (1, ) [0]
=1
[ ]= (18)
,
[0]
, (, ) [0]
[ =1 ]
The agent now calculates the objective function f as in (12)
(which is equivalent to power loss in the formulated smart grid
problem (2)) for each element p. It then finds out the element-
best value for each element p (i.e. the value of the control
variable corresponding to the best known objective
function found so far by the element p) and the global-best
value (i.e. the value of the control variable corresponding to
the best known objective function found so far among all the P
elements). It is noted that the 1-dimensional element-best and
global-best values of an agent correspond to the N-
dimensional particle-best and global-particle-best values in
the standard PSO. The velocities of the elements are also
randomly initialized in this step. We now move to the main
part of the algorithm.
Step-3 (Evolution of elements): Consider this step as the start
of iteration z. To eliminate the phenomenon of stagnation in
the proposed fully distributed algorithm, two important
modifications are made:
1) Velocity and position (i.e. element value) update
equations of the global-best element are integrated with
the Guaranteed Convergence PSO (GCPSO) [29], [30]. In
GCPSO, the modified velocity update equation of the
global-best element is as follows:
, [] = . , [ 1] , [ 1] + , + [] (19)
where , and , are velocity and position (i.e. element
value), respectively, of the global-best element,
and , is its element-best value. w is a weighting
coefficient, r is a random number sampled from the
interval (-1,1), and () is a scaling factor determined as
follows:
[0] = 1
2[], >
[ + 1] = { 0.5[], > (20)
[],
where and are thresholds. The thresholds are such
(16) defined that whenever the global-best element improves
its element-best value , , the success count is
incremented and the failure count is set to 0, and vice
versa. However, the success and failure counts are both
set to 0 whenever the global-best element itself changes.
These modifications ensure that the global-best element
keeps performing a random search around its position,
resulting in its escaping from a local minimum.
2) The velocities of all elements, except the global-best
element, are checked if they have fallen below a certain
(17) threshold. If yes, then they are reset to random values in
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
looking for better solutions, while at the same time
retaining knowledge learnt by the global-best element.
Step-4 (Adaptation and Synchronization): For each element
p, the agent now estimates the new state vector, due to change
in the elements value at the present iteration, and
communicates the state vector to its neighboring agents as
follows:
, ,
1 [] 1 [ 1]
[ ]=[ ] + (: , ) ( [] [ 1]) (21)
, ,
[] [ 1]
,
,
1 [] , 1 []
=1
[ ]=
,
[] ,
, []
[ =1 ] Remark 2: In the proposed algorithm, privacy of individual
The agent now calculates the objective function f as in (12),
for each element p, and updates the element-best and global-
best values.
Step-5 (Real-time implementation of obtained solution):
Since the proposed algorithm is a real-time algorithm, each
agent immediately applies its global-best element value found
at each iteration to its respective node. This strategy ensures
that the agents respond as fast as possible to changing system
conditions, and do not wait until convergence is achieved to
apply solutions.
Step-6 (Check for convergence): The algorithm is assumed
to have converged if the agents ascertain that the change in
their global-best element values is below a threshold for a
certain number of consecutive iterations, or if a maximum
number of iterations is reached. If the algorithm has not
converged, the control is transferred to Step-3 again, and the
iteration counter z is also incremented to z+1. Further, if the
algorithm has converged and the present control-cycle has
ended, it is incremented to + 1 and the control is transferred
to Step-7.
Step-7 (Population update for dynamic optimization): It
has previously been noted in this sub-section that the real-time
optimal control problem in smart grids is a dynamic
optimization problem, in which the system parameters vary
with time. This variation manifests itself in the objective
function f to change with each control-cycle, which results in
the optimal solution vector for a particular control-cycle, to
vary with each control-cycle, where is defined as follows.
= argmin ()
To deal with such dynamics, an obvious approach could be
to restart the entire algorithm for each control-cycle. However,
this restart-based algorithm would be very inefficient, because
we essentially lose all the knowledge gained from the previous
control-cycle, which could have otherwise been utilized to
reach the new optimal solution faster [31]. Based on this logic
and to make the algorithm more flexible, evolutionary
dynamic optimization (EDO) technique is integrated in the
proposed algorithm. The integrated EDO-based approach is
able to effectively manage system dynamics, in that a fast
convergence to the optimal solution is achieved after a change
in system conditions [31].
In this integrated EDO-based approach, at the end of each
control-cycle, each agent i modifies the final converged vector
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
6
of its control variable (i.e. ) in the following manner. Firstly,
each agent randomly selects 10% of its elements and replaces
them with random immigrants, which basically are randomly
chosen values in the allowable range. Secondly, each agent
randomly selects 40% of the elements and replaces them with
elite immigrants, which are random mutations within +20% of
the previously obtained global-best element value. After these
modifications, the control is again transferred to Step-4.
Remark 1: The proposed algorithm is fully distributed, in
the sense that it does not require any high-level or external
controller to coordinate the actions of the agents. The agents
only need to store the matrices C and in order to do all the
(22) calculations; and the computational burden on the agents, at
each iteration z, is also small.
agents is maintained, in that a particular agent, with its
available information, cannot determine converged global-best
element values (i.e. reactive power values) of its neighboring
agents. This is explained as follows. Referring to (18) and (22)
for an element p, we can see that an agent j is exchanging only
its estimated state vector at each iteration z, rather than its
elements actual value (i.e. a probable reactive power
value). Now, one can argue from (17) and (21) that an
estimated state vector is a function of the elements present
and past values. Further, it can also be argued that since all
agents know matrices C and , any particular agent i can find
the final global-best element value of its neighboring agent j
(by simply tracking agent js state estimates until
convergence). However, it must be noted that the agent i does
not know what the indices of its neighboring agents are, and
therefore does not exactly know the column vector (:,j) for
its neighboring agent with index j. Therefore, agent i cannot
find out the element values of agent j, even though it knows
the state vectors for agent j. Thus, privacy of any individual
agent is maintained by the proposed algorithm.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proposed algorithm is implemented using MATLAB
software on two distribution test systems: 1) the standard
IEEE 30-node system, which is a meshed network, and which
is modified to simulate a distribution system with nominal
voltage 11 kV [25]; and 2) an 11 kV radial distribution system
(23) with 119 nodes [32], which effectively simulates a large-scale
system to test scalability of the proposed algorithm. The
voltage variations at all the nodes are limited to +3% of the
nominal value. For both the systems, DGs and CLs are
assumed to have been placed after proper siting and sizing
studies, and have converters of rating 5 MVA each.
In this paper, two case studies each were conducted for both
30-node and 119-node systems to demonstrate the efficacy of
the proposed distributed algorithm:
1) Case Study 1 convergence and adaptability of the
proposed algorithm, under dynamic renewable outputs and
loads for a control-horizon = 10, is investigated and
benchmarked with a reference consensus-based distributed
algorithm [11].
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
7

2) Case Study 2 optimality of the proposed algorithm is

investigated with respect to a centralized controller based
algorithm for a control-horizon = 10.
A. Simulation studies on 30-node test system
In this section, we investigate the performance of the
proposed algorithm on the 30-node distribution system, and
since the number of nodes are relatively low, there was no
need to limit the communication of a node (agent) to only its
strongly coupled nodes. The DG penetration is set to 65.2%,
with 12 DGs and 8 CLs in the system. Thus, the number of
control variables involved is 20.
1) Case study 1 Fig. 3. Power loss plots for control-horizon = 10 for 30-node system.
In this case study, we investigate convergence and
adaptability of the proposed algorithm to changing conditions,
i.e. variability of renewables and loads, for the given control-
horizon = 10. Further, comparisons are drawn among 1) the
EDO-based proposed approach, 2) the restart-based proposed
approach (in which after every control-cycle, each agent
reinitializes its elements values and velocities for
optimization of the next control-step), and 3) the reference
consensus-based distributed algorithm in [11].
The results of the simulation study are shown in Fig. 3, 4
and 5. Fig. 3 displays power loss progression for the
aforementioned three algorithms for the control-horizon =
10, and Fig. 4 provides a zoomed-in view of the 2nd control-
cycle for visual clarity. It can be observed from both the Fig. 4. Enlarged view of the 2nd control-cycle plots for 30-node system.
figures that the EDO-based algorithm is able to find better
solutions and converge faster than the other two algorithms.
This property can be appropriately quantified in terms of mean
best-of-generation value [33]:
1 1
= ( , ) (24)
=1 =1

where G is the number of generations (i.e. iterations), R is the

number of runs of the algorithm, and , is the global-best
power loss value obtained at ith iteration and jth run. Thus, the
lower the , the better the algorithm is in finding good
solutions in a shorter time. Referring to Table I, we can see
that the EDO-based proposed algorithm has the lowest
Fig. 5. Node voltage plots for 30-node system for EDO-based algorithm.
value, thus outperforming the other two algorithms. Further,
Fig. 5 shows that the EDO-based algorithm is able to
effectively maintain node voltages inside the prescribed limits
of + 3% in a fully distributed manner.
2) Case study 2
In this case study, we investigate the optimality of the
solution reached by the EDO-based algorithm with respect to
the centralized controller based algorithm. The results are
presented in Fig. 6, which shows average converged values for
20 runs of both the algorithms. It can be seen that the EDO-
based algorithm is able to find a solution almost similar to the
centralized algorithm. In fact, the average error is found to be
0.94% for the given control-horizon = 10, which indicates
convergence to near-optimality by the EDO-based proposed Fig. 6. Converged power loss values for Case Study 2 for 30-node system.
algorithm.

2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
8

TABLE I better solutions and converge faster than the other two
MEAN BEST-OF-GENERATION VALUE ( ) FOR R=20
algorithms. Also, referring to Table I, we can see that the
EDO-based Restart-based Reference
System algorithm algorithm
EDO-based proposed algorithm has the lowest value,
algorithm
30-
thus outperforming the other two algorithms. Further, Fig. 10
1.162 1.228 1.231
node shows that the EDO-based algorithm is able to effectively
119- 0.975 1.012 1.135 maintain node voltages inside the prescribed limits of + 3% in
node a fully distributed manner, even for a large 119-node system.
It is noted from Fig. 8 that the reference algorithm is not
B. Simulation studies on 119-node test system performing well, especially for control-cycles 5 to 10. This is
In this section, we investigate scalability aspect of the due to some of its assumptions, such as not considering phase
proposed algorithm by conducting simulation studies on a angles of the nodes, which are causing it to accumulate a large
large 119-node distribution test system. The DG penetration is error for the large 119-node system.
set to 57.6% in the following studies, with 48 DGs and 32 CLs 2) Case study 2
in the system. Thus, the number of control variables involved In this case study, we investigate the optimality of the
is 80, which represents a large system effectively. It is noted solution reached by the EDO-based algorithm with the
that consensus on a large-scale system may take a bit longer to centralized controller based algorithm.
be achieved, especially if the network graph is sparsely
connected. This may result in delays in the convergence of the
algorithm. Therefore, as discussed in Section-II, we can divide
the complete power system into two sets and for
each node i. For example, Fig. 7 shows the sensitivity values
(magnitude of ) of nodes 27 and 73. Therefore, the effect of
node 27, for example, is assumed to be limited to the nodes in
set-27 only. This implies that even a very-large system can be
broken down into smaller sub-systems for estimating the
effect of a node i, and, therefore, enables distributed
optimization of such large systems effectively. However, it
must be noted that too much restriction on this set of nodes
may lead to a solution which is much farther from the optimal
solution, despite having converged faster. Fig. 8. Power loss plots for control-horizon = 10 for 119-node system.

Fig. 7. Sensitivity values of nodes 27 and 73, for the 119-node system. Fig. 9. Enlarged view of the 2nd control-cycle power loss plots for 119-node
system.
1) Case study 1
In this case study, we investigate convergence and
adaptability of the proposed algorithm to changing conditions,
i.e. variability of renewables and loads, for the given control-
horizon = 10. As for the 30-node system, comparisons are
drawn here among 1) the EDO-based proposed approach, 2)
the restart-based proposed approach, and 3) the reference
consensus-based distributed algorithm in [11].
The results of the simulation study are shown in Fig. 8, 9
and 10. Fig. 8 displays power loss progression for the
aforementioned three algorithms for the given control-
horizon = 10, and Fig. 9 provides a zoomed-in view of the
2nd control-cycle for visual clarity. It can be observed from
both the figures that the EDO-based algorithm is able to find Fig. 10. Node voltage plots for 119-node system for EDO-based algorithm.

2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
Fig. 11. Converged power loss values for Case Study 2 for 119-node system.
The results are presented in Fig. 11, which shows average
converged values for 20 runs of both the algorithms. It can be
seen that the EDO-based algorithm is able to find a solution
almost similar to the centralized algorithm, and the average
error is found to be 2.31% for the given control-horizon =
10. It is noted that this increase in error percentage, as
compared to the 30-node system, can be attributed to the
tradeoff of using the -based decomposition method.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a consensus-based dimension-distributed CI
technique is proposed for real-time optimal control in smart
distribution grids, in which large number of DGs and CLs are
present. In the proposed algorithm, each control variable is
considered as a separate private entity, which is relevant from
the perspective of practical applications, such as in smart grid
optimization. In comparison to existing consensus-based
distributed techniques for smart grid optimization, the
proposed distributed CI technique can provide a near-optimal
solution within fewer iterations of the algorithm, which is a
critical requirement in smart grids with a high penetration of
renewable DGs and CLs. The efficacy of the proposed
algorithm was shown through simulations on 30-node and
119-node distribution test systems vis--vis convergence,
adaptability and optimality. Also, the proposed distributed CI
algorithm was benchmarked to prove effectivenss over a
recently published consensus-based distributed algorithm, and
a centralized controller based algorithm. Further, we note that
since the proposed algorithm has been developed for a
generalized large-scale optimization problem, it can be
extended beyond smart grid optimization to other challenging
real-time non-linear global optimization problems as well.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, Consensus and
Cooperation in Networked Multi-Agent Systems, Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215-233, 2007.
[2] M. Saeednia, and M. Menendez, A Consensus-Based Algorithm for
Truck Platooning, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1-12, 2016.
[3] C. Zhao, J. He, P. Cheng, and J. Chen, Consensus-Based Energy
Management in Smart Grid With Transmission Losses and Directed
Communication, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp.
1-13, 2016.
2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
[4] Y. Xu, Z. Yang, W. Gu, M. Li, and Z. Deng, Robust Real-Time
Distributed Optimal Control Based Energy Management in a Smart
Grid, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1-12,
2015.
[5] V. M. Preciado and G. C. Verghese, "Synchronization in Generalized
Erds-Rnyi Networks of Nonlinear Oscillators," in Proceedings of the
44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2005, pp. 4628-4633.
[6] X. Xiaorui and E. H. Abed, "Formation Control with Virtual Leaders
and Reduced Communications," in Proceedings of the 44th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, 2005, pp. 1854-1860.
[7] M. Yazdanian and A. Mehrizi-Sani, "Distributed Control Techniques in
Microgrids," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, pp. 2901-2909,
2014.
[8] S. Bolognani, R. Carli, G. Cavraro, and S. Zampieri, "Distributed
Reactive Power Feedback Control for Voltage Regulation and Loss
Minimization," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, pp.
966-981, 2015.
[9] W. Zhang, W. Liu, X. Wang, L. Liu, and F. Ferrese, "Distributed
Multiple Agent System Based Online Optimal Reactive Power Control
for Smart Grids," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, pp. 2421-
2431, 2014.
[10] W. Shi, X. Xie, C. C. Chu, and R. Gadh, "Distributed Optimal Energy
Management in Microgrids," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6,
pp. 1137-1146, 2015.
[11] A. Maknouninejad and Z. Qu, "Realizing Unified Microgrid Voltage
Profile and Loss Minimization: A Cooperative Distributed Optimization
and Control Approach," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, pp.
1621-1630, 2014.
[12] L. Yu, D. Czarkowski, and F. d. Leon, "Optimal Distributed Voltage
Regulation for Secondary Networks With DGs," IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, vol. 3, pp. 959-967, 2012.
[13] S. Bolognani and S. Zampieri, "A Distributed Control Strategy for
Reactive Power Compensation in Smart Microgrids," IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 58, pp. 2818-2833, 2013.
[14] P. Srikantha and D. Kundur, "Distributed Optimization of Dispatch in
Sustainable Generation Systems via Dual Decomposition," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, pp. 2501-2509, 2015.
[15] J. Schiffer, T. Seel, J. Raisch, and T. Sezi, "Voltage Stability and
Reactive Power Sharing in Inverter-Based Microgrids With Consensus-
Based Distributed Voltage Control," IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, vol. 24, pp. 96-109, 2016.
[16] D. He, D. Shi, and R. Sharma, "Consensus-based distributed cooperative
control for microgrid voltage regulation and reactive power sharing," in
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, Europe, 2014, pp. 1-6.
[17] Y.-J. Gong, W.-N. Chen, Z.-H. Zhan, J. Zhang, Y. Li, Q. Zhang, et al.,
"Distributed evolutionary algorithms and their models: A survey of the
state-of-the-art," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 34, pp. 286-300, 9// 2015.
[18] F. Seredynski, A. Y. Zomaya, and P. Bouvry, "Function Optimization
with Coevolutionary Algorithms," in Intelligent Information Processing
and Web Mining: Proceedings of the International IIS: IIPWM03
Conference held in Zakopane, Poland, June 25, 2003, M. A. Kopotek,
S. T. Wierzcho, and K. Trojanowski, Eds., ed Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 13-22.
[19] M. K. Jalloul and M. A. Al-Alaoui, "A distributed Particle Swarm
Optimization algorithm for block motion estimation using the strategies
of diffusion adaptation," in Signals, Circuits and Systems (ISSCS), 2015
International Symposium on, 2015, pp. 1-4.
[20] Y. Wakasa and S. Nakaya, "Distributed particle swarm optimization
using an average consensus algorithm," in 2015 54th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control (CDC), 2015, pp. 2661-2666.
[21] R. Subbu and A. C. Sanderson, "Modeling and convergence analysis of
distributed coevolutionary algorithms," IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 34, pp. 806-822, 2004.
[22] Z. Jun, H. S. H. Chung, and W. L. Lo, "Pseudocoevolutionary genetic
algorithms for power electronic circuits optimization," IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications
and Reviews), vol. 36, pp. 590-598, 2006.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TETCI.2016.2635130, IEEE
Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence
10

[23] K. C. Tan, Y. J. Yang, and C. K. Goh, "A distributed Cooperative Thomas Reindl received the Ph.D. degree in
coevolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization," IEEE natural sciences from the University of Regensburg,
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 10, pp. 527-549, 2006. Germany, in 1996 and the MBA degree from
[24] "Load representation for dynamic performance analysis [of power INSEAD, Singapore, in 2001. He was with
systems]," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 8, pp. 472-482, SIEMENS Corporate R&D Labs, Munich,
1993. Germany. From 1998 to 2006, he was a Chief
Operating Officer with ILIOTEC, Weiden,
[25] K. Utkarsh, D. Srinivasan and T. Reindl, "Distributed control of
Germany, and was later the Managing Director. In
renewable generators with energy storage," 2016 IEEE Power & Energy
2010, he was a Group Leader with Photovoltaic
Society General Meeting, Boston, MA, 2016 (Accepted). Systems Technology, Solar Energy Research
[26] M. Amano, A. I. Zecevic, and D. D. Siljak, "An improved block-parallel Institute, Stuttgart, Germany, where he currently holds the position of Deputy
Newton method via epsilon decompositions for load-flow calculations," Chief Executive Officer.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 11, pp. 1519-1527, 1996.
[27] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization," in Neural
Networks, 1995. Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on, 1995,
pp. 1942-1948 vol.4.
[28] Y. d. Valle, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, S. Mohagheghi, J. C. Hernandez,
and R. G. Harley, "Particle Swarm Optimization: Basic Concepts,
Variants and Applications in Power Systems," IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, pp. 171-195, 2008.
[29] F. v. d. Bergh and A. P. Engelbrecht, "A new locally convergent particle
swarm optimiser," in Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2002 IEEE
International Conference on, 2002, p. 6 pp. vol.3.
[30] M. Assadian, M. M. Farsangi, and H. Nezamabadi-pour, "GCPSO in
cooperation with graph theory to distribution network reconfiguration
for energy saving," Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 51, pp.
418-427, 3// 2010.
[31] S. Yang, H. Cheng, and F. Wang, "Genetic Algorithms With Immigrants
and Memory Schemes for Dynamic Shortest Path Routing Problems in
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 40, pp. 52-63,
2010.
[32] D. Zhang, Z. Fu, and L. Zhang, "An improved TS algorithm for loss-
minimum reconfiguration in large-scale distribution systems," Electric
Power Systems Research, vol. 77, pp. 685-694, 4// 2007.
[33] T. T. Nguyen, S. Yang, and J. Branke, "Evolutionary dynamic
optimization: A survey of the state of the art," Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation, vol. 6, pp. 1-24, 10// 2012.

Kumar Utkarsh (S16) received the Bachelor of

Technology degree in Electrical Engineering from
the Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi,
India, in 2011. He is currently working towards the
Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer
Engineering at the National University of Singapore,
Singapore. His research interests are in power
system optimization, renewable energy integration,
and utilization and development of computational
intelligence and distributed control techniques for
efficient smart grid operation.

Anupam Trivedi (M15) received the Dual degree

(Integrated Bachelors and Masters) in Civil
Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology
(IIT) Bombay, India, in 2009. He received the Ph.D.
degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from
National University of Singapore, Singapore in 2015,
where he is currently a Research Fellow. His research
interest is in evolutionary algorithms, multi-objective
optimization, and power system scheduling.

Dipti Srinivasan (M89SM02) received the Ph.D.

degree in Engineering from the National University
of Singapore in 1994. She worked as a Postdoctoral
Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley,
from 1994 to 1995 before joining the National
University of Singapore, where she is currently an
Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering. Her research interest is
in the application of soft computing techniques to
engineering optimization and control problems.

2471-285X (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.