An Optimal Day-Ahead Operation Strategy
for Hybrid Energy Microgrid
Mohamed Elgamal1, Nikolay V. Korovkin2,
Ahmed Refaat3
Institute of Energy and Transport Systems
Peter the Great Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University
Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation
1
elgamal.mm@edu.spbstu.ru,
2
Nikolay.Korovkin@gmail.com,
3
Ahmed_refaat_1984@eng.psu.edu.eg
Abstract— This paper proposes a strategy for optimal day-
ahead operation of a microgrid. The latter includes hybrid
energy resources and an energy storage system (ESS). The
forecasted day-ahead hourly average of metrological data and
loads are fed into the energy management system (EMS).
Accordingly, it decides the day-ahead hourly active and reactive
power shares of each energy source. It also identifies the ESS
charging/discharging periods and the tap setting of the main grid
coupling transformer. The overall objective is to maximize the
microgrid profit satisfying all constraints. The microgrid
purchases/sells active and reactive powers from/to the main grid
with time-varying energy price. The day-ahead operation of the
microgrid is formulated as an optimization problem solved by a
combined rule base - heuristic approach. The modified particle
swarm optimization (PSO) technique is used as optimization
solver. Moreover, the efficacy of the proposed EMS is verified by
performance comparison to recent literature.
Keywords— Energy management; Optimization; Renewable
generation; Energy storage
I. INTRODUCTION
Microgrid (MG) is a distribution grid integrating different
types of distributed generators (DGs) to supply loads. It can
work in a grid-connected or islanded configurations[1]–[3].
Various ESSs and DGs in the MG such as photovoltaic units
(PV), wind turbine units (WT), fuel cell units (FC), and
microturbine units (MT) have to be operated in a coordinated
manner. So, an EMS has to be established [4]. EMS supervises
the dynamic operation of electrical generation and transmission
systems to maintain security of energy supplies at the minimum
cost [5]. It performs many functions such as monitoring,
processing, and communicating/negotiating. EMS may also
estimate generated powers, load levels, and energy prices of
market. Thus, EMS optimizes MG performance in view of the
technical and economic constraints [4].
The control framework of MG EMS is categorized into
centralized, hierarchical and decentralized EMSs [5]. In
centralized EMS, the central controller collects all the system
data such as generating power of DGs, operating cost, and
demand. Then, it determines the optimal control decisions for
all MG subsystems. In hierarchical EMS, the main MG
489
Akram Elmitwally
Electrical Engineering Department
Najran University
Najran, Saudi Arabia
kelmitwally@yahoo.co
controller exchanges the information with each local controller
in real-time. The MG central controller figures out the optimal
decision and informs the local controllers. The main advantage
of centralized and hierarchical types is that they may get the
global optimal solution. Decentralized EMS is formed by
distributed controllers with coordinated operation.
The common approaches used in centralized EMS include
PSO, meta-heuristics algorithms such as BAT algorithm,
hyper-spherical search algorithm, mathematical programming,
Petri-net method, and artificial intelligence methods [6]. Refs.
[7]–[21] report EMSs for MG based on various optimization
techniques to minimize the operating cost and load shedding.
These include only the active power dispatch of the energy
resources. So, this may not yield the maximum possible profit
of the MG. Also, it may bring voltage violations and line
congestion problems. Ref. [6] presents a PSO-based EMS that
considers both active and reactive power dispatch of the DGs
with the main grid. Nonetheless, it ignored the use of devices
such as under load tap changer of the main grid transformer
(ULTC) and available capacitor banks to eliminate voltage
violations and line congestions.
This paper proposes a day-ahead EMS for a grid-connected
MG using a combined rule base-PSO method. The proposed
EMS has the following merits:
• Considers the reactive power cost and dispatch of DGs
in the EMS,
• Takes the reactive power exchange between the MG
and the main grid into account,
• Maintains buses voltages, eliminates lines congestions,
and prevents overstress on the ULTC.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
In this paper, DGs and ESS are optimally operated to
maximize the day-ahead profit of MG. Both the active and
reactive powers are involved. The profit of MG (MGPRO) is
expressed as:
978-1-7281-0339-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

The first two terms in (1) represent the total daily revenue
from selling active and reactive powers to the loads and the
main grid, respectively. The next two items represent the
maintenance and operation cost of ESS and DGs in the MG,
respectively. λP,buy,t and SAt denote the active power buying
price of market ($/kWh) and amount of sold active power (kW)
at hour t, respectively. λQ,buy,t and SRt indicate the reactive
power buying price of market ($/kVArh) and amount of the
sold reactive power (kVAR) at hour t, respectively.
The total daily maintenance cost of ESS and DGs is defined
in (2). Where, PPVr,i, MCPV,i, nPV are the power rating of the ith
PV unit (kW), maintenance cost of the ith PV unit ($/kW), and
number of PV units, respectively. PWTr,j, MCWT,j, nWT are the
power rating of the jth WT unit (kW), maintenance cost of the
jth WT unit ($/kW), and number of WT units, respectively.
SFCr,m, MCFC,m, nFC are the power rating of the mth FC unit
(kVA), maintenance cost of the mth FC unit ($/kVA), and
number of FC units, respectively. SMTr,l, MCMT,l, nMT are the
power rating of the lth MT unit (kVA), maintenance cost of the
lth MT unit ($/kVA), and number of MT units, respectively.
SESSr,k, MCESS,k, nESS are the power rating of the kth ESS unit
(kVA), maintenance cost of the kth ESS unit ($/kVA), and
number of ESS units, respectively. SULTC, MCULTC are the
apparent power flow in the main grid transformer (kVA),
which is a function of the ULTC tap position, and the
maintenance cost of the ULTC ($/kVA), respectively.
The hourly operating cost of each dispatchable generator is
considered as [6], [12], [19]:
Co,t = λp,t Pt + λQ,t Qt (3)
Where, λP,t is the operation cost of active power ($/kW). λQ,t
is the operation cost of reactive power ($/kVAr). Pt and Qt are
the average active and reactive power outputs at the tth hour,
respectively.
The objective is
Max MGPRO (Pi , Qi) (4)
where Pi, and Qi are the active and reactive power outputs
of dispatchable DGs, EES, and the main grid, respectively.
Subject to:
 Generator constraints
Pg,min ≤ Pg,t ≤ Pg,max (5)
490
Qg,min ≤ Qg,t ≤ Qg,max (6)
Where, Pg,t is the generator output active power at time t.
Pg,max, Pg,min are maximum and minimum generated active
power, respectively. Qg,t is the generator output reactive power
at time t. Qg,max, Qg,min are maximum and minimum generated
reactive power, respectively.
 ESS constraints
SOCmin ≤ SOCt ≤ SOCmax (7)
Where, SOCt is the ESS state of charge at time t. SOCmax,
SOCmin are maximum and minimum ESS state of charge,
respectively.
 Line and transformer flow constraints
Sij ≤ Sij,max (8)
where Sij is the apparent power flow in a branch connecting
node i and node j. Sij,max is the maximum flow in that branch.
 Bus voltage constraints
Vmin ≤ Vi ≤ Vmax (9)
where Vi is the voltage at node i, Vmin is its minimum
voltage, and Vmax is its maximum voltage.
 ULTC constraints
Tmin ≤ Treg,t ≤ Tmax (10)
Nmov ≤ Nmov,max (11)
where Treg,t is the main grid transformer tap position at time
t, Tmin is the minimum value of Treg,t , and Tmax is the maximum
value of Treg,t. Nmov is the number of ULTC movements per day,
Nmov,max is the maximum value of Nmov.
III. SOLUTION ALGORITHM
The above-formulated nonlinear constrained optimization
problem is solved by a combined rule base-PSO approach. PSO
is an iterative strong meta-heuristic optimization technique as
detailed in [22]. Input data of the problem are the day-ahead
forecasts of: hourly average meteorological data, the hourly
average load, and buying/selling energy prices of the market.
The technical and economic data of each MG element, and
initial PSO parameters are also defined.
In this paper, the control vector xp, variables to be finally
decided for each hour, includes generating active and reactive
powers of MT, FC, charging/discharging power of ESS, and
tap position of ULTC.
The solution steps are as follows:
1. Each particle in the population specifies the initial active
and reactive powers of each DG, charging /discharging
power of ESS and the tap position of ULTC for the tth day
hour.
2. Each particle in the population specifies the state of
charge/discharge of ESS according to the following rule-
base system:
a. If the energy selling price of market (λP,sell,t) is less than
the threshold charging price of the ESS (i.e., 40% of the
maximum energy buying price of the market [23]) then
 the particle sets ESS power as a positive value • Tap range of ULTC is ±12 steps. Importing and
(charging mode) and generates a random value of the exporting active power limits of the main grid are 3
ESS power PESS Є {0, Pmax,Ch} at the itth iteration, at the MW and 5 MW, respectively.
time t.
• Table 1 indicates the capacity limits and control type for
b. If the energy selling price of market (λP,sell,t) is more each generation unit. Table 2 shows MT and FC
than the threshold charging price of the ESS, and ESS is operating cost data. Table 3 gives the full data of the
not fully charged (SOCt < SOCmax), and the total active ESS [6], [21].
power generation from the renewable resources is more
than the total power of MG load, then the particle • Annual maintenance costs for WT, PV, ESS, FC, and
adjusts the ESS power as a positive value (charging MT are 75, 20, 20, 25, and 25 $/kVA/year, respectively
mode) and sets the ESS power value at the difference [6], [12].
between the total active power generation from all
renewable resources and the total MG load at the time t
up to the itth iteration. 1
c. If the energy buying price of market (λP,buy,t ) is more 2
than the threshold discharging price of the ESS (i.e.,
70% of the maximum energy selling price of the market 19 PV2 3

[23]) and SOCt > SOCmin, then the particle adjusts the 23
4
ESS power as a negative value (discharging mode) and 18 PV3

generates a random value of the ESS power such that 20

5 ESS 24
PESS Є {Pmax,Dis, 0} at the itth iteration, at the time t.
6 25 WT3
3. Perform power flow. Then, calculate the objective function 21 WT2

MGPRO of each particle using (1). 7 26

22 MT
4. If the particle satisfies all constraints go to step 5. 8 27
Otherwise, the particle is helpless and is discarded.
9 28
5. Compare each successful particle position with its Pbest, FC
where Pbest is the position with the best fitness found so far 10 29
for this particle. If the position is better than its latest Pbest, PV4

set this position, values of the control vector, as the new 11

30
Pbest. 12
PV1 31
6. Identify the successful particle having the maximum fitness
value, and set its Pbest as the current global solution Gbest. 13
32 WT4
7. Update the velocity and position of particles as in [22]. 14
33
8. If any of the following stopping criteria (maximum number
15
of iterations or maximum computational time) is reached,
then go to step 9. Otherwise, go to step 2. 16

9. Obtain the maximum value of the objective function

17
(MGPRO) and Gbest at the tth day hour, then go to step 1 for WT2

the next hour. 18

IV. SIMULATION MODEL

Fig. 1. Modified IEEE 33-bus test distribution system
The modified IEEE 33-bus test distribution system, shown
in Fig. 1, is used as a MG to evaluate the proposed approach. TABLE I. CAPACITY LIMITS AND CONTROL TYPE FOR GENERATION UNITS
The total system load is 6.51 MW and 3.15 MVAr. The basic
system data is provided in [24]. ESS is located at bus 5. FC is Bus
Unit Control Power limits (min, max)
located at bus 9. MT is located at bus 26. PV generators are type type P (MW) Q (MVAR)
located at buses 12, 19, 23, 29. WT generators are located at 5 ESS PQ -1.5, 1.5 0
buses 16, 21, 25, 32 as illustrated in Fig. 1. The proposed 9 FC PQ 0.15, 1 0, 0.75
solution algorithm is programmed as a MATLAB m-file and 12 PV MPPT 0, 0.35 0
run on a PC with 2.3 GHz CPU and 4 GB RAM. For the PSO, 17 WT MPPT 0, 0.55 0
population size, maximum iterations, cognitive parameter and 19 PV MPPT 0, 0.45 0
social parameter are selected as 50, 100, 2 and 2, respectively.
21 WT MPPT 0, 1.25 0
The following modifications are made to the test 23 PV MPPT 0, 0.35 0
distribution network: 25 WT MPPT 0, 0.65 0
26 MT PQ 0.1125, 0.75 0, 0.52
29 PV MPPT 0, 0.4 0
32 WT MPPT 0, 0.55 0

491
 TABLE II. MT AND FC OPERATING COSTS

Parameter Value Unit

MT active power cost 57 $/MWh
MT reactive power cost 5.7 $/MVArh
FC active power cost 50 $/MWh
FC reactive power cost 5 $/MVArh

TABLE III. ESS DATA

Parameter Value Unit

Full capacity of ESS 16.5 MWh
SOCmin, SOCmax 20, 80 %
Pmax,Ch, Pmax,Dis 1.5, -1.5 MW
ηch, ηdis 90, 92 %
Life time 10000 Cycle
175 $/kVA
Investment cost
225 $/kWh
Fig.3. Electricity buying prices of market, (a) active power, (b) reactive power
V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A. Results of the proposed method B. Comparison
The values of solar radiations and wind speeds are obtained Table 4 compares the performance of the proposed strategy
from the data reported in [25]. Also, the simulation is done for against recent methods reported in [6] and [12]. The proposed
a typical day in the summer season. Fig. 2 provides the average strategy achieves the best economic performance. Technically,
aggregated hourly powers of PV generators, WT generators, it keeps the daily minimum and maximum bus voltage within
and the MG load for the selected day. Fig. 3 provides the the allowable limits, while voltage violations occurs by the
hourly active and reactive powers buying prices of market [9], method in [12]. Moreover, it keeps the power flows of all lines
[26]. The active and reactive powers selling prices of market within the maximum limits, whereas a congestion occurs using
are 90% of buying prices according to [12]. Assume that the the method in [6]. A congestion on line 1-2 occurs during the
loads on buses 1-6 increase to three times of their original on-peak load period from 06:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. and from
values for the whole day and the initial charge of ESS is 25%. 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Besides, Fig. 6 compares the stored
energy profile of the ESS. Fig. 7 compares the convergence
As shown in Fig. 4, ESS will purchase active power from profile of these techniques for solving the EMS optimization
main grid and start charging mode from 02:00 AM to 07:00 problem at t = 07:00 (seventh day hour). According to Fig. 7, it
AM, during off-peak load and low-price period, as expected. is clear that the proposed method not only converges to a better
Also, the active and reactive powers setting for MT and FC are solution, but also has the highest convergence rate. It can be
adjusted optimally to increase MG profit, as shown in Fig. 4. concluded that the proposed method is more efficient, faster
The daily MG profit is 5760 ($). It is noted that the MG daily and more robust than methods reported in [6] and [12].
profit would be lowered to 5120 ($) if the ESS is not
integrated. Fig. 5 shows the tap position variation of the ULTC.
The number of ULTC tap movements per day is kept within
the seven-movements limit as recommended.

Fig.4. Active and reactive power dispatch of main grid, FC, and MT, and ESS
Fig.2. Total active power of (a) MG load, (b) PV generators, and (c) WT
generators

492

Fig.5. Tap position of the ULTC
TABLE IV. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONTROL APPROACHES
Parameter
Proposed
method
Daily profit, ($)
Daily average power loss, (kW)
Daily minimum voltage, (pu)
Daily maximum voltage, (pu)
Run time, s
Fig.6. Stored energy in ESS using the proposed method, PSO in [6], and BAT
in [12]
Fig.7. Convergence plot at t = 07:00 using the proposed method, PSO in [6],
and BAT in [12] .
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposes a day-ahead EMS of a microgrid. This
EMS coordinates the operation of different type DGs, ULTC
and ESS to maximize the MG profit. It controls both the active
and reactive power productions of all resources in the MG
working in a time-varying electricity prices market. Hence, it
prevents voltage violations and line congestion by satisfying all
MG operation constraints. The day-ahead operation of the
microgrid is formulated as a constrained nonlinear optimization
problem. A combined rule base-heuristic approach is
developed to handle this problem. The rule base specifies the
operating mode of the ESS. The modified particle swarm
optimization technique is used as optimization solver. The
forecasted day-ahead hourly average of metrological data and
loads are inputted to the EMS. So, it determines the day-ahead
hourly active and reactive power shares of each DG. It also
PSO BAT in identifies the ESS charging/discharging state, power, and the
in [6] [12] tap setting of the ULTC. Moreover, the capability of the
5760 5731 5416 proposed EMS is justified by comparison to other two recent
71.2 74.4 111.2 schemes. The proposed EMS is noted to be more efficient,
0.95 0.95 0.9373 faster and more robust.
1.05 1.022 1.01
REFERENCES
1526 1924 1771
[1] A. Micallef, M. Apap, C. Spiteri-Staines, and J. M. Guerrero, “Single-
Phase Microgrid with Seamless Transition Capabilities between Modes
of Operation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 2736–2745,
2015.
[2] N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay, “Microgrids,”
IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 5, no. 4. pp. 78–94, 2007.
[3] W. Su, J. Wang, and J. Roh, “Stochastic energy scheduling in
microgrids with intermittent renewable energy resources,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1876–1883, 2014.
[4] C. Chen, S. Duan, T. Cai, B. Liu, and G. Hu, “Smart energy
management system for optimal microgrid economic operation,” IET
Renew. Power Gener., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 258, 2011.
[5] F. Nejabatkhah and Y. W. Li, “Overview of Power Management
Strategies of Hybrid AC/DC Microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 30, no. 12. pp. 7072–7089, 2015.
[6] H. Saboori and R. Hemmati, “Maximizing DISCO profit in active
distribution networks by optimal planning of energy storage systems
and distributed generators,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 71, no.
11, pp. 365–372, 2017.
[7] P. Chaweewat, J. G. Singh, W. Ongsakul, and A. K. Srivastrava,
“Economic and environmental impact assessment with network
reconfiguration in microgrid by using artificial bee colony,” in
Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Cogeneration,
Small Power Plants and District Energy, ICUE 2016, 2016.
[8] M. Sedghi, A. Ahmadian, and M. Aliakbar-golkar, “Optimal Storage
Planning in Active Distribution Network Considering Uncertainty of
Wind Power Distributed Generation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
31, no. 1, pp. 304–316, 2016.
[9] J. M. Javadi, Mohammad Sadegh, Amjad Anvari-Moghaddam,
Guerrero, “Optimal Planning and Operation of Hybrid Energy System
Supplemented by Storage Devices,” Proc. 7th Sol. Integr. Work. Berlin,
Ger., pp. 1–6, 2017.
[10] D. Fendri and M. Chaabene, “Energy dispatching strategy for micro-
grid using hybrid Petri nets model,” in 2017 4th International
Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies
(CoDIT), 2017, pp. 0992–0996.
[11] M. J. Sanjari, H. Karami, A. H. Yatim, and G. B. Gharehpetian,
“Application of Hyper-Spherical Search algorithm for optimal energy
resources dispatch in residential microgrids,” Appl. Soft Comput. J.,
vol. 37, pp. 15–23, 2015.
[12] B. Bahmani-Firouzi and R. Azizipanah-Abarghooee, “Optimal sizing of
battery energy storage for micro-grid operation management using a
493
 new improved bat algorithm,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol.
56, pp. 42–54, 2014.
[13] M. Asaduz-Zaman and A. H. Chowdhury, “Optimum economic
dispatch of interconnected microgrid with energy storage system,” in
2nd International Conference on Electrical Engineering and
Information and Communication Technology, iCEEiCT 2015, 2015.
[14] D. E. Olivares, C. A. Canizares, and M. Kazerani, “A centralized
energy management system for isolated microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1864–1875, 2014.
[15] Y. Wu, V. K. N. Lau, D. H. K. Tsang, L. P. Qian, and L. Meng,
“Optimal energy scheduling for residential smart grid with centralized
renewable energy source,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 562–576,
2014.
[16] A. Sheikhi, M. Rayati, S. Bahrami, and A. M. Ranjbar, “Integrated
demand side management game in smart energy hubs,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 675–683, 2015.
[17] C. O. Adika and L. Wang, “Autonomous appliance scheduling for
household energy management,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 673–682, 2014.
[18] J. Han, C. Choi, W. Park, I. Lee, and S. Kim, “Smart home energy
management system including renewable energy based on ZigBee and
PLC,” IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 198–202,
2014.
[19] C. F. Calvillo, A. Sánchez-Miralles, J. Villar, and F. Martín, “Optimal
planning and operation of aggregated distributed energy resources with
market participation,” Appl. Energy, vol. 182, pp. 340–357, 2016.
494
[20] A. Berrada and K. Loudiyi, “Operation, sizing, and economic
evaluation of storage for solar and wind power plants,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 1117–1129, 2016.
[21] S. A. Alavi, A. Ahmadian, and M. Aliakbar-Golkar, “Optimal
probabilistic energy management in a typical micro-grid based-on
robust optimization and point estimate method,” Energy Convers.
Manag., vol. 95, no. 10, pp. 314–325, 2015.
[22] R. C. Eberhart and Y. Shi, “Particle Swarm Optimization :
Developments , Applications and Resources,” Proc. 2001 Congr. Evol.
Comput. (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546), pp. 1–6, 2001.
[23] N. M. Nor, A. Ali, T. Ibrahim, and M. F. Romlie, “Battery Storage for
the Utility-Scale Distributed Photovoltaic Generations,” IEEE Access,
vol. 6, pp. 1137–1154, 2017.
[24] P. Hu, H. Chen, and X. Zhu, “Planning of Microgrid considering power
quality constraints,” in Proceedings of International Conference on
Harmonics and Quality of Power, ICHQP, 2016, vol. 2016–Decem, pp.
727–732.
[25] M. Kandil, M. Saadawi, M. Saeed, and A. Hassan, “Modified particle
swarm optimisation technique for optimal design of small renewable
energy system supplying a specific load at Mansoura University,” IET
Renew. Power Gener., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 474–483, 2015.
[26] D. T. Nguyen and L. B. Le, “Optimal bidding strategy for microgrids
considering renewable energy and building thermal dynamics,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1608–1620, 2014.