4458
5, SEPTEMBER 2018
A Microgrid Multilayer Control Concept for
Optimal Power Scheduling and Voltage Control
Christof Deckmyn, Tine L. Vandoorn, Jan Van de Vyver, Jan Desmet, and Lieven Vandevelde
Abstract—In this paper, a novel multilayer control structure
for microgrids is proposed. A scheduling layer comprehends the
minimization of the microgrid operating costs together with the
CO2 emissions produced and provides a sequence of power ref-
erences for the next 24 h. Subsequently, within the executive
layer, an off line ac power flow calculation will be performed to
obtain the initial values of the voltage magnitudes of the differ-
ent microgrid buses. The adjustment layer, which is the scope
of this paper, includes a control strategy to maintain the voltage
in the network. The purpose of this third layer is to keep the
voltage within a pre-specified tolerance band by adjusting the
power provided by the microgrid distributed energy resources
(DER). Depending on the voltage deviation, the location of the
DER units in the network and their distance from the voltage
deviation, an appropriate dynamic gain will be provided to the
relevant DER units. The renewed settings are then fed back to
the first layer, which performs a new optimization and redis-
tributes the adjusted reference set points among the DER units.
The performance and effectiveness of the proposed hierarchical
multilayer control structure were evaluated and demonstrated by
several case studies.
Index Terms—Microgrid, environomic, genetic algorithm,
multilayer, voltage control.
I. I NTRODUCTION
ER PLAY a major role in the path towards the future
D energy landscape. These technologies, which are cur-
rently in different stages of development, drive us to a more
decentralized energy world. Fuel cells, wind turbines, pho-
tovoltaics, or more traditional energy sources such as diesel
generators, are being deployed at a rapid pace. Deploying
DER in a widespread, efficient and cost-effective way requires
advanced control strategies and can help the distribution grid
in the progress towards a smarter grid. The trend towards the
enhancement of the environomical effectiveness and resilience
of the main grid can be supported by smart microgrids [1].
Microgrids are subsystems of the main grid consisting of an
Manuscript received November 5, 2015; revised April 15, 2016, September
12, 2016, and December 26, 2016; accepted January 23, 2017. Date of pub-
lication January 25, 2017; date of current version August 21, 2018. This
work of J. Van de Vyver was supported by the SBO Project OptiWind.
Paper no. TSG-01426-2015.
C. Deckmyn, T. L. Vandoorn, J. Van de Vyver, and L. Vandevelde are
with the Electrical Energy Laboratory, Department of Electrical Energy,
Systems and Automation, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium (e-mail:
christof.deckmyn@ugent.be).
J. Desmet is with Lemcko, Department of Electrical Energy, Systems and
Automation, Ghent University, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSG.2017.2658865
1949-3053 c 2017 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.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 9, NO.
aggregation of (controllable) loads and DER units including
dispatchable sources, renewable energy sources (RES) and dis-
tributed storage devices. They can operate either connected
or isolated from the utility grid. Since the architecture of
microgrids can change on a regular basis, and in order to
increase their potential of scalability, control strategies should
be implemented in a plug-and-play fashion.
Controllability is crucial to the concept of microgrids. The
distributed structure of a microgrid comprises a network of
local controllers connected to each microgrid element. It is
with these power electronic inverters, cooperative actions can
be taken to control the microgrid [2]. The control concept
within microgrids is conceived as a hierarchical control, which
is adapted from the transmission level [3]–[8]. In literature,
prior work has been done on hierarchical energy management
systems for microgrids. In [9], an energy management strategy
was developed for microgrids in grid-connected mode without
considering cases of operation in islanded mode. In [10], a
double-layer coordinated control approach for microgrids is
developed and tested for both operating modes. This strategy
obtains an economic optimization of the microgrid without
considering the environmental aspects. In [11] and [12], the
voltage of weak microgrids with inverter-connected sources
was discussed. Both do not consider the economical nor the
environmental optimization of the microgrid in grid-connected
as well as in islanded operating mode.
In this paper, the future operational states of the controllable
units within the microgrid are determined ahead of time. The
proposed concept follows the idea of a microgrid day-ahead
planning including the unit commitment problem (scheduling
layer), an off line power flow calculation (executive layer)
and a security check with feedback control (adjustment layer).
Since the complete multilayer control concept works on a
day-ahead time scale, the multilayer model can be consid-
ered as an off line optimization approach. With this approach,
the problem is solved on a day-ahead basis, allowing an
online implementation to be achieved via real-time system
state updates. The proposed multilayer control is presented
in Fig. 1. The scheduling layer finds out the power set points
(at quarter-hourly intervals) of the DER units and is based the
day-ahead energy market, the demand bids, and the availabil-
ity of renewable energy sources. The executive layer performs
an off line system load flow calculation in order to determine
the voltages at the different buses in the network. The adjust-
ment layer provides a dynamic gain to adjust the boundaries
of the microgrid generation units according to the data com-
ing from the executive layer. This layer is utilized to maintain
DECKMYN et al.: MICROGRID MULTILAYER CONTROL CONCEPT FOR OPTIMAL POWER SCHEDULING AND VOLTAGE CONTROL
Fig. 1. Microgrid multilayer control structure.
the voltage within the acceptable limits. Subsequently, when
closing the loop, the scheduling layer recalculates and updates
the power settings of the DER units by considering the output
from the adjustment layer as a feedback. This iterative process
will continue until all voltage violations are eliminated and a
converged optimal solution is found.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II, discusses
the multilayer control structure. In Section III, the proposed
voltage control approach is described and verified with a
clear example. A demonstration and validation is given in
Section IV. Section V, concludes the paper.
II. M ICROGRID M ULTILAYER C ONTROL S TRUCTURE
The proposed multilayer control concept, which is presented
in Fig. 1, is decoupled into three sub-problems, including a UC
problem (scheduling layer), a load flow calculation (executive
layer) and a security check with feedback control (adjustment
layer). As introduced before, the focus of this multilayer model
is on the optimal off line microgrid planning which can pro-
vide an input for an online microgrid application. The different
levels of the microgrid multilayer control structure will be
described in the following sections.
A. Scheduling Layer
The scheduling layer forms the highest level in this micro-
grid multilayer control concept. Within this layer, a day-ahead
UC strategy is implemented which involves the simultaneous
optimization of the fuel costs and the CO2 emissions of the
local generators [13], [14]. This layer starts with the initial-
ization of the characteristics of the DER units, the availability
of the (predicted) renewable energy production, the demand
bids, and the day-ahead market conditions. Subsequently, a
4459
15 minute power generation schedule will be calculated for
the next 24 hours. In order to solve this multi-objective UC
problem, a hybrid goal attainment based genetic algorithm is
used. The algorithm is based on the evolutionary ideas of
natural selection, mutation and recombination. In literature,
genetic algorithms are commonly used for power dispatch
optimization, UC and voltage profile improvement [15]–[20].
The operation of the algorithm will not be further discussed
in detail, since the scope of this paper is voltage control.
Furthermore, in the paper, we did not consider the forecast pro-
cess or techniques nor the accuracy on these forecasts, since
these parameters depends on several factors including local
climate, forecast horizon, whether forecasts apply to a single
point or cover a wide geographic area, etc.
The objective is to minimize the cost and CO2 emissions
of the microgrid local energy production:
Min(CG (PG ), εG (PG )) (1)
where CG (PG ) and εG (PG ) are the operating cost and the CO2
emission of the microgrid power generation units respectively.
Both should be minimised over the variable PG of which their
values can be considered as the active power reference set
points (kW). A fuel cost function describes the cost to oper-
ate a generator to produce an additional unit of power. The
most prevalent fuel cost model, is the quadratic model which
describes the fuel cost as a quadratic function of the genera-
tors active power output. Fuel-based thermal generators where
fuel is oil, coal and gas (e.g., small internal combustion engine
generators, micro turbines and fuel cells) have a quadratic fuel
cost function [21]. Accordingly, the operating cost, in e/h, of
these generating units within the scheduling time horizon can
be presented as follows:
N N
 
gen
 
CG (PG ) = aj (i) + bj (i) · PG j + (i − 1) · Ngen
i=1 j=1
 
+ cj (i) · P2G j + (i − 1) · Ngen (2)
where aj , bj and cj are the fuel cost coefficients of the jth gen-
eration unit. The form of the emission function model depends
on the types of pollutants. In general, CO2 emissions of fuel-
burning generators are directly related to the consumed amount
of fuel, and can be expressed based on the quadratic fuel con-
sumption curves [22]. Hence, the amount of CO2 in kg/h can
be expressed as a quadratic function of the generators active
power output:
N N
 gen
 
εG (PG ) = dj (i) + ej (i) · PG j + (i − 1) · Ngen
i=1 j=1
 
+ fj (i) · P2G j + (i − 1) · Ngen (3)
where dj , ej and fj are the emission coefficients.
The objective function presented in (1) is constrained by
physical relations in load flows and system performance
requirements. A first constraint is that the sum of each power
generating unit (including the slack bus generator) must equal
4460 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 9, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2018

the actual consumption within the microgrid, and is expressed
below:
Ngen

PGj = PaD (4)
j=1
were PaD , represents the actual demand. In this paper, the line
losses were included in PaD and are assumed to be 5.05% of
the microgrid energy actual demand [23]. Since RES, such as
PV and wind, produce power at zero running cost and zero
emissions, their output power can be treated as a negative
load. Therefore, the power generated by renewables PRES is
subtracted from the total demand Ptotal
D in order to obtain the
actual demand PaD :
PaD = Ptotal
D − PRES (5)
The total demand includes a fixed part (Pfixed
D ) which is non-
controllable and a flexible part (Pflexible ):
D
D = PD
Ptotal + Pflexible .
fixed
D (6)
In this work, as a part of a demand side participation strategy,
a flexible load is introduced which can be controlled within
its limits when it is connected to the microgrid. This will be
explained further in this section.
The power reference set point of each microgrid unit is
bounded by the upper bound and by the lower bound, PGmin
and PGmax respectively.
PGmin < PG < PGmax (7)
In this paper, a storage element is added which participates
in the commitment strategy where the charge and discharge
commands are allocated according to the lowest cost and the
lowest CO2 emissions. Besides, the commands of charging and
discharging are associated to the energy prices as well which
takes advantage of purchasing power from the upstream grid
(slack bus generator) and selling it back according to the most
favorable microgrid revenue. Pstorage is given as an indication
to the reference set point of the storage unit. Since Pstorage is
an active power reference set point (kW) and Estorage (kWh)
represents the (dis)charged energy over a period with N time
steps, Pstorage is multiplied by the time span (Ts ) of the time
step as presented below:

N
Estorage = Epre−storage + Pstorage(i) · Ts (8)
i=1
where Epre-storage is the energy stored in the storage unit at the
end of the previous day. At any time, Estorage or the energy
level of the storage unit is non-negative and has a defined
range with a minimum and a maximum.
Emin < Estorage < Emax (9)
In case the storage unit is charging and acting as a load, Pstorage
has a negative value. For charging, the set point P storage during
the time span Ts of a time step is constrained by:
Pstorage · Ts ≤ Emax − Estorage (10)
When the storage unit is discharging, active power will be
injected in the microgrid bus and Pstorage has a positive value.
For discharging, the set point Pstorage during the time span Ts
of a time step is constrained by:
Pstorage · Ts ≤ Estorage − Emin (11)
Note that Estorage should not be confused with Pstorage · Ts .
Estorage represents the state of charge (SOC) over a period of
N · Ts . Whereas Pstorage · Ts indicates how much energy the
storage unit (dis)charges at a given time step Ts . Furthermore,
the rate of the storage unit (for charging and discharging) is
constrained and already included in (7).
In addition, a flexible load with the characteristics of an
electric vehicle is implemented and can only store energy (act-
ing as a load). The index to the variable name PEV is given
as an indication to the reference set point of the electric vehi-
cle (EV). The flexible load can only be committed when it is
connected to the microgrid (between Tin and Tout ):

Tout
EEV = EEVTin + PEV (i) · Ts (12)
i=Tin
where EEV represents the energy level of the EV. EEVTin is
the energy stored in the EV at the time step when the electric
vehicle is plugged in. Similar to the storage device, EEV has
a defined range with a minimum and a maximum:
EEVmin < EEV < EEVmax (13)
An extra constraint was added where the EV should be charged
with a certain amount of energy on the time step it will be
unplugged (EEVTout ) and can be represented as a percentage
of EEVmax .
When the EV is committed to charge and acting as a load,
PEV has a negative value. For charging, the set point PEV
during the time span Ts of a time step is constrained by:
PEV · Ts ≤ EEVmax − EEV (14)
The active power rate of the EV unit is non-negative and has
a defined range with a minimum and a maximum (7).
Given the input characteristics, the objectives, the
(in)equality constraints, and the algorithm options, the power
set points of the different microgrid generation units are cal-
culated (for each time step) in a way that over the complete
time horizon the objectives are optimized.
B. Executive Layer
In order to determine the future operational states of the
microgrid units whereby the bus voltages are maintained
within acceptable limits, an off line load flow calculation
should be performed to obtain the initial values of the volt-
age magnitudes of the different microgrid buses. Therefore,
within the executive layer, an AC power flow calculation will
be performed with the power reference set points calculated
by the scheduling layer to obtain the values of the voltage
magnitudes of the different buses in the microgrid network. In
this paper, a microgrid model was built with Matlab Simulink
to perform a load flow calculation and extract the numerical
values of the bus voltages.
DECKMYN et al.: MICROGRID MULTILAYER CONTROL CONCEPT FOR OPTIMAL POWER SCHEDULING AND VOLTAGE CONTROL 4461

C. Adjustment Layer
After the load flow calculation, the numerical values of the
bus voltages are transmitted to the third layer. The adjust-
ment layer, which is the scope of this paper, is utilized to
maintain the bus voltages and contains a security check with
feedback control to the first layer. The purpose of this third
layer, is to keep the voltage within a pre-specified tolerance
band by producing more or less power provided by the micro-
grid generation units. In case of a severe voltage deviation at
any bus within the microgrid, a dynamic gain will be intro-
duced. Depending on the deviation (positive or negative), and
on the location of the power generation units and their respec-
tive distance from the voltage problem, an appropriate gain
will be provided to adjust the boundaries (7) of the microgrid
generation units. In this way, the range (between the lower and
upper bound) in which the set point can be committed will be
modified. Subsequently, when closing the loop, the renewed
boundaries are then fed back to the scheduling layer, which
recalculates the UC solution. The updated power generation
schedule will again go through the second and third layer of
the control hierarchy. This iterative process will continue until
the voltage violations are eliminated and a converged optimal
solution is found. Due to the introduction of this third layer,
active power reference set points can be provided not only
according to the economical and the environmental objectives,
Fig. 2. Flowchart security check with feedback voltage control approach.
but also taking to account the voltage level at every bus in the
microgrid. The solutions can be used for an online microgrid
system state update. In the next section, the voltage control will be explained in the next section. In case of an undervolt-
method will be presented in detail. age, the lower boundaries will be increased by the dynamic
gain in order to increase the reference set points and to reduce
III. VOLTAGE C ONTROL A PPROACH the voltage deviation. In case of an overvoltage, the upper limit
Microgrids are receiving a growing interest as they can will be decreased and as a result the reference set points will
provide a coordinated approach for the integration of DER be reduced. The output power of RES can only be adjustment
units [24]. In comparison with traditional networks [25], by curtailment (by adjusting their upper boundaries).
microgrids are often based on mainly resistive distribution With this third layer (and feedback loop), active power ref-
network lines [26]. Typical R/X values vary between 2 and 8. erence set points can be provided (for real-time scheduling)
As a result, the active power/voltage (P/V) control strategies according to the economical and the environmental objec-
are becoming more relevant in these microgrids because of tives, and taking to account the microgrid bus voltages. In
the linkage between P and V [27], [28]. Therefore, the voltage the following subsection, the voltage control method will be
control method presented in this work is done by influencing explained in more detail.
the active power set points of the microgrid generation units.
B. Mathematical Model
A. Control Strategy Distribution networks are typically operated loopy or
In this subsection, the dynamic voltage control approach, meshed. However, for practical engineering concerns, the
which is embedded in the adjustment layer, will be explained. majority of distribution grids are operated as radial networks.
The process of the control strategy via a dynamic gain which This radial topology distinguishes distribution networks from
influences the boundaries of the microgrid generation units transmission networks which have multiple loops energized
can be explained using the flowchart depicted in Fig. 2. In a all the time to guarantee continuous delivery of power to
first step, the numerical values of the bus voltages transmitted every node. The microgrid considered in the paper has a
by the executive layer will be initialized and evaluated. If one radial network topology. The structure of a radial distri-
of the bus voltages exceeds the permissible limits, the voltage bution network has important features which motivates the
control approach will be activated in order to adjust the bound- development of this control strategy.
aries of the microgrid generation units. Depending on the The dynamic gain, which influences the boundaries and as
deviation (under- or overvoltage), a ‘factor’ and a ‘network’ a result the reference set points of the power generation units,
matrix will be introduced in order to construct the dynamic will be explained by introducing a network matrix (N ) and
gain which modifies the boundaries of the microgrid gener- a factor matrix (F). The network matrix is represented as
ation units. The definition and construction of both matrices an Nunit -by-Nbus matrix and contains the contribution of the
4462 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 9, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2018

microgrid units (connected to the appropriate bus) to mitigate The input entries FUVm,i and FOVm,i are presented below:
the voltage deviation at a certain bus. Nunit can be considered
FUVm,i = fUV · vm (%) (21)
as the number of units within the microgrid, such as loads,
controllable loads, RES and DER units including distributed FOVm,i = fOV · vm (%) (22)
generation (DG) units and distributed storage (DS) devices. where the factors fUV and fOV are represented as dimensionless
⎡ ⎤ binaries which indicate an under- or overvoltage. In case of
Cunit1 to bus1 ··· Cunit1 to busNbus
⎢ Cunit2 to bus1 ··· Cunit2 to busNbus ⎥ an undervoltage deviation (Vbus < Vmin ), factor fUV will be
⎢ ⎥
NNunit ,Nbus = ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (15) set to ‘1’ and fOV will be set to ‘0’. In case of an overvoltage
⎣ . . . ⎦ (Vbus > Vmax ), fUV will be set to ‘0’ and fUV will be set to
CunitNunit to bus1 · · · CunitNunit to busNbus ‘1’. In case no voltage deviation occurs, both values are set
to ‘0’. Subsequently, as presented in (21) and (22), the factor
where, Cunitk to busm represents the contribution of unit k to the values are multiplied by the percentage deviation with respect
voltage deviation at bus m. This contribution is represented to VN of the corresponding bus (vm (%) = VbusV−V nom
· 100).
by a positive value which depends on the distance (Dk to m ) of nom
This will make the dynamic gain dependent on the voltage
the microgrid unit to the location of the bus with the voltage deviation of the corresponding bus.
deviation, and is dimensionless. In order to build up the dynamic gain which enables the
1 microgrid units to contribute proportionally to the voltage
Cunitk to busm = 1 + (16)
D deviation and with the distance to the location (of the volt-
where D is a dimensionless quantity: age deviation), the network matrix (N ) and the factor matrix
(F) are multiplied. As a result, the dynamic gain for the lower
Lk to m and upper boundaries are constructed as Nbus -by-N matrices
D= (17)
Lmax and are presented in (23) and (24).
⎡ ⎤
with, Alb1,1 ··· Alb1,N
⎢ Alb2,1 ··· Alb2,N ⎥
Lmax = maxk,m (Lk to m ) (18) ⎢ ⎥
N · FUV = ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (23)
⎣ . . . ⎦
Lk to m is the line length which reflects the line impedance from AlbNbus ,1 ··· AlbNbus ,N
unit k to bus m. The closer the unit is located to the voltage ⎡ ⎤
deviation, the greater it’s contribution to the voltage deviation. Aub1,1 ··· Aub1,N
⎢ Aub2,1 ··· Aub2,N ⎥
In case of a voltage deviation at the location of the microgrid ⎢ ⎥
N · FOV = ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (24)
unit, the contribution of the unit itself will be set to ‘1’. This ⎣ . . . ⎦
is because the voltage deviation caused in such a case, is due AubNbus ,1 ··· AubNbus ,N
to, and can be reduced by the unit itself. At the same time the
contribution of the other units will be set to ‘0’. where, Albk,i and Aubk,i representing the gain of the lower and
Note that, the network matrix (N ) was built up including upper boundaries of the kth microgrid unit on the ith time step.
every unit within the microgrid (as well the non-controllable Note that a dynamic gain is provided for every unit within the
loads who are not participating in the UC). Therefore, within microgrid since this is a result of the multiplication with the
N , the number of microgrid units (Nunit with index k) is used network matrix (N ). However, non controllable loads are not
and not Ngen , which includes only the microgrid units who participating in the UC strategy, and therefore, they cannot be
are participating the UC. Since in this work, only controllable controlled by a certain gain. This was included by providing
loads, RES and DER units (including DG and DS units) are a contribution value of ‘0’ to the units who are not participat-
assumed to contribute to voltage deviations, the contribution ing in the UC strategy as explained in (15). As a result, the
of the non-controllable loads was set to ‘0’ within N . dynamic gain of these units will be zero.
Secondly, 2 factor matrices are introduced which indicate Depending on the deviation (positive or negative), and on
on which bus a voltage deviation occurs. Both, a factor matrix the location of the power generation units and their respec-
for undervoltages (FUV ) and a factor matrix for overvoltages tive distance from the voltage problem, an appropriate gain
(FOV ) will be used. They can be presented as an Nbus -by-N will be provided to adjust the boundaries of the microgrid
matrix (N time steps). units who are participating in the voltage control strategy.
⎡ ⎤ When an undervoltage occurs, the lower bound of the micro-
FUV1,1 ··· FUV1,N grid units should be increased. In case of an overvoltage, the
⎢ FUV2,1 ··· FUV2,N ⎥
⎢ ⎥ upper bounds of the microgrid units should be decreased. The
FUV = ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (19) relationship between the dynamic gain and the boundaries is
⎣ . . . ⎦
FUVNbus ,1 ··· FUVNbus ,N presented in the equations below:
⎡ ⎤ PGmink,i = PGmink,i − Prange · Albk,i
FOV1,1 ··· FOV1,N (25)
⎢ FOV2,1 ··· FOV2,N ⎥ PGmaxk,i = PGmaxk,i − Prange · Aubk,i (26)
⎢ ⎥
FOV =⎢ .. .. .. ⎥ (20)
⎣ . . . ⎦ where Prange represents the range between the lower and upper
FOVNbus ,1 ··· FOVNbus ,N bound. Note that the dynamic gain is proportional to the
DECKMYN et al.: MICROGRID MULTILAYER CONTROL CONCEPT FOR OPTIMAL POWER SCHEDULING AND VOLTAGE CONTROL 4463

range, and besides, depends on the type of microgrid unit.

Using (25) and (26), the range (between the lower and upper
bound) in which the set point can be committed will be modi-
fied. In case of an under voltage, Alb is negative which result in
an increase of PGmin . In case of an over voltage Aub is positive
and results in a decrease of PGmax . In the following section, a
demonstration is given in order to validate the performance and
effectiveness of the proposed hierarchical multilayer control
structure.

IV. D EMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION

In power systems, the bus voltages are considered as a
critical performance factor which should lie within a specific
range [29]. The EN50160 is a European standard that defines
voltage characteristics of the electricity supplied by public
distribution systems. According to this standard, the distribu-
tion system operator (DSO) is considered to keep the voltage Fig. 3. Microgrid test network.
between -10% (207.0 V) and +10% (253.0 V) of the nominal
distribution voltage (VN = 230 V) [30]. In purely voltage opti-
mization, the aim is to maintain the system voltage magnitudes
as close as possible to a nominal voltage. The multilayer con-
trol concept proposed in this paper, provides an economically
and environmentally viable UC that is physically feasible in
terms of voltage violations. Due to the introduction of this third
layer (in which the voltage control is embedded), active power
reference set points can be provided (for real-time scheduling)
not only according to the economical and the environmen-
tal objectives, but also taking to account the voltage level at
every bus in the microgrid. The voltage control approach aims
to reduce this deviation by providing a dynamic gain to the
corresponding power generation units in order to adjust their
boundaries in which they can be committed. In fact, there will Fig. 4. Microgrid load profile and RES production.
be deviated from the economical and environmental optimal
set points given by the first layer in order to maintain the TABLE I
voltage at every bus. This can be strengthened by the fact F UEL C OST AND E MISSION C OEFFICIENTS
that security of supply has an overriding priority. On the other
hand, a small tolerance band can increase the deviation from
the economical and environmental optimal set points. In this
paper, the voltage control approach is utilized to maintain the
voltage within ±5% tolerance band.
In the following case study, a day-ahead microgrid
was simulated with and without voltage control approach.
Additionally, events of under and overvoltages will be dis-
cussed and how they are tackled by the voltage control The cost and emission coefficients of the thermal generation
approach. The microgrid test network is presented in Fig. 3 units are listed in Table I. The microgrid generator capac-
and includes 11 low voltage (LV) buses connected downstream ities are listed in Table II. A CO2 emission intensity of
from a distribution transformer. Furthermore, the studied 381 · 10−3 kg/kWh [31] was considered for the power supply
system includes renewable energy resources, a storage unit, of the slack bus generator. The cost coefficient of the slack
two micro turbines, a fuel cell and a controllable load includ- bus generator is related to a variable pricing scheme which
ing 4 electric vehicles. Serving the microgrid load (Load 1 + is presented in Fig. 5. For the storage unit, Emin was set to
Load 2 + Load 3 + Controllable Load), active power can be 0 kWh, Emax was set to 40 kWh, and EEV max of each EV
produced either by the thermal generation units, the slack was set to 80 kWh. The charging rate of each EV is lim-
bus generator, the storage device, or the renewable energy ited between -19.2kW and -7.2kW, which results in a total
resources. (4 EVs) minimum and maximum charging rate of -28.8kW
The profiles of the different microgrid loads, and the renew- and -76.8kW respectively. The length (L) between the buses
able energy production during the complete time horizon (24 are assumed to be 200m with an R/X value of 7.7 (R = 0.642
hour, 96 time steps of 15 minutes) are depicted in Fig. 4. and X = 0.083) [32].
4464
TABLE II
M ICROGRID G ENERATOR C APACITIES
Fig. 5. Market conditions.
A. Day-Ahead Unit Commitment With Voltage Control
In this section, a demonstration is given where the volt-
age control approach is embedded in the multilayer control
structure and maintains the microgrid bus voltages within
pre-specified limits.
1) Scheduling Layer: Based on the day-ahead energy mar-
ket, the demand bids, and the availability of renewable energy
sources, a 15 minute power generation schedule for the next 24
hours was calculated by the scheduling layer. The active power
is scheduled among the different microgrid units while min-
imising the operating costs together with the produced CO2
emissions. The reference set points are presented in Fig. 6.
The total microgrid load (Ptotal
D ) is presented by the thick black
line. The actual load (PaD ) (excluding the power produced by
the renewable sources) is presented by the thin black line.
Between 11:00 a.m. and 14:30 p.m. (time step 44-58), and
between 18:00 p.m. and 19:30 p.m. (time step 72-78), a con-
gestion signal is introduced by the DSO. These time steps are
chosen arbitrary in order to present the influence on the com-
mitment strategy. During this signal, the slack bus generator
is committed to zero and no energy is exchanged between
the microgrid and the main grid. As a result, a transition to
islanded mode is scheduled. Because of the lack of the slack
bus generator, the buying and selling price were neglected dur-
ing these periods. The maximum power which can be delivered
depends on the upper bounds of the controllable thermal gen-
erators and the stored energy. During the islanded operation
mode, the fuel cell has the greatest contribution in the unit
commitment. This can be explained by the fact that the fuel
cell has the lowest fuel cost and lowest emission rate.
When the power produced by the wind turbine becomes
high (time steps 1-6 and 90-96), the storage device will be
charged. During periods of islanded operation, the storage
unit will be discharged which reduces additional output power
from the thermal generation units, and as a result reduces
the total cost and emission of the microgrid operation. The
EVs were plugged in between 09:00 a.m. and 17:00 p.m.
(time step 36-68). At 17:00 p.m, the EVs are fully charged.
During islanded mode, the EVs are charged at their maximum
rate in order reduce additional output power from the thermal
generation units.
2) Executive Layer: Within the executive layer, an AC
power flow calculation is performed with the power reference
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 9, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2018
Fig. 6. Set points UC without voltage control.
Fig. 7. Busvoltages without voltage control.
set points calculated by the scheduling layer. The bus voltages
are presented in Fig. 7. During the complete time horizon,
the voltage at bus 5 and bus 6, on which load 2 and RES1
are connected, are the lowest. Especially, during periods of
high energy demand, the voltage drops below 5%. It is clear
that during time steps 70-84 an undervoltage occur at bus
5 and bus 6, on which load 2 is connected. This can be
explained by the fact that during this period (time step 79),
the energy demand becomes excessively high and causes
and undervoltage. The same happens between time steps 22
and 42.
During periods of low microgrid demand (time steps 1-6
and 90-96) and while the power produced by the wind turbine
becomes very high, an overvoltage occurs at bus 11 on which
RES2 is connected.
We can conclude that power scheduling without consider-
ing the bus voltages can result in voltage violations. In the
following section, the adjustment layer is presented, which is
utilised to maintain the bus voltages and contains a security
check with feedback control to the first layer.
3) Adjustment Layer: The adjustment layer, which is the
scope of this paper, includes a control strategy to maintain
the voltage in the network. The purpose of this third layer
is to keep the voltage within a pre-specified tolerance band
by adjusting the boundaries of the microgrid units. Due to
the introduction of this third layer, the active power reference
set points will be provided (for real-time scheduling) not only
according to the economical and the environmental objectives,
but also taking into account the voltage level at every bus in
DECKMYN et al.: MICROGRID MULTILAYER CONTROL CONCEPT FOR OPTIMAL POWER SCHEDULING AND VOLTAGE CONTROL 4465

Fig. 9. Set points and boundaries on time step 5.

Fig. 8. Set points and busvoltages between time steps 1-15.

the microgrid. In fact, a deviation will be made from the eco-

nomical and environmental optimal set points given by the first
layer in order to maintain the voltage at every bus. In this work,
the tolerance band of the voltage control approach is set to 5%.
Based on the voltage deviation (vm (%)), it can take several
iterations until the bus voltages are controlled within the tol-
erance band. Within every iteration, a loop through each layer
of the control hierarchy will be performed. As a result, each
iteration comes with an updated set of reference set points for
each time step N of the complete time horizon. Additional, for
every set of reference set points per iteration, an updated set
of bus voltages will be provided. In order to clarify the oper-
ation of the voltage control strategy and it’s dynamic gain, we Fig. 10. Set points and busvoltages on time step 5.
will focus on the iterations within the hierarchical multilayer
control approach each time for a certain time step a voltage
deviation occurs.
The sequence of power references and the corresponding
bus voltages are presented in presented in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
Two events with a voltage deviation (greater that 5%) will be
discussed in this work. One between time step 1-15 and one
between time step 70-84.
The first event of a voltage deviation (greater that 5%)
occurs between time step 1 and 15 and a detailed plot of the
power reference set points and the corresponding bus voltages
during this period is presented in Fig. 8.
On time step 5, Load 1 consumes 100.68 kW, Load 2 con-
sumes 91.38 and Load 3 consumes 94.4 kW. During this time Fig. 11. Set points and busvoltages between time steps 70-84.
step, RES2 (Wind) produces 270.17 kW. As a result, the volt-
age bus 11 rises above 5% and as a result, the voltage control the bus voltages, between iteration 1 and 4, are presented in
approach will be activated which can be verified on Fig. 8. Fig. 10.
The voltage control approach aims to reduce this deviation by Note that the reference set points of the other generation
providing a dynamic gain to the corresponding power gener- units are increasing in order to cover the reduced wind power
ation units in order to adjust their boundaries, and as a result, and to maintain the power balance. After 4 iterations the
their range in which they can be committed. In this particu- overvoltage at bus 11 is reduced within the 5% tolerance band.
lar case, the upper bound of RES2 will be decreased by the A second event of a voltage deviation (greater that 5%)
dynamic gain in order to decrease the reference set points occurs between time step 70 and 84. This can be explained by
and to reduce the voltage deviation. This process continues the fact that during this period, the energy demand becomes
until the microgrid bus voltages are within acceptable limits. excessively high and causes and undervoltage in the network.
The reference set points of RES2 throughout the iterations are A closer look of the power reference set-points and the
presented in Fig. 9. corresponding bus voltages during this period is presented
It is clear that the upper bound of RES2 is decreasing in in Fig. 11.
order to decrease the reference set points and to reduce the On time step 79, Load 1 consumes 168.47 kW, Load 2
voltage deviation at bus 11. The redistribution of the reference consumes 210.59 kW and Load 3 consumes 42.11 kW. During
set points among the different microgrid units together with this time step, an undervoltage occurs at bus 5 and 6 due
4466
Fig. 12. Set points and boundaries on time step 79.
Fig. 13. Set points and busvoltages on time step 79.
to the high power demand of Load 2 which can be verified
on Fig. 11. During the same iterations, the voltage control
approach kicks in at this time step, and aims to reduce this
deviation by providing a dynamic gain to the corresponding
power generation units in order to adjust their boundaries, and
as a result, their range in which they can be committed. The
lower boundaries will be increased by the dynamic gain in
order to increase the reference set points and to reduce the
voltage deviation. The range and the reference set points of
the microgrid units are presented in Fig. 12.
The lower bounds of the microgrid units are increasing
in order to increase the reference set points and to increase
the voltage at bus 5. The lower boundary of the fuel cell has
the steepest increase since this unit has the closest location
to the voltage deviation (load 2). The increase of the lower
bounds of micro turbine 1 and 2 are quite similar since their
distance to bus 5 is equal. Note that the boundaries of the EVs
are not presented since they do not participate in the UC at
time step 79 (already unplugged). After 4 iterations the under-
voltage at bus 5 and 6 (on time step 79) is reduced within
the 5% tolerance band. The redistribution of the reference set
points among the different microgrid units together with the
bus voltages are presented in Fig. 13.
The converged sequence of power references and the cor-
responding bus voltages are presented in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15.
During the complete time horizon, the voltages at every bus
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 9, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2018
Fig. 14. Set points UC with voltage control.
Fig. 15. Busvoltages with voltage control.
in the microgrid are reduced within the 5% tolerance band.
The total cost is slightly decreased with 8.02% and the total
CO2 emission is slightly increased with 2.3%. This can be
explained by the fact that the use of the slack bus generator
is reduced in order to reduce the undervoltages over the com-
plete time horizon. In order to compensate this reduction, the
thermal generators (especially the micro turbines) were com-
mitted in a higher output range, and with a higher emission
rate. The difference in total cost and total emission is very less.
This can be explained by the fact that the redistribution of the
power reference set points among the different microgrid units
is dependent on the voltage deviations and their location in the
network. As a result, the total cost and total emission for sim-
ulations including the voltage control strategy is dependent on
the voltage deviation.
V. C ONCLUSION
A novel multilayer control structure for microgrids is
demonstrated in this paper. The objective of this multilayer
control concept is to provide an economically and environmen-
tally viable UC that is physically feasible in terms of voltage
violations. A scheduling layer comprehends the minimization
of the microgrid operating costs together with the CO2 emis-
sions produced and provides a sequence of power references
for the next 24 hours. Subsequently, within the executive layer,
an AC power flow calculation will be performed to obtain the
initial values of the voltage magnitudes of the different micro-
grid buses. The adjustment layer, which is the scope of this
paper, includes a control strategy to maintain the voltage in
the network. The purpose of this third layer is to keep the
DECKMYN et al.: MICROGRID MULTILAYER CONTROL CONCEPT FOR OPTIMAL POWER SCHEDULING AND VOLTAGE CONTROL
voltage within a pre-specified tolerance band by adjusting the
power provided by the microgrid distributed energy resources
(DER). Depending on the voltage deviation, the location of the
DER units in the network and their distance from the voltage
deviation, an appropriate dynamic gain will be provided to the
relevant DER units. The renewed settings are then fed back to
the first layer, which performs a new optimization and redis-
tributes the adjusted reference set points among the DER units.
The performance and effectiveness of the proposed hierarchi-
cal multilayer control structure were tested and presented by
several case studies. It is clear that due to the introduction
of this third layer, active power reference set points can be
provided (for real-time scheduling) not only according to the
economical and the environmental objectives, but also taking
to account the voltage level at every bus in the microgrid.
In the paper, we did not consider the forecast process or
techniques nor the accuracy on these forecasts, since these
parameters depends on several factors including local climate,
forecast horizon, whether forecasts apply to a single point or
cover a wide geographic area, etc. However, it might be inter-
esting to implement a forecast technique and investigate the
impact of the accuracy on the power generation schedule in
future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research has been carried out in the frame of the
Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme initiated by the
Belgian Science Policy Office (IAP-VII-02).
R EFERENCES
[1] T. L. Vandoorn and L. Vandevelde, “Contribution of microgrids
to the development of the smart grid,” in Smart Grids: Clouds,
Communications, Open Source, and Automation (Devices, Circuits, and
Systems), D. Bakken and K. Iniewski, Eds. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC
Press, 2014, pp. 191–211.
[2] A. Bidram, A. Davoudi, F. L. Lewis, and S. S. Ge, “Distributed adap-
tive voltage control of inverter-based microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 862–872, Dec. 2014.
[3] D. E. Olivares et al., “Trends in microgrid control,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1905–1919, Jul. 2014.
[4] F. Dörfler, J. W. Simpson-Porco, and F. Bullo, “Breaking the hierarchy:
Distributed control and economic optimality in microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
Control Netw. Syst., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 241–253, Sep. 2016.
[5] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. de Vicuna, and M. Castilla,
“Hierarchical control of droop-controlled ac and dc microgrids—A
general approach toward standardization,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 158–172, Jan. 2011.
[6] T. L. Vandoorn, B. Meersman, J. D. M. De Kooning, and L. Vandevelde,
“Transition from islanded to grid-connected mode of microgrids with
voltage-based droop control,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 2545–2553, Aug. 2013.
[7] A. Bidram, A. Davoudi, F. L. Lewis, and Z. Qu, “Secondary control
of microgrids based on distributed cooperative control of multi-agent
systems,” IET Transm. Distrib. Gener., vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 822–831,
Aug. 2013.
[8] Q. Shafiee, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “Distributed sec-
ondary control for islanded microgrids—A networked control systems
approach,” in Proc. 38th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc. (IECON),
Montreal, QC, Canada, Oct. 2012, pp. 5637–5642.
[9] X. Li, G. Geng, and Q. Jiang, “A hierarchical energy management strat-
egy for grid-connected microgrid,” in Proc. IEEE PES Gen. Meeting
Conf. Expo., National Harbor, MD, USA, Jul. 2014, pp. 1–5.
[10] Q. Jiang, M. Xue, and G. Geng, “Energy management of microgrid
in grid-connected and stand-alone modes,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3380–3389, Aug. 2013.
[11] S. M. A. Shabestary, M. Saeedmanesh, A. Rahimi-Kian, and
E. Jalalabadi, “Real-time frequency and voltage control of an islanded
mode microgrid,” in Proc. 2nd Iran. Conf. Smart Grids (ICSG),
May 2012, pp. 1–6.
4467
[12] Z. Wang, M. Xia, and M. Lemmon, “Voltage stability of weak power
distribution networks with inverter connected sources,” in Proc. Amer.
Control Conf. (ACC), Washington, DC, USA, Jun. 2013, pp. 6577–6582.
[13] C. Deckmyn, T. L. Vandoorn, M. Moradzadeh, and L. Vandevelde,
“Multi-objective optimization for environomic scheduling in micro-
grids,” in Proc. IEEE PES Gen. Meeting Conf. Expo., National Harbor,
MD, USA, Jul. 2014, pp. 1–5.
[14] C. Deckmyn et al., “Day-ahead unit commitment model for microgrids,”
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Jan. 2017.
[15] S. Kahourzade, A. Mahmoudi, and H. B. Mokhlis, “A comparative study
of multi-objective optimal power flow based on particle swarm, evolu-
tionary programming, and genetic algorithm,” Elect. Eng., vol. 97, no. 1,
pp. 1–12, 2015.
[16] H. R. Magham, M. J. Sanjari, B. Zaker, and G. B. Gharehpetian,
“Voltage profile improvement in a microgrid including PV units using
genetic algorithm,” in Proc. 2nd Iran. Conf. Smart Grids (ICSG), Tehran,
Iran, May 2012, pp. 1–5.
[17] D. Devaraj and J. P. Roselyn, “Genetic algorithm based reactive power
dispatch for voltage stability improvement,” Int. J. Elect. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1151–1156, 2010.
[18] Y. L. Abdel-Magid, M. Bettayeb, and M. M. Dawoud, “Simultaneous
stabilisation of power systems using genetic algorithms,” IEE Proc.
Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 39–44, Jan. 1997.
[19] S. R. Karnik, A. B. Raju, and M. S. Raviprakasha, “Genetic algorithm
based robust power system stabilizer design using Taguchi principle,”
in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Emerg. Trends Eng. Technol., Nagpur, India,
Jul. 2008, pp. 887–892.
[20] A. P. A. da Silva and P. J. Abrao, “Applications of evolutionary compu-
tation in electric power systems,” in Proc. Congr. Evol. Comput. (CEC),
vol. 2. Honolulu, HI, USA, 2002, pp. 1057–1062.
[21] S. A.-H. Soliman and A.-A. H. Mantawy, Modern Optimization
Techniques With Applications in Electric Power Systems. New York,
NY, USA: Springer, 2012.
[22] B. Marti, “Emissions of power delivery systems,” Ph.D. dissertation,
EEH—Power Syst. Lab., Swiss Federal Inst. Technol. (ETH) Zurich,
Zürich, Switzerland, 2005.
[23] (2007). Distribution Line Loss. [Online]. Available:
http://www.hydroone.com/RegulatoryAffairs/Documents/EB-2007-0681/
Exhibit%20A/Tab_15_Schedule_3_Distribution_Line_Losses_Study.pdf
[24] M. A. Jangjoo and A. R. Seifi, “Optimal voltage control and loss reduc-
tion in microgrid by active and reactive power generation,” J. Intell.
Fuzzy Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1649–1658, 2014.
[25] F. Saccomanno, Electric Power Systems. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE
Press, 2003.
[26] T. L. Vandoorn, B. Renders, L. Degroote, B. Meersman, and
L. Vandevelde, “Active load control in islanded microgrids based on
the grid voltage,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 139–151,
Mar. 2011.
[27] T. L. Vandoorn, J. D. M. D. Kooning, B. Meersman, J. M. Guerrero,
and L. Vandevelde, “Automatic power-sharing modification of P/V droop
controllers in low-voltage resistive microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2318–2325, Oct. 2012.
[28] H. Laaksonen, P. Saari, and R. Komulainen, “Voltage and frequency
control of inverter based weak LV network microgrid,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Future Power Syst., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Nov. 2005, p. 6.
[29] M. Juamperez, G. Yang, and S. B. Kjær, “Voltage regulation in LV grids
by coordinated volt-var control strategies,” J. Modern Power Syst. Clean
Energy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 319–328, 2014.
[30] (Jun. 2012). SynerGrid C10/11. [Online]. Available:
http://www.synergrid.be
[31] S. Youli, Z. Litifu, and K. Nagasaka, “Efficiency of micro grid with
storage battery in reliability, economy and environment assessments,”
Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 154–162, 2009.
[32] A. Engler and N. Soultanis, “Droop control in LV-grids,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Future Power Syst., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005, p. 6.
Christof Deckmyn, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.
Tine L. Vandoorn, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.
Jan Van de Vyver, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.
Jan Desmet, photograph and biography not available at the time of publica-
tion.
Lieven Vandevelde, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.