Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mepcon Hassanien2018 AA Final
Mepcon Hassanien2018 AA Final
Mepcon Hassanien2018 AA Final
net/publication/330324909
Smart Charging and Discharging of Plug-in Electric Vehicles for Peak Shaving
and Valley Filling of the Grid Power
CITATIONS READS
17 573
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Evaluation and Mitigation of Electric Vehicles Charging Impacts on Distribution Networks View project
Investigation and mitigation of PEVs impacts on the distribution system View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hassanien Ramadan on 21 February 2019.
Abstract—From the power grid perspective, the widespread alleviate these impacts, smart or coordinated charge
of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) integration into the electric scheduling algorithms are developed. Moreover, with PEVs
networks rises concerns regarding power system components smart charge scheduling, several services such as peak
overloading and power quality issues. However, PEVs would shaving, load leveling, voltage regulation and frequency
bring beneficial opportunities to the power system in the future. regulation can be provided by PEVs using V2G technology.
In order to alleviate the negative effects of PEVs, smart In the literature, several algorithms have been presented to
charge/discharge scheduling algorithms are developed. manage the charge scheduling of PEVs with different
Moreover, with PEVs smart scheduling, the vehicles fleet can be objective functions. Authors in [4] developed an algorithm
used to support the power grid through vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
with an objective function to minimize the network losses due
technology by injecting power into the grid during peak periods.
This paper presents a centralized smart charge/discharge
to PEVs charging by optimizing the charging times and
scheduling algorithm to optimize the charging/discharging of powers. Research works in [5], [6] scheduled PEVs charging
PEVs with the aim to achieve peak shaving and valley filling of to achieve power grid load profile flattening and minimizing
the grid load profile subjected to various power grid and PEVs the load variance. Other research studies focused on
constraints. The solution of the optimization problem is realized minimizing the PEVs owner charging cost or maximizing
using a particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. The PEVs aggregator profit as in [7] and [8], respectively.
algorithm of charge/discharge scheduling is developed and
This paper presents the development of a smart
tested within MATLAB environment. The simulation results
charge/discharge scheduling algorithm of PEVs with an
verify the potential of the algorithm to achieve the objective
function and satisfy the various constraints which in turn lessen objective to achieve peak shaving and valley filling of the grid
the adverse impacts of PEVs charging. load profile. This is accomplished by allowing PEVs to
discharge their available energy storage during the peak
Keywords—plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), PEVs smart periods and conduct charging during the valley times
scheduling, V2G technology, peak shaving and valley filling, subjected to various power grid and PEVs constraints. The
particle swarm optimization (PSO). optimization problem is handled using particle swarm
optimization (PSO) algorithm within MATLAB environment.
I. INTRODUCTION The IEEE 33-bus distribution test system is used to evaluate
Due to energy shortages and environmental pollution, the the algorithm for different case studies. The obtained
plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) without emission, low noise, simulation results show the ability of the algorithm to achieve
and high efficiency is an unavoidable choice for vehicular power grid base load flattening objective and satisfy the
sustainable development. The industry of automotive is various constraints.
heavily investing in electric vehicles (PEVs and plug-in hybrid The organization of this paper is managed as follows.
electric vehicles (PHEVs)) to reduce the emission of Section II presents a detailed formulation of the optimization
greenhouse gases and fossil fuel dependency of current algorithm objective function, constraints, PEVs modeling, and
automotive technology. PEVs are getting more widespread as the PSO method. In section III, a description of the power grid
a long-term vehicular technology to decrease the dependency topology is provided. Section IV discusses the simulation
on fossil fuel and the CO2 emission. However, with an results. Finally, conclusions are drawn in sections V.
increase in penetration of PEVs, uncoordinated charging can
lead to additional problems on the distribution power grid. II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The large-scale adoption of PEVs will elevate the load A. Objective Function
demand which represents new challenges to the electric power The goal of the optimized charge/discharge scheduling is
grid. Therefore, extensive studies have been conducted on the to achieve grid load profile flattening. Knowing the grid load
adverse impacts of PEVs charging on the power grid. These curve, the optimal load curve which can be realized by shaving
impacts include grid equipment overloading, power system the peak period and filling the valley period can be
losses and power quality issues such as voltage deviation, constructed. Then, the optimizer task is to minimize the
voltage unbalance and harmonics distortion [1]–[3]. To difference between base load curve and optimized load curve
min 𝑓𝑡 𝑠. 𝑡. 𝛩 (1) 10
PEVs (% )
8
𝑓𝑡 = (𝑃𝑏,𝑡 − 𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡,𝑡 )2 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡 = 1: 𝑇 (2) 6
Probability
at each bus in the system and the grid technical limits such as 0.2
the voltage minimum and maximum values and lines thermal
limits. The developed charge/discharge scheduling algorithm 0.15
consider the following vehicle-related constraints: 0.1
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Charging station
Grid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Charging station
19 20 21 22
𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖,𝑗 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑓(𝑥𝑘+1 𝑘 battery SOC and the voltage at the charging station are
𝑖,𝑗 ) > 𝑓(𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 )
𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗
= { (10) examined. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
𝑥𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 , 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒 algorithm, the results are compared with a dumb charging
scenario where PEVs will start charging immediately when
𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑗 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛{𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 } (11) connected to the power grid.
A. Study Case A
𝑣𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑤𝑣𝑘𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑐1 𝑟1 (𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 − 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 )
(12) In this case, a target load profile is designed to reduce the
+ 𝑐2 𝑟2 (𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑘𝑖 − 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 ) difference between the peak and valley values of the grid load
profile from 2169 kW (in the base load profile, Fig. 4) to 1272
𝑥𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑥𝑘𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑣𝑘+1
𝑖,𝑗 (13) kW.
𝑘+1
where 𝑖 is the particle number in the swarm, 𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 and The grid load profile with uncoordinated charging is
𝑘 shown in Fig. 4. It should be observed that with uncoordinated
𝑥𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖,𝑗 are the jth dimensional components in the search
space of the particle best solution in kth and k+1th iteration, charging the grid loading is increased at peak periods with a
𝑘+1
respectively. 𝑥𝑖,𝑗 is the jth dimensional components of the peak value of 4123 kW at 20:00, which correspond to an
increase of 11.56% from the base case. Fig. 5 shows the grid
particle position in the k+1th iteration. 𝑥𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑗𝑘 is the jth loading when the smart charging algorithm is applied. It can
dimensional component in the search space of the global best be noted that the load curve with PEVs smart charging is
𝑘 𝑘+1
position experienced by the swarm. 𝑣𝑖,𝑗 and 𝑣𝑖,𝑗 are the almost identical to the target load curve. Table 1 shows a
particle velocity at kth and k+1 iteration. w is the inertia comparison between the load profile characteristics values for
weight, 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are acceleration parameters. 𝑟1 and 𝑟2 are the base case, PEVs uncoordinated charging and smart
random numbers with uniform distribution. charging. Generally, with smart charging, the decrease in the
peak load is 334 kW, and the increase in the valley load is 563
III. GRID TOPOLOGY kW. The difference between grid maximum and minimum
loading is reduced by about 57%.
The developed charge/discharge scheduling strategy
presented in this paper has been applied to the IEEE 33-bus
distribution system presented in Fig.3. The test system is base load uncoordinated PEVs charging
network are detailed in [13]. Three CSs are connected to buses 2500
18, 21 and 30. Each CS has a capacity of 100 PEVs. The 2000
battery capacity of PEV is assumed to be 24 kWh and the 1500
maximum charging/discharging rate is 4 kW. 1000
500
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Power (kW)
Power (kW)
2500 200
2000 100
1500 0
1000
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-100
500
0 -200
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-300
Time (h) -400
Time (h)
Fig. 8. Grid loading with smart charging.
Fig. 5. PEVs total injected/absorbed power to the grid.
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
each CS will start to absorb power from the grid to meet the 9 Time (h)
target load profile. Consequently, the SOC of PEVs increases
and at 7:00 (end of the valley period) it approaches the Fig. 7. Voltage profile at bus 18.
maximum limit (100%, which is the required final SOC).
valley values being reduced to 716 kW compared to 1272 kW
The voltage profile at bus 18 is presented in Fig. 8. in the previous case. The new target load profile is shown in
Considering the maximum loading hour (t=20:00). In case of Fig. 9.
uncoordinated charging, it can be noted that the voltage
reached 0.88 pu which violates the lower limit (0.9). On the The grid load profile with PEVs smart charging is depicted
other hand, with smart charge/discharge scheduling, the in Fig. 9. In this case, the grid load profile does not track the
voltage remains within acceptable limits and with a lower target profile at all time instants. For example, at the beginning
variation in the voltage value. As an example, at bus 18 the of the peak periods, the optimized load profile and target
voltage varies between 0.88 and 0.96 pu in case of profile are the same. That is to say, the PEVs available energy
uncoordinated charging, while it varies between 0.91 and 0.95 for discharging is greater or equal to the energy required for
pu with smart charging. Also, in the case of smart charging, peak shaving. Then, almost after 19:00 the two profiles differ
the voltage during the peak periods is enhanced compared to because the available energy for discharging is lower than the
the base case because of the power injected by PEVs during energy required to achieve peak shaving. In the valley periods,
this period. For example, the voltage at bus 18 has been whenever the PEVs energy charging requirement is greater or
enhanced from 0.9 to 0.91 pu at 20:00. equal to the required energy for valley filling, the optimized
load profile and target profile are exactly the same. After
B. Case study B (t=2:15) the PEVs load demand requirements are lower than
To further evaluate the developed algorithm and to show the energy to be absorbed to achieve the target valley filling,
the effect of the target load profile on the result, a target load this explains the difference between the two profiles. The total
profile is designed with the difference between the peak and power transfer between PEVs and the grid is shown in Fig. 10.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Base load curve
Target load curve
In this study, a centralized smart charge/discharge
Load curve with PEVs smart charging
scheduling algorithm of PEVs which aims to flatten the grid
load profile through proper controlling the charging/
4000
3500
discharging power of PEVs has been developed and tested.
3000 PSO technique has been used to handle the optimization
Power (kW)
2500 problem. The IEEE 33-bus distribution system has been used
2000 as a test system. The test system modeling and algorithm
1500 development is realized within MATLAB environment. The
1000
500
simulation results demonstrate the ability of the proposed
0 algorithm to achieve the objective function and satisfy the
various constraints under different case studies. Moreover, the
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Time (h) advantages of smart charging compared to the uncoordinated
Fig. 9. Grid loading with PEVs smart charging. charging to reduce the voltage drop (the voltage is even
enhanced compared to the base case) and grid maximum
1000 loading is verified.
800 REFERENCES
600 [1] M. K. Gray and W. G. Morsi, “Power Quality Assessment in
Distribution Systems Embedded With Plug-In Hybrid and Battery
400
Power (kW)
Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp.
200 663–671, Mar. 2015.
[2] F. Un-Noor, S. Padmanaban, L. Mihet-Popa, M. Mollah, and E.
0 Hossain, “A Comprehensive Study of Key Electric Vehicle (EV)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9