1
Hierarchical Hybrid Architecture for Volt/Var Control of
Power Distribution Grids
Ahmad R. Malekpour, Member, IEEE, Anuradha M. Annaswamy, Fellow, IEEE, and Jalpa Shah, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a hierarchical-hybrid architecture
for Volt/Var control of distribution grids in the presence of high
penetration of distributed generators (DGs). The architecture
includes three layers with specific operational goals associated
with each layer based on data resolution, communication network,
and control device response time. The top layer carries out central
optimization and seeks to minimize power losses via optimal 15-
minute scheduling of load tap changers (LTCs), voltage regulators
(VRs), and capacitor banks (CBs), and DGs. The middle layer
ensures voltage regulation using a distributed approach for
reactive power provisioning by fast response DGs. The bottom
layer carries out local decision making that enlists edge
intelligence to operate LTCs, VRs and CBs to cope with fast and
real-time changes in DGs and loads. The top layer generates
overall references for the lower layers optimized over a 24-hour
horizon, updated at 15-minute intervals, which are then suitably
corrected at faster time-scales of seconds in the middle and bottom
layers. Appropriate coordination is introduced between each layer
so as to meet combined goals of optimization and accommodation
of load and generation uncertainties in near real-time. The
proposed method is validated using a modified IEEE 34 bus test
feeder and at 80% penetration of DGs.
Index Terms— Power distribution systems, reactive power
control, renewable energy, smart grid, solar power.
I. INTRODUCTION
O ne of the fundamental operating requirements of power
distribution system is volt/var control (VVC) where its
primary purpose is to improve voltage profiles along the
feeder and reduce real power losses under all loading
conditions. Traditionally, utilities use load tap-changer (LTC)
transformer, voltage regulator (VR) and capacitors for reactive
power and voltage control in distribution systems as shown in
Figure 1. LTCs are tap-changing autotransformers located in
distribution substations and designed to regulate voltage if it
violates the pre-set limits. VRs are also tap-changing
autotransformers to regulate voltage and typically located in
long feeders. Capacitor banks (CBs) are common reactive
power compensators in distribution systems and can be found
in both substation and distribution feeders. LTC and VR are
designed to change positions a few times a day to regulate the
voltage with respect to variations in the load.
High penetration of solar generation in distribution grids can
introduce significant challenges for carrying out efficient VVC,
as it introduces several problems associated with power quality
such as voltage rise [1], line overloading, reverse power flow
[2], voltage fluctuation [3], harmonics, and flickers [4].
Moreover, transient cloud cover can rapidly reduce solar power
generation, cause temporary voltage drop and tap changer
This work was supported by Eaton Corporation. Ahmad R. Malekpour and
Anuradha Annaswamy are with Department of MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139,
USA (armalek@mit.edu; aanna@mit.edu). Jalpa Shah is with Eaton
Corporation Inc., Eden Prairie, MN 55344, USA (JalpaShah@eaton.com)
cycling. The legacy devices such as LTC, VR, and CB can not
ensure satisfactory VVC with high penetration of PV. This
necessitates additional voltage control devices such as smart
inverters, which can provide a suite of advanced functionalities
for reactive power support and improving grid voltage stability
and control. However, smart inverters alone are not sufficient
to damp issues related to ramping behavior of solar PV. Given
the current growth of DG in the U.S. [1] as well as the projected
growth of renewable DGs such as wind and solar resources [2]
and [3], in addition to the use of legacy devices and smart
inverters, a well-coordinated control of DGs will play a
significant role in mitigating the issues and providing volt/var
support. This paper proposes a novel hierarchical-hybrid
architecture for VVC in distribution grids.
Over the years, various methods have been proposed for
VVC, which we broadly classify into centralized, distributed,
and local methods. The approaches adopted for the centralized
class rely on: optimal power flow (OPF) techniques applied to
a snapshot [5]-[8], or a time-series simulation [9]-[11] using
mixed integer linear programming (MILP) [5], sequential
convex programming (SCP)[4], interior point method [7],
quasi-Newton method [8], gradient descent methods [9],
evolutionary algorithms [10], [11] model predictive control
[12], and nonlinear programming (NLP) [13]. In [5], MILP is
used to formulate the volt/var optimization including LTCs,
switchable capacitors, and reactive power of DGs. In [6], three-
phase SCP-based OPF is introduced to solve the VVC problem
where the goal was to minimize reactive power of DG units
while satisfying operational constraints. In [7], primal-dual
interior point method for three phase electrical system
optimization was used, in which the phase unbalances were
taken into account. In [8], OpenDSS for three-phase load flow
analysis and quasi-Newton method were used to perform OPF
in unbalanced networks. In [9], an optimal dispatch of DGs and
loss minimization via switching shunt capacitors were
formulated using gradient descent methods. In [10], Genetic
Algorithm (GA) was used to minimize the power losses and
regulate the voltage through optimal scheduling of LTCs and
VRs. Probabilistic volt/var optimization was formulated in [11]
considering the uncertainty associated with renewable DGs via
applying Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). In [12], model
predictive control was used to regulate voltage in distribution
grid with high penetration of DG. In [13], NLP-based OPF was
used including LTC and capacitor operation. In [14], multi-
agent systems (MAS) were adopted to solve VVC problems. In
all of the above papers which consist of centralized decision-
making, it is assumed that problem information, cost
parameters, objectives, and decision authority are given to an

entity such as a distribution system operator (DSO). And the
DSO achieves the optimal solution using a centralized OPF
method. However, with high proliferation of DGs in medium-
and large-scale power distribution system, solving centralized
OPF in real-time needs significant investment in meters,
communications, and control system infrastructure.
The second set of methods consists of distributed approaches,
where the entire distribution network is split into sub-networks,
and an optimization problem is formulated for each sub-
network in order to manage the DGs. Several approaches have
been proposed to carry out the underlying OPF. Dual-
decomposition distributed algorithm with gradient ascent was
proposed in [14] for voltage regulation, where it was shown to
solve a convex relaxation of power flow equations. In [15],
[16], two decentralized optimization frameworks were
developed by leveraging the dual-ascent and alternating
direction method of multipliers (ADMM) to solve a
semidefinite programming relaxation of OPF. The goal was to
determine the active and reactive power set points of DGs. In
[17], two distributed approaches, dual-ascent and consensus-
based ADMM algorithms, were proposed to control reactive
power from PV inverters. The approaches require that each
node has its own set of constraints, its own objective function
and neighboring node to node message passing capability.
Hierarchical optimization for DG control without coordination
between the levels were presented in [18], [19]. A consensus
based method was used in [20] for adjusting reactive-power
injections. All of these approaches can reduce the
computational burden and communication needs by sharing the
optimization task among multiple control centers within each
network and enables large-scale implementation. However, it
requires advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) as well as
multiple control centers within the distribution grid to perform
the optimization which makes it expensive for field
implementation. Also ensuring the global feasibility of the
overall solution is quite difficult.
The third class can be categorized as local methods. These
approaches are based on local measurements and limited
communication between voltage control devices. For example,
in [21], reactive power provisioning of PV inverters was locally
optimized to reduce the power losses in the network. The
control design was based on an optimization procedure
involving the sensitivity theory in conjunction with the
Lyapunov function. In [22], an automatic distributed voltage
control algorithm based on sensitivity approach is used to
control the node voltages via regulating the reactive power
injected by DGs. A sensitivity-based decentralized local active
and reactive power control of DGs to overcome voltage and
thermal issues near the point of connection was presented in
[23]. The interaction of DG and LTC was not modeled and
explored. In [24], a distributed local reactive power control was
introduced to mitigate voltage rise due to DG integration in
distribution systems with occasional communication with the
distribution system operator. The approach increased feeder
losses as well as stress in tap changing of LTC. Local
approaches impose no or minimum communication burden
between control devices. Therefore, they are very simple and
the least expensive to implement. However, they are inherently
locally optimal due to the lack of full system information.
2
The proposed method in this paper combines the three
approaches mentioned above including a centralized, a
distributed and a local decision-making component. A
hierarchical hybrid structure is imposed on this combination so
that the best feature of each of these three components is
retained in the decision-making. The top layer of the proposed
approach is a centralized optimizer. This layer provides an
overall optimization framework and helps design the
hierarchical hybrid structure so as to minimize the losses in the
distribution grid. The middle layer of the proposed hierarchical
hybrid architecture is distributed method based on the concept
of consensus, and used for determining the reactive power
injections of the DGs in real-time. The bottom layer of the
proposed architecture provides edge intelligence through the
adjustment of legacy devices such as LTCs, CBs, and VRs
again using real-time voltage measurements.
We will show that the proposed hierarchical hybrid
architecture can effectively carry out VVC, utilize the more
traditionally used approaches of centralized optimization, and
at the same time use the availability of real-time measurements
to make online adjustments. A combined use of such
adjustments both for reactive power injection in the middle
layer and legacy devices in the bottom layer ensures that VVC
can be achieved using minimal switchings and
communications. Similar combinations of local and reactive
power control have been considered elsewhere. For instance in
[25], LTC and substation capacitors were adjusted remotely
using a dynamic programming approach. Combined central and
local active and reactive power control of PV inverters was
presented in [26] where a local controller was incorporated into
centralized optimization to reduce the search space and
computation complexity. In [27], a predefined control scheme
is suggested to coordinate LTCs, CBs and DGs in which
distribution grid is divided into zones with individual voltage
regulation and reactive support schemes. The approach
however was not successful in curtailing the voltage
fluctuations due to renewable integration and also resulted in
increased LTC and CB switching during the study. The
proposed approach in this paper overcomes these deficiencies
and provides an improved VVC.
II. APPROACH
The proposed hierarchical hybrid architecture is illustrated in
Figure 1. The top layer, denoted as Layer 1, receives a day-
ahead 15 minute load and generation forecasted data and
calculates the on/off status of CBs, tap operation of LTC/VRs,
and reactive power provisioning from DGs for the next 24
hours. As shown in Fig. 1, these setting will be communicated
to the middle and bottom layers, denoted as Layer 2 and Layer
3. In Layer 2, each DG receives the setting from the top layer,
measures the voltage at its terminal voltage, and determines the
required reactive power for local voltage regulation based on
droop-control method. If the voltage is higher or lower than
predefined upper/lower critical voltages, DG requests for
reactive power from its neighboring DGs that have additional
capacity. Each DG calculates its share of contribution to meet
the requested reactive power via a distributed algorithm that
requires communication network (e.g., Wi-Fi, ZigBee, or
power line communication) to exchange information among
neighboring DGs. Layer 3 performs local decision-making by
 3

enabling edge intelligent devices (i.e. LTCs, VRs and CBs) to

measure the voltage, analyze the data and then quickly act
locally and autonomously to cope with fast and real-time
changes in DG and load power. In what follows, Layer 1 is
assumed to update at instants 𝐾𝐾, 𝐾𝐾 + 1, …, where each instant
𝐾𝐾 denotes a time-instant 𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾 , with |𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝐾𝐾 | = 𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾 . Similarly,
layer 2 assumed to update at instants 𝑘𝑘, 𝑘𝑘 + 1, …, where each
instant 𝑘𝑘 denotes a time-instant 𝑡𝑡𝑘𝑘 , with |𝑡𝑡𝑘𝑘+1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑘𝑘 | = 𝑇𝑇𝑘𝑘 . In the
case studies, we assume that 𝑇𝑇𝐾𝐾 = 15𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚, and 𝑇𝑇𝑘𝑘 = 10𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚.
A. Layer 1: Centralized Optimization Formulation
Let 𝜑𝜑𝑏𝑏 indicates the set of 𝑁𝑁 nodes in distribution grid and
𝜑𝜑𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 , 𝜑𝜑𝐶𝐶 , and 𝜑𝜑𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 denote the set of nodes in 𝜑𝜑𝑏𝑏 that include
DGs, CBs, and LTC/VR, respectively. Mathematical
optimization for Layer 1 is formulated as
𝐻𝐻 𝑁𝑁 Fig. 1. Hierarchical architecture

min 𝐹𝐹 = � � 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]

𝑇𝑇 ,𝑆𝑆 𝑇𝑇 ,𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇
(1)
𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑘𝑘=1 𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 : 1
s.t.
Distribution power flow and voltage constraints, ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗 ∈ 𝜑𝜑𝑏𝑏 :
𝑇𝑇
� 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] + 𝑝𝑝𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 [𝐾𝐾] − 𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [𝐾𝐾] (2) Fig. 2. Tap-changing transformer equivalent model

𝑚𝑚,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗∈𝜑𝜑𝑏𝑏 capacity while constraint (10) reinforces upper and lower

𝑇𝑇
� 𝑄𝑄𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] + 𝑞𝑞𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 [𝐾𝐾] − 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [𝐾𝐾] − 𝑄𝑄𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 [𝐾𝐾] (3) bounds on the reactive power provisioning of DGs (specified
𝑚𝑚,𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗∈𝜑𝜑𝑏𝑏
by a given power factor (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃)). Constraint (11) represents the
𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] − �𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] + 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]�/𝑉𝑉1 (4) zero or full capacity reactive power injection by CB at node 𝑖𝑖
2 2 and time instant 𝐾𝐾. Constraint (12) limits the number of cap
𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] = ��𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]� + �𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]� � /𝑉𝑉1 (5) bank switching over the study horizon 𝐻𝐻. The on/off status of
𝑉𝑉 ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] ≤ 𝑉𝑉 (6) the CBs is stablished by (13). Equation (14) calculates the
2 2 2 voltage at LTC/VR buses. Constraint (15) limits the number of
�𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]� + �𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]� ≤ �𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 � (7)
LTC/VR tap operation over 𝐻𝐻. Constraint (16) represents the
Constraints on DG operation, ∀𝑖𝑖 ∈ 𝜑𝜑𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 : maximum and minimum LTC/VR tap steps, and constraint (17)
𝑇𝑇
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 < 𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [K] < 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 (8) establishes the discrete status of LTC and VRs.
2
𝑇𝑇
(𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [𝐾𝐾])2 + (𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝑇𝑇
[𝐾𝐾])2 ≤ �𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 � The overall problem (1)–(17) is a mixed integer nonlinear
(9)
𝑇𝑇 𝐺𝐺 𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇 𝐺𝐺
problem containing integer variables (𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) and continuous
−1 −1
−𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 tan(cos 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 ) < 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [K] < 𝑝𝑝𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 tan(cos 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖 ) (10) variables (𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 ) in (14). In order to handle the nonlinearities, a
Constraints on cap operation, ∀𝑖𝑖 ∈ 𝜑𝜑𝐶𝐶 : fictitious bus 𝑎𝑎 is introduced where the tap-changing
𝑇𝑇
𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾]𝑄𝑄𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (11)
𝐻𝐻
transformer between nodes 𝑖𝑖 and 𝑗𝑗 can be represented as an
admittance 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 +𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 in series with an ideal transformer with a tap
�|𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾 + 1] − 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾]| < 𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (12)
ratio 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 : 1 as shown in Fig. 2.
𝐾𝐾=1
𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 ∈ {0,1} (13) Since the transformer model in Fig. 2 is ideal (i.e. lossless
Constraints on LTC/VR operation, ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗 ∈ 𝜑𝜑𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 : transformer), (14) can be reformulated as:
𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾], 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] (18)
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾]𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] − �𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] + 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]�/𝑉𝑉1 (14)
𝐻𝐻 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] − �𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾] + 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑄𝑄𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝐾𝐾]�/𝑉𝑉1 (19)
��𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾 + 1] − 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾]� < 𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (15) 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾]𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝐾𝐾] = 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 [𝐾𝐾] (20)
𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾=1
The bilinear term 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 in (20) is converted into a set of linear
𝑇𝑇 < 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝐾𝐾] < 𝑇𝑇 (16) constraints using McCormick inequalities and a standard
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇
∈ {0.95,096, … ,1.05} (17) procedure [31] as follows. Let 𝜃𝜃ℎ , ℎ = 1,2 … , 𝑚𝑚, denote the set
𝑇𝑇 of states of transformer tap ratios that 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 can take, which is
The decision variables of problem (1) are 𝐱𝐱 𝐓𝐓 = [𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 , 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 ].
given by (17). Suppose 𝛼𝛼ℎ is a set of binary variables of which
The objective function (1) is the total power loss over a time
only one is unity and all others are zero, so that
horizon 𝐻𝐻. In the above formulation, (2)-(4) correspond to the
linear form of the DistFlow equations which have been � 𝛼𝛼ℎ = 1 (21)
extensively verified and used in the literature [28]–[30], (5) is ℎ
the power loss in line segment 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 at time instant 𝐾𝐾, and (6) and Then the discrete variable 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 can be represented as
(7) are bus voltage magnitude and line thermal limits. Constraint 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 = � 𝛼𝛼ℎ 𝜃𝜃ℎ (22)
(8) is the DG’s active power generation limit. Constraint (9)
ℎ
imposes the inverter rating curve limit on DG generation Suppose variable 𝑤𝑤ℎ is introduced as
𝑤𝑤ℎ = 𝛼𝛼ℎ 𝜃𝜃ℎ 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 , (23)
 4

it follows that algorithm is proposed to be started at a time 𝑡𝑡0 , which is indexed

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 = � 𝑤𝑤ℎ (24) as
𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗
ℎ �𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈 − 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [0]��𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [0] ≥ 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈
With 𝑤𝑤ℎ and 𝛼𝛼ℎ defined as above, we convert the bilinear 𝑀𝑀 𝑇𝑇
, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿 ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [0] ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈
𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [0] = � 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 (31)
expressions in (24) to the linear inequalities 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗
𝑤𝑤ℎ ≥ 𝜃𝜃ℎ 𝑉𝑉𝛼𝛼ℎ (25) �𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿
− 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [0]��𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [0] ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿
𝑤𝑤ℎ ≥ 𝜃𝜃ℎ �𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 + 𝑉𝑉𝛼𝛼ℎ − 𝑉𝑉� (26) With such an initialization, we proceed to construct the rest
𝑤𝑤ℎ ≤ 𝜃𝜃ℎ 𝑉𝑉𝛼𝛼ℎ (27) of the algorithm in Layer 2. Any update that we impose on the
𝑤𝑤ℎ ≤ 𝜃𝜃ℎ �𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 + 𝑉𝑉𝛼𝛼ℎ − 𝑉𝑉� (28) DG needs to accommodate the reactive power limits as well.
Our proposal here is to use a communication strategy where DG
where 𝑉𝑉 and 𝑉𝑉 are max and min ranges of voltage. In (25)-(28),
𝑗𝑗 requests reactive power from neighboring DGs that have
when 𝛼𝛼ℎ = 0, (25) and (27) imply that 𝑤𝑤ℎ = 0 and constraints
additional capacity in the event that the voltage excursions are
(26) and (28) become redundant. Similarly, when 𝛼𝛼ℎ = 1 , (26)
and (28) imply that 𝑤𝑤ℎ = 𝜃𝜃ℎ 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 and (25) and (27) are redundant not recovered due to insufficient capacity of DG 𝑗𝑗 [20].
constraints. Therefore, (24) can be reformulated as To this end, two sets of auxiliary variables 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 and 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 are
introduced that each DG communicates with its neighboring
� 𝑤𝑤ℎ = 𝜃𝜃𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 , 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠 = 1 . (29)
DG. 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 represents the average reactive power and 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 denotes
ℎ
Using the above formulation, constraint (20) can be replaced maximum reactive power of DG 𝑗𝑗. The initial values for 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 , 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗
by linear equations (21), (22), (25)-(28). are set as follows
𝑀𝑀
B. Layer 2: Distributed Control Formulation 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [0] = 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [0] (32)
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
1) DG Communication Network Model: Consider a grid in 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [0] = 𝑞𝑞𝑗𝑗 (33)
which n nodes have DGs and can only interact with each other 𝑀𝑀
where 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [0] is calculated in (31). At time step 𝑘𝑘, each DG 𝑗𝑗
through local communication. The exchange of information updates its information states 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] and 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] to 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘 + 1] and
between DGs (active nodes) is represented by a weighted graph
𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘 + 1] via a weighted linear combination of its own value
𝒢𝒢(𝒱𝒱, 𝐸𝐸, 𝒜𝒜) where the set of active nodes (vertices) 𝒱𝒱 =
and the available information received by its neighbors via
{1,2, … , 𝑛𝑛} are communicating through a set of undirected links
communication as follows
(edges) 𝐸𝐸 ⊆ 𝒱𝒱 × 𝒱𝒱\diag(𝒱𝒱). Nodes that can send information
to node 𝑗𝑗 are defined as in-neighbors of node 𝑗𝑗 and denoted by 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘 + 1] = 𝑎𝑎𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] + � 𝑎𝑎𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 [𝑘𝑘] (34)
𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗 − = {𝑖𝑖 ∈ 𝒱𝒱|(𝑗𝑗, 𝑖𝑖) ∈ 𝐸𝐸}. Similarly, nodes that receive 𝑖𝑖∈{𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗− }

information from node 𝑗𝑗 are represented as out-neighbors of 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘 + 1] = 𝑎𝑎𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] + � 𝑎𝑎𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 [𝑘𝑘] (35)
node 𝑗𝑗 and denoted by 𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗 + = {𝑖𝑖 ∈ 𝒱𝒱|(𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗) ∈ 𝐸𝐸}. A nonnegative 𝑖𝑖∈{𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗− }
matrix 𝒜𝒜 = [𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ] (with the 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 entry at the 𝑖𝑖th row, 𝑗𝑗th column) We define a gain
is a weighted adjacency matrix that matches exactly the set of 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘]
links in the communication graph, and is chosen as γ𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] = . (36)
𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘]
+ +
⎧2/[(𝒩𝒩𝑖𝑖 + 𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗 ) + 𝜀𝜀] , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ∈ 𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗 Using this gain, we propose that at every time step 𝑘𝑘, DG 𝑗𝑗
⎪ + + calculates
𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 1 − � 2/[𝒩𝒩𝑖𝑖 + 𝒩𝒩𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀] , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 = 𝑗𝑗 (30)
⎨ 𝑗𝑗∈𝒩𝒩𝑖𝑖 Γ𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] = γ𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘]𝑦𝑦𝑗𝑗 [0] (37)
⎪ It can be shown that Γ𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] will asymptotically converge to Γ𝑗𝑗∗
⎩0 , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
It is easy to see that 𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 is positive if there is a communication given by
link between nodes 𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗, i.e. (𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗) ∈ 𝐸𝐸. It is assumed that the Γ𝑗𝑗∗ = γ∗𝑗𝑗 𝑞𝑞𝑗𝑗𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (38)
communication graph does not include any self-loops. Overall, where
the above treatment and assumptions follow that in [32] fairly ∑𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗=1 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
𝑀𝑀
[0]
γ∗𝑗𝑗 = 𝑛𝑛 . (39)
closely. ∑𝑗𝑗=1 𝑞𝑞𝑗𝑗𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
2) Distributed Control Algorithm: The reactive power that is returned by Layer 2 to the
A distributed control algorithm is proposed that coordinates distribution grid is then summarized as
DGs as follows. At time instant 𝑘𝑘 the DG at bus 𝑗𝑗 monitors its 𝑀𝑀
Γ𝑗𝑗∗ , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 γ∗𝑗𝑗 ≤ 1
𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = � 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 . (40)
terminal voltage 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘] to determine if it is higher or lower than 𝑞𝑞𝑗𝑗 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 γ∗𝑗𝑗 > 1
the predefined upper and lower critical voltages 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈𝑐𝑐 and 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 From (38), it can be observed that the sum of initial reactive
chosen conservatively in relation to the bounds in (6), i.e. 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈𝑐𝑐 ≤ power request of all DGs ∑𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗=1 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑀𝑀
[0] is equal to the sum of
𝑉𝑉 and 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 ≥ 𝑉𝑉. If the 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈𝑐𝑐 and 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 limits are violated, the DG reactive power shared among all DGs at the equilibrium,
estimates the amount of reactive power required to push the ∑𝑛𝑛𝑗𝑗=1 Γ𝑗𝑗∗ . Eq. (40) ensures that the DG capacity will not violate.
voltage back within (𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈𝑐𝑐 , 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿𝑐𝑐 ) using the sensitivity of bus voltage 3) Convergence: Convergence of the overall method can be
𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 analyzed through the weight matrix 𝒜𝒜. It can be easily shown
magnitude to the reactive power (𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ). That is the Layer 2 1
that lim 𝒜𝒜𝑡𝑡 = 11𝑇𝑇 where 1 is the vector of all ones [32],
𝑘𝑘→∞ 𝑛𝑛
 5

[33]. Faster convergence is achieved with lower values of 𝜆𝜆2 ,

the second largest eigenvalue of 𝒜𝒜 which corresponds to a more
connected communication graph [33].
The updates in (34)-(35) are assumed to occur at a
sufficiently fast sampling frequency so that this convergence
takes place over a desired period of interest. In practice, a
terminating criterion is defined to quantify the number of
iterations and reach the equilibrium as ‖𝑥𝑥[𝑘𝑘] − 𝑥𝑥[𝑘𝑘 − 1]‖∞ ≤
𝜎𝜎, ‖𝑦𝑦[𝑘𝑘] − 𝑦𝑦[𝑘𝑘 − 1]‖∞ ≤ 𝜎𝜎 [33]. In order to ensure
satisfactory convergence speed, it was assumed that each
iteration occurs once every 10 ms. We observed that a choice
of 𝜎𝜎 = 0.0001 was met for iterations no greater than 100. That Fig. 3. Control principle of autonomously controlled LTC/VR
is, a total duration of 1 second was sufficient for Layer 2 to
determine new reactive power injections starting from the
decision variables that were provided by the optimization
solution in the top layer
Once convergence takes place, the time 𝑡𝑡0 is reset to the next
second, new voltage measurements are obtained, and equations
𝑀𝑀
(31)-(40) are used to determine the new 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 and the process
repeats. The overall Layer 2 therefore uses real-time voltage
measurements every second, and the average injections from
Layer 1 which are updated every 15 minutes, and returns an
updated reactive power injection every second.
It should be noted that in (31), any initial value could have Fig. 4 (a) Coordination between Layers 1 and 2; (b) Coordination between
𝑀𝑀 Layers 1 and 3.
been used for 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [0]. For instance when the voltage is within
𝑀𝑀
the lower/upper limits, a value of zero for 𝑞𝑞𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 [0] is also Using the same analogy for the CB operation, the control
possible. This corresponds to a scenario where the middle layer method initiates a time delay that counts up when the measured
is operating somewhat autonomously with no directive from the voltage is out of standard operational bound and counts down
top layer. One could consider this as a worst case scenario, and all the way down to zero when the measured voltage is in
used for our studies presented in the next section. bound.
C. Layer 3: Edge Intelligence Formulation max(0, 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 − 1) , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉 ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] ≤ 𝑉𝑉
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 = � (43)
One of the grid-edge Volt/Var providers is LTC/VR device 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 + 1 , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
that its basic function is to monitor voltage and maintain it If the voltage remains out of bound for the duration of the
within a preset range. Most modern LTC/VR controls offer time delay setting, an appropriate cap switching is activated.
several modes of operation, such as sequential, time integrating, 0 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] ≥ 𝑉𝑉 , 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑
and voltage averaging [34]. In this paper, the time integrating 𝑆𝑆𝑗𝑗𝐿𝐿 = � (44)
1 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] ≤ 𝑉𝑉 , 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑
control is applied as shown in Fig. 3.
Autonomosly controlled LTC/VRs use set voltage (𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ), D. Coordination Between Layers
bandwidth (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵), and time delay (𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 ) to regulate the voltage at The coordination between the top and middle layers was
the secondary side of the transformer. 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 is the voltage level described in (31) and summarized in Section B. The consensus-
(in 120V base) and 𝐵𝐵𝑊𝑊 is the acceptable voltage range around based reactive power injection, using voltage measurements
1 every second, is coordinated with the reactive power injection
set voltage (𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ± 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵) to which the control will regulate. calculations from the top layer, determined every fifteen
2
Typically this voltage range is significantly more conservative minutes, to produce the final reactive power injection that is
than the bounds in the midle layer. 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 is the number of seconds sent to the droop control hardware.
the control waits from the start of an out-of-band condition, A similar coordination occurs between the top and bottom
before initiating a tap change. 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 is typically set to 30 to 90 sec. layers for the tap operation and cap switching. Each switching
The control algorithm in Layer 3 initiates a counter 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 which device (LTC/VR and CB) measures the local voltage and uses
counts up when the measured voltage is out of the limits 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ± its own intelligence to calculate a tap operation and/or cap
1
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 and counts down to zero when the voltage is within these switching (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐿𝐿𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘]) while receiving a tapping/switching
2
limits. schedule from Layer 1 (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 [𝑘𝑘]). In order to coordinate
1 between local and global tapping/switching decisions for each
max(0, 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 − 1) , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] − 2𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� ≤ 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 = � (41) switching device at node 𝑗𝑗, a coordination rate 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 is introduced.
𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 + 1 , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 The 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 value close to 1 represents a situation in which the
Once 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 becomes greater than 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 , a control pulse is sent to LTC/VR or CB is more likely to follow the scheduling signal
the LTC/VR mechanism to move the tap position up or down. from Layer 1. As 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 approaches 0, the LTC/VR or CB is more
1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿 − 1 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 2𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 < 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] , 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 likely to follow the tapping/switching decisions that were made
𝐿𝐿
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = � 𝐿𝐿 1 (42) based on edge intelligence. The coordination for LTC is
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 1 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 − 2𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 > 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗 [𝑡𝑡] , 𝑇𝑇𝑡𝑡 > 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑
summarized as
 6

𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝑡𝑡] , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 = 1 terms of reducing power losses as compared to edge
𝑓𝑓 intelligence and centralized+edge methods for sunny days.
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝑡𝑡] = � 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟�𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑇𝑇 [𝑡𝑡] + (1 − 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 )𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿 [𝑡𝑡]� , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 ∈ (0,1) (45)
TABLE I: LTC/VR DATA
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝐿𝐿 [𝑡𝑡] , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗 = 0
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 (p.u.) 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (p.u.) 𝑇𝑇𝑑𝑑 (s) Initial Tap Position
A similar algorithm to Fig. 4(b) can be derived for the CBs LTC 1.025 0.01 60 0
as well. All adjustments in Layer 3 are assumed to occur at VR1 1 0.02 50 3
indexes t, t+1 etc. It is assumed that the corresponding sampling VR2 1 0.03 40 0
interval is one second. Such an interval is consistent with
currently available edge devices [34].
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Network description
IEEE 34 bus distribution system is modified to investigate the
performance of the proposed approach as shown in Fig. 5. The
network line and load data can be found in [35]. DGs are
connected to buses #11, #20, #29 with the corresponding
capacity of 500 kW, 500 kW, and 450 kW, respectively. Two Fig. 6. Typical home data (left) and global horizontal irradiance (right)
CBs of 150 kVar are located in buses #25, #27 with
corresponding time delay of 30 and 25 seconds.

LTC/VR and CB data are shown in table I. Home load data

were extracted from the eGauge website [36], which provides

Fig. 5. Modified IEEE 34node test feeder.

load data with up to 1-minute resolution. Typical home data is

shown in Fig. 6. Load reactive power is defined in proportion
to the real load connected at the same bus with a power factor
of 0.9 lagging. The 1-second resolution PV generation is
obtained from a station near Hawaii’s Honolulu International
Airport [37]. Global Horizontal Irradiance is shown in Fig. 6,
which includes both the clear sky and transient cloud movement
periods. The assumption was made that the nodes are
geographically close in the network such that outputs of PV
units follow the same generation pattern. 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝐿𝐿 , 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑈𝑈 , 𝑉𝑉, and 𝑉𝑉 are
set to 0.94, 1.04, 0.95, and 1.05 p.u. respectively.
B. Results
The proposed method was compared to the centralized, edge
intelligence and centralized+edge methods. We examine three Fig. 7. (a) Voltage at node 29, (b)-(d) Reactive power provisioning from DGs
scenarios: Case 1) sunny day, Case 2) intermittent cloudy day, 1 to 3, (e) LTC tap operation, (f) VR1 tap operation, (g) VR2 tap operation.
Case 3) intermittent cloudy day with forecast error. Case 1)
Figs. 7(a)-(g) show whole-day simulations of the voltage at bus TABLE II: Daily power losses, number of LTC/VR tap operations, CB
29, the tap changer operation, and reactive power provisioning switchings, max, min voltage, and Lambda values for case 1
Ploss Number of tap
of DGs for case 1 under all control strategies. For quantitative Operations
Max, Min
𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗
(MW) Voltage (p.u.)
comparison, all of the investigated control methods are also LTC VR1 VR2
summarized in Table II. Performance metrics include total Cent. 3.8382 6 6 2 1.0313,0.9162 --
power losses, number of LTC/VR tap operations and CB Edge 4.5819 0 8 6 1.0405,0.9268 --
Cent+Edge 4.1667 6 6 4 1.0323,0.9268 1,1,0.1
switchings, and max and min voltages observed throughout the Hierarchical 1,0.9,0.5
day. From Table II, it can be inferred that application of Hybrid
3.8311 6 7 3 1.0313,0.9162
centralized method results in 3.8382 MW power losses, which Max voltage is observed via edge intelligence method (at bus
shows that the centralized method performs relatively better in 20) while min voltage is realized for centralized and hybrid
 7

methods (at bus 29). Note that LTC is the main voltage control TABLE III: Daily power losses, number of LTC/VR tap operations, CB
device that is located at the infeed to the feeder and its tap switchings, max, min voltage, and Lambda values for case 2
operation impacts the whole feeder voltage. As a result, losses Ploss Number of tap
are the most via edge intelligence method as shown in Table II. (MW) changing
Max, Min
Voltage (p.u.) 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗
LTC VR1 VR2
Compared to edge intelligence method, Central+Edge approach Cent. 3.6502 5 6 5 1.0313,0.9162 --
performs better in terms of power losses, however, it’s Edge 3.8573 0 8 4 1.0412,0.9268 --
performance is worse than centralized method. It’s mainly Cent+Edge 3.61 5 8 3 1.0313,0.9268 1,0.9,0
Hierarchical 3.5780 5 8 3 1,0.9,0
because in sunny days there is no fast variation in solar Hybrid
1.0313,0.9268
irradiance, therefore, implementing 15 minute tap changer and
cap switching signals generated from Layer 1 (centralized TABLE IV: Daily power losses, number of LTC/VR tap operations, CB
switchings, max, min voltage, and Lambda values for case 3
method only) result in better VVC management scheme than Number of tap
that of Central+Edge approach in which local decision making Ploss
(MW)
changing
Max, Min
Voltage (p.u.) 𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗
at the edge of the device deterioriates the signals received from LTC VR1 VR2
Layer 1. Hybrid method performs very close to centralized Cent. 3.80 6 4 6 1.0313,0.8720 --
Edge 3.8573 0 8 4 1.0412,0.9268 --
method but marginally better via scheduling of VR1 and VR2
t+Edge 3.65 6 5 6 1.0424,0.9268 1,0.9,0.1
with comparable number of tap operation. Moreover, minimal archical 3.57 6 5 6 1.0444,0.9268 1,0.9,0
losses are realized with less stress on DGs for reactive power ybrid
provisioning by adding distributed communication among DGs
min scheduling decisions have been used to manage solar
for VVC as shown in Table II.
variability which is in the timescale of seconds to minutes. This
Case 2) The hybrid control approach has also been
emphasizes that consideration of these errors is needed to
implemented for an intermittent cloudy day and the result were
capture the true impact of the forecasts on power system
compared to centralized, edge intelligence and
operations.
centralized+edge methods as shown in Table III.
Application of centralized+edge method under forecast error
In case 2, where solar irradiance changes fast and frequently
results in lower losses compared to centralized and edge
due to intermittent clouds passing over the grid, centralized
intelligence methods. This confirms the ability of edge devices
method exhibits the worst voltage regulation (min voltage
in improving the accuracy of analytic applications. In contrast
0.9162 p.u.) while edge intelligence method performs much
to centralized, edge intelligence and centralized+edge methods,
better than the sunny day in terms of reducing the power losses.
all DGs in the proposed hybrid approach contribute via reactive
In particular, percentage of difference between power losses
power support in order to achieve minimal losses and improve
incurred from edge intelligence and centralized methods
voltage regulation. Moreover, the proposed hybrid approach is
reduced from 19.37% to 5.65% in case 1 and case 2. The edge
the case in which losses are reduced the most, which shows the
intelligence value is more realized in Central+Edge approach
ability of the hybrid approach in dealing with forecast error and
where edge devices process and analyze data independently and
uncertainties in input data for smart grid analytics applications.
improve the performance by reducing the power losses even
Switch status of capacitors did not change for cases 1-3.
more than centralized method as shown in Table III. The
proposed hybrid approach presented in this paper further IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
reduces losses to 3.587 MW by efficiently scheduling of In this paper we propose a hierarchical hybrid architecture for
LTC/VRs and allowing DGs to communicate with each other VVC of distribution grids with high penetration of DGs. Three
which results in maximum reactive power provision from DGs. hierarchical layers with specific operational goals are
Case 3) The study in case 2 was on the basis that Layer 1 introduced where the top layer oversees the overall operation of
receives a perfect forecast of solar generation for day ahead the system using a central optimization to minimize power
scheduling of LTC/VRs and CBs. However, in practice there is losses via optimal scheduling of LTCs, VRs, CBs, and DGs.
an error associated with solar irradiance forecast that if not The middle layer performs a distributed approach for voltage
considered, it can result in substantial economic losses and regulation via reactive power provisioning from fast response
power system reliability issues. In case 3, 15-min forecasted DGs. In bottom layer edge devices perform local intelligent
data with errors was used for the whole day simulation. Mainly, decision making and operate LTCs, VRs and CBs to cope with
the maximum average percentage error (MAPE) reported for fast and real-time changes in DGs and loads. A coordination
hour ahead forecast is 11% and it increases to 15% for the day between layers is proposed to ensure consistent operation of
ahead forecast [38]. voltage control devices and DGs for reliable voltage regulation.
Comparing the results in Tables III and IV, it is clear that the The simulations studies carried out on a modified IEEE-34 bus
losses are increased for the centralized, edge intelligence and demonstrate that the proposed approach is advantageous
centralized+edge methods due to the solar forecast error. In compared to centralized, edge intelligence, and
particular, 4%, and 1.1% increase were observed for the centralized+edge methods, especially with high DG
centralized, and centralized+edge methods, respectively. The penetration. Results demonstrate superior performance of the
impact of solar forecast error is much higher for the centralized proposed approach for reducing the number of LTC operations,
method as the power losses increased the most while the worst decreasing power losses, and efficient use of DGs for voltage
voltage regulation is exhibited (min voltage 0.8720 p.u.). This regulation.
is mainly because the day-ahead scheduling in Layer 1 is altered
by the forecast errors as the difference between 1-hour-ahead
and day-ahead forecasts is increased over time. Also, such 15-

REFERENCES
[1] E. Demirok, P. C. Gonzalez, K. H. B. Frederiksen, D. Sera, P. Rodriguez,
and R. Teodorescu, "Local Reactive Power Control Methods for
Overvoltage Prevention of Distributed Solar Inverters in Low-Voltage
Grids," IEEE J. Photovoltaics, vol. 1, pp. 174-182, Oct 2011.
[2] C.-S. Chen, C.-T. Tsai, C.-H. Lin, W.-L. Hsieh, and T.-T. Ku, “Loading
balance of distribution feeders with loop power controllers considering
photovoltaic generation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp.
1762–1768, Aug. 2011.
[3] A. R. Malekpour, A. Pahwa, S. Das, “Inverter-based var Control in Low
Voltage Distribution Systems with Rooftop Solar PV,” in Proc. 2013
IEEE 45th North American Power Symposium, pp. 1-5.
[4] N.-K. C. Nair and L. Jing, “Power quality analysis for building integrated
PV and micro wind turbine in new zealand,” Energy and Buildings, vol.
58, pp. 302–309, 2013.
[5] A. Borghetti, "Using mixed integer programming for the volt/var
optimization in distribution feeders," Electr.Power Syst.Res., vol. 98, 5,
2013, pp. 39-50.
[6] S. Deshmukh, B. Natarajan and A. Pahwa, "Voltage/VAR Control in
Distribution Networks via Reactive Power Injection Through Distributed
Generators," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, 2012, pp.
1226-1234.
[7] L.R. Araujo, D.R.R. Penido, S. Carneiro and J.L.R. Pereira, "A Three-
Phase Optimal Power-Flow Algorithm to Mitigate Voltage Unbalance,"
IEEE Trans.Power Del., vol. 28, no. 4, 2013, pp. 2394-2402.
[8] S. Bruno, S. Lamonaca, G. Rotondo, U. Stecchi and M. La Scala,
'"Unbalanced Three-Phase Optimal Power Flow for Smart Grids," IEEE
Transactions on Indust. Electronics, vol. 58, no. 10, 2011, pp. 4504-4513.
[9] Y. Zhu and K. Tomsovic, "Optimal distribution power flow for systems
with distributed energy resources," International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, 3, 2007, pp. 260-267.
[10] T. Senjyu, Y. Miyazato, A. Yona, N. Urasaki and T. Funabashi, "Optimal
Distribution Voltage Control and Coordination With Distributed
Generation," IEEE Trans.Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 1236-1242.
[11] A.R. Malekpour and T. Niknam, "A probabilistic multi-objective daily
Volt/Var control at distribution networks including renewable energy
sources," Energy, vol. 36, no. 5, 5, 2011, pp. 3477-3488.
[12] G. Valverde and T. Van Cutsem, "Model Predictive Control of Voltages
in Active Distribution Networks," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.
4, no. 4, 2013, pp. 2152-2161.
[13] S. Paudyal, C.A. Canizares and K. Bhattacharya, "Optimal Operation of
Distribution Feeders in Smart Grids," IEEE Trans.Ind.Electron., vol. 58,
no. 10, 2011, pp. 4495-4503.
[14] B. Zhang, A. Lam, A. Dom ı́ nguez-Garc ́ıa, and D. Tse, “Optimal
distributed voltage regulation in power distribution networks,”arXiv
preprint arXiv:1204.5226, 2012.
[15] E. Dall'Anese, S.V. Dhople, B.B. Johnson and G.B. Giannakis,
"Decentralized Optimal Dispatch of Photovoltaic Inverters in Residential
Distribution Systems," IEEE Trans.Energy Convers., vol. 29, no. 4, 2014,
pp. 957-967.
[16] E. Dall'Anese, H. Zhu and G.B. Giannakis, "Distributed Optimal Power
Flow for Smart Microgrids," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 4, no.
3, 2012, pp. 1464-1475.
[17] P. Šulc, S. Backhaus and M. Chertkov, "Optimal Distributed Control of
Reactive Power Via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,"
IEEE Trans.Energy Convers., vol. 29, no. 4, 2013, pp. 968-977.
[18] T. Alquthami and A.P. Meliopoulos, "Hierarchical optimization and
control of a distribution system," 2013 North American Power
Symposium (NAPS), pp. 1-6.
[19] A.P. Meliopoulos, G.J. Cokkinides, R. Huang and E. Farantatos,
"Integrated Smart Grid Hierarchical Control," 2012 45th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1967-1976.
[20] T. B. A. Robbins, C. N. Hadjicosts, A. D. Dominguez-Garcia, "A two-
stage distributed architecture for voltage control in power distribution
system", IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, pp. 1470-1482, May 2013.
[21] A. Cagnano, E. De Tuglie, M. Liserre and R.A. Mastromauro, "Online
Optimal Reactive Power Control Strategy of PV Inverters," IEEE
Trans.Ind.Electron., vol. 58, no. 10, 2011, pp. 4549-4558.
[22] M. Brenna, E. De Berardinis, L. Delli Carpini, F. Foiadelli, P. Paulon, P.
Petroni, G. Sapienza, G. Scrosati and D. Zaninelli, "Automatic
Distributed Voltage Control Algorithm in Smart Grids Applications,"
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 877-885.
8
[23] T. Sansawatt, L.F. Ochoa and G.P. Harrison, "Smart Decentralized
Control of DG for Voltage and Thermal Constraint Management," IEEE
Trans.Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 3, 2012, pp. 1637-1645.
[24] P.M.S. Carvalho, P.F. Correia and L.A.F. Ferreira, "Distributed Reactive
Power Generation Control for Voltage Rise Mitigation in Distribution
Networks," IEEE Trans.Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 2, 2008, pp. 766-772.
[25] F. A. Viawan and D. Karlsson, "Combined Local and Remote Voltage
and Reactive Power Control in the Presence of Induction Machine
Distributed Generation," IEEE Trans.Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, 2007,
pp. 2003-2012.
[26] S. Weckx, C. Gonzalez and J. Driesen, "Combined Central and Local
Active and Reactive Power Control of PV Inverters," IEEE Transactions
on Sustainable Energy, vol. 5, no. 3, 2014, pp. 776-784.
[27] J. Barr, and R. Majumder, "Integration of Distributed Generation in the
Volt/VAR Management System for Active Distribution Networks", IEEE
Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, 2014, pp. 576-586.
[28] R. Tonkoski and L. A. C. Lopes, "Voltage Regulation in Radial
Distribution Feeders with High Penetration of Photovoltaic," in Energy
2030 Conference, 2008. ENERGY 2008. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1-7.
[29] R. Aghatehrani and R. Kavasseri, "Reactive Power Management of a
DFIG Wind System in Microgrids Based on Voltage Sensitivity
Analysis," IEEE Trans.Sust. Energy, vol. 2, pp. 451-458, Oct 2011.
[30] R. Walling, Z. Gao, "Eliminating Voltage Variation Due to Distribution-
Connected Renewable Generation," 2011 DistribuTECH Conference and
Expo, San Diego, Feb. , 2011.
[31] A. Gupte, S. Ahmed, M.S. Cheon, and S. Dey, “Solving mixed integer
bilinear problems using MILP formulations” SIAM Journal on
Optimization, vol. 23, no. 2, 2013, pp. 721-744.
[32] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation
in networked multi-agent systems,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–
233, Jan. 2007.
[33] A. Olshevsky and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Convergence speed in distributed
consensus and averaging,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 48, no. 1, pp.
33–55, 2009.
[34] Voltage Regulators: Cooper Power System's VR-32 Regulator and CL-
2A Control Installation, Operation and Maintenance Instructions Parts
Replacement Information http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/
dam/public/powersystems/resources/library/225_VoltageRegulators/S22
5105.pdf
[35] N. Mwakabuta, A. Sekar, Comparative Study of the IEEE 34 Node Test
Feeder under Practical Simplifications, 39th North American Power
Symposium (NAPS 2007), 484-491, 2007.
[36] [Online]. Available:http://egauge360.egaug.es/."
[37] [Online]. Available:http://www.nrel.gov/midc/oahu_archive/.
[38] J. Zhang, A. Florita, B.-M. Hodge, S. Lu, H. F. Hamann, V.
Banunarayanan, and A. M. Brockway, “ A suite of metrics for assessing
the performance of solar power forecasting,” Sol. Energy 111, 157–175
(2015).
BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Ahmad Reza Malekpour (M’16) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from Kansas State University, Manhattan, in 2016. He is currently
a Postdoctoral Associate within Active-Adaptive Control Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge. His research
interests include renewable procurement strategies, energy management of
microgrids and distributed energy resources, stochastic and distributed
optimization in power and energy system.
Dr. Anuradha Annaswamy received her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
Yale University in 1985. She has been a member of the faculty at Yale, Boston
University, and MIT where currently she is the director of the Active-Adaptive
Control Laboratory and a Senior Research Scientist in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering. Her research interests pertain to adaptive control
theory and applications to aerospace, automotive, and propulsion systems,
cyber physical systems science, and CPS applications to Smart Grids, Smart
Cities, and Smart Infrastructures.
Dr. Jalpa Shah received her Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from University
of Minnesota, twincities in 2011. She is currently a Specialist Engineer with
Corporate Research and Techngoloy , Eaton Corporation leading technology
development for intelligent power grid controls. She has priorly worked with
John Deere and Rockwell Automation in the domain of industrial motor control
and automation and on/off road vehicle electrification. Her research interests
include advanced controls for power electronics and electrical power systems.