@wecsiance International Journal of Ambient Energy == ISSN: (Print (Online) Journal homepage: https//wwaitandifonline.convoi/taen20 Optimal energy management in a microgrid with known power from the grid based on a particle swarm optimisation embedded fuzzy multi- objective approach Hemanth Chaduvula & Debapriya Das To cite this article: Hemanth Chaduvula & Debapriya Das (2022): Optimal energy management in a microgrid with known power from the grid based on a particle swarm optimisation embedded fuzzy multi-objective approach, International Journal of Ambient Energy, DOI: 10,1080/01430750.2022.2086912 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2022.2086912 29) Puished nine: 19)un 2022 CF submic your article to this journal CA slit article views: 60 BY vertacdeoe View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at btps://wwtandfonline,com/action/journalinformation?journalCode=taen20INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY pdiang/0.1080/014307502072 2086912 faylor & Francis esc Optimal energy management in a microgrid with known power from the grid based ona particle swarm optimisation embedded fuzzy multi-objective approach Hemanth Chaduvula © and Debapriya Das Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal India The optimal energy management among distributed energy resources (DERs) ina microgrd is pivotal forits satisfactory operation, This paper presents the optimal dispatch of combined heat and power (CHP) unts, {and a heat boiler i used in a zero bus concept-based microgrid (ZBMG) and grid-connected microgrid (GMG). In ZBMG, the utliy exchanges a prescheduled amount of power to the microgeld In this work, the ‘optimal dispatch of various CHP units and the boller in all cases under GMG and ZBMG systems with power and heat demand s examined, The generation cost, emission, and energy loss objectives are fuzaified and Solved using the particle swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm. The results show that minimum objectives Received 11 Noverber 2020 ‘eceped 19May 2022 kerworDs Optimal dispatch; zero bus concep based microti zero bus DER parte swarm optimisation: fuzzy {are attained in the ZBMG system compared to the GMBG system. The analysis s done on 33-bus and 68-bus distribution systems with a 24-hour electrical and heat load profile pattern Nomenclature cl,cm Put), Qt) afenft PL, eh ex Ge" Ge « Koa 0 Inet) Po N Pint), Qun(0) Prose), Qhosses(®) Prins Pax Plinin. Pha Visine Via Vott) ee Hoo, fuel and maintenance costs of an ith dis- patchable unit active and reactive power output of the ith dispatchable unit at time t power and heat efficiency of the ith CHP ‘generator active power purchased from and sold to the grid at time ¢ boiler’ heat price and maintenance cost ‘emission coefficient ofthe ith dispatchable ‘generator ‘emission coefficient of the grid ‘emission coefficient of the heat boiler branch current at time ¢ branch resistance umber of buses in the system active and reactive power load at the nth bus ofthe system at time t active and reactive power losses of the sys- temattimet ‘minimum and maximum limits of the active power output of the ith generator ‘minimum and maximum limits of operating power factor of the ith generator minimum and maximum voltage of the system voltage at the nth bus of the system at timer ‘maximum branch current heat output of th CHP unit at time t Hoot) Hatt) boiler’s heat output at time t heat demand at time ¢ 1. Introduction Inrecent years, the microgtid has drawn ample attention due to its application and consumers due to its numerous benefits. The benefitsare due to the proper design and operation of themicro- dgtid against challenges, The most common challenges include reliability and security enhancement, power quality and energy efficiency improvement, support of local voltages, controlling power and voltage, increasing the penetration from intermittent renewables, and minimising the cost and emission in the micro- {grid (lgammal and El-Naggar 2018; Hadidian-Moghaddam etal 2018; Sepehrzad et al. 2021, 2022). Among these challenges, ‘minimisation of operation cost and emission is one ofthe preva- lent problems, and this can be tackled by setting up optimal energy management (OEM) among the DER units in the micro- ‘grid (Chaouachi etal. 2012; Saf Livani, and Viiniemi 2017; Agha- jani and Ghadimi 2018; Dey and Bhattacharyya 2079). In addi tion, the optimal energy management varies according to the operating modes, viz. grid-connected and islanded microgrids (Giraldo et al. 2018; Shi et al. 2018; Sepehrzad et al. 2021). ‘Some works deal with OEM by considering the location and sizeof DER units as key parameters that affect the cost and emis: sion of the microgrid, Cui and Dai (201 1) proposed the optimal allocation of DER units in a smart grid by minimising the multiple objectives such as operation cost, network loss, and emission. ‘The multi-objective problem is solved using the weight coefft- cient and fuzzy method due to the difference in their dimension. Moradi and Abedini (2012) determined the optimal locations ‘CONTACT Hemanth Chaduwla © hemanthsikkgpacin © azar Uk ented ting Tor race Guy2 © Howowiamwo.os and capacities of DER units in the 33-bus and 69-bus radial net- ‘works using the genetic algorithm (GA) and PSO algorithms for ‘minimising losses, improving the voltage profile, and increasing the voltage stability index. (On the other hand, the optimal energy management in Imierogrids with power and heat demand Is an add-on to the problem. The need for heat demand entails the installation of ‘CHP units and heat boilers in the microgrid. The CHP units offer high efficiency in generating heat and electricity. Fthe CHP units fall to supply adequate heat output, then heat boilers provide the deficit heat demand in the microgrid system (Wu, Wang, and (Qu 2014; Zhang et al. 2017; Abniki, Taghvaei, and Mohammadi- Hosseininejad 2018). Therefore, optimal energy management is paramount, and hence itis focussed by many researchers to achieve the maximum benefits in the microgrid (Basu et al.2011; Jithendranath and Das 2019; Murty and Kumar 2020). ‘Mohamed and Koivo (2012) solved the economic emis- sion problem in the presence of power and heat demand by ‘optimising the power dispatch from various sources in GMG Using a genetic algorithm. Moradi, Eskandari, and Mahdi Hos- seinian (2014) developed an operational strategy (0S) for energy management with heat demand in the microgrid by solving ‘economic-emission dispatch using quadratic programming (QP) and the improvement of reliability using the PSO algorithm. Gabbar and Zidan (2016) proposed the optimal scheduling of interconnected micro-energy grids with different types of CHP Units and a heat boiler. Furthermore, the operation cost and. ‘emission objectives are minimised using the genetic algorithm and a fuzzy approach. Pashael-Didani et al. (2019) studied the ‘optimal dispatch of CHP units, boilers, and storage systems in the grid-connected microgrid for minimising operation cost and ‘emission using a compromising programming approach and fuzzy-satisfying approach. Inthe islanded mode, the power from the grid is absent, and hence any one of the dispatchable DER Units exhibit a droop nature to meet the power demand. In an Islanded microgrid (IMG) system, the voltage and frequency are deviated from nominal values due to the droop nature of the dis- patchable source, Guo et al. (2017) proposed animproved power distributing strategy forthe stabilisation of frequency and volt- age in an IMG system. Maulik and Das (2017a) conducted the ‘optimal operation of the droop-controlled IMG system based ‘on electrical and heat demands. Furthermore, the authors min- Imise the operation cost and emission objectives using the Fuzzy-PSO algorithm. Dey, Roy, and Bhattacharyya (2019) used a novel Whale optimisation algorithm (WOA) for solving the com= bined economic-emission dispatch in the islanded microg ‘The authors use the Penalty factor parameter for solving the ‘multi-objective problem. (Only a few works were reported on the microgrid with zero bus DER, in which scheduled power is injected from the grid. ‘Often, the microgrid exchanges a predefined power with the ‘grid to lower the electricity price during peak periods, minimis- ing power losses and emissions. Maulik and Das (2017b) pro- posed a load flow technique in a microgrid with zero bus DER {and conducted an economic load dispatch for minimum opera- tion cost in the system. Das, Mukherjee, and Das (2019) imple- mented a zero bus load flow (ZBLF) and symbiotic organism search (S08) approach for the placement of DER units in the 33- bus and 69-bus distribution systems. Furthermore, the authors compared the power loss for different settings of scheduled power injections from the gid and different load levels. Bark and Das (2019) solved the multiple objectives, such as active power loss, voltage deviation, and operation cost of DER units, Using a weighted approach and a mixed discrete particle swarm ‘optimisation (MDPSO) algorithm in a distribution network with zero bus DER. However, the works emphasised microgrids with zero bus DER considered neither optimal allocation of sources, ror heat demand, Based on the above literature, the authors formulated the problem considering power and heat demand, optimal allo Cation of CHP units, and a known power injection from the 4rid al at a time in the microgrid. In this context, we propose novel optimal energy management in the microgrid by easing all the above issues, where the minimisation of generation cost, emission, and energy loss objectives are solved using the fuzzy embedded PSO method. ‘Themain goalsand innovations ofthis paperare summarised below: © The generation cost, emission, and energy loss objectives {are optimised in the grid-connected microgrid and microgrid ‘with a known power injection from the grid. ‘© The Particle Swarm Optimisation algorithm is chosen in this work due to its fast convergence and efficient solution of a single objective by tuning a few parameters. The fuzzy ‘method in this work brings all the individual objectives into the same range. ‘© In this work, the multi-objective problem is solved using the fuzzy integrated PSO algorithm. The proposed method Is validated with multi-objective algorithms, such as Non- dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm Il (NSGAAIN, mult ‘objective PSO (MOPSO), and Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm 2 (SPEA2) ‘© Acase study analyses the objectives, while electrical and heat demand ate considered for 33-bus and 69-bus distribution networks. ‘The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the modelling of the system and zero bus load flow; the objectives and constraints are formulated in Section 3; Section 4 details the case study; Section 5 describes the steps for solving the problem using the fuzzy-PSO algorithm; Section 6 presents the simulation results and discussion, and finally Section 7 comprises the summaty of this paper. 2, Modelling of a system In this work, a 33-bus grid-connected microgrid system and a 33-bus microgrid system with zero bus DER are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. A 69-bus microgrid system with unknown power from grid and with zero bus DER are pre- sented in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. In both the systems, CCHP units of type biomass (810), natural gas fuel cell (NGFC) and natural gas turbine (NGT), and heat boiler are integrated. The INGT unit has a lower fuel cost coefficient and the BIO produces least emission in the system. The fuel cost-coefficlent of NGFC Unit is lower than that of 810 but higher than that of NGT. The temission from NGFC is huge. The grid’s electricity price variesINTERNATINAL,OURNAL OF anBlenTeNERGY @) 2 ‘end Jiity Pera Figure 3. Grid connected 69-bus miciogid sytem,4 © Hewouaawo.o0s Figure 4. 69:bus microg system with 0 bus DER according to the off-peak and peak periods. The emission by the ‘tid s ower than that of NGT and NGFC units. In the case of GMG, active and reactive powers are undefined at the lack bus. o the slack bus is responsible for maintaining the power balanceiin the system. In the case of ZBMG, the power taken from the grid is known and so one of the dispatchable DER units (zero bus DER) inthe system is responsible fr satisfying the power balance. The NGT-type zero bus DER is chosen for its fuel and emission char- acteristics, The location of NGT is obtained at bus 6in the case of .333-bus distribution system, as shown in Figure 2, and at bus 9 inthe case of a 69-bus distribution system, as shown in Figure 4, based on minimum power loss condition (Das, Mukherjee, and. Das 2019). The boller produces heat when there is insufficient heat generation from CHP units to meet the heat demand in ‘the system, The 33-bus system has a peak electrical demand of 3.715 MW, 2.3 MVAR, and the 69-bus system has a peak electrical ‘demand of 3.8022 MW, 2.6946 MVAR, Both systems have a peak heat demand (His) of6 MW. 24h (T = 24)load pattern for elec- trical and heat demand is shown in Figure 5, and it is derived {rom (Grigg et al. 1999). From Figure 5, the peak value ofthe elec- trical and heat load occurs at the12th and 18th hours, and the ‘minimum value of the electrical and heat load occurs at the 4th and Sth hours, respectively 2.1. Conventional load flow ‘The 33-bus and 69-bus grid-connected microgrid systems are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3, respectively, where NGFC and, BIO units inject power at respective locations. The active and reactive power from the grid is unknown at the beginning of load flow. Hence, the mismatch in active and reactive power is determined at all nodes except atthe slack bus (bus 1). Eitamaly {et al. 2078) and Stevenson Jr and Grainger (1994) used the New- ‘ton-Raphson load flow method to determine the power from the slack bus, The load flow is converged ifthe mismatches, at all the buses except at bus, | fall within the specified tolerance vvalue. The voltage magnitude of 1 p.u.and zero reference angle ‘are considered at the slack bus. The remaining voltage magn- tudes and angles are calculated from Equation (1). The output ower from the grid, power and heat output of CHP generators are calculated. The heat output ofthe boilers determined using Equation). ah ah iw Avs avs Ve | Ow aT a a tn ba Bee ey oe Tah Wi ty Oe cs yo fo dy hpi 8Qy Qu; By 2 ae ty) ay WW APD OPS Pw x a AQy 2.2, Zerobus load flow ‘The 33-bus and 69-bus microgrid systems with zero bus DER are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 4, respectively where the NGT unit Is connected at zero bus. Bus 6 in the 33-bus system and bus 9inthe 69-bus system are selected as zero buses (Das, Mukherjee, ‘and Das 2019). At zero bus, none of the quantities are prespec fied. The active power, reactive power, voltage magnitude and angle are prespecified at the slack bus. Here also, 1 pu. volt- lage and zero angle are considered at bus 1. So bus 1 is called ‘2 POVS bus, at which all four quantities are known in advance. ‘The active and reactive power from the grid is scheduled to the desired value. However, the number of specified and unspecified parameters in the network isthe same as the conventional load flow. Therefore, a zero bus load flow (ZBLF) is proposed by intro- ducing zero bus and PQVS bus in the conventional load flow. ‘The sources (NGFC and B10) inject active and reactive powers at respective locations in the network. The active and reactive power mismatches are calculated at all buses except at bus 6 ‘of 33-bus system and bus 9 of 69-bus system in each iteration. ‘The load flow is repeated until the convergence Is reached. The ‘computation of voltage magnitudes and angles of the 33-bus rmicrogrid system with zero bus DER are shown in Equation (2). ‘The power and heat output of zero bus DER is determined at the ‘end of the load flow. ab is Ave ow avs avs Ve aw a ay ot 386 as | ay ar as Whe 7 Bs ay Bly a aaa 3 as am ay, yay oP Oe goes eo aon 2 cor tore © 0) Wie "Wis By Bi 0 Oe 805 | 905 ip "ais aay 80, Or Or | 30, Th "Wis ai 30y Qy 30, 304 3b BBs Big Bl INTERNATINAL.OURNALOF anBleNTeNERGY @) s a a a aR me ae WN aby abe aby iV, ae ay 8 eG Ms am ay ay aby M4 ae 3a, ia, 3a, Vs ae WW 105 05 1055 ae ae ey % me Bw ae We Wy ay” ty ay” 30 MW We AWN ars Ps ‘AP; AP x (2) aa AQs AQ, a 3. Objective function 3.1. Cost of generation per day ‘The objective f includes fuel and maintenance ost of dispatch- able generators, cost of power exchange with the grid, and cost of heat bole, as shown in Equation (3). The term cost of power exchange with the grid in the objective fy is included when power from the grid is non-zero. The term generation cost is used interchangeably with operation cost in this paper. The parameters corresponding to operation and maintenance cost of sources, buying and seling electricity price (C™(), C0) for diferent periods are shown in Table 1 4 PO cm py ( a0 ee 7) +m) PIMIE) ce "of hee Nt) PEER (C) + Hoot) « (CBee + CBee Vea 86 © Hewouaawo.oas Electrical and heat load profile pattern 0.468 acl Serf Titi iii iii tii iii 12.3 4S 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ‘Time in hours Figure 5. A2t+hourperunielecical and het demand pole pate, Table 1. Thecostandemision parameters arous sures 3.4, Constraints Parameter Ve Parameter ‘ue a 205s Ges 2058/05 ie 2osssntun Gx asa as sont Ge sith oe 2s.ssntun q smut ie 2O16kSCOMWH —Kege 366.1 kgC03th Koo 3igCOW 2o1s6kgcOy/h Ku WakgCO,NWE er a here 39% ‘ke 2% rey es ‘hac wes "the 12% omipeaky sey Crfpetay—_1208/W oretpekt) ssh eipeak) swt Ctpeok2) ssn Copeka) cosa 3.2, Emission per day ‘The objective f in Equation (4) includes per day emissions from dispatchable generators, main grid, and the heat boiler. The ‘emission coefficients of these sources are shown in Table 1. The ‘emission fom the grid Is discarded from f, in the case of zero power injection from the grid. i 5 (= (KP 0) + Koa PREC) + Ki oo) ve T @ 3.3, Per-day energy loss fy represents per-day energy loss as the summation of active power loss over 24, as shown in Equation (5). ays 62¥(F mc? a) 1. 6 ‘© Power and heat balance constraints ‘Theactive power, reactive power and heat balance equations are shown in (6)-(8). The heat output of the dispatchable CHP {generator is calculated from Equation (9). D Pity + Pam — Peer ie DL Pinlt) + Prosser OME = 1.257 © XL aun + oH — O80, ice = Ln) + ower = 1s. 7) YS Hitt) + Hoott) = Maid ¥e = 1, @ ae af Hat = Pit) Mee Wt = WT © CHP © ay ‘© Active power output and operating power factor limits of dispatchable CHP units ‘Thelower and upper limits of active power output and power {factor of CHP units are shown in Equation (10). Pirin = Pi(t) = Pima Pfimin = PAC < Pfimax sad © Voltage and branch current limits ‘The acceptable voltage range and branch current limit are shown in Equation (11). Via = Vat) Vmax by) SE aDINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENTENERGY &) 7 Me He He 1 1 1 ., Lr. 0 ro a ine pe h © pp ta © @ Figure 6 Representation of membership function in fuzzy fo generation cot (b) emision (6 energy oss. 4. Case study Case As: The micragrid, in this case, considers a 33-bus system and. utilises NGFC unit, BIO unitand boiler. The grid is responsible for ‘maintaining the power balance in the system, The heat demand is supplied by NGFC, BIO and boiler sources. CaseA2 ‘The microgrid, in this case, uses the same test system as case ‘As. The system is integrated with an NGT unit, NGFC unit, BIO Unit and a heat boiler. Here, the power from the gridis zero, and the NGT unit is chosen to meet the remaining power demand. ‘The heat is supplied from the NGT unit, NGFC unit, BIO unit, and the boller. Caseas: The microgrid configuration, in this case, isthe same as case ‘A2 except that the power from the grid is optimum. The NGT nit is responsible for power balance, and the deficit heat is supplied from the boiler. CaseB.! In this case, the microgrid is formed by considering a 69-bus system. The system utilises sources such as the NGFC unit, BIO Unit and a boiler. The grid delivers deficit power demand in the system. The heat generated from the NGFC unit, BIO unit, and the bolle satisfies the heat demand in the system, Case 8.2 The microgrid, In this case, uses the same test system as case B.1. The system draws zero power from the grid, and the NGT Unit is responsible for power balance as in case 2. The boiler ‘generates heat in case lack of heat generation from CHP units such as NGT, NGFC, and BIO units. Case 8.3: The microgrid configuration, in this case, i the same as case B.2 except that the grid delivers a predefined amount of power. ‘The NGT unit fulfis the remaining power demand, and the boiler generates deficit heat in the system. 5. Multi-obje ‘The PSO is a population-based algorithm, and it was first intro- duced by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). The PSO algorithm has better convergence and avolds local optima with proper tun- Ing of its parameters, such as inertia weight (WW) and accel- ‘eration coefficients (¢),¢2). The PSO algorithm is revised with ‘the modification of parameters for tackling various problems (Clerc and Kennedy 2002; Ratnaweera, Halgamuge, and Watson 2004). The velacity and position update of the ath dimension In the ith particle at each iteration Is shown in Equations (12) and (13), Mia W, VISE + wand « (gt — xb) ‘tea randg « (6S — Xi") 0) 13) In this work, three objectives, such as minimisaion of gener~ ation cost, emission, and energy loss, are considered, The PSO algorithm has a few parameters, and tuning these parameters provides a satisfactory solution in the case ofa single objective. In the case of solving a multi-objective problem, all the objec- tives are summed up by assigning a preferable weight to each objective, But the objectives cannot be added directly until they are in the same range of values. So it is essential to get all the objectives under the same range of values. All the objectives are converted into per unit range using a fuzzy approach. In the fuzzy domain, a membership function is created for each objective with minimum and maximum limits. The membership function for generation cost, emission, and energy lossis shown In Figure 6. During optimisation, if the value of the objective function is below its minimum limit, then unity membership Is assigned, The membership value is zero if the particular objec tive exceeds its maximum limit (Das 2008). The membership value of each objective is calculated using Equations (14)-(16). Toachieve minimum objective values, the membership of each objective has to be maximised. The membership-based com bined objective is formulated in Equation (17), and a weight of 1/3 Isassigned to each objective, fh = min wae f—# a)8 © Hewouaswo.oas 4-1 = =) a in case A.2 of the 33-bus system and 12,034 kgCO> in case B.2 of the 68-bus system Is obtained from ‘Table 3. From Table 4, a minimum energy loss of 556.27 kWh has ‘occurred in case A.3 ofthe 33-bus system, where the power from the gridis optimum. On the other hand, a minimum energy loss of 364.8 kWh is achieved in the grid connected 69-bus system (Case B.1),as shown in Table 2. However, the energy losses intheINTERNATINAL,OURNALOF ANBIENTENERGY @) 9 Table 2. Peay objectives in the case fit conneced microg formed by 33-bus and 6-us systems (Gi- connected microard Care A1 GBs sytem) (ore 8169 bussytem) Case objective Fuzy-P50_—_NSGAL ‘morso SPQ FumyP50—_ NSA ‘MOPSO SPEAD 1 perday st1059 sii siit46 sii169 snas7 sinars star state fs perday 17635kgcO, 17638hGCOs_I76ITHGCO; —17.53hgCO2 _7,539hgCO;V7.55TIgCO 7461 bgCOs 17827 kgCO> per day ‘Sa2kWh = BABTRWh”—BESZKWh —BABTKWH” 64h 3ESSKH” ——3544y SDK Computaiontine 61s 8635 025s 23895 1840s 2547s 1500 3785 Table 3, Pereayobjectiesin the case of a zr bus concep-based mirard with 2 power from the for 3-busand 6Sbus systems BMG with ao power rom the gd (Case A238 system) (ose 82 (62 bussytem) CaseObjectve Fay. P50 SGA ‘moPso SPEQ__Fumy 950 NSGAAL ‘Mors0_ SPER 1 perdoy 58628 sara 8668 $8705 58351 39357 58348 39821 pray 13064hgcO; 12951hgCOp 13158KgCO; 13.045kgCO) 034gCO;12028gCO, 204A AGC) 11.957 kgcO, fy perday Se221kWh S61694Wh —S861kWh” ——-SSO3KWN” © 09.44Wh 4082” ATTN 402.240 Computatontine 6265, as 5625 26805 18505 2652 18s Bers caret Cane * Fuaye99) Fay 50) owe) 5 20 | feqgceem) — 200 200s) 2.¢9coame) 00 eam Figure 7. The optimum objectvesineach method atthe 2th hour coresponding foo3bur and 6d bugil connected miro syste. Figure 8. The optimum objectvesineachmethod atthe 24hhourconesponding to 33-bus and bus microg systems wth zero power rom the grid Table 4. Perday objectives in the case ofa 210 bus concep-based miroyd with optimum power rom the gid fo 38-bus and 69-bus systems, ZING with optimum power from the gid (Case A3 GB bus system) (Case 83 (69 bussystem) Case0bjecive Fay. P50 SGA ‘mors0 SPQ Fumy 950 NSGAAL ‘MOPSO SPEAD 1 peday $8489 8059 asa aes 0008 9166 $8038 sone fa perday V3SO7kgcO, —13284hGCOs 13595KGCO,13.376hgCO, —A2HKgCO;12.346kgCO—12387kGCOs 12.141 bgCO per day SS627KWh —548791Wh —S4B.1KWh —-S@39KWH” 704K” =H 464K 427K Computaiontime 604s Toas 5695 2687s 20975 Bhs "5078 350710 © HeHaovWia NoD.0As cases 2 gceamn 1m Figure 9. The optimum objectvesin ech methodatthe 2th hou corresponding 10 3bus and bus microg systems with optimum power om the gd ‘case of ZBMG formed by 69-bus system (Cases 8.2, 8.3) is close to Case B.1. Per-day cost of each source forall cases is shown in Table 5. It Is noticed from Table 5 that the costs of NGFC and BIO units are ‘enormous in GM (Case A.1, Case B.1) compared to ZBMG sys- ‘tems. The sum of costs contributed from NGFC and BIO units in ‘ease A.1 and case Bis higher than the total operation cost that arises in cases A2 and A.3 of the 33-bus system and in cases 8.2 “Table 7. Optimal solution pe day inal eases of 33-bus microti system uy P50 ZENG with ZaNG with eo power optimised from the gid powerfom the Ouputperday —_GMG(CaseAt) _—(aseA2) id Case 3) Pre “547 W 095 Mw nam Ohare 2224MVAR———_ZONVAR 8a9MVAR rere euomn Maas 1536MW Poo 2550mW 24M 200M Oo isismvan 1253 MVAR 1252 MAR Hao srésmw azn 4505MN Pre oww ‘som ‘800m Oe oman ZrOIMVAR ——-26S6MAR ther om S736MW sas8mw Poa 16K omw oom Oi 652MVAR omvan o38MVAR Ho axeMw 03M o7imw and B.3 of the 69-bus system, respectively. Furthermore, signif- icant amount of cost incurred from the grid in GMG makes the total operation cost in case A.1 and case 8.1 much higher. The Integration of the NGT unit in 28MG causes lower outputs from NGFC and BIO units, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8, respec: tively. As a result, the costs of NGFC and BIO units are much less InZBMG compared to GMG for both 33-bus and 69-bus systems. Also, a slightly higher NGT output and a lower biomass output are noticed in ZBMG with optimum povier from the grid (Case ‘A3, ase B3) than in ZBMG with zero power from the grid (Case ‘A, Case B.2).Soa minimum operation costs achieved in ZBMG With optimum power from the grid. Per-day emission of each source for all cases is shown in ‘Table 6, From Table 6, the emission from the NGFC unit in GMG (Case A.1, Case B.1)is higher than the total emission that occurs InZBMG systems. The presence of the NGT unitin ZBMG reduces the production of NGFC, which has ahigher emission parameter. ‘The NGFC unit's emission is ess in ZBMG due to its lower output, as shownin Tables 7 and. In contrast, the emission from thegrid In GMG is less than the emission from the NGT unit in ZBMG, Le. the emission from the gridin case A.1islower than cases A2, A3 and also in case B.1 Is lower than cases 8.2, 83. But total emis: sionisless in ZBMG of 33 and 69-bus systems (Cases A2, A3,B.2 Table 5. erday cost ofeach component inal cases of 3-bus and 6-bus mcrgad ystems Ge NGFC(S ay) O18 dy) NGT(S ay) Grd ay) oie (day) AS aay) Case 4295.29 S868 8 0 ene 446 1.09821 aie? 103255 450977 250499 ° 090 882821 Gee 3 106928 4665156 2628.21 7388 2036, 45929 Geet ‘00st i367 ° 123876 7616 15675 Gee 78st sorres peo ° ° 935128 aie 83 73851 548103 aman 91 ° 108.6 Table 6, Per day emision of each component inal cases of 3-bus and 69-bus microg systems Gwe NGFC(AgCO/day) —__—BIOUNgCOs/doy)___—NGT\AgCOs/dy) Gd AgCOa/day) Boller AgCOn/day) fo gCO3/doy ose 664522 7678 ° e102 sar 763450 Gre 2 “400135 as so9178 ° 637 136365 Ged nan 00 son190 sao 1851 1350719 set 1552068 7a9 ° v9 53683 vrsssaz Gee82 286189 7695 909507 ° ° 1205391 Gie8 e680 7056 930083 maar ° 124sand 8.3) despite higher emissions from NGT than the grid. The ‘emission in case Ais lower than case A3 of the 33-bus system as the sources present in the system except the biomass unit produce lesser emissions. On the other hand, emission in case B2islower than in case .3 ofthe 69-bus system as the emission from NGT and grid are greater in case 83. The hourly operation cost in all cases of the 33-bus and {68-bus microgrid systems is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively. From Figure 10, minimum operation cost values of the 33-bus microgrid system as $323.20 (jz, = 0.6622) at the Sth hour in case A.1, $256.23 (ig, = 0.7594) at the Sth hour in ‘ase A2, and $255.89 (1j, = 0.7611) at the Sth hour in case {A3 are noticed. The minimum operation cost values of the {68-bus microgrid system in Figure 11 are identified as $331.29 (i, = 0.6397) atthe Sth hour in caseB.1,$270.18 1), = 0.7164) atthe ath hour in case 82, and $261.25 (4, = 0.7598) atthe Sth hour in case B3. INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF AMBleNTENERGY @) 11 The hourly emission in all cases of 33-bus and 69-bus microgrid systems are shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. Minimum emission of 525.36kgCO2 (x, = 05716) at the 4th hour in case A.1, 373.13kgCOr (iz, ~ 0.7053) at the 4th hour in case A2, and 386.76kgCOp tz, — 0.7128) at the Sth hour in case A3 of 33-bus mlcrogrd’ system, as Shown in Figure 12, From Figute 13, the minimum emission of 541.33kgCO, (jx, = 0.5466) at the 6th hour in case 8.1 371.07 kgCO? (yg, = 0.7125) at the 4th hour in case 82, and 377.64kgCO> (i, = 0.7331) atthe ath hourin case 83 of69-bus mmicrogrd system The hourly active power loss for all cases of 33-bus and 68. bus microgrid systems are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 1, respectively. The power loss depends on the site and size of DER units and network structure. The minimum power loss val ues of 17.43 KW (jj, = 09795) at the Sth hour in case At, 12:12kW (uj, = 09488) atthe Sth hour incase A2,and 12.05 kW Hourly optimization of f1 objective in 33-bus system Operation cost ($/hr) o 88888 8 10 11 eicaseAa case 2 case a3 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time in hours Figure 10, Optimus hourly operation costinallcases of 3-bus micogrid system, Hourly optimization of f1 objective in 69-bus system 88 8 Operation cost ($/hr) 8 8 12 345678 9 01112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time in hours Figure 11. Optimum hourly operation costinallcases of bus micogrid system,12, © H-cHADUWULA AND .OAS Hourly optimization of f2 objective in 33-bus system eco A2 ace A3 Emission (kgCO2/hr) o8888882828 12.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time in hours Figure 12, Optimum hourly emisioninall cases of 3-busmicogtidsjtem, Hourly optimization of f2 objective in 69-bus system Emission (kgCO2/hr) o8 88888888 12.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41 12 13 14 45 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time in hours Figure 13. Optimum hourly emisionnallcaes ofa 6-bus micootid sytem, Hourly optimization of £3 objective in 33-bus system nce aa BcaseA2 Active power loss (kW/hr) euSaSnsrsas 1°23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 41 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time in hours Figure 14. Optimum hourly energy lssinalcaes ofa 3-bus mcs system,INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF AmBleNTENERGY (@) 12 Hourly optimization of f3 objective in 69-bus system B 15 10 Active power loss (kW/hr) aad 45678 9101121316 case Ba case 82 15 16 17 18 19 Time in hours Figure 15. Optimum hourly energy ss inallcaes ofa 69:bus microsd system, Table 8, Optimal olution per dy in laser ofa 69 bus microg system. uy P50, ZENG with ZENG with zero pomet optimised fromthe grid power fom the Ouiputperday _GMG (Case) (Case 82) gi Case 83) Pee 2390 7amw 72M nse DASIMVAR——S.26MVAR ‘SB6MNAR hee srssMw Tai Tosi mw Po 263301 265M BsaMW ao Ta7smvan 1924 VAR Tsar Hoo S852 MW sr7eMW 5296MW Pact omw 451 46530 Okcr onan BOSE MVAR S165 MVAR het oww sass Mw oar Py oxi Mw onw o7eMW ca 1a27MVAR—— OMAR OsSMNvAR the 256M ontw onw (uj, = 0.9168) at the 4th hour in case A3 of 33-bus micro- ‘ld system are obtained from Figure 14. A minimum power loss of 520KW (yp, = 09560) at the 4th hour in case 8.1, ‘9.89KW (i, = 09560) at 4th hour in case 82, and 1063 KW (uy, = 09076) at Ath hour in case B3 of 65-bus microgrid sys- ter, as shown in Figure 15. 7. Conclusion In this paper, the optimal dispatch of CHP units and the boiler has been analysed in grid-connected microgrid and zero bus ‘concept-based microgrid systems. The 33-bus and 69-bus micro- ‘tid systems with electrical and heat demand have been tested for optimal energy management among various sources. The {generation cost, emission, and energy loss objectives are rep- resented in the fuzzy domain, and the combined objective Is solved using the PSO algorithm. The presence of zero bus DER (NGT unit) in 2BMG causes minimum objective values compared 10 GMG. Also, the NGFC and biomass outputs have been reduced Inthe case of Z3MG. The maximum output from NGFC has led to enormous operation costs and emissions in grid-connected sys- tems. Thehigher output from biomassis advantageousin reduc- ing the emission but increases the operation cost. The heat out- putfrom the boileris more in the ase of 69-bus grid-connected ‘micragrid system due to insufficient heat generation from CHP Units. It has been observed that the minimum operation cost is attained in ZBMG with optimum power from the grid (Case A. Case 8.3), and the minimum emission is achieved in ZBMG with zero power from the grid (Case A2, Case B.2) for both 33-bus and 69-bus systems. The minimum energy loss has occurred in the 33-bus system based ZBMG with optimum power from the dgrid (Case A3) and in the 69-bus gridconnected microgrd sys- tem (Case B.1). However, the energy loss in cases B.2 and B3 are close to case B.| of the 69-bus system. The proposed Fuzzy- PSO method has been validated with multi-objective algorithms such as NSGAlI, MOPSO, and SPEA2. The results show that the proposed method yields better results with minimum computa- tion time. Disclosure statement No potential conflict ofinterest was eported bythe authors orciD Hemanth Chadla © hreporidexg/0000-0001-5376-992% References ‘Abril, Hassan, Seyed Masoud Taghvac. and Seyed Mohsen Mohammadi Hosseininejad, 2078. “Optimal Energy Management of Community Micro ‘fds: A Risk-Based Mult-Crteria Approach International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems 28 (12) e268), ‘Aghajani, Gholameza, and Norain Ghadimi. 2018. Muit-Objectve Energy ‘Management in a Mico-Gild” Energy Reports 4218-225 Bark, Souryabrata, and Debapriya Das. 2019. "Impact of FFC Distibuted “Generations in a NR in the Presence of Renewable and Load Uncertain- ties by Mited Discrete Particle Swarm-Based Point Estimation Method” [ET Renewable Power Generation 13 (9: 1431-445, Basu, Ashoke Kuma, Anruddha Bhattacharya, Sunetra Chowdhury, andS.P. ‘Chowdhury 2011. Planned Scheduling for Economic Power Sharing ina (CHP- Based Micro-Gri” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 27 ():30-38,14 © HeHnouwuiA ANoD.0As ‘Chaouachi, Aymen, Rashad M Kame, Ridha Andouls, and Ken Nagasaka, 2012. "Multibjective Intelligent Energy Management fora Micro” {E86 Transactions on Instio Elecroncs 60 (4 1689-1689, ‘lee, M, and J Kennedy. 2002. The Particle Swarm ~ Explosion, Stability, and Convergence in Multidimensional Complex Space” IEE Trans tionson Evolutionary Computaion 61): 58-73.doi:10.1109/4235 9856, Cai, Hong, and Weniang Dai 2011, "Mult-Objective Optimal Allocation of Distributed Generation in Smart Grin 2017 international Conference on Bectical and Control Engineering, 13-717 IEEE. Das, D. 2008. “Optimal Placement of Capacitors in Radial Distribution Sys {tem Using Fuzzy GA Method Intemational Joumal af Electrical Power & Energy Systems 30 (6361-367. doF10.1016/jepes.2007.08.008. Das, Bikash, V. Mukherjee, and Debapriya Das. 2019. “Optimum DG Place: ment for Known Power Injection fom Utity/Substation by a Novel Zero Bus Load Flow Approach Energy 175: 228-249, doi 10.1016/ienergy. 201903034. Dey, Bishwajit and Biplab Bhattacharyya. 2019. “Dynamic Cost Analysis of Grid Connected Micogrd Using Neighborhood Based Differential Evo tion Technique" InternationalTansacion on lecrcal Energy Systems 29, (02665. Dey, Bishwajit,Shyamal Krishna Roy, and pla Bhattacharyya, 2019."Soh ng Mult: Objective Economic Emission Dispatch ofa Renewable Inte grated Micogid Using Latest Biolnspied Algorithms. Engineering Se fence ond Technology an international Jounal 22 (1) 55-66. Egansmal, Adel, and Mohamed E-Naggar. 2018. "Energy Management in ‘Smart Grids forthe Integration of Hybrid Wind-PV-FC- Battery Renew: able Energy Resources Using Mul-Objective Particle Swarm Optimise tion (MOP5O)” The Joumelof Engineering 2018 (11): 1805-1816. Etamaly, Al, Amer A. Elghaffar, Yehia Mohamed, and Abou Hashema ‘Ahmed. 2018. “Optimum Power Flow Analysis by Newron Rophson Method: Case Stu” December ‘Gabbar, Hossam A and Absoelsood Zan. 2016 “Optimal Scheduling afinter- connected Micro Energy Grids with Multiple Fuel Options” Sustainable Energy, Grids ond Neworks 7: 80-29, doi:10.1016/,segan.2016:06.006. Giraldo, aan, Jhon ACostilon, Juan Camilo Lopes, Marcos JRider, nd Cor os Casto, 2018, Microgrds Energy Management Using Robust Convex Programming. IEE Transactions en Smart rid 10 (8): 4520-4530. ‘6igg . P. Wong, P. AlrechtR. Allan, M Bhavaraju,R Bilinton Chen, eta. 1999, “The IEE Reliability Test System-1996. A Report Prepared by the Reliability Test System Task Force ofthe Application of Probab ity Methods Subcommitte IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 14 1010-1020, do410.1105/5.780914, Guo, Lei Janhui Su, Jidong Lai, and Yiding Wang. 2017. "Research ‘on Power Scheduling Strategy for Microgid in landing Mode” Intemational Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems 28 (December oi10.1002/etep 2483 Hadidian Moghaddam, Mohammed Jafar, Saber ArabiNowdeh, Mehdi Bigdei and Davood Azizian. 2018 "A Mul-Objective Optimal Sing and Siting of Distributed Generation Using AntLion Optimization Technique” ‘Ain Shams Engineering Journal 9(8: 2101-2108. Jithendranath, and Debapriya Das. 2019 "Scenario Based MulthObjectve (Optimisation with Loadability in slanded Microgrids Considering Load and Renewable Generation Uncertainties.” [ET Renewable Power Genero tion 13 (5): 785-800. Kennedy, J,andR Eberhart 1995."Patcle Swarm Optimization. In Proceed ings ofICNW9S-Itermatonal Conference on Neural Networks, 142-1948, Val 4 doi:10.1109/CRAL 1095 88068. Maulk,Avrup, and Debapriya Das. 20172. “Optimal Operation of Droop- ‘Controle Ilanded Microgrids." IEEE Teansactions on Sustainable Energy 99) 1337-1348, Maulk, Aviup, and Debaprya Das. 20176. PowerFlow and Economic Dis- ‘patch o a Microgidin Presence of Feeder Flow Control Distributed Gen- ‘ratoran 2017 6th Intemational Conference on Computer Applications lccal Engineering Recent Advances (CERA, 187-192. IEEE Mohamed Faisal A, and Heil NKoivo, 2012. "Online Management Genetic ‘Algorithms of Microgid for Residential Application” Energy Conversion ‘and Management 64: 562-568, Morad, Mohammad Hasan, and M. Abedin.2012."ACombination of Genetic ‘Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization for Optimal OG Location and ‘zing in Distribution Systems” ternational Joumal of Electrica Power & Energy Systems 34(1):65-74. Morac Mohammad H, Mohsen Eskandar and S. Mahdi Hosseiian. 2014. “Operational Strategy Optimization nan Optimal Sied Smart Microgi” KBE Tronsactions on Smart Grid 63: 1087-1095 Murty, V-V.S.N, and Achovan Kumar, 2020. "Multi Objective Energy Man- agement in Hcrogrids with Hybrid Energy Sources and Battery Energy ‘Storage Systems." Potetion and Conta of Mader Power Systems 5 (1 1-20. Pashaei dan, Hamed Sayyad Nojavan, Ramin Nourllahi and Kazem Zare 2018."Optimal Economie: Emission Performance ofFuelCellCHP/Storage Based Microgrd” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44 (13) 696-6908, Ratnaweera, A, SK Halgamuge, and H.C. Watson, 2008, “Self-Organizing Hierarchical Particle Swarm Optimizer with Time Varying Acelers tion Coefilent” IEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 8 (3 240-255, dot 0.1 109/TEVC. 2008826071 So V. Livan, and L. Vniemi. 2017. "A New Mult Objective Economie: Emission Dispatch in Microgrids” In 2017 IEEE Power & Energy Society (General Meeting, 1-5. oi:10.1109/PESGM.20178274401 Sepehrzad, Reza, Mohammad Esmacil Hassanzadeh, Ai Reza Seif and ‘Mahnaz Mazinan, 2027. "An Efcient Multilevel Interconnect Contra {Algorithm in ACIDC Micro tems Research 202107567, Sepehrza, Reza, Ali Reza Mord, Mohammad Esmaeil Hassanzadeh, and ‘All Reza Sef. 202. “Inteligent Energy Management and Muit-Objectve Power Distribution Conta in Hybrid Micro-Grds Based onthe Advanced Fuzzy-P5O Method” SA Transactions 112: 199-213. Sh, Zhichao, Hao Liang. Shengjun Huang, and Venkata Dinavahi 2018, “Distrbutionally Robust Chance Constrained Energy Management for landed Microgtds. IEE Transactions on Smart Grid 10(2} 2234-2244, Stevenson, Wiliam, and John Grainger. 1994. Power System Analysis. New "York: McGraw-Hill Education. Wu, Xiong, Xiu Wang, and Chong Qu. 2014. A Hierarchical Framework for ‘Generation Scheduling of Microrids"IEEETransactionson Power Delivery 296 2448-2457 Zhang, Guanglin, Yu Cao, Yongsheng Cao, Demin Li, and Lin Wang 12017. “Optimal nergy Management for Mirogeds with Combined Heat and Power (CHF) Generation, Energy Storages, and Renewable Energy Sources Energies 109) 1288,