Received 14 April 2024, accepted 26 April 2024, date of publication 6 May 2024, date of current version 24 May 2024.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3397710

Energy Balancing of Power System Considering

Periodic Behavioral Pattern of Renewable
Energy Sources and Demands
SAHER JAVAID, (Member, IEEE), MINEO KANEKO , (Member, IEEE),
AND YASUO TAN, (Member, IEEE)
Graduate School of Advanced Science and Technology, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi 923-1292, Japan
Corresponding author: Saher Javaid (saher@jaist.ac.jp)

ABSTRACT Renewable Energy Sources (RESs), such as wind and photovoltaic systems, represent
environmentally sustainable options for power generation. However, the inherent variability in the output
energy of RESs poses a significant challenge to their seamless integration into the power grid. Furthermore,
fluctuations in consumer activity amplify the risks associated with power imbalances. To ensure the stable
operation of power systems, it is critical to enhance their ability to manage fluctuations caused by renewable
sources and dynamic demand. This paper introduces a pioneering concept for robust energy balancing
designed to mitigate energy imbalances resulting from fluctuating generation and demand mismatches. This
paper proposes system conditions for a power system to continue safe operation under any power levels of
fluctuating generation and demand considering worst-case analysis. In other words, our theorem provides
the boundary between a system that can continue its safe operation under any power levels of fluctuating
generators and loads and a system that may experience power/energy imbalance due to the fluctuations of
generators and loads. These two types of energy balancing conditions, named Supply-Dominated Energy
Balancing (SDEB) and Demand-Dominated Energy Balancing (DDEB), apply worst-case operations for
fluctuating power devices and best-case operations for controllable power devices. These two conditions
jointly provide sufficient conditions for a power system to operate safely under any power level of
fluctuations. The key idea behind these energy balancing concepts is the consideration of periodic behavioral
patterns of fluctuating sources and loads and their upper and lower bound envelopes, enabling us to analyze
the long-term system behavior by analyzing one-cycle operations. In addition, the extracted non-trivial
upper-bound and lower-bound envelopes of fluctuating sources and loads offer a novel interpretation of
the collaboration between storage systems and controllable sources/loads in energy balancing and provide
insights into the minimum sizes required for these devices to sustain safe and uninterrupted power system
operation. Finally, the application of the proposed SDEB and DDEB conditions to actual power generation
and consumption data is demonstrated. In general, worst-case-based theoretical discussions tend to yield a
result that is far apart from a practical situation. However, it is found that the difference between our result
and another cost-based practical approach is relatively small, which reveals the potential of the proposed
approach to work with more realistic constraints, preferences, etc., in practical situations.

INDEX TERMS Energy balancing, periodic behavioral patterns, energy storage systems, renewable energy
sources, power fluctuations.

NOMENCLATURE
DDEB Demand-Dominated Energy Balanc-
ing.
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and ESS Energy storage capacity of a power
approving it for publication was Ahmed F. Zobaa . storage device.
2024 The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
VOLUME 12, 2024 For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 70245
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
Epgf (ts , te ) Energy generation of a fluctuating
power generator from time ts to te .
Epgf .max (ts , te ) Maximum energy generation of a fluc-
tuating power generator from time ts
to te .
Epgf .min (ts , te ) Minimum energy generation of a fluc-
tuating power generator from time ts
to te .
Epℓf (ts , te ) Energy consumption by a fluctuating
power load from time ts to te .
Epℓf .max (ts , te ) Maximum energy consumption by a
fluctuating power load from time ts
to te .
Epℓf .min (ts , te ) Minimum energy consumption by a
fluctuating power load from time ts
to te .
Epgc (ts , te ) Energy generation of a controllable
power generator from time ts to te .
Epℓc (ts , te ) Energy consumption by a controllable
power load from time ts to te .
pgf (t) Power generation of a fluctuating
power generator as a function of time t.
pgf .max (t) Maximum bound on the power genera-
tion of a fluctuating power generator as
a function of time t, which is obtained
from data profiling.
pgf .min (t) Minimum bound on the power genera-
tion of a fluctuating power generator as
a function of time t, which is obtained
from data profiling.
pℓf (t) Power consumption of a fluctuating
power load as a function of time t.
pℓf .max (t) Maximum bound on the power con-
sumption of a fluctuating power load as
a function of time t, which is obtained
from data profiling.
pℓf .min (t) Minimum bound on the power con-
sumption of a fluctuating power load as
a function of time t, which is obtained
from data profiling.
pgc (t) Power generation of a controllable
power generator as a function of time t.
pgc.max Maximum power generation of a con-
trollable power generator.
pgc.min Minimum power generation of a con-
trollable power generator.
pℓc (t) Power consumption of a controllable
power load as a function of time t.
pℓc.max Maximum power consumption of a
controllable power load.
pℓc.min Minimum power consumption of a
controllable power load.
psin (t) Incoming power to a power storage
device as a function of time t.
psin.min Minimum incoming power to a power
storage device.
70246
psout (t) Outgoing power from a power storage
device as a function of time t.
psout.max Maximum outgoing power from a
power storage device.
psout.min Minimum outgoing power from a
power storage device.
SOC(t) State of charge of a power storage
device as a function of time t.
SOC max Maximum state of charge of a power
storage device .
SOC min Minimum state of charge of a power
storage device.
SDEB Supply-Dominated Energy Balancing.
SOC State Of Charge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The power infrastructure is every country’s backbone and
most important economic aspect. The conventional power
grid is less flexible to adapt new advanced technologies
regarding safety and reliability [1] of the power system. The
power system has recently developed rapidly, incorporating
advanced sensing, communication, and control strategies,
making the conventional power grid a “Smart Grid”. One
prominent feature of the smart grid is its ability to obtain
power from different types of generators to meet high power
demands while reducing environmental pollution. These
power sources are mostly renewable, such as photovoltaic and
wind generation systems that supply clean energy, mitigate
gas emissions, and achieve a sustainable energy system [2].
The necessity to reduce gas emissions caused by con-
ventional power generators from fossil fuels, coupled with
the fast growth in the world’s power demand, is causing a
large-scale expansion of photovoltaic and wind generation
systems. The generated power from these power sources
fluctuates due to the cycle of day and night, weather
change, climate change, etc., and is uncontrollable. The
uncertainty of generated power from these sources arises
as the percentage of renewable sources in the current
power system increases [3], [4], [5]. Additionally, power
variations on the consumer side due to user activity and
seasonal power demand escalate the chances of power
fluctuations [6], [7], [8].
The power fluctuations from the generation and consump-
tion sides exhibit significant challenges to the power system
operation. One such challenge is a power imbalance when
the supply and demand characteristics differ. Power balance
is crucial in ensuring the electrical network’s stability,
reliability, and efficiency. Here are some key points:
• Electrical Grid and Network Stability: When the power
supply matches demand, the electrical grid operates in
a stable state. Imbalances between supply and demand
can lead to voltage variations, frequency deviations, and
even blackouts. Maintaining a balance between supply
and consumption helps to keep the grid stable and
prevents disruptions in electrical service.
VOLUME 12, 2024
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
• Prevention of Overloads: In an imbalanced system
where demand exceeds supply, there’s a risk of over-
loading transmission lines, transformers, and other
network components. Conversely, when supply exceeds
demand, there’s a risk of underutilizing generation
capacity, leading to inefficiencies and wasted resources.
Balancing supply and consumption optimizes the uti-
lization of network assets while avoiding overloads or
underutilization.
• Grid Resilience and Reliability: A well-balanced electri-
cal grid is more resilient to disturbances such as power
fluctuations, equipment failures, or natural disasters.
By maintaining a balance between supply and consump-
tion, grid operators can respond more effectively to
unexpected events, minimizing the impact on electrical
service reliability.
• Quality of Service (QoS): Power and energy fluctuations
can impact the quality of service experienced by
end users. For example, the power supply should be
continuous; sudden changes in power can lead to power
outages or discontinuity.
• Economic Consideration: Imbalances between power
supply and consumption can have economic implica-
tions, including higher electricity prices during periods
of high demand or increased costs associated with grid
congestion. Balancing supply and consumption helps
to stabilize energy markets and ensure cost-effective
delivery of electricity to consumers.
In order to maintain power/energy balance, integrating
an energy storage system into a renewable-based power
system has been verified as the most suitable and feasible
solution [9], [10]. For example, when renewable generated
power exceeds power demand, the excess power will
be used to charge energy storage for power curtailment.
Similarly, when renewable generated power is insufficient
to fulfill demand, storage systems can discharge energy to
fill the gap between demand and generation. Further, many
researchers have claimed that using energy storage systems to
support renewable energy sources is unavoidable [11]. Thus,
energy storage systems help to realize economical, reliable,
and sustainable power system operation. Some significant
benefits of storage integration into the power grid are peak
hour energy shaving [12], [13], balancing energy [14], [15],
[16], storing energy for backup [17], renewable support [18],
[19], [20], power quality and security [21], etc.
The power system would have been less complex if the
power supply pattern coincided with the demand pattern.
However, power-balancing methods are required in the
real physical environment for safe and continuous power
system operation when supply and demand patterns are
rather discrepant. Installing energy storage systems and
additional controllable generators/loads (or connecting to
a power grid, which can also be treated as a controllable
generator) are possible options to maintain the balance
VOLUME 12, 2024
between generators and loads. So, a problem arises in
determining the size of the energy storage system and
controllable generators/loads. [22] classified the studies on
sizing energy storage systems in terms of optimization
criteria into financial, technical, and hybrid criteria. With
respect to financial criteria, research papers are competing
in introducing and integrating many different categories of
costs under many different operation scenarios [23], [24],
[25]. Technical criteria include battery-supported frequency
regulation and voltage stability [26], [27], [28]. Criteria
related to battery degradation/aging can also be technical
criteria for the sizing of energy storage systems [29], [30],
[31]. These technical criteria are often combined with other
financial criteria as constraints in the sizing optimization or
as a part of financial cost after the conversion, e.g., from
charging/discharging rate into the replacement cost [32], [33].
This type of approach is categorized into hybrid. On the
other hand, [22] also categorized the algorithms to solve the
sizing problem into probabilistic, analytical, search-based,
and hybrid methods. Despite this categorization, most of
the studies in any method rely on numerical simulations of
system behavior using synthetic system models with fixed
size parameters, some operation scenarios, some concrete
system control algorithms, and generated/synthesized fluctu-
ating power data over time.
This paper provides an alternative aspect of the energy
storage sizing problem. The main issue discussed in this paper
is an energy balancing theorem for a power system containing
fluctuating power generators and fluctuating power loads
and controllable power generators, controllable loads, and
energy storage systems. The purpose of the theorem is to
guarantee the continuation of safe operation of a power
system under any power levels of fluctuating generators and
loads, where the safe operation here refers to the state that
both power balance and energy balance are attained between
generators, loads, and energy storage systems. In other words,
the theorem provides the boundary between a system that
can continue its safe operation under any power levels (but
known as lower and upper bounds) of fluctuating generators
and loads and a system that may experience power/energy
imbalance due to the fluctuations of generators and loads.
The theorem is described in terms of the sizes of generators,
loads, and storage systems, and hence, it is also closely related
to the sizing of energy storage systems. However, unlike
other approaches, our sizing provides the minimum sizes
of controllable generators, controllable loads, and storage
systems to theoretically guarantee the continuation of safe
operation under any power levels (but known upper and lower
bounds) of fluctuating generators and loads.
The originality and contribution of this work lie in the
following points.
1) Two distinct aspects of power/energy balance, one is
“Supply-Dominated Power/Energy Balancing (SDEB)”
and the other is, “Demand-Dominated Power/Energy
70247
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern

Balancing (DDEB)” are introduced, and they are further

analyzed with worst case operations of fluctuating
parameters and best case operations of controllable
parameters. These two types of power/energy balance
jointly provide sufficient conditions for a power system
to operate safely under any power levels of fluctuating
sources and loads.
2) The introduction of the periodic power patterns of
fluctuating sources and demands enable us to analyze
the long-term system behavior by analyzing one cycle
operation. A key to this analysis is a special treatment
of the initial and final states of an energy storage system
in analyzing one cycle operation, which can allow the
continuation of the periodic operation. FIGURE 1. Extraction of time-dependent maximum and minimum power
3) In addition, the extracted non-trivial upper-bound bounds from Periodic behavioral patterns.
envelopes and lower-bound envelopes of fluctuating
sources and loads provide us with a novel interpretation
of the collaboration between storage systems and
controllable sources and loads in energy balancing,
as well as their minimum sizes necessary for the
continuation of safe operation.
The paper’s outline is as follows; Section II shows the
FIGURE 2. Time-dependent maximum and minimum power bounds of
consideration and importance of periodic behavioral patterns fluctuating power generator pgf and power load pℓf .
to keep the safe operation of a power system. Section III
shows the novel concept of energy balancing between power
generators, consumers, and storage systems, considering
mixed worst-case and best-case based analysis of system
periodic patterns. The concept of energy balancing is
behavior, and another key is the treatment of the boundary
explained with (i) Supply-Dominated Energy Balancing
between consecutive one-cycle behaviors, which will be
(SDEB), which is presented in Section IV, and (ii) Demand-
discussed later.
Dominated Energy Balancing (DDEB), which is explained In fact, most of the power demands arise from human
in Section V. Section VI shows the overall ESS sizing of
activities, and these human activities may have periodic
storage capacity for the safe operation of the power system.
patterns. Power consumption in homes with power peaks
Section VII shows the miscellaneous notes considering the
in the morning and evening, power consumption patterns
contribution of time-dependent upper and lower bounds and
in offices during daily working hours, and all-day power
trade-offs between controllable and storage devices. The consumption in 24-hour factories are examples of periodic
application of SDEB and DDEB theorems with an application behavioral power consumption patterns. On the other hand,
example is presented in Section VIII. Finally, the concluding
the fluctuating power sources may also have periodic
remarks are given in Section VIII.
patterns. A day-long periodic behavior of a PhotoVoltaic (PV)
source might be a typical example. Some renewable energy
II. PERIODIC BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS sources, such as solar, wind, ocean, etc., may have periodic
In order to show mathematical/theoretical conditions for a patterns depending on their type.
power system to continue its safe operation under any power Considering our worst-case-based analysis of the power
levels of fluctuating sources and demand, consideration of system, when these cyclic patterns are analyzed, first, the
the worst-case operations of fluctuating devices would be power levels of demands/generators are measured for a
essential in the discussions of this paper. When we treat sufficiently long time so that, conceptually speaking, every
the energy balancing issue, we need to consider more or possible case is included in the measurement. Then, the
less a certain time span since energy is defined as the measured data is folded over time with a prescribed time
integral of power over time. However, if we introduce period, which can be 24 hours, 169 hours (one week),
naively a finite time span in a discussion, the validity of the etc. Lastly, the time-to-time upper bound and lower bound
discussion is limited within the defined time span. A major are extracted to get the time-dependent upper bound and
motivation for introducing periodic behavioral patterns lies lower bound of power level for the measured device, which
in overcoming this dilemma and giving the mathematical are used as worst-case behaviors of the device in every
guarantee of a long-term safe operation by the analysis in period of time. Fig. 1 illustrates the process of getting the
an one-cycle time span. One of the keys to realize it is the time-dependent upper and lower bounds from measurement

70248 VOLUME 12, 2024

S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 3. Power system under consideration.
data (see Fig. 2). Note that, even for such a power source
or demand that does not have a periodic pattern, e.g.,
a completely random waveform, it can be modeled with
constant (time-independent) upper and lower bounds and can
be included in the discussions in this paper.
With respect to the introduction of periodic patterns,
another motivation lies behind this analysis of periodic
patterns. This kind of analysis, considering periodic patterns,
provides us with more precise information about the worst-
case behavior. Otherwise, the upper and lower bound power
levels will be given as constants, such as the maximum
and minimum over time of measured data. Such precise
information about the worst-case behavior is expected to give
us a tighter system condition. In this sense, the choice of the
period is also important since it affects the size of the gap
between the maximum and the minimum bounds. Regarding
human activities and if PV source is considered the main
renewable sources, 24 hours or 168 hours (a week-long) could
be a reasonable choice.
III. ENERGY BALANCING CONSIDERING PERIODIC
BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS
In this section, starting with the original forms of power
balance and energy balance equations for a power system, two
distinct conditions named “Supply-Dominated Power/Energy
Balancing (SDEB)” and “Demand-Dominated Power/Energy
Balancing (DDEB)” are introduced. These conditions ensure
that the power system continues to operate safely under any
situation of fluctuating devices. At this stage, the introduction
of the periodicity of system behavior is still partial, and the
energy conditions are described with the time variable t.
These energy conditions are analyzed further in the following
sections.
A. OVERVIEW OF POWER SYSTEM
Fig. 3 shows a power system model under consideration,
which contains a fluctuating power source PGf , a controllable
VOLUME 12, 2024
power source PGc , a fluctuating load PL f , a controllable load
PL c , and a storage system PS. Since the main concerns of
this paper are power balancing and energy balancing between
devices, the details of individual devices are not specified
instead of their category, i.e., generator, load or storage,
its type, i.e., controllable or fluctuating, and its parameters,
i.e., maximum and minimum power levels, capacity (size),
etc. A controllable generator may be a distributed generator
having its rated output power. The connection to a grid can
also be considered as a kind of controllable generator, where
its contract power can be treated as the maximum power level,
for example.
In this paper, the power generation at time t is represented
as pgc (t) and pgf (t) for controllable and fluctuating power
generators, respectively. Similarly, power consumption of
both types of power loads at time t is shown as pℓc (t) and
pℓf (t), accordingly. The power generation of controllable
power generator is bounded between the minimum and
maximum power levels denoted as pgc.min and pgc.max ,
respectively.
pgc.min ≤ pgc (t) ≤ pgc.max (1)
Similarly, the power consumption of controllable power loads
is bounded between minimum and maximum consumption
limitations represented as pℓc.min , and pℓc.max .
pℓc.min ≤ pℓc (t) ≤ pℓc.max (2)
For fluctuating power devices, time-dependent minimum
and maximum power bounds which are obtained from the
analysis of periodic behavioral patterns (see Section II) are
used.
pgf .min (t) ≤ pgf (t) ≤ pgf .max (t) (3)
f .min f f .max
pℓ (t) ≤ pℓ (t) ≤ pℓ (t) (4)
where all of pgf .min (t), pgf .max (t), pℓf .min (t), and pℓf .max (t)
are periodic functions with the period T . That is,
pgf .min (t + T ) = pgf .min (t) (5)
and so forth with pgf .max (t), pℓf .min (t), and pℓf .max (t).
The parameters associated with energy storage are psin (t),
out
ps (t), SOC(t), and ESS to show incoming power to storage,
outgoing power from storage at time t, State Of Charge (SOC)
at time t, and energy storage capacity of storage, respectively.
ESS · SOC(t) represents the amount of energy stored in the
storage device.
Additionally, psin (t) and psout (t) are bounded as;
psin.min ≤ psin (t) ≤ psin.max (6)
out.min out out.max
ps ≤ ps (t) ≤ ps (7)
In addition, overcharging and over-discharging would
damage the storage system and should be avoided. So, the
maximum and minimum limitations of SOC are used in this
paper. These maximum and minimum allowable levels of the
70249
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern

SOC are represented as SOC max and SOC min , and the system C. ENERGY BALANCING
is to be controlled so that SOC(t) keeps these limitations. The power balancing in the previous subsection is a condition
qualified at every instantaneous time, whereas the energy
SOC min ≤ SOC(t) ≤ SOC max (8) balancing is another type of qualification on energy as the
temporal integral of power. Since the energy can be stored
In this paper, we assume that charging and discharging of
in and drawn out from a storage device, the energy balance
a storage system can be done without energy loss for both
needs to consider not only generated energy and consumed
storage charging and storage discharging.
energy but also the increase/decrease of stored energy in the
storage device. The next shows a form of energy balancing
B. POWER BALANCING
between generators, loads, and storage devices, which is
Before starting the discussions on energy balancing, the qualified from time t0 till time t.
power balancing conditions are briefly reviewed [34]. Every
time instance t, the total outgoing power from devices and the Z t Z t
total incoming power into devices must be balanced, which is pgf (τ )dτ + pgc (τ )dτ + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
t0 t0
written with the following equation. Z t Z t
= pℓf (τ )dτ + pℓc (τ )dτ + SOC(t) · ESS (16)
pgf (t) + pgc (t) + psout (t) t0 t0
f c in
= pℓ (t) + pℓ (t) + ps (t) (9) where
Our concern is theoretically proven safe operation under
SOC(t) · ESS
the fluctuation of fluctuating devices. Toward this end, the Z t 
worst-case operation for fluctuating devices and the best = SOC(t0 ) · ESS + psin (τ ) − psout (τ ) dτ (17)
possible operation for controllable devices are considered in t0
the power balancing. First, the power balancing is translated
into two inequalities; Note that the left-hand side of (16) is the sum of the
generated energies by fluctuating and controllable generators
pgf (t) + pgc (t) + psout (t) and the initial energy stored in the storage device at time
≥ pℓf (t) + pℓc (t) + psin (t) (10) t0 , and the right-hand side is the sum of consumed energies
f c out
by fluctuating and controllable power loads and the energy
pg (t) + pg (t) + ps (t) remaining in the storage device at time t.
≤ pℓ (t) + pℓ (t) + psin (t)
f c
(11) The energy balancing equality constraint (16) is repre-
sented with two inequality constraints shown below,
The worst-case operation for fluctuating devices and
Z t Z t
the best possible operation for controllable devices are
pgf (τ )dτ + pgc (τ )dτ + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
substituted into individual inequalities. t0 t0
Z t Z t
pgf .min (t) + pgc.max + psout.max ≥ pℓf (τ )dτ + pℓc (τ )dτ + SOC(t) · ESS (18)
≥ pℓf .max (t) + pℓc.min + psin.min (12) Z t
t0
Z t
t0

f .max c.min out.min pgf (τ )dτ + pgc (τ )dτ + SOC(t0 ) · ESS

pg (t) + pg + ps
t0 t0
f .min c.max
≤ pℓ (t) + pℓ + psin.max (13) Z t Z t
≤ pℓf (τ )dτ + pℓc (τ )dτ + SOC(t) · ESS (19)
These inequalities are finally interpreted as the following t0 t0
Lemma 1 says.
Hereinafter, the former inequality constraint (18) is called
Lemma 1: For any time t and any power levels for
“Supply-Dominated Energy Balancing (SDEB)”, and the
fluctuating devices, pgf (t) and pℓf (t), there always exist the
latter (19) is called “Demand-Dominated Energy Balancing
power levels pgc (t), pℓc (t), psin (t) and psout (t) which satisfy
(DDEB)”. SDEB and DDEB are refined by applying
the power balance equation, if and only if;
the worst-case operations for fluctuating devices and the
pgc.max − pℓc.min + psout.max − psin.min best-effort operations for controllable generators, loads, and
storage devices to derive a theoretical condition for a system
≥ max {pℓf .max (t) − pgf .min (t)} (14)
0≤t<T to operate safely under any situation of fluctuating generators
pℓ c.max
− pgc.min + psin.max − psout.min and loads.
With respect to SDEB given by (18), pℓf (τ ) = pℓf .max (τ )
≥ max {pgf .max (t) − pℓf .min (t)} (15) and pgf (τ ) = pgf .min (τ ) as the worst-case operations for
0≤t<T
The first condition is named “Supply-Dominated Power fluctuating power devices and pℓc (τ ) = pℓc.min , pgc (τ ) =
Balance (SDPB)”, and the second one is named “Demand pgc.max , psin (τ ) = psin.min and psout (τ ) = psout.max as the
Dominated Power Balance (DDPB)”. best-effort operations for controllable devices are substituted

70250 VOLUME 12, 2024

S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern

into (18), which results in the following.

Epgf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.max + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.min + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
+ (t − t0 )(psin.min − psout.max ) (20)
in case of
SOC(t0 ) · ESS + (t − t0 )(psin.min − psout.max ) > SOC min · ESS
(21)
and
Epgf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.max + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.min + SOC min · ESS (22)
in case of
FIGURE 4. The minimum of pgc.max − pℓc.min appears as the minimum
SOC(t0 ) · ESS + (t − t0 )(psin.min − psout.max ) ≤ SOC min · ESS slope of the convex envelop of Epℓf .max (ts , t ) − Epgf .min (ts , t ).

(23)
where, in case of
Z t
Epgf .min (t0 , t) = pgf .min (τ )dτ
△
(24) SOC(t0 )
t
Z 0t · ESS + (t − t0 )(psin.max − psout.min ) ≥ SOC max · ESS
f .max △ f .max
Epℓ (t0 , t) = pℓ (τ )dτ (25) (30)
t0
In the former case, SDEB is finally represented as; where,
f .min
(t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pg c.max t
Z
Epg
Epgf .max (t0 , t) = pgf .max (τ )dτ
△
(31)
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.min t
Z 0t
+ (t − t0 )(psin.min − psout.max ) (26) Epℓf .min (t0 , t) =
△
pℓf .min (τ )dτ (32)
t0
which is automatic from the supply-dominated version of the
power balancing condition given by (14). That is, if the power The former condition can be represented as;
balancing conditions (14) are satisfied, the former type of
energy balancing is always satisfied. Hence, in the following Epgf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.min
part of this paper, SDEB refers mainly to the latter given ≤ Epℓf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.max
by (22). + (t − t0 )(psin.max − psout.min ) (33)
A similar discussion is applied on DDEB given by (19).
That is, pgf (τ ) = pgf .max (τ ), and pℓf (τ ) = pℓf .min (τ ), as the which is derived from the demand-dominated version of the
worst-case of fluctuating devices, and pgc (τ ) = pgc.min , power-balancing condition given by (15). The energy balanc-
pℓc (τ ) = pℓc.max , psin (τ ) = psin.max , and psout (τ ) = ing is always satisfied if the power balancing conditions (15)
psout.min as the best-effort operation of controllable devices are satisfied. Accordingly, in the rest of this paper, DDEB
are substituted into (19), which yields the following. refers mainly to the latter case given by (29).
Epgf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.min + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
IV. SYSTEM CONDITION BASED ON SDEB
≤ Epℓf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.max + SOC(t0 ) · ESS In periodic behavioral patterns, the end of the first pattern is
+ (t − t0 )(psin.max − psout.min ) (27) the starting point of the next pattern. Since the initial SOC
of the energy storage system is not fixed for each periodic
in case of pattern, it can be treated as fluctuating. From this point of
SOC(t0 ) · ESS + (t − t0 )(psin.max − psout.min ) view, the final form of SDEB for a power system to operate
safely under any situation of fluctuating generators and loads
< SOC max · ESS (28)
will be derived.
and
A. FORMULATION OF SDEB CONDITION
Epgf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.min + SOC(t0 ) · ESS
Considering the fluctuating nature of the initial SOC,
≤ Epℓf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.max + SOC max · ESS (29) the worst-case operation is applied to SOC(t0 ). For the

VOLUME 12, 2024 70251

 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern

case of SDEB, SOC min is substituted into SOC(t0 ) in the

inequality (22).
Epgf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.max + SOC min · ESS
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.min + SOC min · ESS (34)
Ultimately, the SDEB situation can be exhibited as,
Epgf .min (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pgc.max
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.min (35)
The controllable and fluctuating parameters in (35) are
separated explicitly, which can be represented as,
(t − t0 ) · (pgc.max − pℓc.min )
≥ Epℓf .max (t0 , t) − Epgf .min (t0 , t) (36)
where the left hand side (t − t0 ) · (pgc.max
− pℓc.min )
is the maximum possible energy supply from the group
of controllable generators and loads (maximum energy FIGURE 5. Detailed examination of one periodic pattern from time ts to
supply from controllable generators minus minimum energy ts + T for the situation of SOC (ts ) = SOC min .
consumption by controllable loads), and the right hand side
Epℓf .max (t0 , t) − Epgf .min (t0 , t) is the maximum possible
energy consumption by the group of fluctuating loads and As a result, it can be concluded that, if (36) is satisfied for
generators (maximum demand from fluctuating loads minus t in one period, t0 ≤ t ≤ t0 + T , then (36) is satisfied
minimum energy generation of fluctuating generators). for all t, t ≥ t0 . Note that, if a long-term operation of a
Of course, the condition (36) must be satisfied for any time power system is considered and the transient behavior during
t, t ≥ t0 which can be verified by an analysis of one cycle the start-up of a power system is ignored, the choice of
operation from t = t0 to t = t0 + T due to the periodicity of t0 is not restricted by any specific event, and it can be made
pℓf .max (t). Now (36) is assumed to be satisfied from t = t0 to freely.
t = t0 + T , and consider the behavior of (36) at the time Theorem 1: SDEB for a power system to operate safely
t = t0 + kT + t′, 0 ≤ t′ < T . The left hand side of (36) is under any situation of fluctuating generators and loads is
evaluated as, given as follows.
(t − t0 )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) ∃
ts s.t. ∀
t, ts ≤ t ≤ ts + T ,
= (t0 + kT + t ′ − t0 )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) (t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min )
= (t0 + kT + t ′ − (t0 + kT ))(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) ≥ Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t) (39)
k
X With respect to the inequality (39), it is trivial that the equality
+ (t0 + iT − (t0 + (i − 1)T ))(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) holds at t = ts . In particular, if the equality holds at ts + T as
i=1 well, the power system is called “SDEB-critical”.
= (t0 + t ′ − t0 )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) Corollary 2: When a power system is SDEB-critical,
(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) is minimal, that is, (pgc.max − pℓc.min )
+ k(t0 + T − t0 )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) (37)
cannot be decreased without violating SDEB condition or
On the other hand, the right hand side of (36) is evaluated as decreasing Epℓf .max (t0 , t) − Epgf .min (t0 , t).
follows. Fig. 4 illustrates the relation between (t − t0 )(pgc.max −
pℓ c.min and Epℓf .max (t0 , t)−Epgf .min (t0 , t) for a SDEB-critical
Epℓf .max (t0 , t0 + kT + t ′ ) − Epgf .min (t0 , t0 + kT + t ′ )
power system. For fluctuating generator and load, the
= Epℓf .max (t0 + kT , t0 + kT + t ′ ) worst-case operation must consume the energy level EA at
− Epgf .min (t0 + kT , t0 + kT + t ′ ) t = ts + T . To satisfy this demanded energy, cooperation
k from controllable power devices is helpful to keep the power
Epℓf .max (t0 + (i − 1)T , t0 + iT ) level pgc.max for the controllable generator and pℓc.min for
X
+
i=1
controllable load from t = ts to t = ts + T .
k The area B signifies the surplus energy to be delivered from
Epgf .min (t0 + (i − 1)T , t0 + iT )
X
− the controllable generator compared with the energy demand
i=1 by the fluctuating load. Finally, the maximum distance
= Epℓf .max (t0 , t0 + t ′ ) − Epgf .min (t0 , t0 + t ′ ) between (t − ts ) · (pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and Epℓf .max (ts , t) −
Epgf .min (ts , t) shows the necessary storage capacity of the
+ k(Epℓf .max (t0 , t0 + T ) − Epgf .min (t0 , t0 + T )) (38) energy storage system.

70252 VOLUME 12, 2024

S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 6. Detailed analysis of one periodic operation from time ts to
ts + T for the situation of SOC (ts ) > SOC min .
B. INTERPRETATION-1 OF SDEB CONDITION
Using Fig. 5, one periodic pattern is examined from time ts to
ts +T . In this figure, an additional line that is parallel with the
line (t − ts ) · (pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and bounds Epℓf .max (ts , t) −
Epgf .min (ts , t) from below is drawn. Firstly, it is assumed
that SOC(ts ) = SOC min . In order to catch up to the energy
level EA demanded by Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t) at t =
ts + T , pgc (t) and pℓc (t) should be set at pgc.max and pℓc.min ,
respectively. The blue arrow shows the increase in energy by
(t −ts )·(pgc.max −pℓc.min ). This energy will be utilized in two
ways: one is to fulfill Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t) (region
C1 ) and the other is to charge the storage system (region B1 ).
As a result, the energy demand Epℓf .max (ts , t)−Epgf .min (ts , t)
is fulfilled during [ts , ts +t ′ ], and the energy EB −EA′ is stored
in addition to ESS ·SOC min in the storage at the time t = ts +t ′ .
After t = ts + t ′ , the incremental energy by (t − (ts + t ′ )) ·
(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) is shown by the green arrow and region
C2 , which is not enough for the demand Epℓf .max (ts + t ′ , t) −
Epgf .min (ts + t ′ , t). The stored energy EB − EA′ in the storage
system compensates for the energy shortage, corresponding
to the energy transfer from the region B2 to the region C3 . As a
result, the energy demand Epℓf .max (ts + t ′ , t) − Epgf .min (ts +
t ′ , t) during [ts +t ′ , ts +T ] is satisfied, and SOC of the storage
system returns to SOC min at t = ts + T . During the above one
periodic pattern, the energy storage system needs to store the
energy EB − EA′ in addition to ESS · SOC min . From above, the
size of the storage can be concluded as,
SOC max · ESS ≥ EB − EA′ + SOC min · ESS
and,
EB − EA′
ESS ≥ (41)
SOC max − SOC min
Next, it is assumed that SOC max ≥ SOC(ts ) ≥
SOC min . Several scenarios for controlling the system can
be considered in this situation. One possible scenario is
demonstrated using Fig. 6. During the time from t = ts until
VOLUME 12, 2024
FIGURE 7. SDEB condition for the case that
Epℓf .max (ts , t ) − Epgf .min (ts , t ) has a decreasing section.
some appropriate time ts + t ′′ , pgc (t) − pℓc (t) is controlled
so that it follows the energy demand Epℓf .max (ts , t) −
Epgf .min (ts , t), and after time ts + t ′′ until ts + t ′ , pgc (t) and
pℓc (t) are set to pgc.max and pℓc.min , respectively, so that the
stored energy in the energy storage system is increased from
ESS · SOC(ts ) to at least EB − EA′ . After ts + t ′ , the system will
be controlled as shown in the previous case.
C. INTERPRETATION-2 OF SDEB CONDITION
Fig. 7 shows the case that Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t) has
a decreasing section, i.e., time zone II from t = ts + t1 to
ts + t2 .
First, suppose that SOC(ts ) = SOC min . In this situation,
in order to fulfill the demanded energy Epℓf .max (ts , ts +
T ) − Epgf .min (ts , ts + T ) = EA , from t = ts to ts + T ,
pgc (t) and pℓc (t) are set at pgc.max and pℓc.min , respectively,
throughout this one cycle. In time zone I from ts to ts + t1 ,
(t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) is partly used for fulfilling the
demand (region a.), and the rest is stored in the storage system
(region b.). In time zone II from ts + t1 to ts + t2 , the gradient
of Epℓf .max (ts + t1 , t) − Epgf .min (ts + t1 , t) is negative, which
means pℓf .max (t) < pgf .min (t). Hence, the demand pℓf .max (t)
is fulfilled by the fluctuating power generator, and the excess
energy Epgf .min (ts + t1 , t) − Epℓf .max (ts + t1 , t) (region d.)
and the energy generated by controllable generator (region
(40) c.) are both stored in the storage system. In time zone III
from ts + t2 to ts + t3 , a part of the energy stored in the
storage or generated by the controllable generator (region f .)
is transferred to fluctuating load to fulfill the demand (region
g.). At the end of this section t = ts + t3 , the energy EB
(the sum of right edges of the region c., b′. and e.) as well
as the initial energy SOC min · ESS is stored. In time zone
IV from ts + t3 to ts + T , both newly generated energy by
the generator (region h.) and the energy stored in the storage
70253
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 8. SDEB condition for the case of total energy excess between
fluctuating generators and fluctuating loads. One solution needs only
controllable loads to absorb the excess energy, but not controllable
generators to compensate for energy shortage. Temporal power/energy
imbalance between fluctuating generators and fluctuating loads can be
resolved with the help of controllable loads and storage systems without
using controllable generators.
system (energy transfer from region i. to region j.) are used
to fulfill the demand after t = ts + t3 .
With respect to the storage size, since the maximum energy
stored in the above behavior is SOC min · ESS + EB , the
following is required.
SOC max · ESS ≥ SOC min · ESS + EB (42)
and hence,
EB
ESS ≥ (43)
SOC max − SOC min
In case SOC(ts ) > SOC min , the powers pgc (t) and pℓc (t)
are to be controlled during time zones I, II, and III so that
the demand from the fluctuating load is satisfied (time zones
I and III), the excess energy from the fluctuating generator
is absorbed (time zone II), and the storage device stores the
energy EB + SOC min · ESS at the end of time zone III. In time
zone IV, the system can behave in the same way with the case
of SOC(ts ) = SOC min .
D. INTERPRETATION-3 OF SDEB CONDITION
As the third case, we consider that Epℓf .max (ts , ts + T ) −
Epgf .min (ts , ts + T ) is negative, which indicates that the
minimum energy generation in one periodic cycle by the
fluctuating generator is larger than the maximum energy
consumption in one periodic cycle by fluctuating loads.
If the condition of the SDEB-critical system is applied to the
system, we have negative pgc.max − pℓc.min . As a result, the
following choice, which allows us to disconnect controllable
70254
FIGURE 9. The minimum of pℓc.max − pgc.min appears as the minimum
slope of the convex envelope of Epgf .max (td , t ) − Epℓf .min (td , t ).
generators, is possible.
Epgf .min (ts , ts + T ) − Epℓf .max (ts , ts + T )
pℓc.min ≤ (44)
T
pgc.max = pgc.min
= 0 (45)
Using Fig. 8, the behavior in one periodic cycle for the case
pℓf (t) = pℓf .max (t), pgf (t) = pgf .min (t) is explained. In the
time zone I, the excess energy Epgf .min (ts , t) − Epℓf .max (ts , t)
(regions a. and b.) is absorbed partly by the controllable loads
(region a.) and the rest by the storage system (region b.).
In the time zone II, the energy stored in the storage system
(region c.) is consumed by the fluctuating loads (region e.)
and the controllable loads (region d.). In time zone III, the
energy Ec remained in the storage system at the end of time
zone II (t = ts + t2 ) and the excess energy Ef from the
fluctuating generator are consumed by the controllable load
(region g.). Note that, even in this case, the gap between
(t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t)
corresponds to the energy stored in the storage system.
E. SDEB-BASED ESS SIZING CONDITION
From the previous three subsections, it is found that even
if the fluctuating power generators and power loads behave
worst with respect to SDEB, the SDEB-critical system can
operate safely with the help of controllable power generators,
controllable power loads and power storage systems if the
capacity ESS is selected properly. The following theorem
provides a SDEB-based ESS sizing condition.
Theorem 3: When a power system is SDEB-critical, then
(SOC max − SOC min ) · ESS
n
≥ max (t − ts ) · (pgc.max − pℓc.min )
t∈[ts ,T +ts ]
o
−(Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t) (46)
Note that if pgc.max − pℓc.min
is larger than that for the case of
SDEB-critical, the power supply by the storage system can
VOLUME 12, 2024
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 10. Detailed analysis of one cycle operation from time td to
td + T for the case of SOC (td ) = SOC min .
be partly taken over by the enlarged controllable generator,
which may contribute to reducing the SDEB-based required
size of ESS . The discussions in this paper are devoted to
an SDEB-critical system, and the details about this type of
trade-off between the size of the controllable load and the
size of the storage system remain one of the future research
directions.
V. SYSTEM CONDITION BASED ON DDEB
Next, the DDEB-based system condition is discussed. Similar
to the discussion on the SDEB-based condition, the initial
SOC at time t0 is treated as a fluctuating parameter, and its
worst-case operation is considered to get the DDEB-based
system condition.
A. FORMULATION OF DDEB CONDITION
For the case of DDEB, SOC max as the worst-case operation is
substituted into SOC(t0 ) in the inequality (29), which yields
f .max
Epg (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pg c.min
+ SOC max
· ESS
f .min
≤ Epℓ (t0 , t) + (t − t0 ) · pℓc.max
+ SOC max
· ESS
Lastly, SOC max · ESS in both sides of the inequality is
canceled, and the parameters of fluctuating devices and
controllable devices are separated into different sides
(t − t0 ) · (pℓc.max − pgc.min )
≥ Epgf .max (t0 , t) + Epℓf .min (t0 , t)
In this inequality, the left-hand side (t − t0 ) ·
pgc.min ) is the maximum possible energy consumption by the
group of controllable generators and loads (maximum energy
consumption by the controllable loads minus minimum
energy supply from the controllable generators), and the
right-hand side Epgf .max (t0 , t) + Epℓf .min (t0 , t) is the max-
imum possible energy supply from the group of fluctuating
VOLUME 12, 2024
FIGURE 11. Detailed analysis of one cycle operation from time td to
td + T for the case of SOC (td ) > SOC min .
generators and loads (maximum energy supply from the
fluctuating generators minus minimum energy consumption
by the fluctuating loads).
By applying a similar argument with the SDEB condition
in the previous section, when periodic upper and lower
bounds on power levels of fluctuating generators and loads
are considered, examining the inequality condition over one
period of time can guarantee the inequality condition for
all time t after t0 . Accordingly, the following DDEB-based
system condition is obtained.
B. INTERPRETATION-1 OF DDEB CONDITION
Theorem 4: DDEB for a power system to operate safely
under any situation of fluctuating generators and loads is
given as follows.
∃
td s.t. ∀
t, td ≤ t ≤ td + T ,
(t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min )
≥ Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t) (49)
It is also similar to SDEB condition that, if the equality
(47) holds at t = td and t = td + T as well, the power system is
called “DDEB-critical”.
Corollary 5: When a power system is DDEB-critical,
(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) is minimal, that is, (pℓc.max − pgc.min )
cannot be decreased without violating DDEB condition or
decreasing Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t).
Fig. 9 shows an example of the relation between (t −
(48)
td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t)
(pℓc.max
− for a DDEB-critical system. In Fig. 10, one cycle of the
operation from time td to td + T is examined. At first, it is
assumed that SOC(td ) = SOC min . From time t = td until
td + t′, the power of controllable devices pℓc (t) − pgc (t) is
controlled in such a way that Epℓc (td , t)−Epgc (td , t) absorbs
Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t). After time t = td + t′, the
powers of controllable devices pℓc (t) and pgc (t) are set at
70255

FIGURE 12. DDEB condition for the case that
Epgf .max (td , td + T ) − Epℓf .min (td , td + T ) is negative. One solution
needs only controllable generators to compensate for energy shortages,
not controllable loads to absorb the excess energy. Temporal power
/energy imbalance between fluctuating generators and fluctuating loads
can be resolved with the help of controllable generators and storage
systems without using controllable loads.
pℓc.max and pgc.min , respectively. By doing so, the energy
(t − (td + t′))(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) which represents region
C absorbs from Epgf .max (td + t′, t) − Epℓf .min (td + t′, t).
The rest of the Epgf .max (td + t′, t) − Epℓf .min (td + t′, t),
td + t′ ≤ t ≤ td + T , is stored in the storage system (region
D).
In this situation, the EA − EC shows the maximum stored
energy in the energy storage in addition to SOC min · ESS .
Since the energy storage system must preserve the highest
acceptable stored energy level SOC max · ESS ,
SOC max · ESS ≥ EA − EC + SOC min · ESS
Finally, we can have
EA − EC
ESS ≥ max
SOC − SOC min
Next, the case of SOC max ≥ SOC(td ) > SOC min is
examined using Fig. 11. From time td to td + t ′′ , pℓc (t) and
pgc (t) are set to pℓc.max and pgc.min , respectively, by which
the energy (t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) is consumed. Since
(t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) is greater than Epgf .max (td , t) −
Epℓf .min (td , t), it absorbs not only all of the Epgf .max (td , t) −
Epℓf .min (td , t) (region B1 ) but also the energy stored in the
energy storage system (region A). Here, notice that the time
td + t ′′ is the time when SOC reaches SOC min , and the total
amount of discharged energy during time td to td + t ′′ is
EB′ − EB′′ which is not larger than EA − EC . If SOC does
not reach at SOC min before td + t′, the energy absorption
(t −td )(pℓc.max −pgc.min ) lasts until td +t ′′ = td +t ′ , by which
the energy ED −EB = EA −EC is discharged. In this situation,
70256
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
considering the range of SOC(td ), it can be expressed as
SOC max · ESS − (EA − EC )
≥ SOC(td ) · ESS − (EA − EC )
≥ SOC min · ESS (52)
and hence we have
EA − EC
ESS ≥ (53)
SOC max − SOC min
After td + t ′′ , pℓc (t) and pgc (t) are controlled appropriately
so that (t − (td + t ′′ ))(pℓc (t) − pgc (t)) absorbs Epgf .max (td +
t ′′ , t) − Epℓf .min (td + t ′′ , t) (region B2 ). The behavior after
time t = td + t ′ is exactly the same as the previous one for
the case of SOC(td ) = SOC min .
C. INTERPRETATION-2 OF DDEB CONDITION
Fig. 12 illustrates the case that Epgf .max (td , t)−Epℓf .min (td , t)
has a decreasing section, i.e., time zone II from t = td +
t1 to td + t2 . If SOC(td ) = SOC min , pℓc (t) − pgc (t) is
controlled so that it absorbs Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t)
(region a.) during the time zone I. In the next time zone
II, pℓc (t) − pgc (t) is controlled so that it provides power
(i.e., pgc (t) − pℓc (t) > 0) to the fluctuating load (region
d.) since pℓf .min (t) > pgf .max (t) in this time zone II.
In the time zone III, pℓc (t) − pgc (t) is again controlled so
that it absorbs Epgf .max (td + t2 , t) − Epℓf .min (td + t2 , t)
(region g.). In the time zone IV, pℓc (t) and pgc (t) are set at
pℓc.max and pgc.min , respectively, to absorb the excess energy
Epgf .max (td + t3 , t) − Epℓf .min (td + t3 , t) as much as possible
(region h.). However, it is not enough to absorb all excess
energy, and hence the remaining excess energy (region j.)
is absorbed by the storage system. In the above behavior,
SOC(t) = SOC min is preserved during time zones I, II, and
III, and SOC(td + t3 ) = SOC min holds as well. From the
SOC max constraint, we have the following constraint.
(50) SOC max · ESS ≥ SOC min · ESS + EB (54)
where EB is the maximum gap (energy difference) between
(t −td )(pℓc.max −pgc.min ) and Epgf .max (td , t)−Epℓf .min (td , t).
(51) Next, the behavior for the case of SOC(td ) > SOC min is
examined. Note that, considering the behavior in time zone
IV, which starts at t = td +t3 , the storage system needs to have
a room of energy (remaining capacity) at least EB at the time
t = td + t3 . If we set pℓc (t) = pℓc.max and pgc (t) = pgc.min
during the first three time zones from t = td until td +t3 , in the
time zone I, the fluctuating load absorbs the energy from the
fluctuating generator (region a.) as well as the energy from
the storage system (region b.). In time zone II, the fluctuating
load absorbs energy corresponding to the region c. from the
storage system. In addition, the fluctuating load also absorbs
the energy corresponding to the region d. from the storage
system since pℓf (t) > pgf (t) in time zone II. In time zone
III, while the energy Epgf .min (td + t2 , t) − Epℓf .max (td + t2 , t)
is either stored into the storage system or consumed by the
controllable load, due to the continuation of pℓc (t) = pℓc.max
VOLUME 12, 2024
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 13. DDEB condition for the case that
Epgf .max (td , t ) − Epℓf .min (td , t ) has a decreasing section.
and pgc (t) = pgc.min , room of energy (remaining capacity) of
the storage system is finally increased by up to EB from the
initial room of energy (initial remaining capacity) at t = td .
Of course, when the SOC reaches SOC min in the middle of
the three time zones I, II, and III from t = td until td + t3 ,
pℓc (t) − pgc (t) should be appropriately controlled to avoid
over-discharging of the storage system. In time zone IV, the
excess energy Epgf .max (td + t3 , t) − Epℓf .min (td + t3 , t) is
successfully absorbed by the controllable loads (region h.)
and by the storage system (region j.).
D. INTERPRETATION-3 OF DDEB CONDITION
The third interpretation treats the case that Epgf .max (td , td +
T ) − Epℓf .min (td , td + T ) is negative in DDEB condition.
Now, from the DDEB condition, the following choice, which
allows us to disconnect controllable loads, is possible.
Epℓf .min (td , td + T ) − Epgf .max (td , td + T )
pgc.min ≤
T n
(55)
pℓc.max = pℓc.min = 0 (56)
One example of the system operation for the case that
pℓf (t) = pℓf .min (t), pgf (t) = pgf .max (t) is demonstrated
using Fig. 13. In the first time zone I, there is an energy
shortage for the fluctuating generator and load (regions a. and
b.). The energy balance is then achieved by the energy from
the controllable generator (region a.) and the energy from the
storage system (region b.). Note that region b. corresponds
to a new room of energy (remaining capacity) created by
discharging to provide energy to fluctuating loads. In time
zone II, it is an energy excess situation for the fluctuating
generator and load (region e.). The excess energy (region e.)
as well as energy from controllable generators (region d.) are
absorbed by the storage system, which reduces the room of
VOLUME 12, 2024
FIGURE 14. Considering the two worst cases of fluctuating generators
and loads after t = tc , the minimum required capacity of energy (net
capacity excluding SOC min · ESS and (1 − SOC max ) · ESS for the storage
system at t = tc is determined.
energy (remaining capacity)(region c.). In time zone III, the
controllable generator provides energy (region g.) to both the
fluctuating load and the storage system, which compensates
for the energy shortage of the fluctuating load and reduces the
remaining capacity of the shortage system further (region f .).
Note that, during the time zone IV, the energy corresponding
to the maximum gap between (t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and
Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t) is newly stored in the storage
system.
E. DDEB BASED ESS SIZING CONDITION
Similar to the SDEB constraint, the DDEB constraint also
provides another constraint on the size of the storage system
as (53) and (54) presented.
Theorem 6: When a power system is DDEB-critical, then
(SOC max − SOC min ) · ESS
≥ max (t − td ) · (pℓc.max − pgc.min )
t∈[td ,td +T ]
o
−(Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t)) (57)
VI. OVERALL ESS SIZING FOR SAFE OPERATION
SDEB-based ESS sizing condition (Theorem 3) considers
only SDEB condition, whereas DDEB-based ESS sizing
condition (Theorem 6) does only DDEB condition. As for
the overall ESS sizing, both SDEB and DDEB conditions
should be considered simultaneously. Note that, the target of
the discussion is SDEB-critical and DDEB-critical systems.
In the SDEB condition (Theorem 1), its interpretations
(subsections IV-B through IV.D) indicate that the gap
between (t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and Epℓf .max (ts , t) −
Epgf .min (ts , t) shows the minimum energy which should
be stored in the storage system for satisfying SDEB
70257

condition even in the worst-case behaviors of fluctuating
generators and loads. Similarly, in the DDEB condition
(Theorem 4), the gap between (t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min )
and Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t) shows the minimum
room (remaining capacity) of energy which should remain
in the storage system for satisfying DDEB condition even
in the worst case behaviors of fluctuating generators and
loads. Now if we suppose that, at any time t = tc , the
behavior of the fluctuating generators and loads of the system
after tc may change in the range between the worst case for
SDEB, i.e., pgf (t) = pgf .min (t) and pℓf (t) = pℓf .max (t),
and the worst case for DDEB, i.e., pgf (t) = pgf .max (t) and
pℓf (t) = pℓf .min (t), the storage system at t = tc needs to keep
energy corresponding to the gap between (tc − ts )(pgc.max −
pℓc.min ) and Epℓf .max (ts , tc ) − Epgf .min (ts , tc ) and, at the same
time, it needs to keep room (remaining capacity) of energy
corresponding to the gap between (tc − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min )
and Epgf .max (td , tc ) − Epℓf .min (td , tc ). Fig. 14 illustrates the
above situation, where EC in this figure shows the sum of
the two gaps at t = tc . On the other hand, considering the
constraint on SOC, the net capacity of the storage system can
be given as (SOC max − SOC min ) · ESS . As a consequence,
(SOC max − SOC min ) · ESS ≥ Ec
is required.
From the above observation, the following ESS sizing
condition is obtained.
Theorem 7: When a power system is SDEB-critical and
DDEB-critical, to guarantee the safe operation under any
situation of fluctuating generators and loads, the size (energy
capacity) ESS of the storage system is constrained as follows,
(SOC max − SOC min ) · ESS
n system, are analyzed for the SDEB-critical system and the
≥ max (t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min )
max{ts ,td }≤t≤max{ts ,td }+T
−(Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t))
+ (t − td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min )
o generator and load. If pgc.max − pℓc.min is larger than that of
−(Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t))
VII. MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
This section describes related information about the proposed
system conditions and theorems proposed in the previous
sections.
A. CONTRIBUTION OF TIME-DEPENDENT UPPER AND
LOWER BOUNDS
If we consider constant (time-independent) upper bound and
lower bound on fluctuating devices, the energy balancing
constraint (SDPB) can be reduced to;
t · pgf .min + t · pgc.max ≥ t · pℓf .max + t · pℓc.min
which is equivalent to the power balancing condition (SDPB)
between generators and loads without storage devices.
Similarly, the energy balancing constraint (DDPB) can be
70258
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 15. Power demand profile of a week [35].
reduced to;
t · pgf .max + t · pgc.min ≤ t · pℓf .min + t · pℓc.max (61)
which is again equivalent to the power balancing condition
(DDEB) between generators and loads without storage
devices. These two constraints mean that the controllable
generators and loads must be sufficiently large to balance
power at any time between sources and loads without storage
(58) devices. That is, if we consider the worst-case operation,
any storage device cannot contribute to reducing the sizes
of controllable generators and loads necessary for power
balancing.
B. TRADE-OFF BETWEEN CONTROLLABLE DEVICES AND
STORAGE
In this paper, after deriving the SDEB condition and DDEB
condition, the system behaviors, including the collaboration
between the controllable generator/load and the storage
DDEB-critical system. Note that the size of the controllable
generator in the SDEB-critical system is minimal, and the
size of the controllable load in the DDEB-critical system is
minimal for the given power level bounds of the fluctuating
(59)
the SDEB-critical system, the power supply by the storage
system can be partly taken over by the enlarged controllable
generator, which may contribute to reduce the SDEB-based
required size of ESS . Similarly, if pℓc.max − pgc.min is larger
than that of DDEB-critical system, the power absorption
by the storage system can be partly taken over by the
enlarged controllable load, which may contribute to reduce
the DDEB-based required size of ESS .
The exact analysis of the trade-off between the size of
controllable generator/load and the size of the storage system
based on SDEB and DDEB conditions has remained as one
of the important future research directions.
(60)
VIII. APPLICATION EXAMPLE
The proposed theorems for (SDEB) and DDEB are applied
to field data. This section explains the simulation setup and
application results and shows how the sizes of the controllable
VOLUME 12, 2024
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 16. Folding daily patterns to get the time-dependent upper
bound and lower bound of power in a day.
source/load and the storage system are determined in the case
of the SDEB-critical and DDEB-critical systems.
A. SIMULATION SETUP
The power consumption profile of a building in the Faculty
of Engineering, University of Sarajevo [35] is borrowed to
create the time-dependent upper bound and lower bound on
daily power consumption of power loads. In [35], the annual
energy consumption data is once converted into the weekly
power load profile (Fig. 15), which is further analyzed into
the daily power profile of only working days and that of
only non-working days since they treated working days and
non-working days separately. In our simulation, the daily
patterns are folded (Fig. 16) to get the daily power profile, i.e.,
daily upper bound as pℓf .max (t) and lower bound as pℓf .min (t)
of power consumption, without separating working days and
non-working days (Fig. 17). The daily power profile is given
at 15-minute intervals, resulting in 96 values.
On the other hand, the power generation profile as
pgf .max (t) and pgf .min (t) of solar PV system is shown in
Fig. 18, which is also borrowed from [35]. This profile shows
the maximum and minimum power generation of the PV
system installed on the roof of the building. According to
the information from [35], this solar system (is composed
of 90 PV modules Luxor Eco Line Half Cell M120 330
W and 2 SMA STP 10.0-3AV-40 inverters. In addition, the
maximum generated power is limited to 20 kW due to the
power limit of the inverter, and the minimum generation is
0 during snowy or foggy days.
In the following simulation, we consider the power system,
which consists of the above fluctuating power load and the
fluctuating power generator. To realize the safe operation of
this system, a controllable power generator, a controllable
power load, and a storage system are to be installed. As for the
storage system, the capacity limitations are set as SOC max =
0.95 and SOC min = 0.05.
B. SIMULATION RESULTS
The proposed theorems are applied to the data prepared in the
previous sub-section.
VOLUME 12, 2024
FIGURE 17. Extracted daily profile, i.e., the daily time-dependent upper
bound and lower bound of power consumption as pℓf .max (t ) and
pℓf .min (t ).
FIGURE 18. Daily power generation profile of the solar PV system (rated
power 20kW) as pgf .max (t ) and pgf .min (t ). Note that pgf .min (t ) = 0 and
pgf .max (t ) = 0 from 1 : 00 < t < 6 : 00 and 21 : 30 < t < 24 : 00.
When SDEB condition is applied, first Epℓf .max (t0 , t) and
Epgf .min (t0 , t) are computed from pℓf .max (t) and pgf .min (t),
respectively, and the difference of them, Epℓf .max (t0 , t) −
Epgf .min (t0 , t) is computed. As the next step, the minimum
of (pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and ts such as (t − ts )(pgc.max −
pℓc.min ) bounds (Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t)) from above
tightly are found. Fig. 19 shows the relation between (t −
ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and (Epℓf .max (ts , t) − Epgf .min (ts , t))
for the SDEB-critical system with ts = 19 : 45 and
(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) = 42.79 kW. As the third step, the energy
gap between (t − ts )(pgc.max − pℓc.min ) and (Epℓf .max (ts , t) −
Epgf .min (ts , t)) is examined to get SDEB-based storage size
ESS ≥ 258.13 kWh.
On the other hand, when the DDEB condition is
applied, Epgf .max (t0 , t), Epℓf .min (t0 , t) and the difference
between them, Epℓf .max (t0 , t) − Epgf .min (t0 , t) are computed
from pgf .max (t) and pℓf .min (t). Next, the minimum of
(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and td such as (t − td )(pℓc.max −
pgc.min ) bounds (Epgf .max (td , t)−Epℓf .min (td , t)) from above
tightly are found. Fig. 20 shows the relation between (t −
td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and (Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t))
for the DDEB-critical system with td = 18 : 45 and
(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) = 0 kW. The energy gap between (t −
td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and (Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t))
is then examined to get DDEB-based storage size ESS ≥
111.56 kWh.
70259
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
FIGURE 19. Application of SDEB using actual power generation and
consumption data.
FIGURE 20. DDEB using actual power generation (PV with rated power
20kW) and consumption data.
Finally, theorem 7 is applied to the system for ESS sizing
considering both SDEB condition and DDEB condition. The
simulation result shows ESS ≥ 369.65 kWh. Table. 1 sum-
marizes the results of sizing of controllable generator/load
and storage system for the case of SDEB-critical and DDEB-
critical systems with different rated powers of the solar PV
system as the fluctuating power generator.
In this simulation, pgc.max and ESS for SDEB have
individually the same values for all three cases because the
change of the size of PV does not affect the SDEB condition.
On the other hand, pℓc.max , the size of the controllable load,
increases according to the increase of the size of PV, that is,
the increase of the maximum power generation pgf .max (t).
This is because using a larger PV size results in a power
excess situation as the worst-case behavior and a larger
controllable load is required to maintain the energy balance
even in such a worst-case scenario. In accordance with the
increases of pgf .max (t) and pℓc.max , the gap between (t −
td )(pℓc.max − pgc.min ) and Epgf .max (td , t) − Epℓf .min (td , t)
also increases, which results in the increase of ESS for DDEB
according to the increase of the size of PV.
The proposed SDEB condition and DDEB condition
describe the border between a system that maintains energy
balance under fluctuating generators and loads and another
type of system that may suffer energy imbalance in some
situations of fluctuating generators and loads. It means that
if pgc.max and pℓc.max are smaller than their designed sizes,
energy shortage/excess may happen when fluctuating devices
operate worst. In addition, when the controllable generator
and load sizes are fixed to their designed values, and if the size
of ESS for SDEB/DDEB is smaller than the designed value,
over/undercharging may happen when fluctuating devices
70260
TABLE 1. Results of the proposed sizing framework for SDEB-critical and
DDEB-critical systems with different sizes (rated powers) of the solar
system. Note that the overall ESS is not the sum of ESS (SDEB) and
ESS (DDEB), but given by (59).
TABLE 2. Results of the sizing framework in [35].
operate worst. With respect to the overall ESS , if its size is
smaller than the designed value, only one type of worst-case
operation, that is, either pgf (t) = pgf .max (t) and pℓf (t) =
pℓf .min (t) or pgf (t) = pgf .min (t) and pℓf (t) = pℓf .max (t),
is tolerated depending on the time-to-time stored energy and
vacancy for receiving energy.
In general, worst-case-based theoretical discussions tend
to yield a result that is far apart from a practical situation.
However, when the result of the storage size ESS is shown
in Table. 1 is compared with the cost-based sizing result
obtained using the same power profile data [35] in Table. 2,
their differences are relatively small. It shows the potential of
the proposed theorem in this paper to work with more realistic
constraints, preferences, etc., in practical situations.
In Table. 2, Ech is the maximum excess energy that should
be stored in the battery, which corresponds to ESS (DDEB)
in the proposed theorem, and Edch is the maximum energy
deficit that should be covered by the energy stored in the
battery, which corresponds to ESS (SDEB) in the proposed
theorem.
IX. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Renewable Energy Sources (RESs) such as wind and
photovoltaic are environment-friendly energy sources for
power generation. However, the largely varying output energy
of RESs is a major obstacle to their integration into the power
grid. In addition, variations in consumer activity increase the
risks of power fluctuations. The ability of power systems to
deal with power fluctuations caused by renewable sources
and dynamic demand has to be improved to keep the stable
operation of a power system. This paper proposes a novel
robust energy balancing concept to reduce energy imbalance
due to the fluctuating generation and demand mismatch. This
paper tries to answer important questions concerning the
VOLUME 12, 2024
S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
advantages of energy storage systems and how energy storage
systems and controllable generators/loads can collaborate to
reduce energy imbalance problems due to renewable power
generation and dynamically changing power consumption.
This paper discusses two types of energy balancing condi-
tions, “Supply-Dominated Energy Balancing (SDEB)” and
“Demand-Dominated Energy Balancing”, where the former
mainly describes the relationship between storage systems,
controllable generators, and fluctuating loads, whereas the
latter mainly describes the relation between storage systems,
controllable loads, and fluctuating generators. To guarantee
the safe operation of a power system, SDEB and DDEB
conditions rely on the analysis based on the worst-case
behavior for fluctuating devices and best-case operation for
controllable devices. Due to this approach, the treatment
of fluctuating devices is more or less pessimistic, and the
treatment of controllable devices is optimistic. For simula-
tions, actual periodic behavioral power patterns of fluctuating
generators and demand are employed, and maximum and
minimum bounds are extracted for the application of energy-
balancing conditions. Through the application, minimum
sizes of the storage system, controllable generator, and
controllable load are identified to continue the safe operation
of the power system, considering fluctuating supply and
demand. To achieve tighter and more realistic conditions,
the revision of the estimate for the the worst-case behavior
of fluctuating devices and consideration of a real control
algorithm and its development are expected as future research
works.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank S. Huseinbegovié,
L. Ahmethodžić, and A. Smajkić with the Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, University of Sarajevo for sharing
measured power data.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Ali, M. Adnan, and M. Tariq, ‘‘Optimum control strategies for short
term load forecasting in smart grids,’’ Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
vol. 113, pp. 792–806, Dec. 2019.
[2] A. Kwangkaew, S. Skolthanarat, C. Charoenlarpnopparut, and M. Kaneko,
‘‘Optimal location and sizing of renewable distributed generators for
improving robust voltage stability against uncontrollable reactive compen-
sation,’’ IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 52260–52274, 2023.
[3] H.-I. Su and A. E. Gamal, ‘‘Modeling and analysis of the role of energy
storage for renewable integration: Power balancing,’’ IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4109–4117, Nov. 2013.
[4] S. Javaid, T. Kato, and T. Matsuyama, ‘‘Power flow coloring system over
a nanogrid with fluctuating power sources and loads,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind.
Informat., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 3174–3184, Dec. 2017.
[5] S. Javaid, Y. Kurose, T. Kato, and T. Matsuyama, ‘‘Cooperative distributed
control implementation of the power flow coloring over a nano-grid
with fluctuating power loads,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 342–352, Jan. 2017.
[6] S. Umer, Y. Tan, and A. O. Lim, ‘‘Stability analysis for smart homes energy
management system with delay consideration,’’ J. Clean Energy Technol.,
vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 332–338, 2014.
[7] S. Umer, Y. Tan, and A. O. Lim, ‘‘Priority based power sharing scheme
for power consumption control in smart homes,’’ Int. J. Smart Grid Clean
Energy, vol. 3, pp. 340–346, Aug. 2014.
VOLUME 12, 2024
[8] S. Umer, M. Kaneko, Y. Tan, and A. O. Lim, ‘‘System design and analysis
for maximum consuming power control in smart house,’’ J. Autom. Control
Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43–48, 2014.
[9] S. Javaid, M. Kaneko, and Y. Tan, ‘‘Structural condition for controllable
power flow system containing controllable and fluctuating power devices,’’
Energies, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 1627, Apr. 2020.
[10] S. Javaid, M. Kaneko, and Y. Tan, ‘‘An efficient testing scheme for power-
balanceability of power system including controllable and fluctuating
power devices,’’ Designs, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 48, Nov. 2020.
[11] R. Khwanrit, Y. Lim, S. Javaid, S. Kittipiyakul, and Y. Tan, ‘‘Study
of energy loss for distributed power-flow assignment in a smart home
environment,’’ Designs, vol. 6, no. 6, p. 99, Oct. 2022.
[12] S. Choudhury, ‘‘Review of energy storage system technologies integration
to microgrid: Types, control strategies, issues, and future prospects,’’
J. Energy Storage, vol. 48, Apr. 2022, Art. no. 103966.
[13] S. Javaid, M. Kaneko, and Y. Tan, ‘‘Safe operation conditions of electrical
power system considering power balanceability among power generators,
loads, and storage devices,’’ Energies, vol. 14, no. 15, p. 4460, Jul. 2021.
[14] T. Yang, ‘‘The optimal capacity determination method of energy storage
system with different applications in wind farm,’’ in Proc. IEEE PES Asia–
Pacific Power Energy Eng. Conf. (APPEEC), Oct. 2016, pp. 2081–2085.
[15] S. Javaid, M. Kaneko, and Y. Tan, ‘‘System condition for power balancing
between fluctuating and controllable devices and optimizing storage
sizes,’’ Energies, vol. 15, no. 3, p. 1055, Jan. 2022.
[16] S. Javaid and T. Kato, ‘‘Adaptive control of energy storage systems for
real-time power mediation based on energy on demand system,’’ Designs,
vol. 6, no. 5, p. 97, Oct. 2022.
[17] M. T. Lawder, B. Suthar, P. W. C. Northrop, S. De, C. M. Hoff,
O. Leitermann, M. L. Crow, S. Santhanagopalan, and V. R. Subramanian,
‘‘Battery energy storage system (BESS) and battery management system
(BMS) for grid-scale applications,’’ Proc. IEEE, vol. 102, no. 6,
pp. 1014–1030, Jun. 2014.
[18] R. Vatu, O. Ceaki, R. Porumb, and G. Seritan, ‘‘Storage optimization:
Benefits brought by storage itself, with an energy price minimization,’’ in
Proc. 53rd Int. Universities Power Eng. Conf. (UPEC), Sep. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[19] S. Wang, B. Hu, K. Xie, J. Yan, Y. Li, H. Chao, and Y. Zeng, ‘‘Optimal
configuration of energy storage capacity in multi-energy system with
temperature control equipment based on discrete Fourier transform,’’ in
Proc. IEEE Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Asia, May 2019, pp. 2677–2681.
[20] T. Möbius and D. Gunkel, ‘‘The optimal placing of energy storages
in Germany in 2020—An implementation of a DC-load flow model,’’
in Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Eur. Energy Market (EEM14), May 2014,
pp. 1–5.
[21] A. Makibar, L. Narvarte, and E. Lorenzo, ‘‘On the relation between
battery size and PV power ramp rate limitation,’’ Sol. Energy, vol. 142,
pp. 182–193, Jan. 2017.
[22] Y. Yang, S. Bremner, C. Menictas, and M. Kay, ‘‘Battery energy storage
system size determination in renewable energy systems: A review,’’ Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 91, pp. 109–125, Aug. 2018.
[23] S. X. Chen, H. B. Gooi, and M. Q. Wang, ‘‘Sizing of energy storage
for microgrids,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 142–151,
Mar. 2012.
[24] H. Khorramdel, J. Aghaei, B. Khorramdel, and P. Siano, ‘‘Optimal battery
sizing in microgrids using probabilistic unit commitment,’’ IEEE Trans.
Ind. Informat., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 834–843, Apr. 2016.
[25] Y. Ru, J. Kleissl, and S. Martinez, ‘‘Storage size determination for grid-
connected photovoltaic systems,’’ IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 68–81, Jan. 2013.
[26] H. Jia, Y. Mu, and Y. Qi, ‘‘A statistical model to determine the capacity
of battery–supercapacitor hybrid energy storage system in autonomous
microgrid,’’ Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 54, pp. 516–524,
Jan. 2014.
[27] Y. Liu, J. Bebic, B. Kroposki, J. de Bedout, and W. Ren, ‘‘Distribution
system voltage performance analysis for high-penetration PV,’’ in Proc.
IEEE Energy Conf., Nov. 2008, pp. 1–8.
[28] M. Yue and X. Wang, ‘‘Grid inertial response-based probabilistic deter-
mination of energy storage system capacity under high solar penetration,’’
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1039–1049, Jul. 2015.
[29] Z. Alex, A. Clark, W. Cheung, L. Zou, and J. Kleissl, ‘‘Minimizing the
lead-acid battery bank capacity through a solar PV–wind turbine hybrid
system for a high-altitude village in the Nepal Himalayas,’’ Energy Proc.,
vol. 57, pp. 1516–1525, May 2014.
70261
 S. Javaid et al.: Energy Balancing of Power System Considering Periodic Behavioral Pattern
[30] E. M. G. Rodrigues, G. J. Osório, R. Godina, A. W. Bizuayehu,
J. M. Lujano-Rojas, J. C. O. Matias, and J. P. S. Catalão, ‘‘Modelling and
sizing of NaS (sodium sulfur) battery energy storage system for extending
wind power performance in Crete island,’’ Energy, vol. 90, pp. 1606–1617,
Oct. 2015.
[31] P. Zhao, J. Wang, and Y. Dai, ‘‘Capacity allocation of a hybrid energy
storage system for power system peak shaving at high wind power
penetration level,’’ Renew. Energy, vol. 75, pp. 541–549, Mar. 2015.
[32] S. Bahramirad, W. Reder, and A. Khodaei, ‘‘Reliability-constrained
optimal sizing of energy storage system in a microgrid,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2056–2062, Dec. 2012.
[33] M. Korpaas, A. T. Holen, and R. Hildrum, ‘‘Operation and sizing of energy
storage for wind power plants in a market system,’’ Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 599–606, Oct. 2003.
[34] S. Javaid, M. Kaneko, and Y. Tan, ‘‘A case study on robust power/energy
balancing driven cost optimization for sizing energy storage, power
generators and consumers,’’ in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Energy Conservation
Efficiency (ICECE), Mar. 2023, pp. 1–6.
[35] L. Ahmethodžić , S. Huseinbegović , A. Smajkić , and S. Smaka,
‘‘Building-integrated microgrid with zero energy export–practical
approach to sizing,’’ in Proc. IEEE PES GTD Int. Conf. Expo., May 2023,
pp. 345–349.
SAHER JAVAID (Member, IEEE) received the
Ph.D. degree in information science from Japan
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
(JAIST), Japan, in 2014. From 2014 to 2017, she
was with the Department of Intelligence Science
and Technology, Graduate School of Informatics,
Kyoto University, as an Assistant Professor, within
the context of the i-Energy (Informationization
of e-power flows by integrating information and
e-power networks) project. Since 2017, she has
been an Assistant Professor with JAIST. Her research interests include
distributed sensing and control, energy on demand, power flow coloring,
energy storage systems, smart energy management systems, and smart grids.
70262
MINEO KANEKO (Member, IEEE) received the
B.E., M.E., and Dr.E. degrees in electrical and
electronic engineering from Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, in 1981, 1983, and
1986, respectively. He was with the Department
of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, as a Research Asso-
ciate, a Lecturer, and an Associate Professor,
from 1986 to 1996. Currently, he is a Professor
with the School of Information Science, Japan
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Ishikawa, Japan. His research
interests include circuit theory and computer-aided design for LSIs, fault-
tolerant parallel computing toward dependable LSIs, adiabatic logic circuits
and systems for ultra-low power LSIs, and computer-scientific approaches
to power systems. He is a member of ACM, IEICE, and IPSJ.
YASUO TAN (Member, IEEE) was born in 1965.
He received the Ph.D. degree from Tokyo Institute
of Technology, in 1993. He joined Japan Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST), as an
Assistant Professor with the School of Information
Science, in 1993. He has been a Professor, since
2007. His research interest includes the IoT
Systems, especially smart home systems. He is
a member of ACM, IPSJ, IEICE, IEEJ, JSSST,
JNNS, and the Information and Communication
Council of MIC, and an Advisory Fellow of ECHONET Consortium. He is
the Chair of the Technology Standards Subcommittee of the Smart IoT
Acceleration Forum and the Chairman of the Smart Home Board of JEITA.
VOLUME 12, 2024