2018 North American Power Symposium (NAPS) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/naps.2018.8600550
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-Microgrid Architecture: Optimal Operation and Control

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main difference between MMG and single MG is that MMG needs to further consider the coordination strategy in different MGs, because under different control strategies, MMG has different communication network requirement [46][47]. Reasonable strategy design plays a key role in simplifying the control complexity of MMG system and improving the economy of system operation.…”
Section: A Energy Management Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main difference between MMG and single MG is that MMG needs to further consider the coordination strategy in different MGs, because under different control strategies, MMG has different communication network requirement [46][47]. Reasonable strategy design plays a key role in simplifying the control complexity of MMG system and improving the economy of system operation.…”
Section: A Energy Management Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proposed algorithm is intended to run within the MGC architecture, thus enabling a hierarchical/distributed, modular and scalable approach to the problem while complying with the desired plug-and-play characteristic that is intended for this type of system [22]. Under the proposed approach for the scheduling problem, the CAMC does not need to previously hold all the detailed information of the complete MGC network.…”
Section: Sequence Of Events and Communication Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This stage is intended to compute a feasible solution at the MG level through an OPF-like approach based on Meirinhos et al [23] and similar to those of Sun and Zhang [24], taking into account its internal capabilities for voltage and reactive power support (PV reactive power generation and idle voltage definition at each VSI while also complying with the boundary bus operation point defined at the MV stage. Note that (15) corresponds to the minimisation of active power losses in the MG and it is subjected to the power balance constraints for each node as in (16) and 17, bus voltage constraints in (18) and (19), reactive power constraint in the swing bus (18) and devices technical constraints in (20)- (22). The MG operation state that results from this stage corresponds to the final solution for reactive power and voltage control for the MGC.…”
Section: Mg Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Centralized control and grid management face prohibitively high complexity and inflexibility due to an increasing amount of measurement data and possible control signals, together with their required communication. The microgrid paradigm [4], [5] and more advanced concepts including multi-microgrids [6], web of cells and fractal grids [7] all envision a decentralized and autonomous control of participants, which can then be treated This work was supported by the KIT Future Fields Stage 2 funding program as a single aggregated entity by higher control layers. While these approaches mitigate the control complexity of the future grid, they offer no clear solution on the scalable coordination of available energy supply and flexible demand, together with the management of shared and limited resources, especially line capacities, transformer ratings and energy storage levels.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%