This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
1

A Day-Ahead Optimal Control of PEV Battery

Storage Devices Taking into Account the Voltage
Regulation of the Residential Power Grid
Yulong Huang


Abstract-- This paper first presents an optimization model to PEV Buses set for feeding controllable PEVs.
flexibly control available plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) battery
charging/discharging power based on three-phase power flow  L
PEV / S
PEV Buses and phases union set of unexpected travel
and sensitivity approaches. This model can achieve one of two PEVs and remaining PEVs at time slot t,
goals: (1) minimizing both battery charging/discharging cost and respectively.
a,b,c
extra battery degradation cost due to vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
activities (cost-reduction strategy) or (2) maximizing local peak Phases set of phases a, b, and c.
load shifting and minimizing extra battery degradation cost due kl
to V2G activities (peak-shifting strategy). The first strategy can
Bmn Imaginary components of Ymn between phases k
determine the appropriate charging/discharging rates of an and l.
available PEV battery in order to benefit both the PEV owners kl
Gmn Real components of Ymn between phases k and l.
and the distribution utilities for the day ahead. The second
strategy can reduce the peak loads of the system. Both strategies Ct Electricity price at time slot t.
can improve the power quality at the same time. With the help of C t
Discharging electricity price at time slot t.
d
a sensitivity method, most of the nonlinear constraints are
transformed into linear constraints, and the number of CPEV i nk
v
Battery capacity of the ivnk ’th PEV.
constraints is reduced in the model. An interior point
optimization approach is utilized to solve the optimization model. Costink Battery cost of the ivnk ’th PEV.
v
The optimization model is modified further to address DODitnk
unexpected PEV connections and travel scenarios during v
Depth of discharge (DOD) of the ivnk ’th PEV at
operation. The effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed time slot t.
method are demonstrated and verified on a 75-node test feeder. DODmaxi nk Daily maximum allowable DOD of the ivnk ’th
v

Index Terms--Three-phase power flow, sensitivity, battery PEV.

degradation, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), interior point d v ink End time slot of the ivnk ’th PEV.
v
optimization.
t
EPEV i nk v
Energy storage of the ivnk ’th PEV at the end of
NOMENCLATURE time slot t.
t Duration of time slot t.
UB
EPEV i nk v
Energy storage upper band limit of the ivnk ’th P-
 d
PEV ivnk Inverse of the efficiency rate for the battery EV.
LB
discharging of the ivnk ’th plug-in electric vehicle EPEV i nk v
Energy storage lower band limit of the ivnk ’th P-
(PEV). EV.
PEV
c
i nk Charging efficiency rate of the ivnk ’th PEV. FPEV i nk
v
Self-discharge rate of the ivnk ’th PEV.
v

 opt Time slot set of the PEV battery charging/di- ink

v Index of PEV at phase k of bus n.
scharging power optimization period. Im Vector of the phase currents and the neutral cu-
 PEV i nk PEV charging/discharging time slot set of the rrent of bus m.
v

ivnk ’th PEV. I mZIP Injection currents of the constant power, consta-
 valley Time slot set of the valley load period. nt current, and constant-impedance (ZIP) load of
bus m.
I mPEV Injection currents of the PEV charging/dischar-
This work was partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for ging load of bus m.
the Central Universities, JNU under Grant 11617359.
Yulong Huang is affiliated with the College of Electrical Engineering and I Rem , I Imm Vectors of the real and imaginary components of
the Institute of Rail Transportation, Jinan University, Zhuhai 519070, China Im.
(e-mail: thuangyulong@jnu.edu.cn).

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
2

k
I Re k x Vector of the real and imaginary components of
m , I Imm Real and imaginary components of Im at phase k
of bus m. the voltages at phases a, b, c, and the neutral
K Total bus number. node of all buses at all time slots in  opt .
Lti nk Battery cycle life of the ivnk ’th PEV at time slot t. Ymn Admittance matrix from bus m to n.
v

N PEVnk Total number of charging/discharging PEVs at Z LC Charging/discharging cost of all PEVs.

phase k of bus n. ZS Load shape function.
N Charging/discharging time slot number of the Z Cost Extra battery degradation cost due to vehicle-to-
PEV ivnk

ivnk ’th PEV. grid (V2G) activities.

N  opt Time slot number of the PEV battery I. INTRODUCTION

charging/discharging power optimization period.
N
valley 
PEV ivnk
Charging time slot number of the i ’th PEV
nk
v
I
n recent years, the market penetration of electric vehicles
has been growing rapidly around the world. However,
unlike charging at public charging stations, which are
during the valley-load period. deliberately designed for charging plug-in electric vehicles
PmZIP Active injection power corresponding to ZIP lo- (PEVs), the random charging of electric vehicles at home can
ads at phases a, b, and c of bus m. bring several negative consequences to the existing
PnkZIP t Active injection power corresponding to ZIP lo- distribution grid. These negative impacts include an increased
ads at phase k of bus n at time slot t. peak load, the degradation of voltage, the severity of the
PmPEV Vector of total charging power corresponding to power imbalance in the distribution system, and the stress on
the distribution transformers [1]-[4]. These unwanted
all PEV charging/discharging loads at phases a,
consequences have inspired many research studies [5]-[32] on
b, and c of bus m.
how to charge PEVs while creating acceptable influences on
PnkPEV Total charging power at phase k of bus n. the distribution system.
Pcvt i nk The ivnk ’th PEV charging power at time slot t. The optimal charging of PEVs can be broadly classified
v

Pdvt i nk into centralized and distributed charging approaches [5]. The

The iv ’th PEV discharging power at time slot t.
nk
v
centralized PEV charging approach [6]-[17] gives centralized
Ploss Distribution network loss. control and management capability to the aggregator unit
Pnt Total injection power at the three phases of bus n (AU). The main objectives of the major optimization
at time slot t. approaches to the centralized PEV charging method are the
PcvNci nk
enhancement of AU profit, the minimization of costs, and the
Maximum power that can be drawn for charging
v
minimization of the peak load on the distribution system. The
the battery of the ivnk ’th PEV. provision of ancillary services such as voltage control and
PdvNci nk
v
Maximum power that can be released for di- battery state of charge (SOC) is well supported by the
centralized approach through vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
scharging the battery of the ivnk ’th PEV. technology. As described in [18], unidirectional V2G indicates
QmZIP Reactive injection power corresponding to ZIP that PEVs offer ancillary services by controlling their charging
loads at phases a, b, and c of bus m. powers, and bidirectional V2G refers to both charging and
rv ink discharging controls during service provision. In this paper,
Beginning time slot of the ivnk ’th PEV.
v
the term V2G refers to the bidirectional power that flows
SOCinitial ink
v
Initial state of charge (SOC) of the ivnk ’th PEV. between PEVs and grids in order to offer extra services such
SOCdest ink
v
Desired SOC at end of the charging/discharging as voltage control, load flattening, and the minimization of
battery or distribution utility costs.
period of the ivnk ’th PEV. X. Wang et al. [8] established a physical fair-queuing
u Control variable vector. framework for PEV charging in order to solve the under-
Vn Vector of the phase voltages at phases a, b, c, an- voltage and transformer overloading problems. Before each
d the neutral node of bus n. period starts, the central controller relies on the scheduling
VRen , VImn scheme to determine the on or off state for each PEV.
Real and imaginary components of the vector Vn .
However, bidirectional V2G service is not considered in the
VRekt n , VImkt n Real and imaginary components of Vn at phase k control scheme. A probabilistic approach to the optimal
of bus n at time slot t. charging of PEVs in distribution systems was proposed by A.
Vnkt Voltage amplitude of Vn at phase k of bus n at Arias et al. [9] in order to minimize the costs of both energy
time slot t. losses and energy demanded by PEVs and other loads. This
approach does not consider the power imbalance between
Vmax , Vmin Maximum and minimum bus voltage limits.
phases, though. A coordinated charging method was proposed
Wg Weight factor. by K. Clement-Nyns et al. [10] to minimize the power loss and

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
to maximize the main grid load factor. Since the exact
forecasting of household loads is not possible, stochastic
programming is introduced, although the charging cost is not
considered in this approach. To reduce the negative effects of
unsteady renewable generation outputs, a stochastic
optimization-based dispatch model capable of handling the
uncertain outputs of PEVs and renewable generation was
formulated by G. Wang et al. [11]. However, this model also
does not consider the power imbalance between phases. F. Wu
et al. [12] proposed a centralized electric vehicle charging-
control model in order to optimize the PEV-charging loads
after each PEV arrives at the charging station in order to
minimize costs. This model captures the use of distributed
energy resources and uncertainties around PEV arrival times,
charging demands upon arrival, and other factors, minimizing
the impacts of the resulting load profile on the distribution
transformer. However, it does not consider the voltage profile
or the load imbalance. Based on a stochastic model of a PEV,
a two-layer evolution strategy particle swarm optimization
algorithm was proposed by J. Tan et al. [13] to deal with the
stochastic nature of the vehicle arrival time, departure time,
and daily mileage. W. Tang et al. [14] formulated the charging
scheduling problem as a finite-horizon dynamic programming
problem. To avoid the prohibitively high complexity of
solving such a dynamic programming problem, [14] provides
a model predictive control (MPC)-based algorithm. L. Liu et
al. [15] developed a model minimizing the PEV charge-
discharge fee without considering voltage constraints using a
dynamic capacity fading model for battery discharge. The
neutral potential rise is not considered in the above control
schemes.
T. Shekari et al. [16] developed a generalized energy
management approach for smart microgrids with the
collaboration of PEV charging facilities in both active and
reactive power exchanges, which reduces operation cost and
enhances power quality. However, the established model is
tailored only for balanced three-phase networks. C. Sabillon-
Antunez et al. [17] presented a new approach for solving the
electric vehicle charging coordination problem, considering
Volt-var control, the energy storage device operation, the
on/off control of PEV charging, and the dispatchable
distributed generation available in three-phase unbalanced
electrical distribution networks. However, this method does
not take into account the V2G service of PEVs and the neutral
potential rise. Additionally, the integration of the Volt-var
control with a charging control strategy makes the
infrastructure investment more expensive and requires fast
two-way communication between the distribution company
and the customers.
In the distributed or decentralized PEV charging approach
[18]-[29] for PEVs, the AU does not make all the decisions
regarding the charging or discharging. The main objectives of
the major optimization approaches to the decentralized PEV
charging method are the avoidance of excessively long waiting
times at the charging stations [19], the tracking of a desired
total load profile [18], [20]-[24], the minimization of the total
cost of charging [21], [25]-[28], and the reduction of the solar
0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
3
photovoltaic impacts, such as voltage increases during midday
or the support of the evening load peak [29]. However, these
methods still cannot guarantee the voltage limits, especially
the control of the neutral potential.
The contributions of this paper include the following. First,
a flexible day-ahead optimal control (DAOC) model is
developed based on the three-phase power flow and sensitivity
approaches in order to utilize the available PEV battery
capacity. This model can achieve one of two beneficial goals:
(1) minimizing both the battery charging/discharging cost and
the extra battery degradation cost due to V2G activities (cost-
reduction strategy) or (2) maximizing the local peak load
shifting and minimizing the extra battery degradation cost due
to V2G (peak-shifting strategy). The cost-reduction strategy
can determine the appropriate charging/discharging rates of an
available PEV battery in order to benefit both the PEV owners
and the distribution utilities. The peak-shifting strategy can
determine the appropriate charging/discharging rates of an
available PEV battery in order to provide a maximum level of
peak-shifting support when the predicted maximum peak load
is unacceptable. Second, both strategies can solve the over-
limit voltage problem, including the alleviation of the neutral-
to-ground potential rise. Third, each PEV user can choose to
participate in V2G service with equal charging fairness
according to his or her PEV battery degradation cost and needs,
and each user can further choose to input the arrival time,
departure time, travel interval, and desired SOC level. This
paper explicitly considers PEV owner convenience, which can
be mainly characterized by a desired SOC at the departure
time. Fourth, the proposed scheme only requires one-way
communication between the utility distribution center and the
distributed processing unit. Finally, an optimal control model
modified from the DAOC model is developed to treat
unexpected PEV connections or travel scenarios and the actual
SOC deviation from the pre-set value during the execution of
the DAOC strategy.
The DAOC strategy was applied to a 75-node test feeder,
and actual PEV data was used. The results indicate that the
proposed strategy can render the cost of PEV battery charging
and the financial losses to the distribution network lower than
those associated with maximum power charging or even
power charging. It can also improve the quality of the three-
phase node voltage, and alleviate the neutral voltage rise.
Results from the simulation of the peak-shifting strategy show
that the proposed strategy can effectively provide peak-
shifting support.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In Section II,
a DAOC approach is introduced. Section III discusses the
communication infrastructure for the DAOC strategy. The
application of the proposed DAOC strategy to a test
distribution network is presented in Section IV. In this section,
a comparison with a heuristic charging approach [25] is also
presented. Finally, the main conclusions and contributions of
the paper are highlighted in Section V.
II. A DAY-AHEAD OPTIMAL CONTROL APPROACH
A. Three-phase Power Flow
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
4

The impact of the increasing integration of PEVs into the B. Objective Functions and Sensitivity Computation
residential distribution grid may include issues such as power In this section, the power loss cost of the distribution
imbalances and voltage rises/drops. A three-phase power flow network, the charging/discharging cost, the extra battery
is adapted here in order to compute the three-phase voltage of degradation cost, and the load shape function are given. The
a residential distribution grid with PEV integration. sensitivities of these variables to the control variable and the
The battery charging time in a day can be divided into 96 sensitivity of the voltage to the control variables are presented.
equal time slots, i.e., the duration of each time slot is 15 These sensitivities transform the nonlinear constraints into
minutes. I m is the vector of the phase currents, as well as the linear constraints in the DAOC.
neutral node current of bus m, as seen in (1), and I m includes According to (7), the sensitivity of x with respect to u,
which is denoted as xu, can be obtained as follows:
I mZIP and I mPEV as given in (2):
xu  -Fx1Fu , (8)
I m  I Rem  jI Imm where Fx and Fu are the sensitivities of equation F with
T T
  I Re
a b c N
  a b c N

m I Rem I Rem I Rem   j  I Imm I Imm I Imm I Imm  , (1)
respect to x and u, respectively.
The sensitivity, Vu , of the voltage amplitude vector
Im   Im  Im .
ZIP PEV
(2)
T
The injection currents of the constant power, constant current, V   Vnat Vnbt Vnct VnNt  , t   opt with respect to the
and constant-impedance (ZIP) loads and the PEV load are
control variable can be obtained using:
respectively computed as follows:
Vu  Vx xu . (9)
 P  jQmZIP  Vm ,
*
I mZIP  m
ZIP
The distribution network loss, Ploss, at any time slot t is
(3)
computed as follows:
 P Vm 
PEV PEV *
I
  V
K K
Ploss   
m m
. (4) l
Gilkj VRek  j
Rei
The vector of the phase voltages, Vn , is defined in (5): i 1 j 1 l  a,b,c,N k  a,b,c,N

Vn =VRen  jVImn VRel i BijlkVImk  j  VImi l BijlkVRek  j  VIml iGijlkVImk  j  . (10)

T T
= V V V V
a
Ren   j V V V V  . (5)
b
Ren
c
Ren
N
Ren
a
Imn
b
Imn
c
Imn
N
Imn
The charging/discharging cost, ZLC, of all PEVs is
calculated using (11), which is the total charging cost minus
Since the battery energy storage system can operate in a
the total discharging income:
constant power charging/discharging mode when the SOC of N PEVnk
the battery is in the normal range [30], a constant power model
is used to model the PEV battery charging/discharging loads
Z LC     
nPEV k  a,b,c
C t P t nk  Cdt P t nk  t .
 cviv dviv 
(11)
ivnk 1 t
PEV ivnk
in this paper. The total charging power, PnkPEV , is obtained
The total power loss cost of the distribution network, ZlossC,
using: within  opt time slots is computed by:

 P 
N PEVnk
PnkPEV  cvivnk
 Pdvink .
v
(6) Z lossC  

t
C P  t  t . t
loss
(12)
ivnk 1 opt

Given I m and the total system admittance matrix, the The sensitivity of the charging/discharging cost (ZLC) with
vector of the system voltages ( Vn ) can be obtained by solving respect to the control variables Pcvt i nk and Pdvt i nk at the
v v

the classical network current equations using the Newton-    PEV i nk ( n PEV ) time slot can be obtained as follows:
v
Raphson algorithm as seen in detail in [31]. It can be seen that
Z LC
the power imbalances between the phase and the neutral  C t , (13)
potential are all considered in this power flow computation. Pcv ink
v
The expansion of the real and imaginary parts of the
Z LC
classical network current equations can be formulated in the  Cd t . (14)
Pdv ink
short term for any time slot t   opt as follows: v

F  x, u   0 ,
The sensitivity of ZLC with respect to the other control
(7)
variables is zero.
T
Battery degradation is one of the major challenges of V2G
where u   Pcvt i Pcvt i Pcvt i Pdvt i Pdvt i Pdvt i  ( ivnk =
 na
v
nb
v
nc
v
na
v
nb
v  nc
v technology [32]. The extra battery degradation cost (ZCost) due
1, …, N PEVnk , k  a,b,c , n PEV , and time slot t ∈  PEV ink ) to V2G activities can be expressed as (15) [15] according to
the relationship (16) between the battery cycle life ( Ltink ) and
v

is the control variable of the DAOC strategy, and v

(n = the depth of discharge (DOD) (17) of the iv ’th PEV at phase

T nk
x   VReatn VRebtn VRectn VReNtn VImatn VImbtn VImctn VImNtn 
k of bus n:
1, .., K, and t ∈  opt ). It should be noted that (7) includes all
 
N PEVnk

    Costink  DODitnk / 2151 , (15)

2.301

the equations at any time slot t ∈  . Z Cost 

PEV ivnk nPEV k  a , b , c ivnk 1 t
v v
PEV ivnk

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
5

  ZS
2.301 K
Ltink  2151  DODitnk ，DODitnk  0,0.9 , (16)  2  t 
2
 Pi t , (24)
v v v
Pcv ink i 1


 P t nk  d nk  F nk  P t nk  c nk t C nk , 
v

 dviv PEV iv cviv ZS K

 2  t   Pi t .
PEV iv PEV iv PEV iv 2
 (25)
DODink  if Pcvink PEV ink  Pdvink PEV ink  FPEV ink
t t c t d
.(17) 
Pdvink i 1

v v v v v v v

0,otherwise The sensitivity of ZS with respect to the other control variables

 is zero.
It should be mentioned that the charging/discharging cost (ZLC)
and the extra battery degradation cost (ZCost) represent the C. DAOC Model
expense to the PEV owners. The extra battery degradation cost A flexible DAOC model based on three-phase power flow
was seldom considered in previous studies [8]-[10]. is developed as follows:
The sensitivity of the depth of discharge, DODitnk , with min Fun(i+1) (26a)
s.t. Vmin  V    Vu  u  i 1
 ui   Vmax , 
v
i i
respect to the control variable u of the i ’th PEV at phase k nk (26b)
v

0  Pcvt ink 
i 1
of bus n at the    PEV ink time slot can be obtained as follows: t   PEV ink ,
 PcvNcink ， (26c)
v v v v

0  Pdvt ink 
i 1
DODink PEV c
t CPEV ink ,DODitnk  0 t   PEV ink ,
 PdvNcink ，
 ivnk (26d)
=
v v v v v v
, (18)
 ,

Pcvink   DODivnk  0
t
Pdtvink 
i 1
v t   valley
 0，  PEV i nk (26e)
v v


DODink t CPEV ink ,DOD  0
d t
Pcvt ink 
i 1
Pdtvink 
i 1
t   PEV ink ,
 0，
 PEV ivnk ivnk (26f)

v v


= . (19) v v v

Pdvink  0, DOD t

 0 i 1
v  iv
nk LB
EPEV i nk
 EPEV
t
i nk
 EPEV
UB
i nk
t   PEV ink ,
， (26g)
v v v v

The sensitivity of the DODitnk with respect to the other control  d i 1
SOCdest ink CPEV ink  EPEV
v iv nk
v
i nk
, (26h)
variables is zero. Therefore, the sensitivity of the extra battery v v v

degradation cost (ZCost) with respect to the control variable u

of the ivnk ’th PEV at phase k of bus n at the    opt time slot t
 DOD t i 
ivnk
 DODitnk u  u
v
i
 i 1
 u 
i
  DOD
maxivnk
,
PEV ivnk

can be found using: (26i)

DODink  PEV i   opt , and (26j)
Z Cost
 
1.301 nk
 Costink  2.301 DODink / 2151 v
, (20) ivnk , n , k
v

Pcv ink v v
Pcv ink
v v
n  1, , K ;k  a,b,c . (26k)
DODink
Z Cost
 
1.301 All the variables with the superscripts (i) and (i+1) in the
 Costink  2.301 DODink / 2151 v
. (21) model represent values obtained at iterations i and i+1,
Pdv ink v v
Pdv ink
v v
respectively. The model is solved iteratively from the first
The total injection power ( Pnt ) at three phases of bus n at iteration where i=0, as explained later in Section II part D. At
time slot t can be computed using: iteration i, the variables with the superscripts (i) are known,
  and the variables with the superscripts (i+1) need to be
 
N PEVnk
Pnt    PnkZIP t   Pcvt ink  Pdvt ink  . (22) computed. This model aims to minimize one of the two Fun
k  a,b,c 
 
v v
ivnk 1 functions, either the cost-reduction objective function or the
The load shape function (ZS) is formulated as follows: peak-shifting objective function. The first objective function,
 K 2
 .
the cost-reduction function, is given by:
ZS  

t
 t  P 
  i 1
i
t (23) Fun=ZLC+ZCost. (27)
opt
The second objective function, the peak-shifting function, is
Given the total amount of energy used in  opt , ZS is minimal expressed as:
when the load profile is as flat as possible [18], [33]. It should Fun=ZS+WgZCost. (28)
The first scheme provides V2G service with minimum
be noted that if t   PEV i nk , the second term inside the
v expense to the PEV owners, i.e., ZLC+ZCost. The second
brackets in (22) is zero. The result of using ZS as an objective scheme also considers the expense to PEV owners, i.e., ZCost.
is that the controller would shift loads towards periods with The charging/discharging cost (ZLC), the extra battery
lower demand. degradation cost (ZCost), and the load shape function (ZS) in the
The sensitivity of the load shape function (ZS) with respect (i+1)’th iteration can be respectively obtained as:
to the control variable u of the ivnk ’th PEV at phase k of bus n Z LCi 1  Z LCi   Z LCui  ui 1  ui  , (29)  
at the    PEV ink time slot can be obtained using (24) and
v
ZCost  i 1
 ZCost  ZCostu i  i 
u  i 1
 ui  , (30)
(25):
ZSi 1  ZSi   ZSui  ui 1  ui  .   (31)

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
6

r
v i nk D. Implementation
The level of stored energy ( EPEVv ink ) at the end of time slot
v
The developed optimization formula (26) can be easily
rv ink for the (i+1)’th iteration can be calculated as: solved using the interior point optimization method. The step-
v
by-step algorithm for the proposed day-ahead optimal
EPEV ink    Pcvviivnk  PEV v iv   d
r nk i 1 r nk i 1 r nk i 1
v iv c
iv nk t  P
dvivnk  nk t  F
PEV iv nk t
PEV iv charging control model is given as follows:
v v
Step 1) Input data for the next day from the distribution utility,
 SOCinitial ink CPEV ink . (32)
v v such as the forecast loads, the distribution network
Equation (33) ensures that the inter-step energy topology, the distribution network parameters, the
t
conservation ( EPEV ink ) in the (i+1)’th iteration considers drawn controllable PEV charging data, including its capacity,
v
the charging/discharging rated power, and the
or released energy, accounting for the specific efficiency and
historical arrival time, departure time, and travel
self-discharge:
i 1
interval. The charging/discharging power of the
 Pcvt ink  PEV t  Pdvt ink  PEV
i 1 c i 1 d
t
EPEV ivnk ivnk ivnk
t  FPEV ink t uncontrollable PEVs is taken as a constant power
v v v

 t 1 i 1 value and a part of the ZIP loads. The arrival time,
 EPEV ink ,t   PEV ink t  rv ink . (33)
v v v departure time, and travel interval of each PEV and
In the DAOC model (26), constraint (26b) ensures that the initial SOC are either obtained using the statistical
bus voltage is always within the deadband and that the neutral expected value computed from their historical data, or
potential rise is limited, which is not considered in [8]-[11], input by the PEV user in advance. Set iteration i=0.
[17]. Constraints (26c) and (26d) limit the maximum power Step 2) Adjust the settings of all the voltage control devices
that can be drawn or released by the PEV battery. If the PEV according to the traditional method.
user does not participate in V2G service, the discharging upper Step 3) Perform a three-phase power flow. In the first iterati-
limit is set to zero. Constraint (26e) either disables discharging on, initialize the PEV charging power. If the settings
during the valley load period, or alternately deletes the
of all the traditional voltage control devices do not
discharging power variables directly from the control variables
change after the first iteration and before the
during the valley load period. Constraint (26f) guarantees
maximum iteration is reached, or if the maximum
either the charge state or the discharge state at any control
time. Constraint (26g) ensures that the stored energy is always iteration is reached, output the optimal solution and
within the deadband. Constraint (26h) ensures that the SOC is go to Step 6; otherwise, go to Step 4.
not smaller than the target value at the due date. Constraint Step 4) Compute all the sensitivities for each time slot based
(26i) guarantees that the daily DOD is within the allowable on the corresponding distribution network topology,
scope. Constraint (26j) ensures the time slot set for the PEV the predicted load level, and the PEV charging power.
battery’s charging/discharging power optimization is a union Step 5) Solve the optimization model (26) using the interior
of all the PEV charging/discharging time slots. Instead of an point optimization method. Update i=i+1. Go to Step
on/off control [9], the PEV charging/discharging power is 2.
adjusted, which brings more flexible control to the distribution Step 6) When the time slot of the next day is reached, send
system. the corresponding optimal charging/discharging
There are N noneq nonequivalent constraints in the DAOC power value to each available PEV
model, which can be obtained using: charging/discharging device. If the amount of the
N PEV’s stored energy is greater than the energy
N noneq  8KN   6    N   2   N PEVnk . (34)
PEVnk

opt
PEV n  nk
v
PEV ivnk
k  a , b , c i 1 PEV n k  a ,b,c
storage lower band limit, discharge the PEV
The first term in (34) is the number of linear-inequality according to the DAOC optimization value. If the
constraints (26b), the second term is the number of linear- amount of the PEV’s stored energy is less than the
inequality constraints (26c), (26d), and (26g), and the third energy storage upper band limit, charge the PEV
term is the number of linear-inequality constraints (26h) and according to the DAOC optimization value.
(26i). Moreover, when the next day begins, go to Step 1 and
There are N eq equivalent constraints in the DAOC model, perform the next round of computation with the new
input data for the following day.
which can be obtained using: Traditional voltage control in the distribution system is
N N
N eq     N      N
PEVnk PEVnk
. (35) usually achieved by incorporating an on-load tap changer
nk valley nk 
n k  a , b , c i 1
nk PEV iv
n nk k  a , b , c i 1
PEV iv
PEV v PEV v (OLTC), switched capacitors, and a step voltage regulator
The first term in (35) is the number of nonlinear equality (SVR). The traditional control system of a tap changer-based
constraints (26f), and the second term is the number of linear voltage regulator measures the voltage and the load current,
equality constraints (26e). estimates the voltage at the remote point, and triggers the tap
Without the introduction of the sensitivity method, all the change when the estimated voltage is out of boundary, usually
constraints in model (26) are nonlinear with respect to the employing the traditional line drop compensation method [34].
control variables. Furthermore, the three-phase power flow However, the traditional control system may fail under a high
equations must be added to the constraints of the model (26), penetration of PEVs since it is difficult to predict the load
which greatly increases the computational burden of the model. current of the intermittent charging/discharging power without

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
any charging/discharging control. In Step 2 of the proposed
DAOC approach, all the voltage control devices act according
to traditional method, and then the computation of the model
(26) is performed based on the obtained tap positions of the
OLTC and the step-voltage regulator, as well as the switch
position of the capacitors. Since all the traditional voltage
control devices act according to a controlled
charging/discharging power and a predicted load level, the
voltage control effect will be highly improved. Moreover,
unlike the integration of the Volt-var control with the charging
control strategy in [17], the proposed DAOC strategy needs
less infrastructure investment.
E. Treatment of Unexpected Scenarios
However, in reality, there are three kinds of unexpected
scenarios that need to be addressed in Step 6 of the DAOC
algorithm. Firstly, if a certain number of PEVs unexpectedly
plug in to the distribution system, the DAOC obtained above
provides no optimal control signals for these extra plugged-in
PEVs. Secondly, if a certain number of PEVs are
unexpectedly used for travel, i.e., they do not travel according
to the input data at Step 2 of the DAOC implementation
procedure, the voltage limitation cannot be guaranteed any
longer with the execution of the optimal control obtained
above. Lastly, when the actual SOC initial level is smaller
than the pre-set value, the PEV may not be able to be
discharged by following the obtained DAOC strategy due to
the energy storage lower band limitation. If the actual SOC
initial level is greater than the pre-set value, the PEV can be
charged to its desired level earlier. These PEVs cannot
charge/discharge according to the DAOC optimization value.
Although most of these kinds of events occur with a small
probability, the usage of the proposed DAOC model was
further developed in order to deal with these cases.
If a certain number of PEVs unexpectedly plug in, the
obtained charging/discharging power of the original PEVs
remain unchanged, and the newly plugged-in PEVs are only
optimized with the DAOC model. After waiting for the period
of the DAOC optimization computation, the extra plugged-in
PEVs begin to charge/discharge. Furthermore, if the PEVs do
not have time to wait, a simple control can be made to average
out the total charging power among their charging periods, and
their charging periods are better chosen in the valley load
period.
If the PEVs unexpectedly travel or the actual SOC deviates
from the day-ahead pre-set value, all bus voltages are checked
for the next time slot recurrently. If the voltage limitation is
violated at time slot t, the DAOC model is revised as follows
in order to optimize the remaining control variable using the
cost-reduction strategy:
min Fun(i+1) (36a)

s.t. Vmin  V i   Vui  ui 1  ui   Vmax , (36b) 
0 P t
cvivnk
i 1
P Nc
cv ivnk
t   PEV ink ,  n, k  SPEV ,
， (36c)
v
i 1
E t
PEV ivnk
0
E t
PEV ivnk
E UB
PEV ivnk
t   PEV ink ,
，
v
 n, k  SPEV , (36d)
0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
where variables with the superscript 0 represent values
obtained by the DAOC model (26). Those charging powers
are only controlled if Pcvt ink  0 ; other charging powers remain
v
equal to zero. This means that the obtained discharging power
in model (26) is unchanged and the constraints of the maximal
daily DOD are not broken. The cost reduction objective
function is taken as ZLC, which only computes the value for
one time slot in (11). Constraint (36d) guarantees that the
adjusted charging power is not less than the charging power
obtained in model (26). All constraints include the constraints
corresponding to only one time slot. Subsequently, the number
of constraints is reduced to N noneq  8K  4  N PEVnk , and the
 n , k SPEV
computation burden of the revised optimal control model is
greatly reduced. The computation of model (36) is performed
based on the actions of the voltage control devices according
to the traditional method, too. If the objective function value
change is less than the threshold, or the maximum iteration is
reached, the optimal solution is output. Then the
corresponding optimal charging/discharging power value is
immediately sent to each available PEV charging/discharging
device. After the PEVs travel unexpectedly or the actual SOC
initial level deviates from the pre-set value, the revised
optimal control model (36) is used to optimize the next time
slot, recurrently.
III. COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE DAOC
MODEL
The communication infrastructure for the proposed DAOC
model between the distribution utility and the PEV is as
shown in Fig. 1. The quarterly forecasted loads and the
distribution network topology are available from the database
maintained by the distribution utility. The distribution utility
sends this data to the corresponding distributed processing
units that are used for the DAOC cyclic computation by means
of RS-485 telecommunication technology, in which only one-
way communication is required between the utility distribution
center and the distributed processing unit. Similar to the
communication method used in [8], the DAOC controller
collects status information from the PEV charging/discharging
devices and dispatches the optimization results to the PEV
charging/discharging devices using ZigBee technology. Inbuilt
actuators of the PEV charging/discharging devices
automatically adjust the charging/discharging power of the
PEV after receiving the control signals in real time. It should
be noted that since the proposed DAOC strategy is optimized
while considering the implementation of the traditional
voltage control, the conventional voltage control and the
proposed DAOC strategy can work simultaneously, and the
conventional voltage control system does not need to be
updated.
IV. APPLICATION EXAMPLE OF THE PROPOSED DAOC
MODEL
A. Residential Distribution System Under Test
The residential distribution grid studied here is based on the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
8

75-node feeder topology extended from an IEEE 34-node test yuan/kWh, while during the peak load period at 7:00–22:45,
feeder [35], as shown in Fig. 2. The non-PEV load profile is s- the electricity price is 3.11 yuan/kWh. The discharging
TABLE I
Utility Distribution Center
RATED CHARGING POWER AND CAPACITY OF EACH PEV
Available Database
Forecasted Load
Distribution Network Topology PcvNcina CPEV ina PcvNcinb CPEV inb PcvNcinc CPEV inc
PEV Charging Data Node v v v v v v

(kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh)

RS-485 37,39,42,4
4,48,52,55 8 47.5 7.5 41.4 8 47.5
Distributed Processing
Unit and DAOC Controller ,59,67,75

ZigBee
electricity price is 2.5 yuan/kWh.  valley is the time slot set

PEV PEV PEV PEV

during 22:45–7:00. Assuming SOCdest ink = 0.85,
v
Battery Battery Battery Battery
UB LB
Fig. 1. Communication infrastructure between the distribution utility and the EPEV i nk
CPEV ink = 0.9, EPEV i nk
CPEV ink = 0.2, and DODmaxink
v v v v v
PEV.
= 0.2, the battery cost is 3000 yuan/kWh, the upper and lower
49 50 51 52 bus voltage limits are 1.1 p.u. and 0.9 p.u., respectively, and
24
53 54 55 the upper and lower neutral voltages are 0.0025 p.u. and zero
23

22
45 46 47 48 p.u., respectively. The benchmark power is 333.3 kVA. The
11
39
21
56 57 58 59
maximum iteration number of the DAOC is 10. The maximum
38 32
Zone
10
9 29
17 30 18 20 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 iteration number of the interior point optimization is 9. The
Substation

16
1 2 3 4 6 7 25 8 12 13
5 26
35
14 15 27 28
36
37
40
41
42
Fig. 2. Topology of the studied residential distribution grid.
caled from [36]. An idealistic value of the neutral to ground
resistance is determined as 10-4 ohms for a solidly grounded
neutral of a four-wire bus [31], and this value is chosen in the
test.
It was assumed that 30 houses with 30 PEVs were in the
network (Table I). Two types of PEVs were considered: the
‘Build Your Dreams (BYD) model EV300’ with a 47.5 kWh
battery capacity [37] and the ‘Beijing Automotive Industry
Corporation (BAIC) model EU260’ with a 41.4 kWh battery
capacity [38]. The charging and discharging efficiency of each
PEV battery was considered to be 88%. The self-discharge
rate of each PEV battery was 0.1% capacity each day [39].
According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey
[40], some curve fitting results for the trip attributes show that
both the arrival and departure times of the vehicles follow a
normal distribution [13]. According to an investigation of the
resident driving habits in our community in China, the arrival
and departure times of the vehicles follow normal distributions
too, with mean values of approximately 19:30 and 7:30 and
standard deviations of 0.51 and 0.48 hours, respectively.
Therefore, the charging start time and the end time are set as
19:30 and 7:30, respectively, in the test case, and the
temporary departure time is neglected. It is assumed that all
PEVs can participate in V2G service and only one vehicle per
household can be charged, i.e., ivnk = 1 in the test case.
Two electricity price levels are adopted. During the valley
load period at 22:45–7:00, the electricity price is 0.95
31
19 43 44
convergence errors for the control variable and the constraints
33 34
are 10-10 and 10-12, respectively.
60
61
During the initial condition, no PEV participates in the
62 V2G service, and all PEVs begin to charge to their maximum
63
64 charging power until they are fully charged when people
65
return home at 19:30, which is a PEV owner’s desired battery-
66
67 charging mode. In Part E of this section, the PEV charging
power initialization is changed in order to show the
convergence effect of the DAOC algorithm.
B. Cost-Reduction Strategy
In this strategy, the objective function is taken as (27). The
non-PEV load is also increased by 16% to show the control
effects, and some of the optimization results are listed in Table
II. The load levels before and after the increase are named load
level 1 and load level 2, respectively. Before the optimal
control in load level 1, the phase ‘b’ voltage of node 7 is the
highest. After optimization, the highest voltage decreases by
0.26% from 1.1023 p.u. to 1.0994 p.u., and the lowest phase ‘b’
voltage of node 7 increases 0.57% from 1.0401 p.u. to 1.0460
p.u. The voltage comparison is shown in Fig. 3. Before the
optimal control in load level 2, the phase ‘a’ voltage of node
34 is the smallest. After optimization, the smallest voltage
increases 2.30% from 0.8789 p.u. to 0.8991 p.u. The voltage
comparison is shown in Fig. 4. After the optimization of the
two load levels, almost all of the bus voltages are limited to
the range of [0.9, 1.1] p.u.
Before the optimal control at load level 1, the neutral
voltage of node 46 is the highest, and it reaches 2.5161×10-3
p.u. After optimization, the voltage decreases by 0.61% and
the neutral voltage is almost controlled within 2.5×10-3 p.u..
The neutral voltage of node 46 decreases by 2.08% at load
level 2. Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the neutral voltage of
node 46 before and after optimization at load level 2.
The comparison of the load variation before and after
optimization is shown in Fig. 6 at load level 1. After

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
9

optimization, the load variation range decreases, the minimal
load increases from 1.42766 p.u. to 1.48466 p.u., and the max-
Fig. 3. Comparison of the phase ‘b’ voltage of node 7 before and after
optimization at load level 1.
Instead of centralized charging almost in the peak load period,
PEV battery charging occurs most often in the valley load
period, which helps to achieve peak shaving and valley filling.
The SOC variation curve of all PEVs after optimization at
load level 1 is shown in Fig. 8. After optimization for the two
load levels, all SOC values are limited within the range of [0.2,
0.9], and the SOC of almost all PEVs for the last time slot is
not less than 0.85. All PEVs can be recharged to the desired
SOC level when they depart. Moreover, most of the discharge
service is provided from 20:45 to 22:30.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the phase ‘a’ voltage of node 34 before and after
optimization at load level 2.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the load variation before and after optimization using
the objective function (27) at load level 1.

Fig. 5. Comparison of the neutral voltage of node 46 before and after

optimization at load level 2.

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL CONTROL RESULTS USING THE TWO
STRATEGIES WITH MAXIMUM CHARGING POWER INITIALIZATION
Fig. 7. Comparison of the total charging power of the PEVs before and after
Cost-reduction optimization using the objective function (27) at load level 1.
Strategy Peak-shifting strategy
strategy
Objective function ZLC+ZCost ZS+WgZCost
Load level Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2
Initial ZCost (yuan) 0
ZCost after
0.04 0.04 0.05 0.01
optimization (yuan)
Initial charging cost Fig. 8. SOC variation of all PEVs after optimization.
2692.33
(yuan)
Charging cost after
1325.93 1302.82 1331.54 1299.67
optimization (yuan) The sensitivity Vu of the neutral voltage of Bus 46 with
Initial discharging
benefits (yuan)
0 respect to the control variables at Bus 37 at time 20:45, is
Discharging benefits listed in Table III at load level 1, from which it can be seen
after optimization 22.46 24.41 23.06 20.30 that increasing the charging power at phase ‘c’ and decreasing
(yuan) the charging power at phases ‘a’ and ‘b’ will decrease the
Network loss cost
before optimization 2419.28 3092.47 2419.28 3092.47 neutral voltage of Bus 46. After one optimization iteration of
(yuan) the DAOC model, the charging power at phases a, b, and c
Network loss cost decreases from 8 kW to 0.81 kW, from 7.5 kW to 0.81 kW,
after optimization 2090.74 2732.66 2090.87 2733.16
(yuan)
and from 8 kW to 0.76 kW, respectively, and the neutral
ZLC+ZCost (yuan) 1303.51 1278.45 1308.53 1279.38 voltage of Bus 46 decreases 5.29% from 2.5161×10-3 p.u. to
Peak-valley load 2.3830 × 10-3 p.u. when the settings of all the traditional
difference before 71.38 70.41 71.38 70.41 voltage control devices do not change with the charging power
optimization (%) variation.
Peak-valley load
difference after 66.72 66.87 66.52 66.76
optimization (%) TABLE III
PART VOLTAGE SENSITIVITY OF BUS 46 AT TIME 20:45.
Total iterations 3 2 3 2
u of Node
Pcv6ina Pcv6inb Pcv6inc Pdv6 ina Pdv6 inb Pdv6 inc
37 v v v v v v

imal load decreases from 4.98843 p.u. to 4.46170 p.u. A Vu (10-4

1.19 0.22 -1.44 -1.19 -0.22 1.44
comparison of the total charging power is depicted in Fig. 7. p.u./p.u.)

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
10

C. Peak-Shifting Strategy are 4.06% and 4.03%, respectively, for load level 1. The
In this strategy, the objective function is taken as (28). The difference between them is small.
weight factor Wg is taken as 10. The optimization results for The weight Wg in the peak-shifting function is chosen by
the peak-shifting strategy considering load levels 1 and 2 are experience in order to consider the battery degradation cost of
listed in Table II. Here, the peak-valley load difference  is a PEV’s V2G service. Table IV lists the results for load level 1
under two other conditions: Wg = 103 and Wg = 105. ZCost
used to measure the load variation degree, and it is defined in
decreases with the increase of Wg. As the weight factor Wg
(37) as the proportion of the difference between the peak load
decreases from 103 to 10, the peak-valley load difference after
Ppeak and the valley load Pvalley to the peak load:
optimization decreases a little, from 66.53% to 66.52%. Also,
   Ppeak  Pvalley  Ppeak . (37) as the weight factor Wg increases from 103 to 105, the peak-
After optimization using the objective function (28) at load valley load difference after optimization decreases a little,
level 1, the highest voltage of the phase ‘b’ voltage of node 7 from 66.53% to 66.30%. This is a result of the fact that the
decreases 0.26%. Almost all of the bus voltages are limited DAOC model is nonlinear and nonconvex. However, the
within [0.9, 1.1] p.u. After optimization, the highest neutral weight value produces only a small impact on the DAOC
voltage of node 46 decreases 1.38% and the neutral voltages optimization results since the battery degradation cost ZCost is
much smaller than ZLC.
of all the low voltage buses are controlled within 2.5×10-3 p.u.
After optimization, the load variation scope becomes narrow, TABLE IV
the minimal load increases from 1.42766 p.u. to 1.48875 p.u., COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL CONTROL RESULTS USING DIFFERENT
and the maximal load decreases from 4.98843 p.u. to 4.44736 PARAMETER SETTINGS AT LOAD LEVEL 1
p.u. The load variation comparison is shown in Fig. 9. The Strategy Cost-reduction strategy Peak-shifting strategy
total charging and discharging power of each time slot is
Objective function ZLC+ZCost ZS+WgZCost
depicted in Fig. 10. PEV battery charging is also largely
Computational Heuristic
shifted to the load valley period. Even power Wg=103 Wg=105
condition power
Initial ZCost (yuan) 0
ZCost after optimization
0.00 0.19 0.05 0.04
(yuan)
Initial charging cost
1763.13 1042.91 2692.33
(yuan)
Charging cost after
1585.76 1265.11 1331.46 1340.98
optimization (yuan)
Initial discharging
0
benefits (yuan)
Discharging benefits
after optimization 0.05 81.12 23.00 21.75
(yuan)
Fig. 9. Comparison of the load variation before and after optimization using Network loss cost
the objective function (28) at load level 1. before optimization 2170.84 2039.47 2419.28
(yuan)
Network loss cost after
2158.28 2140.35 2159.42 2161.42
optimization (yuan)
ZLC+ZCost (yuan) 1585.71 1184.18 1308.51 1319.27
Peak-valley load
difference before 62.86 66.24 71.38
optimization (%)
Fig. 10. Comparison of the total charging power of the PEVs before and after Peak-valley load
optimization using the objective function (28) at load level 1. difference after 63.34 66.86 66.53 66.30
optimization (%)
After optimization at load level 2, almost all of the bus Total iterations 4 2 3 3
voltages are limited within [0.9, 1.1] p.u., and the load
variation scope becomes narrow. The smallest voltage of the D. Comparison of the Two Optimization Cases
phase ‘a’ voltage of node 34 increases 2.31% from 0.8789 p.u. As shown in Table II, the cost reduction is lower when the
to 0.8992 p.u. The highest neutral voltage of node 46 objective function is taken as (27), and μ is lower when the
decreases 2.11%. The minimal load increases from 1.65402 objective function is taken as (28). From the two objective
p.u. to 1.67466 p.u., and the maximal load decreases from functions, it seems that the first strategy benefits PEV owners,
5.58910 p.u. to 5.03906 p.u. while the second strategy benefits the Power Supply Company.
After optimization for the two load levels, all SOC values However, it can also be seen from Table II that the two
are limited within the range of [0.2, 0.9], and the SOC of all objective functions are not contradictory. The second strategy
the PEVs at the last time slot is not less than 0.85. All the can also benefit PEV users. In the second strategy, the cost
PEVs can be recharged to the desired SOC level when they reduction function is also computed and it reaches 1308.53
depart, as well. The maximum total DODs of all time slots yuan and 1279.38 yuan for load levels 1 and 2, respectively.
using the peak-shifting strategy and the cost-reduction strategy The difference between the cost reduction function values for

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
the two strategies is not large. The first strategy can also
benefit the Power Supply Company. The daily saved network
loss costs are 328.54 yuan and 359.81 yuan for load levels 1
and 2, respectively, and the peak-valley load difference
decreases to from 71.38% to 66.72% and from 70.41% to
66.87% after optimization for load levels 1 and 2, respectively.
The difference between the peak-valley load differences after
optimization for the two strategies is not large either. Both
strategies bring considerable economic benefits to both PEV
users and the Power Supply Company. In addition, the extra
battery degradation cost is negligible compared to the other
costs. However, when the discharging electricity price
increases from 2.5 to 4.0 yuan/kWh, ZCost after optimization of
the cost-reduction strategy increases from 1.32 yuan to 1.41
yuan, and the charging/discharging cost after optimization
decreases from 289.05 yuan to -66.72 yuan with initial SOC
levels of all PEVs are set at 0.5 and DODmaxink = 0.5. When
v
the discharging electricity price increases further to 4.5
yuan/kWh, ZCost decreases to 1.39 yuan, and the
charging/discharging cost decreases to -122.88 yuan. If ZCost is
removed from the cost-reduction function, ZCost after
optimization of the cost-reduction strategy increases from 1.32
yuan to 1.67 yuan when the discharging electricity price
increases from 2.5 to 4.5 yuan/kWh. The results mean that the
benefit of including the battery degradation cost in the cost-
reduction function lies in constraining battery degradation cost
and at the same time reducing charging/discharging cost.
The combined support available from a number of PEVs in
the network can also provide significant network support by
reducing the SVR tap operation. The minimum and maximum
tap positions of the SVR between bus 16 and bus 26 based on
the second PEV’s charging strategy at load level 1 when Wg is
taken as 105 are −9 and −2, respectively. Conversely, the
minimum and maximum SVR tap positions based on the
maximum charging power are −10 and −1, respectively. Using
the second PEV’s charging strategy, the SVR needs an
average of 25 tap changing operations. However, using the
maximum PEV’s charging strategy, the SVR needs an average
of 32 tap changing operations.
The computer is configured with an Intel Xeon 12-core 3.4-
GHz CPU and 16 GB of RAM. All codes are implemented in
a MATLAB environment. The computation time of each
iteration of the proposed DAOC model is mainly composed of
three parts: the three-phase power flow computation, the
sensitivity computation, and the interior point optimization
computation time. The MATLAB function ‘fmincon’ is used
to perform the interior point optimization [41]. There are
N PEVnk
2   
nPEV k  a , b , c ivnk 1
N
PEV ivnk
= 2880 control variables, 34428
linear nonequivalent constraints, 990 linear equivalent
constraints, and 1440 nonlinear equivalent constraints in the
test case. As shown in Table II and Table IV, this iterative
algorithm converges quickly. The computation time of each
iteration is approximately 14 min. However, the computation
time increases with the PEV number, their
charging/discharging time slot number, and network size as
0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
shown in (34) and (35). Two other distribution grids were used
here to check the computation time variation: the revised IEEE
123 Node Test Feeder [35] and a 237 Node Feeder adapted
from the IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder. It was assumed that the
30 PEVs listed in Table I were in each of the two distribution
grids. The objective function is taken as (27). It takes up to
43.5 minutes and 195.1 minutes each iteration to solve the
problem for the IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder and the 237 Node
Feeder, respectively. Both iterative algorithms converge in
two iterations. The computation time will become longer than
24 hours when the network size is larger than 237 nodes and
PEV number and charging time slot number are even greater,
and then the computation time could not meet the requirement
of control: the optimization results should be obtained before
the next day. This problem could be hopefully solved by three
methods including the sensitivity of voltage bands [42],
parallel computation [43]-[44], and sparse matrix [45]
techniques in future research work. First, the sensitivity of
voltage upper and lower bounds may be useful to reduce the
computation of sensitivity Vu and the number of voltage
constraints (26b) in the DAOC model. Second, the
computational tasks of the three-phase power flow and all the
sensitivities for all time slots during optimization period can
be performed concurrently and thus multithreading techniques
[43] and graphics processing unit (GPU) acceleration
approach [44] could be used to implement these distributed
computing tasks. Furthermore since the proposed DAOC is
solved by the interior point method, it may be accelerated by
using GPU as coprocessor similar to the GPU acceleration
approach used in [44] too. Finally, the Newton modified-
augmented-nodal-analysis formulation method [45] based on
sparse matrix solver could be utilized for the computation of
three-phase power flow.
E. Comparison of Different Initializations and Comparison of
a Heuristic Charging Method
As noted in [46], noticeably different solutions could be
obtained when the optimal power flow was simply initialized
from different starting points. However, any differences
should be within the tolerances associated with the
convergence criteria. In this section, the objective function is
still taken as (27) with two different initialization points in
order to show the differences in the DAOC convergence time
and the optimal solution. In the second initialization, the total
charging power is averaged out among the charging periods.
In the third initialization, the PEV charging power is
determined by the heuristic charging approach proposed in
[25], which minimizes the charging cost. Table IV lists the
optimal control results using the second and third
initializations.
From Table II and Table IV, it can be seen that the optimal
objective function (27) after DAOC regulation with different
initializations is different, and the biggest relative difference is
33.9%. The objective function after DAOC regulation with
heuristic power initialization is the smallest. This difference
results from the fact that the interior point optimization
method can only find the minima near the initialization point.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
Since the heuristic method is trying to achieve the minimum
charging cost without considering the voltage constraints, it
can achieve the smallest charging cost, but it cannot guarantee
the voltage level. The voltages of some buses are over the
limit using the heuristic charging power after considering the
traditional voltage control. Using the heuristic charging at load
level 1, the phase ‘b’ voltage of node 7 is still the highest, and
the highest voltage reaches 1.1022 p.u., but using the heuristic
charging at load level 2, the phase ‘a’ voltage of node 34 is
still the smallest and the smallest voltage reaches 0.8796 p.u.
After DAOC regulation, the highest voltage of the phase ‘b’
voltage at node 7 at load level 1 decreases to 1.0990 p.u., the
smallest voltage of the phase ‘a’ voltage at node 34 increases
to 0.8917 p.u., and the degrees of all bus voltages over the
limits are relieved. Fig. 11 shows the comparison of the phase
‘a’ voltage of node 34 before and after optimization for load
level 2. It should also be noted that the network loss cost after
optimization with the maximal charging power initialization is
the smallest, and the peak-valley load difference after
optimization with an even power initialization is smallest.
Fig. 11. Comparison of phase ‘a’ voltage at node 34 before and after
optimization at load level 2.
F. Discussion of Unexpected Plug-Ins or Travel
Since the arrival time and departure time of some PEVs are
obtained using the statistical expected value, the impact of the
variance of arrival and departure times on the DAOC
regulation effect is presented in the following paragraphs.
The arrival and departure times of 15 PEVs at Buses 52, 55,
59, 67, and 75 are chosen as random variables and changed by
three standard deviations from their means as shown in Table
V. In model (26), the arrival and departure times are set
beforehand, using the cost-reduction DAOC strategy for load
level 1. When executing the obtained DAOC strategy on the
next day, four extreme scenarios are considered in Table V. In
Scenario A, all PEVs are available between 19:30 and 7:30, so
they are charged/discharged according to the obtained DAOC
strategy from model (26). In Scenario B, the minimum SOC
value of the 15 early departing PEVs is 0.77 when they depart
at 6:00; the remaining PEVs reach a fully charged state earlier
using the DAOC strategy obtained from model (26) between
19:30 to 6:00 and the strategy obtained from model (36)
between 6:00 and 7:30. In Scenarios C and D, due to the
energy storage lower band limitation, some PEVs cannot
discharge from 21:00 to 22:30 according to the DAOC
discharging strategy obtained from model (26). At 7:30, none
of the late arriving PEVs reach the desired SOC level in
Scenarios C and D, and the minimal SOC level at 6:00 is 0.70.
Therefore, in Scenario C these late arriving PEVs are
optimized using model (36) for the time slots between 7:30 to
9:00. Then all these PEVs reach the desired SOC level at 8:00,
with the SOC curves depicted in Fig. 12. In Scenario D, model
0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
12
(36) is used to optimize the charging power of the remaining
PEVs for the time slots between 6:00 and 7:30. The SOC
curves of the remaining PEVs are shown in Fig. 13, and it can
be seen that the remaining PEVs reach a fully charged state
earlier. In Figs. 12 and 13, the lines marked with circles are
the SOC curves after the DAOC regulation from model (26),
without any change to the arrival or departure times, and the
solid lines without any marks are actual SOC curves that take
into account the changes to the arrival and departure times.
The maximum iteration number of the revised optimal
control model (36) is 5. There are 596 linear nonequivalent
constraints in the model (36), and the optimization
computation time for one time slot is between 24 and 87
seconds, which is much less than one time slot duration.
TABLE V
SCENARIOS OF THE ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES
Scenario Arrival time Departure time
A 18:00 9:00
B 18:00 6:00
C 21:00 9:00
D 21:00 6:00
Fig. 12. SOC variation of the late arriving PEVs in Scenario C.
Fig. 13. SOC variation of the remaining PEVs in Scenario D.
Since the arrival and departure time variation are non-
negligible, the negative effects analyzed above would
deteriorate the DAOC regulation effects. Therefore, it would
be better for the PEV user to guarantee that his or her PEV is
available between the time intervals, as they are pre-set, and
the actual SOC initial level is not lower than the pre-set day-
ahead value.
In addition, if three PEVs plug in at Bus 37 unexpectedly,
the extra optimization computation using the peak-shifting
strategy only takes 2998.55 seconds. Therefore, these three
PEVs need to wait at least 2998.55 seconds, not counting
communication time delay, in order to provide V2G service.
V. CONCLUSIONS
An optimization model designed to flexibly control the
available PEV battery charging/discharging power, taking into
account the voltage regulation of the residential power grid,
was presented in order to achieve one of two goals: (1)
minimizing both the battery charging/discharging cost and the
extra battery degradation cost due to V2G activities (cost-
reduction strategy) or (2) maximizing the local peak load
shifting and minimizing the extra battery degradation cost due
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
to V2G activities (peak-shifting strategy). The proposed
formulation was tested on an electrical distribution network
with 75 nodes. The results showed that the optimized
operation of the PEV charge or discharge produced an overall
battery charging/discharging cost reduction with the use of the
cost-reduction strategy when compared with maximum power
charging or even power charging. The optimized operation
also produced a peak load reduction with the use of the peak-
shifting strategy, and the degrees of all bus voltages over the
limits were relieved by using both strategies. The results also
showed that the neutral-to-ground potential rise of the
distribution network was alleviated after the optimal control of
the PEV charge. In fact, it depends on the non-PEV load level,
the controllable PEVs’ charging/discharging power range, and
reactive power reserve whether the proposed DAOC can keep
all bus voltages within acceptable limits. If an error in the
forecasting of the daily load profiles is considered, the control
effect of the proposed DAOC may degrade. This may be
addressed by stochastic programming in the future work.
Moreover, the results demonstrated that according to the
current battery cost and electricity price in China, the extra
battery degradation cost due to V2G was negligible compared
to the saved cost of all PEVs and the saved network loss cost
after DAOC charging instead of maximum power charging or
even power charging, which would motivate PEV users to
participate in V2G service. Since the conventional voltage
control and the proposed DAOC strategy can work
simultaneously, the proposed DAOC strategy needs less
infrastructure investment.
The DAOC model was developed further in order to deal
with PEVs being unexpectedly plugged in or travelling and to
address any SOC deviation from the day-ahead pre-set value,
and the computation time on the test electrical distribution
network indicated its feasibility.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to express special thanks to the
editor and reviewers whose comments led to valuable
improvements of the manuscript.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] S. Shafiee, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Rastegar, “Investigating the
impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on power distribution systems,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1351–1360, Sep. 2013.
[2] L. P. Fernández, T. G. S. Román, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo, and P.
Frías, “Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on
distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 206–
213, Feb. 2011.
[3] Q. Gong, S. Midlam-Mohler, V. Marano, and G. Rizzoni, “Study of PEV
charging on residential distribution transformer life,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 404–412, Mar. 2012.
[4] E. Veldman and R. A. Verzijlbergh, “Distribution grid impacts of smart
electric vehicle charging from different perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 333–342, Jan. 2015.
[5] M. Amjad, A. Ahmad, M. H. Rehmani, and T. Umer, “A review of EVs
charging: From the perspective of energy optimization, optimization
approaches, and charging techniques,” Transport. Res. Part D, vol 62, no.
1, pp. 386–417, Jul. 2018.
[6] D.T. Nguyen and L.B. Le, “Joint optimization of electric vehicle and
home energy scheduling considering user comfort preference,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 188–199, Jan. 2014.
0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
13
[7] M.H.K. Tushar, C. Assi, M. Maier, and M.F. Uddin, “Smart microgrids:
optimal joint scheduling for electric vehicles and home appliances,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 239–250, Jan. 2014.
[8] X. Wang, Y. Pi, and A. Tang, “Scheduling of electric vehicle charging via
multi-server fair queueing,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., vol. 28,
no. 11, pp. 3298-3312. Nov. 2017
[9] A. Arias, M. Granada, and C. A. Castro, “Optimal probabilistic charging
of electric vehicles in distribution systems,” IET Electr. Syst. Transp., vol.
7, no. 3, pp. 246-251, May 2017.
[10] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “The impact of charging
Plug-In hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 371-380, Feb. 2010.
[11] G. Wang, J. Zhao, F. Wen, Y. Xue, and G. Ledwich, “Dispatch strategy
of PHEVs to mitigate selected patterns of seasonally varying outputs from
renewable generation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 627–
639, Mar. 2015.
[12] F. Wu and R. Sioshansi, “A two-stage stochastic optimization model for
scheduling electric vehicle charging loads to relieve distribution-system
constraints,” Transp. Res. Pt. B-Methodol., Vol 102, pp 55-82, Aug. 2017.
[13] J. Tan and L. Wang, “Integration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles into
residential distribution grid based on two-layer intelligent optimization,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1774-1784, Jul. 2014.
[14] W. Tang and Y. J. Zhang, “A model predictive control approach for low-
complexity electric vehicle charging scheduling: Optimality and
scalability.” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1050–1063, Mar.
2017.
[15] L. Liu, T. Liu, T. Zhang, and J. Liu, “Orderly charging and discharging
strategy optimization for electric vehicles considering dynamic battery-
wear model,” Automation Electr. Power Syst., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 83-90,
Mar. 2016.
[16] T. Shekari, S. Golshannavaz, and F. Aminifar, “Techno-economic
collaboration of PEV fleets in energy management of microgrids,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol 32, no 5, pp. 3833-3841, Sep. 2017.
[17] C. Sabillon-Antunez, O. D. Melgar-Dominguez, J. F. Franco, M.
Lavorato, and M. J. Rider, “Volt-var control and energy storage device
operation to improve the electric vehicle charging coordination in
unbalanced distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol 8,
no. 4, pp. 1560-1570, Oct. 2017.
[18] X. Wang and Q. Liang, “Energy management strategy for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles via bidirectional vehicle-to-grid,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 11,
no. 3, pp. 1789–1798, Sep. 2017.
[19] A. Gusrialdi, Z. Qu, and M. A. Simaan, “Distributed scheduling and
cooperative control for charging of electric vehicles at highway service
stations,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 18, no.10, pp. 2713-2727,
Oct. 2017.
[20] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto. “A controllable local peak-
shaving strategy for effective utilization of PEV battery capacity for
distribution network support,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 3, pp.
2030-2037, May 2015.
[21] W.J. Ma, V. Gupta, and U. Topcu, “Distributed charging control of
electric vehicles using online learning,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol.
62, pp. 10, pp. 5289-5295, Oct. 2017.
[22] A. Malhotra, G. Binetti, A. Davoudi, and I. D.Schizas, “Distributed
power profile tracking for heterogeneous charging of electric vehicles,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2090-2099, Sep. 2017.
[23] L. Gan, U. Topcu, and S. Low, “Optimal decentralized protocol for
electric vehicle charging,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
940–951, May 2013.
[24] G. Binetti, A. Davoudi, D. Naso, B. Turchiano, and F. L. Lewis,
“Scalable real-time electric vehicles charging with discrete charging rates,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 2211–2220, Sep. 2015.
[25] Y. Cao, S. Tang, C. Li, , P. Zhang, Y. Tan, Z. Zhang, and J. Li, “An
optimized EV charging model considering TOU price and SOC curve,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 388–393, Feb. 2012.
[26] Z. Ma, S. Zou, L. Ran, X. Shi, I. A. Hiskens, “Efficient decentralized
coordination of large-scale plug-in electric vehicle charging,” Automatica,
vol 69, pp. 35-37, Jul. 2016.
[27] Y. Xu, “Optimal distributed charging rate control of plug-in electric
vehicles for demand management,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no.
3, pp. 1536-1545, May 2015.
[28] A. Cortés and S. Martínez, “A hierarchical algorithm for optimal plug-in
electric vehicle charging with usage constraints,” Automatica, vol 68, pp.
119-131, Jun. 2016.
[29] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “Effective utilization of
available PEV battery capacity for mitigation of solar PV impact and grid
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2917009, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
14

support with integrated V2G functionality,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol.
7, no. 3, pp. 1562-1571, May 2016.
[30] B. Feng, H. Lin, and X. Wang, “Modulation and control of AC/DC matrix
converter for battery energy storage application,” IET Power Electron.,
vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1583-1594, Mar. 2015.
[31] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “A three-phase power flow
approach for integrated 3-wire MV and 4-wire multigrounded LV
networks with rooftop solar PV,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 1728-1737, May 2013.
[32] W. Su, H. Eichi, W. Zeng, and M. Chow, “A survey on the electrification
of transportation in a smart grid environment,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform.,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2012.
[33] A. Giusti, M. Salani, G. A. D. Caro, A. E. Rizzoli, and L. M.
Gambardella, “Restricted neighborhood communication improves
decentralized demand-side load management. ,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 92–101, Jan. 2014.
[34] W. H. Kersting, “Distribution system modeling and analysis,” 1st ed.
New York: CRC press, 2002, cha.6-8, pp. 125-245.
[35] W. H. Kersting, “Radial distribution test feeders,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, Jan. 2001, vol. 2, pp. 908-912.
[36] H. Hino, H. Shen, N. Murata, S. Wakao, and Y. Hayashi, “A versatile
clustering method for electricity consumption pattern analysis in
households,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1048-1057, Jun.
2013.
[37] BYD model specifications. Jan. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://car.diandong.com/duibi/chexi/208/?niankuan=2016
[38] BAIC model specifications. Nov. 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://car.diandong.com/duibi/chexi/352/?niankuan=2017
[39] Y. Ghiassi-Farrokhfal, S. Keshav and C. Rosenberg. “Toward a realistic
performance analysis of storage systems in smart grids.” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 402–410, Jan. 2015.
[40] National Household Travel Survey 2009. The Federal Highway
Administration, USA, [Online]. Available: http://nhts.ornl.gov/
[41] Mathworks, “Optimization toolbox user’s guide,” The Mathworks Inc.,
2016.
[42] K. Jhala, B. Natarajan, and A. Pahwa, “Probabilistic voltage sensitivity
analysis (PVSA)—A novel approach to quantify impact of active
consumers,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 2518-2527, May
2018.
[43] G. Geng and Q. Jiang, “A two-level parallel decomposition approach for
transient stability constrained optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2063-2073, Nov. 2012.
[44] G. Geng, Q. Jiang, and Y. Sun. “Parallel transient stability-constrained
optimal power flow using GPU as coprocessor,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1436-1445, May 2017.
[45] I. Kocar, J. Mahseredjian, U. Karaagac, G. Soykan, and O. Saad.
“Multiphase load-flow solution for large-scale distribution systems using
MANA,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 908-915, Apr. 2014.
[46] A. D. Papalexopoulos, C. F. Imparato, and F. F. Wu, “Large-scale
optimal power flow: Effects of initialization, decoupling and
discretization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, pp. 748–759, May 1989.

Yulong Huang received the Ph.D. degree in

electrical engineering from the South China
University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, in
2012. In the 2010–2011 academic year, he was a
visiting scholar at the University of Waterloo. Since
September 2012, he has been with the College of
Electrical Engineering at Jinan University, Zhuhai,
China. His research interests mainly include power
system optimization, operation, and control.

0885-8950 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.