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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
A Distributed Approach for OPF-Based Secondary
Control of MTDC Systems
Catalin Gavriluta, Student Member, IEEE, Raphael Caire, Senior Member, IEEE,
Antonio Gomez-Exposito, Fellow, IEEE, and Nouredine Hadjsaid, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper deals with the hierarchical control ar-
chitecture of meshed multi-terminal dc (MTDC) networks. The
key difference with previous works is that the customarily
adopted centralized secondary control is replaced by a fully-
distributed, agent-based approach, in which the nodes of the
network cooperate and self-coordinate in order to bring the
network to an optimal operating state. The paper covers the
theoretical aspects and shows how, by setting the problem as
a general consensus problem and by making use of modern
optimization techniques such as the alternating direction of
multipliers (ADMM), the optimal power flow (OPF) problem of
a dc grid can be solved in a distributed manner. The proposed
method is validated on a network with 27 nodes obtained by
properly adapting a 30 bus ac network.
Index Terms—MTDC systems, secondary control, distributed
optimal power flow, alternating direction of multipliers, general
consensus
I. I NTRODUCTION
N this section we will provide the background for the two
I main ideas on which the paper is based. The first one is
related to dc technology and its re-emergence over the past
few years in power systems applications both at high and low
voltage levels. Meanwhile, the second one is related to the
need of a migration from a centralized power system to a
more decentralized/distributed paradigm as generation shifts
from bulk central generators to a plethora of smaller distributed
renewable generators.
DC transmission systems have co-existed with their ac
counterpart since the beginning of the electrical grid. For the
past five decades, high voltage dc (HVDC) applications were
almost exclusively built using line commutated converters
(LCC) based on thyristors. More than 145 installations were
commissioned until 2013, and 40 new projects are planned
to be finished before 2020. However, it is not the LCC that
started the frenzy around dc systems, but rather the voltage
source converters (VSC) based on IGBTs. First introduced in
the 90’s, with a first 50 MW/±60kV installation in Gotland,
Sweden in 1999, VSC based HVDC systems have come a
long way since then; the latest applications being rated at
900 MW/±320kV [1].
The main drawback of LCC is that it draws considerable
amounts of reactive power and generates a large number of
low-harmonics, hence, requiring a strong connection to the ac-
network [2]. On the contrary, VSCs can connect to very weak
ac-grids, they are able to provide reactive power, and have
black start capability. The smaller filters and compensators
reduce considerably the overall footprint of the station, making
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
1
it ideal for offshore platforms and dense urban environments.
Another great advantage of VSC over LCC is that it can
be employed in systems with more than two terminals. This
important aspect, together with the challenges raised by the
integration of large offshore wind power plants into the
modern power grid, have fueled the research in the area for
the past few years [3]–[11].
But the advantages of dc systems are not limited to high
voltage applications. DC microgrids and their challenges have
been intensively studied for the past years [12]. Recently, a
Finnish distribution system operator has concluded that it is
technically feasible to replace medium voltage ac lines of up
to 8 km, which is about 20% of the medium voltage network
owned by the company, with low voltage dc (LVDC) systems
[13]. One of the advantages of the LVDC technology is that
a higher voltage level can be used in comparison with the
traditional low voltage ac (LVAC) technology, which makes it
possible to transfer more power. Moreover, the lack of reactive
power unlocks more transmission capacity for the same cable
size. LVDC systems can cover longer distances (up to 10
km). Therefore, replacing medium voltage ac lines with LVDC
systems can yield significant savings in investments due to a
lower number of distribution transformers being needed [14].
Another topic drawing a lot of attention lately in
power system research is the migration towards a dis-
tributed/decentralized control and management architecture
for the grid. Worldwide, large generators at the transmission
level are being replaced by a multitude of smaller generators,
mainly based on renewables and introduced at the distribution
level and at the low voltage level. According to [15] within
the European Union, in 2015 renewables accounted for the
majority (78%) of new generating capacity for the seventh
year running. As this trend evolves, the structural layers of
the grid, i.e., transmission down to distribution, and then to the
end-user, will not be pertinent any longer, and these layers will
start to blend into one another. A new structure should emerge
and it has to be one that would allow for various distributed de-
vices such as distributed generators, phase measurement units,
energy storage, smart meters, electric vehicles, smart homes,
smart buildings, and so forth, to be properly coordinated with
high efficiency and reliability.
As highlighted in the two roadmaps for smart-grids drafted
by ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Manage-
ment Agency) [16] and by ANCRE (the French National
Alliance for Energy Research Coordination) [17], the most
likely direction will be towards distributed local systems that
make optimal use of the available renewable sources in their
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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
2

areas operating together with a central manager that ensures Centralized Decentralized Distributed
2
the global equilibrium at a national or even european level.
c Local Unit 3 Local Unit 3
One can already see ideas that revolve around the concept of m
c,m

plug-and-play systems and distributed agent systems starting

Central Unit Local Unit 1 c,m Local Unit 1
to emerge in the literature, especially related to micro-grid c
c,m
control [18]–[25], as well as in the field of network state c m
m Local Unit 2 Local Unit 2
estimation [26]. The problem of daily optimal energy dis- 1 3

patch for a microgrid is solved in a distributed fashion using

methods derived from dual-decomposition in [27]. The most
encouraging conclusion presented in the paper is that for a
fully-distributed approach, i.e., one computing thread for each
node of the network, without the communication delays, the
solve time will be less than one second regardless of the size
of the network.
Inspired by the advances in distributed control, this paper
continues the work presented in [11] and proposes to replace
the centralized secondary layer of the hierarchical control
architecture with a distributed implementation.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
advantages and drawbacks of different control architectures.
Section III presents the challenges of the OPF problem for
dc networks, and then in Section IV we present how the
problem can be formulated as a general consensus problem
and then solved in a distributed manner. Section V presents the
results obtained on a network with 27 nodes, side by side with
results obtained from a central approach. Finally, Section VI
concludes the work.
II. D IFFERENT CONTROL ARCHITECTURES
It is important to start by distinguishing between the differ-
ent control architectures, namely, centralized, decentralized,
and distributed. Fig. 1 presents the three architectures side
by side. As explained in [28], in the centralized architecture,
shown on the left hand side of the figure, there is a main
central unit that gathers all the information from all the nodes,
performs all the calculations and then sends back commands
to each individual node. The bulk of the computations and
the entire decision making process happens in the central
unit. Such an approach has the advantage of having a global
overview of the whole system and it is the one currently em-
ployed by power systems applications. However, such a system
is not easily extendable, is far from being computationally
scalable, has the vulnerability of a single point of failure, and is
impossible to implement when the various participating actors
are not willing to share their confidential data with a central
aggregator.
In the decentralized approach each node is able to evaluate
and control its local state, but there is no coordination between
the nodes. Such a system has the advantage of being easily
scalable, and extremely robust. However, such a system cannot
guarantee global optimality. The best example of decentralized
control is the droop control, commonly employed in power
systems as a primary control layer.
Finally, the distributed architecture lays between the cen-
tralized and decentralized approach. In this case the nodes are
capable of evaluating and controlling their local states as in
the decentralized case, but now they also have the capability of
Fig. 1. Different control architectures
exchanging information and commands with the neighboring
nodes. Such a system has the immense advantage of being
easily extendable and, moreover, the more the system grows,
the “stronger” it becomes.
The main drawback of a distributed approach is that it is
more demanding on the ICT infrastructure, meaning that more
messages and data have to flow between the nodes of the
network. There is a fairly common misconception that people
have when thinking about the involvement of ICT in various
systems which is: if a communication link will fail then all
the system will fail, or, if there is delay on some of the
communication links, the system might become unstable.
Table I
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF CURRENT AND FUTURE * WIRELESS
NETWORKS IN TERMS OF DATA RATE AND LATENCY
Wireless network generation Data rate Latency
2G 100–400 Kbit/s 300–1000 ms
3G 0.5–5 Mbit/s 100–500 ms
4G 1–50 Mbit/s <100 ms
5G* > 1Gbit/s 1 ms
However, this is 100% true only for a centralized system,
where the central controller fails to find a solution if the
communication with one of the nodes fails. In the case of
a distributed approach the solution is found over several
iterations of data discovery, aggregations, and computations.
During these iterations the communication link could fail
several times and the system will still continue to function.
For example, in [22] it is shown that a distributed microgrid
control strategy is two times more tolerant to communication
delays than a centralized approach. In terms of maintaining
performance under data loss conditions, according to the same
results, the distributed controller remains stable even under
drastic conditions such as 95% packet loss–performance that
the central controller is not able to match. Therefore, the
only drawback related to ICT that a distributed system has
is related to the amount of data that has to flow over the
communication network, but this is not really a problem,
given the performance of modern communication networks,
illustrated in Table I. The data presented here were compiled
using values from [29]–[31], and it represents a rough estimate
of average values as, at the moment, the actual values of data
rate and latency in wireless communication networks depend
on the type of service.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
III. T HE OPF PROBLEM FOR MULTI - TERMINAL
DC - SYSTEMS
The secondary control proposed in [11] is a centralized
structure designed to operate the dc network at the operating
point that minimizes the losses in the network. This operating
point is obtained by centrally solving (1), and then sending
new references to the primary controllers.
minimize VT · G · V
V
subject to VT · Gi · V − Pref
i
= 0,
VT · Gi · V − Pmax
i
≤ 0, i ∈ Sd
VT · Gi · V − Pmin
i
≥ 0,
|A · V| ≤ Imax
V ≥ Vmin
V ≤ Vmax
In this problem formulation, the objective function is the
power loss of the network, with V being the voltage vector
associated with the network and G the conductance matrix.
Gi is a matrix of the same size as G, obtained by rewriting
the constraints in canonical quadratic form. The equality
constraints correspond to the power balance for the set Sc ,
representing the set of nodes (converters) operated at constant
power. Meanwhile, the inequality constraints correspond to 1)
the power limits of the set of nodes Sd that participate in
the voltage regulation (mainly the primary droop controlled
converters), 2) current limits of the connecting cables, with
the A matrix defined as shown in (2), and 3) voltage limits.
( in the voltage regulation, i.e., their power balance equation
−aji = gij if i adjacent to j
aij =
0 otherwise
It can be seen that the OPF of dc networks is a quadrat-
ically constrained quadratic program (QCQP). According to
[32], [33], QCQP problems where all the Gi matrices are
positive semidefinite (PSD) are convex optimization problems
that are solvable in polynomial time using the second order
cone programming method. However, the matrices involved
in our problem are not PSD, therefore, according to the same
literature, this non-convex QCQP is an NP-hard problem.
There are two approaches for practically dealing with such
a problem. The first one is to convexify the problem and solve
the relaxed problem to obtain its global optimum. The second
approach is to settle for a local minimum and use a generic
non-linear solver.
The easiest approach for relaxing the problem to a convex
one is to use a Taylor approximation for converting the
quadratic constraints to linear ones. More mathematically ad-
vanced methods include PSD relaxation for the constraints [34]
or formulating the problem as a second order cone program
(SOCP) [33]. However, regardless of how the convexification
process is approached, one should expect small constraint
violations, especially in the equality constraints. Meanwhile,
a generic non-linear solver will always respect the constraints,
but it might produce a suboptimal operating point.
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
Transactions on Smart Grid
3
1 2 15 18
3 28 4 7 16 14 19
30
8 6 17 12 13
29
i ∈ Sc 27 22 21 10 24 23 20
i ∈ Sd (1)
25 26
Fig. 2. 27 terminal MTDC study case network
In order to get an idea of the error magnitudes introduced
during the convexification process, and also to see how the
solution of the convex problem compares to the one produced
by a generic non linear solver, we selected as a study case
the network shown in Fig. 2. The network was obtained by
properly modifying the 30 bus network proposed in [35] into
a dc network. The adjacency of the buses, power rating of the
loads and generators, as well as the line parameters provided
in matpower [36] were used. The base voltage of the network
was decreased to 50kV and buses that appeared to have
only reactive power compensation, e.g., bus 5 of the original
network, were removed. In this network, nodes 1, 2, 13, 22,
23, and 27 are considered as droop controlled and participate
appears as an inequality constraint in the OPF formulation.
(2)
Meanwhile, the other nodes are considered as loads, therefore
they will each enforce an equality constraint to the problem.
For the network of Fig. 2 we solved 2000 different OPF
scenarios using the four methods mentioned above, i.e., taylor
relaxation, PSD relaxation, SOCP relaxation, and non-linear
solver, and we compared the results in Fig. 3.
The results of Fig. 3a,d correspond to the problem obtained
by linearizing the constraints around the nominal voltage using
a Taylor approximation. The problem was then solved using
cvx under Matlab. As it can be seen from Fig. 3a, the equality
constraints corresponding to the load nodes are satisfied within
approximately ±2% accuracy in most of the cases. On the
other hand, the optimum point found by the solver is always
0.4% smaller when compared to the one obtained by a non-
linear solver (in our case Matlab’s fmincon using an interior-
point algorithm). However, given the errors in the constraints,
the validity of the solution is debatable. It is important to point
out that the scenarios used to gather the data of Fig. 3 were
run off-line, i.e., we don’t have access to a current operating
point. Solving the problem on-line, with access to the actual
or the last operating voltage at each bus, might yield a better
point for the linearization. As the operating point changes,
equations can be re-linearized as needed to keep under control
the accuracy.
The second method, whose results are shown in Fig. 3b and
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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
4

0.8 20
a) 80 b) c) IV. D ISTRIBUTED OPF OF MULTI - TERMINAL DC
0.6 15
60 NETWORKS
0.4 10
40
In the previous section we presented how the OPF problem
0.2 5
20
of a dc-network can be formulated and solved with a central-
0
−2 −1 0 1
tay
2 3 4
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0
0 1 2
socp
3 4 ized approach. Now, we will show how the same problem can
psd Pi −Pi
Pi −Pi Pi −Pi
Pi [%] Pi [%] Pi [%] be formulated in a distributed manner, but first we will have
150 600
d) e) f) to introduce some concepts regarding consensus optimization.
100
100 400 A detailed explanation of the ideas presented below can be
50
found in [37].
50 200

0 0 0
-0.43 -0.42
tay nl
-0.41 -0.4 0.18 0.19
psd nl
0.20 0.210 -0.05
socp
-0.03
nl
-0.01
A. General form consensus optimization
fmin −fmin fmin −fmin fmin −fmin
nl [%] nl [%] nl
fmin
[%]
fmin fmin In order to present the setup of the problem, we consider
a system managed by N distributed agents. Here we define
Fig. 3. Accuracy of different methods for solving the DC-OPF. Constraint
violations for the a) Taylor relaxation b) PSD relaxation c) SOCP relaxation.
an agent as any entity that is able to perform computations
Optimality of the solution with respect
 tothe solution of a generic
 non-linear and implements a certain data-exchange protocol. Each agent
nl : d) Taylor relaxation f tay e) PSD relaxation f psd f) SOCP has access to local variables xi and has a certain objective


solver fmin min min
socp

relaxation fmin . function fi (xi ). Also, each agent is able to communicate with
neighboring agents, and the overall network communication
graph thus created is connected.
Fig. 3e, is PSD relaxation of the constraints. This approach In the general form consensus problem, presented here in
involves rewriting the constraints as shown in (3), where (4), the objective is to globally minimize the sum of all the
G+ −
i and Gi represent the positive and negative parts of
local objective functions fi . Moreover, in this type of problem,
Gi , and Vk is an initial linearization point. As it can be besides the local variables xi there is also a global variable
seen from Fig. 3b, convexifying the problem in this manner z, and each of the local variables consist of a selection of the
considerably reduces the violation of the constraints. The components of the global variables. In other words, besides
difference between the required power at the load buses and minimizing their objective functions, the local agents have
the solution of the solver is in 99.96% of the cases lower to reach consensus on the local variables that map to the
than 0.1%.Therefore, this approach takes care of the violations same global variables. In (4) z˜i represents the collection of
of the constraints for the constant power nodes. However, the components of the global variables that map to xi .
when we compare the value of the objective function with
N
the one obtained from a general non-linear solver applied to X
minimize fi (xi )
the original problem, we can see that the obtained value is x (4)
i=1
0.18-0.2% worse, as shown in Fig. 3e.
subject to xi − z˜i = 0, i = 1, . . . , N
According to [37], additional equality and inequality con-
T
·G+ i
VkT ·G− T − straints in the local variables xi can be added to (4) without
V i ·G−Pmax ≤ i ·Vk +2Vk ·Gi ·(V − Vk ) (3)
loss of generalization.
A distributed approach for solving (4) can be obtained
Finally we set the problem as a SOCP and the results are by making use of the alternating direction of multipliers
shown in Fig. 3c,f. The difference between the required power method(ADMM). This can be done by first forming the
at the load buses and the solution of the solver for these augmented Lagrangian of the problem as shown in (5) and
scenarios was in 99.83% of the cases lower than 0.4%, which then employing an iterative three step algorithm, as shown in
is very good, but compared to the previous convexification (6).
approach it is marginally worse. However, when looking at
the value of the objective function shown in Fig. 3f, we can
N
see that the SOCP solution is typically around 0 - 0.02% better X 2
Lρ (x, ν, z) = (fi (xi )) + νiT (xi − z˜i ) + (ρ/2) kxi − z˜i k2
than the solution provided by fmincon.
i=1
To conclude, we consider that for the DC-OPF problem that (5)
we address, the use of a general non-linear solver provides
a good compromise solution. Its performance in terms of  2 
xk+1 := argmin fi (xi ) + νikT xi + (ρ/2) xi − z˜i k 2

optimality is almost identical to the SOCP method, and it i
xi
offers 0% constraint violation every time. As it operates m 
!
2 
on the original problem, the workflow is rather simple and
X k+1
z k+1 := argmin kT
−νi z˜i + ( /2) x
ρ − z˜ii

2
straightforward. Moreover, these solvers are extremely robust z
i=1
and are guaranteed to return a feasible solution, even if it is νik+1 := νik + ρ xk+1 − z˜i k+1


(6)
i
a sub-optimal one, which in the case of network operation is
more important than absolute optimality. Intuitively, what happens at each iteration is the following:

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
5

1) each agent minimizes its own objective function (a Algorithm 1 Distributed OPF for MTDC grids
slightly augmented objective function, to be precise) and 1: //each agent k initializes its local variables
k
obtains a new set of local variables xk+1 i . This step 2: Z ← Z0 . initial local guess of the global variables
k
happens in a completely decentralized manner. 3: N ← N0 . initial value of the local lagrange multipliers
k
2) the components of the global variable z k+1 are updated. 4: G . local conductance matrix
k
This step is when the communication between the agents 5: A . local adjacency matrix, see (2)
has to be exploited as the new value of each component 6: ρ . ADMM step size
k
of the global variable is computed as an average of 7: Pmax . maximum power of droop controlled nodes
k
values from the agents. Even though it might not be 8: Pmin . minimum power of droop controlled nodes
k
immediately visible from the mathematical formulation 9: Pref . reference power of ct. power nodes
shown in (6), each component of the global variable 10: Ikmax . upper bounds for the currents of agent k
k
zg is actually found by averaging all entries of β = 11: Vmax . upper bounds for voltages of agent k
k
xk+1
i + (1/ρ) νik that map to the global index g. 12: Vmin . lower bounds for voltages of agent k
3) finally, the Lagrange multipliers νi are updated accord- 13:
ing to the difference between the local and global vari- 14: //at each iter. l, the agent of the droop controled
node i:
1 2
ables. This step, once again is performed in a completely minimize VkT · Gk · Vk + NkT Vk + (ρ/2) Vk − Zk
Vk 2 2
decentralized manner by each agent.
subject to Vi · Gki · Vk − Pmax
k
≤0
Vi · Gki · Vk − Pmin
k
≥0
15:  
B. Multi-terminal dc OPF as general form consensus  k k k
A · V  ≤ Imax
When formulating the distributed OPF problem we started Vk ≥ Vmin
k

with the premise that the converter connected at each node Vk ≤ Vmax
k

is handled by an independent agent with limited knowledge 16: //while agents handling a constant power node j: 2
about the network. In our formulation we assumed that each 1 kT
minimize V · Gk · Vk + NkT Vk + (ρ/2) Vk − Zk
agent has access to local variables, e.g., voltage and current Vk 2 2
k k k
limits, maximum power available, type of primary control subject to Vj · Gj · V − Pref = 0
 
(i.e., droop control or constant power), etc.. Additionally, 17:  k k k
A · V  ≤ Imax
through the communication network the agent has access to
Vk ≥ Vmin
k
the variables of its directly connected electrical neighbors.
Therefore, the communication graph is considered to be im- Vk ≤ Vmax
k

posed by the electrical connections between the nodes, i.e., 18: Bk (l) ← Vk (l) + (1/ρ) · Nk (l − 1)
if node i and j are electrically connected, they are also able 19: Zk (l) update step . by making use of
the communication network, each agent updates his estimate on
to exchange messages between them. Note however, that this the global variables by exchanging and averaging components
is without loss of generality and the formulation could be of Bk with its neighbours that also hold a local estimate of the
adapted for different communication graphs, and even for same variable.

graphs with changing structure. According to [38], the better 20: Nk (l) ← Nk (l − 1) + ρ · Vk (l) − Zk (l)
the algebraic connectivity of the communication graph, the
faster the averaging step will converge, i.e., step 2 in the
formulation above in which the update of the global variables The basis for the distributed formulation is the observation
is calculated. that the total losses in the network can also be expressed as
shown in (7).
N
  1 X kT
V =5 V45 VT · G · V = V · Gk · Vk (7)
5 V55 2
k=1

Here, N is the number of nodes in the network and Vk

   
V11 V14 is a voltage vector held by each agent k representing the
 V 1   V34  agent’s local version of the voltage values corresponding to
V1 =  2 
 V31  1 4 V4 =  
 V44 
V1 its neighbors and to himself. Fig. 4 shows how these vectors
V41 V2 V54 are formed for a 5 terminal network. In order to clarify what
V3 we mean by local and global variables, we can analyze the
V4
following example. The agent in charge of node 1 will keep
 
  V13 a local variable for its voltage, i.e., V11 . At the same time, the
V12 V5  V2 
3 agents in charge of node 2, 3, and 4 will also have a variable
V2 =  V22  2 3 V3 =  
 V33 
V32
corresponding to the voltage of node 1 as they are neighbors,
V43 i.e., V12 , V13 , and V14 respectively. The communication protocol
should be implemented in such a way that, when exchanging
Fig. 4. Construction of the local voltage vector Vk messages, the agents should know that V1i are all variables

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
that refer to the same quantity, i.e., the voltage at the node
1. For the mathematical formulation we can say that V1 is
the global variable corresponding to the voltage at node 1.
However, the word variable used in this context is not the
same as the one used in programming. While V1i are variables
in the programming sense, V1 is a property of the grid.
The matrix Gk involved in (7) is calculated in the same way
as G, considering a reduced network obtained by eliminating
all the nodes and lines that are not connected to node k.
Intuitively, (7) can be interpreted as follows: if the losses
at each node are considered to be the total losses over the
lines connected to that node, then the losses of the overall
network can be obtained by summing over all the nodes and
then dividing by two. In other words, it is as if each node is
in charge of minimizing the losses of the closest half of each
incident line.
The problem thus becomes one of consensus optimization,
where each agent tries to optimize its own objective, but at
the same time it has to agree with its neighbors on the values
of the variables they share.
Algorithm 1 presents the iterative algorithm run by each
agent. At each iteration l, each agent tries to first minimize
its augmented local objective function subjected to local con-
straints. Then, by communicating with its neighboring agents
it updates its estimation of the global variables. Finally, the
local Lagrange multipliers are updated based on the difference
between the local variables obtained from the optimization
function and the consensus on the global variables. The
Lagrange multipliers can be seen, as they often are in dual
decomposition methods, as prices that each agent has to pay
for increasing or decreasing the voltage variables.
An important thing to note is that only line 19 of our
algorithm is distributed and requires coordination between the
agents, and it reduces to an average consensus problem. The
rest of the steps are performed in a completely decentralized
6
the global variables. Therefore, at each node, the initial local
guess of the global variables Z0 was set to the Vmax , i.e.,
the maximum voltage allowed for the nodes. Meanwhile, the
initial value of the local Lagrange multipliers N0 was set to
zero.
Since in the distributed algorithm the choice of the ADMM
step ρ plays an important role in the convergence speed of
the algorithm, we ran the algorithm several times for different
values of ρ and analyzed its convergence and performance,
as shown in Table II and Fig. 5. Two metrics are shown in
Table II. The first one shows the average distance in % between
the power references obtained by the central solver and the
ones obtained by the iterative algorithm at iteration numbers
100, 250 and 500. This characterizes the overall convergence
of the algorithm throughout the entire network. Meanwhile, the
second metric focuses on the node with the worst convergence.
For example, as seen from Table II, for ρ = 2, the average
difference between the centralized solution and the distributed
one after 500 iterations is of only 0.21%. Meanwhile, the
power reference obtained from the distributed algorithm at the
node with the worst convergence differs with 1.29% from the
one obtained by the centralized solution.
By analyzing the results of Table II and also the plots
of Fig. 5, one can clearly distinguish the effect of ρ. For
small values, the convergence is slow, but there are few
oscillations and overshoots in the response. As ρ increases, the
convergence performance of the algorithm improves, e.g., for
ρ = 4.5...5.5 all the nodes converge after only 250 iterations.
However, as can be seen from Fig. 5, a larger ρ also implies a
more oscillatory response. From Table II one can see that too
large values start to degrade the performance of the algorithm.
Table II
C ONVERGENCE AND PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR THE DISTRIBUTED DC
OPF ALGORITHM
manner.  l ∗ 
 −P 
avg  P P
 l ∗ 
 −P 
max  P P
∗  [%] ∗  [%]
l
V. C ASE STUDY 100 250 500 100 250 500
ρ
In order to validate the proposed methodology, we used as 2 19.94 3.48 0.21 111.63 21.04 1.29
2.5 14.40 1.56 0.04 83.80 9.58 0.26
a test platform the 27 nodes system introduced in Section III. 3 10.25 0.64 0.01 60.51 3.95 0.04
As mentioned earlier, this network was obtained from a 30 bus 3.5 7.03 0.22 0.00 41.56 1.37 0.00
ac test case, therefore similar power settings were used for the 4 4.44 0.05 0.00 26.26 0.34 0.00
4.5 2.35 0.00 0.00 13.77 0.02 0.00
load buses (the dc power was set equal to the sum of the active
5.5 0.85 0.01 0.00 2.9 0.03 0.00
and reactive power) and the ratings of the generators were 6.5 2.72 0.08 0.00 4.63 0.57 0.00
doubled. We then solved the OPF problem by considering each 15 3.8 0.02 0.13 18.48 1.13 2.89
converter of the network to be governed by an independent 30 2.81 0.75 0.01 28.63 2.87 1.00
100 16.74 1.07 0.44 121.42 15.73 8.18
agent implementing Algorithm 1.
The same scenario was then solved by using a centralized
approach and the results compared side by side. Both in Thus, in our experience the choice of ρ requires a tradeoff
the centralized and distributed approach, the original non- between the speed of convergence and response dynamics.
convex problem was solved by using an interior-point solver According to [37], ADMM can be shown to converge under
as, according to Section III, its results are more satisfactory mild assumptions for all choices of step size ρ > 0. With
than those obtained by a convex relaxation approach. this being said, analytically obtaining an optimal step size
ρ∗ for the ADMM algorithm is much more difficult than it
might seem at a first glance. Convergence analysis and optimal
A. Cold Start on Z0 and N0 parameter tuning for ADMM is at the border of research in the
The first scenario that we considered was one where the field of optimization, with the first results published recently
distributed algorithm starts with no a priori knowledge on in [39]. From our point of view, until more light is shed on

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
7

ρ = 2.5 ρ = 3.5 ρ = 4.5 ρ = 5.5 ρ = 6.5 centralized

−3.4 10 −40
−28
−3.5 −8
5 −30 −50
P3 [M W ]

P4 [M W ]

P6 [M W ]

P7 [M W ]

P8 [M W ]
−3.6
−9 0 −32
−60
−3.7 −34
−5
−3.8 −10
0 −36 −70
5 10 5
10 −5

P14 [M W ]
P10 [M W ]

P12 [M W ]

P15 [M W ]

P16 [M W ]
−10 0
0 0 0
−15 −5
−10 −10 −5
−20
−5 −10 5 −26
2
−10 −27
P17 [M W ]

P18 [M W ]

P19 [M W ]

P20 [M W ]

P21 [M W ]
−10 0
0 −28
−2 −12
−15 −29
−4 −5
−10 −14 20 −30
6
0
−12
P24 [M W ]

P25 [M W ]

−4

P28 [M W ]
P26 [M W ]

P29 [M W ]
4 10
−2
−14 2
0
0 −6
−16 −4
−2 −10 60
−6 80
6 30
−8
P30 [M W ]

P13 [M W ]

P22 [M W ]
P1 [M W ]

P2 [M W ]

60 40
−10 4 20

−12 40 10 20
2
−14
20
60
40 3
Ploss [M W ]
P23 [M W ]

P27 [M W ]

40
20 2

20
0 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Iteration no. Iteration no. Iteration no.

Fig. 5. Convergence of the distributed DC OPF algorithm for different values of ρ. Loads (white background), generators (gray background) and network
losses.

this topic by the mathematical community, an a priori grid at 1.5%. However, allowing the algorithm to run for another
search for a “good enough” step-size is considered sufficient additional 100 iterations obtained convergence also in this
for engineering applications. case.

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
B. Warm Start on Z0 and N0
In this paper we presented an algorithm for solving the
The previous subsection considered the algorithm starting optimal power flow of a dc network by using a distributed
with no information regarding the initial conditions. However, approach. The purpose of this approach is to replace the
this would rarely be the case. Normally, since the algorithm centralized OPF based secondary control of MTDC networks
is designed to be implemented as the secondary control in previously proposed.
a hierarchical control architecture, it would typically operate In the centralized version of the OPF algorithm all the data
in an online tracking operating mode, i.e., when starting the of the network are gathered at a single central point, the
search for a new operating point, the algorithm is aware of its problem is then solved, and results and commands are sent
current one. In order to test the behavior of the system under back to the local units. In the proposed method there is no
these circumstances we changed each load from our previous central unit; each node solves a local objective function and
scenario with a random value from the [−15%... + 15%] then, by proper coordination between itself and its neighbors,
interval, and then from the [−30%... + 30%] respectively. the network slowly reaches a consensus on the global optimum
We then solved the OPF of these two cases distributedly by operating point. We show that the algorithm can be properly
considering as starting point for Z0 and N0 the final values tuned so that the operating point reached through consensus is
obtained for Z and N from the previous subsection. identical to the one found by a central implementation of the
The results for ρ = 5.5 are shown in Fig. 5 over 150 algorithm. However, as we saw in the results section, the size
iterations. In the case where random changes from the ±15% of the ADMM step ρ is an important parameter with a direct
interval were applied, 150 iterations are sufficient to reach influence on the convergence of the algorithm, generating a
both average convergence as well as worst-case convergence. tradeoff between convergence speed and output dynamics.
In the case when a larger change was applied, i.e., random Besides ρ, we also showed that providing a warm start to
changes from the ±30% interval, after 150 iterations the the initial local guess on the global variables as well as to
average convergence was at 0.24% and the worst convergence the starting Lagrange multipliers can help the speed of the

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
8

random ±15% random ±30%

2 32 55
3.5 8
1 34
P3 [M W ]

P4 [M W ]

P6 [M W ]

P7 [M W ]

P8 [M W ]
4 10 60
0 36
4.5 12
1 38 65

5 14 2 40
12 6 8
4 5
14

P16 [M W ]
P10 [M W ]

P12 [M W ]

P14 [M W ]

P15 [M W ]
10
6 8
16 5.5
12
8 18
10 6
20 14
10 9 1 28
14 3
10 2

P21 [M W ]
P18 [M W ]

P19 [M W ]

P20 [M W ]
P17 [M W ]

4 30
11
3
14.5
5 12 32
4
14 6 13 2
0.5 5.2 2
2.5

P29 [M W ]
P28 [M W ]
P24 [M W ]

P25 [M W ]

P26 [M W ]
15 5.4
0 0 3
5.6
16 0.5 2 3.5
5.8
6.5 82 28 56

10 6 80

P22 [M W ]
P13 [M W ]
P30 [M W ]

P1 [M W ]

P2 [M W ]

26 54
5.5
78
12
5 24 52
76
44 4.5 3

42 56 2.9
Ploss [M W ]
P23 [M W ]

P27 [M W ]

40 2.8
54
38 2.7

36 52 2.6
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Iteration no. Iteration no. Iteration no.

Fig. 6. Convergence of the distributed DC OPF algorithm in tracking mode for ρ = 5.5. Loads (white background), generators (gray background) and
network losses.

algorithm when tracking changes of reasonable size in the [9] M. K. Bucher, R. Wiget, G. Andersson, and C. M. Franck, “Multitermi-
operating point of the network. nal HVDC Networks-What is the Preferred Topology?” Power Delivery,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 406–413, 2014.
[10] C. Gavriluta, I. Candela, C. Citro, A. Luna, and P. Rodriguez, “Design
considerations for primary control in multi-terminal VSC-HVDC grids,”
R EFERENCES Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 122, pp. 33–41, may 2015.
[11] C. Gavriluta, I. Candela, A. Luna, A. Gomez-Exposito, and P. Rodriguez,
[1] IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee, “HVDC project list- “Hierarchical Control of HV-MTDC Systems With Droop-Based Pri-
ing,” HVDC and Flexible AC Transmission Subcommittee, Tech. Rep., mary and OPF-Based Secondary,” Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on,
2012. vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1502–1510, 2015.
[2] M. Barnes and A. Beddard, “Voltage Source Converter HVDC Links [12] T. Dragicevic, X. Lu, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “DC
- The State of the Art and Issues Going Forward,” Energy Procedia, Microgrids–Part II: A Review of Power Architectures, Applications, and
vol. 24, no. 0, pp. 108–122, 2012. Standardization Issues,” pp. 3528–3549, 2016.
[3] T. M. Haileselassie, M. Molinas, and T. Undeland, “Multi-Terminal [13] T. Hakala, T. Lahdeaho, and P. Jarventausta, “Low-Voltage DC
VSC-HVDC System for Integration of Offshore Wind Farms and Green Distribution–Utilization Potential in a Large Distribution Network Com-
Electrification of Platforms in the North Sea,” in Proceedings of Nordic pany,” pp. 1694–1701, 2015.
Workshop on Power and Industrial Electronics, Espoo, Finland, 2008, [14] J. Lassila, T. Kaipia, J. Haakana, J. Partanen, and K. Koivuranta, “Po-
pp. 1–8. tential and strategic role of power electronics in electricity distribution
[4] S. Cole, J. Beerten, and R. Belmans, “Generalized Dynamic VSC MTDC systems,” pp. 1–5, 2009.
Model for Power System Stability Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power [15] Ren21, “Renewables 2015 Global Status Report,” Paris, Tech. Rep.,
Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1655–1662, 2010. 2015.
[5] O. Gomis-Bellmunt, J. Liang, J. Ekanayake, and N. Jenkins, “Voltage- [16] ADEME, “Systèmes électriques intelligents - Feuille de route
current characteristics of multiterminal HVDC-VSC for offshore wind stratégique,” Tech. Rep., 2013.
farms,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 440–450, [17] ANCRE, “Réseaux d’énergie de demain? Les Propositions de L’ANCRE
feb 2011. en 2015,” Tech. Rep., 2015.
[6] R. da Silva, R. Teodorescu, and P. Rodriguez, “Multilink DC transmis- [18] L. Meng, T. Dragicevic, J. M. Guerrero, and J. C. Vasquez, “Dynamic
sion system for supergrid future concepts and wind power integration,” consensus algorithm based distributed global efficiency optimization of
in Renewable Power Generation (RPG 2011), IET Conference on, 2011, a droop controlled DC microgrid,” in 2014 IEEE International Energy
pp. 1–6. Conference (ENERGYCON). IEEE, may 2014, pp. 1276–1283.
[7] C. Dierckxsens, K. Srivastava, M. Reza, S. Cole, J. Beerten, and [19] L. Meng, T. Dragicevic, J. Roldan-Perez, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guer-
R. Belmans, “A distributed DC voltage control method for VSC MTDC rero, “Modeling and Sensitivity Study of Consensus Algorithm-Based
systems,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 54–58, Distributed Hierarchical Control for DC Microgrids,” IEEE Transactions
jan 2012. on Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[8] T. M. Haileselassie and K. Uhlen, “Power System Security in a Meshed [20] V. Nasirian, S. Moayedi, A. Davoudi, and F. L. Lewis, “Distributed
North Sea HVDC Grid,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. Cooperative Control of DC Microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Power
978–990, 2013. Electronics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2288–2303, apr 2015.

1949-3053 (c) 2016 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/TSG.2016.2621775, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
[21] V. Nasirian, Q. Shafiee, J. Guerrero, F. Lewis, and A. Davoudi, “Droop-
free Distributed Control for AC Microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[22] Q. Shafiee, J. M. Guerrero, and J. C. Vasquez, “Distributed Secondary
Control for Islanded Microgrids - A Novel Approach,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1018–1031, feb 2014.
[23] Q. Sun, R. Han, H. Zhang, J. Zhou, and J. M. Guerrero, “A Multiagent-
Based Consensus Algorithm for Distributed Coordinated Control of
Distributed Generators in the Energy Internet,” IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[24] F. Dorfler, J. W. Simpson-Porco, and F. Bullo, “Plug-and-play control
and optimization in microgrids,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control. IEEE, dec 2014, pp. 211–216.
[25] S. Riverso, F. Sarzo, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Plug-and-Play Voltage
and Frequency Control of Islanded Microgrids With Meshed Topology,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1176–1184, may
2015.
[26] W. Zheng, W. Wu, A. Gomez-Exposito, B. Zhang, and Y. Guo, “Dis-
tributed Robust Bilinear State Estimation for Power Systems with Non-
linear Measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. PP,
no. 99, p. 1, 2016.
[27] M. Kraning, E. Chu, J. Lavaei, and S. Boyd, “Dynamic Network Energy
Management via Proximal Message Passing,” Foundations and Trends
in Optimization, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 70–122, 2014.
[28] T. Dragicevic, X. Lu, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “DC Microgrids
– Part I: A Review of Control Strategies and Stabilization Techniques,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 4876–4891,
2016.
[29] T. Blajić, D. Nogulić, and M. Družijanić, “Latency Improvements in 3G
Long Term Evolution,” in International Convention on Information and
Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics., 2006.
[30] I. Grigorik, High Performance Browser Networking. O’Reilly Media,
Inc, 2013.
[31] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C. K.
Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What Will 5G Be?” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, 2014.
[32] M. S. Lobo, L. Vandenberghe, S. Boyd, and H. Lebret, “Applications of
second-order cone programming,” Linear Algebra and its Applications,
vol. 284, no. 1, pp. 193–228, 1998. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024379598100320
[33] C. Lu, S. Fang, Q. Jin, Z. Wang, and W. Xing, “KKT Solution
and Conic Relaxation for Solving Quadratically Constrained Quadratic
Programming Problems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 21, no. 4,
pp. 1475–1490, oct 2011. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/
100793955
[34] A. D’Aspremont and S. Boyd, “Relaxations and randomized methods
for nonconvex QCQPs,” Tech. Rep., 2003.
[35] R. W. Ferrero, S. M. Shahidehpour, and V. C. Ramesh, “Transaction
analysis in deregulated power systems using game theory,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1340–1347, 1997.
[36] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sanchez, and R. J. Thomas, “MAT-
POWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning, and Analysis Tools for
Power Systems Research and Education,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2011.
[37] S. Boyd, N. Parikh, B. P. E Chu, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed Opti-
mization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method
of Multipliers,” Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2011.
[38] R. Olfati-Saber, “Ultrafast consensus in small-world networks,” in Pro-
ceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference, 2005. IEEE, 2005,
pp. 2371–2378.
[39] E. Ghadimi, A. Teixeira, I. Shames, and M. Johansson, “Optimal
parameter selection for the alternating direction method of multipliers
(ADMM): quadratic problems,” jun 2013. [Online]. Available: http:
//arxiv.org/abs/1306.2454
1949-3053 (c) 2016 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.
9
Cătălin Gavriluţă (S’13) received his M.Sc. de-
gree in wind power systems from Aalborg Uni-
versity, Aalborg, Denmark, in 2011 and his Ph.D.
degree from the Technical University of Catalonia,
Barcelona, Spain in 2015. Since April 2015 he is
a post-doc researcher with the Grenoble Institute of
Technology, Grenoble, France working as part of the
G2ELab. His work and interests are oriented towards
smart grids, with focus on distributed control and
multi-agent systems applied to different aspects of
the operation of modern electrical networks.
Raphaël Caire (M’04) received his Diplôme
d’Etudes Approfondies (DEA) and Doctorat de
l’INPG degrees from the Institut National Polytech-
nique de Grenoble (INPG) in 2000 and 2004. He has
been working in the Power Electronics field, in USA
at the Center of Power Electronic System (CPES)
in 2000 and within several EDF research centers
in Germany and in France from 2004 to 2006. He
is now associate professor at Grenoble Institute of
Technology (Grenoble-InP) at the Ecole d’ingénieurs
en énergie eau et environnement (ENSE3) in the
Grenoble Electrical Engineering laboratory (G2Elab). His research is centered
on the impacts, production control of dispersed generation on distribution
system and critical infrastructures.
Antonio Gómez-Expósito (F’05) received the In-
dustrial Engineering degree, major in electrical engi-
neering, and the Doctor Engineering degree in power
engineering from the University of Seville, Seville,
Spain, in 1982 and 1985, respectively.
He is currently the Endesa Red Industrial Chair
Professor with the University of Seville. His research
interests include optimal power system operation,
state estimation, digital signal processing, and con-
trol of flexible ac transmission system devices.
Nouredine Hadjsaid (SM’05) received his Ph.D.
and the "Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches"
degrees from Grenoble Institute of Technology in
1992 and 1998 respectively. He is presently a full
professor at Grenoble Institute of Technology where
he conducts research at G2ELAB (CNRS, Grenoble
Institute of Technology, UGA). His main research
interests are in the area of "SmartGrids". He has
directed the common academia-industry Research &
Innovation center between EDF, Schneider Electric
and Grenoble INP (IDEA: Inventer la Distribution
Electric de l’Avenir) on Smart Grids from 2001 to 2013. He is presently
the Deputy Director of G2ELAB, the director of the ENEDIS (ex. ERDF)
industrial chair of excellence on "Smart Grids" and the Chairman of Scientific
Council of Think SmartGrids, the industrial SmartGrids branch in France. He
is also the animator of the technical program "Power Grids and Storage" for
ANCRE (National Alliance for Research on Energy) and the vice chair of
IEEE PES "Intelligent Grid and Emerging Technologies Coordination Com-
mittee". Dr. Hadjsaid has published more 200 scientific papers in international
conferences and journals, has authored/co-authored and directed 7 books on
power systems and Smart Grids