Multi-Agent Control System to Coordinate Optimal Electric
Vehicles Charging and Demand Response Actions in Active
Distribution Networks
S Mocci, N Natale, F Pilo, S Ruggeri *
* Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari - Italy
susanna.mocci@diee.unica.it, nicola.natale@diee.unica.it, pilo@diee.unica.it, simona.ruggeri@diee.unica.it
Keywords: Electric Vehicle, Active Demand, Multi-Agent
Systems.
Abstract
Management models enabling the coordination of Active
Demand and new additional loads, such us plug-in electric
vehicles, with the objective of supporting the network
performance under the constraints of the grid security and
quality of supply, are essential to make the distribution
system capable to offer services for power system operation.
In the paper, an intelligent and decentralized Multi-Agent
System for handling electric vehicles charging control and
Active Demand programs management in the LV distribution
networks is proposed. The optimization algorithm proposed
allows designing valid and effective demand response and
electric vehicles charging system, able to analyse and meet
the vehicle charging needs to contribute to the voltage control
of the distribution network. Application examples are
presented in order to illustrate the algorithm effectiveness.
1 Introduction
The transition towards the so-called green or low-carbon


economy will require significant changes in the operation and
planning of the distribution networks. Moreover, the
electrification of the transport sector, particularly in the form
of domestic-scale plug-in Electric Vehicles (EV), is becoming
even more attractive worldwide. Future forecasts on the
massive penetration of EVs into the power system can be
translated as a high-energy load to be added to the traditional
demand [1]. The high penetration level of electric vehicles is
going to have a significant impact on the existing distribution
network due to the EVs load coincidence (e.g., during
sundown when vehicle users are at home). Mostly in the
urban context, EV will modify the total load demand
provoking contingencies like network overloads, phase
imbalance and worsening the power quality (e.g., voltage
profile). Indeed, the implementation of intelligent charging
systems is important to manage EV charging profiles in order
to avoid the abovementioned problems.
On the other hand, the adoption of advanced metering
infrastructure in the future could pave the way for responsive
loads (e.g., appliances) from single or aggregated customers
to be used to help managing both the distribution and
1
transmission networks. In this perspective, Demand Response
(DR) actions can be an efficient and less costly alternative for
handling the grid issues posed by the integration of new
additional loads, such as plug-in electric vehicles. The
concept of Active Demand (AD), introduced in the context of
the European project ADDRESS [2],[3] consists in the idea
that end users play an active role in the electricity distribution
process, adjusting their consumption patterns depending on
the dynamics of the energy markets. The potential demand
elasticity offered by end-users can help to defer reinforcement
of the existing grid infrastructures in order to ensure stable
and secure grid operation.
Management models enabling the coordination between AD
and EV charging, with the objective of supporting the
network performance under the constraints of the grid
security and quality of supply, are essential to make the
distribution system capable to offer services for power system
operation. In the paper, an intelligent and decentralized Multi-
Agent System (MAS) for handling EV charging, developed
by the same authors in [4], has been improved to include AD
in the LV distribution networks control, supporting the
integration of the EVs in the system. A MAS is a system
including two or more intelligent agents. It is worth to notice
that there is no overall system goal, simply the local goals of
each individual agent. The key benefits of multi-agent system
are flexibility, extendibility and fault tolerance. In the
proposal, the EVs charging stations and the AD loads perform
as intelligent autonomous agents with a certain level of
autonomy, taking decisions based on their local and global
environment. Local environment represents EV owner’s and
AD user's preferences and charging infrastructure parameters,
while the global environment means the state of the network
and energy market conditions.
The MAS proposed is characterized by an AD-EV
Aggregator (Master Agent) that acquires the “flexibilities”
and the contributions provided by consumers to form AD-
based services to be offered to the DSO through local
markets. The Aggregator agent is more elaborated than a
simple load aggregator, because it can offer more services and
technical flexibility. In fact, the AD-EV Aggregator is able to
manage and control its portfolio (e.g. charging of batteries,
change of the end-users’ consumption patterns), collecting a
large amount of information like the driver’s behaviour and
electrical market prices and respecting both technical
constraints and the consumers' preferences [5]. In the paper
the AD-EV Aggregator is used to coordinate the behaviour of
independent agents so that the total load demand processed
(EVs and active loads) does not cause excessive voltage drops
in the system (i.e. not exceeding a defined voltage limit).
Local agents communicate with master agent and elaborate
strategies that will enable the achievement of local targets and
global objectives with a minimum information flow and
without the need of centralised control actions.
Application examples are presented in order to illustrate the
algorithm effectiveness, and comparative results to validate
the methodology are also discussed.
2 AD-EV Multi-Agent Control System
In [4] the MAS design methodology was used to realize an
intelligent and decentralized control system for handling EV
charging in LV distribution networks. The optimization of
each EV’s objective function is constrained not only by local
information about its own state, but also by the average state
of all other agents. This is the concept of weakly coupled EVs
and has been introduced in [6],[7]. In the proposed paper the
optimization tool has been improved to include the
contribution of the Active Demand in the LV distribution
networks control, to benefit the integration of the EVs in the
system. The Master Agent (MA) works as an Aggregator at
the MV/LV substation level, and communicates with the
customers involved. The EV charging stations and AD
consumers are managed by a network of autonomous agents,
that exchange information about the state of the system to
develop strategies that enable the achievement of both local
targets (EV charging, AD participation) and global objectives
(control of voltage profile).
In order to better explain the MAS optimization process, the
structure of the control system is shown in Fig. 1, with details
about the involved software platforms.
Fig. 1: Structure of the MAS control.
The tool is developed with JADE (Java Agent Development
Framework), an open source software framework fully
implemented in Java language, that allows the
implementation of multi-agent systems through a middle-
ware that complies with the FIPA specifications [8],[9]. The
first step of the process is the identification of the network
model, given by OpenDSS, (Distribution System Simulator)
2
[10],[11]. Then, the JAVA environment NetBeans is used to
develop the MAS with JADE. The MA receives from DSO
load and voltage profiles for the next day and sends the load
profile to EV and AD Agents. Each Agent processes the
strategy through the minimization of the objective function by
means of a quadratic optimization function available in
MATLAB.
The charging strategy and demand response of each agent is
received by the MA, that decides whether to accept or reject
the programs and to repeat the algorithm, varying the load
profile, according to the strategies presented. Once the
algorithm reaches the convergence the optimal strategy is
obtained.
2.1 The Active Demand Agent
Demand Side Integration (DSI) provides the means to modify
the consumer’s load to meet the network constraints. These
load profile modifications can spontaneously be implemented
by the end users themselves, typically driven by price signals,
or be managed by the Aggregator, which is entrusted by the
end users to change their consumption habits according to its
needs. It is evident that the remote management can provide
more complex services in a more reliable way but, on the
other hand, it needs a more complex communication and
business infrastructure. The distributed MAS control
simplifies this communication, leaving to the user the
possibility to perform its own strategy.
For example, the aggregator might control the loads to try to
sell ancillary services to the DSO or try to change the load
profiles according to the presence of a high number of EV
charging stations.
Following the experiences made by other EU projects, the AD
is expressed as a variation of load with respect to the
scheduled profile, representing the load without any
participation to demand side integration. To improve the
performance of the load model two main elements have been
considered:
. level of participation of the consumer: the acceptance
model is necessary because every user is willing to
modify the consumption profile in different ways. This
depends on price signal, but also on available flexibility,
willingness to reduce the comfort, etc. In particular the
most important is the price signal. The economic aspect,
tariff plan and the variable energy cost significantly
affect the degree of customer acceptance. So a profile of
acceptance should be modelled. The acceptance profile
should have the same characteristics of the consumption
profile and the same chronological representation.
. payback effect: is the reaction of the user to the active
demand program (for example: an user for an appropriate
signal price accepts to reduce the consumption for two
time intervals; after the two intervals user needs the
highest power in order to recreate the previous
conditions). Fig. 2 shows this effect: the blue line
represents the active demand availability while the green
one shows the real user participation.
The Active demand ad is expressed as the variation of the
load demand in comparison with the reference load profile,
which is the scheduled power without AD, and it is
representative of the involvement of the customers. In fact,
the load models must include some kind of mechanism
describing how ad is “transformed” into adtrue [12].
25
20
15
10
5 re-charged selecting the starting hour to “fill the valley” of the
power (kW)
0 overall aggregated profile, considering load demand.
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
time (min)
Fig. 2: The payback effect.
The total demand PAD of each AD agent at time t is the sum of
the scheduled power Psched (without AD program) and the
actual AD contribution of the Agent adtrue in the same
interval, as described in (1).















 




Such a model is based on realistic considerations about the
consumers’ behaviour: the consumers may not comply
exactly with the AD programs. This results into a delayed
and/or partial response with respect to the requested AD
profile. If the model of the consumers’ response is assumed to
be linear and time-invariant, a simple Finite Impulse
Response (FIR) model is appropriate:

 



































(2)
where t is the time interval, n(t) is a zero-mean white error
process, modelling the random perturbations, and f0, f1, f2 are
the parameters of the model, that can be interpreted as the
steady-state “responsiveness” of the consumers. If f is less
than 1, it means that the consumers are not fully compliant
with the AD availability. Coefficients fi take into account the
customer’s level of willingness to accept the request to curtail
the consumption (f0), and the effect of precedent curtailments
(f1, and f2) that can reduce the amplitude of the true action
(payback).
In the AD programs, the hourly energy price p(h) [€/MWh] is
subdivided into three time bands during the day to take into
account the peak and off-peak hours. B1 and B2 are two off-
peaks hour bands, with prices pB2 greater than pB1 and the B3
band represents the peak hour time band (pB3> pB2> pB1),
following the ADDRESS tariff model depicted in Fig. 3
[2],[3].
Fig. 3: The ADDRESS tariff model.
The active customers, depending on their contract and
according with the tariff model in Fig. 3 offer different
percentages for varying their scheduled load demand (10% in
B1, 30% in B2, and 70% in B3).
req
AD
AD
true
2.2 The EV charging station Agent
In order to implement a smart charging electric vehicles are
Assuming that all EVs should be fully charged at the end of
the charging period, the optimization problem to be solved is
subject to:








(3)
35 40 45

























(4)









(5)
where:
SOCi(t) is the i-th EV battery state of charge at time t, T is
the charging period, Cbat is the capacity of the EV battery, Ceff
(1) is the charging efficiency and Pplug is the maximum charging
power of the charging infrastructure.
2.3 The Optimization problem
In the weakly-coupled game approach, each agent knows his
own dynamics (i.e., maximum availability rate for the
increase/reduction of load), the energy prices and the average
state of all other agents together, referred as “mass” behavior.
Therefore, an agent optimizes his objective function using
local information for his own state and global information,
i.e., the pricing strategy, the average behaviour of the other
agents and the technical constraints [13]. In fact, the approach
should take market and control issues into account, as well as
capacity limits. Constraints functions consist of many factors
such as: network constraints, such as load limits of each line
and node, and voltage quality parameters.
In Fig. 4 the flowchart of the algorithm is depicted. Once the
initial information about the scheduled voltage/load profiles
and EV preferences are known, an external iterative
optimization process managed by the MA starts (“k” iteration
loop in Fig. 4). The MA sends a message to the Agents with
the preferred load profile. Then, each agent performs a mono-
dimensional optimization process. Considering the given
constraints, each Agent processes its charging/demand
strategy through the minimization of the objective function.
The EV charging/AD programs strategy is based on a virtual
cost formula expressed in (6), adopted by the Master Agent,
as implemented in [4].




























(6)
















(7)
where:
• D(t) is the forecasted non-EV demand of the MV/LV
transformer at time t;
3
 Fig. 4: Flowchart of the MAS-EV optimization algorithm.

• Pi(t) is the i-th EV charging power at time t, in case i is feasible set Pi that minimizes the Agent’s objective function
an EV Agent, or the i-th AD contribution (power is the best response to the Master Agent strategy, answering
reduction/increase) at time t, in case i is an AD agent; to the DSO requirements.
• Pt includes the total charging power of the EVs and the 2.4 Voltage control strategy
global AD contributions at time t;
• Ptr is the nominal power of the MV/LV transformer; In the proposed methodology the Master Agent has the task
• t: is the time interval (1 hour); to avoid that a wrong Agent strategy could increase the load
• N: effective number of Agents participating to the MAS at peak demand hours, causing voltage deviations that affect
control. It is the sum of the EVs involved in the charging power quality. Then, each EV/AD Agent has to optimize his
control system and the loads included in the AD strategy within a prefixed voltage constraint, described in
programs. details in [4].
Any Pi = {Pi(0), Pi(1), ..., Pi(t), ..., Pi(T-1)} that reaches the In the optimization process of the k-th Agent of the
EV/AD needs and simultaneously satisfies equality and network the voltage constraint is expressed as:
inequalities constraints (detailed in the following), is a


































feasible strategy. Based on the previous analysis, each Agent





needs to solve the following optimization problem, that

optimize explicitly the virtual cost according to the EV









(10)
charging/AD policy and the cost of deviating from the where:
average behaviour of the Agents: • n is the total number of Agents (AD and EV) located
in the analyzed feeder of the LV network;






• k is the external iteration index, managed by the







































Master Agent until the optimal EV/AD strategy for the



network is reached. The stopping criterion of the
(8) process is based on a threshold in the maximum
where: variation between the power in the last and in the

















(9) previous iteration (Fig. 4);








•







is the sum of the voltage in the Agent
is the average of the EV/AD power, and δ is a tracking
buses;
parameter with non-negative constant value, which links the

linear term with the quadratic one of the Objective Function •

is the contribution of the i-th Agent at the k-
(OF) [4]. The quadratic problem in (8) with linear constraints iteration;




and bounds has been efficiently handled by a quadratic •

is the contribution of the i-th Agent at the (k-1)
optimization function available in MatLab Simulink. The iteration;

4
 • KC > 1 is a coefficient, introduced in order to consider in a difficult situation, being the voltage below the contractual
that all agents in the system will behave like the limits.
examined one making his efforts more effective. In a
simplified approach, KC could be considered equal to
the number of Agents located in the feeder of the LV
network (KC = n);
• ΔVTH is the average variation on voltage admitted by
the DSO;
• Vn is the reference value of the voltage (p.u.);




• is the coefficient of sensitivity.

3 Case Study
The decentralized control system proposed is tested in an
urban area with a large penetration of EVs connected to the
distribution network. The depicted radial LV network is
representative of urban Italian distribution networks. The test
network (Fig. 5) is supplied by one MV/LV substation with a
15/0.4 kV 630 kVA transformer. Six feeders, with 53 LV
buses and 126 urban loads, constitute the network. There are
residential loads and tertiary loads (shops, offices, bars,
garages etc.), characterized by different daily load curves.
The number of residential loads that have the chance of active Fig. 5: The LV Test network.
participation to the MAS control is 69, with different
percentages offered for varying their scheduled load demand, In Fig. 7 the green line shows a voltage violation with the EV
as described above. charging in the feeder F1. In fact, when the general price of
Each feeder is constituted by 4 wires (neutral + 3 conductors) energy is small and far away from the peak hours the
and the loads are both single-phase (110) and three-phase excessive EV recharging demand (Fig. 8) causes a voltage
(16). The daily load curve models the urban load variations drop between 22:00 and 6:00 a.m.
(without EV charging) in 24 hours (time step of 1 hour). In Case 2, with both the controlled voltage and EV charging
The average voltage threshold is required to be equal to 0.97 strategy, the agents obtain the goal of recharging with a more
p.u., in order to satisfy the power quality service asked by suitable profile and, at the same time, voltage remains within
DSO (ΔVTH =3%). the regulation range imposed by DSO (blue curve in Fig. 7).
EV charging stations are placed at the selected LV nodes in Finally, by introducing the AD agent contribution in the MAS
Fig. 5, most of all located at the end of the feeders. The control (Case 3), the red curves in Fig. 7 and in Fig. 8 show
number of EVs in the test network is 200. For each EV the the positive effect on the voltage and power profile in feeder
SOCin is equal to 30% and SOCout 100% of the total charging F1, respectively. In fact, the lower demand offered during the
capacity. In order to compare different case studies the arrival peak hours brings a further improvement of the voltage
and departure time of the EVs have been considered fixed profile in comparison with Case 2, for the benefit of power
(Tin equal to 6:00 p.m. and Tout equal to 7:00 a.m.). quality.
However, the MAS control system can include different time
needs, based on the EV owners preferences, or it can set Tin
and Tout randomly in each charging station.

4 Results
Simulation results show that for the studied urban distribution
system with the considered load and charging stations,
excessive voltage drop and overloading of system elements
can limit the allowable amount of EV charging load. Having
ensured that after a finite time the iterative methodology leads
to a stable configuration, its performance is studied by
observing the daily load curve (Fig. 6) and the average
voltage profile in the different cases analysed. In the first case
(Case 1), by considering the MAS EV charging regulation
Fig. 6: Load profile.
without voltage control and without the opportunity offered
by AD, the charging strategy allows the valley filling that As shown in Fig. 6 the effect on the total load profile is the
could be positive for the power system, but can pose the DSO changing in EVs recharging: EVs start charging immediately

5
as they connect to the network, without constraints violation,
and consequently the load during off-peak hours is reduced
(EVs are fully charged in a shorter time). In general, AD is
then used to compensate the EVs charging and fix some of
the issues that they can cause on the urban networks.
Fig. 7: Average Voltage profile in Feeder F1.
Fig. 8: Load profile in Feeder F1.
5 Conclusions
In the paper, an intelligent and decentralized Multi-Agent
System (MAS) for handling EV charging, developed by the
same authors in [4], has been improved to include AD in the
LV distribution networks control, supporting the integration
of the EVs in the system and reducing its harmful impact on
voltage regulation. In fact, the active participation of small
consumers in the electricity system is one of the features of
the smart power systems of the future, as emphasized by the
ADDRESS European project.
The methodology consists in an iterative information
exchange between the Aggregator, AD and EV customers
connected to the LV urban network, until the optimal AD/EV
charging strategy is reached. The distributed control is a
single-objective, non-cooperative, dynamic game, which
converges to Nash equilibrium under the condition of weakly
coupled Agents. The global approach converges when EV
and AD customers update their decisions asynchronously,
which are of practical interest for a concrete application.
Significant benefits can be reached with the support of AD in
the EVs charging regulation considering the voltage control.
Acknowledgements
The work is one of the topics in the project e-visiØn (electric-
vehicle integration for smart innovative 0-CO2 networks),
financially supported by the Sardinian Regional Government
(L.R. 7/2007 - “Promozione della Ricerca Scientifica e
dell'Innovazione Tecnologica in Sardegna”). Progress of this
project can be found at http://evision.diee.unica.it.
References
[1] P. Papadopoulos, L.M. Cipcigan, N. Jenkins, I. Grau,
"Distribution Networks with Electric Vehicles", in Proc.
of the 44th International Universities Power Engineering
Conference (UPEC), 2009 Glasgow, 1-4 Sept. 2009.
[2] ADDRESS. Available on: http://www.addressfp7.org
[3] E. Peeters, D. Six, M. Hommelberg, R. Belhomme, and
F. Bouffard, “The ADDRESS Project: An Architecture
and Markets to Enable Active Demand”, in Proc. of 6th
International Conference on the European Energy
Market, EEM 2009. 27-29 May 2009.
[4] S. Mocci, N. Natale, S. Ruggeri, F. Pilo, "Multi-Agent
Control System for increasing hosting capacity in Active
Distribution Networks with EV", in Proc. of Energycon
IEEE International Energy Conference 2014, Dubrovnik,
13-16 May 2014.
[5] R. J. Bessa and M. A. Matos, “The role of an Aggregator
Agent for EV in the Electricity Market”, in Proc. 7th
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition on Power
Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Energy
Conversion, 7-10 November 2010, Agia Napa, Cyprus.
[6] M. Nikraz, G. Caire, and P. A. Bahri, “A methodology
for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems using
JADE”Available on:
http://jade.tilab.com/doc/tutorials/JADE_methodology_w
ebsite_version.pdf.
[7] Z. Ma, D. Callaway, and I. Hiskens, “Decentralised
charging control for large population of plug-in electric
vehicles: Application of the Nash certainty equivalence
principle”, in Proc. IEEE Int. Control Applications
(CCA) Conf., Yokohama, Japan, Sep. 2010.
[8] JADE Programmer’s Guide. Available on:
http://jade.tilab.com/doc/
[9] Available on FIPA website: http://www.fipa.org/
[10] R. C. Dougan, T. E. McDermott, “An Open Source
Platform for Collaborating on Smart Grid Research”,
2011 IEEE, Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
[11] Available on: http://sourceforge.net/projects/electricdss.
[12] S. Paoletti, A. Garulli, A. Vicino, "Electric load
forecasting in the presence of Active Demand", in Proc.
51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui,
Hawaii, USA, Dec. 2012.
[13] J E. L. Karfopoulos and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "A Multi-
Agent System for Controlled Charging of a Large
Population of Electric Vehicles", IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, 2012.