Proceedings of the SICE Annual Conference 2018

September 11-14, 2018, Nara, Japan

Optimal Control based on Quasi-Newton Method considering Cooperation of

Constrained Distributed Energy Resources
Tetsuya Sekine and Toru Namerikawa
Department of System Design Engineering, Keio University, Kanagawa, Japan
(Tel: +81-45-563-1151; E-mail: tetsuyas@nl.sd.keio.ac.jp, namerikawa@sd.keio.ac.jp)

Abstract: In this paper, load frequency control by optimal control algorithm using quasi-Newton method for microgrid
introducing diesel generator and battery is discussed. In the proposed method, we consider microgrid model including
diesel generator and battery. Also, saturation is taken into account as a constraint on the input to the model of diesel
generator and battery. Then, a cost function considering the storage capacity constraint is formulated. Therefore, we
propose an algorithm using the quasi-Newton method to determine inputs that minimize the formalized cost function. In
addition to the quasi-Newton method, we propose an algorithm using Backward Sweep to match the terminal condition.
Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method through numerical simulations.

Keywords: Microgrid, Quasi-Newton, Backward Sweep, Distributed energy resources

1. INTRODUCTION mined by solving with an algorithm such as gradient

In recent years, the introduction and expansion of re-
newable energy resources such as wind power generation
are proceeding. However, if a large amount of these re-
sources are introduced to the electric power system, there
is a possibility that the power demand and supply bal-
ance will collapse. In case of power imbalance, there is
concern that frequency fluctuation will occur and affect
the electric equipment. On the other hand, there is an in-
creasing interest in microgrid that build small power net-
works with thermal power generators, renewable energy
resources, and battery. This is a system for maintaining
power balance in accordance with fluctuation in renew-
able energy resources. For load frequency control by in-
troducing renewable energy resources, it is being studied
to combine distributed energy resources such as battery in
addition to the conventional thermal power and hydraulic
power generators. Examples of the distributed energy re-
sources include a large-sized battery and an electric ve-
hicle. Through the introduction of these systems, it is
expected that high performance of load frequency con-
trol can be achieved by using a system with excellent re-
sponse speed as compared with a usual generator that can
be used for matching power balance.
In research on load frequency control of microgrid, in-
troduction of distributed energy resources and a new con-
trol system are studied. In [1], cooperative control of gas
engine generator and battery is considered. The charging
rate of the battery can also be controlled. The amount
of renewable energy resources can be introduced into the
grid is evaluated. In [2], cooperative control of gas en-
gine generator, micro gas turbine generator, and battery
is considered. LPF (Low Pass Filter) is used to break up
the fluctuation for each frequency and share it according
to the response speed of each device.
Also, if we consider the method of determining the
output of a diesel generator and battery as an algorithm
for solving the optimization problem, it can be deter-
† Tetsuya Sekine is the presenter of this paper.
method or quasi-Newton method. Therefore, we propose
an optimal control algorithm using quasi-Newton method
in this paper. As a control method in which the quasi-
Newton method is used for the microgrid, [3], [4] exist.
In [3], introduction of battery and its constraints are not
considered. In [4], the load frequency control by the gen-
erator and battery are handled, and the cost of each is
being studied. However, no consideration is given to the
difference in response speed and the storage capacity.
In summary, we propose to perform cooperative con-
trol with consideration of diesel generator and battery
constraints using quasi-Newton method. In this paper,
frequency control is performed by the diesel generator
and battery against the power imbalance. Also, we aim to
evaluate the fluctuation of the storage capacity.
The flow of this paper is as follows. In chapter 2, we
model the microgrid and set the cost function. In chap-
ter 3, we propose an algorithm using the quasi-Newton
method to determine the input minimizing the cost func-
tion. In chapter 4, in addition to chapter 3, we propose
an algorithm that matches terminal conditions by using
Backward Sweep for the cost function considering the
terminal penalty. In chapter 5, we verify the effectiveness
of the proposed method by numerical simulation, as com-
pared with the conventional method using LPF. In chap-
ter 6, we describe the summary of this paper and future
works.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1. Microgrid model
We consider a microgrid model such as Fig. 1 with ref-
erence to [5]. Also, the definition of symbols are shown
in Table 1.

978-4-907764-60-9 PR0001/18 ¥400 © 2018 SICE 958

 storage capacity and the terminal storage capacity. E2∗ is
the design parameter for the storage capacity.
The goal of this control problem is to determine the
Saturation optimal input u minimizing the equation (6) on the basis
Governor Turbine
of the equations (5), (7).
Diesel generator

Saturation
3. OPTIMAL CONTROL BASED ON
Battery Generator QUASI-NEWTON METHOD
INCLUDING SATURATION
Fig. 1 Power system model
In this chapter, we consider setting to solve a problem
Table 1 Definition of Symbols not including the terminal penalty of the first item in the
∆f Frequency deviation [Hz] equation (6). When including a terminal penalty, in ad-
∆PG Output of generator [pu] dition to the algorithm shown in this chapter, a method
∆PB Output of battery [pu] combining an optimal control algorithm by Backward
∆PGref Output command value of generator [pu] Sweep of chapter 4. We simplify it in order to empha-
∆PBref Output command value of battery [pu] size the algorithm by the quasi-Newton method. First,
∆uG Generation command value to generator [pu] for the cost function of the previous chapter, we define it
R Regulation constant [Hz/pu]
as the equations (8), (9).
M Inertia constant [pu・s/Hz]
D Damping constant [pu/Hz]
∫ tf
TT Turbine time constant [s] F (u) ≡ {xT Qx + satT [u] sat[u]} dt
t0
(8)
TG Generator time constant [s] ∫t
TB Battery time constant [s] G(u) ≡ E2 (t0 ) − t0 ∆PB (τ )dτ (9)

From Fig. 1, frequency deviation, diesel generator out- Therefore, the optimal control problem solving can be ex-
put fluctuation, governor output fluctuation and battery pressed as the equation (10).
output fluctuation can be expressed as the equations (1) -
(4). minu F (u), s.t. G(u) ≥ 0 (10)
∆f˙= − M
D
∆f + 1
M (∆PG + ∆PB ) (1)
∆ṖG = − T1T ∆PG + T1T ∆uG (2) There exist ∇F (u), ∇G(u) because F, G can be Frechet
ref
differentiable with respect to u. ∇F (u), ∇G(u) can be
∆u̇G = − T1G ∆uG + 1
TG sat[∆PG ] (3) expressed as the following equations (11), (12) [6].
ref
∆ṖB = − T1B ∆PB + 1
TB sat[∆PB ] (4)
∇F (u) = H0u (x(t), u(t), p0 (t)) (11)
For the equations (1) - (4), put it as follows.
∇G(u) = H1u (x(t), u(t), p1 (t)) (12)
x = [∆f ∆PG ∆uG ∆PB ]T , u = [∆PGref ∆PBref ]T

Therefore, it can be represented by a state space model H0u represents a partial differentiable of H0 with respect
such as the equation (5). to u. H0 , H1 , p0 , p1 can be expressed as the following
equations (13) - (16).
 D 1 1   
−M M 0 M 0 0
 0 − T1T 1
TT 0  x +  01
  0  ( )
ẋ =   sat[u]
H0 (x, u, p0 ) = xT Qx + satT [u] sat[u]
 0 0 − T1G 0   T
G
0 
1
0 0 0 − T1B 0 TB
| {z } | {z } +pT0 (Ax + Bsat[u]) (13)
A B
(5) H1 (x, u, p1 ) = ∆PB + pT1 (Ax + Bsat[u]) (14)
ṗ0 (t) = −H0x (x(t), u(t), p0 (t))T , p0 (tf ) = 0 (15)
2.2. Cost function
ṗ1 (t) = −H1x (x(t), u(t), p1 (t))T , p1 (tf ) = 0 (16)
The cost function to be set in this paper expressed in
the following equations (6), (7).
∫ tf
We refer to [6] for deriving the definition of Hi , pi . On
J = β(E2 (tf ) − E2∗ )2 + t0
{xT Qx + satT [u] sat[u]} dt the other hand, the optimal condition in this chapter is as
(6) follows by using the Kuhn-Tucker condition.
∫t
s.t. E2 (t0 ) − t0
∆PB (τ )dτ ≥ 0 (7)
Optimal condition of Kuhn-Tucker:
β and Q = diag{q1 , q2 , q3 , q4 } represent the weights u∗ ∈ U is the optimal control input, and the Lagrangian
of the cost function. E2 (t) represents the storage capac- multiplier λ satisfies the following equations. In other
ity energy of battery. E2 (t0 ), E2 (tf ) represent the initial words, solving the equation (10) can result in a problem
959
of finding u∗ that satisfies the following condition. 0.03

0.02 umax
H0u (x(t), u∗ (t), p0 (t)) + λH1u (x(t), u∗ (t), p1 (t)) = θ S(v)
(17) 0.01
∫t
λ{E2 (t0 ) − t0 ∆PB (τ ) dτ } = 0, λ ≤ 0 (18) 0
umin
∫t umax
E2 (t0 ) − t0 ∆PB (τ ) dτ ≥ 0 (19)
-0.01
ẋ(t) = Ax + Bsat[u∗ ], x(t0 ) = x0 (20)
-0.02 umin
ṗ0 (t) = −H0x (x(t), u∗ (t), p0 (t))T , p0 (tf ) = 0 (21)
ṗ1 (t) = −H1x (x(t), u∗ (t), p1 (t))T , p1 (tf ) = 0 (22) -0.03
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03

Fig. 2 Image of differentiable saturation curve

θ is the origin point.

In this paper, we solve the problem with θ = 0 for the

optimal condition of Kuhn-Tucker. The optimal control
algorithm using the quasi-Newton method in this chapter ∑k−1 [ ∫tt0f djT Hiku dt ∫ tf j T
Hiku dt j
]
t0 b
with reference to [7] is shown below. We can deal with aik = Hiku + j=1 ∫ tf
jT
dj − ∫ tf T b
t0 d q j dt t q j bj dt
0
input constraints compared to [7].
(i = 0, 1)
(25)
Optimal control algorithm based on quasi-Newton
where
method including saturation
∑j−1 [ ∫tt0f dmT qj dt ∫ tf T
bm q j dt m
]
Step 1: Derive xk from ẋ(t) = Ax + Bsat[uk ], x(t0 ) = bj = q j + j=m ∫ tf dmT q m dt d
m
− t0
∫ tf
q mT bm dt
b
x0 and estimate the initial input uk (decide arbitrarily) as
t 0 t0

k = 1. (j = 2, · · · , k − 1)
(26)
Step 2: Derive pki (i = 0, 1) by solving the equation (21),
(22). The new Lagrangian multiplier µ placed on behalf of λ
in the equation (24) is solved by a quadratic programming
Step 3: From the pki (i = 0, 1) derived in Step 2, problems such as the equations (27) - (33).
Hix (xk , uk , pki ), Hiu (xk , uk , pki ) (i = 0, 1) are derived.
However, since partial differentiable due to the input minµ 21 µT Λk µ − 12 αk (27)
of Hi is considered for saturation, it becomes impossi- k
s.t. − Λ µ ≥ β k
(28)
ble to differentiate at the switching point of saturation. where
Therefore, insert a differentiable saturation function S(v) ∫ tf T
1
such as Fig. 2. If the input v(t) to this function is re- αk = 2 H0ku ak0 dt
t0
(29)
garded as the manipulated variable of the controlled ob- ∫t
γ k = E2 (t0 ) − t0 ∆PBk (τ ) dτ (30)
ject, Hi can be partially differentiated with respect to the ∫t T
input. umax , umin represent the upper and lower limits ck = t0f H1ku ak0 dt (31)
for the input. k
β =c −γ k k
(32)
∫t T

umax − δ(umax − umin ) · exp(−1 + δ(uumax Λk = t0f H1ku ak1 dt (33)
−umin ) ),
max −v




 v > umax − δ(umax − umin )
v−umin
S(v) = umin + δ(umax − umin ) · exp(−1 + δ(umax −umin ) ), By substituting µ into the equation (24), the search




 v < u min + δ(u max − u min ) direction sk can be derived. At this time, if arbitrary
v, otherwise
ϵ > 0 satisfies the relationship ∥ sk ∥< ϵ, new input
(23) uk+1 = uk + sk can be updated. If it does not satisfy, we
update the input as uk+1 = uk + αk sk .
Step 4: Update the input using the D-F-P formula in the
quasi-Newton method.
Step 5: k = k + 1, and go back to Step 1.
The search direction s for determining the input of the
next step can be expressed as the equation (24).
4. OPTIMAL CONTROL BASED ON
k
s = −ak0 − µak1 (24) BACKWARD SWEEP
We consider a method of determining the input u
With dk−1 = uk − uk−1 , q k−1 = H0ku − H0k−1 u
+ that minimizes the cost function considering the terminal
λ k−1
{H1ku − H1k−1u
}, the update equation can be ex- penalty in this chapter. As a change from the previous
pressed as the following equations (25), (26). chapter, terminal condition such as equations (34), (35)
960
are considered for adjoint variables. the adjoint variable pi is the equation (47) - (49).
    
(
∂φ0
)T δ ẋ Ab (t) Bb (t) Cb (t) δx
ṗ0 (t) = −H0x (x, u, p0 )T , p0 (tf ) = ∂x (x(tf ))  δ ṗ0  =  Db (t) Eb (t) Fb (t)   δp0  (47)
(34) δ ṗ1 Gb (t) Hb (t) Ib (t) δp1
( )T δx(t0 ) = 0 (48)
∂φ1
ṗ1 (t) = −H1x (x, u, p1 )T , p1 (tf ) = ∂x (x(tf ))
∂ 2 φi
(35) δpi (tf ) = ∂x2 (x(tf ))δx(tf ) + dei (49)

At this time, the following assumptions are made so

In this chapter, we consider that the adjoint variable
that the terminal condition holds.
pi (t0 ) is unknown quantity and it is modified little by
little to satisfy the terminal condition (34), (35). In δp0 (t) = S0 (t)δx(t) + c0 (t) (50)
other words, when the initial value of the adjoint vari-
ables are changed by δpi (t0 ), we consider how much δp1 (t) = S1 (t)δx(t) + c1 (t) (51)
∂ 2 φ0
the state x(t) and the adjoint variables pi (tf ) at the S0 (tf ) = ∂x2 (x(tf )), c0 (tf ) = de1 (52)
terminal time change. We fluctuate x(t), pi (t), u(t) by ∂ 2 φ1
S1 (tf ) = ∂x2 (x(tf )), c1 (tf ) = de2 (53)
δx(t), δpi (t), δu(t) when satisfying all but the terminal
condition of the Kuhn-Tucker condition in the previous We substitute these into the equation (47) and multiply
chapter. Therefore, it can be expressed as the following both sides by a regular matrix (54) from the left.
equations (36) - (39).
 
I 0 0
ẋ + δ ẋ = f (x + δx, u + δu) (36)  −S0 I 0  (54)
−S1 0 I
ṗ0 + δ ṗ0 = −H0x (x + δx, u + δu, p0 + δp0 ) (37)
ṗ1 + δ ṗ1 = −H1x (x + δx, u + δu, p1 + δp1 ) (38) Therefore, it can be expressed following the equation
H0u (x + δx, u + δu, p0 + δp0 ) (55).
+λH1u (x + δx, u + δu, p1 + δp1 ) = 0 (39) 
δ ẋ

 Ṡ0 δx + ċ0  =
δx(t0 ) = 0 must be given because x(t0 ) = x0 is fixed. Ṡ1 δx + ċ1
Also, δpi (t0 ) is given so that the error in the terminal 
(Ab + Bb S0 + Cb S1 )δx

condition is reduced. Therefore, setting such that e0 , e1  (Db + Eb S0 + Fb S1 − S0 Ab − S0 Bb S0 − S0 Cb S1 )δx 
of the equations (40), (41) which are errors of the termi- (Gb + Hb S0 + Ib S1 − S1 Ab − S1 Bb S0 − S1 Cb S1 )δx
 
nal condition becomes smaller is desirable. Bb c 0 + C b c 1
( )T +  −S0 Bb c0 − S0 Cb c1 + Eb c0 + Fb c1  (55)
e0 = p0 (tf ) − ∂φ0
(x(tf )) (40) −S1 Bb c0 − S1 Cb c1 + Hb c0 + Ib c1
∂x
( )T
∂φ1 When dividing the equation (55) respectively, it becomes
e1 = p1 (tf ) − ∂x (x(tf )) (41)
as follows.
Also, taylor expansion of the right side of the equations δ ẋ = (Ab + Bb S0 + Cb S1 )δx + Bb c0 + Cb c1 (56)
(36) - (39) at (x(t), u(t), pi (t)) and it can be expressed as
Ṡ0 = Db + Eb S0 + Fb S1 − S0 Ab − S0 Bb S0 − S0 Cb S1
the equations (42) - (45).
(57)
δ ẋ = ∂f ∂f
(42) Ṡ1 = Gb + Hb S0 + Ib S1 − S1 Ab − S1 Bb S0 − S1 Cb S1
∂x δx + ∂u δu
2
∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H0
(58)
δ ṗ0 = − ∂∂xH20 δx − ∂x∂u δu − ∂x∂p0 δp0 (43)
2
ċ0 = −S0 Bb c0 − S0 Cb c1 + Eb c0 + Fb c1 (59)
∂ 2 H1 ∂ 2 H1
δ ṗ1 = − ∂∂xH21 δx − ∂x∂u δu − ∂x∂p1 δp1 (44) ċ1 = −S1 Bb c0 − S1 Cb c1 + Hb c0 + Ib c1 (60)
∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H0
∂u∂x δx + ∂u2 δu + ∂x∂p0 δp0
( ) Si , ci can be obtained by using the above equation and
∂ 2 H1 ∂ 2 H1 ∂ 2 H1
+λ ∂u∂x δx + ∂u2 δu + ∂x∂p1 δp1 =0 (45) the terminal condition (52), (53). Therefore, from the
equations (50), (51), the modification amount δpi of pi (t)
Since ∂Hi /∂pi = f T , the coefficient matrix of δpi in the is expressed as the following equation (61).
equations (42) - (45) are replaced by the equation (46).
δpi (t0 ) = ci (t0 ) (61)
( )T ( )T ( )T
∂ 2 Hi ∂ 2 Hi ∂ ∂Hi T ∂f
∂x∂pi = ∂pi ∂x = ∂x ( ∂pi ) = ∂x (46) The optimal control algorithm using the backward sweep
in this chapter is shown below.
Furthermore, we summarize the equation (45) for δu and
substitute it into equation (42) - (44). Therefore, the two-
point boundary value problem to be solved by modifying
961
 ( )−1 ( 2 ) ( )−1 ( )T
∂f ∂f ∂ 2 H0 2
∂ 2 H1 ∂f ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1 ∂f
Ab (t) = ∂x − ∂u + λ ∂∂uH21
∂u2
∂ H0
∂u∂x + λ ∂u∂x , Bb (t) = − ∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2 ∂u
( 2 )−1 ( )T ( )−1 ( 2 )
∂f ∂ H0 ∂ 2 H1 ∂f 2 2
H0 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1 ∂ 2 H1
Cb (t) = − ∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2 λ ∂u , Db (t) = − ∂∂xH20 + ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2
∂ H0
∂u∂x + λ ∂u∂x
( )T 2
( )−1 ( )T ( )−1 ( )T
H0 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1 2
H0 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1
Eb (t) = − ∂f∂x + ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2
∂f
∂u , Fb (t) = ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2 λ ∂u ∂f

2 2
( )−1 ( 2 ) ( )−1 ( )T
H1 ∂ 2 H 0 ∂ 2 H1 ∂ 2 H1 2
H1 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1 ∂f
Gb (t) = − ∂∂xH21 + ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2
∂ H0
∂u∂x + λ ∂u∂x , Hb (t) = ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2 ∂u
( )T 2
( )−1 ( )T
H1 ∂ 2 H0 ∂ 2 H1
Ib (t) = − ∂f
∂x + ∂∂x∂u ∂u2 + λ ∂u2 λ ∂u∂f

5.2. Simulation results

Optimal control algorithm based on Backward
Sweep In the simulation, microgrid model is given distur-
bance such as Fig. 3.
Step 0: The initial estimate solution pi (t0 ) for the initial
value of the adjoint variable is arbitrarily determined. 0.04

0.02

Disturbance[pu]
Step 1: As pi (t0 ) is the initial condition, solving numeri-
0
cally up to the terminal time tf using the optimal control
algorithm based on the quasi-Newton method including -0.02

the saturation in the previous chapter. Therefore, obtain -0.04

the state x(t), the input u(t), the adjoint variable pi (t),
and the Lagrangian multiplier λ(t).
Step 2: Calculate the errors e0 , e1 of the terminal con-
dition by the equations (40), (41). Unless ∥e0 ∥, ∥e1 ∥ is
sufficiently close to 0, go to Step 3.
Step 3: Numerically solve the equations (57) - (60) in the
inverse time direction from the terminal time using the
terminal condition (50), (51) to find matrix S0 , S1 and
vector c0 , c1 .
Step 4: Derive δpi (t0 ) using the equation (61).
Step 5: pi (t0 ) := pi (t0 ) + δpi (t0 ), and go back to Step
1.
5. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time[sec]
Fig. 3 Disturbance
The simulation results are shown in Figs. 4 - 6. From
Fig. 4, it can be seen that the frequency deviation of the
time that the disturbance was given is not greatly differ-
ent. However, the LPF+PI control requires more time
because the frequency deviation converges to zero. This
is also clear from the output of the diesel generator and
battery (Fig. 5). From the input of the diesel generator
and battery (Fig. 6) of the proposed method, it can also
be confirmed that saturation constraints on input are sat-
isfied. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the convergence
speed, it is considered that the proposed method using co-
operative control of the diesel generator and the battery is
better.
0.15

0.1

5.1. Simulation conditions 0.05

We compare the proposed method presented in this

f [Hz]

paper with the case using LPF (conventional method). -0.05

Also, using PI control in the conventional method. The -0.1

parameters used in the simulation are shown in Table -0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25
2. The weights of the cost function are simulated with Time[sec]

β, q1 , q2 , q3 , q4 = 1. The initial time and the terminal (a): Proposed method

time are t0 = 0, tf = 25.
0.15
Table 2 Simulation parameters 0.1

M Inertia constant 0.1[pu・s/Hz] 0.05

D Damping constant 0.12[pu/Hz]
f [Hz]

0
TG Generator time constant 0.1[s]
TT Turbine time constant 5.0[s] -0.05
TB Battery time constant 0.3[s]
-0.1
E0 Power storage initial 0.5[pu]
∆PGref
max
Output fluctuation of generator upper limit 5.0 × 10−2 [pu] -0.15
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time[sec]
∆PGref
min
Output fluctuation of generator lower limit −5.0 × 10−2 [pu]
ref
∆PBmax Output fluctuation of battery upper limit 4.0 × 10−2 [pu] (b): LPF+PI control
ref
∆PBmin Output fluctuation of battery lower limit −4.0 × 10−2 [pu]
Fig. 4 Frequency deviation

962
 0.05
Diesel generator
6. CONCLUSION
Battery

In this paper, we propose cooperative control of diesel

P , P [pu]

generator and battery for microgrid based on quasi-

B

0
Newton method. Initially, we make a microgrid model
G

incorporating a diesel generator and battery. The formu-

-0.05
lated cost function that takes into account the terminal
0 5 10 15
Time[sec]
20 25
penalty and the storage capacity constraint. By using the
quasi-Newton method and backward sweep, we decide
(a): Proposed method
the input which minimizes the cost function with consid-
0.05 eration of the constraints. In the simulation, the effec-
Diesel generator
Battery tiveness of the proposed method is confirmed from the
viewpoint of frequency deviation and the storage capac-
P , P [pu]
B

0
ity about the proposed method.
As a future work, convergence analysis of quasi-
G

Newton method algorithm and stability analysis of mi-

-0.05
crogrid are required. Moreover, by making the target area
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time[sec] and scale clear, it is possible to construct a realistic mi-
(b): LPF+PI control crogrid model.

Fig. 5 Output of Diesel generator and Battery Acknowlegements

This work was supported by JST CREST Grant Num-
ber JPMJCR15K2, Japan.
0.05
Diesel generator
sat[ Pref] , sat[ Pref] [pu]

Battery
REFERENCES
B

0 [1] S. Bando, Y. Sasaki, H. Asano and S. Tagami, “Bal-

ancing control method of a microgrid with intermit-
G

tent renewable energy generators and small battery

-0.05 storage”, Power and Energy Society General Meet-
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time[sec] ing - Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy
(a): Proposed method in the 21st Century, pp. 1-6, 2008.
[2] S. Kusagawa, D. Sekine, J. Baba, S. Numata, A.
0.06
Diesel generator
Denda T. Nitta and E. Masada, “Frequency Spectrum
0.04
Battery
Based Cordinate Control Sheme for Several Types
Pref , Pref [pu]

0.02 of Distributed Power Generation Systems in a Micro

B

0 Grid”, 12th International Power Electronics and Mo-

tion Control Conference 2006, pp. 1442-1447, 2006.
G

-0.02

-0.04 [3] F. Liu, Y. H. Song, J. Ma, S. Mei, and Q. Lu, “Op-

-0.06
0 5 10 15
Time[sec]
(b): LPF+PI control
Fig. 6 Input of Diesel generator and Battery
For the terminal penalty for the storage capacity of the
cost function, we consider the design parameters E2∗ =
0.48 and E2∗ = 0.50. The value of the storage capacity at
the terminal time by simulation is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Capacity of battery (Terminal time)
Without terminal penalty
E2∗ = 0.48
E2∗ = 0.50
Table 3 shows that the storage capacity approaches the
design parameters E2∗ = 0.48 and E2∗ = 0.50, compared
with the case without the terminal penalty. Therefore, it
is considered that the condition that terminal condition is
made to match by the backward sweep algorithm.
20 25
timal load-frequency control in restructured power
systems”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
Vol. 150, No. 1, pp. 87-95, 2003.
[4] Z. Wang, W. Wu, and B. Zhang, “A Distributed
Quasi-Newton Method for Droop-Free Primary Fre-
quency Control in Autonomous Microgrids”, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 2214-
2223, 2018.
[5] kenji Masui, Toru Namerikawa, “Load Frequency
Control of a Microgrid based H∞ Control Consid-
ering Response Speed of Generators”, 54th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 5895-5902,
0.4927[pu] 2015.
0.4893[pu] [6] A. E. Bryson Jr, Y. Ho, “Applied Optimal Control”,
0.4951[pu] Hemisphere, 1969.
[7] K. Shimizu, S. Fujimaki, and Y. Ishizuka, “Con-
strained Optimization Methods in Hilbert Spaces and
Their Applications to Optimal Control Problems with
Functional Inequality Constraints”, IEEE Transac-
tions on Automatic Control, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 559-
564, 1986.

963