Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Modeling and control of building-integrated microgrids for optimal energy T

management – A review
Hannah Fontenot, Bing Dong
⁎

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University, 263 Link Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, United States

HIGHLIGHTS

• Overview of microgrids, their significance, and current modeling challenges.

• Detailed review of component models, control strategies, and optimization methods.
• Insights into future building integrated microgrid research directions.

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews the system components, modeling, and control of microgrids for future smart buildings in current literature. Microgrids are increasingly widely
studied due to their reliability in the event of grid failure or emergency, their incorporation of renewable energy sources, and the potential they represent for overall
cost reduction for the consumer. Greater accuracy in microgrid modeling enables the design of more advanced control methods, resulting in better objective
optimization. This paper begins with an overview of microgrids and their components, their importance to both utility providers and building owners, and typical
problems that they may be used to solve, as well as modeling challenges that microgrid researchers may face. An overview of microgrid control and optimization is
given in terms of objectives, constraints, and optimization methods. Microgrid modeling is a complex task due to the number, variety, and complexity of microgrid
components, which can include building loads, distributed energy resources, and energy storage systems. Various component modeling methods including physics-
based and data-driven models are reviewed, to include battery degradation models. Furthermore, this paper provides a review of various data-driven forecasting
methods for the microgrid controls. Different types of control methods including rule-based and model predictive control are reviewed, including latest occupancy-
based model predictive control for buildings. Lastly, a discussion of current challenges that may be faced by researchers is presented, as well as future directions.

1. Introduction or island-mode.” [2] Microgrids are well suited to a wide range of

As the world’s population and energy needs continue to rise, and a
global consciousness of the environment with them, there has been an
increase in global renewable energy production. The amount of energy
produced around the world from renewable sources (hydro, marine,
wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal) increased from 3725 TWh to
5886 TWh from 2008 to 2016, an increase of 58 percent. From 2015 to
2016 alone, the world’s total renewable energy generation increased by
369 TWh, an increase of 6.7 percent [1]. In conjunction with increased
renewable energy generation (and possibly as a reaction to it), there has
been a rise in microgrid research and development.
The US Department of Energy defines a microgrid as “a group of
interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly
defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity
with respect to the grid” and which has the capability to “connect and
disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected
system sizes and applications, from single residences (sometimes called
nanogrids) with a few solar panels and a single battery (see for example
[3]), to large commercial buildings such as hospitals or even university
campuses (see for example [4–6]), to entire rural villages served by
multiple networked microgrids employing multiple renewable energy
sources and providing power for hundreds of homes ([7,8]).
Microgrids have become increasingly prevalent over the past three
decades as energy systems around the world begin to decentralize and shift
more toward renewable energy sources. Since 2001, an increasing number
of microgrids, both testbeds and functional, have been implemented
worldwide [9]. While much of the research is still done through simulation
(due to the relative ease of performing simulations as compared to per-
forming case studies), several of the studies which were analyzed for this
review performed real-world case studies [3–6,10–32]. A few studies in-
cluded building occupancy profiles in their analysis [4,22,33,34]. Ad-
ditionally, some studies utilized real-time weather forecasting [6,29,35].

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bidong@syr.edu (B. Dong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113689
Received 25 April 2019; Received in revised form 13 July 2019; Accepted 2 August 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

Nomenclature Diesel Generator (DG)

Building PDGi power output of diesel generator i (kW)

PDGi, min minimum power rating of diesel generator i (kW)
Abui building area (m2) PDGi, max maximum power rating of diesel generator i (kW)
Cbui building thermal capacitance (J/m2K) DRDGi ramp-down rate of diesel generator i (kW)
T̄bui building effective temperature (K) URDGi ramp-up rate of diesel generator i (kW)
Tin, Troom indoor/room temperature (K)
Tout outdoor temperature (K) Biomass
Rbui ,o outside thermal resistance (m2K/W)
Rbui ,i indoor thermal resistance (m2K/W) Ebio biomass plant energy output (kWh)
Qrad, Qradw cooling load from radiation (kW) fbio energy conversion factor
Rwe , Rne , Rre , Ree , Rse exterior wall resistance (west, north, roof, east, bio biomass plant efficiency
south walls) VMbio volumetric mass of biomass
Rwm , Rnm , Rrm , R em , Rsm middle wall resistance (west, north, roof, LHVbio lower heating value of biomass
east, south walls)
Rwi , Rni , Rri , R ei , Rsi interior wall resistance (west, north, roof, east, Energy Storage System (ESS)
south walls)
Cwe, Cne, Cre, Cee, Cse exterior wall capacitance (west, north, roof, SOC ESS state of charge (%)
east, south walls) ESS round trip efficiency
Cwi, Cni, Cri, Cei, Csi interior wall capacitance (west, north, roof, east, pch ESS charging power (kW)
south walls) Cbat ESS energy capacity (kWh)
pdch ESS discharging power (kW)
Demand Response pbat ESS net power flow (kW)
Vbat battery terminal voltage (V)
i binary task indicator (ON/OFF) VOC battery open-circuit voltage (V)
TiS task i earliest possible starting time ibat battery current (A)
TiF task i latest possible finishing time Rbat battery internal series resistance ( )
DTi task i total completion time qbat reactive power drawn from battery (kVAR)
i task i curtailment ratio sbat , max battery inverter apparent power rating (kVA)
i
max
task i maximum curtailment ratio LLk battery loss-of-lifetime associated with eventk
Nevk number of events k that occur during battery operation
Photovoltaic (PV) period
Nevk, max maximum events k that may occur during battery lifetime
pPV output power of PV cell (kW) LL total battery loss-of-lifetime
NPV number of PV cells Cev cost of battery events
PV PV panel efficiency Cinv battery bank investment cost
pSTC PV panel rated power under standard test conditions (STC) Cag total battery aging cost
(kW) K ag battery SOC-dependent aging factor
GA global solar radiation on panels (kW/m2) Npos maximum number of possible events in battery’s lifetime
GSTC solar radiation under standard test conditions (kW/m2) DOD battery depth of discharge
TC PV panel temperature (oC)
TSTC standard testing conditions temperature (oC) Electric Vehicle
NOCT PV normal operating cell temperature (oC)
Tamb ambient temperature (oC) K wRA PEV range anxiety penalty
CT PV temperature coefficient
qPV reactive power drawn from PV (kVAR) Microgrid Objective Functions
sPV , max PV inverter apparent power rating (kVA)
C cost of energy purchase ($/kW)
Wind Turbine (WT) Cope, i DG operational cost ($/kW)
Cfuel, i DG fuel cost ($/kW)
PWT output power of wind turbine (kW) Cmnt , i DG maintenance cost ($/kW)
R wind turbine blade radius (m) Ccycle battery cycling penalty ($/cycle)
air density (kg/m3) Cemi, i emissions cost ($/ton)
Cp wind turbine power coefficient Ccom, i comfort violation penalty ($/oC)
PN wind turbine rated electrical power (kW) Ccurt load curtailment penalty ($/hr)
V wind speed (m/s) Pgrid, i power purchased from grid (kW)
VN wind turbine rated wind speed (m/s) ncycle, i number of battery charge/discharge cycles
Vci cut-in velocity (m/s) EmDG, i emissions from DG i (ton)
Vco cut-out velocity (m/s) Tbnd setpoint (bound) temperature (oC)
tcurt , i total load curtailment time (hr)

2
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
1.1. Microgrid overview and motivations
At its core, a microgrid is composed of loads, distributed energy
resources (DERs), a control system, and a point of common coupling
(PCC) with the main energy grid. A microgrid’s loads are the compo-
nents which consume electricity. These may include a building’s
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, lights, in-
dustrial loads, residential appliances, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs),
and others. DERs are any microgrid components which produce or store
and release energy. These may include solar photovoltaic (PV) panels,
wind turbines (WT), combined heat and power (CHP) generators, gas
turbines, energy storage systems (ESS), and others. The control system
of a microgrid performs actions such as power flow control, unit com-
mitment and economic dispatch, and communication with the main
grid. The PCC is a single point at which the microgrid is connected to
the main grid. Microgrids may operate in grid-connected mode or is-
landed mode. Rural, isolated microgrids which operate exclusively in
islanded mode do not have a PCC.
Microgrids are beneficial for many reasons. In addition to improving
energy efficiency, like most advanced building control strategies or
energy efficiency measures, they help perform the following functions:
• provide access to renewable energy while reducing harmful green-
house gas (GHG) emissions
• support the main electrical grid by reducing congestion and peak
loads and providing other ancillary services, including the benefit of
more power system infrastructure
• provide reliable power to isolated, rural areas and also in emergency
and natural disaster situations
• integrate multiple energy resources and energy storage into building
systems, resulting in increased control and independence for the
end-user
• decreased risk of failure under decentralized control
Microgrids can be employed to solve various different types of
problems, on both the grid level and building level. A few common grid-
level problems are optimal power flow (determining the optimal levels
of power generation to meet forecasted demand), unit commitment
(long-term optimal scheduling of power generation units), and eco-
nomic dispatch (short-term optimal scheduling of power generation
units). Common building-level problems that may be solved with the
help of microgrids include load forecasting (short-term prediction of
power demand), energy cost optimization (determining when to draw
power from the grid and how much to draw in order to minimize energy
Fig. 1. Distribution of demand control strategies.
3
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
costs and/or maximize profits), building energy management (sche-
duling appliance use, including HVAC, to use energy with maximum
efficiency), and demand response (reducing energy use during peak
times in response to grid signals).
1.1.1. Importance of microgrids – To the energy supplier
Microgrids offer many benefits to the grid energy supplier. They can
help to smooth out power fluctuations from the main grid, as seen in
[36]. They are able to offer ancillary services (such as voltage and
frequency regulation) to the grid, as found in [6,28,37–39]. They can
inject power into the grid during times of surplus on-site generation,
and they can be used to manage the energy flowing to and from the
grid.
Microgrids increase the reliability of the main electricity grid,
sometimes called the macrogrid, by reducing peak loads and preventing
brownouts. They are resilient to failure due to having more than one
potential point of failure, especially when operating under decen-
tralized or distributed control. In addition, while most grid-tied mi-
crogrids are connected to the grid at a single point of common coupling
(PCC), their islanding capability means that even if the PCC fails, the
microgrid can continue to provide power to its users in islanded mode.
1.1.2. Importance of microgrids – To the energy consumer
Energy suppliers are not the only ones who reap benefits from mi-
crogrid usage. One of microgrids’ many beneficial features is the in-
creased control and independence they give to the end-user. The in-
herently necessary constant communication that occurs when a
microgrid is in grid-connected mode lends itself easily to both demand
response and demand side management. The term demand response
(DR) refers to changes that end-users make in their energy usage be-
havior in response to supply side signals such as changes in electricity
prices, incentives or rewards for lower energy use during peak demand
times, or requests for lower usage in emergency situations when the
electricity system is in jeopardy [40]. Demand side management (DSM)
categorizes a broader array of actions, which may be taken actively by
the end-user or autonomously by the microgrid’s energy management
system, in response to supply side signals. These actions may include
load shedding, load shifting, switching to more energy efficient appli-
ances, increasing renewable energy penetration, and others. DR and
DSM are often used interchangeably; in this paper, the term “demand
management” will be used to describe all actions that fall under DR or
DSM. Several recent studies demonstrate the suitability of microgrids to
demand management. In [41], demand management programs are
modeled as virtual energy generation units, treating the amount of
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
curtailed demand as if it were energy produced by a DER. Many studies
in the literature demonstrate that the adoption of demand management
programs can reduce total operation costs of a microgrid and result in
more efficient use of energy resources, with an average cost savings of
15% and total savings of up to 52% [3,6,11,21,37,41–49]. Additionally,
[41,42,46] find that demand management programs can result in the
reduction of environmentally harmful pollutant emissions, with an
average reduction in GHG emissions of 13%. Some authors have found
demand management programs to be helpful for coping with the nat-
ural uncertainties in solar and wind power production
[29,42,46,50–52]. Several studies propose demand management con-
trol strategies which reduce the buildings’ overall power demand sig-
nificantly, with average peak demand reductions of 26%
[3,11,44,48,53–55]. Alipour et al. [56] present a demand management
program that marginally increases the operational cost of a microgrid
but also increases its total profit by three times the amount by em-
ploying stochastic programming to forecast the variable microgrid load
and renewable generation [47] and [33] show that a DSM program can
help to reduce domestic energy usage and increase occupant comfort
level as well. Fig. 1 shows the distribution of various DR strategies in
the studied literature.
Microgrids allow energy consumers to change the way they use
energy and be rewarded for those changes, whether through supplier
incentives or simple energy purchase reduction. Additionally, micro-
grids are allowing more and more energy consumers to become prosu-
mers. An energy prosumer is one who both produces and consumes
energy. Microgrids, by their nature, include distributed generation (DG)
devices such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and micro combined heat
and power (CHP) generators [57]. Consequently, as a microgrid user
consumes the energy produced by the microgrid’s DGs, they become a
prosumer.
1.1.2.1. Energy hub – A growing trend. An energy hub is an integrated
system with multiple energy carriers at its input where energy
production, conversion, and storage technologies are deployed in
order to supply certain required services such as electricity, heating
and cooling at its output [58]. While in the strictest sense an energy hub
cannot be classified as a microgrid because of the lack of a PCC, the two
technologies nevertheless share many characteristics and applications –
for example, in [58–61], energy hubs are used to implement integrated
demand response (IDR) strategies which achieve a variety of desirable
results. In [59], the electricity and natural gas peak demands are
reduced by up to 30% using the IDR model. In [60], consumer energy
cost is reduced by up to 10% by implementing a home load
management program [58]. Uses DR in the context of an energy hub
to reduce both consumer costs and harmful emissions [61]. Exploits an
IDR strategy to both reduce consumer electricity costs and increase
utilities’ profits. Additionally, the authors of [62] propose an approach
to evaluate an integrated energy system in terms of energy autonomy,
economic performance, and carbon footprint, while the authors of [63]
propose a framework for home energy management in the context of a
renewable-based energy hub with the homeowner’s energy cost as
optimization method, and employing the two-point estimate method for
renewable uncertainty modeling. These studies demonstrate the
effectiveness of the energy hub approach to studying, optimizing, and
managing energy flows from different energy carriers and through
energy conversions within the context of DR.
1.2. Current challenges
Even though microgrids are a maturing area of study, microgrid
researchers still face many challenges, both in modeling and im-
plementation. Modeling challenges include:
• Complexity of building thermal models. Current building models either
reduce buildings to a few thermal zones, which may decrease the
4
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
model’s accuracy, or model each zone separately, which greatly
increases the complexity of the model. More complex building
thermal behavior become increasingly difficult to model for control
purposes [64].
• Difficulty and complexity of modeling occupants and their behavior.
Occupant behavior is stochastic by its very nature, and yet it is one
of the greatest drivers of building energy usage, particularly in
heating- or cooling-dominated climates. The challenge here lies in
modeling occupancy and occupant behavior in a manner which
accurately captures the uncertain nature of the occupants’ effect on
the building and microgrid and, ideally, can be used in more than
one application or instance [65].
• Uncertainty in renewable generation and load. As renewable energy
penetration increases globally, so does the need for increasingly
accurate renewable generation forecasting. The more accurately
researchers are able to model uncertainty in renewable generation
and load, the more effectively these forecasts will facilitate the most
efficient and reliable operation of microgrids [66].
Each of these modeling challenges will be addressed further on in
this review.
Regarding the implementation of microgrids, several challenges
exist including legal, technical, economic, and societal. Some of these
are outlined below.
• Legal. One of the key legal issues facing microgrids is whether they
should be classified as electrical distribution utilities. If they are
classified as such, should they be regulated in the same was as ex-
isting electrical utilities, or must the existing legal framework be
expanded to accommodate microgrids [67]? Additionally, there are
questions surrounding the proprietorship of microgrid infra-
structure.
• Technical. One of the benefits of microgrids is their potential for
resiliency in the face of grid failure; furthermore, for some rural
customers, permanently islanded microgrids are the only source of
electricity [7,8]. However, not all microgrids are intended to be
permanently decoupled from the electric grid, which means they
must have the capability to seamlessly transition between coupled
and decoupled configurations. This further introduces the issue of
latency. According to one study, a lag in customer response of
30 min can reduce the benefits of demand response by up to 70%
[68].
• Economic. When transitioning to a microgrid, often older equipment
needs to be replaced, e.g., with smart meters. In addition, new
power distribution infrastructure may need to be installed and new
communications protocols implemented. Since the microgrid trend
is still relatively young, such new technologies, infrastructures, and
protocols may well become obsolete in the near future, rendering
them a significant economic risk [40].
• Societal. If microgrids are not accepted by consumers, utility provi-
ders, and policy makers, their growth may be greatly hindered if not
halted altogether. Consumers must trust that their energy will re-
main secure and their data private and that the microgrid providing
them energy is economically beneficial to them. Utility providers
must believe that microgrids will not undercut them in the market;
alternatively, they must believe that microgrids can be used to their
own economic and infrastructural advantage. Policy makers must
realize the advantages of microgrids and be willing to make policy
changes that facilitate their adoption [69].
• Sustainability. Most of the above issues can be summarized in a word:
sustainability. There are four commonly defined dimensions to
sustainability – social, economic, technical, and environmental [70].
As an emerging technology, microgrids must prove sustainable in all
these aspects in order to become widely accepted and implemented.
One study investigated the economic, technical, and environmental
sustainability of solar plants in Chile, where the energy matrix is
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

undergoing a significant shift in the incorporation of renewable storage systems.

energy sources [71], using a composite sustainability index. The
study found that although a few of the studied solar plants require
improvement in one or more individual sustainability metrics, all of
the plants are “very close to sustainability” and will play a major
role in the continuing shift of the Chilean energy matrix, allowing
the country to lower its dependency on fossil fuels and decrease its
carbon footprint [72].
1.3. Summary of previous reviews
Within the past decade, as microgrids gain popularity and become
better researched and understood, there have been a number of surveys
investigating the state of the art as well as identifying challenges and
future research directions [73] and [74] investigate energy manage-
ment systems in microgrids – their functionalities, architecture, control
philosophies, and existing software [75]. Explores the modeling, plan-
ning, and energy management of microgrids with cooling, heating, and
power cogeneration capabilities [76]. Reviews various distributed
control and management strategies for microgrids and lists future
trends in distributed control [77]. Identifies common barriers and
success factors to real-world microgrid implementation [78] provides a
comprehensive review of microgrid control principles, categorizes
major control strategies, and identifies trends in the literature [79–81]
review multi-agent systems (MAS) and their applications in microgrid
control [82] presents the main issues related to the design and control
of nearly/net zero energy buildings (nZEBs) [83] and [84] survey the
optimization objectives, tools, techniques, and algorithms that are ap-
plied to the challenge of microgrid control [66] explores the latest
analytical and approximation techniques used to model uncertainties in
renewable power generation in microgrids [67] investigates microgrid
technologies, drivers, applications, and challenges. Most recently, [85]
reviews microgrid energy management systems, focusing on their de-
cision making strategies, uncertainty quantification methods, and
communication technologies.
1.4. Scope and structure
This paper reviews the recent literature surrounding building-in-
tegrated microgrids (BIMGs) and their energy management systems
(EMS), with a focus on component modeling and demand side control
strategies and methods. This paper does not review supply side control
strategies such as voltage and frequency control, nor does it survey
control strategies for multi-microgrids or networked microgrids.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Various microgrid
component modeling methods, both physics-based and data-driven, are
reviewed in Section 2. This includes various data-driven forecasting
methods for both renewable energy generation and building load.
Section 3 provides an overview of various BIMG energy management
control structures, strategies, and optimization techniques, including
rule-based control, optimal control (with overviews of classical, sto-
chastic, and metaheuristic optimization methods), multi-agent based
system control, and model predictive control. Section 4 outlines current
challenges and future research directions and delivers concluding re-
marks.
2.1. Load
For a building-integrated microgrid, the load is provided by the
building itself – in residential and most commercial cases, the building’s
HVAC system is often the largest electricity-consuming component.
Additional loads may appear in the form of lights, household appli-
ances, and electrical/industrial equipment. HVAC system power con-
sumption is directly related to the building’s thermal load; therefore,
several thermal building models are presented here. The occupancy
state of the building also drives the electricity consumption; recently,
researchers are beginning to incorporate building occupancy into mi-
crogrid studies to a greater degree. Several occupancy models are dis-
cussed. Finally, various appliance models are reviewed.
2.1.1. Building thermal model
Building thermal models are often a blend of physics-based equa-
tions and empirically estimated parameters. A very common and well-
established building thermal modeling method is the RC network
method [3,4,31,32,44,47,50,86,87]. This method creates a thermal
model of a building in a similar manner to an electrical network model.
In such models, nodes represent the points of interest (for example, an
indoor zone whose temperature is monitored). The temperatures at
these nodes are analogous to nodal voltages. The building envelope and
indoor air mass are each modeled as one or more resistances and ca-
pacitances; heat flows (for example, HVAC cooling load, external heat
gains due to solar irradiance, or internal heat gains due to occupants)
are modeled as currents. The network model is named for the number of
resistances and capacitances which it includes (e.g., a model with three
resistance values and two capacitance values is called a 3R2C model).
Once a network model is built, Kirchhoff’s current and voltage laws
may be applied to determine the relationships between the nodal
temperatures and the disturbing heat flows. From this, a state space
model is built to represent the dynamics of the building’s heat flows:
x = Ax + Bu + Ew (1)
where x is the system state vector, comprised of one or more nodal
temperatures; u is the input vector, typically the HVAC cooling load;
and w is the disturbance vector, which usually includes outdoor tem-
perature and various heat gains.
One example of such a model is shown in Fig. 3, taken from [50].
This is a 2R2C model which models an entire building in a lumped
manner.
The thermal dynamics represented by this particular model are
written as follows:

2. Modeling methods for microgrid components

At its most basic, a microgrid is composed of loads, distributed

energy resources (DERs), energy storage systems (ESS), a controller or
controllers, and a point of common coupling (PCC) with the main en-
ergy grid. This section presents modeling techniques for the physical
components of a building-integrated microgrid – the loads, the DERs,
and the ESS. Fig. 2 displays the distribution of papers studying micro-
grids with various combinations of component types – buildings, con-
ventional energy generators, renewable energy generators, and energy Fig. 2. Distribution of microgrid component combinations in the literature.

5
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

Fig. 3. 2R2C thermal building model.

dT¯bui (t ) T T¯bui (t ) T T¯bui (t ) introduce carbon dioxide into the air which must then be refreshed. All
Cbui Abui = out Abui + in Abui + Qrad
dt Rbui ,o Rbui ,i (2) of these increase a building’s load; after all, buildings exist primarily to
house humans. It seems only logical to incorporate the occupancy state
Here, the equivalent temperature of the building thermal masses,
of a building (whether in a binary form – YES/NO – or as a percentage
T¯bui (t ) , is the quantity of interest.
of total occupant capacity) into a model of the building’s power load. In
RC models may be as complex or as simple as the modeler requires.
[65], Dong et al. present an in-depth review of various occupancy
The simpler a model, the easier it is to implement and the faster to
modeling methods used in building design and operation.
execute; however, it may be prove difficult to calibrate and may not
Currently, there are very few studies that incorporate building oc-
perform with as high fidelity as a more complex model. Conversely, a
cupancy into the microgrid controls. The major difficulty in in-
complex model will be more accurate but also more difficult to create
corporating occupancy into building models is the fact that human
and implement.
behavior is difficult to model, in general. The easiest and by far most
One factor that contributes to the complexity of an RC model is its
common option is to model human occupancy behavior as a static
spatial resolution. The modeler may choose to represent the entire
schedule, which is the option chosen in [33,34]. In the studies, the
building as a single small-scale network, as in [50]; or, they may choose
authors incorporate deterministic (fixed) occupancy schedules (one
to model each wall and each room as its own network, as in [31]
each for residential, commercial, and industrial buildings) into demand
(shown in Fig. 4 below).
response problems which include occupant thermal comfort con-
Any building thermal model that makes use of the RC modeling
straints. As with the building thermal modeling, however, the same rule
method is inherently a hybrid physics-based and data-driven model,
applies: The more accurate the model, the better the results. Since
due to the fact that the equations are derived from well-known physics
human behavior is quite dynamic and distinctly non-deterministic, a
and the parameters must be estimated empirically using some form of
more advanced model requires some way to dynamically determine the
machine learning.
occupancy state of a building or space.
In [17], the authors propose a new data-driven sensing paradigm for
2.1.2. Occupancy model
occupancy detection, called Sensing by Proxy (SbP), in which the oc-
Occupancy may be the most important contributing factor when it
cupancy of the space is inferred based on “proxy” measurements. In the
comes to load. A building’s occupants determine the thermostat set-
study, CO2 concentration is used as the proxy measurement; however,
point; they produce heat and use equipment which produces heat; they

Fig. 4. Detailed RC network thermal model, with each wall and room modeled as a small network.

6
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

the authors note that other measurements (for example, temperature)
may be used in future experiments. The purely data-driven nature of the
proposed framework lends it long-term stability and robustness across
all types of experiments. In the future, more accurate real-time occu-
pancy data will be obtained from the use of advanced sensors and be
incorporated into microgrid studies.
2.1.3. Appliance model
The vast majority of studies tend to model household appliances solely
within the context of demand management – whether the appliance re-
presents a load that is interruptible or not, schedulable or not. Some ap-
pliances, such as washing machine, dishwasher, and rice cooker, are ty-
pically modeled as non-interruptible but delay flexible loads, meaning
they may be scheduled but may not be interrupted once begun [11,88].
A delay flexible task is modelled as shown in (3) [88]. For such
appliances, such as a washing machine, there is given an earliest pos-
sible starting time TiS and a latest possible finishing time TiF . The
starting time of appliance i may not be earlier than its given earliest
starting time; nor can the task finish any later than its given last fin-
ishing time. In addition, the task may not be interrupted; once it begins,
it must continue to completion.
0 if t TiF
i (t ) = 0 if t < TiS
0/1 otherwise
TiF
i (t ) = DTi
TiS
i (t ) i (t 1) i( ); = 1, , t + DTi ; t [TiS , TiF
When an appliance or task is interruptible, that is, if it may be
curtailed during a demand response event, a constraint is added to limit
the number of curtailed tasks (in order to limit occupant dissatisfac-
tion). This may take the form of a maximum curtailment ratio:
max
0 i (t ) t (4)
i
Clearly, appliance models are most often employed in the modeling
of residential microgrids, as commercial and industrial buildings do not
have similarly schedulable tasks – or if they do, those tasks consume
much less energy compared to the HVAC system and are consequently
ignored in the microgrid model. This tendency is demonstrated in [37],
which performs demand response case studies involving residential,
commercial, and industrial customers.
Mirakhorli and Dong [89] introduce an energy management solu-
tion for residential buildings which uses both on/off control and MPC to
control appliances based on occupant behavior. The water heater is
modeled in a way which is driven by the energy balance principle:
Mw Cw Tw = Qin mCw (Thot Tinlet ) K (Tw Tamb)
where Mw is the mass of the water in the tank, Cw is the thermal ca-
pacity of water, Tw is the temperature of the water in the tank, m is the
average hot water flow rate, Thot is the outlet water temperature, Tinlet is
the outlet water temperature, Tamb is the ambient temperature, and K is
the tank heat loss gain.
all types of DERs, not only the renewables. Aside from solar panels and
wind turbines, the microgrid studies reviewed here typically include
diesel generators, micro-turbines, fuel cells, and combined heating/
cooling/power generators. The subsequent sections will describe some
common models of these distributed energy generators.
2.2.1. PV system
PV panels convert solar irradiance into electrical energy. The
amount of power a PV cell outputs is dependent on the cell’s tem-
perature according to the following [19,49]:
GA (t )
pPV (t ) = NPV · PV · pSTC · ·(1 + (TC (t ) TSTC )· CT )
GSTC (6a)
GA (t )
TC (t ) = Tamb + ·(NOCT 20)
GSTC (6b)
where NPV is the number of panels, PV is the panels’ efficiency, pSTC is
the rated power of the panels under standard test conditions (STC), GA is
the global solar radiation received by the panels in kW/m2, GSTC is the
solar radiation under STC (GSTC = 1kW/m2), TC is the temperature of
the panels, TSTC is the STC temperature, NOCT is the normal operating
cell temperature in °C, Tamb is the ambient temperature in °C, and CT is
the PV temperature coefficient.
Often, PV panels are not modeled in detail as (5) show. More often than
(3a) not, the value of pPV (t ) is assumed to be read from a smart meter and
therefore needs not be calculated. In this case, pPV (t ) is modeled as a system
disturbance vector. Due to the stochastic nature of the weather, many re-
(3b) searchers find it necessary to include either solar forecasting in their study,
or stochastic optimization techniques, or both. Forecasting is discussed in
DTi ] (3c) Section 2.4; stochastic optimization is discussed in Section 3.3.2.
Some studies use PV inverters to provide reactive power support to
the main electricity grid. The amount of reactive power that the inverter
can provide at any time is described by the following relationship:
2 2 2
pPV (t ) + qPV (t ) sPV , max (7)
where qPV (t ) is the amount of reactive power drawn from the PV and
sPV , max is the PV inverter’s apparent power rating. When used to provide
this ancillary service to the grid, the reactive power becomes a control input.
2.2.2. Wind turbine
Wind turbines convert wind energy into electrical energy through
the use of a turbine. The power output of a wind turbine is dependent
on the wind speed [33,157,171,172]:
1
PWT = R2Cp V 3
2 (8)
where V is the wind speed in m/s, is the air density in kg/m3, R is the
turbine blade radius in m, and Cp is the power coefficient.
(5) In addition, wind turbines do not work at wind speeds below a
certain value (known as cut-in velocity Vci ), and they are typically
120
100
Number of Papers

80
2.2. Distributed energy generation
60
One of the most useful characteristics of microgrids is their ability to
40
incorporate multiple, distributed sources of energy. These DERs may
include conventional power generation units, such as micro gas tur- 20
bines and diesel generators, as well as renewable energy sources (RESs),
such as solar PV panels and wind turbines. Fig. 5 shows the number of 0
Photovoltaic Wind Combined Micro Diesel Fuel Cell Other
studies that include each type of DER, and Table 1 lists the studies Turbine Heat/Power Turbine Generator
which include each DER. Distributed Energy Resource
The most widely studied DERs are PV panels and wind turbines, due
to the fact that they are renewable. However, researchers need to model Fig. 5. Distributed energy resources included in studied microgrids.

7
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

Table 1
Distributed energy resources modeled in the literature.
Resource Studies

Photovoltaic [3–8,10–16,18–21,23,25–34,36–39,42,43,46,48,49,51,52,54,55,86,88,90–157]
Wind Turbine [13–16,20,27,29,33,35,37,38,43,45,46,48,49,51,52,54–56,88,90,91,93–95,97,99]
[101,103–117,120–129,131,133–140,142–145,147,148,151–154,157–172]
CHP [4,6,12,18,21,23,25,28,32,41,42,44,45,47,49,53,56,86,88,92,100,101,118,130]
[131,138,158,162,173–177]
Micro Turbine [25,38,42,43,46,49,52,55,95,97,98,101,104,106,109,110,112,113,117,118,121]
[123,124,126,129,137–141,144,145,147,148,150,151,154,159,160,162,172,176]
Diesel Generator [7,8,14–16,18,20,22,25,28,32,35,37,38,48,51,52,54,90,94,103,113–115,117]
[123,127,129,132,141,144,149,151,152,163,165,166,169,176,177]
Fuel Cell [10,13,19,24,27,28,30,31,38,39,46,52,55,56,93,95,97–99,102,104,106–110]
[112,113,119,121,122,126,129,133,134,137–141,144–148,150,151,153,154]
Other [51,132]–mHydro [91,163]–Biomass [118]–CSP

turned off when winds reach a dangerously high speed (known as cut-
out velocity Vco ) [35,103,162]: 2.2.3.2. Micro turbine. Micro gas turbines consist of a compressor,
combustor, turbine and electric generator. Although they run on fossil
0 V < Vci or V Vco
fuels as diesel generators do, they have the advantage of being easily
V3 3
Vci
PWT = PN × 3 3 Vci V < VN modified to recapture waste heat, making them ideal for cogeneration.
VN Vco
Micro turbines are subject to minimum and maximum power rating
PN V VN (9)
constraints, similar to diesel generators.
where PN is the rated electrical power and VN is the rated wind speed.
Variations of this formula appear in [37,45,49,91,134]. 2.2.3.3. Fuel cell. A fuel cell converts the potential energy from a
[104] uses a linear approximation to model the nonlinear re- hydrogen fuel into electrical energy by means of an electrochemical
lationship between wind speed and wind power: reaction with oxygen. Fuel cells consist of an anode, a cathode, and an
electrolyte. As with diesel generators and micro turbines, fuel cells are
r1 V Vci Vci V < V1 subject to minimum and maximum power generation, as well as minimum
r1 (V1 Vci ) + r2 (V V1) V1 V < V2 and maximum ramp rates. They are often used in cogeneration systems,
PWT = PN × r1 (V1 Vci ) + r2 (V2 V1) + r3 (V V2) V2 V < VN since their waste heat is easy to reclaim and redirect.
1 VN V < Vco
0 otherwise 2.2.3.4. Cogeneration. A combined heating and power (CHP) or
(10) combined cooling and power (CCP) system is able to generate both
power and heating/cooling energy, as the name suggests. Cogeneration
The values of r1, r2 , r3 , V1, V2 , V3 may be found in [104].
systems typically consist of a power generator (such as a micro turbine
[129,154] use a similar linear approximations, while [160] uses a
or fuel cell), heat pump, and a chiller and/or boiler which uses the
second-order polynomial approximation:
generator’s waste heat. CHP/CCP systems must meet the same
0 0 V < Vci constraints as their constituent parts, including the generator power
a1 + a2 V + a3 V 2 Vci V < VN ratings and ramp rates. Cogeneration systems have better thermal
PWT = PN ×
1 VN V < Vco efficiencies due to their reclamation of waste heat.
0 V Vco (11)
2.2.3.5. Biomass. A biomass plant generates heat or energy by burning
The coefficients a1, a2 , a3 may be found in [160]. plant or animal matter [91] studies a green building microgrid which
Similarly to PV power, wind power comes with a healthy dose of includes a small biomass plant. In the study, the potential energy to be
stochasticity, making it necessary for researchers to include wind obtained from the biomass plant is calculated as
forecasting and/or stochastic techniques when studying microgrids
with integrated wind power.
Ebio (t ) = fbio bio LHVbio VMbio ubio (t ) (12)
where fbio is an energy conversion factor, bio is the plant efficiency,
2.2.3. Other distributed energy generation systems VMbio is the volumetric mass of the biomass, LHVbio is the lower heating
Photovoltaic and wind turbine systems are the most commonly value, which assumes that the latent heat of vaporization of water in the
studied DERs in building-integrated microgrids; however, they are by fuel is not recovered, and ubio (t ) is the quantity of biomass burned. A
no means the only ones. Diesel generators, micro turbines, fuel cells, biomass plant is subject to the constraint that it cannot produce more
and combined heat/cooling and power generators are also seen widely heat than its potential energy at any time.
throughout the literature. Each of these are described briefly here.
2.3. Energy storage systems
2.2.3.1. Diesel generator. Diesel generators are arguably the most
common conventional energy generators in use today. A diesel Energy storage systems (ESS) are an essential part of a microgrid.
generator (also called a diesel generator set or genset) consists of a They provide a microgrid with the capability to
diesel (compression-ignition) engine and an electric generator.
Typically, diesel gensets are modeled in terms of their power
generation, which cannot exceed their maximum and minimum ratings:
• purchase and store extra power during off-peak pricing time and use
the power later during peak price times
PDGi, min PDGi (t ) PDGi, max (11) • store surplus energy generation for later use
In addition, generators’ ramp rates cannot be exceeded:
• smooth out power fluctuations in grid power supply or renewable
generation
DRDGi PDGi (t + 1) URDGi (12) • store and recycle waste heat
8
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

In the reviewed literature, there are three main types of energy sto- charge. Such models may take many forms, such as higher-order
rage systems: battery energy storage system (BESS), including plug-in polynomials, exponential and logarithmic expressions, inverse
electric vehicle (PEV), thermal energy storage system (TESS), and hy- relationships, and combinations of these:
drogen storage system (HSS). See Table 2 for a summary of the studies
Vbat (t ) = VOC (t ) ibat (t )· Rbat (t ) (15a)
which include the various type of energy storage. Battery energy storage
systems are by far the most commonly employed energy storage system. VOC (t ) = f (SOC (t )) = K 0
K1
K2 SOC (t ) + K3lnSOC (t ) + K 4ln(1 SOC (t ))
Electrochemical batteries, such as lead-acid and lithium-ion, are readily SOC (t )

available and easily integrated into existing building systems and mi-
crogrids. They also have the capability to provide ancillary services to the
power grid, such as reactive power support for voltage regulation.
However, depending on the battery type, a BESS can be quite expensive,
especially for a residential homeowner. Other types of BESS include
mechanical (e.g., flywheel or compressed air) and electrical (e.g., capa-
citor). Thermal energy storage systems increase the overall thermal ef-
ficiency of the microgrid by reducing waste heat; for this reason, TESS
are often used in conjunction with cogeneration systems.
[6,32,45,49,88,158,162,174] Similarly, since hydrogen storage systems
store the hydrogen which is necessary for fuel cells to sustain their
electrochemical reactions, they are paired with fuel cells. [27,30,178]
2.3.1. Battery energy storage system
Typically batteries, electrochemical or otherwise, are modeled in
terms of their state of charge (SOC). Battery models may be linear or
nonlinear. Linear models have the advantage of simplicity and ease of
implementation. However, they are highly sensitive to the initial state
of charge and therefore care must be taken to ensure accurate model
initialization.
2.3.1.1. Linear battery model. A typical linear approximation of a
battery’s SOC is: [19]
(15b)
where Vbat (t ) is the battery’s terminal voltage, ibat (t ) is the throughput
current, Rbat (t ) is the internal series resistance, and the constants
K 0, K1, K2, K3, and K 4 are model-specific parameters. This model,
while nonlinear in the state, is linear in the parameters, thus
simplifying the identification of those parameters.
2.3.1.3. Reactive power control. Similarly to PV inverters, battery
inverters may be utilized to provide reactive power support to the
power grid, facilitating voltage regulation. The same equation
constrains the amount of reactive power that may be taken from a
battery at any time:
2 2 2
pbat (t ) + qbat (t ) sbat , max (16)
where qbat (t ) is the reactive power flow and sbat , max is the battery
inverter’s maximum apparent power rating.
2.3.1.4. Battery degradation model. Chemical batteries, especially lithium
ion, are susceptible to degradation as they age [181] provides a review of
several battery degradation models [4] incorporates such a model into a
microgrid control problem. The model represents battery capacity loss due
to solid electrolyte interface layer growth as well as active material loss. In
the current microgrid literature, battery degradation is typically represented
as a lifetime cost which depends on the number of charge/discharge cycles

SOC (t ) = SOC (t t) +
·pch (t )· t ( )p
1
dch (t )· t and depth of discharge as follows [16,38]:
Cbat Cbat (13) Nevk
LLk = Nevk , max
where is the round trip efficiency, pch and pdch are the charging and LL = LLk
k (17)
discharging power, and Cbat is the battery’s energy capacity. Some
studies (see for example [92]) include a self-discharging rate because where Nevk, max is the maximum number of events k (charge/discharge
chemical batteries experience a small loss of stored charge without any cycles) that can occur during the lifetime of a BESS until end of life, Nevk is
connection between the electrodes as a result of internal chemical the number of events k that have occurred during the operation period, and
reactions (a typical value is 2 percent per month). LLk becomes the loss of lifetime associated with event k. Then the cost of
A rather intuitive physical constraint of batteries is that the SOC events is calculated as
may neither exceed 100 percent nor drop below 0 percent at any time. Cev (t ) = 0.5·LL (t )· Cbat · Cinv (18)
Additionally, in order to prolong battery life, there are often more strict
constraints on their depth of charge and discharge. Most battery models where Cinv is the investment cost for the battery bank, and the total battery
enforce “spinning reserves” for both charging and discharging. Typical aging cost in total observation time can be calculated as
values are 0.2 SOC 0.8. N K ag , i (SOC )
Some authors include a constraint requiring that the battery may Cag (t ) = 0.5·Cbat ·Cinv·
i=1 Npos, i (DOD ) (19)
not charge and discharge simultaneously:
Pch (t )·Pdch (t ) = 0 t (14) where N is the number of events in the battery operation period, K ag is an
SOC aging factor curve [38], and Npos is the maximum number of possible
Otherwise, the battery’s net power flow is calculated as events in the battery’s lifetime.
pbat (t ) = pch (t ) pdch (t ) . In some studies, battery degradation is represented as a penalty cost
that applies to deep discharges or repeated charge/discharge cycles
2.3.1.2. Nonlinear battery model. Nonlinear battery models rely on the [108,142,179]. This penalty serves to reduce the number of undesirable
relationship between open-circuit voltage, VOC (t ) , and the state of battery events, thereby prolonging its life.

Table 2
Energy storage systems studied in the literature.
Storage System Studies

Chemical Battery [3–8,10–12,14–16,18–22,24–28,31,33,35–38,41–47,49,51,54,56,88,90–103,106–119]

[121–133,136–142,144,145,147–160,162–165,168–174,177,179,180]
PEV [5,11,23,30,39,52,55,86,88,92,105,110,118,131,135,142,143,161,162,180]
Thermal [6,12,25,32,45,49,56,88,92,101,109,118,130,131,138,158,162,166,173,174,177]
Hydrogen [10,19,27,30,93,99,102,108,122,133,138,146,153]
Ultracapacitor [13,108]

9
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
2.3.1.5. Plug-in electric vehicles. Because PEVs run on batteries, they are
modeled similarly to BESS [5,11,110]. They are not identical, however.
Notably, [135] introduces a novel concept called range anxiety. Range
anxiety refers to the fear that PEV users experience of running out
energy before reaching the destination. The study incorporates range
anxiety as an economic penalty in the objective function:
KwRA (1 SOCtEV EV
, w )· Nw
w W t UwEV
where W is the total number of PEVs in the fleet, UwEV
is the total time a
PEV is plugged in, K wRA is the range anxiety penalty, SOCtEV
, w is the SOC
of the EV, and NwEV is the battery capacity of the PEV. By varying the
value of K wRA , different levels of charging behavior may be modeled: no
range anxiety management, where the PEV is a fully shiftable load;
intermediate management, where the battery charge-discharge cycles
are not as flexible; and the “risk averse usage” case, where the PEV is
charged fully as soon as possible, making the PEV essentially a critical
load.
One other way that the modeling of PEVs may differ from the
modeling of BESS is that PEVs may exhibit stochastic behavior due to
the fact that they are operated by people. This is discussed further in
Section 3.3.2.
2.3.2. Other ESS models
Thermal energy storage systems (TESS) store thermal energy, as the
name suggests. In some cases, the energy is stored in a thermal tank
[101]. In others, a heat pump moves the energy from one place to
another within the microgrid [6]. They are represented with a thermal
balance (similar to a power balance or cooling energy balance [101]),
as well as by their “state of charge” [158]. Analogously to BESS, they
may not exceed maximum values of charge/discharge (100 and 0 per-
cent, respectively) at any point.
Hydrogen storage systems (HSS) are also modeled similarly to BESS,
since the level of hydrogen in storage (LOH) at any point is dependent
on the LOH at the previous time step [19]. Additionally, the tank may
not be filled past 100 percent capacity nor be further discharged once it
is completely empty.
2.4. Forecasting of load and renewable energy generation
One important aspect of microgrid modeling is the forecasting of
load and renewable energy generation. Forecasting is a well-studied
area, and many papers in the recent microgrid literature make use of
well-known and proven techniques. See Table 3 for a listing of different
forecasting techniques used in various studies [182] and [183] provide
detailed explanations and examples of forecasting techniques applied to
load forecasting and renewable energy forecasting, respectively. In
general, short-term forecasting techniques fall into four main cate-
gories: statistical, artificial intelligence, knowledge based expert sys-
tems, and hybrid.
One of the most commonly used statistical forecasting methods is
the autoregressive moving average (ARMA) and variations thereof. An
ARMA(p,q) process can be expressed as [56]
p q
yt = j yt j +
j=1
t
j =1
j t j
Table 3
Forecasting techniques used in the literature.
Forecasting Technique Load
Artificial Intelligence (ANN/Evolutionary Learning) [13,15,43,105,136,148,184]
Statistical Methods [7,56,129,137,138,146,163,57]
[59,67,102,107,108,122,128]
Other
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
in which p is the number of autoregressive parameters 1, 2 , , p and
q is the number of moving average parameters 1, 2 , , q . The term t
is the error term.
Another commonly used forecasting method is artificial neural
networks (ANN). ANNs are modeled after the basic principles of the
human brain. Neurons receive information, aggregate that information,
and produce an output based on the information. The most commonly
used type of ANN is the feed-forward network.
(20)
3. Microgrid control
Microgrid control is a complex and many-layered topic. The first
decisions a researcher or microgrid implementer must make are related
to the structure of the control architecture – whether it will be cen-
tralized, distributed, or somewhere in between; how the control hier-
archy will be arranged (if any exists); and whether the controller will
perform supply side management (such as voltage and frequency reg-
ulation) or demand side management, or both. As previously mentioned,
this review (and, therefore, the following sections) will focus exclusively
on studies that use microgrid energy management systems for demand
side management rather than supply side management. In Section 3.1
different control structures are reviewed, along with their advantages
and disadvantages. The second layer of microgrid control is the control
strategy. There are four main control strategies that appear in literature:
rule-based control (RBC), optimal control, agent-based modeling (ABM),
and model predictive control (MPC). Section 3.2 provides a description
of the major control strategies and describes their main features. Table 4
shows the distribution of these strategies throughout the reviewed stu-
dies. Finally, the innermost layer of microgrid control is the actual sol-
ving of optimization problems. This may be done through one of several
methods. The first and often simplest method is through traditional op-
timization. Some researchers employ metaheuristic methods or self-
learning methods. Still others use stochastic optimization to model un-
certainties in the data. Section 3.3 reviews several common optimization
methods, their features, advantages, disadvantages, and typical energy
savings resulting from their implementation.
3.1. Control structure
In the broadest sense, the goal of any microgrid control problem is
to minimize the overall operational cost of the microgrid while sa-
tisfying various constraints including occupant satisfaction, equipment
limitations, and grid reliability. The problem in its most general form is
expressed as follows:
min f (x , u)
j j
s. t . x X
u U (22)
where x contains the states of the various microgrid components, u
contains the control decisions to be made, and fi (x , u ) are the various
costs and penalties which should be minimized.
This section explores the various ways that a microgrid controller
(21) can be structured in order to most efficiently solve the problem (23).
Renewable Generation
[12,13,43,98,105,136,140,148]
[5,6,57,59,67,72,74,78,97,102,107,108,7,110,122,128]
[129,137,138,141,146,152,153,8,15,31,35,38,54,56]
[35]–Global Ensemble Forecasting System
[29]–Hourly Persistence Model
10
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
Table 4
Control strategies used in the literature.
Control Strategy Studies
Rule Based Control [3,19,31,33,36,155,156,163,166,168 169]–Fuzzy[186–191]
Optimal Control [5,6,49,54,57,64,76,78,104,106,112,125,11,138,143,146,165,12,16,20,37,38,43,45]
Multi-Agent Based Control [47,51,55,96,122,132,136,137,146,149,150,152,153,172,185]
Model Predictive Control [4,7,31–33,35,65,69,72,77,107,108,8,114,123,124,131,133,140,159,161,162,167,10,13,15,19,22,27,28]
3.1.1. Centralized vs. distributed
As the name suggests, a centrally controlled EMS gathers data from
all components into a central processing, computing, and controlling
unit. The central unit uses the input data to solve the optimization
problem; it outputs the optimal control decisions, and then the deci-
sions are transmitted to the various components of the EMS, where they
are implemented. In a distributed control scheme, multiple distributed
agents solve their own optimization problems without knowledge of the
other agents. Then, a central agent collects the individual solutions and
uses them to make centralized decisions, sending those centralized
decisions to the distributed agents for implementation. In a completely
decentralized control structure, different microgrid components make
localized control decisions without having access to data from all of the
other components. The difference between distributed and decen-
tralized control schemes is that in a decentralized control scheme, there
is no central agent to aggregate the local decisions and perform an
optimization over the whole system. Agent-based modeling typically
follows a decentralized control scheme, for instance. Each agent is
concerned only with making its own decisions to further its own in-
terests, and while different agents must necessarily interact with one
another, there is often no central optimizing agent. Rather, central
agents act as coordinators between the individual component agents.
Centralized control is well-suited for small microgrids with few
components. It is also easy to implement due to the fact that there is no
need for coordination or extensive communication among members.
However, centralized control has the disadvantage of having a single
point of failure, whereas distributed control is more resilient in that
regard. Additionally, the larger a microgrid grows, the more difficult it
becomes to incorporate new components into a central controller. For
large microgrids, the computational cost of complex optimization pro-
blems may also become an issue. For this reason, distributed and de-
centralized control structures are better suited to large systems with
many components, especially when the microgrid is expected to be
expanded in the future.
3.1.2. Hierarchies
Hierarchical microgrid control structures can be advantageous due
to the large number of functions the controller must perform, from
voltage and frequency control to short-term forecasting to commu-
nication with the grid to problem solving and making decisions.
However, there is a potential for introducing unnecessary complexity,
since different layers in a hierarchy must communicate with each other,
increasing the communications burden and possibly outweighing the
positive effects.
[130] presents a hierarchical control structure for multisource-
multiproduct microgrids. In the proposed EMS there are three layers –
the execution control layer (ECL), optimizing control layer (OCL), and
supervisory control layer (SuCL). The OCL generates the control tra-
jectory for the ECL; the ECL is responsible for implementing the control
decisions received from the OCL; and the SuCL is responsible for in-
terlayer coordination, soft switching between operational modes, and
control strategy selection. The proposed EMS enables the microgrid to
achieve significant cost savings.
[145] proposes a hierarchical framework to handle the uncertainty
of renewable energy sources and realize and economic generation
schedule for a microgrid. The proposed scheduling framework includes
11
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
two stages of scheduling – day-ahead and several hours-ahead. Each
scheduling stage contains two levels: the lower level finds a joint output
of the microgrid’s renewable energy and storage systems, which it
passes to the upper level. The upper level uses this information to op-
timally determine the generation schedule of dispatchable generators.
The final result of implementing the framework is a reliable schedule
and a total cost reduction.
Agent-based systems are hierarchically structured. Their use allows
the microgrid controller to perform many functions simultaneously in a
decentralized and therefore computationally light (relatively speaking)
manner [150] presents a multi-agent based hierarchical hybrid control
framework for a microgrid which is comprised of three levels (upper,
middle, lower). The lower level agents contains two layers, reactive and
deliberative. The reactive layer simply perceives and reacts to the en-
vironment. The deliberative layer has the ability to plan and control the
agent’s behaviors to achieve desired goals. The middle level comprises a
coordinated control agent whose goal is to switch between operational
modes to maintain secure voltages. The upper level comprises the en-
ergy management agent whose goal is to plan energy management
strategies in order to optimize the entire system. The presented control
scheme demonstrates the ability to maintain secure voltages as well as
maximize economical benefits for the microgrid.
Agent-based systems are described in more detail in Section 3.2.3.
3.2. Control strategies
In this section, the four main control strategies – rule-based control
(RBC), optimal control, agent-based control or multi-agent systems
(MAS), and model predictive control (MPC) – are discussed and com-
pared. Fig. 6 shows how these four control strategies compare to each
other in terms of complexity and effectiveness at achieving energy and
cost saving goals. In the figure, n is the number of microgrid compo-
nents present in the model.
The vast majority of studies use optimal and model predictive
control strategies, as shown in Fig. 7. Among those that use optimal
control, the most widely used problem formulation is mixed integer
linear programming (MILP). A few studies use nonlinear programming
(NLP), dynamic programming (DP), and linear programming (LP).
3.2.1. Rule based control
Rule-based control (RBC), also known as autonomous control, is a
static control strategy based on “IF–THEN” commands. Commercial
building automation systems typically use RBC. RBC is extremely
simple compared to other control schemes; EMS equipped with RBC are
not able to make any adaptive decisions. In [3], a RBC algorithm is used
in a home EMS with incorporated BESS. The smart HEMS is able to
optimize both the power usage and the occupants’ thermal comfort. The
control algorithm demonstrates cost savings of up to 20% compared to
baseline case. In other cases, however, such as [19], a RBC strategy is
shown to result in greater cost than other strategies.
[163] uses a complex RBC to explore the economic effects of dif-
ferent BESS parameters on a renewable energy microgrid [53] employs
RBC in a fast chiller DR strategy that achieves up to 66% demand re-
duction in the building with minimal disruption to the occupants’
thermal comfort level [169] uses a fuzzy logic based RBC to coordinate
the control of a BESS and several distributed generators, including a
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
Fig. 6. Comparison of control strategies.
Fig. 7. Distribution of control strategies.
wind turbine. The RBC demonstrates the ability to mitigate power
fluctuations at the PCC [23] uses a RBC strategy to coordinate the
charging of multiple PEVs which are integrated into a commercial
(office building) microgrid, decreasing the amount of energy needed to
charge PEVs at home. In [33], two different RBCs are compared with a
metaheuristic algorithm. The metaheuristic algorithm improves the
total energy costs by 10–20% with respect to the RBCs; it also outper-
forms the RBCs in terms of thermal comfort due to its intelligent use of a
“pre-cooling” strategy. [166] uses a complex RBC to coordinate the use
of a regenerative air energy storage (RAES) device together with a
diesel generator and wind turbine, with significant diesel fuel savings
and GHG emission reduction. [155,156] use a RBC known as a Petri Net
(also known as a place/transition net), in which predefined conditions
(places) lead to predefined events (transitions), to allow a BIMG EMS to
decide which operational mode to enter. [172] uses RBC within a MAS
structure. The battery agent uses rules, including fuzzy rules, to switch
between different states (charging, discharging, and standby).
In general, RBC strategies are preferable to having no controls
(baseline case), but they do not perform as well as other more advanced
strategies. They are inflexible when it comes to making intelligent de-
cisions based on dynamic situations. They are, however, easy to im-
plement due to their simplicity. As demonstrated in [3], RBC can be
well-suited to a HEMS for a single residence with very few DERs (in the
case study, the residence is equipped with a PV system and BESS only).
When it comes to more complex systems, however, RBC schemes are
unable to compete with more advanced strategies.
12
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
3.2.1.1. Homeostatic control – Intelligent, adaptive RBC. A notable
exception to the above generalizations about RBC is homeostatic
control. Homeostatic control has its basis in the biological concept of
homeostasis, in which an organism either maintains or tends toward an
equilibrium state. Specifically, it is “a relatively stable state of
equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different
but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism or
group” [186]. Homeostatic control is adaptive, employing both positive
and negative feedback to move the system to a state of equilibrium,
which may include batteries being charged to sufficient capacity,
indoor temperature remaining within a deadband, load consumption
not exceeding a certain value, etc. [187]. Several papers study such
advanced algorithms. [188] explores the potential of a homeostatically
controlled microgrid to provide power during natural disasters while
maintaining communications with other microgrids as well as
consumers. The authors of [189] simulated a grid-connected PV-wind
micro-generation system with a battery bank acting as an energy buffer
under an adaptive homeostatic regulation algorithm, demonstrating a
control algorithm that utilizes strategies requiring suppliers and
consumers to actively interact and cooperate. In [190], a grid-
connected hybrid microgeneration system is introduced which uses
merit-based criteria to make decisions about whether members
(residences) of a “sustainable block” are supplied with renewable
energy. This technique, which combines supply-side and demand-side
management strategies, helps to demonstrate the viability of microgrids
to achieve load management and energy efficiency without
implementing expensive energy storage. [191] introduces the
concepts of reactive homeostasis and predictive homeostasis. Reactive
homeostasis describes the immediate response of a sustainable hybrid
energy system to a homeostatic challenge, or loss of equilibrium – for
example, an energy imbalance – to restore equilibrium. Predictive
homeostasis refers to a system’s capability to predict an imbalance and
proactively send control signals to either prevent or mitigate that
imbalance. An energy system with these capabilities may help to reduce
the adverse effects of natural disasters on energy consumers and
provide a more resilient energy solution. The study also makes use of
exergy as a measure of the quality and efficiency of the energy being
produced and used by the microgrid, as shown in Fig. 8. [187] performs
a case study of a microgrid integrated with a university campus
building, including the thermal behavior of the building and system,
demonstrating the system’s ability to integrate with the main electricity
grid and work collaboratively with supplier’s and consumer’s needs to
optimize energy usage intelligently with the inclusion of battery energy
storage.
3.2.2. Optimal control
In optimal control, control decisions are made simply by solving an
optimization problem and implementing its optimal control result.
Often, optimization problems are solved within the context of a larger
control scheme, such as MPC. In many studies, however, they are solved
as standalone problems and used directly as the control method. See
Fig. 9 for the distribution of optimization types in the studied literature.
The goal of an optimization problem is to optimize (minimize or
maximize) an objective by varying the values of decision variables
while satisfying a set of constraints:
min f (x , u)
j j
s. t . x X
u U (23)
[84] provides an extensive review of optimization objectives, con-
straints, tools, and algorithms used in microgrid EMS.
3.2.2.1. Objectives. In virtually all of the reviewed studies that involve
optimization, the objective is to minimize the total operational cost of
the microgrid. This total cost can include many different components –
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
Fig. 8. An illustration of how homeostatic control mechanisms based on reactive and predictive homeostasis trigger a system’s sustainability stress response that
imposes a restraint over energy consumption of loads based on the energy supply being available in the SHES [191].
Fig. 9. Distribution of optimization types used in microgrid studies.
most commonly, the cost to purchase power from the grid. Other
included components may pertain to the cost of energy generation by
conventional means (e.g., fuel costs or startup/shutdown costs), energy
storage costs, and equipment maintenance costs. The objective can also
contain penalties for undesirable actions – for example, task
interruptions in a DR problem or multiple successive charge/
discharge cycles of a BESS. Table 5 summarizes the various objective
functions that appear in the reviewed microgrid literature.
3.2.2.1.1. Multi-objective optimization. Often, optimization problems
have more than one objective. In several studies, multi-objective
optimization (MO) is performed with GHG emissions being the second
objective [30,46,94,106]. In a few others, occupant thermal comfort is taken
as the second objective [42,104]. Multi-objective optimization is obviously
13
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
useful when there are two separate quantities of interest (e.g., total cost and
GHG emissions). However, the nature of MO is such that no single solution
exists which simultaneously optimizes every objective because the different
objectives often compete with each other. For instance, if the two objectives
are to minimize cost and maximize thermal comfort, a solution that increases
thermal comfort may indicate greater power usage and therefore greater
cost. This competition between objectives means that in a MO problem, a
decision must be made as to the relative importance of the objectives. To do
this, several studies (for example, [6,20,38]) include weighting factors in
their objective functions (a priori methods). The higher the weighting factor,
the more important it is to minimize that particular objective. Other studies
(for example, [42,46,49,94,97,105,106,177]) use a posteriori methods,
producing all Pareto optimal solutions and making the decision for the
best solution afterward.
3.2.2.2. Decision variables. Most optimization problems in the literature
take the amount of power taken from each dispatchable source as the
decision vector. In addition, most studies add the amount of power
requested from the grid at each time as a decision variable. In studies
that allow power injection into the grid, that injected power is another
decision variable. Other continuous decision variables include the
amount of power charged to or discharged from a battery, reactive
power support from RES and/or batteries, SOC of ESS, controllable
loads, and temperature setpoints.
In integer or mixed integer programming, some of the decision
variables may only take integer values. Usually these are used to indicate
the ON/OFF status of a component (for example, whether a battery or
PEV is in charging or discharging mode, if only one is allowed at a time)
[11]. Integer variables may also be used for generation scheduling (de-
ciding whether or not a DG unit is in use). Other binary decision vari-
ables include the status of the power exchange [5] (injection/request)
and the status of a controllable load, as in DR problems [11].
The more decision variables a problem has, the more complex it
becomes and the more computational time and power are required.
However, more decision variables also indicates more degrees of
freedom in a problem.
H. Fontenot and B. Dong Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689

3.2.2.3. Constraints. In a microgrid optimization problem, as in most

[3–6,11,20,27,28,30,35,42,47–49,52,104,106,107,109–112,131,158–160,162,165,178]
engineering optimization problems, many constraints arise from
physical requirements or limitations. For example, a battery
physically cannot store any more energy once it is fully charged; nor
can it discharge any energy once it is fully depleted. Another example is
the power balance constraint which is present in any energy exchange
problem. Simply put, the energy demand of a building must be equal to
the amount of energy purchased from the grid plus the amount of
energy provided by local sources. Similarly, problems which include
[4,6,7,19,20,27–29,42,48,49,52,112,113,158,162,165,174]

thermal demand and thermal generation must satisfy a thermal balance

constraint.
Constraints exist other than those imposed by physical realities. In
integer programming, the status variables are constrained to take on
only integer values. Batteries are often constrained to keep a “spinning
reserve” – that is, they may neither charge nor discharge to their full
[3,6,19,27,28,42,49,105,113,174]

physical capability. This is done to prolong battery life. In addition,

sometimes constraints are used to prevent rapid successive charge/
[4,7,19,20,27,42,165,178]

discharge cycles of a battery in order to avoid unnecessary degradation

[42,49,52,113,162,174]

[4,38].
Other constraints used in the literature include pricing constraints,
[4,29,47,162,165]

thermal comfort constraints, emissions penalties, storage penalties,

operational penalties, and the novel range anxiety penalty in [135].
Table 6 summarizes the various constraints found in the literature.
Studies

[6,48]

A problem’s constraints reflect the system model and must therefore

be numerous enough to capture all relevant information regarding the
model. However, if the problem is over-constrained, it may become
Penalty applied to limit number of charge/ discharge cycles a battery undergoes

infeasible; or, the feasibility set may become impractically small.

3.2.3. Agent-based control

A multi-agent system (MAS) is a collection of intelligent agents
which interact with each other in such a way that the entire system
learns and evolves toward a better solution. MAS are a well-developed
area of study in microgrid control. [80,81] provide thorough reviews of
MAS in microgrid control.
Total cost of energy purchased from the power grid

Penalty applied to limit total load curtailment time

In general, the word “agent” refers to a computer system that is

Penalty applied to limit temperature violations

placed in an environment that is capable of performing autonomous

Cost of operating DGs, including fuel costs

actions in this environment in order to achieve its design objectives

[51]. Agents may be reactive or deliberative, as discussed in Section
3.1.2. There are several different types of agents which are used in
Cost of GHG emissions of each DG

multi-agent based EMS controllers. These include controller agents,

central coordinator agents, RES agents, dispatchable DG agents, ESS
Cost of maintaining DGs

agents, load agents, grid agents, scheduler agent, building management

agents, market agents, frequency regulation agents, and others. These
agents communicate with each other to perform coordinate actions
such as scheduling events and making bids in auctions. Agents may also
perform complex calculations and make decisions.
Details

Agent-based models are useful in microgrid energy management

due to their autonomy and capacity for decentralized control. They may
be utilized in situations where a fully formulated optimization problem
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)

would be impractically complex, or where a full system model cannot

be known. They are fault-tolerant due to their decentralized control
scheme and the redundancy of their components. MAS also tend toward
(Cope, i + Cfuel,i )· PDG, i

solutions that are very nearly optimal, even if they cannot be proven to
Tbnd |2

be so in the technical sense.

Typical Equation

Cemi, i·EmDG,i
Ccycle·ncycle, i
i Cmnt , i·PDG, i

Ccurt ·tcurt ,i
i Ccom, i ·|Tin
Objective functions in the literature.

3.2.4. Model predictive control

C ·Pgrid, i

Model predictive control (MPC), also known as receding horizon

control, is a control strategy that relies completely on the dynamic
i

model of the system. Typically, the model used in MPC control schemes
is a linear dynamical model (see, for example, Section 2.1.1). MPC takes
Demand response cost
Energy purchase cost

as input the current state of the system, the system model, and outside
Battery aging cost
Maintenance cost
Operational cost

Comfort penalty

disturbances to the system and outputs the future state of the system. In
Emissions cost

optimization MPC problems, the system state is optimized over a pre-

Objective

diction horizon N , but only the first step of the optimal control is im-
Table 5

plemented. Then the horizon recedes by one step, the now-current state
and current and predicted disturbances are input into the model, and

14
 Table 6
Constraints in the literature.
H. Fontenot and B. Dong

Constraint Typical Equation Details Studies

Generation PDGi, min PDGi (t ) PDGi, max (32) DGs may not [3,4,42,47–49,52,64,69,74,110,112,5,113,115–118,151,152,154,166,6,11,20,27,28,30,35]
exceed their ratings
Building x (t + 1) = Ax (t ) + Bu (t ) + Ew (t ) (1) Building thermal [3,4,31,32,47,53]
dynamics model determines
the indoor
temperature
Battery ch·pch (t )· t (1 / dch ) pdch (t )· t (14) Battery SOC [3,4,74,111,154,166,7,11,19,20,28,35,47,49]
SOC (t ) = SOC (t t) +
Cbat Cbat changes according
to battery dynamics
Pch (t )·Pdch (t ) = 0 (15) No simultaneous
charging/
discharging
SOCmin SOC (t ) SOCmax (33) Spinning reserves
must be maintained
Operation DRDGi PDGi (t + 1) URDGi (12) Ramp-up/Ramp- [4,6,49,52,64,74,75,118,119,154,7,19,20,27–29,42,48]
down rates cannot
be exceeded
Demand 0 ift TiF (3) Shiftable tasks may [4,6,29,47,48,162,165]
Response TiF not start or stop
i (t ) = 0 ift < TiS i (t ) = DTi i (t ) i (t 1) i ( ); = 1, , t + DTi;t [TiS , TiF DTi]
TiS outside their given
0/1 otherwise

15
start/stop times;
they may not be
interrupted once
begun
Temperature Tin,min Tin (t ) Tin, max (34) Indoor temperature [4,29,47,162,165]
must remain within
comfort bounds
Power Pgrid (t ) = Pload (t ) Pgen (t ) (35) Total power [3,4,42,47–49,52,64,69,74,110,112,5,113,115–118,151,152,154,166,6,11,20,27,28,30,35]
balance generated from
DERs and
purchased from
grid must equal
total demand
Energy Qgen (t ) = Qdemand (t ) (36) Total heat [3,4,29,31,32,47,53,162,165]
balance generated must
equal total heat
demand
Power Pinj (t )·Preq (t ) = 0 (37) No simultaneous [28,121,135]
exchange injection and
request of power
to/from grid
Line limit Pinj (t ) + Preq (t ) Pline (38) Power flow to/from [51,162]
grid may not
exceed line ratings
Electric EV (21) Range anxiety [135]
w W EV
t Uw KwRA (1 SOCtEV
, w )·Nw
vehicle informs PEV
charging schedule
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
the optimization problem is solved again. The general form of an MPC
problem is
t+N
min J = =t+1
f (x ( ), u ( ), y ( ))
s. t . x X
u U
x (t + 1) = Ax (t ) + Bu (t ) + Ew (t )
y ( t ) = C x (t )
Because it optimizes the system over a prediction horizon and not
simply the next control step, MPC has the advantage of taking into
account the future state of the system and future disturbances when
making control decisions for the current next step. It has the ability to
anticipate future events and act on that foreknowledge in the present.
MPC is widely used in microgrid control. Among the reviewed studies
which used MPC, there was an average cost savings of 20% and GHG
emissions reduction of 27% [4,6,7,10,19,22,27,28,31,32,35,88,91,118,
161,170,178,192].
3.2.4.1. Occupancy-based MPC. One disadvantage of model predictive
control is that it is only as good as the model which is put into it. Very
few studies in the current literature incorporate occupancy models into
their control structures. In [4], the indoor temperature bounds are
varied depending on the occupancy status of the building. In [33], each
of the modeled building types (residential, commercial, industrial) has
a different occupancy pattern, resulting in a scenario where each
building has different energy needs. While the incorporation of
occupancy-based MPC (OB-MPC) in building-integrated microgrids is
still an emerging field of study, OB-MPC is extensively employed in
standalone building control. Mirakhorli and Dong [193] provide a
comprehensive review of modeling and control methods for OB-MPC
for indoor building climate control. The methods reviewed in [193]
may be adopted into BIMG research without much difficulty.
3.3. Optimization methods
Optimization methods generally fall into one of several categories:
classical, metaheuristic, and stochastic. Classical methods include linear
and nonlinear programming, integer programming, and dynamic pro-
gramming. They can often be guaranteed to find a global optimum (in
the case of convex optimization problems), and they can do so quite
quickly in some cases. Metaheuristics are self-learning methods which
search a large solution space for possible optimal solutions. While there
is no guarantee that a metaheuristic will find a global optimum for a
problem, they can often find good solutions in less time and with less
computational effort than classical optimization methods.
Stochastic programming is employed in order to model and study
the effects of uncertainty in the system’s input data. The most common
uncertainties studied in microgrid literature are, understandably, load
(power demand) and renewable energy generation. [5,161] use sto-
chastic programming to model the uncertainty in electric vehicle op-
eration.
Table 7 provides a summary of various optimization problem types
and solution methods, with Fig. 8 showing the distribution of these
methods. The different methods are discussed below.
Table 7
Optimization types used in the literature.
Problem Type Studies
LP [120]
MILP [5–7,10–12,19,20,22,25,27,28,30,35,38,42,44,45,47,49,54,86,88,92,101,105,106,116,128,129,131,133,135,138,147,158,170,173,174,179]
MIP [41,87,100,136]
NLP [4,48,97]
MINLP [8,13,26,32,37,104,115,121,126,141,142,165]
Dynamic Programming [111]
Stochastic Programming [5,8,24,27,28,37,49,54,56,94,95,99,102,104,109,112,129,133,139,142,160–162,167]
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
3.3.1. Classical methods
3.3.1.1. Linear programming. In a linear program (LP), a linear
objective function is minimized over a set of decision variables within
a set of linear constraints. LPs are the simplest type of optimization
problem. They are easy to formulate and easy to solve; numerous LP
solvers already exist (for example, MATLAB’s linprog). Computational
effort and time are minimal, and global optimization is guaranteed.
(24) However, the main disadvantage of LPs is also their simplicity. They are
limited to cost functions and constraints which are linear in the decision
variables. This naturally precludes their use in any but the most
simplified problems. Since virtually all microgrid component and
system models are nonlinear (often highly so), LPs are not well suited
to this type of research. In fact, only a single study out of all those
analyzed in this review uses plain continuous-variable LP [120].
Approximately thirty percent use mixed integer linear programming
(MILP, or sometimes MIP), which is an LP in which some of the decision
variables are constrained to take integer values only. These studies
show an average cost savings of 23% and 63% emissions reduction
when compared to baseline cases.
The standard form of an LP is as follows:
minf ( )
s. t .
h ( ) = 0,
g( ) 0 (25)
where is the decision vector, f ( ) is the objective function, h ( ) is the
set of equality constraints, and g ( ) is the set of inequality constraints.
3.3.1.2. Nonlinear programming. In a nonlinear program (NLP), neither
the objective function nor the constraints need be linear with respect to
the decision variables. NLPs can considerably more difficult to solve
than LPs, especially if the objective and constraints are nonconvex. In
addition, for some NLPs, there is no guarantee of a globally optimal
solution being found. However, they are able to represent more
complex relationships and models than LPs. Approximately ten
percent of reviewed papers employ nonlinear programming.
A special case of NLP is the quadratic program (QP). A QP is an NLP
in which the objective function is quadratic. If the objective function is
quadratic and the constraints are linear (or quadratic), then the pro-
blem is a linearly (quadratically) constrained QP, or LCQP (QCQP), and
due to the convexity of such a problem, general methods of convex
optimization may be used to solve it.
As with linear programming, NLPs may include integer variables. In this
case, the problem becomes a mixed integer nonlinear program, or MINLP.
The formulation of a NLP or MINLP is structured similarly to an LP (40).
3.3.1.3. Dynamic programming. In a dynamic program (DP), a complex
optimization problem is broken down into simpler subproblems in a
recursive manner. In the case of a microgrid, where each system state
depends on the previous state, the subproblems may be solved backward,
beginning with the final (known) state, until the initial (desired
unknown) state is solved. Dynamic programming has the advantage of
flexibility. It may be used for linear or nonlinear programs; it may
include continuous or integer variables. Additionally, it is well suited to
16
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
problems with multiple stages of decisions. Finally, a DP can guarantee
global optimality. However, due to its flexibility, there is no general
formulation of a DP. Every problem must be formulated and solved in its
own way when dynamic programming is employed. [111] uses DP to
solve the microgrid scheduling problem. Additionally, [194] proposes a
background processor called the Energy Box which manages home
energy usage by using DP to balance cost minimization with thermal
comfort as specified by consumer preferences.
3.3.2. Stochastic programming
Stochastic programming incorporates random variables into optimiza-
tion problems in order to account for uncertainties in model data. In the
reviewed literature, stochastic programs (SPs) are utilized to account for
uncertainties in load demand, renewable energy generation, and electricity
pricing (the latter is not reviewed here). Many studies, approximately
sixteen percent of the reviewed literature, use stochastic programming (see
Table 7). Average cost savings of using stochastic programming over de-
terministic is 44%; average emissions reduction is 40%.
Stochastic optimization works by modeling the uncertain quantity
as a random variable for which the probability density function is
known or may be estimated. This random variable must then be in-
corporated into the optimization problem formulation. There are sev-
eral techniques for stochastic programming in the literature. In a two-
stage SP, the problem is written in a way similar to LPs and NLPs. The
controller optimizes the first stage LP and yields an optimal control
vector; then a random event occurs which requires the controller to
make a recourse decision.
In scenario-based stochastic programming, many possible future
scenarios are constructed based on the known characteristics of the
uncertain quantities. The scenarios are then reduced to a manageable
size and a robust optimization procedure, in which the optimization is
performed under the assumption that the worst-case scenario will
occur, takes place. In chance-constrained optimization, the problem is
formulated using chance constraints. These are constraints which re-
quire the other constraints to be met with a certain probability.
Stochastic programming carries the obvious advantage of being able
to take into account uncertain future values of input data variables. In
nearly every case study reviewed here, stochastic optimization out-
performs deterministic solutions. The main disadvantage of stochastic
programming is the computational intensity.
3.3.3. Metaheuristics
A metaheuristic is a high-level procedure which is designed to find
methods which may lead to “good enough” solutions to optimization
problems. Metaheuristics are extremely useful in situations where not
all the information about a system is known, or where the solution set
to a problem is impractically large. For both of these reasons, meta-
heuristics are used often in the realm of microgrid research.
Metaheuristics do have a disadvantage: they cannot guarantee an op-
timal solution. Nevertheless, because they usually find a sufficiently
good solution with less time and computational effort than some other
more rigorous methods and because microgrid energy management
problems are often complex enough to justify solutions that are “good
enough” rather than globally optimal, metaheuristics are used quite
often. The most commonly used methods are described below.
3.3.3.1. Population-based methods. Population-based metaheuristics are
very widely used in large-scale optimization problems, especially in
nonlinear and stochastic problems. This is because population-based
algorithms start with a large “population”, or group of potential
solutions. Through different self-adaptive methods, the solver moves
through consecutive iterations until it finds a local optimum. Often,
population-based methods are able to converge to a solution very close
to the global optimum. Population-based metaheuristic algorithms
include evolutionary algorithms, which in turn include genetic
algorithms, all of which are seen in the literature.
17
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
The most commonly used population-based method is particle swarm
optimization (PSO). In PSO, the solver begins with a population of po-
tential solutions to an optimization problem (or, a swarm of particles).
These particles each move around the solution search space according to
mathematical equations that govern their position and velocity, always
seeking to improve their solution. The particles share information with
each other; therefore the entire swarm is able to learn from itself and
move toward better solutions until convergence is reached. [26,46,
52,93,97,99,103,104,107,117,122,123,134,144,147,160,162]
Some other nature-inspired population-based metaheuristic
methods used in the literature are dolphin echolocation optimization,
which mimics hunting strategies used by dolphins [124]; artificial bee
colony algorithm, which is based on the foraging behavior of a swarm
of bees[21,43,113]; bacteria foraging optimization, which is inspired
by the group foraging behavior of bacteria [140,177]; cuckoo optimi-
zation algorithm, which mimics the brooding parasitism exhibited by
cuckoos [138]; firefly algorithm, which is based on the behavior of
fireflies which attract a mate by flashing light [139,154]; and gravita-
tional search algorithm, which models the way differently sized masses
move about each other [95].
3.3.3.2. Evolutionary algorithms. As previously mentioned, evolutionary
algorithms (EAs) are a subset of population-based algorithms.
Evolutionary algorithms, as their name suggests, take their inspiration
from biological evolution. They use mechanisms such as reproduction,
mutation, recombination, and selection. They begin with a population
of candidate solutions, and a fitness function is applied to the solutions
to determine their quality. The population then evolves using the
previously mentioned methods. Evolutionary algorithms include
techniques such as genetic algorithms and differential evolution
[14,16,19,25,29,38,98,115,159,176].
4. Conclusions and future directions
One of the greatest challenge facing researchers who study building-
integrated microgrids is uncertainty. Renewable energy generation and
occupancy behavior are inherently uncertain and therefore make the
optimal scheduling of tasks and resources more difficult. Another
challenge to researchers comes in the form of model complexity. The
more complex a model, the better the accuracy and the greater the
computational and communication burdens. Additionally, deeper in-
tegration of smart meter data raises concerns for customer privacy and
microgrid security. While communication, privacy, and security are
outside the scope of this paper, they are nonetheless essential aspects of
microgrid research and should continue to be explored and developed.
Several future research directions are evident when it comes to
building-integrated microgrids. These are the incorporation of advanced
occupancy models, further development of agent-based modeling, and
building-to-grid integration. Advanced occupancy models are already in
use in building control literature. As they are integrated into microgrid
models, researchers will be better equipped to optimize energy usage,
economic gain, and thermal comfort simultaneously. In addition, by using
new sensing paradigms like Sensing by Proxy, researchers may gain the
ability to incorporate real-time occupancy states into energy management
controllers. As microgrid models become more and more complex, the
need for flexible and reliable optimization strategies will become more
pronounced. Agent-based modelling may be capable of easily in-
corporating the needs of the grid, the buildings, the occupants, and the
market into a single control structure, as well as making it a simple matter
to add more agents as they are added to the microgrid. Finally, continuing
to integrated buildings, microgrids, and the power distribution grid will
provide a way for the increasing power demands of society to be met
without overtaxing existing infrastructure and without a drastic increase in
costs, benefiting energy suppliers and consumers alike.
This paper presents a survey of the literature on the modeling, op-
timization, and control of building-integrated microgrids. The most
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
commonly utilized models for loads, distributed energy generation,
energy storage systems, and forecasts are presented and compared.
Control structures and strategies including rule-based control, optimal
control, agent-based modeling, and model predictive control are re-
viewed in detail. Optimization techniques are explored and compared,
including classical methods, metaheuristics, and stochastic program-
ming. The current state of the art is identified, as well as current
challenges and research gaps. This paper is intended to be used as a
foundation for researchers in determining where to direct their future
efforts in the area of building-integrated microgrids.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by CPS Energy and the U.S. National
Science Foundation through NSF #1845650 “CAREER: Holistic
Assessment of the Impacts of Connected Buildings and People on
Community Energy Planning and Management”.
References
[1] IRENA. Renewable Energy Statistics 2018.
[2] Program SGR& D. DOE Microgrid Workshop Report. San Diego: 2011.
[3] Shakeri M, Shayestegan M, Abunima H, Reza SMS, Akhtaruzzaman M, Alamoud
ARM, et al. An intelligent system architecture in home energy management sys-
tems (HEMS) for efficient demand response in smart grid. Energy Build
2017;138:154–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.026.
[4] Cai J, Jin X, Zhang H. Economic model-based control of sustainable buildings with
photovoltaic (PV) and battery systems considering battery degradation costs. Am
Control Conf 2018.
[5] Thomas D, Deblecker O, Ioakimidis CS. Optimal operation of an energy manage-
ment system for a grid-connected smart building considering photovoltaics’ un-
certainty and stochastic electric vehicles’ driving schedule. Appl Energy
2018;210:1188–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.035.
[6] Jin M, Feng W, Liu P, Marnay C, Spanos C. MOD-DR: microgrid optimal dispatch
with demand response. Appl Energy 2017;187:758–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.11.093.
[7] Mazzola S, Vergara C, Astolfi M, Li V, Perez-Arriaga I, Macchi E. Assessing the
value of forecast-based dispatch in the operation of off-grid rural microgrids.
Renew Energy 2017;108:116–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.040.
[8] Sachs J, Sawodny O. A two-stage model predictive control strategy for economic
diesel-PV-battery island microgrid operation in rural areas. IEEE Trans Sustain
Energy 2016;7:903–13.
[9] Hossain E, Kabalci E, Bayindir R, Perez R. Microgrid testbeds around the world:
state of art microgrid testbeds around the world : state of art. Energy Convers
Manag 2014;86:132–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.012.
[10] Parisio A, Rikos E, Tzamalis G, Glielmo L. Use of model predictive control for
experimental microgrid optimization. Appl Energy 2014;115:37–46. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.027.
[11] Nan S, Zhou M, Li G. Optimal residential community demand response scheduling
in smart grid. Appl Energy 2018;210:1280–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2017.06.066.
[12] Comodi G, Giantomassi A, Severini M, Squartini S, Ferracuti F, Fonti A, et al.
Multi-apartment residential microgrid with electrical and thermal storage devices:
experimental analysis and simulation of energy management strategies. Appl
Energy 2015;137:854–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.068.
[13] Garcia-torres F, Bordons C. Optimal economical schedule of hydrogen-based mi-
crogrids with hybrid storage using model predictive control. IEEE Trans Ind
Electron 2015;62:5195–207.
[14] Zhao B, Zhang X, Li P, Wang K, Xue M, Wang C. Optimal sizing, operating strategy
and operational experience of a stand-alone microgrid on Dongfushan Island. Appl
Energy 2014;113:1656–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.015.
[15] Palma-behnke R, Benavides C, Lanas F, Severino B, Reyes L, Llanos J, et al. A
microgrid energy management system based on the rolling horizon strategy. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2013;4:996–1006.
[16] Zhao B, Zhang X, Chen J, Wang C, Guo L. Operation optimization of standalone
microgrids considering lifetime characteristics of battery energy storage system.
IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2013;4:934–43.
[17] Jin M, Bekiaris-Liberis N, Weekly K, Spanos CJ, Bayen AM. Occupancy detection
via environmental sensing. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 2018;15:443–55. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2016.2619720.
[18] Jung J, Villaran M. Optimal planning and design of hybrid renewable energy
systems for microgrids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;75:180–91. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.061.
[19] Li B, Roche R, Miraoui A. Microgrid sizing with combined evolutionary algorithm
and MILP unit commitment. Appl Energy 2017;188:547–62. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.038.
[20] Liu G, Starke M, Xiao B, Zhang X, Tomsovic K. Microgrid optimal scheduling with
chance-constrained islanding capability. Electr Power Syst Res 2017;145:197–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.01.014.
[21] Safamehr H, Rahimi-kian A. A cost-efficient and reliable energy management of a
18
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
micro-grid using intelligent demand-response program. Energy 2015;91:283–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.051.
[22] Parisio A, Rikos E, Glielmo L. A model predictive control approach to microgrid
operation optimization. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 2014;22:1. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TCST.2013.2295737.
[23] Van Roy J, Leemput N, Geth F, Buscher J, Salenbien R, Driesen J. Electric vehicle
charging in an office building microgrid with distributed energy resources. IEEE
Trans Sustain Energy 2014;5:1389–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2014.
2314754.
[24] Cardoso G, Stadler M, Siddiqui A, Marnay C, Deforest N, Barbosa-Póvoa A, et al.
Microgrid reliability modeling and battery scheduling using stochastic linear
programming. Electr Power Syst Res 2013;103:61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsr.2013.05.005.
[25] Guo L, Liu W, Cai J, Hong B, Wang C. A two-stage optimal planning and design
method for combined cooling, heat and power microgrid system. Energy Convers
Manag 2013;74:433–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.051.
[26] Mao M, Jin P, Chang L, Xu H. Economic analysis and optimal design on microgrids
with SS-PVs for industries. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2014;5:1328–36.
[27] Petrollese M, Valverde L, Cocco D, Cau G, Guerra J. Real-time integration of op-
timal generation scheduling with MPC for the energy management of a renewable
hydrogen-based microgrid. Appl Energy 2016;166:96–106. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.014.
[28] Parisio A, Rikos E, Glielmo L. Stochastic model predictive control for economic/
environmental operation management of microgrids: an experimental case study. J
Process Control 2016;43:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.04.008.
[29] Neves D, Brito MC, Silva CA. Impact of solar and wind forecast uncertainties on
demand response of isolated microgrids. Renew Energy 2016;87:1003–15. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.075.
[30] Bolívar Jaramillo L, Weidlich A. Optimal microgrid scheduling with peak load
reduction involving an electrolyzer and flexible loads. Appl Energy
2016;169:857–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.096.
[31] Bruni G, Cordiner S, Mulone V, Sinisi V, Spagnolo F. Energy management in a
domestic microgrid by means of model predictive controllers. Energy
2016;108:119–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.004.
[32] Zhao Y, Lu Y, Yan C, Wang S. MPC-based optimal scheduling of grid-connected low
energy buildings with thermal energy storages. Energy Build 2015;86:415–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.019.
[33] Korkas CD, Baldi S, Michailidis I, Kosmatopoulos EB. Occupancy-based demand
response and thermal comfort optimization in microgrids with renewable energy
sources and energy storage. Appl Energy 2016;163:93–104. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.140.
[34] Korkas CD, Baldi S, Michailidis I, Kosmatopoulos EB. Intelligent energy and
thermal comfort management in grid-connected microgrids with heterogeneous
occupancy schedule. Appl Energy 2015;149:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2015.01.145.
[35] Craparo E, Karatas M, Singham DI. A robust optimization approach to hybrid
microgrid operation using ensemble weather forecasts. Appl Energy
2017;201:135–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.068.
[36] Wang B, Sechilariu M, Locment F. Intelligent DC microgrid with smart grid com-
munications: control strategy consideration and control. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2012;3:2148–56.
[37] Zakariazadeh A, Jadid S, Siano P. Smart microgrid energy and reserve scheduling
with demand response using stochastic optimization. Int J Electr Power Energy
Syst 2014;63:523–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.037.
[38] Nemati M, Braun M, Tenbohlen S. Optimization of unit commitment and economic
dispatch in microgrids based on genetic algorithm and mixed integer linear pro-
gramming. Appl Energy 2018;210:944–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2017.07.007.
[39] Honarmand M, Zakariazadeh A, Jadid S. Integrated scheduling of renewable
generation and electric vehicles parking lot in a smart microgrid. Energy Convers
Manag 2014;86:745–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.044.
[40] Balijepalli VSKM, Pradhan V, Khaparde SA, Shereef RM. Review of demand re-
sponse under smart grid paradigm. IEEE PES Innov Smart Grid Technol 2011.
[41] Aghaei J, Alizadeh M. Multi-objective self-scheduling of CHP (combined heat and
power) - based microgrids considering demand response programs and ESSs (en-
ergy storage systems). Energy 2013;55:1044–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2013.04.048.
[42] Wang L, Li Q, Ding R, Sun M, Wang G. Integrated scheduling of energy supply and
demand in microgrids under uncertainty: a robust multi-objective optimization
approach. Energy 2017;130:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.115.
[43] Marzband M, Azarinejadian F, Savaghebi M, Guerrero JM. An optimal energy
management system for islanded microgrids based on multiperiod artificial bee
colony combined with Markov chain. IEEE Syst J 2017;11:1712–22.
[44] Tasdighi M, Ghasemi H, Rahimi-Kian A. Residential microgrid scheduling based on
smart meters data and temperature dependent thermal load modeling. Early
Acce:1–9 IEEE Trans Smart Grid2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2013.
2261829.
[45] Zhang D, Shah N, Papageorgiou LG. Efficient energy consumption and operation
management in a smart building with microgrid. Energy Convers Manag
2013;74:209–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.04.038.
[46] Aghajani GR, Shayanfar HA, Shayeghi H. Presenting a multi-objective generation
scheduling model for pricing demand response rate in micro-grid energy man-
agement. Energy Convers Manag 2015;106:308–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.08.059.
[47] Anvari-Moghaddam A, Rahimi-Kian A, Mirian MS, Guerrero JM. A multi-agent
based energy management solution for integrated buildings and microgrid system.
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
Appl Energy 2017;203:41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.007.
[48] Nwulu NI, Xia X. Optimal dispatch for a microgrid incorporating renewables and
demand response. Renew Energy 2017;101:16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.08.026.
[49] Tabar VS, Jirdehi MA, Hemmati R. Energy management in microgrid based on the
multi objective stochastic programming incorporating portable renewable energy
resource as demand response option. Energy 2017;118:827–39. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.113.
[50] Xue X, Wang S, Sun Y, Xiao F. An interactive building power demand management
strategy for facilitating smart grid optimization. Appl Energy 2014;116:297–310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.064.
[51] Basir Khan MR, Jidin R, Pasupuleti J. Multi-agent based distributed control ar-
chitecture for microgrid energy management and optimization. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;112:288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.01.011.
[52] Rabiee A, Sadeghi M, Aghaeic J, Heidari A. Optimal operation of microgrids
through simultaneous scheduling of electrical vehicles and responsive loads con-
sidering wind and PV units uncertainties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;57:721–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.041.
[53] Xue X, Wang S, Yan C, Cui B. A fast chiller power demand response control
strategy for buildings connected to smart grid. Appl Energy 2015;137:77–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.084.
[54] Mazidi M, Zakariazadeh A, Jadid S, Siano P. Integrated scheduling of renewable
generation and demand response programs in a microgrid. Energy Convers Manag
2014;86:1118–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.06.078.
[55] Ramachandran B, Srivastava SK, Cartes DA. Expert systems with applications in-
telligent power management in micro grids with EV penetration. Expert Syst Appl
2013;40:6631–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.007.
[56] Alipour M, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Zare K. Stochastic scheduling of renewable and
CHP-based microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Informatics 2015;11:1049–58. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TII.2015.2462296.
[57] Electricity ’ Prosumers ’. 2016.
[58] Brahman F, Honarmand M, Jadid S. Optimal electrical and thermal energy man-
agement of a residential energy hub, integrating demand response and energy
storage system. Energy Build 2015;90:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2014.12.039.
[59] Sheikhi A, Bahrami S, Ranjbar AM. An autonomous demand response program for
electricity and natural gas networks in smart energy hubs. Energy 2015;89:490–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.109.
[60] Rastegar M, Fotuhi-firuzabad M, Lehtonen M. Home load management in a re-
sidential energy hub. Electr Power Syst Res 2015;119:322–8. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.epsr.2014.10.011.
[61] Bahrami S, Sheikhi A. From demand response in smart grid toward integrated
demand response in smart energy hub. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2016;7:650–8.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2015.2464374.
[62] Orehounig K, Evins R, Dorer V. Integration of decentralized energy systems in
neighbourhoods using the energy hub approach. Appl Energy 2015;154:277–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.114.
[63] Rastegar M, Fotuhi-firuzabad M, Zareipour H, Moeini-Aghtaie M. A probabilistic
energy management scheme for renewable-based residential energy hubs. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2017;8:2217–27.
[64] Hazyuk I, Ghiaus C, Penhouet D. Optimal temperature control of intermittently
heated buildings using model predictive control: part II - control algorithm. Build
Environ 2012;51:388–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.008.
[65] Dong B, Yan D, Li Z, Jin Y, Feng X, Fontenot H. Modeling occupancy and behavior
for better building design and operation—a critical review. Build Simul
2018;11:899–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0452-x.
[66] Kumar KP, Saravanan B. Recent techniques to model uncertainties in power gen-
eration from renewable energy sources and loads in microgrids – a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;71:348–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.063.
[67] Hirsch A, Parag Y, Guerrero J. Microgrids: a review of technologies, key drivers,
and outstanding issues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:402–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.040.
[68] Madaeni SH, Sioshansi R. Measuring the benefits of delayed price-responsive de-
mand in reducing wind-uncertainty costs. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2013;28:4118–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2258689.
[69] Hansen J, Knudsen J, Annaswamy AM. Demand response in smart grids : parti-
cipants, challenges, and a taxonomy. 53rd IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, IEEE 2014. p.
4045–52. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2014.7040018.
[70] Wang J, Jing Y, Zhang C, Zhao J. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in
sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2263–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
[71] Nasirov S, Agostini C, Silva C, Caceres G. Renewable energy transition : a market -
driven solution for the energy and environmental concerns in Chile. Clean Technol
Environ Policy 2018;20:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-017-1434-x.
[72] Grágeda M, Escudero M, Alavia W, Ushak S, Fthenakis V. Review and multi-cri-
teria assessment of solar energy projects in Chile. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;59:583–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.149.
[73] Su W, Wang J. Energy management systems in microgrid operations. Electr J
2012;25.
[74] Meng L, Riva E, Luna A, Dragicevic T, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. Microgrid su-
pervisory controllers and energy management systems : a literature review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1263–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.
003.
[75] Gu W, Wu Z, Bo R, Liu W, Zhou G, Chen W, et al. Modeling, planning and optimal
energy management of combined cooling, heating and power microgrid: a review.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;54:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.
19
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
2013.06.028.
[76] Yazdanian M, Mehrizi-sani A. Distributed control techniques in microgrids. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2014;5:2901–9.
[77] Soshinskaya M, Crijns-Graus WHJ, Guerrero JM, Vasquez JC. Microgrids: experi-
ences, barriers and success factors. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:659–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.198.
[78] Olivares DE, Mehrizi-Sani A, Etemadi AH, Cañizares CA, Iravani R, Kazerani M,
et al. Trends in microgrid control. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2014;5:1905–19. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2013.2295514.
[79] Kantamneni A, Brown LE, Parker G, Weaver WW. Survey of multi-agent systems
for microgrid control. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2015;45:192–203. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.engappai.2015.07.005.
[80] Khan MW, Wang J. The research on multi-agent system for microgrid control and
optimization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:1399–411. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2017.05.279.
[81] Coelho VN, Weiss Cohen M, Coelho IM, Liu N, Guimarães FG. Multi-agent systems
applied for energy systems integration: state-of-the-art applications and trends in
microgrids. Appl Energy 2017;187:820–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2016.10.056.
[82] Lu Y, Wang S, Shan K. Design optimization and optimal control of grid-connected
and standalone nearly/net zero energy buildings. Appl Energy 2015;155:463–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.007.
[83] Fathima AH, Palanisamy K. Optimization in microgrids with hybrid energy sys-
tems - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:431–46. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2015.01.059.
[84] Ahmad Khan A, Naeem M, Iqbal M, Qaisar S, Anpalagan A. A compendium of
optimization objectives, constraints, tools and algorithms for energy management
in microgrids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:1664–83. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2015.12.259.
[85] Zia MF, Elbouchikhi E, Benbouzid M. Microgrids energy management systems: a
critical review on methods, solutions, and prospects. Appl Energy
2018;222:1033–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.103.
[86] De Angelis F, Boaro M, Fuselli D, Squartini S, Piazza F, Wei Q. Optimal home
energy management under dynamic electrical and thermal constraints. IEEE Trans
Ind Inform 2013;9:1518–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2230637.
[87] Costanzo GT, Zhu G, Anjos MF, Savard G. A system architecture for autonomous
demand side load management in smart buildings. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2012;3:2157–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2012.2217358.
[88] Zhang Y, Zhang T, Wang R, Liu Y, Guo B. Optimal operation of a smart residential
microgrid based on model predictive control by considering uncertainties and
storage impacts. Sol Energy 2015;122:1052–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2015.10.027.
[89] Mirakhorli A, Dong B. Occupant-behavior driven appliance scheduling for re-
sidential buildings. Build Simul 2017;10:917–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12273-017-0402-z.
[90] Conti S, Nicolosi R, Rizzo SA, Zeineldin HH. Optimal dispatching of distributed
generators and storage systems for MV islanded microgrids. IEEE Trans Power
Deliv 2012;27:1243–51.
[91] Dagdougui H, Minciardi R, Ouammi A, Robba M, Sacile R. Modeling and optimi-
zation of a hybrid system for the energy supply of a “green” building. Energy
Convers Manag 2012;64:351–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.05.
017.
[92] Kriett PO, Salani M. Optimal control of a residential microgrid. Energy
2012;42:321–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.049.
[93] Kyriakarakos G, Dounis AI, Arvanitis KG, Papadakis G. A fuzzy logic energy
management system for polygeneration microgrids. Renew Energy
2012;41:315–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.019.
[94] Niknam T, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Narimani MR. An efficient scenario-based
stochastic programming framework for multi-objective optimal micro-grid op-
eration. Appl Energy 2012;99:455–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.
04.017.
[95] Niknam T, Golestaneh F, Malekpour A. Probabilistic energy and operation man-
agement of a microgrid containing wind/photovoltaic/fuel cell generation and
energy storage devices based on point estimate method and self-adaptive grav-
itational search algorithm. Energy 2012;43:427–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2012.03.064.
[96] Pipattanasomporn M, Feroze H, Rahman S. Securing critical loads in a PV-based
microgrid with a multi-agent system. Renew Energy 2012;39:166–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.049.
[97] Moghaddam AA, Seifi A, Niknam T, Alizadeh Pahlavani MR. Multi-objective op-
eration management of a renewable MG (micro-grid) with back-up micro-turbine/
fuel cell/battery hybrid power source. Energy 2011;36:6490–507. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.017.
[98] Chen C, Duan S, Cai T, Liu B, Hu G. Smart energy management system for optimal
microgrid economic operation. IET Renew Power Gener 2011;5:258–67. https://
doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2010.0052.
[99] Kyriakarakos G, Dounis AI, Rozakis S, Arvanitis KG, Papadakis G. Polygeneration
microgrids : a viable solution in remote areas for supplying power, potable water
and hydrogen as transportation fuel. Appl Energy 2011;88:4517–26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.05.038.
[100] Guan X, Xu Z, Jia QS. Energy-efficient buildings facilitated by microgrid. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2010;1:243–52. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2010.2083705.
[101] Gu W, Wang Z, Wu Z, Luo Z, Tang Y, Wang J. An online optimal dispatch schedule
for CCHP microgrids based on model predictive control. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2017;8:2332–42.
[102] Velarde P, Valverde L, Maestre JM, Ocampo-martinez C, Bordons C. On the
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
comparison of stochastic model predictive control strategies applied to a hy-
drogen-based microgrid. J Power Sources 2017;343:161–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jpowsour.2017.01.015.
[103] Abedini M, Moradi MH, Hosseinian SM. Optimal management of microgrids in-
cluding renewable energy scources using GPSO-GM algorithm. Renew Energy
2016;90:430–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.014.
[104] Bornapour M, Hooshmand RA, Khodabakhshian A, Parastegari M. Optimal co-
ordinated scheduling of combined heat and power fuel cell, wind, and photo-
voltaic units in micro grids considering uncertainties. Energy 2016;117:176–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.072.
[105] Coelho VN, Coelho IM, Coelho BN, Weiss M, Reis AJR, Silva SM, et al. Multi-
objective energy storage power dispatching using plug-in vehicles in a smart-mi-
crogrid. Renew Energy 2016;89:730–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.
11.084.
[106] Deihimi A, Keshavarz Zahed B, Iravani R. An interactive operation management of
a micro-grid with multiple distributed generations using multi-objective uniform
water cycle algorithm. Energy 2016;106:482–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2016.03.048.
[107] Elsied M, Oukaour A, Gualous H, Lo Brutto OA. Optimal economic and environ-
ment operation of micro-grid power systems. Energy Convers Manag
2016;122:182–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.05.074.
[108] Garcia-torres F, Valverde L, Bordons C. Optimal load sharing of hydrogen-based
microgrids with hybrid storage using model-predictive control. IEEE Trans Ind
Electron 2016;63:4919–28.
[109] Hu M, Lu S, Chen Y. Stochastic programming and market equilibrium analysis of
microgrids energy management systems. Energy 2016;113:662–70. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.061.
[110] Kamankesh H, Agelidis VG, Kavousi-Fard A. Optimal scheduling of renewable
micro-grids considering plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging demand. Energy
2016;100:285–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.063.
[111] Khalid M, Ahmadi A, Savkin AV, Agelidis VG. Minimizing the energy cost for
microgrids integrated with renewable energy resources and conventional gen-
eration using controlled battery energy storage. Renew Energy 2016;97:646–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.042.
[112] Najibi F, Niknam T, Kavousi-Fard A. Optimal stochastic management of renewable
MG (micro-grids) considering electro-thermal model of PV (photovoltaic). Energy
2016;97:444–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.122.
[113] Roy K, Mandal KK, Mandal AC. Modeling and managing of micro grid connected
system using improved artificial bee colony algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy
Syst 2016;75:50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.08.003.
[114] Thomas D, Deblecker O, Ioakimidis CS. Optimal design and techno-economic
analysis of an autonomous small isolated microgrid aiming at high RES penetra-
tion. Energy 2016;116:364–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.09.119.
[115] Zhang J, Wu Y, Guo Y, Wang B, Wang H, Liu H. A hybrid harmony search algo-
rithm with differential evolution for day-ahead scheduling problem of a microgrid
with consideration of power flow constraints. Appl Energy 2016;183:791–804.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.035.
[116] Alharbi W, Raahemifar K. Probabilistic coordination of microgrid energy resources
operation considering uncertainties. Electr Power Syst Res 2015;128:1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.06.010.
[117] Alavi SA, Ahmadian A, Aliakbar-Golkar M. Optimal probabilistic energy man-
agement in a typical micro-grid based-on robust optimization and point estimate
method. Energy Convers Manag 2015;95:314–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.02.042.
[118] Bracco S, Delfino F, Pampararo F, Robba M, Rossi M. A dynamic optimization-
based architecture for polygeneration microgrids with tri-generation, renewables,
storage systems and electrical vehicles. Energy Convers Manag 2015;96:511–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.013.
[119] Bruni G, Cordiner S, Mulone V, Rocco V, Spagnolo F. A study on the energy
management in domestic micro-grids based on model predictive control strategies.
Energy Convers Manag 2015;102:50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2015.01.067.
[120] Gupta RA, Gupta NK. A robust optimization based approach for microgrid op-
eration in deregulated environment. Energy Convers Manag 2015;93:121–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.008.
[121] Izadbakhsh M, Gandomkar M, Rezvani A, Ahmadi A. Short-term resource sche-
duling of a renewable energy based micro grid. Renew Energy 2015;75:598–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.043.
[122] Karavas C, Kyriakarakos G, Arvanitis KG, Papadakis G. A multi-agent decen-
tralized energy management system based on distributed intelligence for the de-
sign and control of autonomous polygeneration microgrids. Energy Convers
Manag 2015;103:166–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.021.
[123] Li P, Xu D, Zhou Z, Lee W, Zhao B. Stochastic optimal operation of microgrid based
on chaotic binary particle swarm optimization. 1 1 IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2015;7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2015.2431072.
[124] Najibi F, Niknam T. Stochastic scheduling of renewable micro-grids considering
photovoltaic source uncertainties. Energy Convers Manag 2015;98:484–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.037.
[125] Pascual J, Barricarte J, Sanchis P, Marroyo L. Energy management strategy for a
renewable-based residential microgrid with generation and demand forecasting.
Appl Energy 2015;158:12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.040.
[126] Rezvani A, Gandomkar M, Izadbakhsh M, Ahmadi A. Environmental/economic
scheduling of a micro-grid with renewable energy resources. J Clean Prod
2015;87:216–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.088.
[127] Shi W, Xie X, Chu C, Gadh R. Distributed optimal energy management in micro-
grids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2015;6.
20
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
[128] Silvente J, Kopanos GM, Pistikopoulos EN, Espuña A. A rolling horizon optimi-
zation framework for the simultaneous energy supply and demand planning in
microgrids. Appl Energy 2015;155:485–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2015.05.090.
[129] Talari S, Yazdaninejad M, Haghifam M. Stochastic-based scheduling of the mi-
crogrid operation including wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, energy storages and
responsive loads. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2015;9:1498–509. https://doi.org/10.
1049/iet-gtd.2014.0040.
[130] Xu X, Jia H, Wang D, Yu DC, Chiang HD. Hierarchical energy management system
for multi-source multi-product microgrids. Renew Energy 2015;78:621–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.039.
[131] Zhang Y, Wang R, Zhang T, Liu Y, Guo B. Model predictive control-based opera-
tion management for a residential microgrid with considering forecast un-
certainties and demand response strategies. IET Gener Transm Distrib
2016;10:2367–78. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.1127.
[132] Zhao B, Xue M, Zhang X, Wang C, Zhao J. An MAS based energy management
system for a stand-alone microgrid at high altitude. Appl Energy
2015;143:251–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.016.
[133] Cau G, Cocco D, Petrollese M, Knudsen S, Milan C. Energy management strategy
based on short-term generation scheduling for a renewable microgrid using a
hydrogen storage system. Energy Convers Manag 2014;87:820–31. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.07.078.
[134] Hakimi SM, Moghaddas-Tafreshi SM. Optimal planning of a smart microgrid in-
cluding demand response and intermittent renewable energy resources. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2014;5:2889–900.
[135] Igualada L, Corchero C, Cruz-Zambrano M, Heredia F-J. Optimal energy man-
agement for a residential microgrid including a vehicle-to-grid system. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2014;5:2163–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2014.2318836.
[136] Kuznetsova E, Li YF, Ruiz C, Zio E. An integrated framework of agent-based
modelling and robust optimization for microgrid energy management. Appl
Energy 2014;129:70–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.024.
[137] Mao M, Jin P, Hatziargyriou ND, Chang L. Multiagent-based hybrid energy man-
agement system for microgrids. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2014;5:938–46.
[138] Mohammadi S, Mohammadi A. Stochastic scenario-based model and investigating
size of battery energy storage and thermal energy storage for micro-grid. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;61:531–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.
03.041.
[139] Mohammadi S, Soleymani S, Mozafari B. Scenario-based stochastic operation
management of microgrid including wind, photovoltaic, micro-turbine, fuel cell
and energy storage devices. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;54:525–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.08.004.
[140] Motevasel M, Seifi AR. Expert energy management of a micro-grid considering
wind energy uncertainty. Energy Convers Manag 2014;83:58–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2014.03.022.
[141] Olivares DE, Cañizares CA, Kazerani M. A centralized energy management system
for isolated microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2014;5:1864–75.
[142] Su W, Wang J, Roh J. Stochastic energy scheduling in microgrids with. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2014;5:1876–83.
[143] Wang R, Wang P, Xiao G, Gong S. Electrical power and energy systems power
demand and supply management in microgrids with uncertainties of renewable
energies. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;63:260–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijepes.2014.05.067.
[144] Wu H, Liu X, Ding M. Dynamic economic dispatch of a microgrid: mathematical
models and solution algorithm. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;63:336–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.002.
[145] Wu X, Wang X, Qu C. A hierarchical framework for generation scheduling of
microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2014;29:2448–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPWRD.2014.2360064.
[146] Zhang L, Gari N, Hmurcik LV. Energy management in a microgrid with distributed
energy resources. Energy Convers Manag 2014;78:297–305. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2013.10.065.
[147] Baziar A, Kavousi-Fard A. Considering uncertainty in the optimal energy man-
agement of renewable micro-grids including storage devices. Renew Energy
2013;59:158–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.03.026.
[148] Chaouachi A, Kamel RM, Andoulsi R, Nagasaka K. Multiobjective intelligent en-
ergy management for a microgrid. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2013;60:1688–99.
[149] Colson CM, Nehrir MH. Comprehensive real-time microgrid power. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2013;4:617–27.
[150] Dou C-X, Liu B. Multi-agent based hierarchical hybrid control for smart microgrid.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2013;4:771–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2012.
2230197.
[151] Jiang Q, Xue M, Geng G. Energy management of microgrid in grid-connected and
stand-alone modes. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2013;28:3380–9.
[152] Kremers E, Gonzalez De Durana J, Barambones O. Multi-agent modeling for the
simulation of a simple smart microgrid. Energy Convers Manag 2013;75:643–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.07.050.
[153] Kyriakarakos G, Piromalis DD, Dounis AI, Arvanitis KG, Papadakis G. Intelligent
demand side energy management system for autonomous polygeneration micro-
grids. Appl Energy 2013;103:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.
011.
[154] Mohammadi S, Mozafari B, Solimani S, Niknam T. An adaptive modified firefly
optimisation algorithm based on Hong’s point estimate method to optimal op-
eration management in a microgrid with consideration of uncertainties. Energy
2013;51:339–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.12.013.
[155] Sechilariu M, Wang B, Locment F. Building integrated photovoltaic system with
energy storage and smart grid communication. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
H. Fontenot and B. Dong
2013;60:1607–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.2222852.
[156] Sechilariu M, Wang B, Locment F. Building-integrated microgrid: advanced local
energy management for forthcoming smart power grid communication. Energy
Build 2013;59:236–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.039.
[157] Bae S, Kwasinski A. Dynamic modeling and operation strategy for a microgrid with
wind and photovoltaic resources. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3:1867–76. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2012.2198498.
[158] Silvente J, Papageorgiou LG. An MILP formulation for the optimal management of
microgrids with task interruptions. Appl Energy 2017;206:1131–46. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.147.
[159] Elsied M, Oukaour A, Youssef T, Gualous H, Mohammed O. An advanced real time
energy management system for microgrids. Energy 2016;114:742–52. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.048.
[160] Jabbari-Sabet R, Moghaddas-Tafreshi SM, Mirhoseini SS. Microgrid operation and
management using probabilistic reconfiguration and unit commitment. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2016;75:328–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.09.
012.
[161] Kou P, Liang D, Gao L, Gao F. Stochastic coordination of plug-in electric vehicles
and wind turbines in microgrid: a model predictive control approach. IEEE Trans
Smart Grid 2016;7:1537–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2015.2475316.
[162] Moghaddas Tafreshi SM, Ranjbarzadeh H, Jafari M, Khayyam H. A probabilistic
unit commitment model for optimal operation of plug-in electric vehicles in mi-
crogrid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;66:934–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.08.013.
[163] Wang C, Liu Y, Li X, Guo L, Qiao L, Lu H. Energy management system for stand-
alone diesel-wind-biomass microgrid with energy storage system. Energy
2016;97:90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.099.
[164] Xiang Y, Liu J, Liu Y. Robust energy management of microgrid with uncertain
renewable generation and load. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2016;7:1034–43.
[165] Yang Z, Wu R, Yang J, Long K. Economical operation of microgrid with various
devices via distributed optimization. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2016;7:857–67.
[166] Manchester SC, Swan LG, Groulx D. Regenerative air energy storage for remote
wind – diesel micro-grid communities. Appl Energy 2015;137:490–500. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.070.
[167] Olivares DE, Lara JD, Cañizares CA, Kazerani M. Stochastic-predictive energy
management system for isolated microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2015;6:2681–93.
[168] Tedesco F, Mariam L, Basu M, Casavola A, Conlon MF. Economic model predictive
control-based strategies for cost-effective supervision of community microgrids
considering battery lifetime. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron
2015;3:1067–77.
[169] Zhao H, Wu Q, Wang C, Cheng L, Rasmussen CN. Fuzzy logic based coordinated
control of battery energy storage system and dispatchable distributed generation
for microgrid. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 2015;3:422–8. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40565-015-0119-x.
[170] Prodan I, Zio E. A model predictive control framework for reliable microgrid en-
ergy management. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;61:399–409. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.03.017.
[171] Han J, Solanki SK, Solanki J. Coordinated predictive control of a wind/battery
microgrid system. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron 2013;1:296–305.
[172] Yoo C-H, Chung I-Y, Lee H-J, Hong S-S. Intelligent control of battery energy sto-
rage for multi-agent based microgrid energy management. Energies
2013;6:4956–79. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6104956.
[173] Paolone M, Menon RP, Mar F. Intra-day electro-thermal model predictive control
for polygeneration systems in microgrids. Energy 2016;104:308–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.081.
[174] Zhang D, Evangelisti S, Lettieri P, Papageorgiou LG. Economic and environmental
scheduling of smart homes with microgrid : DER operation and electrical tasks.
Energy Convers Manag 2016;110:113–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2015.11.056.
21
Applied Energy 254 (2019) 113689
[175] Wang R, Wang P, Xiao G. A robust optimization approach for energy generation
scheduling in microgrids. Energy Convers Manag 2015;106:597–607. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.066.
[176] Basu AK. Microgrids: planning of fuel energy management by strategic deploy-
ment of CHP-based DERs - an evolutionary algorithm approach. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2013;44:326–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.07.059.
[177] Motevasel M, Seifi AR, Niknam T. Multi-objective energy management of CHP
(combined heat and power)-based micro-grid. Energy 2013;51:123–36. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.035.
[178] Pereira M, Limon D, Muñoz de la Peña D, Valverde L, Alamo T. Periodic economic
control of a nonisolated microgrid. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2015;62:5247–55.
[179] Prodan I, Zio E, Stoican F. Fault tolerant predictive control design for reliable
microgrid energy management under uncertainties. Energy 2015;91:20–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.009.
[180] Zhang M, Chen J. The energy management and optimized operation of electric
vehicles based on microgrid. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2014;29:1427–35. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2303492.
[181] Jin X, Vora A, Hoshing V, Saha T, Shaver G, Wasynczuk O, et al. Applicability of
available Li-ion battery degradation models for system and control algorithm
design. Control Eng Pract 2018;71:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.
2017.10.002.
[182] Srivastava AK, Pandey AS, Singh D. Short-term load forecasting methods: a re-
view. 2016 Int Conf Emerg Trends Electr Electron Sustain Energy Syst
2016:130–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETEESES.2016.7581373.
[183] Morales JM, Conejo AJ, Madsen H, Pinson P, Zugno M. Integrating Renewables in
Electricity Markets 2014;205. Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9411-9.
[184] Coelho VN, Coelho IM, Coelho BN, Reis AJR, Enayatifar R, Souza MJF, et al. A self-
adaptive evolutionary fuzzy model for load forecasting problems on smart grid
environment. Appl Energy 2016;169:567–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.02.045.
[185] Eddy YSF, Gooi HB, Chen SX. Multi-agent system for distributed management of
microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2015;30:24–34.
[186] Cannon W. Organization for Physiological Homeostasis. Physiol Rev 1929;IX.
[187] Parejo A, Sanchez-squella A, Barraza R, Yanine F, Barrueto-guzman A, Leon C.
Design and simulation of an energy homeostaticity system for electric and thermal
power management in a building with smart microgrid. Energies 2019;12. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en12091806.
[188] Cordova FM, Yanine FF. Homeostatic control of sustainable energy grid applied to
natural disasters. Int J Comput Commun Control 2013;8:50–60.
[189] Yanine F, Cordova F. Homeostatic control in grid-connected micro generation
power systems : a means to adapt to changing scenarios while preserving energy
sustainability. Int Renew Sustain Energy Conf 2013;2013:525–30. https://doi.org/
10.1109/IRSEC.2013.6529647.
[190] Yanine FF, Caballero FI, Sauma EE, Córdova FM. Homeostatic control, smart
metering and ef fi cient energy supply and consumption criteria : a means to
building more sustainable hybrid micro-generation systems. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;38:235–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.078.
[191] Yanine F, Sanchez-squella A, Cordova F, Barrueto A, Sahoo SK. Engineering sus-
tainable energy systems : how reactive and predictive homeostatic control can
prepare electric power systems environmental challenges. Procedia Comput Sci
2017;122:439–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.391.
[192] Gong C, Wang X, Xu W, Tajer A. Distributed real-time energy scheduling in smart
grid : stochastic model and fast. Optimization 2013;4:1476–89.
[193] Mirakhorli A, Dong B. Occupancy behavior based model predictive control for
building indoor climate—a critical review. Energy Build 2016;129:499–513.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.036.
[194] Livengood DJ. The energy box: comparing locally automated control strategies of
residential electricity consumption under uncertainty. Massachusetts Inst Technol
2011.