Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

A Multi-Objective Fuzzy Optimization Model for Electricity Generation and

Consumption Management in a Micro Smart Grid
Yahya Mohammadi a, Hamed Shakouri G． b, Aliyeh Kazemi c, *
a
Department of Industrial Management, University of Tehran, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran
b
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
c
Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This manuscript proposes an intelligent supply and demand management system in a complete network of
Smart building electricity production and consumption. A micro smart grid (MSG), which includes a solar cell, a wind turbine, a
Micro smart grid diesel generator, and battery storage system capable of trading energy with the smart gride (SG), connected to
Multi-objective optimization, Fuzzy inference
smart buildings with different types of loads is modelled. Different types of intelligent fuzzy controllers for
system
distributed management were proposed and optimized via the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II
(NSGAII), which is a multi-objective optimization method. Maximum user comfort, the amount of renewable
energy employment, minimum total power consumption cost, total energy consumption at peak time, and MSG
loss of power supply probability are the five objective functions of the optimization process. Various un­
certainties of the real world have also been considered. The most crucial distinguishing feature of this proposed
method is the design of controllers to manage the demand and supply of electricity without the need for daily
optimization. Comparison experiments with other methods presented in the field of electricity supply and de­
mand management are conducted to show the superiority of this method in terms of optimality of the results, low
processing volume required to implement real controllers, and its resilience to changing conditions.

1. Introduction have grown disproportionately with electrical networks. The lack of

As one of the most vital categories in the world, energy is not limited
within the boundaries of welfare, economy, and science. Instead, it has
passed to political realms causing a worldwide conflict of interests.
Unprecedented attention towards this issue has become a significant
policy for countries. Hence, the survival or annihilation of societies
depends on the access and security of energy resources (Pachauri et al.,
2013).
The concept of decentralized load control in smart buildings is an
emerging topic that has recently attracted researchers. There are a few
works addressing the issue while considering the consumers’ satisfac­
tion that shows a high value regarding practicability of the designed
system (Nguyen and Funabashi, 2019). This paper is extending the
concept to optimized fuzzy controllers applied to energy management in
three types of smart prosumer (producer-consumer) buildings.
Since the structure and fundamentals of power grids have not been
modified noticeably from the beginning of the 20th century to the pre­
ceding decades, global consumers’ current conditions and requirements
proper measurement, monitoring, data exchange, and intelligent control
equipment is well understood in different parts of such networks (Gel­
lings, 2009). Therefore, smart electrical grids were introduced to over­
come these shortcomings (Siano, 2014). A smart grid (SG) includes a
bi-directional communication infrastructure between the supplier and
the consumer, enabling the consumers to modify their consumption
patterns in terms of cost, time, or maximal network consumption. On the
other hand, the electrical network supplier will manage the balance
between production and consumption according to the network’s pro­
duction and consumption conditions or events.
The recent scientific and technological advancements, the trans­
mission and distribution expenditures, and environmental conditions
have led to the introduction of distributed electrical energy networks.
Distributed production is the procedure of production and storage of
small amounts of electrical energy close to the consumption grids
(Zareipour et al., 2004). With developments in distributed production,
micro smart grid networks (MSGs) were introduced (Wolsink, 2012). In
MSGs, a combination of distributed energy production systems is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aliyehkazemi@ut.ac.ir (A. Kazemi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104119
Received 19 February 2022; Received in revised form 11 July 2022; Accepted 7 August 2022
Available online 13 August 2022
2210-6707/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Mohammadi et al.
utilized, considering geographical territories, applications, and power
requirements. In the meantime, consumers are also ineffective and have
bi-directional communication with the MSG network. They manage
energy consumption according to the network status and pre-defined
legislations, using intelligent measuring and control equipment
(Hafez and Bhattacharya, 2012). Since the MSG networks perform better
consumption management and employ renewable energy resources,
they have reduced the cost of electricity generation while providing
better environmental adaptation. On the other hand, as such networks
have more consistent and precise interaction with the consumers, they
are more adapted to their requirements (Osmani and Zhang, 2014).
With the emersion of MSGs providing localized interactions between
consumers and the networks, the consumers have become significant
contributors to the networks, and thus, smart buildings were manifested.
A smart building can control its resources and systems according to pre-
defined schedules and the exterior status of the building to achieve
maximum energy optimization (Stimmel, 2015).
The cases addressed in this article are several smart facilities used as
residential buildings, hotels, and commercial establishments, with a
central smart management system that manages all electrical and me­
chanical facilities. This smart control system is responsible for managing
different energy resources according to the requirements defined by the
operator. It is assumed that these facilities are in close vicinity and in­
tegrated into one MSG. In this MSG, various types of generators are
integrated. Moreover, the MSG network is interconnected with the SG
network and can exchange bi-directional electricity. In addition, we are
confronted with uncertainty on both sides of the network. The proposed
method in this study is based on employing controllers capable of allo­
cating power and choosing the appropriate resource according to
different criteria. The contribution of the research is threefold:
First, we define a complete system including different types of smart
buildings, which are connected to an MSG, and bidirectional trade op­
portunity with an SG is possible.
Second, we consider uncertainty on both the consumer and pro­
duction sides, which better simulates the reality.
Third, unlike the studies that directly utilize the power allocated to
the loads, we develop fuzzy controllers for managing different parts of
this system.
In the following, the related literature and the theoretical back­
ground of power management in smart buildings and SG optimization
are reviewed in Section 2. Then, mathematical models for smart build­
ings and MSG are defined in detail (Section 3). Next, the objective
functions of the optimization problem are described in Section 4. The
uncertainties considered in this study, including the ones on the con­
sumer and the generator side, are explained in Section 5. In Section 6,
experimental results are presented, and the proposed method is
compared with the power-based strategy in two different modeling
scenarios with one and three smart buildings, respectively. Eventually, a
summary and conclusion of the study are represented in Section 7.
2. Theoretical Background
We categorized the previous papers from different aspects: uncer­
tainty consideration, system components included in the modeling, and
problem-solving methodology.
2.1. Uncertainty Consideration
Since there are uncertainties in measurements such as weather, user
demand, and electricity prices in the real world, some researchers have
focused on this issue. Sun and Wang (2022) presented a multi-objective
optimization dispatching method to optimize the output power of
distributed generators of a micro-grid considering uncertainty in wind
power forecasting, aiming to minimize the operational cost and
pollutant emission. An adaptive confidence interval was proposed to
deal with uncertainty in wind power forecasting. In addition, based on
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
deterministic wind power forecasting, a model was developed to fore­
cast a probabilistic interval for the wind power. Akbari et al. (2020)
proposed a hybrid robust-stochastic optimization model for smart home
energy management. They concentrated on the uncertainties of energy
prices and photovoltaic (PV) generation in a smart home. Nizami et al.
(2020) used a framework for bi-directional electricity trading of demand
response and transactive energy in a residential system. They used a
stochastic bi-level minimization model regarding price uncertainty and
proposed a scheduling and bidding strategy.
Yu et al. (2020) considered market price uncertainty in the energy
management of a wind-PV-storage grid. They provided a robust opti­
mization technique for a large electricity consumer. Zhang et al. (2020)
assumed the demand for energy as an uncertain parameter. They pre­
dicted the residential energy demand considering the behavior of energy
users and their interaction with buildings and available technologies.
Agent-based modeling was adopted to generate uncertain demand sce­
narios. The uncertain demand scenarios were used to input an estab­
lished stochastic mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model.
Moghaddas-Tafreshi et al. (2019) proposed a day-ahead forecasting
model to estimate a micro-grid network’s electrical and thermal loads. A
day-ahead forecast was also used to determine electricity generation
from wind turbines. Due to the uncertainty associated with forecasts, a
Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate thermal loads, electrical
loads, and wind power generation.
2.2. System Components
Some articles only focused on smart buildings and suggested solu­
tions such as user satisfaction, demand management, and cost reduction.
(Oprea et al., 2019). Other articles have chosen an independent MSG as
the problem. In most of these articles, different electricity generators are
located in a small geographic area to supply electricity to a place far
from the infrastructure of the electricity supply network. These include
PV generators, wind generators, fuel cells, diesel generators, gas
microturbines, battery storage systems, and hybrid systems like com­
bined heat and power plants (CHP) (Sedighzadeha et al., 2019).
Some researchers considered an MSG system connected to an SG
system. The MSG can buy or sell electricity from SG (Motalleb et al.,
2018). Smart buildings connected to an MSG were a problem for some
research. The smart building was assumed to be capable of controlling or
modifying the energy consumption of an MSG, including various gen­
erators such as solar, wind, and fossil (Harkouss et al., 2017).
2.3. Problem-solving Methodology
Many articles have been published to address issues such as demand
management, user welfare, cost reduction, environmental pollutants
reduction, reliability enhancement, and other noticeable problems in
smart buildings, MSG, and SG. We categorized these studies into
different groups.
2.3.1. Mixed-integer Linear Programming
Most of the studies in power management in smart buildings have
employed MILP optimization algorithms. For example, Gomes and
Melicio (2021) designed a support management system for the man­
agement and operation planning of a microgrid by the new electricity
market agent, the microgrid aggregator. The aggregator performed the
management of microturbines, wind and PV systems, energy storage,
electric vehicles, and energy usage, aiming to have the best market
participation. This model had a formulation based on a stochastic MILP
problem that depended on knowledge of the stochastic processes that
describe the uncertain parameters. A set of plausible scenarios computed
by Kernel Density Estimation sets the characterization of the random
variables. However, as commonly happen, a scenario reduction was
necessary to avoid the need to have significant computational re­
quirements due to the high degree of uncertainty. The scenario
Y. Mohammadi et al.
reduction carried out was a two-tier procedure, following a K-means
clustering technique and a fast backward scenario reduction method.
De Oliveira et al. (2011) proposed various mathematical models to
perform energy management in a residential building and considered
comfort and the cost of energy as the two functions to be optimized using
MILP. Parisio et al. (2011) optimized a smart home connected to an MSG
to provide the required energy demand, consider the operational con­
straints, and reduce the total energy expenses. Kriett et al. (2012) pro­
posed an MILP-based model to minimize the expenditures in a
residential micro-network connected to an SG network. Huber et al.
(2013) used an MILP algorithm to reduce the cost of electricity in a
residential complex equipped with small CHP units and PV cells.
Zhang et al. (2013) emphasized that most energy-consuming tasks
are not time-sensitive; instead, they can be carried out consecutively in
different buildings with careful planning. Zhang et al. (2014) proposed a
mathematical formulation to optimize the energy distribution between
smart homes with MSG, which was optimized using lexicographic
minimax and MILP. Zakariazadeh et al. (2014) proposed a random en­
ergy planning method for MSGs that considered all scenarios for con­
sumer demand response. In their proposed approach, various types of
consumers, such as residential, commercial, and industrial were
modeled.
2.3.2. Dynamic Programming
Some studies employed dynamic programming (DP) to optimize
energy consumption in smart homes and power utilization in SGs (Reka
and Ramesh, 2016). For instance, Nguyen et al. (2009) used a DP to
optimize an MSG model with renewable energy resources. Their model
included a CHP, a PV array, an air turbine, a fuel cell, and a heat load
(boiler). Mitra et al. (2005) optimized a microgrid model concerning the
expenditures and reliability constraints using a DP-based methodology.
Nguyen and Crow (2012) employed a dynamic optimization method
based on DP and the simplex method to perform power planning in an
MSG. Park et al. (2019) proposed optimal energy management of a direct
current (DC) microgrid system using DP to reduce the complexity of the
problem. Jafari et al. (2019) used a predictive 2D dynamic programming
for microgrid management in grid-connected and off-grid operation
modes.
2.3.3. Multi-objective Optimization
In most the articles whose concern is optimal power management in
smart buildings and SG optimization, only one objective function is
witnessed, and it generally is the cost of energy. However, MSG-
connected smart homes have other significant objectives, such as com­
fort, the proportion of utilizing renewable energy, and indoor air qual­
ity. Therefore, many works have adopted multi-objective strategies.
(Khalid et al., 2018). For instance, Ullah and Hafeez (2021) developed
an energy optimization model to optimize the smart microgrid’s per­
formance by reducing operating costs and pollution emissions and
maximizing availability using renewable energy sources (RES). To
resolve uncertainty and non-linearity of RES, a hybrid scheme of de­
mand response programs and incline block tariff with the participation
of industrial, commercial, and residential consumers was introduced. An
energy optimization strategy based on multi-objective wind-driven
optimization and multi-objective genetic algorithms was utilized to
optimize the objective functions. Das and Mandal (2021) proposed a
framework for optimal microgrid scheduling, which minimized the cost
of generating units and emissions. The particle swarm optimization
(PSO) technique was employed to solve this problem. Weighting factors
were used for optimization in a multi-objective framework, where costs
and emissions were minimized simultaneously.
Hemeid et al. (2021) proposed a hybrid microgrid renewable energy
system that included PV and wind energy systems, battery banks, and a
conventional diesel generator to meet the energy requirements in a
remote area located in a city in Egypt. Optimization of electricity cost,
renewable factor, and loss of power supply probability formed the main
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
objective functions. Peng et al. (2022), proposed a micro multi-strategy
multi-objective artificial bee colonyartificial bee colony (ABC) algo­
rithm to solve microgrid energy optimization problem. Based on the
consumer psychology principle and game theory, Lu and Zhang (2021)
constructed a non-cooperative Stackelberg model to study the demand
response characteristics of multi-type users. The model quantified the
impact of grid load fluctuation on the benefits of the power company
and users’ satisfaction with electricity consumption.
Among the earlier research, Harkouss et al. (2017) solved a
multi-objective optimization problem to design a net-zero energy
building in a cold-weather region in Lebanon. To achieve optimization,
they applied the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II)
optimization method. Shakouri and Kazemi (2017) proposed an energy
management framework for minimizing electrical peak load and elec­
tricity cost simultaneously. They defined daily energy requirements and
consumer preferences as constraints and used the goal programing
technique to solve the multi-objective MILP problem.
Safaei et al. (2015) proposed a life-cycle model for a smart building
connected to an MSG. The model included various energy resources
consisting of PV solar panels, thermal solar cells, conventional boilers,
and electric generators. They employed a multi-objective optimization
method. The objective was to minimize the sum of non-renewable en­
ergy used in the building, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, acidifica­
tion, eutrophication, and the required energy costs together. This
multi-objective linear programming (MOLP) problem was solved while
satisfying the power demand of the building. Ma et al. (2016) proposed a
multi-objective model for an SG connected to several smart buildings.,
They employed a method based on non-cooperative game theory to
optimize the proposed multi-objective model. In this study, the existence
of the Nash equilibrium point in the presented game model was proven.
An iterative solution method was applied to find the equilibrium point.
Ferrari et al. (2017) proposed a modeling method for prosumers (i.e.,
the consumers who are also capable of producing their energy demand).
They used a genetic algorithm (GA)-based multi-objective optimization
to optimize the production and load for these customers to minimize the
expenses while providing their demand. Huang et al. (2019) formulated
a demand response problem as a mixed integer non-linear programming
(MINLP) problem leading to a nondeterministic polynomial time hard
(NP-hard) problem. A global optimization approach that combined a
PSO algorithm with sequential quadratic programming (SQP) local
optimizer was proposed to solve this problem.
Jamshidimonfared et al. (2019) proposed a hybrid price-based de­
mand response (HPDR) strategy. This strategy was implemented in the
day-ahead scheduling of a residential microgrid. Liang et al. (2019)
presented a multi-objective power management problem considering
demand response in a microgrid. The multi-objective problem consisted
of four conflicting objective functions: the average efficiency function of
the diesel generation unit, the emission of microgrid, the dissatisfaction
caused by demand response, and the total profit function. A distributed
neuro-dynamic algorithm was proposed for each objective optimization
problem.
Guliashki et al. (2019) presented a methodology for energy efficiency
optimization for buildings connected in microgrids. The initial invest­
ment costs for the building and the energy costs were optimized while
the environmental pollution was minimized simultaneously. A
bi-criterion optimization problem was formulated, and a multi-objective
genetic algorithm solved it.
Qin et al. (2019) selected an integrated energy system combined with
the power grid, natural gas pipeline, district heating network, and
renewable energy generation to enhance the integration of renewable
energy and smooth the load demand profile. They constructed a
multi-objective robust optimization model for the integrated energy
system based on minimizing the fuel cost, the wind power curtailment,
and the variance of peak-valley electrical load on the end-user side, as
the objection functions. a PSO algorithm was utilized to solve the
mentioned model.
Y. Mohammadi et al.
Table 1 shows the different aspects of problem definition based on
the literature review.
2.4. Problem Statement
The first issue in a smart building is optimizing energy consumption
by various equipment and facilities. We should also consider several
parameters such as temperature, lighting and air quality for the welfare
of people in the building. A combination of distributed generation sys­
tems including a diesel generator, solar cells, a wind turbine, and energy
storage batteries is considered in the form of an MSG network connected
to the SG network to cover different dimensions of the research. Due to
the dependence of renewable energy sources on the region’s climate, the
amount of energy produced by these systems changes randomly over
time. Furthermore, the time of energy production by renewable energy
sources is not necessarily equal to the consumption pattern. In addition,
reducing system operating costs, reducing environmental pollutants,
increasing system reliability, responding to consumer requests, and
managing energy storage in batteries should be considered in managing
such an MSG system. The MSG system, on the other hand, is connected
to the SG system. Hence, the management of electricity sales with the SG
system, and the consumer-MSG connection is established. Therefore,
this paper proposes a mathematical model that includes an MSG with a
solar cell, wind turbine, diesel generator, and solar battery. This MSG
can exchange electricity with SG, capable of trading energy with the SG.
The MSG can sell or purchase electricity from SG. While in most of the
previous papers, the problem conditions have been assumed to be fixed
within a finite period and optimization is performed directly on the
power requirements of the loads, in this study, we use fuzzy controllers
for managing different parts of the system. The parameters are opti­
mized using the NSAGII multi-objective optimization method based on
variables and constraints of the system. Fig. 1 shows the proposed model
flow chart.
3. Model Description
This section develops the models for smart buildings and MSG
management systems, and their variables and parameters are specified.
Model assumptions are summarized below:
• Smart buildings with different consumers are located near an MSG
system.
• Prosumers can buy and sell electricity.
• MSG consists of solar cells, wind turbines, diesel generators, and
batteries.
• MSG is in a two-way relationship with SG and can buy or sell
electricity.
Table 1
Different aspects of problem definition based on the literature review.
Subject Different aspects of problem definition Problem
definition
System A smart building
components A cluster of smart buildings
Smart buildings connected to an MSG
Smart buildings connected to an MSG *
and SG
Uncertainty Ignoring uncertainty
Considering uncertainty * objective evolutionary algorithm. All the desired objectives are consid­
Main strategy Solutions and scenarios optimization
Controllers optimization * For the time-shiftable loads, the designated fuzzy controllers have
Optimization Single objective optimization
Multi-objective optimization *
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
Fig. 1. The proposed model flow chart.
3.1. Modeling a Smart Building
In this study, a smart building and an MSG are modeled by the block
diagram shown in Fig. 2. The variables are defined in Table 2.
The loads considered in the building can be divided into three gen­
eral categories:
1- Power-shiftable loads (e.g., lighting, heating/cooling, and air-
conditioning).
2- Time-shiftable loads (i.e., consuming units whose time of use can be
shifted within the day, e.g., laundry and dishwashers in hotels)
3- Permanent loads (i.e., loads with fixed scheduling that are non-
shiftable, e.g., security and monitoring systems, elevators.)
The consumption power controller in this building consists of four
distinct fuzzy controllers. The controllers designated for time-shiftable
loads have the same structure. Each of these fuzzy systems receives
the optimal power required for the lighting/ temperature/ ventilation
systems and the estimated cost of electrical energy for the building as
input and outputs of the cost/demand trade-off ratio. This ratio is
considered in the range of [0.8, 1], representing the trade-off between
the desired power and the power cost provided to the building.
Considering this ratio, the ultimate power allocated to each system
can be determined as follows.
PAssociated = RCompromize ∗ PDesired (1)
where PAssociated represents the power assigned to the desired load by the
controller, RCompromise is the ratio for the price-demand trade-off, and
PDesired is the desired power requirement for the load. In other words,
through considering the range of [0.8, 1] for the RCompromise , we enable
the controller to decrease (while considering all target functions) the
power assigned to the load for up to a maximum of 20% of the optimum
value if necessary. The fuzzy system is Mamdani, with typically defined
membership functions (MFs) in such a way that they cover the entire
definition space of the variable in question. Two membership functions
are employed for the PTS input variable, which is a binary signal, where
-1 represents the zero binary value, and +1 denotes the one binary
value. Moreover, N fuzzy membership functions are considered for the
other input variable (i.e., EPC) and the output. The definition of the
Gaussian membership functions for the output of this fuzzy system is
[0.8, 1]. For the other input of this system, the membership functions are
considered similarly within its defining range. Other controllers are also
defined similarly to the fuzzy controller of the lighting system. Although
describing the membership functions for the controllers is assumed to be
constant; the rules for each controller are determined via a multi-
ered simultaneously.
estimated electrical energy cost for the building and consumption peak
Y. Mohammadi et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119

Fig. 2. The block diagram of the system.

multiplying this number in the LAC binary signal..

Table 2
Fuzzy membership functions for the EPC input of this system are
Variable and parameters description of the smart buildings’ model.
similar to that of the previously mentioned fuzzy controllers. However,
Symbol Explanation for the PTS input and the LAC output, since they only have two states (i.
EPC Estimated power cost for each unit of power e., they are binary), two Gaussian membership functions are employed
PTS The signal indicating the peak time with averages of 1 and -1.
PL The amount of power assigned to the lighting system
In the block diagram demonstrated in Fig. 2, the assigned power and
PT The amount of power assigned to the temperature control system
PA The amount of power assigned to the air-conditioning system
the external conditions are the inputs of lighting systems, temperature
OL Outdoor light intensity control, and air-conditioning. Outputs are the light intensity, tempera­
OT Outdoor temperature ture, and outdoor air quality.
OA Outdoor air quality In this model, IL is considered as a linear combination of OL and PL.
PTSL The power consumption for the time-shiftable loads
In the main formula, the light intensity inside the building is calculated
PPermanent The power consumption for the permanent loads
IL Indoor light intensity and converted into electrical power consumption. Therefore, simply,
IT Indoor temperature this issue is raised in the following formula.
IA Indoor air quality
PProvided Provided power for building from MSG IL = w1 ∗ OL + w2 ∗ PL (3)
PDesired The required power to reach the user’s desired condition
PDemand The power demanded by the smart building controlling system where w1 and w2 are constant coefficients in the range [0,1].
Similarly, the model considered for the air-conditioning system is as
below.
signals as inputs. The consumption peak signal is determined in the SG
and represents the peak time during the day. Moreover, the output of IA = w1 ∗ OA + w2 ∗ PA (4)
this controller is the load activation command (LAC) of the time-
The model considered for the indoor temperature control system is
shiftable loads. This variable is binary, and specifies the on or off
slightly different from the two previous models since ambient temper­
times in each timestamp in the time-shiftable loads. Finally, the tran­
ature control requires both increases as well as decreases. Therefore, the
sient power signal associated with these loads is determined according
model for temperature control should have another parameter named
to the following equation.
desired temperature (DT). The indoor temperature is determined ac­
PTSL = LAC ∗ P0 (2) cording to the following double-criteria function.
{
where P0 is a constant number representing the power consumption of IT =
w1 ∗ OT + w2 ∗ PT , OT < DT
(5)
w1 ∗ OT − w2 ∗ PT , OT > DT
the load while it is powered. The transient power PTSL is obtained by

5
Y. Mohammadi et al.
The model for time-shiftable loads consides PTSL is the input, while
the output is the work done.
The model for permanent loads input is the fixed amount of power
required, and it cannot be modified. The output is also the work done.
According to Fig. 2, two power outputs and one input power are
considered for the building. PDesired for the building is as follows.
PDesired = PDesired + PDesired + PDesired + PPermanent + PTSL
L T A light and the intensity of the wind. The pricing model considered for
where PDesired
L is the desired power level for the lighting intensity system
and can be determined according to the lighting system model, outside
lighting intensity level, and the desired lighting. Also, PDesired
T is the
desired power level for the temperature control system and can be
computed using the temperature control model, external temperature
level, and the desired temperature. In addition, PDesired
A is the desired
power level for the air-conditioning system. This variable can be
determined according to the air-conditioning model, outdoor air quality,
and the desired air quality.
The smart home internal controller assigns an amount of power to
each load via a trade-off between the cost of each electrical energy unit
and the desired conditions, which can be either smaller or equal to its
desired power. The overall PDemand value is determined as follows.
PDemand = PL + PT + PA + PPermanent + PTSL
PProvided is the amount of power provided by the MSG resource
management system to the building. Based on the MSG production
capability or if purchasing from the SG would be economically advan­
tageous, this value can be less than or equal to the PDemand.
Noted that, it is economical to buy electricity from SG when the cost
of energy production within the MSG network is higher than the price of
energy in the SG network, or the amount of consumption is more than
the amount of electricity generated by MSG.
3.2. Fuzzy Resource Ranking System
The fuzzy system for ranking the energy resources in MSG is designed
as shown in Fig. 2. This system ranks generators or other energy re­
sources for momentary utilization by taking all the transient prices as
input and employing rules that resulted from minimizing all fitness
functions. In Table 3, descriptions of this figure are provided. A Mam­
dani fuzzy system is employed for ranking the resources. In this system,
the transient price for each resource is the input. Moreover, the system
assigns an instantaneous score to each resource while considering all
target functions. This score, which ranges in [0, 1], specifies the priority
of operating each resource at any time to provide the power demand.
The fuzzy system contains five inputs that determine the transient
power price of each resource, while the outputs are the scores assigned
to each of them. Similar to the lighting system’s fuzzy controller, the
membership functions for the variables are also defined as Gaussian
constant, with uniform centers in the defining range of each variable.
The price and the amount of electrical energy that can be purchased
Table 3
Description of variables and parameters used in the fuzzy ranking system model.
Symbol Explanation
PriceSolar Solar resource power price: the price for production of electrical power
by the solar cell
PriceWind Wind resource power price: the price for production of electrical power
the by wind turbine
PriceDiesel Diesel resource power price: the price for production of electrical power
by a diesel generator
PriceSG SG power price: the price for purchasing electrical power from SG
PriceBattery Battery power price: the price for electrical power attainable from the
battery
Ranking Resource ranking: transient ranking of the resources or energy
generators for operation
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
from SG are specified transiently. Moreover, the price of electric power
from diesel generators is dependent on the price of fuel.
However, the cost of electricity from solar cells and wind turbines is
different. Indeed, if the total annual maintenance expenses for these
resources are considered constant, the cost of electrical energy produced
by them depends on their production capability. The production ratio
for these resources is unstable and depends on the intensity of the sun’s
(6)
such resources is as follows.
Price =
PProduced
(8)
RMC
In the above equation, Price is the cost of energy generated by the
resource in kilowatt-hours (kWh), PProduced is the power generated by the
resource each hour (in kilowatts), and RMC is the maintenance cost per
hour and is calculated based on the annual maintenance cost.
The following two factors are influential in calculating the cost of the
power attainable from the battery.
1- The maintenance expenditures for the battery
2- The resources that are used for charging the battery
To determine the electricity cost obtained from the battery, we
(7)
consider the prices of the resources effective in charging the battery.
This cost will be zero if the battery is empty. Hence, there are two
different states for the battery.
1- While charging the battery, the total power cost, which is attainable
from the battery, is updated according to the following equation.
TotalCost(t + 1) = TotalCost(t) + PCharging ∗ SourcePrice (9)
where TotalCost represents the total expenses for the power utilized to
charge the battery. PCharging is the power consumed to charge the battery
at time (hour) t, and SourcePrice is the price for each power unit.
2- Similarly, when the battery is discharged, the total power cost is
according to the following equation.
TotalCost(t + 1) = TotalCost(t) − PDischarging ∗ SourcePrice (10)
where PDischarging is the power drained from the battery at time t.
Finally, TotalCost and the maintenance costs for the battery define
the transient power price for each unit of available electrical energy that
can be calculated according to the following equation.
TotalCost
PriceBattery = + RMC (11)
PTotal
where PTotal represents the total power in the battery, and RMC is the
hourly maintenance cost. The hourly maintenance cost is calculated
based on the annual maintenance cost.
Finally, the output from the fuzzy ranking system for energy gener­
ators within the MSG is a number in the range of [0,1] for each available
resource. Hence, all energy resources can be ranked using these scores.
3.3. Modeling the MSG Resource Management System
In this system, the decision on exploiting resources is carried out
considering all transient prices and the problem objectives. Table 4
provides a further description of the variables in Fig. 1. Using the
rankings generated by the corresponding fuzzy system for the electricity
production resources, this system determines the share of production for
each resource, purchase/sale from/to the SG network, and the charge/
6
Y. Mohammadi et al.
Table 4
Description of variables and parameters used in the MSG resource management
system model.
Symbol Explanation
PC Power Cost: The power cost for each unit of electrical energy provided for
the building
RUP Resource usage percentage: The usage percentage for energy generators
SRI Solar radiation intensity: The intensity of radiation of the sun to the solar
cell
WS Wind speed: Wind speed in the wind generating environment
PSG SG power: The amount of power exchanged with the SG network
PBattery Battery power: The amount of power exchanged with the battery
PDiesel Diesel power: The amount of power received from the diesel
PWind Wind power: The amount of power received from the wind generator
PSolar Solar power: The amount of power received from the solar generator
discharge ratio of the battery. In this system, the batteries are charged
using surplus (unused) electricity energy from the solar and wind re­
sources. However, the fuzzy system decides what portion of this addi­
tional energy is applied to charging the battery or sold to the SG
network.
We applied the Mamdani’s inference fuzzy system. It can be
mentioned that between Mamdani Sugeno, Takagi-Sugeno-Kang, and
Tsukamoto fuzzy inference systems, the Mamdani system is adopted in
this research due to its simplicity, intuitive nature, and suitability for
human entries. The considered system receives the cost for each unit of
electrical energy generated by the MSG as the input (power cost). It then
outputs a number in the range of [0,1] as the battery charge ratio. The
membership functions for the input and output of this system are
considered Gaussian constant with centers defined at intervals of the
same length in the plausible range for each variable.
The rules for this system are generated by the evolutionary algorithm
while considering all the objectives of the problem. Eventually, the
output of this system is a number in the range of [0,1] that determines
the amount of surplus power to recharge the battery at every time in­
terval. For instance, if the output value is 0.2, then 20% of this energy is
applied to recharging, while the remaining 80% is sold to SG.
The process for charging and discharging the battery is according to
the equations below (Fossati et al., 2015):
EB (t + 1) = EB (t)(1 − σ ) + SP × ηBC
EB (t + 1) = EB (t)(1 − σ ) − DP/ηBC
where, EB represents the battery energy, and ηBC and ηBD demonstrate
the battery charge and discharge rates, respectively. These numbers are
typically considered to be 90% and 85%. σ is the battery leak rate, which
is generally considered 0.2%. SP and DP are respectively surplus and
deficit power. In addition, the constraint for these equations is as Eq.
(14).
EB,min ≤ EB (t) ≤ EB,max
where EB,max and EB,min are the maximum and minimum amounts of
energy stored in the battery, respectively.
3.4. Modelling the Electricity Price Estimator
The electricity price estimator system is demonstrated in Fig. 2. This
system estimates the ultimate electricity unit cost in smart building
management controllers, using the specified ranking of the resources
and the overall power requirements. It is worth noting that since PDesired
is generally more or equal to the PDemand, the electricity unit cost esti­
mates the actual energy cost determined in the next step. This estimation
serves merely to generate an auxiliary variable to be utilized in the smart
building management system.
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
4. Objective Functions and the Optimization Method
Multi-objective optimization methods are typically used to optimize
an electricity generation and consumption network fully and seamlessly
and make decisions over all the decision variables in the entire system.
In this case, all different parts of the system are optimized based on the
same defined objective functions, constraints, and statistical data. A
crucial concern of this method, so-called the power-based method, is the
ability to be implemented in the real world and the need for continuous
optimization when input information is changing.
To deal with the limitations of real-time decisions and the high cost
of implementing a continuous multi-objective optimization on a large
scale, we have employed the local intelligent controllers. The parame­
ters of the designed fuzzy controllers are optimized based on various
data and multi-objective optimization methods. In summary, this study
aims to select the appropriate rules for the fuzzy systems considering all
the objectives of the problem. In the following sections, the objectives of
the problem are described.
4.1. User Comfort (FComfort)
In a smart building, three critical factors of temperature, light, and
air quality are considered as the main variables to achieve the desired
satisfaction of the residents. The following equation demonstrates the
relationship between these three factors and the level of satisfaction for
the building residents. The goal is to adjust the level of these three
variables as close as possible to the desired level. Hence, the user com­
fort objective function is as follows (Wang et al., 2011). It should be
maximized.
∑[( |IL − DL|
) (
|IT − DT|
) (
|IA − DA|
)]
FComfort = 1− + 1− + 1−
time
DL DT DA
(15)
Here, IL, IT, and IA represent indoor light intensity, temperature, and
air quality, respectively. DL, DT, and DA also represent desired light
intensity, temperature, and air quality.
(12) 4.2. Total Power Consumption Cost (FTPC)
(13) On one side, generating electricity in an MSG network is costly, and
in some cases, it will be necessary to purchase electricity from the SG
network. On the other hand, there are some cases where solar and wind
generators produce excessive electricity, or their production costs are so
high that it would be more efficient to sell their production. Based on
these situations, the building’s total electrical energy consumption cost
can be determined as follows.
∑( )
TotalPowerCost = PProduced + PBought − PSold (16)
(14) time
As can be seen from the equation, the total cost of generating power
is derived by adding the cost for power production (Pproduced ) to the power
purchased from the SG (Pbought ), minus the power sold to the SG (Psold ).
What is evident is that the objective is reducing the cost and thus
minimizing the objective function via properly adjusting the rules of the
fuzzy systems of the model.
4.3. Total Energy Consumption at Peak Time (FTPP)
This objective function is the total power consumed in the building at
peak times. The goal is to minimize the function and thus reduce
building consumption at peak times.
FTPP = PL + PT + PA + PPermanent + PTSL (17)
7
Y. Mohammadi et al.
4.4. MSG’s Loss of Power Supply Probability (LPSP)
Reliability is one of the significant objectives in MSG networks,
which aims to reduce the probability of power supply loss. This objective
function is provided according to the following equation (Harkouss
et al., 2017).
∑ ( ) therefore, obtain dedicated controllers for any given period of the year.
PProvided − PSolar − PWind + PDiesel + PBattery + PSG
LPSP = time ∑ (18)
time (PProvided )
PSolar, PWind, PDiesel, PBattery, and PSG indicate the amount of power each
resource produces or exchanges with the SG or the battery. This objec­
tive function demonstrates the probability of power loss in the MSG
system. Here, the purpose is to minimize the LPSP.
4.5. The Percentage of Employing Renewable Energy (RE)
One primary objective for operating such a system is to minimize the
amount of pollution and GHGs. Using renewable energy resources
instead of fossil-based energy resources will cause fewer air pollutants.
In the following equation, this objective function is demonstrated (Ari­
kiez et al., 2016):
∑ optimization).
(P + PWind )
RE(%) = time ∑ Solar × 100 (19)
time (PProvided )
5. Dealing with Uncertainties
We have applied various probability distribution functions (PDFs) to
address effects of different types of uncertainties in the model. The un­
certainties considered in this study are divided into two categories: the
uncertainties on the generator side and the uncertainties on the con­
sumer side.
5.1. Uncertainties on the Generator-side
The uncertain variables on the generator side are solar radiation
intensity (SRI) and wind speed (WS). These two variables are considered
randomly, with the Normal and Weibull probability distribution func­
tions, respectively. Clearly, since the weather conditions significantly
vary all the time, it is necessary to generate each of these PDFs for
specific time intervals.
The PDF for SRI were examined by researchers and found to be
normal (Zakariazadeh et al., 2014). No value is reported for hours when
the amount of sunlight is considered insignificant. The well-known
Normal PDF has the following definition, where μ and σ represent the
mean value and standard deviation of the normal function, respectively.
1 − (x− μ)2
y = f (x|μ, σ) = √̅̅̅̅̅e 2σ2
σ 2π
Since the light intensity signal is also non-stationary, it has a distinct
PDF function each hour. For the wind speed, the Weibull PDF function is
usually employed with the following equation.
( )b
− x
a
fw (v) = ba− b vb− 1 e
In this equation, a = vmean /0.9 and b = 2, where vmean is the hourly
average wind speed corresponding to each time interval days (Talari
et al., 2015).
5.2. Consumer-side Uncertainties
The uncertainties considered on the consumer side are OL, OT, and
OA. These signals are non-stationary random variables. OL has the same
distribution function as the intensity of light radiation on the solar cell’s
surface, which was described in Section 5.1. For OT and OA , however,
the Weibull PDF function is employed. By employing the non-stationary
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
variables, the model can simulate the uncertainty existing in nature.
According to the model considered for the building, uncertainty in the
above variables results in uncertainty in the consumption powers PL, PT,
and PA. It is worth saying that, depending on the geographical area, the
average values, and standard deviations for all variables with uncer­
tainty can be explicitly considered for each season or month and,
6. Experimental Results
The work process, in general can be summarized in the following
steps.
Step 1: Form the structure of fuzzy controllers in different sections.
Step 2: Define the objective functions, constraints, and other
formulas.
Step 3: Set up and run a multi-objective optimization algorithm
based on NSGAII.
Step 4: Adjust the parameters of the fuzzy controllers based on the
results obtained from the optimization.
Step 5: Operate the independent system (no need for re-
We considered two different scenarios. The first model consists of
one smart residential building connected to an MSG; while the second
one has three residential, commercial, and hotel buildings connected to
the same MSG.
Various data have been used to run the optimization program. In
summary, essential data is listed as follows. The following information
are used as current or average statistical profiles (Sedighizadeh et al.,
2019).
• Instant price of energy that can be purchased from the SG
• Light intensity outside the building and the amount of light desired
by the user
• Outdoor room temperature and user’s desired indoor temperature
• Outdoor air quality and indoor air quality desired by the user
• The intensity of light radiation to the surface of the solar cell
• Wind speed in the wind turbine environment
By specifying the above variables, the following variables can also be
calculated.
• Optimal power value for lighting intensity system: This variable can
be calculated using the lighting system model, outdoor lighting level
and the desired brightness value identified by the user.
• Optimal power value for temperature control system: This variable
(20) can be calculated using the model of the temperature control system,
outdoor temperature, and the desired temperature valueidentified by
the user.
• Optimal power value for air condition system: This variable can be
calculated using the model of the ventilation system, outdoor air
quality and air quality desired identified by the user.
• Solar cell production capacity: Knowing the amount of light radia­
(21)
tion on the surface of the solar cell and the model of this source, the
solar cell production capacity can also be calculated instantly.
• Wind turbine production capacity: Knowing the amount of wind
speed to the wind turbine and the model of this source, the wind
turbine production capacity can also be calculated instantly.
• Power price of solar cell and wind turbine: It is considered with the
price model and based on the amount of production of these re­
sources, the current price of their power can also be calculated.
• Diesel generator power price: By specifying the fuel price and diesel
generator consumption model, the price of produced power can be
calculated.
8
Y. Mohammadi et al.
6.1. Implementation Results for a Residential Building
To compare the proposed strategy with the power-based method, all
controllers are removed from the model, and the block diagram of the
problem is considered in Fig. 3. The block diagram in Fig. 3 has a similar
structure to the proposed model in this study, except the controllers for
the building management system (BMS), the ranking system for the re­
sources within the MSG, and the battery charge controllers. Similarly,
the problem is considered a multi-objective optimization problem,
where the variables to be optimized are displayed in red. In this figure,
the ranking variable represents the hourly ranking for utilizing MSG and
SG resources. To comprehensively compare the proposed algorithm and
strategies suggested in other studies, we have solved the problem using
both methods for a 24-hour timeframe and compared the results. The
mentioned time interval is 1 hour, so for PL, PT, and PA, we have 24
distinct values to be optimized using the evolution algorithm. When the
ranking variable is obtained, prioritization would be available for all
resources in each interval. Therefore, ranking is a 5×24 matrix. The
model is solved by using an NSGAII algorithm (Deb et al., 2002) to
obtain the optimal rules for the fuzzy controllers. The parameters of the
NSGAII algorithm are presented in Table 5. This optimization ensures
that all objectives are in their optimum situations, despite some con­
tradictions in some objectives that require further trade-offs. After 1000
generations of the NSGAII algorithm, the following results are obtained.
The diagrams in Fig. 4 demonstrate the sunlight and wind (as the
simulation profiles of the area) against the electrical power generated by
wind turbines and solar cells.
In the simulation, the nominal power of the wind generator is
considered 15 units, which has reached its peak value. The light in­
tensity inside the building is slightly less (by a maximum of 20%) than
the desired amount for several intervals. This gap may be due to the
decision made by the fuzzy controller system, which illustrates a trade-
off between the desired conditions, electrical power price, and other
objectives defined in the problem. Moreover, with increasing the light
intensity outside the building, the power assigned to the lighting system
experienced a reduction and vice versa. The results for the air temper­
ature and the air quality are similar to the light intensity.
Fig. 5 demonstrates all assigned electrical powers for various loads
inside the building, and the overall provided power. The least power
assignment was for the lighting system, while the time-shiftable loads
were only activated at 11 o’clock, which is outside the peak time. The
maximum power was assigned to the cooling/heating system, followed
by the air-conditioning system. Both methods are applied to solve the
problem for 24 hours under similar conditions to compare our proposed
algorithm’s results with the power-based strategy. The values for the
Fig. 3. The block diagram of the power-based method for one building.
9
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
Table 5
The setup of the used NSGAII algorithm.
Parameter Description
Mutation Polynomial
Cross over Binary
Selection Tournament
Population size 50
Number of generations 1000
objective functions of the proposed algorithm and the power-based
method are compared in Table 6. It can be verified that in four (out of
five) objective functions, the proposed method provided superior
results.
Moreover, a comparison of the indoor temperature, light, and air
quality between the proposed algorithm and the power-based approach
is provided in Fig. 6. The figure demonstrates the results for the pro­
posed method, the power-based method, and the desired values. As
shown in the figure, throughout the 24-hour timeframe, the power-
based method aligned the lighting intensity with the desired value. In
contrast, the proposed method reduced the light intensity at several
intervals while other objective functions were considered.
For temperature and the air quality inside the building, the power-
based approach maintained its alignment with the desired value for
most of the timeframe, despite some significant and unacceptable dif­
ferences at other times. On the other side, the proposed method main­
tained a maximum of 20 percent divergence from the desired value
during the timeframe to consider the energy price and the peak load.
Since BMS operates in four seasons, all necessary input data (according
to each season) is provided for the final simulation to optimize the
system and adapt the controller. By employing this method, the operator
can select the optimized controller matching the season.
6.2. Implementation the Control Process for Three Buildings
In this section, the model integrates three distinct types of buildings:
residential, commercial, and hotels. A dedicated BMS controller is
applied to each building. Although there are more parameters in the
problem, there is no change in the resources compared to the single-
building situation. The graphs in Fig. 7 show the values for light in­
tensity, temperature, and outdoor air quality for the three buildings,
alongside their desired values. As can be seen, the desired values for the
three building types are different from the values outside the building.
Therefore, energy is needed to achieve the desired values. BMS con­
trollers determine the energy consumption. Since the requirements are
Y. Mohammadi et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119

Fig. 4. Sunlight and wind speed against the electrical power generated by solar cells and wind turbines.

Fig. 5. All the assigned electrical powers for the various loads inside the building, along with the overall power provided.

Given that the proposed method performs optimization on the pa­

Table 6
rameters of fuzzy controllers, the main goal is that the system can work
The values for the objective functions in the proposed algorithm and the power-
independently and without the need for daily optimization.
based method
Because of this difference from other existing methods, fuzzy con­
Cost functions Proposed method Power-based Method
trollers determine the output response. As described in the previous
FComfort 1.07 3.02 sections, we have allowed the system to fluctuate only 20% in the output
FTPC 2.45 × 102 1.05 × 103 of the fuzzy controllers. Therefore, this parameter has not been able to
FTPP 4.20 × 102 2.96 × 103
improve compared to the way we freely optimize the system.
LPSP 25.49 28.14
RE 0.77 0.55
7. Conclusion Remarks

different in each building, three distinct BMS controllers should perform
energy allocation.
After running the NSGAII algorithm and finding the optimal pa­
rameters and consequently the appropriate rules of fuzzy systems, all the
vectors of the objective functions are normalized. Then the smaller
vector is considered the best answer.
To comprehensively compare the proposed algorithm with the
power-based strategy, we solved the problem using both methods for a
24-hours interval with similar conditions. The values for the objective
functions of the proposed algorithm and the power-based method are
compared in Table 7. The objective functions are determined separately
for each building, and the reported values represent the sum of these
values. As can be seen, the proposed algorithm demonstrates superior
performance.
This paper aimed to use smart fuzzy controllers for indoor con­
sumption and MSG resource management. In the previously carried out
research in energy management, the decision variables were often the
allocated power to loads of the building. At the same time, in this study,
the considered mathematical model includes an MSG with a solar cell,
wind turbine, diesel generator, and solar battery, capable of trading
energy with the SG. Moreover, on the consumer side, a smart building
has power-shiftable loads consisting of lighting, air conditioning, cool­
ing/heating system, time-shiftable loads, and permanent loads.
Furthermore, uncertainty is regarded both on the consumer and pro­
duction sides. In our model, several fuzzy controllers are used to manage
consumption and resources. In the smart building, four fuzzy controllers
are responsible for controlling the power assigned to the loads. To
elaborate, for power-shiftable loads, these controllers determine the

10
Y. Mohammadi et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119

Fig. 6. A comparison between the proposed algorithm and the power-based approach for the indoor light, temperature, and air quality.

Fig. 7. The outdoor light intensity, temperature, air quality, and values for the three-building types, alongside their desired values.

11
Y. Mohammadi et al.
Table 7
The objective functions values of the proposed algorithm and the power-based
method.
Cost function Proposed algorithm Power-based approach
FComfort 603 604
FTPC 4.45 × 103 6.96 × 103
FTPP 9.93 × 103 1.65 × 105
LPSP 27.7 38.0
RE 0.690 0.252
amount of power allocated to each load based on the price of the elec­
trical energy and the signal indicating the peak consumption time. As for
the time-shiftable loads, the controller determine the activation time
according to the designated inputs. In addition, in the MSG, utilizing the
resources is the responsibility of a fuzzy controller, which determines
the priority of resource exploitation at all time intervals.
Furthermore, another fuzzy controller is dedicated to deciding bat­
tery charge and discharge times. The proposed model includes several
fuzzy controllers, and the rules of these controllers are the decision
variables employed for optimization. Specifically, five different func­
tions are considered, including user comfort, total power consumption
cost, total energy consumption at peak time, MSG loss of power supply
probability, and percentage of employing renewable energy. The model
is optimized using NSGAII multi-objective optimization algorithm. The
proposed algorithm is implemented for two distinct scenarios, one for
connection with a single smart building and three different types of
smart buildings.
Moreover, the proposed method is compared with the power-based
method that directly utilized the power allocated to loads as the deci­
sion variables. Experimental results indicated the superior performance
of the proposed method in both scenarios. It is also worth mentioning
that considering fuzzy controllers enabled the proposed method to be
used at other time intervals, while the power-based strategy can only
perform optimization during a fixed time interval and with pre­
determined conditions.
In this study, unlike previous articles in the field of energy man­
agement in which the decision variables used were the power allocated
to indoor loads, fuzzy intelligent management systems are used for both
indoor consumption management and resource management in MSG.
The considered mathematical model includes an MSG with solar cells,
wind turbine, diesel generator and battery that can trade energy with
SG. On the consumer side, there is also an intelligent building that in­
cludes loads with variable power such as lighting system, air condi­
tioning system, cooling/heating system, time-shiftable loads, and
permanent loads. Uncertainty is also considered by both the consumer
and the producer. Therefore, the most important feature of this research
is that the model of intelligent management system suits for managing
different parts of the system optimally and without the need for daily
information and re-optimizing fuzzy management systems.
In distributed systems, where different sections usually have con­
flicting interests, decision-making for managers is challenging and
complex. The management system presented in this paper provides an
optimal integrated decision-making process for producers, operators,
and consumers of electricity in a smart grid, who can make the best
decisions without the need for complex calculations using an intelligent
system. The following main achievements are obtained by applying the
proposed method to the three distinct types of buildings (residential,
commercial, and hotels).
(1) The proposed algorithm offers the user comfort 0.2% upper than
the power-based method.
(2) The proposed algorithm reduces power consumption costs, en­
ergy consumption at peak time and MSG loss of power supply
12
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
probability by 36%, 94% and 27%, respectively, in comparison
with the power-based method.
However, one of the limitations we faced in this research is the
simplification of the equations governing different parts and the corre­
sponding linearization assumptions. Variables such as temperature,
light, the intensity of sunlight, wind, etc., are considered linear
combinations.
There are different areas for future work that will help improve this
topic, such as:
- Adding number of buildings within an MSG as consumers with
different consumption patterns and optimizing the entire system
seamlessly,
- Changing the specifications of fuzzy intelligent controllers in
different parts of the system and considering more control
parameters,
- Adding electricity market to the shared border between the SG and
the MSG and taking advantage of the electricity market rules,
- Using new co-evolutionary optimization techniques to solve the
problem.
- Including details constraints, such as network, line loss, and start/
stop constraints in the modeling and optimization.
- Substituting nonlinear models for linear models applied in different
components of the system.
- Upgrading the fuzzy smart controllers to the internet of thing (IoT)-
based smart controllers to provide the ability to exchange online data
between different parts of the system.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix 1. The proposed method’s pseudocode in summary
1 Define the time variable.
2 Generate the wind profile based on the Weibull function.
3 Generate the sun intensity profile based on the Gaussian function.
4 Generate the outdoor temperature profile based on the Weibull
function.
5 Generate the outdoor air quality profile based on the Weibull
function.
6 Define optimum user setpoints for indoor temperature, air quality
and light intensity.
7 Define purchasable electricity profile from the SG.
8 Determine the power and cost of energy produced by the solar
cell.
9 Determine the power and cost of energy produced by the wind
turbine.
10 Determine the power and cost of energy produced by the diesel
generator.
11 Determine the power required for permanent loads, and the
amount of power required for time-shiftable loads.
12 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a building lighting system
controller.
13 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a building temperature system
controller.
14 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a building air conditioning
system controller.
15 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a building time-shiftable loads
controller.
16 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a resource ranking system.
17 Select energy production sources in order of priority.
18 Create a fuzzy Mamdani system as a battery charger system.
Y. Mohammadi et al.
19 Determine the rules of the fuzzy lighting controller system using
the input parameters.
20 Determine the rules of the fuzzy temperature controller system
using the input parameters.
21 Determine the rules of the fuzzy air condition controller system
using the input parameters.
22 Determine the rules of the fuzzy time-shiftable system using the
input parameters.
23 Determine the rules of the fuzzy resource ranking system using
the input parameters.
24 Determine the rules of the fuzzy battery charger system using the
input parameters.
25 Determine the initial values for the battery energy variables and
the cost of energy stored in the battery.
26 Calculate the power required for the building to establish optimal
conditions for the user using the model of each load.
27 Score each resource using the controller and rank them.
28 Supply the energy required according to the resources ranking to
estimate the electricity cost for building controllers (this step is
done only to estimate the price).
29 Allocate the power to the indoor lighting system using the
lighting system controller.
30 Allocate the power to the indoor temperature system using the
lighting system controller.
31 Allocate the power to the indoor air condition system using the
lighting system controller.
32 Determine whether time-shiftable loads are on or off using their
dedicated controller.
33 Calculate the power required inside the buildings.
34 Calculate the provided energy costs for the buildings.
35 Charge the battery using the solar cell energy overflow; the fuzzy
controller decides how much energy is spent to charge the battery
and how much to sell to the SG.
36 Charge the battery based on extra power generation.
37 Calculate the objective functions.
38 Determine the parameters needed to create fuzzy system rules.
39 Determine the number of generations, population size, mutation
rate, and crossover rate for the optimization.
40 Run NSGAII.
41 Find the best Pareto answers.
References
Akbari-Dibavar, A., Nojavan, S., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., & Zare, K. (2020). Smart home
energy management using hybrid robust-stochastic Optimization. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 143.
Arikiez, M., Grasso, F., Kowalski, D., & Zito, M. (2016). Heuristic algorithm for
minimizing the electricity cost of air conditioners on a smart grid. In 2016 IEEE
International Energy Conference.
Das, G., & Mandal, M. D. K. K. (2021). Multi-objective optimization of hybrid renewable
energy system by using novel autonomic soft computing techniques. Computers and
Electrical Engineering, 94.
De Oliveira, G., Jacomino, M., Ha, D. L., & Ploix, S. (2011). Optimal power control for
smart homes. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 44(1), 9579–9586.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multi-objective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6(2),
182–197.
Ferrari, L., Esposito, F., Becciani, M., Ferrara, G., Magnani, S., Andreini, M.,
Bellissima, A., Cantù, M., Petretto, G., & Pentolini, M. (2017). Development of an
optimization algorithm for the energy management of an industrial Smart User.
Applied energy, 208, 1468–1486.
Fossati, J. P., Galarza, A., Martín-Villate, A., & Fontan, L. (2015). A method for optimal
sizing energy storage systems for microgrids. Renewable Energy, 77, 539–549.
Gellings, C. W. (2009). The smart grid: Enabling energy efficiency and demand response. The
Fairmont Press, Inc.
Gomes, I. L. R., Melicio, R., & Mendes, V. M. F. (2021). A novel microgrid support
management system based on stochastic mixed-integer linear programming. Energy,
223.
Guliashki, V. G., Marinova, G. I., & Groumpos, P. P. (2019). Multi-Objective
Optimization Approach for Energy Efficiency in Microgrids. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52
(25), 477–482.
13
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
Hafez, O., & Bhattacharya, K. (2012). Optimal planning and design of a renewable
energy based supply system for microgrids. Renewable Energy, 45, 7–15.
Harkouss, F., Fardoun, F., & Biwole, P.-H. (2017). Multi-objective decision making
optimization of a residential net zero energy building in cold climate. 2017 Sensors
Networks Smart and Emerging Technologies.
Hemeid, A. M., & Omer, A. S. (2021). Multi-objective multi-verse optimization of
renewable energy sources-based micro-grid system: Real case. Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, 13(1).
Huang, Y., Wang, W., & Hou, B. (2019). A hybrid algorithm for mixed integer nonlinear
programming in residential energy management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226,
940–948.
Huber, M., Sänger, F., & Hamacher, T. (2013). Coordinating smart homes in microgrids:
A quantification of benefits. IEEE PES ISGT Europe 2013.
Jafari, M., Malekjamshidi, Z., & Zhu, J. (2019). A magnetically coupled multi-port, multi-
operation-mode micro-grid with a predictive dynamic programming-based energy
management for residential applications. International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 104, 784–796.
Jamshidimonfared, H., Ghasemi, A., Loni, A., & Marzband, M. (2019). A hybrid price-
based demand response program for the residential micro-grid. Energy, 185,
274–285.
Khalid, A., Javaid, N., Guizani, M., Alhussein, M., Aurangzeb, K., & Ilahi, M. (2018).
Towards dynamic coordination among home appliances using multi-objective
energy optimization for demand side management in smart buildings. Special Section
on Energy Management Building, 6, 19509–19529.
Kriett, P. O., & Salani, M. (2012). Optimal control of a residential microgrid. Energy, 42
(1), 321–330.
Liang, X., He, X., & Huang, T. (2019). Distributed neuro-dynamic optimization for multi-
objective power management problem in micro-grid. Neurocomputing, 362, 51–59.
Lu, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2021). A multi-objective optimization model considering users’
satisfaction and multi-type demand response in dynamic electricity price. Energy,
240.
Ma, L., Liu, N., Wang, L., Zhang, J., Lei, J., Zeng, Z., Wang, C., & Cheng, M. (2016). Multi-
party energy management for smart building cluster with PV systems using
automatic demand response. Energy and Buildings, 121, 11–21.
Mitra, J., Patra, S. B., & Ranade, S. J. (2005). A dynamic programming based method for
developing optimal microgrid architectures. In 15th power systems computational
conference.
Moghaddas-Tafreshi, S. M., Mohseni, S., Karami, M. E., & Kelly, S. (2019). Optimal
energy management of a grid-connected multiple energy carrier micro-grid. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 152, 796–806.
Motalleb, M., Annaswamy, A., & Ghorbani, R. (2018). A real-time demand response
market through a repeated incomplete-information game. Energy, 143, 424–438.
Nguyen, D. H., & Funabashi, T. (2019). Decentralized control design for user comfort and
energy saving in multi-zone buildings. Energy Procedia, 156, 172–176.
Nguyen, M. Y., Yoon, Y. T., & Choi, N. H. (2009). Dynamic programming formulation of
micro-grid operation with heat and electricity constraints. In Transmission &
distribution conference & exposition: Asia and Pacific.
Nguyen, T. A., & Crow, M. L. (2012). Optimization in energy and power management for
renewable-diesel microgrids using dynamic programming algorithm. In 2012 IEEE
international conference on cyber technology in automation, control, and intelligent
systems.
Nizami, M. S. H., Hossain, M. J., Ruhul Amin, B. M., & Fernandez, E. (2020). A residential
energy management system with bi-level optimization-based bidding strategy for
day-ahead bi-directional electricity trading. Applied Energy, 261.
Oprea, S. V., Bâra, A., Ifrim, G. A., & Coroianu, L. (2019). Day-ahead electricity
consumption optimization algorithms for smart homes. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 135, 382–401.
Osmani, A., & Zhang, J. (2014). Optimal grid design and logistic planning for wind and
biomass based renewable electricity supply chains under uncertainties. Energy, 70,
514–528.
Pachauri, S., van Ruijven, B. J., Nagai, Y., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Brew-
Hammond, A., & Nakicenovic, N. (2013). Pathways to achieve universal household
access to modern energy by 2030. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), Article
024015.
Parisio, A., & Glielmo, L. (2011). A mixed integer linear formulation for microgrid
economic scheduling. In 2011 IEEE international conference on smart grid
communications.
Park, K., Lee, W., & Won, D. (2019). Optimal energy management of DC microgrid
system using dynamic programming. IFAC-Papers OnLine, 52(4), 194–199.
Peng, H., Wang, C., & Han, Y. (2022). Micro multi-strategy multi-objective artificial bee
colony algorithm for microgrid energy optimization. Future Generation Computer
Systems, 131, 59–74.
Qin, C., Yan, Q., & He, G. (2019). Integrated energy systems planning with electricity,
heat and gas using particle swarm optimization. Energy, 188.
Reka, S. S., & Ramesh, V. (2016). Demand side management scheme in smart grid with
cloud computing approach using stochastic dynamic programming. Perspectives in
Science, 8, 169–171.
Safaei, A., Freire, F., & Antunes, C. H. (2015). A life cycle multi-objective economic and
environmental assessment of distributed generation in buildings. Energy Conversion
and Management, 97, 420–427.
Sedighizadeh, M., Esmaili, M., Jamshidi, A., & Ghaderi, M.-H. (2019). Stochastic multi-
objective economic-environmental energy and reserve scheduling of microgrids
considering battery energy storage system. International Journal of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, 106, 1–16.
Y. Mohammadi et al.
Shakouri, G., & Kazemi, H. A. (2017). Multi-objective cost-load optimization for demand
side management of a residential area in smart grids. Sustainable Cities and Society,
32, 171–180.
Siano, P. (2014). Demand response and smart grids—A survey. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 30, 461–478.
Stimmel, C. L. (2015). Building smart cities: Analytics, ICT, and design thinking. Auerbach
Publications.
Sun, S., & Wang, C. (2022). Multi-objective optimization dispatching of a micro-grid
considering uncertainty in wind power forecasting. Energy Reports, 9, 2859–2874.
Talari, S., Yazdaninejad, M., & Haghifam, M.-R. (2015). Stochastic-based scheduling of
the microgrid operation including wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, energy storages
and responsive loads. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 9(12), 1498–1509.
Ullah, K., & Hafeez, G. (2021). A multi-objective energy optimization in smart grid with
high penetration of renewable energy sources. Applied Energy, 299.
Wang, Z., Yang, R., & Wang, L. (2011). Intelligent multi-agent control for integrated
building and micro-grid systems.
Wolsink, M. (2012). The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation
in smart grids: Renewable as common pool resources. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 16(1), 822–835.
14
Sustainable Cities and Society 86 (2022) 104119
Yu, D., Zhang, T., He, G., Nojavan, S., Jermsittiparsert, K., & Ghadimi, N. (2020). Energy
management of wind-PV-storage-grid based large electricity consumer using robust
optimization technique. Journal of Energy Storage, 27.
Zakariazadeh, A., Jadid, S., & Siano, P. (2014). Smart microgrid energy and reserve
scheduling with demand response using stochastic optimization. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 63, 523–533.
Zareipour, H., Bhattacharya, K., & Canizares, C. (2004). Distributed generation: Current
status and challenges. In Annual North American power symposium.
Zhang, D., Liu, S., & Papageorgiou, L. G. (2014). Fair cost distribution among smart
homes with microgrid. Energy Conversion and Management, 80, 498–508.
Zhang, D., Shah, N., & Papageorgiou, L. G. (2013). Efficient energy consumption and
operation management in a smart building with microgrid. Energy Conversion and
Management, 74, 209–222.
Zhang, Z., Jing, R., Lin, J., Wang, X., van Dam, K. H., Wang, M., Meng, C., Xie, S., &
Zhao, Y. (2020). Combining agent-based residential demand modeling with design
optimization for integrated energy systems planning and operation. Applied Energy,
263.