Energy 252 (2022) 124060

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A novel energy cooperation framework for multi-island microgrids

based on marine mobile energy storage systems
Chuantao Wu, Dezhi Zhou, Xiangning Lin*, Quan Sui, Fanrong Wei, Zhengtian Li
State Key Laboratory of Advanced Electromagnetic Engineering and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074,
China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Energy cooperation between multi-island microgrids can improve overall economics. However, some
Received 10 December 2021 island microgrids, especially in the pelagic ocean, do not have the engineering conditions for laying
Received in revised form submarine cables. For such island microgrids, marine mobile energy storage systems, i.e., vessel-
25 March 2022
mounted container energy storage systems, can be used to achieve energy exchange. Nevertheless, it
Accepted 18 April 2022
Available online 26 April 2022
is debatable how to realize energy trading for island microgrids under this scenario. This paper first
proposes a novel energy cooperation framework for multi-island microgrids based on marine mobile
energy storage systems to realize energy sharing. Firstly, an energy transportation operator is defined to
Keywords:
Marine mobile energy storage system
manage marine mobile energy storage systems and trade with island microgrids. Secondly, a bi-layer
Multi-island microgrids energy trading problem is modeled via the analytical target cascading method. The upper layer is en-
Energy cooperation ergy trading between island microgrids and the energy transportation operator, and the lower layer
Analytical target cascading assigns scheduling tasks to each marine mobile energy storage system. Furthermore, a benefit-sharing
Asymmetric Nash bargaining mechanism based on the asymmetric Nash bargaining model is designed. Especially, a nonlinear
contribution mapping method with the exponential function is presented to determine the contributions
of island microgrids. Finally, numerical simulations verify the effectiveness of the proposed energy
cooperation framework.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction the discrete energy transportation and improving the operation

With the development of island microgrids (IMGs), several
adjacent IMGs can be formed as multi-IMGs to improve their
operation economy and power supply reliability through energy
sharing [1e3]. However, due to the harsh marine environment,
there are not constantly engineering conditions for laying subma-
rine cables between IMGs [4]. Especially in the pelagic ocean,
natural conditions are harsh, and it is challenging to have the
conditions required for laying submarine cables. Moreover, sub-
marine cables are easily damaged by large ships. Once damaged, it
isn't easy to repair, and the repair cycle is up to one-month [5]. For
such multi-IMGs that are not easily interconnected by submarine
cables, an alternative solution is to use marine mobile energy
storage systems (MMESSs) for energy exchange [6], which is a
vessel-mounted container energy storage system. In this way,
MMESSs can charge and discharge among IMGs in turn, realizing
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiangning.lin@hust.edu.cn (X. Lin).
economy of multi-IMGs, which has been proven to have good
economics and application prospects [6].
More recently, many pieces of research on multi-IMGs based on
MMESSs mainly focus on energy management. For example [6],
proposed a scenario-based day-ahead energy management system
for pelagic multi-IMGs based on one MMESS. A novel day-ahead
energy management system for pelagic multi-IMGs based on one
MMESS considering noninteger-hour energy flow was further
presented in Ref. [7]. [8] proposed a two-stage energy scheduling
model of multi-IMGs, where the day-ahead stage optimizes the
MMESS travel trajectory decisions, and the intra-day stage manages
the unit and MMESS power using the model predictive control
method [9]. proposed a robust energy management system based
on battery logistics transported by a vessel to optimize the opera-
tion of pelagic multi-IMGs [10]. presented a novel multi-energy
management framework for pelagic multi-IMGs but does not
consider transportation issues. The above works show that the
application of MMESS in multi-IMGs to achieve energy trans-
mission has been recognized. Since multi-IMGs are considered a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124060
0360-5442/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

Nomenclature S Driver's employment cost

socmax Maximum state of charge
socmin Minimum state of charge
Abbreviations and Settings T Number of time slots
m2M Set of MMESSs vsail The sailing speed
n2N Set of IMGs
t2T Set of time slots Variables
ATC Analytical target cascading dn,t The operation status of diesel generator
ETO Energy transportation operator g1/2 Penalty coefficients of upper/lower layer
IMG Island microgrid te The bargaining power of ETO
MMESS Marine mobile energy storage system mn,m,t Position variable of MMESS
ul2
n;m;t Lagrangian variables of the lower layer
Parameters
uu1
n;t Lagrangian variables of the upper layer
b The variation coefficient of penalty coefficient
pn IMG's payment to ETO
Dt The length of time intervals
tn The bargaining power of IMGs
h Charging/discharging efficiency
z Renewable energy consumption rate
D Distance matrix
Cn/m/e Energy cost of IMG, MMESS, and ETO
eem Unit degradation price of energy storage battery
þ=
epm Unit degradation price of power battery En Providing/obtaining energy of IMGs
en Unit degradation price of battery in IMGs Enabd Abandoned energy of IMGs
cst
g The start-up cost of diesel generator ppd
m;t Discharging power of power battery
cg,1/2 Consumption coefficients of diesel generator pec Charging power of energy storage battery
e n;m;t
Em Rated capacity of energy storage battery
p ped
n;m;t Discharging power of energy storage battery
Em Rated capacity of power battery
En Rated capacity of IMG's battery pet2
n;m;t The scheduled power allocated to MMESS
h Navigation loss coefficient pms2
n;m;t The scheduled power accepted by MMESS
M Number of MMESS ppc
n;m;t Charging power of power battery
N Number of IMG
pgn;t Diesel generator's power of IMG
psail The sailing power
c=d
pemax Maximum power of energy storage battery pn;t Charging/discharging power of IMG
m
ppmax
m Maximum power of power battery pet1
n;t The sharing power accepted by ETO
pln;t Load profiles of IMG pmg1 The sharing power of IMG
n;t
pvn;t The power profiles of photovoltaics sn,t Start status of diesel generator
pw
n;t The power profiles of wind turbines socem;t State of charge of energy storage battery
gmax p
pn;t Maximum power of IMG's diesel generator socm;t State of charge of power battery
gmin socn,t Battery's state of charge in IMG
pn;t Minimum power of IMG's diesel generator
re The return rate of ETO wn The contribution rates of IMGs

whole scheduling system in the above works, centralized optimi-
zation methods are adopted. However, as IMGs may belong to
different economic entities, centralized optimization is not suitable
for practical implementation. Additionally, privacy protection
should also be considered. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the
distributed energy sharing problem of multi-IMGs based on
MMESSs, which has not been discussed in detail.
With further investigation, many researchers have focused on
the energy sharing for multi-microgrids interconnected by cables.
The existing energy sharing strategies fall into non-cooperative
strategy and cooperative strategy. In the non-cooperative strategy
[11], proposed a leader multi-follower optimization for energy
transactions in the multi-microgrids. An energy sharing platform
based on the call auction method with the maximum transaction
volume is proposed in Ref. [12]. [13] presented a privacy-preserving
energy sharing model based on enhanced Benders decomposition
[14]. proposed an energy trading game strategy with non-quadratic
payoffs and a distributed Nash equilibrium solution [15,16]. pre-
sented bilevel transactive energy optimizations of multi-microgrids
considering network constraints, where the lower level was dedi-
cated to flexible energy trading between multi-microgrids, and the
upper level was designed to ensure that the energy trading meets
the constraints of the distribution network [17e19]. proposed en-
ergy trading strategies for multi-microgrids under diverse un-
certainties, where stochastic programming and robust
optimization were applied. Although the above works have been
studied comprehensively, the proposed non-cooperative strategies
are difficult to optimize global energy costs. Moreover, it is also
challenging to apply to multi-IMGs directly due to the existence of
MMESSs.
The cooperative strategy has been widely employed in energy
sharing for multi-microgrids, which can achieve global optimiza-
tion [20,21]. proposed an agent-based energy management coop-
erative framework for multi-microgrids, where the Nash
bargaining model was employed. A coalitional operation model for
microgrids to achieve global optimum and a cost allocation method
based on the concept of the core to achieve local optimum was
presented in Ref. [22]. [23,24] proposed a collaborative optimiza-
tion method for multi-microgrids and the distribution network
based on Shapley value. Although the above cooperative strategies
can minimize the global social energy costs, it is only applicable to
the multi-microgrids with cable interconnection. In contrast, the
energy cooperation of multi-IMGs needs to take MMESSs as an
independent entity to participate in energy trading and benefits

2
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

sharing. More importantly, MMESS-based energy transportation

issues need to be considered, which has not been discussed in the
above works. Therefore, the above works are not suitable for multi-
IMGs based on MMESSs.
To the best of our knowledge, no existing work has investigated
energy cooperation for multi-IMGs based on MMESSs in a distrib-
uted manner. Our work attempts to bridge this critical gap in the
literature. This paper has been motivated by the apparent need to
devise an energy cooperation framework for multi-IMGs based on
MMESSs. Firstly, the operator of MMESSs is defined as an energy
transportation operator (ETO), and the energy cooperation problem
of multi-IMGs can be composed of an energy trading problem and a
Fig. 1. The framework of multi-IMGs based on MMESSs.
benefit-sharing problem. Moreover, a bi-layer energy trading
model based on the analytical target cascading (ATC) method [25] is
presented, where the upper layer deals with the energy trading
between IMGs and ETO, and the lower layer assigns energy trans-
portation tasks to MMESS. On this basis, a benefit-sharing mecha-
nism based on the asymmetric Nash bargaining model [26] is
designed, where the bargaining powers of IMGs and ETO are
determined by a nonlinear contribution mapping method. Finally,
numerical simulations are presented to verify the effectiveness of
the proposed energy cooperation strategy. The main works along
with the differences from existing works are shown in Table 1.
Therefore, the main contributions of this paper are summarized
below:

1. A novel energy cooperation framework for multi-IMGs based on

MMESSs is proposed to minimize social energy costs. ETO is
defined to manage and schedule all MMESSs to realize energy
transportation between IMGs, and trade with IMGs as an inde-
pendent agent.
2. A bi-layer ATC-based energy trading model is presented to Fig. 2. The structure diagram of MMESS.
improve optimization efficiency. In the upper layer, IMGs and
ETO optimize the energy trading strategy. In the lower layer, ETO
system shown in Fig. 2. The vessel is fully electric-powered with a
assigns the scheduled tasks to each MMESS in a distributed
power battery, taking on the task of transporting the energy storage
manner.
battery. The container energy storage system includes batteries, a
3. A novel benefit-sharing mechanism based on asymmetric Nash
battery management system, a power conversion system, and an
bargaining is designed to share energy cooperation benefits
energy management system. The battery management system
according to their contributions. The bargaining powers are
monitors and manages the batteries storing electric energy. The
quantified by a proposed nonlinear contribution mapping
power conversion system acts as an energy interface between
method with the optimal energy trading profiles.
batteries and microgrids, regulating the voltage and current out-
puts of batteries. The energy management system is responsible for
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 in-
centralized monitoring, control, and protection of the entire energy
troduces the system framework. In Section 3, the energy trading
storage battery.
model is presented. Section 4 designs a benefit-sharing mecha-
Currently, all-electric vessels have been built, e.g., ship MF
nism. Case studies are conducted in Section 5. Finally, conclusions
Ampere [27]. Additionally, IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee
are drawn in Section 6.
21 has already developed the guidelines for the design, operation,
and maintenance of MMESS [28]. Therefore, building vessel-
2. System framework mounted container energy storage systems is perfectly techni-
cally feasible.
The structure of multi-IMGs based on MMESSs is shown in Fig. 1. Note that there are many advantages of multi-IMGs based on
There is a set N bf1; 2; …; Ng of IMGs with wind turbines, photo- MMESSs:
voltaics, diesel generators, and residential loads. IMG is a single
interest entity with an operator. An ETO with a set M bf1; 2; …; Mg (1) It can achieve complementary resources and lower operating
of MMESSs is built to realize the energy transportation between costs compared to the independent operation of each IMG.
IMGs. The MMESS is a vessel-mounted container energy storage (2) Its investment cost is much lower than that of multi-IMGs
with submarine cables due to the low investment cost of
Table 1 MMESS.
Comparative features of existing works.
(3) The MMESS is more flexible, reliable, and easy to maintain.
Reference Interconnection Optimization Privacy protection

Cable MMESS Centralized Distributed However, there are also some drawbacks:
[6e10]  ✓ ✓  
[11e24] ✓   ✓ ✓ (1) Its energy transfer efficiency is not as high as submarine
This paper  ✓  ✓ ✓ cables because of charging and discharging losses.

3
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

(2) Laborers are needed to drive the MMESS. X

(3) The MMESS cannot navigate in extreme weather. mn;m;t  1; cm; t (4)
n2N
Despite the drawbacks, multi-IMGs based on MMESSs are still
Xtþaij
economically feasible to interconnect IMGs. In this framework, ETO m  aij ð1  mi;m;t Þ; cm; t; i2N ; j2N (5)
acts as a single interest entity and dispatches MMESSs to charge in c¼tþ1 j;m;c
one IMG and discharge in another IMG to realize the discrete en- Eq. (4) indicates MMESS can only connect to one IMG at each
ergy sharing between IMGs. time. Eq. (5) ensures the MMESS meets the specified sailing time
Assume that IMGs and ETO are willing to join the energy between IMGs.
cooperation to achieve the minimum energy cost. IMGs submit Secondly, each MMESS has two batteries: energy storage and
energy-sharing profiles to ETO, and ETO assigns energy-sharing power batteries. If staying at IMG n, i.e., mn,m,t ¼ 1, MMESS can
profiles to each subordinate MMESS. MMESS decides energy- absorb energy or release energy to IMG and replenish the power
sharing profiles that can be satisfied and then respond to ETO. battery's energy. If MMESS is on the way, i.e., mn,m,t ¼ 0, the power
ETO summarizes all profiles from MMESSs and negotiates with battery provides its sailing energy. Therefore, the energy model of
IMGs. After multiple interactions, both sides agree to get the MMESS is coupled with the variable mn,m,t and is shown as follows
optimal scheduling strategy. MMESSs will realize energy trans- [7]:
portation among multi-IMGs according to the optimal scheduling
strategy the next day. Besides, a fair benefit-sharing mechanism is 0  pec ed emax
n;m;t ; pn;m;t  mn;m;t pm ; cn; m; t (6)
also essential to achieve the balance of interests of all entities.
Therefore, the energy cooperation problem mainly includes the
energy trading and benefit-sharing problems. Firstly, each IMG 0  ppc pmax
n;m;t  mn;m;t pm ; cn; m; t (7)
interacts with ETO in a distributed manner to optimize the optimal
X
energy sharing profiles and MMESSs scheduling scheme. Secondly, ppd ð1  mn;m;t Þpsail ; cm; t
m;t ¼ (8)
according to the designed benefit-sharing mechanism, the capital n2N
transaction between IMGs and ETO is determined to ensure the .
fairness of each entity's profit. Note that the benefits sharing of X pec ed
n;m;t h  pn;m;t h
internal members will not affect the result of the energy trading socem;t ¼ socem;t1 þ e
; cm; t (9)
n2N
Em
problem in the cooperation, which has been proved in Ref. [29].
Define an energy optimization horizon T consisting of T time slots ! ,
such as hours. For ease of expression, we use cn to represent P pc pd
cn2N , and so on. pn;m;t h  pm;t h
n2N
socpm;t ¼ socpm;t1 þ p ; cm; t (10)
Em
3. Energy trading formulation
socmin  socem;t  socmax ; cm; t (11)
This section presents the energy trading problem for multi-
IMGs, and the solution method is also shown based on the ATC. p
socmin  socm;t  socmax ; cm; t (12)

3.1. ETO model

socem;T  socem;0 ; cm (13)
MMESS has dual traffic flow and energy flow properties as the
integration of battery and vessel. Firstly, define D as the distance socpm;T  socpm;0 ; cm (14)
matrix between IMGs. The sailing time of MMESS can be formu-
lated by: Eqs. (6) and (7) are both batteries' charging/discharging power
8 9 limitations, meaning that the power can be greater than 0 only

 < d11 / d1N = when MMESS stays at IMG n. Eq. (8) represents the energy con-
D ¼ dij ¼ « 1 « ; ci; j2N (1) sumption power of the power battery. Eqs. (9) and (10) are the
: ;
dN1 / dNN capacity constraints of both batteries. Eqs. (11) and (12) constrain
the state of charge of both batteries. Eqs. (13) and (14) ensure both
  
aij ¼ dij ðvsail DtÞ ; ci; j2N (2) batteries’ energy at the end of the schedule is greater than that at
the beginning.
where QS is the ceiling function. Note that the round-trip distance Thirdly, the energy cost of MMESS mainly includes the degra-
between IMG i and j is the same. dation cost of energy storage battery and power battery, and the
MMESS usually sails at a constant power, which is mainly employment cost of the drivers as follows:
related to its speed. The relationship between the sailing power and ( )
X X h pp pc  i
speed is depicted as [7,30]: Cm ¼ em n;m;t þ eem pec ed p pd
n;m;t þ pn;m;t þ em pm;t þS
t2T n2N
psail ¼ hv3sail (3)
(15)
According to Eqs. (2) and (3), the higher the MMESS's speed, the Finally, the model of ETO can be expressed as:
shorter the sailing time, but the higher the energy consumption.
X
Then, define mn,m,t as the time-space signs of MMESS. If mn,m,t ¼ 1, min Ce ¼ Cm
it means that MMESS m is connected to IMG n at the time t,
(16)
m2M
otherwise not. Then, the time-space model of MMESS can be given
below [7]: subject to: (1)e(15).
4
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

3.2. IMG model paper proposes to split the ETO model into an ETO aggregation
model and M MMESS models to improve the solving efficiency.
IMGs are islanded without the support of the grid. Assume that Therefore, the energy trading problem is modeled as a bi-layer ATC
the load profiles pln;t of IMG n are fixed and non-shiftable. Without model, as shown in Fig. 3.
energy cooperation, IMG n determines the power of energy storage Let define pmg1 et1
n;t , pn;t as sharing power in the upper layer, and
batteries and diesel generators to minimize its own energy cost. pms2 et2 mg1
n;m;t , pn;m;t as sharing power in the lower layer. If pn;t > 0, IMG n
The problem is formulated as follows [21]:
will share extra energy with others; otherwise, IMG n will absorb
Xh    i energy from others. pet1
g gmax n;t represents the shared power of IMG n that
min Cn ¼ en pcn;t þpdn;t þ cg;1 pn;t þcg;2 pn dn;t þcst
g sn;t
t2T ETO can satisfy and has the same meanings with pmg1 ms2
n;t . If pn;m;t > 0,
(17) MMESS will charge energy at IMG n; otherwise, MMESS will dis-
charging energy at IMG n. pet2 ms2
n;m;t has the same meaning with pn;m;t .
subject to: To ensure energy power balance, there are the following
g constraints:
pn;t þ pdn;t  pcn;t þ pw v l
n;t þ pn;t  pn;t ; cn; t (18)

n;t ¼ pn;t : un;t ; cn; t

pmg1 et1 u1
(25)
dn;t pgmin
n;t 
g
pn;t  dn;t pgmax
n;t ; cn; t (19)

n;m;t ¼ pn;m;t : un;m;t ; cn; m; t

pms2 et2 l2
(26)
sn;t  dn;tþ1  dn;t ; cn; t (20)
X
pet1
n;t ¼ pet2
n;m;t ; cn; t (27)
0  pcn;t ; pdn;t  pmax
n;t ; cn; t (21)
m2M

.
pcn;t h  pdn;t h where uu1
n;t , un;m;t are the Lagrange multipliers.
l2

socn;t ¼ socn;t1 þ ; cn; t (22) Thus, the energy trading problem is to minimize the social en-
En
ergy costs and can be reformulated by the augmented Lagrangian
method as follows:

X X X X    2
min Cn þ Cm þ uu1 mg1 et1 mg1 et1
n;t pn;t  pn;t þ g1 pn;t  pn;t
n2N m2M n2N t2T
(28)
X X Xh    2
þ ul2 ms2 et2 ms2 et2
n;m;t pn;m;t  pn;m;t þ g2 pn;m;t  pn;m;t
n2N m2M t2T

socmin  socn;t  socmax ; cn; t (23)

subject to: (1)e(17), (19)e(24), (27)

socn;T  socn;0 ; cn (24)

pgn;t þ pdn;t  pcn;t þ pw v mg1 l
n;t þ pn;t  pn;t  pn;t ; cn; t (29)
Eq. (17) is the objective function, including battery degradation
costs, fuel costs, and start-up costs of diesel generators. Eq. (18)
pc
represents the local power balance and allows extra renewable pms2 ec ed
n;m;t ¼ pn;m;t  pn;m;t þ pn;m;t ; cn; m; t (30)
energy to be abandoned. The power constraints and start-up con-
straints of diesel generators are shown in Eqs. (19) and (20). Eq. (21)
limits the charging/discharging power of IMG's batteries. The
relationship between the state of charge and power is shown in Eq.
(22). Eq. (23) limits the upper and lower level of batteries' state of
charge. The energy balance of batteries at the beginning and end of
the schedule is constrained in Eq. (24).

3.3. Bi-layer ATC-based energy trading optimization

The ATC is a method that allows fine modeling of different

optimization problems in the hierarchy, and it has the advantages
of high computational efficiency and convenient selection of pa-
rameters [31]. Moreover, the ATC has good convergence perfor-
mance for some non-convex models [32]. Therefore, the ATC is
applied to model the energy trading problem of multi-IMGs.
However, the ETO model contains many boolean variables related
to the number of MMESS, limiting problem-solving speed. This Fig. 3. The bi-layer energy trading structure.

5
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

3.4. Solution method 4. Benefit-sharing mechanism

Alternating iterations of the subproblems achieve the standard
ATC for this problem. See Appendix A for the formulation of each
subproblem. Note that each subproblem is linear and can be solved
by a commercial solver, e.g., GUROBI. The solution flow diagram is
shown in Fig. 4, and the detailed alternating iteration process is
given as follows.
Step 1: Let k1, k2 denote the iteration index of the upper layer
and lower layer. Set the initial parameters of the upper layer:
n;t ðk1 Þ ¼ 0, un;t ðk1 Þ ¼ 0, g1 (k1), x1.
k1 ¼ 1, pet1 u1
Step 2: Each IMG n updates its strategy pmg1
n;t ðk1 þ 1Þ via sub-
problem SP1.
Step 3: Set the initial parameters of the lower layer: k2 ¼ 1,
n;m;t ðk2 Þ ¼ 0, un;m;t ðk2 Þ ¼ 0, g2 (k2), x2.
pms2 l2
A fair benefit-sharing mechanism is the foundation of the en-
ergy cooperation for multi-IMGs, which can ensure the willingness
of IMGs and ETO to cooperate. A well-designed benefit-sharing
mechanism needs to have the following properties: individual ra-
tionality, feasibility, monotonicity, budget balance, and Pareto
optimality [33]. The asymmetric Nash bargaining theory, as a
widely used method in cooperative games, satisfies the above
properties and is expected to obtain a fair benefit-sharing solution
to guarantee the existence of cooperation [34]. The benefit-sharing
mechanism based on asymmetric Nash bargaining theory can
allocate interests according to the bargaining power of each entity.
Therefore, we need to determine the bargaining power of each
entity first, and then adopt the asymmetric Nash bargaining theory
to design the benefit-sharing mechanism.

Step 4: The ETO updates its strategy pet1 n;t ðk1 þ 1Þ, pn;m;t ðk2 þ 1Þ
et2
via subproblem SP2.
Step 5: The MMESS updates its strategy pms2 n;m;t ðk2 þ 1Þ via sub-
problem SP3.
Step 6: The Lagrange multipliers and penalty coefficients of the
lower layer are updated by Eqs. (A6) and (A7). k2 ¼ k2 þ 1.
Step 7: Judging whether the error of lower layer is as required,
i.e. kpms2 et2
n;m;t ðk2 Þ  pn;m;t ðk2 Þk < x2 . If the above equation does not
hold, it skips to Step 4; otherwise, it continues to the next step.
Step 8: The Lagrange multipliers and penalty coefficients of the
upper layer are updated by Eqs. (A4) and (A5). k1 ¼ k1 þ 1.
Step 9: Judging whether the error of upper layer is as required,
i.e., kpmg1 et1
n;t ðk1 Þ  pn;t ðk1 Þk < x1 . If the above equation does not
hold, it skips to Step 2; otherwise, the iteration is terminated.
Note that the problems mentioned above, SP1, SP2, and SP3,
only interact with sharing power information and do not involve
other internal parameters, which can protect the privacy of IMGs
and ETO. By the bi-layer ATC structure, the optimization speed of
the energy trading problem can be significantly improved.
4.1. Bargaining power
According to the monotonicity principle, if an entity makes
more contributions to energy cooperation, the entity should get
more benefits. Therefore, the bargaining power needs to be deter-
mined by the entity's contribution to the cooperation.
In multi-IMGs, the ETO plays the same role as the distribution
network operators to realize energy transmission. In general, the
return rate of distribution network operators can be regulated by
the government in a regulated environment [26]. Similarly, it is
believed that the return rate of ETO is also regulated. In this paper,
re 2ð0; 1Þ represents the return rate of ETO, which is a pre-
determined constant. Furthermore, to encourage ETO to improve
energy transmission efficiency, both the renewable energy con-
sumption rate and the predetermined return rate are applied to
measure the bargaining power of ETO.
For IMGs, there are two behaviors of energy sharing: providing/
obtaining energy, which can create economic value by reducing the
energy reliance on diesel generators. To encourage IMGs to develop
renewable energy generation and increase the advantages of IMGs
with excess renewable energy, we set that providing energy con-
tributes more than obtaining the same amount of energy. Addi-
tionally, IMG without energy sharing has no contributions to
energy cooperation. Therefore, a nonlinear contribution mapping
method is proposed based on the exponential function. The bar-
gaining powers are determined by their contributions. The details
are as follows:
mg1*
Firstly, denote pn;t as the optimal solution of IMGs. Each IMG
calculates its overall providing energy, obtaining energy, and
abandoned energy by:
X
Enþ ¼
mg1*
maxðpn;t ; 0Þ (31)
t2T

X
En ¼ 
mg1*
minðpn;t ; 0Þ (32)
t2T

X
Enabd ¼ ðpgn;t þ pdn;t  pcn;t  pimg* l w v
n;t  pn;t þ pn;t þ pn;t Þ (33)
t2T

Secondly, the renewable energy consumption rate is decided as:

P
Enþ
n2N
z¼ P X (34)
Enþ þ Enabd
n2N n2N

Fig. 4. The flowchart of solution. The contributions of IMGs are quantified by:
6
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

cooperation.
P P
Enþ Enþ En En (35) Theorem 1. The optimal payment of IMG n to ETO is:
wn ¼ e n2N
e n2N
; cn
X
Df ¼ ðCn0  Cn* Þ þ ðCe0  Ce* Þ (41)
where wn can always be non-negative. n2N
Thirdly, the bargaining powers are depicted as:

te ¼ ez1 ,re (36) pn ¼ Cn0  Cn*  tn Df ; cn (42)

, where Df is all the benefits of cooperation. For proof, see Ref. [35].
X
tn ¼ ð1  te Þ,wn wn ; cn (37)
n2N 5. Case studies
Due to the exponential function, the contribution of providing
the same energy is more significant than the contribution of In this section, case studies of three IMGs are conducted to
obtaining the same energy, which can encourage IMGs to deploy corroborate the effectiveness of the proposed energy cooperation.
more renewable energy units. Based on a 3.2 GHz Windows-based PC with 16 GB of RAM, all
numerical simulations are modeled in MATLAB 2020a and solved
via GUROBI.
4.2. Asymmetric Nash bargaining
5.1. Basic data
To ensure fairness and rationality, the asymmetric Nash bar-
gaining theory is adopted for benefits sharing. The benefit-sharing This section takes three IMGs in the South China Sea as an
method based on the asymmetric Nash bargaining model is example for numerical simulations, and the geographical locations
formulated as follows: of the islands are shown in Fig. 5. Since IMGs are not available on
!te these islands yet, the deployment of IMGs is based on the expected
X tn future development of the islands, and the parameters are shown in
max Ce0  Ce* þ pn P ðCn0  Cn*  pn Þ (38)
n2N Table 2. The load and renewable energy power profiles are shown
n2N
in Fig. 6 [6,9], which are derived from the meteorological station in
subject to: Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea. IMG 1 has more loads and
less renewable energy installed capacity due to the limited land
X
Ce0  Ce* þ pn  0 (39) resources. IMG 2 and IMG 3 have fewer loads and more renewable
n2N energy installed capacity with excess clean energy. Besides, the
coefficients of diesel generators are cg, 1 ¼ 0.25, cg, 2 ¼ 0.08,
Cn0  Cn*  pn  0; cn (40) cst
g ¼ 500 [9]. The price of diesel is assumed to be 7.5 CNY/L. The
parameters of IMGs’ battery are as follows: socmin ¼ 0.1,
where Ce0 , Cn0 are the energy cost of ETO and IMGs without coop- socmax ¼ 0.9, en ¼ 0.2 CNY/kWh, h ¼ 95%.
eration, and Ce* , Cn* are the energy cost of ETO and IMGs in coop- In the multi-IMGs, there is an ETO with three identical MMESSs.
eration. Eq. (38) is the objective function to maximize the utility of Each MMESS has a 60kW/200 kWh power battery and a 600kW/
cooperation, which is the product of each player's profit. Eqs. (39) 2000 kWh energy storage battery. Due to the high investment
and (40) ensure ETO and IMGs can obtain profits from the costs, the unit degradation price of power batteries is higher and
assumed to be twice as high as that of energy storage batteries, i.e.,
0.40 CNY/kWh. Other parameters of the battery are the same as
those of IMGs. Moreover, the sailing speed of MMESS is 12 km/h.
The navigation loss coefficient h is 0.01. The employment cost of the
driver is 200 CNY per day. Without losing generality, all batteries’
initial state of charge is 0.5. At the beginning of scheduling, MMESS
1, MMESS 2, and MMESS 3 are located at IMG 1, IMG 2, and IMG 3.
Other parameters are as follows: b ¼ 1.06, g1 ¼ g2 ¼ 0.02,
x1 ¼ x2 ¼ 0.1.

5.2. Energy trading analysis

This subsection discusses the energy trading performance of the

multi-IMGs in the cooperation and the sensitivity analysis to
Fig. 5. The geographical location of IMGs. different parameters, i.e., MMESS parameters and market prices.

Table 2
The parameters of IMGs.

IMG 1 IMG 2 IMG 3

Diesel generator/kW 800 300 200

Wind turbine/kW 400 400 0
Photovoltaics/kW 200 0 600
Battery 300kW/1000 kWh 300kW/1000 kWh 300kW/1000 kWh

7
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

Fig. 6. The load and renewable energy power profiles of IMGs: (a) IMG 1; (b) IMG 2; (c) IMG 3.

5.2.1. Energy performance
The operation of multi-IMGs in the cooperation and non-
cooperation is shown in Table 3, where M ¼ 0 represents non-
cooperation and M > 0 represents cooperation. Table 3 presents
that the total operation cost with M ¼ 0 is the highest, meaning that
the cooperation for multi-IMGs based on MMESSs is more
economical than the non-cooperation. In addition, the amount of
abandoned energy in the cooperation has been greatly reduced.
Thus, the existence of MMESS can reduce abandoned energy and
improve the economy.
Then, the energy performances of ETO and IMGs in the case with
M ¼ 3, vsail ¼ 12 km/h are analyzed below.
1) ETO with three MMESSs: Fig. 7 shows the time-space dynamics
of MMESSs, the charging/discharging schedule, and the state of
charge of batteries. Note that the positive power means the
discharging of batteries, and the negative power indicates the
charging of batteries. MMESS 1 is taken as an example to illus-
trate the schedule of MMESSs. MMESS 1 discharges at the initial
position IMG 1 (0:00e5:00) and then goes to IMG 3
(7:00e14:00) for charging to supplement energy. Finally,
MMESS 1 returns to IMG 1 and continues to discharge
(16:00e24:00). Moreover, the three MMESSs discharge to IMG1
in turn, staying at IMG 1 in (0:00e5:00, 16:00e24:00),
(11:00e18:00), and (6:00e11:00), respectively.
Furthermore, the energy properties of MMESS are analyzed. As
shown in Fig. 7, the charge of MMESS is mainly at IMG 2 and IMG 3,
and the discharge of MMESS is mainly at IMG 1. The energy
transportation is primarily from IMG 2 and IMG 3 to IMG 1.
Moreover, MMESS can also realize the energy transportation of IMG
3 across time and improve the load curve. Additionally, the power
battery will be fully charged in advance for driving consumption
before each trip. The state of charge of the two batteries is in a
reasonable range.
2) IMGs: Fig. 8 provides the power schedule of IMGs. IMG 1 only
turns on the diesel generator during peak load (18:00e22:00),
while IMG 1 is supported by MMESSs and its owned battery
during other periods. The diesel generator of IMG 1 is always at a
high output level to improve the economy, and more productive
energy is stored in the battery for subsequent use. Besides, IMG
2 and IMG 3 are power balanced by their batteries and MMESSs.
Due to the large energy storage capacity of MMESSs, multi-IMGs
have fully absorbed renewable energy and reduced the use of
diesel generators. Therefore, with a reasonable schedule,
MMESSs can achieve energy transportation across time and
space and balance the internal power of each IMG.

Table 3
Economies and energy analysis under different MMESS numbers and sailing speeds.

Case M¼0 M¼1 M¼2 M¼3

Non-cooperation vsail ¼ 6 vsail ¼ 12 vsail ¼ 24 vsail ¼ 6 vsail ¼ 12 vsail ¼ 24 vsail ¼ 6 vsail ¼ 12 vsail ¼ 24

Abandoned energy (kWh) 5735.82 3975.79 2247.36 1138.69 2228.16 136.3 117.28 0 0 0
Sailing energy (kWh) 0 21.60 207.36 829.44 34.56 328.32 898.56 69.12 259.20 967.68
IMGs cost (CNY) 26 057.70 21838.81 19226.56 16724.94 15655.28 12005.19 12531.5 10755.69 9749.75 11221.15
ETO (CNY) 0 996.56 1564.41 2376.11 2193.66 2617.78 2903.3 2754.12 2998.78 3471.92
Total cost (CNY) 26 057.70 22835.37 20790.97 19101.05 17848.94 14622.97 15434.80 13509.81 12748.53 14693.07

Fig. 7. The power and state of charge of MMESS.

8
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al.
Fig. 8. The power schedule of IMGs.
5.2.2. The influence of MMESS
This subsection discusses the sensitivity of multi-IMGs oper-
ating costs to the parameters of MMESS. Firstly, the influence of
MMESS's number on the scheduling results is analyzed. From
Table 3, with the increase of MMESSs, the abandoned energy and
the use of diesel generators decreases, and the operation economy
of multi-IMGs gradually improves. However, it needs to be aware
that an excessive number of MMESSs will increase investment
costs. Therefore, the operation of multi-IMGs requires the proper
number of MMESSs.
Secondly, the sailing speed of MMESS also has an impact on
operating costs. Table 3 shows that regardless of the number of
MMESSs, the abandoned energy of the case with 24 km/h is the
least, followed by the case with 12 km/h and the case with 6 km/h.
In other words, the higher the speed, the greater the efficiency of
energy transportation. However, with the increase of sailing speed,
more sailing energy is consumed, which will increase the cost.
When the number of MMESSs is one, the case with high speed is
more economical; When the number of MMESSs is two or three,
the case with medium speed is the best. Therefore, only the
appropriate sailing speed can achieve the best economy of multi-
IMGs.
Finally, the effect of the storage capacity of MMESS on the
operating cost is discussed in Fig. 9. When the storage capacity of
MMESS is small, the operating cost is higher. As the capacity in-
creases, the operating cost decreases significantly. When the stor-
age capacity exceeds 2 MWh, the operating cost is no longer
reduced considerably because the battery resources are already in
excess. Note that the increase in the storage capacity of MMESS also
brings an increase in investment costs. Thus, it will be more
economical to equip MMESS with a suitable storage capacity.
5.2.3. The influence of fuel price and unit degradation price
This subsection discusses the effect of fuel price and the unit
Fig. 9. The operating costs of multi-IMGs at different storage capacities of MMESS with
M ¼ 3.
9
Energy 252 (2022) 124060
degradation price of batteries on the economy. Assuming that the
unit degradation price of power batteries is always twice that of
energy storage batteries, the operation costs with different prices
are shown in Fig. 10. When the unit degradation price is constant,
the operating cost increases faster with the fuel price increase in
the non-cooperation. In contrast, the operating cost rises slower in
the cooperation. When the fuel price is constant, with the rise of
unit degradation price, the operating cost growth in the non-
cooperation is smaller than in the cooperation. The non-
cooperation case is more dependent on diesel generators and is
fuel price-sensitive. But the cooperation case relies more on bat-
teries and is battery degradation price-sensitive.
When fuel price is higher, and unit degradation price is lower,
the cooperation case is more economically advantageous. When
fuel price is lower, and unit degradation price is higher, the non-
cooperation option is more economical. Therefore, the energy
cooperation for multi-IMGs based on MMESSs has economic
advantage and application value only when the unit degradation
price of batteries is low, i.e., low battery investment cost. It is the
limitation of the framework proposed in this paper.
5.3. Benefits sharing
This subsection uses the symmetric Nash bargaining model for
benefits sharing to explain the fairness of the asymmetric Nash
bargaining model proposed in this paper. Assume that ETO's return
rate re is 0.2, and vsail ¼ 12. Table 4 compares the amount of trading
energy, bargaining powers, and benefits of IMGs by symmetric
Nash bargaining and asymmetric Nash bargaining.
According to the proposed nonlinear contribution mapping
method, the contribution rate of IMG 2 and IMG 3 is more
Fig. 10. The operating costs of multi-IMGs with various fuel prices and unit degra-
dation prices.
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

Table 4
The amount of trading energy, bargaining power, and benefits in different methods.

IMG1 IMG2 IMG3

Providing/Obtaining energy (kWh) 122.0/4.2256 3181.5/0 2498.4/445.9

symmetricNash bargaining Bargaining power 0.2667 0.2667 0.2667
Benefit (CNY) 3549.11 3549.11 3549.11
asymmetricNash bargaining Bargaining power 0.1458 0.3733 0.2809
Benefit (CNY) 2009.21 4840.94 3797.19

significant than that of IMG 1 due to providing more renewable

energy, as shown in Table 4. The proposed contribution mapping
method is more beneficial to energy providers, encouraging IMGs
to develop renewable energy generation vigorously. On this basis,
according to the asymmetric Nash bargaining theory, the bargai-
ning powers of IMGs range from 0.1458 to 0.3733, and the benefits
range from 2009.21 CNY to 4840.97 CNY. However, according to the
symmetric Nash bargaining theory, the bargaining powers of all
IMGs are the same, 0.2667, and the benefits of IMGs are the same
3549.11 CNY, which does not reflect the difference in the contri-
bution of IMGs. These results show that the benefit-sharing
mechanism based on asymmetric Nash bargaining theory can
identify contributions and distribute benefits according to the Fig. 12. The benefits of IMGs and ETO under different ETO's bargaining powers.
trading energy of IMGs, which is more reasonable and fair.
The impact of MMESS's number on the bargaining power of ETO
with re ¼ 0.2, vsail ¼ 12 is further analyzed. Fig. 11 shows the
renewable energy consumption rate and the bargaining power of
ETO under different MMESS numbers. As the number of MMESSs
increases, the renewable energy consumption rate and the bar-
gaining power of ETO increase gradually. When the number of
MMESSs is greater than two, ETO can transmit all renewable energy
and have the largest contribution rate. This is helpful to guide ETO
to invest an appropriate number of MMESSs according to the en-
ergy specification of multi-IMGs, expanding all revenue. The results
prove the rationality of the proposed method to measure the bar-
gaining power of ETO.
Then, a sensitivity analysis of ETO's bargaining power is made.
Fig. 13. The bargaining powers of IMGs under different bases.
The benefits of ETO and IMG 1 to 3 under different ETO's bargaining
power are shown in Fig. 12. As can be seen, with the increase of
ETO's bargaining power, ETO gains more benefits while the benefits provides the bargaining powers of all IMGs under different bases.
of all IMGs decrease. Note that the total benefit of ETO and IMGs is When the base changes from 2 to e (natural logarithm) and then to
always 12315.59 CNY. These characteristics show that the proposed 4, the bargaining power of IMG 1 becomes weaker, and that of IMG
mechanism can achieve Pareto optimality. 2 and 3 becomes stronger. That is to say, the exponential function
with a larger base has a greater contribution to providing energy
but less contribution to obtaining energy. Therefore, according to
the actual situation of multi-IMGs and social factors, the base value
should be reasonably selected and adjusted to quantify the energy
contribution of IMGs.

5.4. Algorithm performance

This subsection mainly analyzes the convergence and rapidity of

Fig. 11. Renewable energy consumption rate and ETO's bargaining power under
different MMESS numbers.
Finally, the influence of exponential function's base in the
nonlinear contribution mapping method is conducted. Fig. 13
the bi-layer ATC algorithm. Fig. 14 shows the variation of upper and
lower layer errors with the number of iterations. As one can
observe, the bi-layer ATC algorithm has a good convergence. Then, a
single-layer ATC algorithm is introduced for comparative analysis
in terms of computational efficiency. Only the upper layer inter-
action optimization is considered in the single-layer ATC algorithm,
and the ETO problem adopts centralized optimization instead of the
distributed solution. The ETO problem in the single-layer ATC

10
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

the benefits fairly. The simulation results have verified the effi-
ciency of the energy cooperation framework. Future work will
investigate the energy cooperation for multi-IMGs with sailing
speeds as decision variables and the impact of uncertainties in
renewable energy.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Chuantao Wu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing orig-

inal draft. Dezhi Zhou: Software, Visualization. Xiangning Lin:
Writing-reviewing, editing. Quan Sui: Investigation. Fanrong Wei:
Supervision. Zhengtian Li: Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing

Fig. 14. The convergence of bi-layer ATC algorithm.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
algorithm is a mixed-integer quadratic programming problem. It
takes a lot of time to solve each time, resulting in an extensive Acknowledgments
optimization time of the single-layer ATC algorithm. In the nu-
merical simulation, the optimization time of the single-layer ATC This work was supported by the Science and Technology Project
algorithm is more than 10000 s. However, distributed optimization of State Grid, China (5100-202199545A-0-5-ZN).
can significantly improve the speed of solving the ETO problem. The
bi-layer ATC algorithm only needs 383 s, improving the optimiza- Appendix A. Subproblems of IMG, ETO, and MMESS
tion efficiency significantly. Therefore, the bi-layer ATC algorithm is
more applicable to this situation in this paper. The subproblem of IMG n2N in the iteration is:
Xn h
mg1
i
SP1 : min Cn þ uu1 et1
n;t ðk1 Þ pn;t  pn;t ðk1 Þ
6. Conclusion t2T
h i2 (A1)
This paper proposes a novel energy cooperation framework for þ g1 ðk1 Þ pmg1 et1
n;t  pn;t ðk1 Þ
multi-IMGs based on MMESSs, including energy trading strategies
and a benefit-sharing mechanism. In the energy trading problem, a
n;t ðk1 Þ, un;t ðk1 Þ, g1 (k1), cn, t.
given: pet1 u1
bi-layer ATC optimization method is designed to obtain the optimal
scheduling strategies for IMGs and MMESSs. More importantly, it subject to: (19)e(24), (29).
has higher efficiency than the single-layer ATC method. Then, The subproblem of ETO in the iteration is:

X Xn h i h i2
SP2 : min uu1 mg1 et1 mg1 et1
n;t ðk1 Þ pn;t ðk1 þ 1Þ  pn;t þ g1 ðk1 Þ pn;t ðk1 þ 1Þ  pn;t
n2N t2T
(A2)
X X Xn h i h i2 o
þ ul2 ms2 et2 ms2 et2
n;m;t ðk2 Þ pn;m;t ðk2 Þ  pn;m;t þ g2 ðk2 Þ pn;m;t ðk2 Þ  pn;m;t
n2N m2M t2T

asymmetric Nash bargaining theory is applied to build the benefit-

sharing mechanism. A nonlinear contribution mapping method is mg1
given: pn;t ðk1 þ 1Þ, uu1
n;t ðk1 Þ, g1 (k1), pn;m;t ðk2 Þ, un;m;t ðk2 Þ, g2 (k2),
ms2 l2
presented to determine the bargaining power of IMGs and ETO, cn, m, t.
which can well distinguish the contributions of different energy subject to: (27).
attributes and is adjustable. In contrast to the traditional symmetric The subproblem of MMESS m2M in the iteration is:
Nash bargaining theory, the asymmetric Nash bargaining theory
can identify the contributions of various participants and allocate

11
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al. Energy 252 (2022) 124060

X Xn h i h i2 o
SP3 : min ul2 ms2 et2 ms2 et2
n;m;t ðk2 Þ pn;m;t  pn;m;t ðk2 þ 1Þ þ g2 ðk2 Þ pn;m;t  pn;m;t ðk2 þ 1Þ þ Cm (A3)
n2N t2T

n;m;t ðk2 þ 1Þ, un;m;t ðk2 Þ, g2 (k2), cn, m, t.

given: pet2 l2
subject to: (1)e(15), (30).
The Lagrangian multipliers and penalty coefficients of the upper
and lower layers are updated below.
h i
mg1
uu1
n;t ðk1 þ 1Þ ¼ un;t ðk1 Þ þ 2g1 ðk1 Þ pn;t ðk1 þ 1Þ  pn;t ðk1 þ 1Þ
u1 et1
(A4)
g1 ðk1 þ 1Þ ¼ bg1 ðk1 Þ (A5)
h i
ul2
n;m;t ðk2 þ1Þ¼ un;m;t ðk2 Þþ2g1 ðk2 Þ pn;m;t ðk2 þ1Þpn;m;t ðk2 þ1Þ
l2 ms2 et2
(A6)
g2 ðk2 þ 1Þ ¼ bg2 ðk2 Þ (A7)
References
[1] Zhao B, Chen J, Zhang L, Zhang X, Qin R, Lin X. Three representative island
microgrids in the east China sea: key technologies and experiences. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;96:262e74.
[2] Yang K, Li C, Jing X, Zhu Z, Wang Y, Ma H, Zhang Y. Energy dispatch optimi-
zation of islanded multi-microgrids based on symbiotic organisms search and
improved multi-agent consensus algorithm. Energy 2022;239:122105.
[3] Bertheau P. Supplying not electrified islands with 100% renewable energy
based micro grids: a geospatial and techno-economic analysis for the
Philippines. Energy 2020;202:117670.
[4] Axelsson BT. Submarine cable laying and installation services for the offshore
alternative energy industry. http://www.3utech.com/sites/3utech.com/files/
Energy%20Ocean%2008%203U%20Technologies%20080619.pdf; 2008.
[5] Wang Z, Lin X, Liu C, Tong N, Wu C. A hybrid transmission network in pelagic
islands with submarine cables and all-electric vessel based energy trans-
mission routes. J Electr Power Energy Syst 2020;120:106005.
[6] Sui Q, Zhang R, Wu C, Wei F, Lin X, Li Z. Stochastic scheduling of an electric
vessel-based energy management system in pelagic clustering islands. Appl
Energy 2020;259:114155.
[7] Sui Q, Wei F, Wu C, Lin X, Wang Z. Day-ahead energy management for pelagic
island microgrid groups considering non-integer-hour energy transmission.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2020;11(6):5249e59.
[8] Sui Q, Wei F, Lin X, Li Z. A two-stage electric energy scheduling strategy for
pelagic island microgrid clusters. In: 2021 3rd Asia energy and electrical en-
gineering symposium (AEEES); 2021. p. 594e8.
[9] Wu C, Sui Q, Lin X, Wang Z, Li Z. Scheduling of energy management based on
battery logistics in pelagic islanded microgrid clusters. Int J Electr Power
Energy Syst 2021;127:106573.
[10] Hu M, Wang YW, Xiao JW, Lin X. Multi-energy management with hierarchical
distributed multi-scale strategy for pelagic islanded microgrid clusters. En-
ergy 2019;185:910e21.
[11] Karimi H, Bahmani R, Jadid S, Makui A. Dynamic transactive energy in multi-
microgrid systems considering independence performance index: a multi-
objective optimization framework. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2021;126:
106563.
[12] Sun L, Qiu J, Han X, Dong ZY. Energy sharing platform based on call auction
method with the maximum transaction volume. Energy 2021;225(4):120237.
[13] Xia Y, Xu Q, Tao S, Du P, Ding Y, Fang J. Preserving operation privacy of peer-
to-peer energy transaction based on enhanced benders decomposition
considering uncertainty of renewable energy generations. Energy; 2022.
p. 123567.
[14] Bhatti BA, Broadwater R. Distributed nash equilibrium seeking for a dynamic
micro-grid energy trading game with non-quadratic payoffs. Energy
2020;202:117709.
[15] Kong X, Liu D, Wang C, Sun F, Li S. Optimal operation strategy for inter-
connected microgrids in market environment considering uncertainty. Appl
Energy 2020;275:115336.
[16] Wang Y, Huang Z, Shahidehpour M, Lai LL, Zhu Q. Reconfigurable distribution
network for managing transactive energy in a multi-microgrid system. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2020;11(2):1286e95.
[17] Karimi H, Jadid S. Optimal energy management for multi-microgrid consid-
ering demand response programs: a stochastic multi-objective framework.
Energy 2020;195:116992.
[18] Qiu Q, You F. Decentralized-distributed robust electric power scheduling for
multi-microgrid systems. Appl Energy 2020;269:115146.
[19] Zhou X, Ai Q, Yousif M. Two kinds of decentralized robust economic dispatch
framework combined distribution network and multi-microgrids. Appl En-
ergy 2019;253:113588.
[20] Cao W, Xiao JW, Cui SC, Liu XK. An efficient and economical storage and en-
ergy sharing model for multiple multi-energy microgrids. Energy 2022;244:
123124.
[21] Wang H, Huang J. Incentivizing energy trading for interconnected microgrids.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;9(4):2647e57.
[22] Du Y, Wang Z, Liu G, Chen X, Yuan H, Wei Y, Li F. A cooperative game approach
for coordinating multi-microgrid operation within distribution systems. Appl
Energy 2018;222:383e95.
[23] Jia Y, Wen P, Yan Y, Huo L. Joint operation and transaction mode of rural multi
microgrid and distribution network. IEEE Access 2021;9:14409e21.
[24] Lahon R, Gupta CP, Fernandez E. Coalition formation strategies for cooperative
operation of multiple microgrids. IET Gener, Transm Distrib 2019;13(16):
3661e72.
[25] Wu H, Wang J, Lu J, Ding M, Wang L, Hu B, Sun M, Qi X. Bilevel load-agent-
based distributed coordination decision strategy for aggregators. Energy;
2021. p. 122505.
[26] Ma T, Pei W, Deng W, Xiao H, Yang Y, Tang C. A nash bargaining-based
cooperative planning and operation method for wind-hydrogen-heat multi-
agent energy system. Energy; 2021. p. 122435.
[27] Nuchturee C, Li T, Xia H. Energy efficiency of integrated electric propulsion for
ships e a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;134:110145.
[28] IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 21. Ieee draft guide for design,
operation, and maintenance of battery energy storage systems, both sta-
tionary and mobile, and applications integrated with electric power systems.
2019. p. 1e45. IEEE P2030.2.1/D10.0, February 2019.
[29] Cui S, Wang YW, Shi Y, Xiao JW. Community energy cooperation with the
presence of cheating behaviors. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2021;12(1):561e73.
[30] Li Z, Xu Y, Wu L, Zheng X. A risk-averse adaptively stochastic method for
multi-energy ship operation under diverse uncertainties. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 2021;36(3):2149e61.
[31] Qi C, Wang K, Fu Y, Li G, Han B, Huang R, Pu T. A decentralized optimal
operation of ac/dc hybrid distribution grids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;9(6):
6095e105.
[32] Michelena N, Park H, Papalambros PY. Convergence properties of analytical
target cascading. AIAA J 2003;41(5):897e905.
[33] Anbarci N, Sun CJ. Asymmetric nash bargaining solutions: a simple nash
program. Econ Lett 2013;120(2):211e4.
[34] Wu X, Li H, Wang X, Zhao W. Cooperative operation for wind turbines and
hydrogen fueling stations with on-site hydrogen production. IEEE Trans
Sustain Energy 2020;11(4):2775e89.
[35] Wang J, Zhong H, Wu C, Du E, Xia Q, Kang C. Incentivizing distributed energy
resource aggregation in energy and capacity markets: an energy sharing
scheme and mechanism design. Appl Energy 2019;252:113471.

12
C. Wu, D. Zhou, X. Lin et al.
Chuantao Wu received a B.S. degree in electrical engi-
neering from Huazhong University of Science and Tech-
nology in 2018. He is a Ph.D. candidate at Huazhong
University of Science and Technology. His research in-
terests are optimal operation and restoration of
microgrids.
Dezhi Zhou received a B.S. degree in electrical engineer-
ing from Huazhong University of Science and Technology
in 2021. He is an M.S. candidate at Huazhong University of
Science and Technology. His research interests are optimal
operation and restoration of microgrids.
Xiangning Lin is currently a Professor at Huazhong Uni-
versity of Science and Technology. He received an M.S. and
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Huazhong
University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. His
research interests are modern signal processing and po-
wer system protective relaying.
13
Energy 252 (2022) 124060
Quan Sui received a B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in
2017. He is a Ph.D. candidate at Huazhong University of
Science and Technology. His research interests are
microgrid scheduling as well as optimal power systems.
Fanrong Wei received a B.S. degree and a Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from Huazhong University of Sci-
ence and Technology in 2013 and 2018. Currently, he is a
lecturer at Huazhong University of Science and Technol-
ogy. His researches mainly focus on optimal power sys-
tem/microgrid scheduling and protective relay.
Zhengtian Li received a B.S. degree from Wuhan Univer-
sity in 2002 and a Ph.D. degree from Huazhong University
of Science and Technology in 2011. Currently, he is an
Associate Professor at Huazhong University of Science and
Technology. His research interests are digital protection
relays.