This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 1

Coupling Neighboring Microgrids for Overload

Management Based on Dynamic
Multicriteria Decision-Making
Farhad Shahnia, Senior Member, IEEE, Soheil Bourbour, and Arindam Ghosh, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractA microgrid (MG) is expected to supply its local

loads independently; however, due to intermittency of wind and
solar-based energy resources as well as the load uncertainty, it is
probable that the MG experiences power deficiency (overloading).
This problem can be mitigated by coupling the overloaded MG
to another neighboring MG that has surplus power. Considering
a distribution network composed of several islanded MGs, defin-
ing the suitable MGs (alternative) to be coupled with the
overloaded MG is a challenge. An MG overload management
technique is developed in this paper, which first identifies the
overloaded MG(s) and then selects the most suitable alterna-
tive. The alternative selection is based on different criteria,
such as available surplus power, reliability, supply security,
power loss, electricity cost, and CO2 emissions in the alterna-
tive MGs. Moreover, the frequency and voltage deviation in
the system of coupled MGs are considered in the selection.
A dynamic multicriteria decision-making algorithm is devel-
oped for this purpose. To contemplate the uncertainties in the
considered distribution network, a cloud theory-based proba-
bilistic analysis is deployed as the research framework and Fig. 1. Remote area distribution network consisting of several isolated MGs
the performance of the developed technique is evaluated in with normally open ISSes among them.
MATLAB.
Index TermsCoupled microgrids (CMGs), decision-making,
load shedding, overload management. SLSA Selective load-shedding algorithm.
UPC Unused power capacity.
N OMENCLATURE
ALS Amount of load to be shed. I. I NTRODUCTION
APC Available power capacity.
LECTRIFICATION of remote and rural areas has been
CMGs
DER
Coupled microgrids.
Distributed energy resources. E always a major challenge due to a variety of constraints
such as the area accessibility and economic factors [1], [2].
DMA Decision-making algorithm.
The electricity demand in these areas can be supplied by the
ISS Interconnecting static switch.
help of DERs in an islanded scheme. Thus, the power system
MAIFI Momentary average interruption frequency index.
of remote areas can be considered as a microgrid (MG) that
OMT Overload management technique.
operates in islanded mode [3]. The MGs should be formed
PDF Probability density function.
such that there is enough generation capacity in their embed-
PDL Power deficiency level.
ded DERs to meet their local demands [4][6]. It is to be noted
PFA Power flow analysis.
that a remote area/town can be supplied by several indepen-
SAIDI System average interruption duration index.
dent MGs, where each may have a different owner (operator)
SAIFI System average interruption frequency index.
and each is responsible for supplying the loads of a specific
Manuscript received February 27, 2015; revised June 22, 2015 and region. Thus, the distribution network of a remote area can
August 10, 2015; accepted September 7, 2015. Paper no. TSG-00235-2015. resemble the system of Fig. 1. These types of islanded MGs are
(Corresponding author: Farhad Shahnia.) conventionally supplied by diesel generators. The fuel trans-
F. Shahnia is with the School of Engineering, Murdoch University, Perth,
WA 6150, Australia (e-mail: farhad.shahnia@curtin.edu.au). portation difficulties and the fuel cost adversely affect the
S. Bourbour and A. Ghosh are with the Department of Electrical and profits for the owners of each MG. If these areas are rich
Computer Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6102, Australia. in renewable energies, renewable-energy-based DERs can be
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. utilized for electricity generation to meet the local electrical
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSG.2015.2477845 demand [7].
1949-3053 c 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
The intermittency of nondispatchable (e.g., solar and
wind-based) DERs in addition to load uncertainties can
lead to imbalance between the instantaneous power gen-
eration and demand in an MG [8]. Any generation defi-
ciency (overloading) will lead to voltage/frequency drop. To
address power imbalance problems in MGs, several solutions
can be considered as follows:
1) under frequency/voltage load-shedding [9];
2) utilization and control of battery energy storages [10];
3) optimal capacity design of dispatchable DERs
(e.g., diesel generators) [11], [12];
4) interconnection of the MG to utility [13];
5) coupling of one MG to one/more neighboring
MG(s) [14].
MGs coupling is introduced in [15] as a solution to prolif-
erate the number of DERs in distribution networks. Each MG
in Fig. 1 may be supported by one/more of its neighboring
MG(s) during power deficiency. This can be achieved by clos-
ing the normally open ISS which is located between every two
adjunct MGs. It is to be noted that the structure and control
mechanism of the ISS is beyond the scope of this paper.
Wang and Wang [16] and Wang et al. [17] proposed a trans-
formative architecture for coupling the neighboring MGs as
a technique for improving the self-healing of the distribu-
tion system in case of short-circuit faults in the network.
The trade of power among MGs in the system of CMGs is
addressed in [18]. Optimal control of a distribution network
composed of utility-connected MGs forming a CMG is also
studied in [19]. Dynamic operation of DERs within CMGs is
investigated in [20] and the dynamic security of the CMGs
is examined in [21]. The conditions under which two MGs
are interconnected are addressed in [22]. The stability anal-
ysis of a CMG prior to the interconnection of the MGs is
discussed in [23], as a preliminary step to prevent any inter-
connection that may lead to system instability. Selection of
the suitable MG(s) among the available neighboring MGs
when interconnecting them during overloading has not been
addressed in the previous literature and is the main focus of
this paper.
This paper proposes an OMT, based on coupling the
neighboring islanded MGs, and utilizes a dynamic multicrite-
ria DMA. The proposed OMT assumes a data communication
system is available to receive the power generation of all DERs
and consumption of essential/nonessential loads in all MGs.
The communication system also transmits the command (out-
put) of the OMT to the relevant ISS(es) to couple the MGs.
Under such a case, the power flow control in the considered
system is based on the proper operation of the ISS, i.e., if
the OMT decides that some MGs should be interconnected,
the ISS of each of those MGs will be closed and thereby, the
power flow will occur between the interconnected MGs auto-
matically based on the dynamic operation of the DERs in each
MG and no further power control is required.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
1) Develop an OMT to reduce load-shedding rate in MGs
during overloading conditions.
2) Develop a dynamic multicriteria DMA to select the
suitable MGs.
3) Define the different criteria required for DMA.
4) Qualify the selected MG(s) based on the deviations in
voltage and frequency after coupling the MGs.
5) Define the portion of the nonessential loads to be shed
from each MG based on the proposed DMA such that
all essential loads of all MGs are always supplied.
6) Develop a suitable PFA technique, applicable for MGs.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
briefly discusses the necessity of coupling the MGs and the
complexity of decision-making for this purpose. The proposed
OMT is presented in Section III while Section IV introduces
the developed dynamic multicriteria DMA. The performance
of the developed OMT is evaluated within a MATLAB-based
stochastic analysis in Section V. The main conclusions of this
paper are highlighted in Section VI while the developed PFA
and the considered stochastic framework are presented in the
Appendixes.
II. N ECESSITY AND C OMPLEXITY OF
C OUPLING M ICROGRIDS
This paper focuses on remote area networks, where a util-
ity connection is not available. Thus, the loads are supplied
by small MG networks. Each of these MGs may have a dif-
ferent owner, that has invested in the installation of the DERs
in that MG, and charges the loads based on their electricity
consumption. Thereby, it is assumed that these MGs operate
in islanded mode and independently from each other.
Due to load and generation uncertainty, it is highly probable
to expect power generation deficiency or overloading at some
portions of the operation stage. Under such conditions, except
load-shedding, the other possible option to control an MG is
external support in the form of importing power from one or
a group of neighboring MGs. Thereby, an OMT is proposed
and developed in this paper to overcome the overloading issues
of the MGs that operate in remote areas.
Consider the distribution network of Fig. 1 with N islanded
MGs, among which MG-1 is assumed to be overloaded. Each
of the other existing MGs may be able to support MG-1 indi-
vidually or in combination with others. As an example, for
N = 3, the alternative MGs are [{2}, {3}, {2,3}] (see Fig. 2)
and for N = 4, the alternative MGs are [{2}, {3}, {4}, {2,3},
{2,4}, {3,4}, {2,3,4}] while for N = 5, the alternative MGs are
[{2}, {3}, {4}, {5}, {2,3}, {2,4}, {2,5}, {3,4}, {3,5}, {4,5},
{2,3,4}, {2,3,5}, {2,4,5}, {3,4,5}, {2,3,4,5}]. In general, assum-
ing N  MGs are overloaded, the alternatives are combinations
of any single MGs, any two MGs, any three MGs, . . . , and
any N N  MGs out of the available N N  MGs. Hence, the
total number of alternatives, denoted by NA , is

NN 

NA = CiNN
i=1
   
= C1NN + C2NN + C3NN + + CNN
NN
 (1)
where Cab = b!/[(b a)! a!] and a! = a (a 1) . . . 1.
Equation (1) can be simplified as

NA = 2NN 1. (2)
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT 3

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Schematic of the communication links between the developed OMT

(located within the network tertiary controller) and the central controller of
each MG as well as the ISSes.

(c) (d)
The OMT continuously communicates with the central con-
Fig. 2. (a) Remote area distribution network composed of three islanded MGs troller of each MG to receive the information about the
assuming MG-1 is overloaded. (b) Alternative-1 for CMGs. (c) Alternative-2
for CMGs. (d) Alternative-3 for CMGs.
total active power generation of the dispatchable DERs as
well as the total active power consumed by all loads. For
MG-i, let us denote these quantities as Pdisp-DER(MG-i) and
Pload(MG-i) . The OMT will first identify the overloaded MG(s)
Thus, selecting the suitable MG(s) to couple with the
and then take action depending on the network conditions
overloaded MG among all alternatives is challenging due to
such as the number of overloaded MGs and the UPC that
the high number of alternatives. In addition, different crite-
is available in the other MGs. The OMT calculates the UPC
ria can be considered for the selection, each with a different
for MG-i as
weighting, which can further complicate the selection process. 
To overcome the problem of proper alternative selection UPCi = Pdisp-DER (MG-i)
among a large number of alternatives, while considering sev- 
eral criteria with different weighting, the developed OMT Pload (MG-i) i {1, . . . , NA }. (3)
utilizes a DMA to assess the alternatives and select the It is desired to maintain the UPC of every MG higher than
suitable one. a threshold as
It is worth mentioning that Fig. 1 depicts only one of the 
many possible topologies that the neighboring MGs can be UPCi 1 Pmax
disp-DER (MG-i)
(4)
connected. The proposed OMT in this paper does not depend  max
where Pdisp-DER (MG-i) is the total capacity of dispatchable
on neither the interconnection topologies of the MGs, nor the
topology of an individual MG. Thus, other interconnection DERs in MG-i and 0 < 1 < 1 (e.g., 1 = 0.1) imposes
topologies are also acceptable. a safety margin. In the rest of this paper, (4) is assumed as
the overloading condition of an MG.
If condition (4) is valid for all MGs of the distribution net-
III. P ROPOSED OVERLOAD M ANAGEMENT T ECHNIQUE work, no action needs to be taken by the OMT. However, if
it is invalid for one or more MGs, the OMT evaluates the
The developed OMT will be located as a module (agent) availability of surplus power in the network as
within the network tertiary controller and will continuously
communicate with the central controller of each MG as well as 
N 
N 

the ISSes (see Fig. 3). It is to be noted that the communication UPCi 1 Pmax
disp-DER (MG-i)
. (5)
system, data bandwidth, and topology are beyond the scope i=1 i=1
of this paper and are not discussed in this paper. In the rest of this paper, (5) is considered as the constraint for
The proposed OMT is composed of one main function and coupling the MGs.
three subfunctions, namely decision-making function, load- If condition (4) flags that one or more MGs are overloaded
shedding function, and PFA function. Two algorithms, namely and constraint (5) flags the availability of surplus power in the
DMA and SLSA, are used, respectively, within the decision- distribution network, the OMT proceeds to support the over-
making and load-shedding functions. The proposed OMT loaded MGs by coupling one or more of the nonoverloaded
and its subfunctions are described in detail in the following, MGs to the overloaded one(s).
while the algorithms are described in the next section. The If condition (4) is invalid for n1 = N 1 MGs but con-
PFA function is discussed in Appendix A. straint (5) is valid, the OMT flags that the only alternative
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
is coupling all MGs. It then calls the PFA function to verify
that coupling all MGs will not cause nonstandard voltage and
frequency deviation in the CMG system. From the PFA, that
is discussed in Appendix A, the maximum voltage deviation
in the buses of the system and the maximum frequency devi-
ation in the system, respectively, denoted by V and F, are
calculated as
V = max(|Vi Vnom |)i=1,..., Nbus
F = | f fnom |
where Vi is the per unit (p.u.) voltage of bus-i, i
{1, 2, . . . , Nbus } and f is frequency of the system and Nbus is
the number of buses in the system of CMG while it is assumed
that Vnom = 1 p.u. and fnom = 50 Hz. These two parameters
are then evaluated in
V 0.1 and F 0.5
to verify the possibility of MGs interconnection, assuming that
the maximum acceptable voltage deviation is 10% and the
maximum acceptable frequency deviation is 0.5 Hz.
If condition (4) is invalid for 1 < n1 < N MGs, the
OMT flags that several alternatives are available and decision-
making is required. It then calls the decision-making function
to formulate all alternatives and to define the suitable alter-
native using the DMA. The proposed DMA is discussed in
details in the next section. If an alternative is selected by the
DMA, the OMT initiates the proper command for the relevant
ISS(es) to close. However, if no suitable alternative is cho-
sen, the decision-making function flags that load-shedding is
inevitable and requests the main function of the OMT to call
the load-shedding function.
If the OMT calls the load-shedding function, it first seeks
the possibility of shedding a portion of the nonessential loads
in one or more MGs such that the essential loads of all MGs
are not interrupted. For this, it first identifies the APC of each
MG as
 
APCi = Pdisp-DER (MG-i) + Pnondisp-DER (MG-i) (8)

where Pnondisp-DER(MG-i) denotes the total active power gen-
eration by nondispatchable DERs in MG-I at that moment. It
is to be noted that APC represents the maximum power that
can be supplied in MG-i to its loads plus the power loss in
the lines. Based on (8), the load-shedding function defines the
ALS from each MG as
  decision-making functions is shown in Appendix B and has
ALSi = (1 + 2 ) PLoad (MG-i) APCi (9)
where 0 < 2 < 1 (e.g., 2 = 0.1) imposes a safety margin
to compensate for line losses. For successful load-shedding in
each MG, the ALS should be equal or smaller than the total
of
 nonessential loads in each MG at that moment, denoted by
Pnon-essLoad , that is

ALSi Pnon-essLoad (MG-i) . (10)
If the load-shedding function defines that condition (10) is
valid for all MGs, it flags that load-shedding is successful and
sends the ALS level of each MG to their central controllers.
And if condition (10) is invalid for all MGs, it flags that load-
shedding is not viable.
If condition (10) is invalid for 1 n2 < N MGs, the load-
shedding function first sends the ALS level to the MG(s) which
satisfy (10) to shed the defined portion of their nonessential
loads. Then, it evaluates whether the sum of ALSes in all MGs
of the distribution network is less than the sum of nonessential
loads in all MGs, that is
(6) 
N 
N 
ALSi Pnon-essLoad (MG-i) . (11)
i=1 i=1
If (11) is satisfied, the load-shedding function seeks the possi-
bility of interconnecting the MG(s) which do not satisfy (10)
with the one(s) that still have some nonessential loads. For
this, it defines a second ALS level to compensate for the MGs
who did not satisfy (10). In the rest of this paper, (11) is
(7)
considered as another constraint for coupling MGs, which is
used only when load-shedding is accompanying coupling. The
second ASL level, denoted by ALS2 , is defined as
n2 
  
ALS2 = ALSi Pnon-essLoad (MG-i) i {1, . . . , n2 }.
i=1
(12)
The load-shedding function then formulates the alternatives
which their total remaining nonessential loads are higher
than ALS2 , that is
 
Pnon-essLoad (MG-i) ALSi
k
 
ALS2 k 1, . . . , NA (13)
where NA is the number of the formulated alternatives. The
alternatives qualified in (13) are then assessed by the SLSA to
select a suitable alternative. If a suitable alternative is selected
by the SLSA, the load-shedding function flags that a suitable
alternative is selected. It then defines the portion of ALS2 for
each MG of the selected alternative based on the ratios of their
nonessential loads and sends the amount of the second load-
shedding level to the central controller of each MG as well as
the proper command to the relevant ISS(es) to close. However,
if the SLSA does not select an alternative, the load-shedding
function flags that MGs coupling with further load-shedding
is not viable.
The developed OMT with its main load-shedding and
a time complexity of O(N).
In this paper, the MGs are coupled to prevent overloading
of an MG. The proposed method can be further expanded to
facilitate coupling of MGs so that the surplus power of the
DERs of an MG can be exported to other MGs with a lower
electricity price (as an incentive technique) [18] to be stored
in the energy storage [24], or to be consumed by the con-
trollable loads of the other MGs under the demand dispatch
concept [25].
It is worth mentioning that the proposed OMT solely
focuses on the situations that at least one of the MGs are over-
loaded and tries to select a suitable alternative to which the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT 5

overloaded MG(s) will be interconnected, such that an accept-

able power balance is achieved. The proposed OMT does not
lead to an optimum generation in the DERs but tries to reduce
the load-shedding rate and prevent instability due to power
generation-demand imbalance. To achieve optimum generation
in the DERs of a CMG, an economic dispatch-type method
can be utilized.
It is also noteworthy that in this paper, overloading is
defined based on the balance of generation and consumption
of active power solely. Reactive power was not considered
in this approach assuming that reactive power support (in the
form of fixed or switched capacitors) is available in the net-
work. The proposed OMT can be further modified to consider
the interconnection of MGs for reactive power support, after
a detailed techno-economic analysis.

IV. DYNAMIC M ULTICRITERIA DMA

The multicriteria decision-making model prescribes
a method for prioritizing and selecting the most favor-
able alternative from a set of alternatives, denoted by
A {A1 , A2 , . . . , ANA }, and based on a set of criteria, denoted
by c {c1 , c2 , . . . , cNc }, where Nc being the number of
criteria. Each criterion may have a different weighting. The
corresponding normalized weightings forthe criteria are
denoted by w {w1 , w2 , . . . , wNc }, where j wj = 1. These
weightings are defined by the help of the experts, as discussed
later in this section.
The multicriteria decision-making problem can be modeled
in the form of a matrix as [26]

c1 (w1 ) c2 (w2 ) ... cNC (wNC )

A1 x11 x12 ... x1NC
A2 x21 x22 ... x2NC Fig. 4. Flowchart of the developed multicriteria dynamic DMA.

.. .. .. .. .. (14)
. . . . .
ANA xNA 1 xNA 2 ... xNA NC
product, maxmin, and Hurwitz in the form of [27][29]

where xuv represents the performance of alternative Au from 

the perspective of criterion cv . The matrix of (14) will then be 
NC
Xu = average (wv xuv ) = wv xuv NC
modified to include the weighting of each criterion as
u=1
NC
c1 c2 ... cNC Xu = product (wv xuv ) = wv xuv

A1 w 1 x11 w2 x12 ... wNC x1NC X1 u=1

A2 1 x21
w w2 x22 ... wNC x2NC Xu = min (wv xuv )v=1,..., NC
X2
.. .. .. .. .. = .. . Xu = Hurwitz(wv xuv )
. . . . . .
ANA w1 xNA 1 w2 xNA 2 ... wNC xNA NC XNA = 3 min(wv xuv ) + (1 3 ) max(wv xuv ) (17)
(15)
where min(.) and max(.) are, respectively, the minimum and
maximum functions and 3 [0, 1] (e.g., 3 = 0.75) is the
The evaluation results for the alternatives, denoted by X
optimist coefficient used in the Hurwitz method. Each of these
{X1 , X2 , . . . , XNA }, are calculated as
aggregators has advantages and disadvantages as discussed
in [27][29]. The alterative with the highest X has the highest
Xu = agg(wv xuv ) (16) priority and is selected by the DMA.
The flowchart of the developed multicriteria dynamic
where agg(.) is an aggregating function such as average, DMA is shown in Fig. 4.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID

A. Risk Index of either linguistic (extremely big/small, very big/small,

All of the aggregators given in (17) may not necessarily big/small, a little big/small, and neutral) or number (between
select the same alternative. To overcome this problem, the risk 0% and 100%). After this, the linguistic and numerical values
index, denoted by R {R1 , R2 , . . . , RNA }, is defined for each will be first mapped into a number in [0, 1] range and then
alternative in the form of a matrix as [26], [27] normalized. The weighting for each criterion will be defined
     max  as the average of all normalized values as
c1 x1max c2 x2max . . . cM xN
M

Ne 
A1 r11 r12 ... r1NM R1 wu = wiu Ne (21)
A2 r21 r22 ... r2NM
R2

i=1
.. . .. .. .. = . (18)
. .. . . . .. where Ne is the number of the experts. To achieve a high
ANA rNA 1 rNA 2 ... rNA NM RNA confidence in the weightings, the variation coefficient for
where ruv for criterion cv is the deviation of the performance data dispersion (v ) of criterion cv is calculated as
 
of each alternative versus the alternative with the highest  Ne 
 
v = 
performance and is calculated from 2
wiu wu Ne wu . (22)
ruv = wv xuv xvmax (19) i=1

If v is smaller than a predefined small threshold (e.g., ), it

where xvmax is the maximum of wv xuv for criterion cv among
can be concluded that wv represents the true weighting for cri-
all alternatives. From (18), the risk index for alternative Au ,
terion cv based on experiences and outlooks of all participated
denoted by Ru , is selected as the maximum of ruv .
experts. If v is not smaller than the predefined threshold,
In the case of difference among the selections by aggrega-
more experts should be invited to participate in the census so
tors of (17), the risk index of the alternatives selected by the
that the weightings fulfill the desired dispersion.
aggregators are analyzed only to speed up the process and
the selected alternative with a lower risk index is chosen by
the DMA as the suitable alternative. D. Qualifying Criteria
All possible alternatives may not be qualified to couple with
B. Dynamic DMA the overloaded MG(s) due to reasons such as lack of enough
surplus power in MGs of an alternative, nonstandard voltage,
DMA carries out dynamically. However, overtime the avail-
and frequency deviation in the system after an alternative is
able alternatives can be modified, e.g., newer alternatives get
coupled with the overloaded MG(s) or when one MG vetoes
added or previously existing alternatives vanish depending
supporting another MG.
on the overloaded MGs. Furthermore, the criteria and their
Hence, the DMA first qualifies the alternatives based on
weightings can dynamically change due to the preference of
these conditions. The first four criteria are defined as follows.
the network operator. Hence, a dynamic DMA is utilized in
1) Criterion 1: MG consent/veto for coupling.
which the historical decision-making results are considered in
2) Criterion 2: Availability of surplus power in MGs.
future decision-makings. In dynamic DMA, first the evalua-
3) Criterion 3: Voltage deviation.
tion result of each alternative is defined from (15). Then, a new
4) Criterion 4: Frequency deviation.
dynamic evaluation result, denoted by X d {X1d , X2,...,
d X d },
NA The performance of alternative Au versus these criteria is
is defined at iteration k based on the previous iteration as [28]
expressed as
Xud = Xuk + Xuk1 + Xuk Xuk1 . (20) 
0 if MG vetoes coupling
xu1 =
Note that in case an alternative appears for the first time, its 1 if MG consents coupling

current evaluation result is used instead of (20). In addition, if 1 if u 3
an alternative vanishes in a new decision-making iteration but xu2 = 0.5(u 1) if 1 u < 3

it was available in the previous iteration, its evaluation result 0 if u < 1 or xu1 = 0
is stored in memory and retrieved in the first decision-making
10V u + 1 if 0 V u 0.1
iteration that the alternative appears again.
xu3 = 10V u + 1 if 0.1 V u < 0

0 if 0.1 < |V u | or xu1 xu2 = 0
C. Criteria Weightings
2F u + 1 if 0 F u 0.5
The outcome of the DMA highly depends on the assumed xu4 = 2F u + 1 if 0.5 F u < 0
weightings for each criterion. Therefore, these weightings
0 if 0.5 < |F u | or xu1 xu2 xu3 = 0
should be selected carefully. In complex systems such as (23)
power systems, there is not a systematic method to define
these weightings. An acceptable method is a census from the where u is the ratio of the UPC in MG(s) of alterna-
experts. For this purpose, a group of experts are required tive Au versus the PDL of overloaded MG-j (i.e., u =
to be asked to participate in defining the weightings for UPCu /PDLMG-j ).
these criteria. They will evaluate the weightings for each cri- If any of the above-mentioned four criteria define an alter-
terion based on their experience and outlook in the form native unqualified, the performance of that alternative versus
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT
the remaining criteria is neglected, that is
 PFA but it highly improves the speed of decision-making and
0 if xu1 xu2 xu3 xu4 = 0
xuv = v {5, . . . , NC }.
xuv if xu1 xu2 xu3 xu4 = 0
(24)
E. Other Criteria
Six other criteria are considered for alternative selection
other than the four qualifying criteria. These criteria con-
sider the line loss, electricity price, reliability indices, supply
security, and CO2 emission when selecting a suitable alter-
native. It is to be noted that defining and calculating these
indices for each of the MGs is beyond the scope of this paper.
Assuming these parameters are known and revealed to the
OMT, the performance of each alternative for criteria 510 will
be calculated, as discussed in the following.
1) Criterion 5 (Power Loss in Interconnecting Lines):
One important criterion in the selection of an alternative is
the power loss in the interconnecting lines (tie-lines) which
depends on the distance between the overloaded MG and the
selected MG(s) and the impedance of these lines. The power
loss can be calculated from PFA for each alternative. Then,
it is normalized in the range of [0, 1] where 0 and 1 are,
respectively, for the alternative with maximum and minimum
power loss.
To reduce the required computation time, a second method
is utilized in this paper in which the distance and impedance
of the line(s) among the overloaded MG and the MG(s) of
each alternative are considered. These values are predefined
for the DMA and the only unknown parameters are the power
flow from each MG to the overloaded MG. However, based
on droop characteristic, each DER in the MG shares the load
based on a predefined ratio (i.e., droop curve coefficients).
Based on this concept, each MG shares a portion of the PDL
of the overloaded MG according to the maximum capacities of
its dispatchable DERs. Hence, assuming p MGs in alternative
Au , coefficient i represents the ratio of power supplied from
MG-i to overloaded MG-j as
 p
 
i,u = max
Pdisp-DER (MG-i) Pmax
disp-DER (MG-i)
i=1
i {1, . . . , p}
 i=1
where Pmax
disp-DER (MG-i)
shows the maximum power capacity
of all dispatchable DERs in MG-i. Coefficient i,u is calcu-
lated once only and is not repeated in each iteration. Thus,
the computation time is significantly improved compared to
the PFA. After i is calculated, the total power loss parameter
of alternative Au is calculated as

p 
Ploss,u = i,u (Zi Di ).
i=1
Note that (26) is not equal to the power loss of each alternative
(in kVA) but represents a relationship among different alterna-
tives from line loss prospective. From (26), the performance
of each alternative is calculated for this criterion as
 ity is considered as two criteria but with the same weightings
xu5 = 1 Ploss,u max(Ploss,u )u=1,..., NA . (27)
7
Although the second method is not as accurate as considering
is, therefore, preferred and used in this paper.
2) Criterion 6 (Electricity Price): Another important crite-
rion in selecting an alternative is the price of electricity offered
by the owner of each MG. An MG owner may sell electric-
ity to neighboring MGs with a different price with respect
to its own costumers. The price can also dynamically change
over time due to different reasons (e.g., the variations in the
price of fuel consumed in diesel generators or the availability
of power from intermittent nondispatchable DERs). Assuming
Ei as the electricity unit price offered by MG-i (in $/kWh),
the total equivalent electricity cost to be paid by the owner of
the overloaded MG to the owners of MG(s) in alternative Au
is defined as

p
Ecost,u = i,u Ei . (28)
i=1
From (28), the performance of alternative Au is calculated for
this criterion as
xu6 = 1 Ecost,u / max (Ecost,u )u=1,..., NA . (29)
3) Criteria 7 and 8 (Reliability): It is highly probable that
each MG may have a different reliability level. In addition,
the failure rate of CMG is the sum of the failure rates of each
participating individual MG. Therefore, as the number of MGs
increases in an alternative, the failure rate of the alternative
increases (i.e., the reliability decreases). It is highly desirable
for the overloaded MG to couple with MG(s) in an alternative
which have higher reliability to reduce the possibility of inter-
ruption to the essential load of the overloaded MG. Different
reliability indices can be considered such as SAIFI, MAIFI,
and SAIDI. SAIFI and MAIFI represent the frequency of sup-
ply interruptions whereas SAIDI represents the duration of
f
interruptions (in minutes). RBu and RBdu indices are defined
for alternative Au composed of p MGs as

p
RBuf = 1 SAIFIi,u + 2 MAIFIi,u
i=1
p
(25) RBdu = SAIDIi,u (30)
where {1 , 2 } [0, 1] and 1 + 2 = 1 are the assumed
weightings for SAIFI and MAIFI, respectively. In this paper,
it is assumed that 1 = 2 . From (30), the performance of
alternative Au is calculated for these criteria as
  
xu7 = 1 RBuf max RBuf
  u=1,..., NA
(26) xu8 = 1 RBdu max RBdu . (31)
u=1,..., NA
Alternatively, these criteria can be combined together with dif-
ferent weightings to constitute one criterion only. However,
since the performance of each alternative is easily compared
when they are separate (due to dimension difference), reliabil-
in this paper.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID

4) Criterion 9 (Supply Security): If an MG has high power

generation by its nondispatchable DERs, it may have a higher
UPC in its dispatchable DERs. Once this MG is coupled
with an overloaded MG, the overloaded MG does not have
a high supply security as any unexpected drop in the power of
the nondispatchable DERs (due to environmental conditions)
may cause overloading of the CMG. Hence, it is important
to consider the security of supply when selecting an alterna-
tive. Supply security index SSu is defined for alternative Au
composed of p MGs as
 p
p  
SSu = Pdisp-DER(MG-i) Pload(MG-i) (32) Fig. 5. Assumed power system topology for the MGs in the distribution
i=1 i=1 network under consideration.

where Pload(MG-i) shows the average active power con- TABLE I
sumed by all loads in MG-i. From (32), the performance of A SSUMED C LOUD T HEORY-BASED P ROBABILISTIC P OWER DATA AND
THE C ALCULATED UPC AND PDL FOR THE D ISTRIBUTION
alternative Au is calculated for this criterion as N ETWORK [kW] (E XAMPLE 1)

xu9 = 1 SSu / max (SSu )u=1,..., NA . (33)

5) Criterion 10 (CO2 Emissions): Consider a distribution

network in which the distribution network operator penalizes
the MG owners based on their level of CO2 emission [30].
Hence, each MG owner may charge CO2 emission penal-
ties from customers in the form of carbon tax, based on the
supplied electricity to each customer. When selecting an alter-
TABLE II
A SSUMED C LOUD T HEORY-BASED P ROBABILISTIC DATA FOR E ACH MG
OF THE D ISTRIBUTION N ETWORK U SED IN DMA (E XAMPLE 1)

native, it is desired to select an alternative with less CO2

emissions to minimize the penalties imposed to the overloaded
MG. Therefore, the level of CO2 emissions by each MG can
be considered as a criterion. Assuming the total CO2 emission
for MG-i as Emi , CO2 emission index is defined for alternative
Au composed of p MGs as

p ture is considered for all of the MGs in this section. It is to
CO2u = i,u Emi .
i=1
From (34), the performance of alternative Au is calculated for
this criterion as
xu10 = 1 Co2u /max (Co2u )u=1,..., NA .
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
To evaluate the performance of the developed OMT based
on the proposed DMA, first the network of Fig. 2, composed of
three isolated MGs, is considered. Later, a larger distribution
network composed of six MGs is focused. It is to be noted
that although in theory a network with infinite number of MGs
can be assumed, in reality, the number of MGs in a remote
area network will be limited.
In the carried out analysis, all MGs are assumed to have
the power system topology of Fig. 5. In this topology, it is
assumed that the nondispatchable solar and wind-based DERs
are connected to buses 1 and 2, respectively, whereas the dis-
patchable DER (i.e., diesel-generator) is connected to bus 4.
The essential and nonessential loads are assumed to be con-
nected to bus 3, while bus 5 is the assumed interconnection
point of the MG to its neighboring MGs. The assumed line
parameters are provided in Table XIX in Appendix A.
It is worth mentioning that in reality, the MGs will have
different topologies; however, for simplicity, the same struc-
(34) be highlighted that the developed OMT does not depend on
neither the MG topology nor the line parameters.
A cloud theory-based stochastic analysis is carried out in
this paper which defines randomly the MG essential and
nonessential loads, capacity of the dispatchable and nondis-
(35) patchable DERs, nominal and actual wind speed for wind
turbines, sun radiation for solar-based DERs, electricity price,
CO2 emission, and the reliability indices for each MG. The
cloud theory-based stochastic analysis is discussed in details
in Appendix C and all uncertainty values are provided in
Tables XX and XXI.
First, let us consider the network of Fig. 2 with three MGs.
Examples 13 demonstrate three examples in which the OMT
flags that one MG is overloaded while there is surplus power in
the other MGs of the network [i.e., condition (4) is invalid for
one of the MGs while constraint (5) is valid for the distribution
network].
Table I provides the assumed cloud theory-based probabilis-
tic power data for all three MGs as well as the calculated
UPC and PDL for example 1. This table illustrates that MG-1
is overloaded, while MG-2 and MG-3 have surplus power.
Thus, several alternatives (i.e., A1 = {MG-2}, A2 = {MG-3},
and A3 = {MG-2, MG-3}) are available for MGs interconnec-
tion and thereby the OMT calls the decision-making function.
Table II lists the assumed cloud theory-based probabilistic
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT
TABLE III
C OMPARISON A MONG THE PARAMETERS OF AVAILABLE A LTERNATIVES
TO S UPPORT OVERLOADED MG-1 (E XAMPLE 1)
TABLE IV
C ALCULATED D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 1)
TABLE V
A SSUMED W EIGHTINGS FOR THE C RITERIA IN DMA
TABLE VI
C ALCULATED W EIGHTED D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 1)
TABLE VII
N ORMALIZED W EIGHTED D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 1)
TABLE VIII
S ELECTED A LTERNATIVE AND E VALUATION R ESULTS F ROM D IFFERENT
AGGREGATORS (E XAMPLE 1)
TABLE IX
D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 2)
data for each MG of the alternatives for this example. These
data are utilized in DMA to define the performance of each
alternative for each criterion, as seen from Table III. Table IV
demonstrates the calculated decision-making matrix of (14).
Let the normalized weightings for the considered crite-
ria based on the experts comments, defined from (21), be
as listed in Table V. From the data of Tables IV and V, the
weighted decision-making matrix is calculated from (15) as
given in Table VI and then normalized as given in Table VII.
9
TABLE X
N ORMALIZED W EIGHTED D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 3)
TABLE XI
S ELECTED A LTERNATIVE AND E VALUATION R ESULTS F ROM D IFFERENT
AGGREGATORS AND R ISK M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 3)
TABLE XII
R ISK M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 3)
TABLE XIII
A SSUMED C LOUD T HEORY-BASED P ROBABILISTIC P OWER DATA AND
THE C ALCULATED UPC AND PDL FOR THE
N ETWORK [kW] (E XAMPLE 4)
TABLE XIV
A SSUMED C LOUD T HEORY-BASED P ROBABILISTIC DATA FOR E ACH MG
OF THE D ISTRIBUTION N ETWORK U SED IN DMA (E XAMPLE 4)
The normalized weighted decision-making matrix is then used
to define the evaluation result of each alternative, using the
aggregators of (17), as given in Table VIII. For example 1,
MG-1 is overloaded and alternative A3 is the preferred choice
of all aggregators and is selected to couple with MG-1. To
investigate the reasons behind the selection of A3 and its supe-
riorities over the two other alternatives, the numerical values of
Table III should be investigated. From this table, it can be seen
that A3 presents the best performance from the perspective of
criteria 2 and 3, while it has an average performance from the
perspective of criteria 46, 9, and 10. A3 also illustrates the
worst performance from the perspective of criteria 7 and 8.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
TABLE XV
C OMPARISON A MONG THE PARAMETERS OF AVAILABLE A LTERNATIVES TO S UPPORT OVERLOADED MG-1 (E XAMPLE 4)
TABLE XVI
D ECISION -M AKING M ATRIX (E XAMPLE 4)
Finally, the DMA has selected this alternative since crite-
ria 24, and 6 had larger weightings versus criteria 7 and 8,
based on the experts.
Example 2 demonstrates another scenario in which MG-2 is
overloaded and alternative A1 (i.e., {MG-1}) fails to satisfy
one of the qualifying criteria (i.e., criterion 4) as seen from
Table IX. Hence, the performances of this alternative for all
other criteria are neglected based on (24) and are discarded
from the alternatives.
Example 3 demonstrates another case in which MG-3 is
overloaded. The normalized weighted decision-making matrix
is as given in Table X and the evaluation results of each
alternative, based on the aggregators of (17), are given in
Table XI. From this table, it is seen that alternatives A1 and
A3 are selected by the aggregators. Hence, a risk matrix is
defined for these alternatives from (18) and (19), as given in
Table XII. From this table, alternative A3 (i.e., {MG-1, MG-2})
is selected as it demonstrates a lower risk index.
To illustrate the performance of the developed OMT for
a distribution network with larger number of MGs, and
thus a larger number of alternatives, another study is car-
ried out which assumes the network of Fig. 2 with six
MGs. Thus, the OMT may evaluate up to 31 alternatives
to define the suitable one. Example 4 illustrates one of
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
such scenarios. Table XIII provides the assumed cloud theory-
based probabilistic power data for all six MGs as well as the
calculated UPC and PDL for Example 4. This table illus-
trates that MG-2 and MG-6 are overloaded simultaneously.
Thus, the OMT calls the decision-making function to for-
mulate the possible alternatives to select the suitable one.
Table XIV provides the assumed cloud theory-based proba-
bilistic data for each of the MGs of the distribution network
for this example which are utilized to define the performance
of each alternative for each criterion, as seen from Table XV.
For this example, a total of 15 alternatives are possible, as
listed in Table XV. The calculated decision-making matrix
for this example is provided in Table XVI. Table XVII illus-
trates the results of different aggregators for each of the
alternatives. Two alternatives (i.e., A6 and A7 ) are selected
by the aggregators. Thus, their risk index is calculated by the
DMA. The risk index of both of these alternatives is the same
(i.e., 0.47). So, the DMA selects one of them randomly. In
this example, alternative A6 is selected. Hence, the OMT sends
a command to the ISSes of MG-1, 3, 5, and 6 to close and
form a CMG.
The stochastic analysis results of the network of Fig. 2 with
three MGs are summarized in Table XVIII which demon-
strates the flags pointed out by the OMT and its embedded
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT
TABLE XVII
S ELECTED A LTERNATIVE AND E VALUATION R ESULTS F ROM
D IFFERENT AGGREGATORS (E XAMPLE 4)
TABLE XVIII
S TOCHASTIC A NALYSIS R ESULTS D EMONSTRATING THE F LAGS
G ENERATED BY THE OMT AND D ECISION -M AKING AND
L OAD -S HEDDING F UNCTIONS FOR A N ETWORK
C OMPOSED OF T HREE MG S U NDER T WO
C ONSIDERED S TUDY C ASES
decision-making and load-shedding functions. The table shows
the results of two sets of stochastic analyses.
1) Case 1: The assumption that the dispatchable DERs
have a capacity of 60% nominal load demand based
on [11] and [12].
2) Case 2: The assumption that the dispatchable DERs have
a capacity of 30% of the nominal load demand.
From this table, it is seen that for the considered uncer-
tainties of case 1, no coupling of the MGs is required for
25.69% of the cases, as interconnection condition (4) is satis-
fied for all three MGs. In 9.29% of the cases, interconnection
11
of all three MGs is required among which 6.45% satisfy
PFA constraint (6) and interconnection is possible whereas
in 2.84% PFA constraint (6) is not satisfied. In 41.54% of
the cases, several alternatives are possible and the OMT calls
the decision-making function where in all of them, a suitable
alternative is selected. In 4.45% of the selected alternatives,
the DMA selects an alternative which is composed of one
MG while in 37.09% an alternative composed of two MGs
is selected. In 23.48% of the cases, the OMT calls the
load-shedding function where load-shedding is found to be
successful in all MGs.
From Table XVIII, it can also be seen that in 80.66% of
the cases, the OMT calls the load-shedding function where
load-shedding is found to be unsuccessful in 0.01% and suc-
cessful in 65.18% of them. Coupling of MGs accompanied
by load-shedding counts for 14.59% of the load-shedding sec-
tion, among which in 7.59% of them the selected alternative
is composed of one MG and in 7% of them the selected alter-
native is composed of two MGs. In 0.88% of the total cases,
it is found that coupling of MGs by further load-shedding is
not viable.
Note that the utilized stochastic analysis has a minimum of
10 000 trials to prevent any immature results. The stopping
rule is defined to achieve a confidence level of 95% in the
mean and standard deviation of the results.
VI. C ONCLUSION
An OMT is developed in this paper to reduce the load-
shedding rate of a remote area MG, during overloading con-
ditions, by interconnecting it with suitable neighboring MG(s).
A dynamic multicriteria DMA is presented to formulate the
possible alternatives, qualify them based on four proposed cri-
teria and then assess and select the most suitable one to achieve
the highest satisfaction and minimum risk considering another
six criteria. All criteria have different weightings. In case, sur-
plus power is not available in the other MGs, the developed
OMT proceeds to define the required ALS from each MG.
If this level is less than the nonessential part of the loads of
an MG, the developed technique defines which neighboring
MG(s) have extra nonessential loads. It then proceeds to iden-
tify those MGs, defines the portion of nonessential load to be
disconnected from them, and then interconnects those MGs.
The successful performance of the developed algorithms is val-
idated in a stochastic frame in MATLAB for a small network
composed of three MGs as well as a large network, composed
of six MGs.
It is worth mentioning that the proposed method of coupling
the MGs can be expanded to be used when extra surplus power
is available in the DERs of an MG. Thus, the extra available
power can be exported to other MGs with a lower electric-
ity price, to be stored in the energy storage units or to be
consumed by the controllable loads of the other MGs, under
demand dispatch concept.
It is also noteworthy that analyzing the effect of different
weightings for each criterion and thereby the outcome of the
DMA can be another future research topic.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

12 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID

It is to be noted that in this paper, it was assumed that the Then, the p.u. total power loss in the lines of MG, denoted
MGs are interconnected through one bus only. However, in by Sloss , is calculated as
general, it is possible to consider the interconnection of one  k  k 

Nbus 
Nbus
k 2
MG through different buses to different MGs. This can be loss p
S = Yi,k
bus
Vi p Vk p . (A4)
a future research topic and the power flow control under such i=1 k=i
conditions needs to be investigated.
Hence, the required power to be generated by the dispatchable
DERs is
 kp  
A PPENDIX A
Sdisp DER = Sload + (Sloss )kp Snon-disp DER . (A5)
D EVELOPED P OWER F LOW A NALYSIS FOR M ICROGRIDS
 disp DER
Standard PFAs have one slack bus with known voltage mag- The active and reactive power part of S is shared
nitude and angle and regulated buses with known voltage among the dispatchable DERs of the MG based on their
magnitudes and active powers. It also assumes that frequency predefined droop ratios, denoted by mD and nD , as

is constant. The MGs operating in islanded mode do not have   1 mD  
disp DER kp
slack bus. For an MG operating in islanded mode, the DERs Pi = N i
 Re S disp DER
disp DER
modify their output voltage magnitude and frequency, using 1 mD
i=1
 D i
the droop control, based on the network loading conditions,  kp 1 n  
as discussed in [31] and [32]. Hence, the PFA for an islanded Qdisp
i
DER
= 
i
Ndisp DER  Im S disp DER (A6)
MG needs to consider these characteristics, as highlighted i=1 1 nD
i
in [33]. It is also to be noted that as the voltage and frequency where i {1, . . . , Ndisp DER }, while Re(.) and Im(.) are,
are not constant in the MG under different loading conditions, respectively, the real and imaginary functions.
the dependency of the load and line parameters on voltage and Once the active powers generated by the dispatchable DER
frequency should also be considered in the PFA. buses are defined from (A6), the MG frequency is calculated
A GaussSeidel-based PFA is developed in this paper and from the droop curve of either of the dispatchable DERs as
used within the OMT to compute the maximum voltage  
DER kp
and frequency deviation for the considered CMG systems. f kp = fmax mi Pdisp
i . (A7)
Consider an MG with Nbus buses, Ndisp DER dispatchable In addition, the voltage magnitude of each dispatchable DER
DERs and Nnon-disp DER nondispatchable DERs (which may bus is calculated from the reactive power-voltage droop coef-
have a radial or mesh structure), and an admittance matrix of ficient of each DER as
Y bus (in p.u.). Assume that a bus is connected to either a load  
DER kp
or a DER. Bus-i when connected to a load (referred to as |Vi |kp = Vmax ni Qdisp
i . (A8)
load-bus in the rest of this section) has a power consumption
Due to lack of slack bus, the bus connected to one of the
of Siload = Pload
i + jQload
i (in p.u.) whereas when connected
dispatchable DERs (e.g., the first dispatchable DER) needs to
to a nondispatchable DER (referred to as nondispatchable
non-disp DER be assumed as the reference bus. The angle of the reference bus
DER bus) has a power consumption of Si =
non-disp DER is always zero and all other angles in the MG are considered
Pi (in p.u.). Assuming a set of initial values for with respect to this bus. Thus, the voltages of the dispatchable
the voltages of all buses (e.g., 1 0.01 p.u.), the PFA first DER buses are updated at each iteration based on the voltage
calculates the current drawn by each load in iteration kp as magnitudes calculated in (A8) and the angles of the voltages
k
  k 1  in the previous iteration as
Ii p = conj Si Vi p i {1, . . . , Nload } (A1) 
kp |Vi |kp 0  k 1  i = 1
Vi = (A9)
where conj(.) is the conjugate function. In a similar way, the |Vi | angle Vi p
kp
i {2, . . . , Ndisp DER }
current injected by each nondispatchable DER is calculated for where angle(.) is the function to derive the angle.
i {1, . . . , Nnon-disp DER }. Then, the voltages of all load and The considered loads in this paper are assumed to be
nondispatchable DER buses are calculated similar to classic a voltage- and frequency-dependent constant impedance type.
PFA as Thus, all loads are updated in each iteration of the PFA based
  on the voltage magnitude and frequency of the buses to which
Nbus
kp kp bus kp 1
Vi = Ii Yi,k Vk Yibus . (A2) they are connected at the previous iteration as [34]
 kp +1  k  
p kv 1 + k F kp
k=1
Pload
i = P0 |Vi | p
Once the voltages for all load buses and nondispatchable    k  
load kp +1
DER buses are updated from (A2) at each iteration, the Qi = Q0 |Vi | p kv 1 + kq F kp (A10)
voltages of the buses are slightly modified based on clas- where P0 and Q0 are, respectively, the assumed nominal active
sic GaussSeidel method with a correction/acceleration factor and reactive power of the load (in p.u.) while k v = 2, k p =
of 4 as 0.1, and k q = 0.1.
k k 1
 k k 1
 The assumed line parameters for the MG power system of
Vi p = Vi p + 4 Vi p Vi p . (A3) Fig. 5 are provided in Table XIX at fundamental frequency
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT 13

TABLE XIX
A SSUMED L INE PARAMETERS OF THE MG S YSTEM Algorithm 1: Overload Management Technique (OMT)
 max
OF F IG . 5 AT F UNDAMENTAL F REQUENCY Pre-defined Inputs: P
 disp-DER (MG
 -i) 
Dynamic Inputs:
 Pload(MG-i) , Pnon-essload(MG-i) , Pdisp-DER(MG-i)
Pnon-disp-DER(MG-i) ,
Dynamic Outputs:: Flag, command to ISSes, ALSi , ALSi2
Main Function:
1 Calculate UPCi from (3) for each microgrid;
2 if condition (4) is satisfied for all microgrids then
3 Flag: No interconnection is required;
4 else 
5 Calculate UPCii=1,...,N from (3);
6 if constraint (5) is not satisfied then
7 Flag: Coupling microgrids is not helpful and load-shedding is
inevitable;
8 Call Load-shedding Function to evaluate the possibility of
load-shedding;
9 else
10 if N 1 microgrids are overloaded based on condition (4) then
(i.e., 50 Hz). It is to be emphasized that the impedance of 11 Flag: The only alternative is coupling all N microgrids;
the lines and thus the Y bus of the system are updated in each 12 Call PFA Function;
13 if constraint (7) is satisfied then
iteration to consider the effect of the frequency changes in 14 Flag: All N microgrids can be coupled;
the MG. 15 Send the command to relevant ISS(es) to close;
16 else
At every iteration, the mismatch value is calculated as the 17 Flag: Coupling all N microgrids is not viable and
maximum of differences between all bus voltages of the MG load-shedding is inevitable;
18 Call Load-shedding Function to evaluate the possibility of
with their values in the previous iteration along with the dif- load-shedding;
19 end
ferences between the active/reactive power of all dispatchable 20 else
DERs with the values in the previous iteration, as 21 Flag: Several alternatives are possible; hence, decision-making is
  22
required;
Call Decision-making Function to assess the alternatives;
 = max |V| , P , Q (A11) 23 if an alternative is selected by Decision-making Function then
24 Flag: A suitable alternative is selected;
where 25 Send the command to relevant ISS(es) to close;
  26 else
|V| = max |Vi |kp |Vi |kp 1 i=1,..., N 27 Flag: A suitable alternative is not available and
load-shedding is inevitable;
   bus
  28 Call Load-shedding Function to evaluate the possibility of
disp DER kp disp DER kp 1
P = max Pi Pi load-shedding;
i=1,..., Ndisp 29 end
     DER
30 end
disp DER kp disp DER kp 1
Q = max Qi Qi . 31 end
i=1,..., Ndisp DER 32 end
Decision-Making Function:
Once  is smaller than a predefined value (e.g., 1010 ), the 1
2
Formulate the alternatives;
Call DMA;
PFA is deemed to be converged. 3 if an alternative is selected by DMA then
4 Flag: A suitable alternative is selected for coupling the microgrids;
Through the observations in this paper, it is revealed that 5 Send the command to relevant ISS(es) to close;
the developed PFA converges as far as the assumed demand 6 else
7 Flag: A suitable alternative is not available and load-shedding is inevitable;
is within the power generation capacity of the DERs. It is 8 Call Load-shedding Function to evaluate the possibility of load-shedding;
to be noted that since the size of the considered network is 9 end
Load-shedding Function:
small, the number of iterations is limited and no convergence 1 Calculate ALSi from (9);
problems were observed. However, analyzing the convergence 2 if condition (10) is satisfied for all microgrids then
3 Flag: Load-shedding is successful;
property, rate, and regions of the developed PFA is beyond the 4 Send ALS to each microgrid to shed its loads accordingly;
scope of this paer and can be a future research topic. 5 else
6 Send the ALS level to those microgrid(s) that satisfy condition (10);
7 if constraint (11) is satisfied then
8 Calculate ALS2 from (12) & formulate alternatives satisfying (13);
A PPENDIX B 9 Call SLSA;
D EVELOPED A LGORITHM FOR M ICROGRID OVERLOAD 10 if an alternative is selected by SLSA then
11 Flag: Coupling of microgrids accompanied by further
M ANAGEMENT T ECHNIQUE load-shedding is selected;
12 Send ALS2 to relevant microgrid(s) to shed their loads;
The developed algorithm of the proposed OMT is given in 13 Send the command to relevant ISS(es) to close;
Algorithm 1. 14 else
15 Flag: Coupling of microgrids accompanied by further
load-shedding is not viable;
16 end
A PPENDIX C 17 else
C LOUD T HEORY-BASED S TOCHASTIC A NALYSIS 18 Flag: Coupling of microgrids accompanied by further load-shedding is
not viable;
To consider the uncertainties in the wind and solar genera- 19 end
20 end
tion, load, capacity of dispatchable DERs, reliability indices,
CO2 emissions, and electricity price in each MG, a stochas-
tic framework is developed in this paper. Monte Carlo is
an approach for modeling uncertainties in power system above-mentioned uncertainties can be compromised by the his-
studies in which the uncertainties are modeled with an torical statistics, the standard deviation is another uncertain
appropriate PDF. Although the mean of the PDF for the parameter [35], [36]. This issue can be solved by considering
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
14
TABLE XX
A SSUMED U NCERTAINTIES IN THE G ENERATION C APACITY AND
D EMAND FOR THE MG S
TABLE XXI
A SSUMED U NCERTAINTIES IN THE PARAMETERS
OF THE C RITERIA IN DMA
a stochastic framework based on cloud theory in which the
standard deviation for each uncertainty is defined as a hyper
entropy index. Hence, the uncertainty of parameter x is defined
by a cloud theory-based model, denoted by CL (Ex , En , He )
where Ex is the expected (mean) value, En is the entropy
(variation range), and He is the hyper entropy (divergence
of variation range) [35], [36]. He uses a normal distribution
to model the entropy of En and CL uses a normal distribu-
tion to model uncertainty x with the assumed mean of Ex
and standard deviation of En . Thus, the cloud theory-based
stochastic framework captures the uncertainty that exists in
the determination of standard deviation. The values for cloud
theory-based models of load demand and its essential and
nonessential portion, maximum (capacity) of power generated
by wind and solar-based and dispatchable DERs, electricity
price, CO2 emissions, SAIFI, SAIDI, and MAIFI in each MG
are listed in Tables XX and XXI where floor(.) is the floor
function.
The probabilistic load of network is chosen from a uniform
distribution over [0, Pmax
load ] range.
The random output power of a solar-based DER in each MG
depends on the random solar irradiance parameter, denoted by
s, and derived from a Beta PDF as [37], [38]
(5 + 5 )
fbeta (s) = s5 1 (1 s)5 1
(5 )
(5 ) [9] Y.-Y. Hong, M.-C. Hsiao, Y.-R. Chang, Y.-D. Lee, and H.-C. Huang,
where 5 and 5 are the shape parameters of the beta distribu-
tion (e.g., 5 = 2 and 5 = 2). The probabilistic output power
of a solar-based DER, denoted by PPV , is then calculated
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
from [37], [38]
  !
Top 20
PPV = Nc FF V oc
kv TA + s
0.8
"  sc #
s I + ki (Tc 25) (C2)
where Nc is the number of cells, FF = 0.7 is the fill factor,
Tc = 25 C and Top = 25 C are, respectively, the assumed
cell and normal operational temperatures, TA is ambient tem-
perature, V oc = 22 V and I sc = 3.7 A are the assumed
open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current of the PV cells,
and kv = 2.3 and ki = 6E 5 are, respectively, the assumed
voltage and current coefficients.
The random value for the nominal (rated) wind speed of
wind-based DERs is chosen from a normal PDF where the
value for the wind speed (vwind ) is chosen randomly from
a Rayleigh PDF as [37], [38]
2vwind
e(vwind /cv )
2
frayleigh (vwind ) = (C3)
cv
where cv 1.128 vm and vm is the average wind speed. Thus,
the probabilistic output power of a wind-based DER, denoted
by Pwind , is [37], [38]
0 vwind < vci or vwind > vco
v vci
max
Pwind = Pwind nominal vci vwind < vnominal
wind
v vci
max wind
Pwind vnominal
wind vwind vco
(C4)
where vci = 3.5 m/s and vco = 25 m/s are, respectively, the
assumed cut-in and cut-out speeds for the wind turbine.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Paleta, A. Pina, and C. A. S. Silva, Polygeneration energy container:
Designing and testing energy services for remote developing commu-
nities, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 13481355,
Oct. 2014.
[2] M. Arriaga, C. A. Canizares, and M. Kazerani, Northern lights: Access
to electricity in Canadas Northern and remote communities, IEEE
Power Energy Mag., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 5059, Jul./Aug. 2014.
[3] K. Ubilla et al., Smart microgrids as a solution for rural electrifica-
tion: Ensuring long-term sustainability through cadastre and business
models, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 13101318,
Oct. 2014.
[4] Y. M. Atwa et al., Adequacy evaluation of distribution system including
wind/solar DG during different modes of operation, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 19451952, Nov. 2011.
[5] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. de Vicua, and M. Castilla,
Hierarchical control of droop-controlled AC and DC microgrids
A general approach toward standardization, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 158172, Jan. 2011.
[6] B. Kroposki et al., Making microgrids work, IEEE Power Energy
Mag., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4053, May/Jun. 2008.
[7] M. Arriaga, C. A. Canizares, and M. Kazerani, Renewable energy alter-
natives for remote communities in Northern Ontario, Canada, IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 661670, Jul. 2013.
[8] E. Pashajavid and M. A. Golkar, Non-Gaussian multivariate modeling
of plug-in electric vehicles load demand, Int. J. Elect. Power Energy
(C1) Syst., vol. 61, pp. 197207, Oct. 2014.
Multiscenario underfrequency load shedding in a microgrid consisting
of intermittent renewables, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 16101617, Jul. 2013.
[10] S. Bahramirad, W. Reder, and A. Khodaei, Reliability-constrained opti-
mal sizing of energy storage system in a microgrid, IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 20562062, Dec. 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
SHAHNIA et al.: COUPLING NEIGHBORING MGs FOR OVERLOAD MANAGEMENT
[11] S. A. Arefifar and Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, DG mix, reactive sources
and energy storage units for optimizing microgrid reliability and sup-
ply security, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 18351844,
Jul. 2014.
[12] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. El-Fouly, Optimum
microgrid design for enhancing reliability and supply-security, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 15671575, Sep. 2013.
[13] R. Majumder, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich, and F. Zare, Power management
and power flow control with back-to-back converters in a utility con-
nected microgrid, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 821834,
May 2010.
[14] R. Minciardi and R. Sacile, Optimal control in a cooperative network of
smart power grids, IEEE Syst. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 126133, Mar. 2012.
[15] R. H. Lasseter, Smart distribution: Coupled microgrids, Proc. IEEE,
vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 10741082, Jun. 2011.
[16] Z. Wang and J. Wang, Self-healing resilient distribution systems based
on sectionalization into microgrids, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30,
no. 6, pp. 31393149, Nov. 2015.
[17] Z. Wang, B. Chen, J. Wang, and C. Chen, Networked microgrids for
self-healing power systems, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, to be published.
[18] Z. Wang, B. Chen, J. Wang, M. M. Begovic, and C. Chen, Coordinated
energy management of networked microgrids in distribution systems,
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 4553, Jan. 2015.
[19] H. Dagdougui, A. Ouammi, and R. Sacile, Optimal control of a network
of power microgrids using the Pontryagins minimum principle, IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 19421948, Sep. 2014.
[20] F. Shahnia, R. P. S. Chandrasena, S. Rajakaruna, and A. Ghosh, Primary
control level of parallel distributed energy resources converters in system
of multiple interconnected autonomous microgrids within self-healing
networks, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 203222,
Feb. 2014.
[21] Y. Zhang and L. Xie, Online dynamic security assessment of microgrid
interconnections in smart distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 32463254, Nov. 2015.
[22] E. Pashajavid, F. Shahnia, and A. Ghosh, Overload management of
autonomous microgrids, in Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron.
Drive Syst. (PEDS), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2015, pp. 7378.
[23] E. Pashajavid, F. Shahnia, and A. Ghosh, Interconnection of two neigh-
boring autonomous microgrids based on small signal analysis, in Proc.
9th IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron. Asia (ICPE-ECCE Asia), Seoul,
Korea, Jun. 2015, pp. 213220.
[24] W. Su, J. Wang, and J. Roh, Stochastic energy scheduling in microgrids
with intermittent renewable energy resources, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 18761883, Jul. 2014.
[25] A. Brooks, E. Lu, D. Reicher, C. Spirakis, and B. Weihl, Demand
dispatch, IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2029,
May/Jun. 2010.
[26] S.-M. Chen and C.-H. Wang, A generalized model for prioritized mul-
ticriteria decision making systems, Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 36, no. 3,
pp. 47734783, Apr. 2009.
[27] P. Y. Ekel, J. S. C. Martini, and R. M. Palhares, Multicriteria analysis in
decision making under information uncertainty, Appl. Math. Comput.,
vol. 200, no. 2, pp. 501516, Jul. 2008.
[28] N. Fenton and W. Wang, Risk and confidence analysis for fuzzy
multicriteria decision making, Knowl.-Based Syst., vol. 19, no. 6,
pp. 430437, Oct. 2006.
15
[29] G. Campanella and R. A. Ribeiro, A framework for dynamic multiple-
criteria decision making, Decis. Support Syst., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 5260,
Dec. 2011.
[30] Y. Wu, S. Lou, and S. Lu, A model for power system interconnection
planning under low-carbon economy with CO2 emission constraints,
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 205214, Jul. 2011.
[31] J. M. Guerrero, L. G. D. Vicuna, J. Matas, M. Castilla, and J. Miret,
A wireless controller to enhance dynamic performance of paral-
lel inverters in distributed generation systems, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 12051213, Sep. 2004.
[32] F. Katiraei and M. R. Iravani, Power management strategies for a micro-
grid with multiple distributed generation units, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 18211831, Nov. 2006.
[33] A. Elrayyah, Y. Sozer, and M. E. Elbuluk, A novel load-flow analysis
for stable and optimized microgrid operation, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 17091717, Aug. 2014.
[34] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1993.
[35] D. Li, D. Cheung, X. Shi, and V. Ng, Uncertainty reasoning based
on cloud models in controllers, Comput. Math. Appl., vol. 35, no. 3,
pp. 99123, Feb. 1998.
[36] A. Kavousi-Fard, T. Niknam, and M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, A novel
stochastic framework based on cloud theory and -modified Bat algo-
rithm to solve the distribution feeder reconfiguration, IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, to be published.
[37] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. El-Fouly, Supply-
adequacy-based optimal construction of microgrids in smart distribution
systems, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 14911502,
Sep. 2012.
[38] Y. M. Atwa, E. F. El-Saadany, M. M. A. Salama, and R. Seethapathy,
Optimal renewable resources mix for distribution system energy loss
minimization, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 360370,
Feb. 2010.
Farhad Shahnia (S10M11SM15) photograph and biography not avail-
able at the time of publication.
Soheil Bourbour, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.
Arindam Ghosh (S80M83SM93F06) photograph and biography not
available at the time of publication.