7 AC83 D 01

F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w

Multi Agent based Distributed Energy Resource
Management for Intelligent Microgrids

Journal: Transactions on Industrial Electronics
Manuscript ID: 11-0790-TIE.R1
Manuscript Type: SS on Distributed Generation and Micro-grids
Manuscript Subject: Intelligent Systems
Keywords: Microgrid, Energy Markets, Multi Agent System
Are any of authors IEEE
Member?:
Yes
Are any of authors IES
Member?:
Yes

Transactions on Industrial Electronics
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments/suggestions. The manuscript is
revised based on the suggestions from the reviewers. The suggestions/comments are encouraging
and gave completeness to the manuscript as a whole.
The corrections made (new addition) in the manuscript are highlighted with underline.

The responses to comments raised by individual reviewers are given below:

Response to Reviewer#1 comments:

1. Storage devices or ESSs should be considered in this paper because they have very important
roles in real microgrids.
We would like to thank the reviewers for raising this important point. We have incorporated storage
systems. The detailed description of new agents and storage system is given in section III(C) of the
manuscript. The market simulation results with storage systems are given in section IV(C).

2. The contributions of this paper in comparison with previous works should be showed and
described well.
The presented work mainly concentrates on forming local pool and thereby enabling power
wheeling among microgrids. The algorithm used for matching energy buyers and energy sellers is
naive auction algorithm. As rightly pointed out by the reviewer, in [31] a similar attempt was made
in which the focus is on managing a single microgrid. In such case the surplus/deficit power shall be
addressed by the grid.
The key intention of present study is to form a virtual open access market between utility
grid and multiple microgrids, so that mismatch in any microgrid is primarily addressed by market
members other than utility. Based on the suggestion given by the reviewer, we have also
incorporated Storage which gives completeness to the present work.
The support from utility will be considered only when multiple microgrids could not cater to
the load. Also, in this manuscript, we have clearly shown in detail how to incorporate storage
systems into bidding process. It is clear that dealing supply-demand mismatch in the proposed way
brings more profit to both sellers and buyers. Within a microgrid the supply demand matching can
be carried out either by auctions (naive auction or CDA) or by simple optimization study.

3. Detailed design of agents should be described
A new subsection is added explaining design of each agent in Section IV(B) which can be clearly
understood from the figure shown below. At this point of time this figure is not included in the
manuscript consider the space it consumes. However, we will include the same (in part of full) if the
reviewer suggests to do the same in the manuscript.
Agent Design:
In order to simulate the behaviours of the various entities of the market, a total of twelve agents are created
and are broadly categorised as,
Trading Agents: FLA, FGA, BA, and GRID
Trading brokers: LA, GA, MLLA, and MLGA
Auctioneer Agents: AA
Administrative Agents: MIA and MAA
Marketing Agent: MGA, MLA, MSA, and MGrdAs.
Page 1 of 23 Transactions on Industrial Electronics
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
The intelligence developed for each of the above agents is an extension of the behaviours available in JADE
package like OneShotBbehaviour, SequentialBehaviour, ParallelBehaviour, TickerBehaviour. The following are
some of the developed behaviours:
StartAuction
MarketParticipation
FormSymAssignement
StartNegotaiation
StartBidding
UpdateStatus
Reception

Figure. Design of Agents
4. Evidence of implementation of this microgrid system should be showed
As the reviewer is aware, implementation of a multiple microgrid is a time consuming process and
resource intensive and hence is not considered in the present manuscript. However, we will do the
implementation and report the same at later stage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
Response to REVIEWER #2 Comments:
1. This is a nicely written paper expect few typo errors which should be corrected. for
example: 2nd last line of conclusion: e effective
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the comments. Also, we would like to mention that we have
incorporated the changes suggested.

Response to REVIEWER #3 Comments:

1. A very simple system have considered as a case study, which makes it difficult to evaluate the
capability of the proposed method on a real system.
We sincerely accept the comments given by the reviewer. The present work involves in introduction
of concept of bidding among microgrids and then talk/bid to the main grid. This concept can easily
be extended to the larger size microgrids as well.
However, to address the point raised by the reviewer, we have simulated a system
consisting of 4 Microgrids (3 with storage) and presented the results in Section. IV. The reviewer may
also find that in the revised manuscript we have included storage as well which gives completeness
to a microgrid system.
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Large Load
Microgrid-3
B
E
S
S
~
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
L2
L1
~
Microgrid-2
Utility Substation
B
E
S
S
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-1
B
E
S
S
~
Z
2
Z
1
L2
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-4
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
Z
3

Fig. 9. System with four interconnected microgrids with BESS.

2. The Introduction section is not complete, and there is no a comparison with previous works.
We thank the reviewer to pointing out about introduction and comparison. A new paragraph was
added at the end of introduction (secion II) to cover all the references in the introduction itself as
rightly pointed out by the reviewer.
We would also like to inform that the introduction in the manuscript is organized in two sections
(though it is not general practise), Section I (Introduction to MG bidding) and Section II( MAS
Application of Agent Oriented Programming). The idea is to explain microgrid bidding in the first part
and discuss in detail about the work done using MAS in the second section.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

1

Abstract Microgrid is a combination of distributed
generators, storage systems and controllable loads connected to
low voltage network that can operate either grid connected or
island mode. High penetration of power at distribution level
creates such multiple microgrids. This paper proposes a two level
architecture for distributed energy resource management for
multiple microgrids using multi agent systems (MAS). In order to
match the buyers and sellers in the energy market, symmetrical
assignment problem based on nave auction algorithm is used.
The developed mechanism allows the pool members such as
generation agents, load agents, auction agents, grid agents and
storage agents to participate in market. Three different scenarios
are identified based on the supply-demand mismatch among the
participating microgrids. At the end of this paper two case
studies are presented with two and four interconnected
microgrids participating in market. Simulation results clearly
indicate that the agent based management is effective in resource
management among multiple microgrids economically and
profitably.

Index Terms Microgrid, Energy markets, Multi Agent
Systems (MAS), Symmetrical Assignment problem, Auction
algorithms
I. INTRODUCTION
ISTRIBUTED generation (DG) is becoming as a new
paradigm to produce on-site highly reliable and good
quality electrical power [1]. The concept of DG is quite
interesting when different kinds of energy resources are
available, such as photovoltaic (PV) panels, fuel cells (FCs),
or wind turbines. The DG of different kinds of energy systems
allows for the integration of renewable and nonconventional
energy resources into distribution system. Optimally sizing
and placing DGs in distribution system brings significant
reduction in distribution loss, congestion relief etc [2].
Microgrid is a platform to integrate DERs into distribution
network. The DERs may include DGs and distributed storage
(DS). Managing microgrid having wide variety of DERs is a
challenging task and the complexity involved is much higher
if non-dispatchable DERs like wind and PV are involved. The
recent literature has shown that making the existing
distribution grids smarter is possible with customer driven
microgrids by paying special attention to distributed storage
[3].
In general microgrids are provided with the intelligence to
form intentional island within the distribution system [4].
Intentional islands are formed when faults continue to persist

on the utility side, quality of power is poor on grid side or grid
prices are high. Besides the benefits resulted by integrating
DERs into distribution system, there are numerous economic,
commercial, and technical challenges to be faced [4]. In [5]
some of the technical challenges like active power
management were addressed with viable solutions.
One of the common challenging tasks involved in microgrid
scenario is managing microgrids with non-dispatchable DERs.
Due to the presence of non dispatchable generation, there is
always an issue of demand and supply in a microgrid. One of
the solutions to such problem is to equip microgrids with
diesel generators. However the operating cost and emission
levels of such systems are significantly high compared to
green DERs and hence, to make microgrids smarter it is
important to embed necessary intelligence into existing control
strategies [5-7]. This paper addresses a solution to the
aforementioned problem by implementing agent based virtual
market. The key intention of this mechanism is to enable
microgrids to participate in the simulated market and thereby
effectively utilize the DERs. The developed intelligence routes
the power from surplus locations to deficient locations.
However the cost at which power will be traded is decided by
pool members following the auction protocol discussed in
section IV.
In this paper MAS are used to model market scenario with
energy buyers and energy sellers. JADE (Java Application
DEevelopment framework), is used to develop the proposed
MAS architecture. The proposed architecture consists of
several intelligent agents at two levels viz., Market level and
Field level. The field level agents are responsible for
balancing local load and generation. In case of mismatch of
demand and supply at field level, the microgrid intelligent
agent (MIA) takes appropriate decision to participate in the
market either as a generator agent or as a load agent. When
MIA participating as load, it starts bidding for the amount of
power required to supply local load. MIA continues to do this
bidding till bidding price reaches maximum affordable price
or till it finds alternate best choice (say self owned diesel
generator). When MIA participates in the bidding as a
generator agent, it accepts the bids whose weighted average is
more than or equal to the value called as ARL (Acceptable
Revenue Level). The proposed approach is tested on a multi-
bus microgrid and is proven to be beneficial for all the
participants.
Agent oriented programming approach of MAS and its
engineering applications are discussed briefly in the next
section. The proposed architecture for microgrid market is

D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

2
presented in section III. Section IV details the implementation
of the proposed architecture using JADE. In section V, a
microgrid test case with two and three microgrids forming
pool is presented. Representative market scenarios for
microgrids are highlighted in Appendix
II. MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS (MAS) - APPLICATIONS OF AGENT
ORIENTED PROGRAMMING (AOP)
Multi agent system is a system with two or more agents or
intelligent agents or even combination of both [8]. An agent is
a software (or hardware) entity that is placed in some
environment and is able to autonomously react to the changes
in that environment. This nature of agent is called reactivity
[8]. This definition of agent doesnt give the total flavor of the
agent technology. The notion of agent is meant to be a tool
for analyzing systems, but not an absolute characterization that
divides the world into agents and no-agents is another
definition of an agent which gives the major flavor of an agent
[9]. An intelligent agent is an agent which exhibits pro-activity
(goal-directed behaviour), social ability (able to interact with
other intelligent agents) and reactivity [10].
The key features of agent technology viz., data and method
encapsulation made the agent orient programming (AOP) as a
best suit to develop secure applications. These features of an
agent provide security against accessing data stored in the
agent intelligence and methods (actions) which can perform
built in or user developed functions. Object oriented
programming can provide data encapsulation but not method
encapsulation. More precisely, in object orient programming
case external objects can call functions which the object has to
execute but no choice to escape or postpone. In case of AOP
an agent will have intelligence to schedule the requests sent by
other agents to take certain actions. In AOP, agent can be
accessed by other agents using standard messaging interfaces
[11].
MAS have been applied to wide range of engineering
applications. The application of MAS is to construct robust,
flexible and extensible systems or as a modeling approach.
MAS applications to power engineering problems are detailed
in [10]. The authors have discussed in detail the possible areas
where MAS can be applied which include diagnostics,
condition monitoring, power system restoration, market
simulation, system control, protection and automation. Recent
publications [12-29] on multi agent systems applications to
power engineering are significantly focused on distributed
energy scheduling, smart grids, power system topology
verification, energy management in hybrid systems, power
system contingency analysis, controlling and scheduling of
energy resources in hybrid energy systems.
In [14-15] MAS framework is used to enable mutual
coordination among various agents performing scheduling,
checking limit violations and clearing markets following
Contract Net Protocol (CNP). MAS were also applied in
simulation of energy markets using risk based continuous
double auction algorithm [16]. In [17] MAS were used to
coordinate microgrids to participate in ancillary service
markets (frequency control reserve markets). Ref [18] showed
the applicability of MAS to evaluate emission free electricity
markets by effectively coordinating green energy sources.
Apart from market simulation, MAS was also used to control
and incorporate necessary intelligence to detect faults on
utility feeders there by switching microgrid to island mode
[19]. In [20], MAS was used to implement CNP as mechanism
to control distribution feeder voltage by providing necessary
support from connected distributed generators. An attempt
was made to use MAS frame work to control and coordinate
storage systems of a microgrid operating in grid connected
mode [21]. Besides controlling storage systems MAS frame
work can also be extended to control hybrid renewable energy
generation by wind/PV [22-24].
MAS were also incorporated in time consuming tasks such
as contingency analysis, priority based distribution system
restoration [25-28]. In [29], MAS in connection with Petri
Nets were used to verify the power system topology during
real-time to avoid errors in the power network connectivity
models.
The market for power related commodities is usually
performed in intervals of 5, 15 and 60min [30].
Implementation of multi-agent systems for operation of a
multiagent system is presented in [31]. The application
confirms to FIPA and is implemented using JADE software
[32-33]. Auction algorithm to solve asymmetric assignment
problem is proposed in [34]. This uses idea of reverse auction
where in addition to agents bidding for objects by raising the
prices new agents offering discounts were also introduced
which increase competition and increase benefit to consumer.
The work reported in the literature so far focused on bidding
process in single microgrid while the present manuscript
proposed market scenario for load and generation agents
multiple microgrids with and without storage systems.
III. PROPOSED MICROGRID MARKET ARCHITECTURE
The proposed architecture has two layers/levels for
microgrid resource management viz., market level and field
level as shown in Fig. 1. The top level or market level is
designed to cater the trading among the microgrids and/or with
the grid while maintaining market fair and transparent and the
bottom level (field level) is responsible to manage individual
microgrids to match the supply and demand. The market layer
also detects and record successful negotiations among the
agents.
A. Resource Management at Field Level
A microgrid consisting of distributed generators (DG) and
loads constitute the field level of the architecture shown in
Fig. 1. The information regarding load requirement and
generation availability of an individual microgrid is available
with load agent (LA) and generation agent (GA) respectively.
This information is passed to these agents from field level load
and generation agents (FLA and FGA) of participating
generators and loads of the microgrids. FLA and FGA are
responsible for submission of this information to the microgrid
intelligent agent (MIA) via their respective brokers/trading
agents (LA/GA) during the discussion interval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

3
In addition to generation availability information, GA also
passes the Acceptable Revenue Level (ARL) for each
generator. ARL is defined as unit cost of energy that an
individual generator (or FGA) is willing to trade the power in
the market for.
M
a
r
k
e
t

L
e
v
e
l

A
g
e
n
t

A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
F
i
e
l
d

L
e
v
e
l

A
g
e
n
t

A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A

Fig.1: Proposed agent architecture for resource management in multiple
microgrids.
In a grid connected system with single microgrid, if the
generated power is higher than the load, the surplus power is
sold to the grid at buying price (BP) of grid. On the contrary,
if the load in the microgrid is higher than the generated power,
power is purchased from grid at selling price (SP). In the
present work, it is assumed that grid is always available to
export or import power and SP and BP are constant. However,
it is always possible to incorporate any constraints on
import/export of power in the proposed architecture at any
level. The relation between SP, BP and ARL in general is
given by (1)
SP ARL BP < (1)
performed in intervals of 5, 15 and 60min [30]. In the present
work, a day (24 hrs) is divided into 96 blocks of 15min each
called as demand intervals/blocks and it is assumed that during
this interval the demand and supply remains constant. In the
proposed mechanism, commitment interval (B(n)) is preceded
by discussion interval (B(n-1)) by one block. Grid announces
the prices BP and SP at time just before B(n-1) and the MAA
(market administrator agent of market level) announces
bidding at B(n-1). The first three minutes of discussion
interval is known as discussion period/auction period for the
agents of microgrid. The loads and generators place their bids
through respective agents. Trading strategy implemented in
this paper is based on naive auction algorithm which is
discussed in section IV. The Gantt chart indicating discussion
interval, commitment interval and discussion period in the
trading process are given in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: Gantt chart for market operation in microgrids.
MIA plays role of a manager when interacting with field
level agents and a trader when interacting with market level.
The mismatch between supply and demand is a common issue
encountered in a microgrid. It is more complicated in case of
systems with non-dispatchable generators. MIA shall execute
series of tasks to ensure proper trading and hence supply-
demand balance in a microgrid.
MIA initiates market participation, when there is a supply-
demand mismatch within the microgrid. The market level role
of MIA will be explained in the later section.
In any discussion period, upon receiving load requirement
and generation availability information from LA and GA of
the corresponding microgrid respectively, MIA computes net
power (NP) available as
NP =
=

G
1 i
specified specified
i
L P (2)
Where, G is the total number of DGs connected to the
microgrid,
Specified
L is the aggregated demand of the
microgrid in kW,
Specified
i
P is the specified power
availability from
th
i DG in kW. The immediate action of
MIA depends on the sign of the NP. If NP 0 then, MIA
carries out optimization as per (3).
|
\
|

=
T P C Minimize
i
G
1 i
i

Subjected to the constraints
=
Specified
i i
Specified
G
i
i
P P
L P
0
1 (3)
Where,
i
C is the cost of generating power from
th
i DG in
cents/kWh, Tis the duration of the commitment interval in
hours, and
i
P is the amount of load optimally allotted to
th
i
DG in kW. Based on (3), MIA optimizes the local distribution
of loads for available local generation. The next action of MIA
depends on the value of the NP computed using (2). If NP >0,
then MIA enters market as a generator otherwise it remains in
the same level. On the other hand, if NP is <0 then, MIA
enters the market as an aggregate load.
B. Trading Strategy at Market Level without Storage
The market level of the proposed architecture is responsible
for maintaining fair market and power management among
multiple microgrids. The agents involved in this layer are
market level load agent (MLLA), market level generation
agent (MLGA), auction agent (AA) and market administrator
agent (MAA). The hierarchy of these agents is shown in Fig.
1.
As discussed before, MIA represents itself as load or
generator to the market level architecture. Bases on supply and
demand among the microgrids, the tasks performed by MIA
are narrated in the following three scenarios.
Scenario 1: When MIA represents itself as load to market
level.
MIA submits bid in the market with an initial value of
starting bid (SB). In the present developed market model, it is
considered that the starting bid by the MIA is always greater
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

4
than or equal to buying price of the grid (BP). If the bid value
is less than BP, the generators would be interested in trading
with main grid rather than participating in local market. The
step wise bidding process between MIA, AA and other market
agents is explained in section IV(C).
This bidding process continues progressively till bid reaches
a value called maximum affordable price or maximum bid
(bidmax), also bidmax SP. When MIA reaches bidmax, it
stops increasing bid and continues to bid with the same value.
However a bid reaches to bidmax only at the end of the
discussion period. At the end of the discussion period, MIA
remains either with a set of accepted bids or with a single
accepted bid. If the bid gets accepted, then MIA stores the
information and calculates unit price of electricity and
communicates to FLAs of the microgrid.

Scenario 2: When MIA represents itself as generator to
market level.
When NP > 0, MIA represents itself as a generator to the
market level. MIA submits the available generation
information to AA. The step wise bidding process among
MIA, AA and market agents is discussed in detail in section
IV(C).
Upon receiving offer from AA, MIA compares offer with
ARL calculated using (4).
=
=

=
G
1 i
i
Specified
i
G
1 i
i
Specified
i i
) P - (P
)) P - (P (ARL
ARL (4)
Where,
i
ARL is the ARL specified by
th
i DG. If the offer is
greater than or equal to ARL, MIA accepts the offer.
Otherwise, it rejects and continues in the waiting state. MIA
follows this strategy till the end of the discussion period is
reached. If by any chance MIA has not received any offers
(just before end of auction period) which are acceptable then,
the most recently received offer is compared with BP of the
grid. If the offer is greater than BP then the best choice for
MIA is to accept instead of selling the power to grid at a lower
price.
Scenario 3: If the load and generation in an individual
microgrid are matched, MIA closes the discussion and stores
the set points of generators. These set points are released to
the generators during the commitment interval B(n). It is very
clear that MIA is acting as a bridge between the market and
field levels of the proposed architecture.
Next to MIA, market level contains MLLA and MLGA.
These are responsible for creating market load and generation
agents. After receiving market participation information from
MIAs, MLLA divides the consolidated load requirement into
packets of equal size (say 10 kW) and creates an agents called
market load agents (MLA) for each energy packet. The role of
MLA is to purchase energy packet from the market on behalf
of MIA participating as a load. The process is being used by
MLGA to create market generation agents. However, care
should be taken while selecting size of the each packet as each
packet represents an agent in the market and negotiation
involving large number of agents will introduce significant
delay [31]. MLLA and MLGA submit the information about
the newly created agents to AA. The number of market
generation and load agents reflects the supply demand relation
in the market. Upon receiving this information, AA starts
appending market grid agents (MGrdAs) in accordance to the
set of newly created MLAs and MGAs. This task of AA is
essential in order to apply solution of the symmetrical
assignment problem to the market simulation. The developed
market model follows solution of the symmetrical assignment
problem using naive auction algorithm.
C. Trading Strategy at Market Level with Storage
The proposed architecture can be extended to mange power
among microgrids having storage systems. In such scenario, a
new agent called buffer agent (BA) starts participating in filed
level as shown in Fig. 3. The trading mechanism of the agents
of the architecture shown in Fig. 3 is similar to that of Fig. 1
except in AA role. AA makes BAs to address the mismatch
between supply and demand primarily. If mismatch still exists
then AA communicates with grid.

Fig.3: Agent architecture for resource management in multiple microgrids
with storage.

The role of BA is to update AA with the status of the
storage system. BA is also responsible in maintaining storage
systems within the range (S
min
, S
max
). For example, if a battery
storage system is used then BA shall maintain state of charge
within the range (SOC
min
, SOC
max
).
BAs participation status is mainly decided by the supply
demand relation in market and filling/draining ability of the
storage systems. BAs calculate the ability (P
in
) of the storage
systems to get filled as,
|
\
|

=
Max
Max
S ,
T
1) S(i S
min (i)
in
P
And draining ability (P
out
) as,
|
\
|

=
Max
Min
S ,
T
S 1) S(i
min (i)
out
P

Where,
P
in
, P
out
are the abilities of a storage system to get filled and
drained in i
th
commitment interval respectively, kW.
T is the duration of the commitment interval, hours.
) E 1 ( S ) 1 i ( S = is the status of a storage system during
(i-1)
th
commitment interval, kWh.
S is the status of the system at the end of the most recent
filling interval, kWh.
, is the self draining factor of the storage system, kWh per
month.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

5
E is the elapsed time from the most recent filling interval to
(i-1), months.
If supply is more than demand then BAs participate in
market as loads and place bids in the market as per the
strategy given in section IV (C). If the demand is more than
the supply then BAs participate in market as generators by
submitting cost of stored energy (CSE) after accounting self
draining as ARL and is given by,
) E 1 (
CSE
) i ( ARL
Re

=
Where, CSE
Re
is the cost of the stored energy at the end of
the most recent filling interval in cents/kWh. The outcome of
the participation is a contract for charging or discharging in
the next commitment interval. If the contract is to fill then, the
cost of the stored energy (CSE) will be updated at the end of
the i
th
interval as follows,
CS(i) 1) S(i
CS(i)) T (CP(i) 1)) S(i RL(i) A (
= (i) CSE
+
+

Where,
CP is the contract price in cents per kW.
CS is the contract size in kW.
CSE (i-1) is the cost of stored energy in cents per kWh.
Min
S ) 1 i ( S ) 1 i ( S =
The microgrids considered in this study are community level
microgrids and hence all the storage agents work under
nonprofit mode. In case of customer driven microgrids, the
storage systems are profit motivated and hence sell energy at a
price greater than CSE. The roles of intelligent agents other
than AA of market level are same as before. If the number of
market generation agents is not equal to the number of market
load agents then AA invites BAs to participate in the market.
BAs acknowledge with the status of the storage systems. AA
decides the number of market storage agents (NB) to be added
in the market as,
NB
|
|
|
\
|

=
=
AS
SB(i)
,
AS
P
min
B
1 i

Where,
P is supply-demand mismatch in the market, kW.
AS is Agent size, kW.
B is the total number of storage systems
SB(i) is the ability of the i
th
storage system in kW, and is
equal to P
in
for charging and P
out
for discharging.
Upon adding NB number of market storage agents (MSAs),
AA rechecks the mismatch, and if the mismatch is non zero
then AA starts appending market grid agents (MGrdAs) in
accordance to the set of newly created MLAs, MGAs and
MSAs.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4: (a) AA role in forming symmetrical assignment problem without
storage and (b) with storage

Fig. 4 shows the role of AA in forming equal number of
suppliers and buyers in the market. This task of AA is
assignment problem to the market simulation. In the
developed market model naive auction algorithm is used.
Pools of agents which are actually participating in the trade
are shown in Fig. 5. Another important role of AA is to
negotiate with all the members of the pool.

Fig. 5: Pool of trading agents.
The role of Market Administrator Agent (MAA) is to
announce start of auction, discussion intervals, prepare
monthly reports, negotiate with utility grids, recording
successful bids, and passing on stored set points to each MIA.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF MICROGRID BIDDING STRATEGY
USING JADE
JADE (Java Agent Development framework) is a software
development framework for developing MAS and applications
conforming to FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical
Agents) standards for intelligent agents [32-33]. The
developed MAS based architecture enables individual
microgrids to practice power trading which is based on Naive
Auction Algorithm applied as a solution for symmetrical
assignment problem [34-35]. However to adopt this solution,
there should be equal number of buyers and sellers in the
market.
A. Naive Auction Algorithm applied as a solution for
symmetrical assignment problem [31], [34-35]
The naive auction algorithm progresses in rounds and in
each round only one buyer (also called a person) bids on the
desired object. The mechanism involved in naive auction
algorithm is given below:
In the classical example (assignment problem) there are X
objects and Y persons which are to be matched on a one-to-
one basis. The benefit associated with matching a person to an
object is defined as utility, u(i, j). The objective of assignment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

6
problem is to find and assignment (a set of person-object
pairs) that maximizes total benefit given by (5):
Total Benefit =
=
Y
1 i
) j , i ( u (5)
In real life auction, there is always a price p
j
associated with
each object, where j is the object index. However, in the
current application, price is an algorithmic variable which has
no physical significance. The price p
j
helps to progress and
terminate the naive auction algorithm. The actual value gained
by a person allotted with an object is the difference between
utility and the price of the object.
As discussed earlier, naive auction algorithm proceeds in
rounds or iterations and terminates when all objects and
persons are matched. In any round only one person (or the
bidder) can submit bid on the desired object. In each round,
the bidder increases the price of the desired object by a value
called bid increment. Bid increment b(i,j) is the increment in
bid by person i for the object j and hence price indicates
global desire. The bid increment is calculated by using (6).
} p ) j , i ( u { } p ) j , i ( u { ) j , i ( b
* j
*
j
= (6)
Where, j
*
is the next best desired object for a person i.
This process resembles the real auction as bidding increments
and price increases aid competition by making the bidders
desired object less attractive to other competitors.
However, a buyer can have more than one desired object
which will yield same maximum profit. In such case, the
auction algorithm results a non terminating quarrel among
bidders as no bid increment is possible. To avoid such infinite
auction rounds, a perturbation mechanism was introduced.
This mechanism demands that in each round, a bidder should
increase the bid at least by a non negative value . In such
case, just as in real auction objects become less attractive after
finite number of rounds resulting a solution. The value of
influences the number of steps required to converge. A more
detailed explanation of naive auction algorithm and its
application for microgrid control is given in [31], [35].
B. Designing of Agents
In order to simulate the behaviours of the various entities of
the market, a total of twelve agents are created and are broadly
categorized as,
Marketing Agent: MGA, MLA, MSA, and
MGrdAs.
The intelligence developed for each of the above agents is an
extension of the behaviours available in JADE package like
OneShotBbehaviour, SequentialBehaviour, ParallelBehaviour,
and TickerBehaviour. The following are some of the
developed behaviours:
StartAuction
MarketParticipation
FormSymAssignement
StartNegotaiation
StartBidding
UpdateStatus
Reception
In this application content of the messages exchanged between agents
is set using setContentObject() method. However, the message
communication can also be done by developing ontology as
discussed in [31].
C. Implementation of proposed architecture on multiple
microgrids
The steps involved in overall market simulation are given
below:
Step 1: Announcement of discussion period:
MAA announces start of the discussion period, SP, and BP
Step 2: Load and generation data:
FLAs and FGAs of each microgrid submits the information
about load requirement and generation availability for the
commitment period to LA and GA which in turn consolidate
perceived information and submit to corresponding MIA.
Step 3: Decision for role of MIA:
MIA traces out the cheapest way of supplying received load
demand by availing local generation using (2) and (3). The
local generation can be more or less than the local load
requirement. If surplus power/load is available in a microgrid
then corresponding MIA initiates market participation by
sending request either MLGA/MLLA.
Step 4: Creating market agents by AA
MLLA and MLGA consolidate the received data and create
MLAs and MGAs, and submit this information to AA.
AA checks the number of MLAs and MGAs and if they are
not equal, then AA appends suitable number of market grid
agents (MGrdAs) to make the market symmetrical. If storage
systems are present then AA appends suitable number of
MSAs as per (8). AA announces start of negotiation to all pool
members and conducts the auction as per naive auction
protocol. The outcome of auction algorithm is an assignment
between buyers and sellers.
Step 5: Weighted average for the bids
AA calculates the offer to be informed to MIA participating
as generator (MIA
Generator
) by taking weighted average of the
bids submitted by the agents which are assigned to
corresponding MIA
Generator
.
Step 6: Market negotiation by AA
AA negotiates the offer with all MIAs acting as generators.
Based on their ARL they may accept or reject the offer. The
ARL is computed as per (4). If the offer is acceptable to
MIA
Generator
, then the algorithm terminates and Step 8 follows.
If the offer is not accepted by the MIA
Generator,
then AA sends
message to MIA acting as load (MIA
Load
) to submit new bids
as per (7) and algorithm directs to Step 4. The bidding curve
shown in Fig. 6 is a time based bidding curve which can
accurately model the behavior of true buyer in the market.
Buyer in the market starts bidding on the desired object with a
value greater than the existing offer made by other
competitors, in order to win the bid.
SB t )
T
SB bidmax
( bid(t)
d
+
=
(7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

7

Fig. 6. Bidding curve
Step 7: Communicating Success
AA communicates the success of the bid to corresponding
members who submitted the bid i.e., MIAs acting as load.
Step 8: End of discussion period
At the end of the discussion period MAA announces stop
discussion and records all successful bids.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed MAS-
based resource management, a system with two interconnected
microgrids shown in Fig. 7 is simulated. In order to show the
applicability of the proposed architecture, the system shown in
Fig. 7 is simulated by introducing storage system of capacity
40 kWh in each microgrid. The initial status of these systems
is 50% of their rated capacity at a CSE of 11.25 cents/kWh.
The maximum allowable depth of draining and self draining
factors of each storage system are 5 kWh and 25% of the rated
capacity per month respectively. Details of loads and
generations in the microgrids for various intervals (blocks) are
given in Table. 1(A).

Fig. 7. System with two interconnected microgrids.
In Table 1(A), an export of 20 kW at 9 cents/kWh (buying
price of the grid, BP) to the main grid by the MG1 is observed
in the first block. It is also observed that MG2 has purchased
30 kW at 12.76 cents/kWh from MG1 during this period based
on naive auction algorithm. Detailed process involved in
arriving at the final bid value by MG-2 is explained in
Appendix. In the second block, a surplus power of 30 kW
available from the MG1 which is purchased by MG2 (after the
bidding process) at 11.25 cents/kWh. In the case of third
interval, MG-2 requires additional 70 kW power and hence it
has purchased 50 kW from MG-1 at 11.25 cents/kWh and
remaining 20 kW from main grid at 13.5 cents/kWh which is
selling price (SP) of the grid.
It is observed that in block four, the generation in MG-1 is
reduced by 20 kW and MG-2 requires additional power of
20kW which it had purchased from MG-1 at 12.37 cents/kWh.
The excess power of 10 kW of MG-1 is sold to the main grid 9
cents /kWh. In block five and six, power is imported and
exported from the grid respectively by the MG-1 and MG-2.
In block seven and eight, power is exported and imported from
the grid by both the microgrids respectively in the absence of
storage systems.

TABLE 1(A). CASE STUDY SYSTEM DATA FOR TWO MICROGRIDS AND
MARKET SIMULATION WITHOUT STORAGE
Blk
M
G
L1 L2
DG1
*

(ARL)
DG2
*

(ARL)
Export/
Import
(Cost)
#

Grid
Power
(Cost)#
1
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+50
(11.25)
-20
(9)
2 100 130
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-30
(12.76)
0
2
1 100 70
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+30
(11.25)
0
2 100 130
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-30
(11.25)
0
3
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+50
(11.25)
0
2 100 170
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-70
(11.89)
+20
(13.5)
4
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
80
(11.25)
+30
(11.25)
-10
(9)
2 100 120
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-20
(12.37)
0
5
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
0
+50
(9)
2 100 90
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
+10
(9)
6
1 100 100
100
(10.13)
80
(11.25)
0
-20
(13.5)
2 100 120
70
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
-50
(13.5)
7
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
0
+50
(9.0)
2 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
+50
(9.0)
8 1 100 100
100
(10.13)
40
(11.25)
0
-60
(13.5)
2 100 100
50
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
-50
(13.5)
*: Units for load and generation are in kW, ARL in cents/kWh
#: - sign indicates exporting to grid and + sign indicate importing
from grid
TABLE 1(B). MARKET SIMULATION WITH STORAGE
Blk MG
Surplus
(Cost)
$
Storage
(Cost)
*$
Grid Power
(Cost)
#$
1
1 +50/(11.25) 0 0
2 -30/(11.25) -20/(11.25) 0
2
1 +30/(11.25) 0 0
2 -30/(11.25) 0 0
3
1 +50/(11.25) 0 0
2 -70/(11.25) +20/(11.25) 0
4
1 +30/(11.25) 0 0
2 -20/(11.25) -10/(11.25) 0
5
1 +50/(11.25) -40/(10.97) 0
2 +10/(10.13) -20/(11.25) 0
6 1 -20/(11.16) +40/(11.16) 0
2 -50/(11.21) +30/(11.25) 0
7 1 +50/(11.25) -40/(11.11) 10/(9.0)
2 +50/(10.13) -40/(11.11) 10/(9.0)
8 1 -60/(11.95) +40/(11.14) +20/(13.5)
2 -50/(11.27) +40/(11.20) +10/(13.5)
from grid;
*: + sign indicates draining and - sign indicate filling
$: Units for cost are in cents/kWh
In Table 1(B), no export to or import from the main grid is
observed in the first six blocks. In blocks seven and eight,
available power is surplus/deficit when compared to
filling/draining capacity of the storage systems and hence an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

8
export/import of 20kW/30kW is observed. The advantage of
using storage (based bidding) can be clearly understood by
comparing block 1 of Table 1(A) and 1(B). The total cost of
purchase by MG2 is reduced to 11.25 cents/kWh from 12.76
cents/kWh when local community based storage is introduced.
Fig. 8 depicts snapshot of the actual communication taking
place between the agents for one transaction period (block) of
15 minutes. This snapshot was obtained using a sniffer agent
in JADE software.

(a)
(b)

Fig. 8. (a) Communication and (b) Sniffer diagrams for market negotiation for
two inter connected microgrids.
The communication shown between MIAs and BAs and the
dotted lines in Fig. 8 correspond to storage systems. The six
blocks (15 min each) illustrate the performance of the
proposed scheme under different load, generation profiles and
market condition. Market simulation is also performed on
system with four inter connected microgrids with storage
systems shown in Fig. 9 and the results are tabulated in Table
2. The proposed architecture and market mechanism can easily
be extended for multiple microgrids.
Note that, the microgrids shown in Fig. 9 except microgrid 4
are having battery energy storage systems (BESSs). BESS is
assumed to be storage system for this case study. These
systems are rated at a capacity of 40kWh and are initially
charged to 50% of their rated capacity at a CES of 11.25
cents/kWh. The maximum allowable depth of draining and
self draining factors of each BESS are 5 kWh and 25% of the
rated capacity per month respectively.
In Table 2, some of the important scenarios of the system
shown in Fig. 9 are presented. It is observed that, during first,
second and fourth blocks, storage systems are filled by the
surplus power available in the market.
In block three, five and six storage systems are supplying
deficit power. In block four, deficit is more than the capacities
of the storage systems and hence an import of 10 kW from
main grid at SP (13.5 cents/kWh) is observed. In block five,
the surplus power is more than the capacities of the storage
systems and hence an export of 30 kW to main grid at BP (9.0
cents/kWh) is observed. The simulation setup for
interconnected microgrid with the central market agents is
shown in Fig. 10.
The results show that the proposed architecture based on
naive auction protocol performs the resource management as
desired under all conditions.
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Large Load
Microgrid-3
B
E
S
S
~
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
L2
L1
~
Microgrid-2
Utility Substation
B
E
S
S
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-1
B
E
S
S
~
Z
2
Z
1
L2
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-4
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
Z
3


TABLE 2. CASE STUDY SYSTEM DATA FOR FOUR MICROGRID SYSTEM
B
l
o
c
k

M
G

L
1

L
2

D
G
1
a
/
A
R
L

D
G
2
a
/
A
R
L

E
x
p
o
r
t
/
I
m
p
o
r
t

(
C
o
s
t
)
a
,
b

S
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
,
*

(
C
o
s
t
)

G
r
i
d

P
o
w
e
r
a
,
b

(
C
o
s
t
)

1
1 100 100 100/10.13 80/10.13 -20/11.25 0 0
2 100 70 100/11.25 100/11.25 +30/11.25 -30/11.25 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/11.25 0 0
4 100 80 100/10.13 80/11.25 0 -- 0
2
1 100 80 100/10.13 100/10.13 +20/10.13 -10/11.25 0
2 100 70 100/11.25 100/11.25 +30/11.25 -40/11.25 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/11.25 -40/10.69 0
4 100 60 100/10.13 80/11.25 +20/11.25 -- 0
3
1 100 100 100/10.13 80/10.13 -20/11.25 0 0
2 100 80 100/11.25 100/11.25 +20/11.25 +10/11.25 0
3 100 100 100/10.13 70/11.25 -30/11.25 +40/11.06 0
4 100 100 100/10.13 80/11.25 -20/11.25 -- 0
4 1 100 100 100/10.13 50/10.13 -50/11.25 +40/11.25 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

9
2 100 100 80/11.25 60/11.25 -40/11.11 +40/11.25 0
3 100 100 100/10.13 60/11.25 -40/11.77 +40/11.06
+
10
4 100 100 100/10.13 100/11.25 0 -- 0
5
1 100 50 100/10.13 100/10.13 +50/10.13 -40/11.25 0
2 100 60 100/11.25 100/11.25 +40/11.25 -40/10.41 0
3 100 60 100/10.13 100/11.25 +40/11.25 -40/10.69
-
10
4 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/9.0 --
-
20
6
1 100 100 100/10.13 100/10.13 0 0 0
2 100 100 70/11.25 100/11.25 -30 +10/11.01 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 80/11.25 0 +40/10.88 0
4 100 100 100/10.13 80/11.25 -20 -- 0
a: Units for load, generation, storage, and export/import are in kW, ARL in
cents/kWh;
b: sign indicates export to grid at BP and + sign indicates import from grid at SP;
*: + sign indicates draining and sign indicates filling

Fig. 10. Simulation setup for interconnected microgrids with Central Agent
Market
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper a two level architecture for distributed resource
management in multiple inter connected microgrids using
MAS is presented. The market agents participate in real
time bidding based on data from agents at field level.
Bidding action is simulated using naive auction algorithm. The
intelligent agent of each microgrid following the proposed
model behaves like a true buyer or true seller in the
market so as to fulfill the needs of the microgrid. In
order to even the number of load and generation agents
participating in the trading the concept of symmetrical
assignment is used. The results of case study for two and four
microgrids clearly indicate that proposed architecture is
effective in resource management among multiple microgrids.
APPENDIX
In order to give full insight of the market mechanism
proposed, a system with two microgrids is considered. The
system data considered for a block (period of 15 min) is given
in Table A1. In the beginning of an auction period local load
and generator agents submit this information to LA and GA
respectively. As per Table A1, MG-1 is having a surplus
power of 50 kW, while MG-2 is having deficit of 30 kW.
Hence the intelligent agent of MG-1(MIA
1
) represents itself as
generator and intelligent agent of MG-2 (MIA
2
) represents
itself as load in the market. The ARL for MIA
1
as a single
entity is calculated from (4).
ARL=
50
25 . 11 50 13 . 10 0 +
= 11.25 cents/kWh
TABLE AI
SYSTEM DATA FOR MICROGRIDS UNDER CONSIDERATION BLOCK1
Load 1
(kW)
Load 2
(kW)
DG-1
(kW)
DG-2
(kW)
NP
(kW)
MG-1 100 50 100 100 +50
(ARL)* (10.13) (11.25)
MG-2 100 130 100 100 -30
(ARL)* (10.13) (10.13)
*Units for load and generation are in kW, ARL in cents/kWh
# + sign indicates export and sign indicate import
However, it is observed that ARL for DG-1 < DG-2 and
hence the power generated by DG with low ARL shall be
utilized locally and rest shall be made available for trading.
For this reason, the surplus power of 50 kW is available from
MIA
1
at 11.25 cents/kWh for the next commitment interval.
The NP in MG-2 is -30 kW and hence MIA
2
represents itself
as an aggregate load to the market. The initial bid submitted
by MIA
2
is 9.1 cents/kWh. The information received from
MIA
1
and MIA
2
by MLLA and MLGA is used to create
market load and generation agents (MLAs and MGAs).
In the present study, the size of agent is considered as 10
kW and hence MLLA creates three load agents and MLGA
creates five generating agents and passes the information to
AA. Based on the symmetric assignment problem discussed in
section IV, AA creates two new marketing grid agents
(MGrdA) and initiates negotiation to all market agents as per
naive auction algorithm. The price submitted by MGrdA is
equal to buying price (BP) of the grid which is fixed at 9 cents
/kWh.
After negotiation, AA calculates the weighted average of
the bids and communicates to MIA
1
. The computed weighted
average in the first iteration is 9.06 cents/kWh. This offer may
be accepted or rejected by MIA
1
based on its ARL. For the
present block 9.06 cents/kWh is less than ARL (11.25
cents/kWh) and hence MIA
1
rejects the offer. AA informs
MGrdAs and MIA
2
to submit new bid. As discussed before,
the buying price (BP) of grid remains constant (9 cents/kWh)
in the present context and there is no change in bid submitted
by MGrdAs. MIA
2
shall submit a new bid and the bidding
process repeats and is continued till the offer is acceptable to
MIA
1
. In the present example, when the bid submitted by
MIA
2
is 12.76 cents/kWh, the weighted average of bids as
computed by AA is obtained as 11.25 cents/kWh which is
equal to ARL of MIA
1
and hence the new bid is acceptable to
MIA
1
. It is to be noted that the bid submitted by MIA
2
is less
than the bidmax or selling price (SP) of the grid.
MAA records this event and passes on set points to
participating MIAs. During the commitment interval MIAs
communicate the obtained set points to local load agents
through traders.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Guerrero, F. Blaabjerg, T. Zhelev, K. Hemmes, E. Monmasson,
S. Jemei, M. P. Comech, R. Granadino, and J.I. Frau, Distributed
generation: Toward a new energy paradigm , IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag.,
pp. 52-64, Mar. 2010.
[2] 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. 360-370,
Feb. 2010.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

10
[3] S. Suryanarayanan, F. Mancilla-David, J. Mitra, Y. Li, Achieving the
smart grid through customer-driven microgrids supported by energy
storage, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Industrial Technology, 2010, pp.
884-890.
[4] N. D. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay,
Microgrids, IEEE Power & Energy Mag., vol. 5, no. 4, 2007.
[5] A. Timbus, M. Larsson, and C. Yuen, Active Management of
Distributed Energy Resources Using Standardized Communications and
Modern Information Technologies, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56,
no. 10, pp. 4029-4037, Oct. 2009.
[6] J. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero, J. Miret, M. Castilla, and L. Garcia De
Vicuna, Hierarchical control of intelligent microgrids, IEEE Ind.
Electron. Mag., pp. 23-29, Dec. 2010.
[7] S. Chakraborty, M. D. Weiss, and M. G. Simes, Distributed intelligent
energy management system for a single-phase highfrequency AC
microgrid, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp.97-109, Feb.
2007.
[8] M. Wooldridge, , G. Weiss, Ed., Intelligent Agents, in Multi-agent
Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Apr. 1999, pp. 351.
[9] S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[10] S. D. J. McArthur, E. M. Davidson, V. M. Catterson, A. L. Dimeas, N.
D. Hatziargyriou, F. Ponci, and T. Funabashi, Multi-Agent Systems for
Power Engineering ApplicationsPart I: Concepts, Approaches, and
Technical Challenges, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp.
1743- 1752, Nov. 2007.
Power Engineering ApplicationsPart II: Technologies, Standards, and
Tools for Building Multi-agent Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
22, no. 4, pp. 1753- 1759, Nov. 2007.
[12] Li, G. Poulton, G. James, A. Zeman, P. Wang, M. Chadwick, and M. R.
Piraveenan, Performance of Multi-agent Coordination of Distributed
Energy Resources, in Proc. WSEAS Int. Conf. Computer Engineering
and Applications, Gold Coast, Australia, Jan. 17-19, 2007, pp. 568-574.
[13] Z. Jiang, Agent based control framework for distributed energy
resources microgrids in Proc. IEEE/WIC/ACM Int. Conf. Intelligent
Agent Technology, Hong Kong, Dec. 18-22, 2006, pp.646-652.
[14] T. Logenthiran, D. Srinivasan, A.M. Khambadkone, Multi-agent
system for energy resource scheduling of integrated microgrids in a
distributed system, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81, no. 1,
pp. 138-148, 2011.
[15] T. Logenthiran, D. Srinivasan, D. Wong, Multi-agent coordination for
DER in microgrid, in Proc. 2008 IEEE Int. Conf. Sustainable Energy
Technologies, ICSET 2008, pp. 77-82.
[16] B. Ramachandran, S. K. Srivastava, C. Edrington, and D. A. Cartes, An
Intelligent Auction Scheme for Smart Grid Market using a Hybrid
Immune Algorithm, accepted for publication in IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron.
[17] C. Yuen, A. Oudalov, and A. Timbus, "The provision of frequency
control reserves from multiple micro-grids, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 173-183, Jan. 2011.
[18] K. Sichao, H. Yamamoto, and K. Yamaji, Evaluation of CO2 free
electricity trading market in Japan by multi-agent simulations, Energy
Policy, vol.38, no.7, pp. 3309-3319, Jul. 2010.
[19] M. Pipattanasomporn, H. Feroze, and S. Rahman, Multi-Agent Systems
in a Distributed Smart Grid: Design and Implementation, in Proc.
IEEE PES 2009 Power Systems Conf. and Exposition (PSCE09),
Seattle, Washington. Mar. 2009, pp. 1-8.
[20] M.E. Baran, I.M. El-Markabi, A multiagent-based dispatching scheme
for distributed generators for voltage support on distribution feeders,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.22, no. 1, pp. 52-59, Feb. 2007.
[21] J. Lagorse, D. Paire, and A. Miraoui, Multi-agent system for energy
management of distributed power sources, Renewable Energy, vol. 35
no. 1, pp. 174-182, April 2010.
[22] R. Roche, B. Blunier , A. Miraoui, V. Hilaire, and A. Koukam, Multi-
agent systems for grid energy management: A short review, in Proc.
Ind. Electron. Conf. , 2010, pp. 3341-3346.
[23] X. Zhou, Y. Gu, Y. Ma, L. Cui, and S. Liu, Hybrid operation control
method for micro-grid based on MAS, in Proc. 2010 IEEE Int. Conf.
Progress in Informatics and Computing, PIC-2010, vol.1, pp. 72-75.
[24] Z. Jun, L. Junfeng, W. Jie, and H.W. Ngan, A multi-agent solution to
energy management in hybrid renewable energy generation system,
Renewable Energy, vol. 36, no.5, pp. 1352-1363, May 2011.
[25] A. Oonsivilai, and K. A. Greyson, Power system contingency analysis
using multiagent systems, in Proc. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology , 2009,pp. 355-360.
[26] P. Li, B. Song, W. Wang, and T. Wang, Multi-agent approach for
service restoration of microgrid, in Proc. 5th IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron.
and Applications, ICIEA 2010 , pp. 962-966.
[27] C.-H. Lin, C.-S. Chen, T.-T. Ku, C.-T. Tsai, C.-Y. Ho, Fault detection,
isolation and restoration using a multiagent-based distribution
automation system, 2009 4th IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron. and
Applications, ICIEA 2009 ,vol.21, no.1, pp. 2528-2533
[29] K. Wilkosz, A multi-agent system approach to power system topology
verification with use of Petri Nets, in Proc. Modern Electric Power
Systems 2010, Wroclaw, Poland.
[30] Electricity market [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[31] A. L. Dimeas, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, Operation of a multiagent
system for microgrid control, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 1447-1455, Aug. 2005.
[32] Java Agent DEvelopment framework [Online]. Available:
http://jade.tilab.com/
[33] Foundation of Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) [Online]. Available:
http://www.fipa.org
[34] D. P. Bertsekas, and D. A. Castaon, A forward/reverse auction
algorithm for asymmetric assignment problems, Computational
Optimization and Applications, vol. 1 , no. 3, pp. 277-297C, 1992.
[35] Y. Shoham, and K. Leyton-Brown. (2011, April 28). Mutiagent
Systems Apllications, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations
[Online]. Available: http://masfoundations.org

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

11

Abstract Microgrid is a combination of distributed
generators, storage systems and controllable loads connected to
low voltage network that can operate either grid connected or
island mode. High penetration of power at distribution level
creates such multiple microgrids. This paper proposes a two level
architecture for distributed energy resource management for
multiple microgrids using multi agent systems (MAS). In order to
match the buyers and sellers in the energy market, symmetrical
assignment problem based on nave auction algorithm is used.
The developed mechanism allows the pool members such as
generation agents, load agents, auction agents, grid agents and
storage agents to participate in market. Three different scenarios
are identified based on the supply-demand mismatch among the
participating microgrids. At the end of this paper two case
studies are presented with two and four interconnected
microgrids participating in market. Simulation results clearly
indicate that the agent based management is effective in resource
management among multiple microgrids economically and
profitably.

Index Terms Microgrid, Energy markets, Multi Agent
Systems (MAS), Symmetrical Assignment problem, Auction
algorithms
I. INTRODUCTION
ISTRIBUTED generation (DG) is becoming as a new
paradigm to produce on-site highly reliable and good
quality electrical power [1]. The concept of DG is quite
interesting when different kinds of energy resources are
available, such as photovoltaic (PV) panels, fuel cells (FCs),
or wind turbines. The DG of different kinds of energy systems
allows for the integration of renewable and nonconventional
energy resources into distribution system. Optimally sizing
and placing DGs in distribution system brings significant
reduction in distribution loss, congestion relief etc [2].
Microgrid is a platform to integrate DERs into distribution
network. The DERs may include DGs and distributed storage
(DS). Managing microgrid having wide variety of DERs is a
challenging task and the complexity involved is much higher
if non-dispatchable DERs like wind and PV are involved. The
recent literature has shown that making the existing
distribution grids smarter is possible with customer driven
microgrids by paying special attention to distributed storage
[3].
In general microgrids are provided with the intelligence to
form intentional island within the distribution system [4].
Intentional islands are formed when faults continue to persist

on the utility side, quality of power is poor on grid side or grid
prices are high. Besides the benefits resulted by integrating
DERs into distribution system, there are numerous economic,
commercial, and technical challenges to be faced [4]. In [5]
some of the technical challenges like active power
management were addressed with viable solutions.
One of the common challenging tasks involved in microgrid
scenario is managing microgrids with non-dispatchable DERs.
Due to the presence of non dispatchable generation, there is
always an issue of demand and supply in a microgrid. One of
the solutions to such problem is to equip microgrids with
diesel generators. However the operating cost and emission
levels of such systems are significantly high compared to
green DERs and hence, to make microgrids smarter it is
important to embed necessary intelligence into existing control
strategies [5-7]. This paper addresses a solution to the
aforementioned problem by implementing agent based virtual
market. The key intention of this mechanism is to enable
microgrids to participate in the simulated market and thereby
effectively utilize the DERs. The developed intelligence routes
the power from surplus locations to deficient locations.
However the cost at which power will be traded is decided by
pool members following the auction protocol discussed in
section IV.
In this paper MAS are used to model market scenario with
energy buyers and energy sellers. JADE (Java Application
DEevelopment framework), is used to develop the proposed
MAS architecture. The proposed architecture consists of
several intelligent agents at two levels viz., Market level and
Field level. The field level agents are responsible for
balancing local load and generation. In case of mismatch of
demand and supply at field level, the microgrid intelligent
agent (MIA) takes appropriate decision to participate in the
market either as a generator agent or as a load agent. When
MIA participating as load, it starts bidding for the amount of
power required to supply local load. MIA continues to do this
bidding till bidding price reaches maximum affordable price
or till it finds alternate best choice (say self owned diesel
generator). When MIA participates in the bidding as a
generator agent, it accepts the bids whose weighted average is
more than or equal to the value called as ARL (Acceptable
Revenue Level). The proposed approach is tested on a multi-
bus microgrid and is proven to be beneficial for all the
participants.
Agent oriented programming approach of MAS and its
engineering applications are discussed briefly in the next
section. The proposed architecture for microgrid market is

D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

12
presented in section III. Section IV details the implementation
of the proposed architecture using JADE. In section V, a
microgrid test case with two and three microgrids forming
pool is presented. Representative market scenarios for
microgrids are highlighted in Appendix
II. MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS (MAS) - APPLICATIONS OF AGENT
ORIENTED PROGRAMMING (AOP)
Multi agent system is a system with two or more agents or
intelligent agents or even combination of both [8]. An agent is
a software (or hardware) entity that is placed in some
environment and is able to autonomously react to the changes
in that environment. This nature of agent is called reactivity
[8]. This definition of agent doesnt give the total flavor of the
agent technology. The notion of agent is meant to be a tool
for analyzing systems, but not an absolute characterization that
divides the world into agents and no-agents is another
definition of an agent which gives the major flavor of an agent
[9]. An intelligent agent is an agent which exhibits pro-activity
(goal-directed behaviour), social ability (able to interact with
other intelligent agents) and reactivity [10].
The key features of agent technology viz., data and method
encapsulation made the agent orient programming (AOP) as a
best suit to develop secure applications. These features of an
agent provide security against accessing data stored in the
agent intelligence and methods (actions) which can perform
built in or user developed functions. Object oriented
programming can provide data encapsulation but not method
encapsulation. More precisely, in object orient programming
case external objects can call functions which the object has to
execute but no choice to escape or postpone. In case of AOP
an agent will have intelligence to schedule the requests sent by
other agents to take certain actions. In AOP, agent can be
accessed by other agents using standard messaging interfaces
[11].
MAS have been applied to wide range of engineering
applications. The application of MAS is to construct robust,
flexible and extensible systems or as a modeling approach.
MAS applications to power engineering problems are detailed
in [10]. The authors have discussed in detail the possible areas
where MAS can be applied which include diagnostics,
condition monitoring, power system restoration, market
simulation, system control, protection and automation. Recent
publications [12-29] on multi agent systems applications to
power engineering are significantly focused on distributed
energy scheduling, smart grids, power system topology
verification, energy management in hybrid systems, power
system contingency analysis, controlling and scheduling of
energy resources in hybrid energy systems.
In [14-15] MAS framework is used to enable mutual
coordination among various agents performing scheduling,
checking limit violations and clearing markets following
Contract Net Protocol (CNP). MAS were also applied in
simulation of energy markets using risk based continuous
double auction algorithm [16]. In [17] MAS were used to
coordinate microgrids to participate in ancillary service
markets (frequency control reserve markets). Ref [18] showed
the applicability of MAS to evaluate emission free electricity
markets by effectively coordinating green energy sources.
Apart from market simulation, MAS was also used to control
and incorporate necessary intelligence to detect faults on
utility feeders there by switching microgrid to island mode
[19]. In [20], MAS was used to implement CNP as mechanism
to control distribution feeder voltage by providing necessary
support from connected distributed generators. An attempt
was made to use MAS frame work to control and coordinate
storage systems of a microgrid operating in grid connected
mode [21]. Besides controlling storage systems MAS frame
work can also be extended to control hybrid renewable energy
generation by wind/PV [22-24].
MAS were also incorporated in time consuming tasks such
as contingency analysis, priority based distribution system
restoration [25-28]. In [29], MAS in connection with Petri
Nets were used to verify the power system topology during
real-time to avoid errors in the power network connectivity
models.
performed in intervals of 5, 15 and 60min [30].
Implementation of multi-agent systems for operation of a
multiagent system is presented in [31]. The application
confirms to FIPA and is implemented using JADE software
[32-33]. Auction algorithm to solve asymmetric assignment
problem is proposed in [34]. This uses idea of reverse auction
where in addition to agents bidding for objects by raising the
prices new agents offering discounts were also introduced
which increase competition and increase benefit to consumer.
The work reported in the literature so far focused on bidding
process in single microgrid while the present manuscript
proposed market scenario for load and generation agents
multiple microgrids with and without storage systems.
III. PROPOSED MICROGRID MARKET ARCHITECTURE
The proposed architecture has two layers/levels for
microgrid resource management viz., market level and field
level as shown in Fig. 1. The top level or market level is
designed to cater the trading among the microgrids and/or with
the grid while maintaining market fair and transparent and the
bottom level (field level) is responsible to manage individual
microgrids to match the supply and demand. The market layer
also detects and record successful negotiations among the
agents.
A. Resource Management at Field Level
A microgrid consisting of distributed generators (DG) and
loads constitute the field level of the architecture shown in
Fig. 1. The information regarding load requirement and
generation availability of an individual microgrid is available
with load agent (LA) and generation agent (GA) respectively.
This information is passed to these agents from field level load
and generation agents (FLA and FGA) of participating
generators and loads of the microgrids. FLA and FGA are
responsible for submission of this information to the microgrid
intelligent agent (MIA) via their respective brokers/trading
agents (LA/GA) during the discussion interval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

13
In addition to generation availability information, GA also
passes the Acceptable Revenue Level (ARL) for each
generator. ARL is defined as unit cost of energy that an
individual generator (or FGA) is willing to trade the power in
the market for.
M
a
r
k
e
t

L
e
v
e
l

A
g
e
n
t

A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
F
i
e
l
d

L
e
v
e
l

A
g
e
n
t

A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A
G
A
L
L
A
-
1
L
L
A
-
2
L
G
A
-
1
L
G
A
-
2
L
A

Fig.1: Proposed agent architecture for resource management in multiple
microgrids.
In a grid connected system with single microgrid, if the
generated power is higher than the load, the surplus power is
sold to the grid at buying price (BP) of grid. On the contrary,
if the load in the microgrid is higher than the generated power,
power is purchased from grid at selling price (SP). In the
present work, it is assumed that grid is always available to
export or import power and SP and BP are constant. However,
it is always possible to incorporate any constraints on
import/export of power in the proposed architecture at any
level. The relation between SP, BP and ARL in general is
given by (1)
SP ARL BP < (1)
performed in intervals of 5, 15 and 60min [30]. In the present
work, a day (24 hrs) is divided into 96 blocks of 15min each
called as demand intervals/blocks and it is assumed that during
this interval the demand and supply remains constant. In the
proposed mechanism, commitment interval (B(n)) is preceded
by discussion interval (B(n-1)) by one block. Grid announces
the prices BP and SP at time just before B(n-1) and the MAA
(market administrator agent of market level) announces
bidding at B(n-1). The first three minutes of discussion
interval is known as discussion period/auction period for the
agents of microgrid. The loads and generators place their bids
through respective agents. Trading strategy implemented in
this paper is based on naive auction algorithm which is
discussed in section IV. The Gantt chart indicating discussion
interval, commitment interval and discussion period in the
trading process are given in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: Gantt chart for market operation in microgrids.
MIA plays role of a manager when interacting with field
level agents and a trader when interacting with market level.
The mismatch between supply and demand is a common issue
encountered in a microgrid. It is more complicated in case of
systems with non-dispatchable generators. MIA shall execute
series of tasks to ensure proper trading and hence supply-
demand balance in a microgrid.
MIA initiates market participation, when there is a supply-
demand mismatch within the microgrid. The market level role
of MIA will be explained in the later section.
In any discussion period, upon receiving load requirement
and generation availability information from LA and GA of
the corresponding microgrid respectively, MIA computes net
power (NP) available as
NP =
=

G
1 i
specified specified
i
L P (2)
Where, G is the total number of DGs connected to the
microgrid,
Specified
L is the aggregated demand of the
microgrid in kW,
Specified
i
P is the specified power
availability from
th
i DG in kW. The immediate action of
MIA depends on the sign of the NP. If NP 0 then, MIA
carries out optimization as per (3).
|
\
|

=
T P C Minimize
i
G
1 i
i

Subjected to the constraints
=
Specified
i i
Specified
G
i
i
P P
L P
0
1 (3)
Where,
i
C is the cost of generating power from
th
i DG in
cents/kWh, Tis the duration of the commitment interval in
hours, and
i
P is the amount of load optimally allotted to
th
i
DG in kW. Based on (3), MIA optimizes the local distribution
of loads for available local generation. The next action of MIA
depends on the value of the NP computed using (2). If NP >0,
then MIA enters market as a generator otherwise it remains in
the same level. On the other hand, if NP is <0 then, MIA
enters the market as an aggregate load.
B. Trading Strategy at Market Level without Storage
The market level of the proposed architecture is responsible
for maintaining fair market and power management among
multiple microgrids. The agents involved in this layer are
market level load agent (MLLA), market level generation
agent (MLGA), auction agent (AA) and market administrator
agent (MAA). The hierarchy of these agents is shown in Fig.
1.
As discussed before, MIA represents itself as load or
generator to the market level architecture. Bases on supply and
demand among the microgrids, the tasks performed by MIA
are narrated in the following three scenarios.

Scenario 1: When MIA represents itself as load to market
level.
MIA submits bid in the market with an initial value of
starting bid (SB). In the present developed market model, it is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

14
considered that the starting bid by the MIA is always greater
than or equal to buying price of the grid (BP). If the bid value
is less than BP, the generators would be interested in trading
with main grid rather than participating in local market. The
step wise bidding process between MIA, AA and other market
agents is explained in section IV(C).
This bidding process continues progressively till bid reaches
a value called maximum affordable price or maximum bid
(bidmax), also bidmax SP. When MIA reaches bidmax, it
stops increasing bid and continues to bid with the same value.
However a bid reaches to bidmax only at the end of the
discussion period. At the end of the discussion period, MIA
remains either with a set of accepted bids or with a single
accepted bid. If the bid gets accepted, then MIA stores the
information and calculates unit price of electricity and
communicates to FLAs of the microgrid.

Scenario 2: When MIA represents itself as generator to
market level.
When NP > 0, MIA represents itself as a generator to the
market level. MIA submits the available generation
information to AA. The step wise bidding process among
MIA, AA and market agents is discussed in detail in section
IV(C).
Upon receiving offer from AA, MIA compares offer with
ARL calculated using (4).
=
=

=
G
1 i
i
Specified
i
G
1 i
i
Specified
i i
) P - (P
)) P - (P (ARL
ARL (4)
Where,
i
ARL is the ARL specified by
th
i DG. If the offer is
greater than or equal to ARL, MIA accepts the offer.
Otherwise, it rejects and continues in the waiting state. MIA
follows this strategy till the end of the discussion period is
reached. If by any chance MIA has not received any offers
(just before end of auction period) which are acceptable then,
the most recently received offer is compared with BP of the
grid. If the offer is greater than BP then the best choice for
MIA is to accept instead of selling the power to grid at a lower
price.
Scenario 3: If the load and generation in an individual
microgrid are matched, MIA closes the discussion and stores
the set points of generators. These set points are released to
the generators during the commitment interval B(n). It is very
clear that MIA is acting as a bridge between the market and
field levels of the proposed architecture.
Next to MIA, market level contains MLLA and MLGA.
These are responsible for creating market load and generation
agents. After receiving market participation information from
MIAs, MLLA divides the consolidated load requirement into
packets of equal size (say 10 kW) and creates an agents called
market load agents (MLA) for each energy packet. The role of
MLA is to purchase energy packet from the market on behalf
of MIA participating as a load. The process is being used by
MLGA to create market generation agents. However, care
should be taken while selecting size of the each packet as each
packet represents an agent in the market and negotiation
involving large number of agents will introduce significant
delay [31]. MLLA and MLGA submit the information about
the newly created agents to AA. The number of market
generation and load agents reflects the supply demand relation
in the market. Upon receiving this information, AA starts
appending market grid agents (MGrdAs) in accordance to the
set of newly created MLAs and MGAs. This task of AA is
assignment problem to the market simulation. The developed
market model follows solution of the symmetrical assignment
problem using naive auction algorithm.
C. Trading Strategy at Market Level with Storage
The proposed architecture can be extended to mange power
among microgrids having storage systems. In such scenario, a
new agent called buffer agent (BA) starts participating in filed
level as shown in Fig. 3. The trading mechanism of the agents
of the architecture shown in Fig. 3 is similar to that of Fig. 1
except in AA role. AA makes BAs to address the mismatch
between supply and demand primarily. If mismatch still exists
then AA communicates with grid.

Fig.3: Agent architecture for resource management in multiple microgrids
with storage.

The role of BA is to update AA with the status of the
storage system. BA is also responsible in maintaining storage
systems within the range (S
min
, S
max
). For example, if a battery
storage system is used then BA shall maintain state of charge
within the range (SOC
min
, SOC
max
).
BAs participation status is mainly decided by the supply
demand relation in market and filling/draining ability of the
storage systems. BAs calculate the ability (P
in
) of the storage
systems to get filled as,
|
\
|

=
Max
Max
S ,
T
1) S(i S
min (i)
in
P
And draining ability (P
out
) as,
|
\
|

=
Max
Min
S ,
T
S 1) S(i
min (i)
out
P

Where,
P
in
, P
out
are the abilities of a storage system to get filled and
drained in i
th
commitment interval respectively, kW.
T is the duration of the commitment interval, hours.
) E 1 ( S ) 1 i ( S = is the status of a storage system during
(i-1)
th
commitment interval, kWh.
S is the status of the system at the end of the most recent
filling interval, kWh.
, is the self draining factor of the storage system, kWh per
month.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

15
E is the elapsed time from the most recent filling interval to
(i-1), months.
If supply is more than demand then BAs participate in
market as loads and place bids in the market as per the
strategy given in section IV (C). If the demand is more than
the supply then BAs participate in market as generators by
submitting cost of stored energy (CSE) after accounting self
draining as ARL and is given by,
) E 1 (
CSE
) i ( ARL
Re

=
Where, CSE
Re
is the cost of the stored energy at the end of
the most recent filling interval in cents/kWh. The outcome of
the participation is a contract for charging or discharging in
the next commitment interval. If the contract is to fill then, the
cost of the stored energy (CSE) will be updated at the end of
the i
th
interval as follows,
CS(i) 1) S(i
CS(i)) T (CP(i) 1)) S(i RL(i) A (
= (i) CSE
+
+

Where,
CP is the contract price in cents per kW.
CS is the contract size in kW.
CSE (i-1) is the cost of stored energy in cents per kWh.
Min
S ) 1 i ( S ) 1 i ( S =
The microgrids considered in this study are community level
microgrids and hence all the storage agents work under
nonprofit mode. In case of customer driven microgrids, the
storage systems are profit motivated and hence sell energy at a
price greater than CSE. The roles of intelligent agents other
than AA of market level are same as before. If the number of
market generation agents is not equal to the number of market
load agents then AA invites BAs to participate in the market.
BAs acknowledge with the status of the storage systems. AA
decides the number of market storage agents (NB) to be added
in the market as,
NB
|
|
|
\
|

=
=
AS
SB(i)
,
AS
P
min
B
1 i

Where,
P is supply-demand mismatch in the market, kW.
AS is Agent size, kW.
B is the total number of storage systems
SB(i) is the ability of the i
th
storage system in kW, and is
equal to P
in
for charging and P
out
for discharging.
Upon adding NB number of market storage agents (MSAs),
AA rechecks the mismatch, and if the mismatch is non zero
then AA starts appending market grid agents (MGrdAs) in
accordance to the set of newly created MLAs, MGAs and
MSAs.

(a)
(b)
Fig. 4: (a) AA role in forming symmetrical assignment problem without
storage and (b) with storage

Fig. 4 shows the role of AA in forming equal number of
suppliers and buyers in the market. This task of AA is
assignment problem to the market simulation. In the
developed market model naive auction algorithm is used.
Pools of agents which are actually participating in the trade
are shown in Fig. 5. Another important role of AA is to
negotiate with all the members of the pool.

Fig. 5: Pool of trading agents.
The role of Market Administrator Agent (MAA) is to
announce start of auction, discussion intervals, prepare
monthly reports, negotiate with utility grids, recording
successful bids, and passing on stored set points to each MIA.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF MICROGRID BIDDING STRATEGY
USING JADE
JADE (Java Agent Development framework) is a software
development framework for developing MAS and applications
conforming to FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical
Agents) standards for intelligent agents [32-33]. The
developed MAS based architecture enables individual
microgrids to practice power trading which is based on Naive
Auction Algorithm applied as a solution for symmetrical
assignment problem [34-35]. However to adopt this solution,
there should be equal number of buyers and sellers in the
market.
A. Naive Auction Algorithm applied as a solution for
symmetrical assignment problem [31], [34-35]
The naive auction algorithm progresses in rounds and in
each round only one buyer (also called a person) bids on the
desired object. The mechanism involved in naive auction
algorithm is given below:
In the classical example (assignment problem) there are X
objects and Y persons which are to be matched on a one-to-
one basis. The benefit associated with matching a person to an
object is defined as utility, u(i, j). The objective of assignment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

16
problem is to find and assignment (a set of person-object
pairs) that maximizes total benefit given by (5):
Total Benefit =
=
Y
1 i
) j , i ( u (5)
In real life auction, there is always a price p
j
associated with
each object, where j is the object index. However, in the
current application, price is an algorithmic variable which has
no physical significance. The price p
j
helps to progress and
terminate the naive auction algorithm. The actual value gained
by a person allotted with an object is the difference between
utility and the price of the object.
As discussed earlier, naive auction algorithm proceeds in
rounds or iterations and terminates when all objects and
persons are matched. In any round only one person (or the
bidder) can submit bid on the desired object. In each round,
the bidder increases the price of the desired object by a value
called bid increment. Bid increment b(i,j) is the increment in
bid by person i for the object j and hence price indicates
global desire. The bid increment is calculated by using (6).
} p ) j , i ( u { } p ) j , i ( u { ) j , i ( b
* j
*
j
= (6)
Where, j
*
is the next best desired object for a person i.
This process resembles the real auction as bidding increments
and price increases aid competition by making the bidders
desired object less attractive to other competitors.
However, a buyer can have more than one desired object
which will yield same maximum profit. In such case, the
auction algorithm results a non terminating quarrel among
bidders as no bid increment is possible. To avoid such infinite
auction rounds, a perturbation mechanism was introduced.
This mechanism demands that in each round, a bidder should
increase the bid at least by a non negative value . In such
case, just as in real auction objects become less attractive after
finite number of rounds resulting a solution. The value of
influences the number of steps required to converge. A more
detailed explanation of naive auction algorithm and its
application for microgrid control is given in [31], [35].
B. Designing of Agents
In order to simulate the behaviours of the various entities of
the market, a total of twelve agents are created and are broadly
categorized as,
Marketing Agent: MGA, MLA, MSA, and
MGrdAs.
The intelligence developed for each of the above agents is an
extension of the behaviours available in JADE package like
OneShotBbehaviour, SequentialBehaviour, ParallelBehaviour,
and TickerBehaviour. The following are some of the
developed behaviours:
StartAuction
MarketParticipation
FormSymAssignement
StartNegotaiation
StartBidding
UpdateStatus
Reception
In this application content of the messages exchanged between agents
is set using setContentObject() method. However, the message
communication can also be done by developing ontology as
discussed in [31].
C. Implementation of proposed architecture on multiple
microgrids
The steps involved in overall market simulation are given
below:
Step 1: Announcement of discussion period:
MAA announces start of the discussion period, SP, and BP
Step 2: Load and generation data:
FLAs and FGAs of each microgrid submits the information
about load requirement and generation availability for the
commitment period to LA and GA which in turn consolidate
perceived information and submit to corresponding MIA.
Step 3: Decision for role of MIA:
MIA traces out the cheapest way of supplying received load
demand by availing local generation using (2) and (3). The
local generation can be more or less than the local load
requirement. If surplus power/load is available in a microgrid
then corresponding MIA initiates market participation by
sending request either MLGA/MLLA.
Step 4: Creating market agents by AA
MLLA and MLGA consolidate the received data and create
MLAs and MGAs, and submit this information to AA.
AA checks the number of MLAs and MGAs and if they are
not equal, then AA appends suitable number of market grid
agents (MGrdAs) to make the market symmetrical. If storage
systems are present then AA appends suitable number of
MSAs as per (8). AA announces start of negotiation to all pool
members and conducts the auction as per naive auction
protocol. The outcome of auction algorithm is an assignment
between buyers and sellers.
Step 5: Weighted average for the bids
AA calculates the offer to be informed to MIA participating
as generator (MIA
Generator
) by taking weighted average of the
bids submitted by the agents which are assigned to
corresponding MIA
Generator
.
Step 6: Market negotiation by AA
AA negotiates the offer with all MIAs acting as generators.
Based on their ARL they may accept or reject the offer. The
ARL is computed as per (4). If the offer is acceptable to
MIA
Generator
, then the algorithm terminates and Step 8 follows.
If the offer is not accepted by the MIA
Generator,
then AA sends
message to MIA acting as load (MIA
Load
) to submit new bids
as per (7) and algorithm directs to Step 4. The bidding curve
shown in Fig. 6 is a time based bidding curve which can
accurately model the behavior of true buyer in the market.
Buyer in the market starts bidding on the desired object with a
value greater than the existing offer made by other
competitors, in order to win the bid.
SB t )
T
SB bidmax
( bid(t)
d
+
=
(7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

17

Fig. 6. Bidding curve
Step 7: Communicating Success
AA communicates the success of the bid to corresponding
members who submitted the bid i.e., MIAs acting as load.
Step 8: End of discussion period
At the end of the discussion period MAA announces stop
discussion and records all successful bids.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed MAS-
based resource management, a system with two interconnected
microgrids shown in Fig. 7 is simulated. In order to show the
applicability of the proposed architecture, the system shown in
Fig. 7 is simulated by introducing storage system of capacity
40 kWh in each microgrid. The initial status of these systems
is 50% of their rated capacity at a CSE of 11.25 cents/kWh.
The maximum allowable depth of draining and self draining
factors of each storage system are 5 kWh and 25% of the rated
capacity per month respectively. Details of loads and
generations in the microgrids for various intervals (blocks) are
given in Table. 1(A).

Fig. 7. System with two interconnected microgrids.
In Table 1(A), an export of 20 kW at 9 cents/kWh (buying
price of the grid, BP) to the main grid by the MG1 is observed
in the first block. It is also observed that MG2 has purchased
30 kW at 12.76 cents/kWh from MG1 during this period based
on naive auction algorithm. Detailed process involved in
arriving at the final bid value by MG-2 is explained in
Appendix. In the second block, a surplus power of 30 kW
available from the MG1 which is purchased by MG2 (after the
bidding process) at 11.25 cents/kWh. In the case of third
interval, MG-2 requires additional 70 kW power and hence it
has purchased 50 kW from MG-1 at 11.25 cents/kWh and
remaining 20 kW from main grid at 13.5 cents/kWh which is
selling price (SP) of the grid.
It is observed that in block four, the generation in MG-1 is
reduced by 20 kW and MG-2 requires additional power of
20kW which it had purchased from MG-1 at 12.37 cents/kWh.
The excess power of 10 kW of MG-1 is sold to the main grid 9
cents /kWh. In block five and six, power is imported and
exported from the grid respectively by the MG-1 and MG-2.
In block seven and eight, power is exported and imported from
the grid by both the microgrids respectively in the absence of
storage systems.

TABLE 1(A). CASE STUDY SYSTEM DATA FOR TWO MICROGRIDS AND
MARKET SIMULATION WITHOUT STORAGE
Blk
M
G
L1 L2
DG1
*

(ARL)
DG2
*

(ARL)
Export/
Import
(Cost)
#

Grid
Power
(Cost)#
1
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+50
(11.25)
-20
(9)
2 100 130
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-30
(12.76)
0
2
1 100 70
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+30
(11.25)
0
2 100 130
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-30
(11.25)
0
3
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
+50
(11.25)
0
2 100 170
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-70
(11.89)
+20
(13.5)
4
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
80
(11.25)
+30
(11.25)
-10
(9)
2 100 120
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
-20
(12.37)
0
5
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
0
+50
(9)
2 100 90
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
+10
(9)
6
1 100 100
100
(10.13)
80
(11.25)
0
-20
(13.5)
2 100 120
70
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
-50
(13.5)
7
1 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(11.25)
0
+50
(9.0)
2 100 50
100
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
+50
(9.0)
8 1 100 100
100
(10.13)
40
(11.25)
0
-60
(13.5)
2 100 100
50
(10.13)
100
(10.13)
0
-50
(13.5)
*: Units for load and generation are in kW, ARL in cents/kWh
from grid
TABLE 1(B). MARKET SIMULATION WITH STORAGE
Blk MG
Surplus
(Cost)
$
Storage
(Cost)
*$
Grid Power
(Cost)
#$
1
1 +50/(11.25) 0 0
2 -30/(11.25) -20/(11.25) 0
2
1 +30/(11.25) 0 0
2 -30/(11.25) 0 0
3
1 +50/(11.25) 0 0
2 -70/(11.25) +20/(11.25) 0
4
1 +30/(11.25) 0 0
2 -20/(11.25) -10/(11.25) 0
5
1 +50/(11.25) -40/(10.97) 0
2 +10/(10.13) -20/(11.25) 0
6 1 -20/(11.16) +40/(11.16) 0
2 -50/(11.21) +30/(11.25) 0
7 1 +50/(11.25) -40/(11.11) 10/(9.0)
2 +50/(10.13) -40/(11.11) 10/(9.0)
8 1 -60/(11.95) +40/(11.14) +20/(13.5)
2 -50/(11.27) +40/(11.20) +10/(13.5)
from grid;
*: + sign indicates draining and - sign indicate filling
$: Units for cost are in cents/kWh
In Table 1(B), no export to or import from the main grid is
observed in the first six blocks. In blocks seven and eight,
available power is surplus/deficit when compared to
filling/draining capacity of the storage systems and hence an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

18
export/import of 20kW/30kW is observed. The advantage of
using storage (based bidding) can be clearly understood by
comparing block 1 of Table 1(A) and 1(B). The total cost of
purchase by MG2 is reduced to 11.25 cents/kWh from 12.76
cents/kWh when local community based storage is introduced.
Fig. 8 depicts snapshot of the actual communication taking
place between the agents for one transaction period (block) of
15 minutes. This snapshot was obtained using a sniffer agent
in JADE software.

(a)
(b)

Fig. 8. (a) Communication and (b) Sniffer diagrams for market negotiation for
two inter connected microgrids.
The communication shown between MIAs and BAs and the
dotted lines in Fig. 8 correspond to storage systems. The six
blocks (15 min each) illustrate the performance of the
proposed scheme under different load, generation profiles and
market condition. Market simulation is also performed on
system with four inter connected microgrids with storage
systems shown in Fig. 9 and the results are tabulated in Table
2. The proposed architecture and market mechanism can easily
be extended for multiple microgrids.
Note that, the microgrids shown in Fig. 9 except microgrid 4
are having battery energy storage systems (BESSs). BESS is
assumed to be storage system for this case study. These
systems are rated at a capacity of 40kWh and are initially
charged to 50% of their rated capacity at a CES of 11.25
cents/kWh. The maximum allowable depth of draining and
self draining factors of each BESS are 5 kWh and 25% of the
rated capacity per month respectively.
In Table 2, some of the important scenarios of the system
shown in Fig. 9 are presented. It is observed that, during first,
second and fourth blocks, storage systems are filled by the
surplus power available in the market.
In block three, five and six storage systems are supplying
deficit power. In block four, deficit is more than the capacities
of the storage systems and hence an import of 10 kW from
main grid at SP (13.5 cents/kWh) is observed. In block five,
the surplus power is more than the capacities of the storage
systems and hence an export of 30 kW to main grid at BP (9.0
cents/kWh) is observed. The simulation setup for
interconnected microgrid with the central market agents is
shown in Fig. 10.
The results show that the proposed architecture based on
naive auction protocol performs the resource management as
desired under all conditions.
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Large Load
Microgrid-3
B
E
S
S
~
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
L2
L1
~
Microgrid-2
Utility Substation
B
E
S
S
L2
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-1
B
E
S
S
~
Z
2
Z
1
L2
DG1
(100 kW)
Microgrid-4
L1
DG2
(100 kW)
Z
3


TABLE 2. CASE STUDY SYSTEM DATA FOR FOUR MICROGRID SYSTEM
B
l
o
c
k

M
G

L
1

L
2

D
G
1
a
/
A
R
L

D
G
2
a
/
A
R
L

E
x
p
o
r
t
/
I
m
p
o
r
t

(
C
o
s
t
)
a
,
b

S
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
,
*

(
C
o
s
t
)

G
r
i
d

P
o
w
e
r
a
,
b

(
C
o
s
t
)

1
1 100 100 100/10.13 80/10.13 -20/11.25 0 0
2 100 70 100/11.25 100/11.25 +30/11.25 -30/11.25 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/11.25 0 0
4 100 80 100/10.13 80/11.25 0 -- 0
2
1 100 80 100/10.13 100/10.13 +20/10.13 -10/11.25 0
2 100 70 100/11.25 100/11.25 +30/11.25 -40/11.25 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/11.25 -40/10.69 0
4 100 60 100/10.13 80/11.25 +20/11.25 -- 0
3
1 100 100 100/10.13 80/10.13 -20/11.25 0 0
2 100 80 100/11.25 100/11.25 +20/11.25 +10/11.25 0
3 100 100 100/10.13 70/11.25 -30/11.25 +40/11.06 0
4 100 100 100/10.13 80/11.25 -20/11.25 -- 0
4 1 100 100 100/10.13 50/10.13 -50/11.25 +40/11.25 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

19
2 100 100 80/11.25 60/11.25 -40/11.11 +40/11.25 0
3 100 100 100/10.13 60/11.25 -40/11.77 +40/11.06
+
10
4 100 100 100/10.13 100/11.25 0 -- 0
5
1 100 50 100/10.13 100/10.13 +50/10.13 -40/11.25 0
2 100 60 100/11.25 100/11.25 +40/11.25 -40/10.41 0
3 100 60 100/10.13 100/11.25 +40/11.25 -40/10.69
-
10
4 100 80 100/10.13 100/11.25 +20/9.0 --
-
20
6
1 100 100 100/10.13 100/10.13 0 0 0
2 100 100 70/11.25 100/11.25 -30 +10/11.01 0
3 100 80 100/10.13 80/11.25 0 +40/10.88 0
4 100 100 100/10.13 80/11.25 -20 -- 0
a: Units for load, generation, storage, and export/import are in kW, ARL in
cents/kWh;
b: sign indicates export to grid at BP and + sign indicates import from grid at SP;
*: + sign indicates draining and sign indicates filling

Fig. 10. Simulation setup for interconnected microgrids with Central Agent
Market
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper a two level architecture for distributed resource
management in multiple inter connected microgrids using
MAS is presented. The market agents participate in real
time bidding based on data from agents at field level.
Bidding action is simulated using naive auction algorithm. The
intelligent agent of each microgrid following the proposed
model behaves like a true buyer or true seller in the
market so as to fulfill the needs of the microgrid. In
order to even the number of load and generation agents
participating in the trading the concept of symmetrical
assignment is used. The results of case study for two and four
microgrids clearly indicate that proposed architecture is
effective in resource management among multiple microgrids.
APPENDIX
In order to give full insight of the market mechanism
proposed, a system with two microgrids is considered. The
system data considered for a block (period of 15 min) is given
in Table A1. In the beginning of an auction period local load
and generator agents submit this information to LA and GA
respectively. As per Table A1, MG-1 is having a surplus
power of 50 kW, while MG-2 is having deficit of 30 kW.
Hence the intelligent agent of MG-1(MIA
1
) represents itself as
generator and intelligent agent of MG-2 (MIA
2
) represents
itself as load in the market. The ARL for MIA
1
as a single
entity is calculated from (4).
ARL=
50
25 . 11 50 13 . 10 0 +
= 11.25 cents/kWh
TABLE AI
SYSTEM DATA FOR MICROGRIDS UNDER CONSIDERATION BLOCK1
Load 1
(kW)
Load 2
(kW)
DG-1
(kW)
DG-2
(kW)
NP
(kW)
MG-1 100 50 100 100 +50
(ARL)* (10.13) (11.25)
MG-2 100 130 100 100 -30
(ARL)* (10.13) (10.13)
*Units for load and generation are in kW, ARL in cents/kWh
# + sign indicates export and sign indicate import
However, it is observed that ARL for DG-1 < DG-2 and
hence the power generated by DG with low ARL shall be
utilized locally and rest shall be made available for trading.
For this reason, the surplus power of 50 kW is available from
MIA
1
at 11.25 cents/kWh for the next commitment interval.
The NP in MG-2 is -30 kW and hence MIA
2
represents itself
as an aggregate load to the market. The initial bid submitted
by MIA
2
is 9.1 cents/kWh. The information received from
MIA
1
and MIA
2
by MLLA and MLGA is used to create
market load and generation agents (MLAs and MGAs).
In the present study, the size of agent is considered as 10
kW and hence MLLA creates three load agents and MLGA
creates five generating agents and passes the information to
AA. Based on the symmetric assignment problem discussed in
section IV, AA creates two new marketing grid agents
(MGrdA) and initiates negotiation to all market agents as per
naive auction algorithm. The price submitted by MGrdA is
equal to buying price (BP) of the grid which is fixed at 9 cents
/kWh.
After negotiation, AA calculates the weighted average of
the bids and communicates to MIA
1
. The computed weighted
average in the first iteration is 9.06 cents/kWh. This offer may
be accepted or rejected by MIA
1
based on its ARL. For the
present block 9.06 cents/kWh is less than ARL (11.25
cents/kWh) and hence MIA
1
rejects the offer. AA informs
MGrdAs and MIA
2
to submit new bid. As discussed before,
the buying price (BP) of grid remains constant (9 cents/kWh)
in the present context and there is no change in bid submitted
by MGrdAs. MIA
2
shall submit a new bid and the bidding
process repeats and is continued till the offer is acceptable to
MIA
1
. In the present example, when the bid submitted by
MIA
2
is 12.76 cents/kWh, the weighted average of bids as
computed by AA is obtained as 11.25 cents/kWh which is
equal to ARL of MIA
1
and hence the new bid is acceptable to
MIA
1
. It is to be noted that the bid submitted by MIA
2
is less
than the bidmax or selling price (SP) of the grid.
MAA records this event and passes on set points to
participating MIAs. During the commitment interval MIAs
communicate the obtained set points to local load agents
through traders.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Guerrero, F. Blaabjerg, T. Zhelev, K. Hemmes, E. Monmasson,
S. Jemei, M. P. Comech, R. Granadino, and J.I. Frau, Distributed
generation: Toward a new energy paradigm , IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag.,
pp. 52-64, Mar. 2010.
[2] 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. 360-370,
Feb. 2010.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
F
o
r

P
e
e
r

R
e
v
i
e
w
<

20
[3] S. Suryanarayanan, F. Mancilla-David, J. Mitra, Y. Li, Achieving the
smart grid through customer-driven microgrids supported by energy
storage, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Industrial Technology, 2010, pp.
884-890.
[4] N. D. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay,
Microgrids, IEEE Power & Energy Mag., vol. 5, no. 4, 2007.
[5] A. Timbus, M. Larsson, and C. Yuen, Active Management of
Distributed Energy Resources Using Standardized Communications and
Modern Information Technologies, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56,
no. 10, pp. 4029-4037, Oct. 2009.
[6] J. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero, J. Miret, M. Castilla, and L. Garcia De
Vicuna, Hierarchical control of intelligent microgrids, IEEE Ind.
Electron. Mag., pp. 23-29, Dec. 2010.
[7] S. Chakraborty, M. D. Weiss, and M. G. Simes, Distributed intelligent
energy management system for a single-phase highfrequency AC
microgrid, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 1, pp.97-109, Feb.
2007.
[8] M. Wooldridge, , G. Weiss, Ed., Intelligent Agents, in Multi-agent
Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Apr. 1999, pp. 351.
[9] S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
Power Engineering ApplicationsPart I: Concepts, Approaches, and
Technical Challenges, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp.
1743- 1752, Nov. 2007.
Power Engineering ApplicationsPart II: Technologies, Standards, and
Tools for Building Multi-agent Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
22, no. 4, pp. 1753- 1759, Nov. 2007.
[12] Li, G. Poulton, G. James, A. Zeman, P. Wang, M. Chadwick, and M. R.
Piraveenan, Performance of Multi-agent Coordination of Distributed
Energy Resources, in Proc. WSEAS Int. Conf. Computer Engineering
and Applications, Gold Coast, Australia, Jan. 17-19, 2007, pp. 568-574.
[13] Z. Jiang, Agent based control framework for distributed energy
resources microgrids in Proc. IEEE/WIC/ACM Int. Conf. Intelligent
Agent Technology, Hong Kong, Dec. 18-22, 2006, pp.646-652.
[14] T. Logenthiran, D. Srinivasan, A.M. Khambadkone, Multi-agent
system for energy resource scheduling of integrated microgrids in a
distributed system, Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81, no. 1,
pp. 138-148, 2011.
[15] T. Logenthiran, D. Srinivasan, D. Wong, Multi-agent coordination for
DER in microgrid, in Proc. 2008 IEEE Int. Conf. Sustainable Energy
Technologies, ICSET 2008, pp. 77-82.
[16] B. Ramachandran, S. K. Srivastava, C. Edrington, and D. A. Cartes, An
Intelligent Auction Scheme for Smart Grid Market using a Hybrid
Immune Algorithm, accepted for publication in IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron.
[17] C. Yuen, A. Oudalov, and A. Timbus, "The provision of frequency
control reserves from multiple micro-grids, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 173-183, Jan. 2011.
[18] K. Sichao, H. Yamamoto, and K. Yamaji, Evaluation of CO2 free
electricity trading market in Japan by multi-agent simulations, Energy
Policy, vol.38, no.7, pp. 3309-3319, Jul. 2010.
[19] M. Pipattanasomporn, H. Feroze, and S. Rahman, Multi-Agent Systems
in a Distributed Smart Grid: Design and Implementation, in Proc.
IEEE PES 2009 Power Systems Conf. and Exposition (PSCE09),
Seattle, Washington. Mar. 2009, pp. 1-8.
[20] M.E. Baran, I.M. El-Markabi, A multiagent-based dispatching scheme
for distributed generators for voltage support on distribution feeders,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.22, no. 1, pp. 52-59, Feb. 2007.
[21] J. Lagorse, D. Paire, and A. Miraoui, Multi-agent system for energy
management of distributed power sources, Renewable Energy, vol. 35
no. 1, pp. 174-182, April 2010.
[22] R. Roche, B. Blunier , A. Miraoui, V. Hilaire, and A. Koukam, Multi-
agent systems for grid energy management: A short review, in Proc.
Ind. Electron. Conf. , 2010, pp. 3341-3346.
[23] X. Zhou, Y. Gu, Y. Ma, L. Cui, and S. Liu, Hybrid operation control
method for micro-grid based on MAS, in Proc. 2010 IEEE Int. Conf.
Progress in Informatics and Computing, PIC-2010, vol.1, pp. 72-75.
[24] Z. Jun, L. Junfeng, W. Jie, and H.W. Ngan, A multi-agent solution to
energy management in hybrid renewable energy generation system,
Renewable Energy, vol. 36, no.5, pp. 1352-1363, May 2011.
[25] A. Oonsivilai, and K. A. Greyson, Power system contingency analysis
using multiagent systems, in Proc. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology , 2009,pp. 355-360.
[27] C.-H. Lin, C.-S. Chen, T.-T. Ku, C.-T. Tsai, C.-Y. Ho, Fault detection,
isolation and restoration using a multiagent-based distribution
automation system, 2009 4th IEEE Conf. Ind. Electron. and
Applications, ICIEA 2009 ,vol.21, no.1, pp. 2528-2533
[29] K. Wilkosz, A multi-agent system approach to power system topology
verification with use of Petri Nets, in Proc. Modern Electric Power
Systems 2010, Wroclaw, Poland.
[30] Electricity market [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[31] A. L. Dimeas, and N. D. Hatziargyriou, Operation of a multiagent
system for microgrid control, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 3,
pp. 1447-1455, Aug. 2005.
[32] Java Agent DEvelopment framework [Online]. Available:
http://jade.tilab.com/
[33] Foundation of Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) [Online]. Available:
http://www.fipa.org
[34] D. P. Bertsekas, and D. A. Castaon, A forward/reverse auction
algorithm for asymmetric assignment problems, Computational
Optimization and Applications, vol. 1 , no. 3, pp. 277-297C, 1992.
[35] Y. Shoham, and K. Leyton-Brown. (2011, April 28). Mutiagent
Systems Apllications, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations
[Online]. Available: http://masfoundations.org

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

7 AC83 D 01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 AC83 D 01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F

You might also like