Microgrid Control Architecture for Resiliency

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Microgrid control architectures are susceptible to single points of failure during extreme conditions, require excessive computational time for dynamic control actions, and fail in communication disruptions, lacking flexibility and resilience in managing resources effectively.

Innovation Solution

A flexible control architecture with three layers: component, middle, and microgrid control layers, where the microgrid control layer computes a contingency metric to switch between centralized, partially decentralized, and decentralized modes based on operational threats, ensuring efficient operation, cost-effectiveness, and conservation under varying conditions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If centralized control architecture is used for optimal microgrid operation, then operational efficiency is improved, but the system becomes susceptible to single point of failure during extreme conditions

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperational efficiencyVSAvoidresilience during extreme conditions

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The control architecture dynamically switches between centralized and decentralized modes based on operational conditions. During normal conditions, centralized control optimizes efficiency. During extreme conditions or communication failures, the system transitions to decentralized control where local controllers autonomously manage their zones, eliminating the single point of failure vulnerability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The microgrid control system is segmented into multiple independent control layers: a high-level centralized controller for optimal operation, middle-level regional controllers for zone management, and low-level local controllers for immediate response. This segmentation allows the system to maintain functionality even when higher-level controllers fail during extreme conditions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Productivity

If centralized control computes and implements new control actions, then optimal operation is achieved, but excessive computational time is required to avert dynamic situations

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoptimality of operationVSAvoidcomputational time for control actions

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system pre-computes and stores control strategies and parameters at multiple control layers before disturbances occur. When a disturbance is detected, pre-computed control actions are immediately implemented by local controllers without requiring real-time computation from the centralized controller, significantly reducing response time while maintaining optimality.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts the level of centralization based on the urgency and scale of the situation. For routine optimizations, centralized control computes actions. For urgent dynamic situations, local controllers execute pre-computed actions immediately, and centralized optimization occurs afterward, balancing optimality with rapid response.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

3Productivity

If centralized control architecture is used, then advanced microgrid functions for efficiency and conservation are provided, but the system fails when communication connections between microgrid components are disrupted

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveefficiency and conservation functionsVSAvoidfunctionality during communication failures

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The control architecture is divided into hierarchical segments with autonomous capabilities at each level. Local controllers can independently manage their respective zones without communication with higher levels. Middle-level controllers coordinate regional operations. This segmentation ensures that communication disruptions between components do not cripple the entire system, as each segment can continue functioning autonomously.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Each control layer is designed to be self-sufficient and make autonomous decisions based on local conditions. Local controllers can independently optimize their zones, middle controllers can coordinate regions, and the centralized controller provides overall optimization when communication is available. This self-service capability ensures continuous operation during communication failures while maintaining efficiency functions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentUS10116164B2Flexible control architecture for microgrid resiliency

Publication Date: 2018.10.30 SIEMENS AG

AI summary

A flexible control architecture for an electrical power microgrid provides resiliency when operating under varying threat levels. The architecture includes a microgrid control layer, an intermediate layer and a component control layer. A contingency level is computed based on conditions of the microgrid such as weather and system state. When the contingency level indicates a low degree of threat, the system operates in a centralized, top-down control configuration. When the contingency level indicates a high degree of threat, the system operates in a decentralized control configuration with the microgrid control layer performing only a monitoring function.