| Literature DB >> 30126233 |
Esteban Inga1, Miguel Campaña2, Roberto Hincapié3, Oswaldo Moscoso-Zea4.
Abstract
The unpredictable increase in electrical demand affects the quality of the energy throughout the network. A solution to the problem is the increase of distributed generation units, which burn fossil fuels. While this is an immediate solution to the problem, the ecosystem is affected by the emission of CO₂. A promising solution is the integration of Distributed Renewable Energy Sources (DRES) with the conventional electrical system, thus introducing the concept of Smart Microgrids (SMG). These SMGs require a safe, reliable and technically planned two-way communication system. This paper presents a heuristic based on planning capable of providing a bidirectional communication that is near optimal. The model follows the structure of a hybrid Fiber-Wireless (FiWi) network with the purpose of obtaining information of electrical parameters that help us to manage the use of energy by integrating conventional electrical system with SMG. The optimization model is based on clustering techniques, through the construction of balanced conglomerates. The method is used for the development of the clusters along with the Nearest-Neighbor Spanning Tree algorithm (N-NST). Additionally, the Optimal Delay Balancing (ODB) model will be used to minimize the end to end delay of each grouping. In addition, the heuristic observes real design parameters such as: capacity and coverage. Using the Dijkstra algorithm, the routes are built following the shortest path. Therefore, this paper presents a heuristic able to plan the deployment of Smart Meters (SMs) through a tree-like hierarchical topology for the integration of SMG at the lowest cost.Entities:
Keywords: IoT; heuristic; microgrid; optimization; sensor networks; smart metering
Year: 2018 PMID: 30126233 PMCID: PMC6111294 DOI: 10.3390/s18082724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1FiWi network architecture for the efficient integration of smart meters. Source: the authors.
Simulation model and parameter.
| Item | Parameter | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Node density | 4734 nodes/km |
| Node placement | Georeferenced | |
| No. of nodes per cluster | m {8, 14, 20, 27, 32} | |
| Coverage WiFi | ||
| Coverage cellular | ||
| PHY | Standard | IEEE 802.11b |
| Frequency band | 2.4 GHz | |
| Transmission rates | {0.5, 1, 2, 5, 11} Mbps | |
| MAC | Standard | IEEE 802.11 b |
| 3 G, 4 G, 5 G | ||
| Operation mode |
| |
| APP | Application layer data length | |
| Packet rate |
Variables used. SM, Smart Meter; FSPL, Free Space Path Loss; ODB, Optimal Delay Balancing.
| Nomenclature | Description |
|---|---|
|
| Coordinates, longitude and latitude for SMs |
|
| Coordinates, longitude and latitude for the base station |
|
| Coordinates, longitude and latitude for the central office |
|
| Vector of pairs of adjacent nodes |
|
| Vector preliminary computation of end to end delay and FSPL |
|
| Result vector of end to end delay and FSPL calculated with the ODB algorithm |
|
| Number of smart meters |
|
| Georeferenced area |
|
| Universal data aggregation point |
|
| Smart meters |
|
| Adjacency matrix |
|
| Capacity restriction |
|
| Length cluster |
|
| Number of clusters |
|
| Maximum number of hops allowed |
|
| Hop number counter |
|
| Unit costs, cellular, WiFi and optical fiber |
|
| Total costs, WiFi, cellular and optical fiber |
|
| WiFi and cellular coverage restriction, respectively |
|
| Haversine distance (m) of the intra- and inter-cluster |
|
| Haversine distance matrix |
|
| Distance (m) of optical fiber |
Figure 2Near optimal deployment of SMs using Fiber-Wireless (FiWi) network. Source: the authors.
Figure 3WiFi neighbor adjacency matrix n = 512. (a) and (b) preliminary deployment, (a) route map and (b) representation of the adjacency matrix; (c) and (d) correspond to the scenario, minimizing the delays. Source: the authors.
Wireless WiFi network: L = 800-bit/packet, Lambda = 0.1 package/s. Source: the authors.
| Scenario | WiFi | Coverage | Distance (m) | Delay Cluster (ms) | Parameters FSPL (dB) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | # of Links | % | Average | Average | 2.4 GHz | 5.4 GHz | 5.8 GHz |
| 1 | 494 | 100 | 30.12 | 228.26 | 69.63 | 76.68 | 77.30 |
| 2 | 245 | 100 | 30.27 | 192.85 | 69.67 | 76.82 | 77.84 |
| 3 | 124 | 100 | 33.44 | 267.65 | 70.54 | 77.60 | 78.20 |
| 4 | 62 | 100 | 31.98 | 258.29 | 70.15 | 77.20 | 77.82 |
| 5 | 31 | 100 | 25.52 | 236.95 | 68.19 | 75.24 | 75.86 |
Wireless cellular network. Source: the authors.
| Scenario | Cellular | Coverage | Distance (m) | Rand Trip Time (ms) | Parameters FSPL (dB) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | # Links | % | Average | 3 G | 4 G | 5 G | 850 MHz | 1700 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| 1 | 18 | 100 | 84.23 | 70 | 20 | 5 | 69.55 | 75.57 | 76.53 |
| 2 | 11 | 100 | 59.46 | 70 | 20 | 5 | 66.52 | 72.54 | 73.51 |
| 3 | 4 | 100 | 55.03 | 70 | 20 | 5 | 65.85 | 71.87 | 72.84 |
| 4 | 2 | 100 | 68.41 | 70 | 20 | 5 | 67.74 | 73.76 | 74.73 |
| 5 | 1 | 100 | 66.76 | 70 | 20 | 5 | 67.53 | 73.55 | 74.52 |
Figure 4End to end delay generated by each population increase by varying the capacity of each cluster with traffic 0.1 package/s, L = 200 bits. Source: the authors.
L = 200 bit/packet, Lambda = 0.1 packet/s, capacity = 32. Source: the authors.
| Scenario | Density of SMs | UDAPs | Delay without ODB Algorithm | Delay with ODB Algorithm | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # |
| Units | Average End to End (ms) | Average End to End (ms) | Reduce % |
| 1 | 512 | 18 | 67.17 | 55.60 | 17.25 |
| 2 | 256 | 11 | 53.96 | 46.73 | 14 |
| 3 | 128 | 4 | 75.37 | 65.09 | 13.65 |
| 4 | 64 | 2 | 82.61 | 62.88 | 23.88 |
| 5 | 32 | 1 | 72.98 | 57.89 | 20.68 |
Figure 5Delay in different scenarios. (a) Delay vs increase of users; (b) Delay vs increase packet rate. Source: the authors.
Figure 6Average links crossed by a data packet L = 800-bit, Lambda = 0.1 package/s. Source: the authors.