1 / 31

Heterogeneous Networks for Smart Grid Communication Architecture and Optimal Traffic Allocation

Heterogeneous Networks for Smart Grid Communication Architecture and Optimal Traffic Allocation. Presented by : Ran Zhang Supervisor : Prof. Sherman( Xuemin ) Shen, Prof. Liang- liang Xie. Main Reference. [1] Levorato , M., Mitra , U., “ Optimal allocation of heterogeneous

lin
Download Presentation

Heterogeneous Networks for Smart Grid Communication Architecture and Optimal Traffic Allocation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Heterogeneous Networks for Smart Grid Communication Architecture and Optimal Traffic Allocation Presented by: Ran Zhang Supervisor: Prof. Sherman(Xuemin) Shen, Prof. Liang-liangXie

  2. Main Reference [1] Levorato, M., Mitra, U., “Optimal allocation of heterogeneous smart grid traffic to heterogeneous networks,” Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), IEEE International Conference on, pp. 132–137, 2011 [2] Zaballos, A., Vallejo, A. and Selga, J.M., “Heterogeneous Communication Architecture for the Smart Grid,” Network, IEEE, vol. 25 , no. 5, pp. 30-37, 2011

  3. OUTLINE • Background[1] • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture[2] • User Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks[1] • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  4. OUTLINE • Background • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture • User Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  5. Background – Traditional vs. Smart(1) • Traditional Energy Grid • Tree like hierarchically-controlled structure • Production -> Delivery -> Distribution to dispersed users • Smart Grid • Distributed Production Models • Deployment of Energy Market – trade energy • Implementation of Demand Response – individuals to receive periodic energy pricing information Fig 1. Smart Grid Overview

  6. Background – Traditional vs. Smart(2) • Demand • The increasing complexity of the production and consumption model  distributed control, control entities fully coordinate • Energy Trading + periodic energy pricing information obtain  timely and reliable exchange of critical information among the control entities. • Solution • Information Communication Network for Smart Grid

  7. Background – Heterogeneity • Traffic heterogeneity in terms of QoS requirements • Control Packets – small size and stringent delay • Large Best Effort Packets – large size and relaxed delay • Information network heterogeneity • Internet • Wireless Access Networks • Power Line Communication (PLC) Network Distinct characteristics in terms of bit rate, delay, packet loss rate and cost.

  8. OUTLINE • Background • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture • Ubiquitous Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  9. Architecture • End-to-end integration of heterogeneous technologies based on IP • Ubiquitous Sensor Network Architecture (USN) • Interoperability with the next generation network (NGN) as the smart grid backbone • Decentralized middleware to coordinate all the smart grid functions Figure 2 Layers of a USN architecture

  10. Architecture • Sensor networks: transmit and collect information • Access Networks: collect info from sensors and facilitate communication with a control center or external entities (NGN) • USN Middleware: collect and process data (send requests) • Application platform Figure 2 Layers of a USN architecture

  11. Architecture: USN Access Network Level(1) Access Baseline Technology • Power Line Communication (PLC) • Dedicated, especially suitable for situations underground or in enclosed places • Drawbacks Technique: low rate, lack of control Economic: high cost • NB-PLC Used for electric company communications, meter reading and home automation Working frequency: 150KHz in Europe and 450KHz in United States Delivery rate: 2 to 128kb/s • BPL Used in in-home LANs and access Networks Bandwidth: 10 to 100Mb/s

  12. Architecture: USN Access Network Level(2) • WIMAX • IEEE 802.16 is a standard technology for wireless wideband access. • Ease of installation • Support point-to-multipoint or mesh topologies • IEEE 802.11s • A draft from IEEE 802.11 for mesh networks • Define how wireless devices can be connected to create ad hoc networks • Implement over physical layer in IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n • IEEE 802.22 • Use existing gaps in the TV frequency spectrum between 54 and 862 MHz • Based on the cognitive radio techniques

  13. Architecture: USN Access Network Level(3) Sensor Communication Technology • A mesh network is suitable for smart grid sensor network • Self-configuration and self-organization: easy to add new nodes • Robust and reliability • IEEE 802.15.4 • Define MAC and PHY layers in low-rate personal area networks (LR-PANs). • IEEE 802.15.5 • WPAN mesh standard • Define a mesh architecture in PAN networks based on IEEE 802.15.4 • Upper layers protocols • Zigbee: Based on IEEE 802.15.4, specifying protocols used in low consumption digital radio • 6LoWPAN: allow to use IPv6 protocol over the base on IEEE 802.15.4

  14. Architecture: USN Access Network Level(4) Conclusions • Metropolitan/wide area networks • WIMAX will work from the core to the high/medium voltage substations • PLC from these substations up to the homes • Home area Networks • Mesh networks: 6LoWPAN, IEEE 802.15.5 and Zigbee (most currently used and mature) • The combination of PLC and Zigbee/IEEE 802.15.4g provides a new concept of home and substation automation with outside interaction.

  15. Architecture: USN Access Network Level(5) Figure 3. Communication Network Proposed

  16. OUTLINE • Background • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture • Ubiquitous Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  17. Architecture: NGN Level • An NGN is a packet-based network in which service–related functions are independent of the underlying transport-related technologies • Support generalized mobility – consistent and ubiquitous service provision • Open Service Environment (OSE) capabilities of ITU’s NGN model • QoS parameters and security constraints should be well mapped among heterogeneous technologies to obtain suitable end-to-end technologies Figure 4 OSE functionalities

  18. Architecture: Middleware Level(1) Figure 5. Middleware Interaction

  19. Architecture: Middleware Level(2) Figure 6. Message Exchange Process

  20. OUTLINE • Background • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture • User Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  21. Optimal Traffic Allocation (1) • Problem : Try to dynamically allocate traffic with different QoS requirements in terms of throughput, delay and failure probability to information networks with different performance characteristics • System Model • The system is divided into input queues, comprised of buffers associated with a different QoS requirement and output networks, representing the various options for the delivery of the packets. • Input queues and output queues are connected by links associated with a potentially time varying channel in order to model variations in fading and capacity

  22. Optimal Traffic Allocation (2) Figure 7. System model • Nq input queues, N0 output queues, slotted time operations. • The packet size is expressed in units • Packets entering the input queue i have fixed size equal to liq units • Uij(t)<=min{Cij(t), Qi(t)} • Fractions of packets cannot be transferred from a buffer to another, and thus Uij(t)=nliq

  23. Optimal Traffic Allocation (3) Figure 7. System model • Packets in queue j are served at rate uj units/time slot. • Retransmission at most Fij times with failure probability ρij • Delivery Delay Dj

  24. Optimal Traffic Allocation (4) System Dynamics • Assumptions: Ai(t) and Ej(t) are i.i.d random variables • Update rule for input queue i is • Update rule for output queue j is

  25. Optimal Traffic Allocation (5) Performance Metrics • Long-time Average throughput • Average waiting time waiting time in input queue I waiting time spent by a packet transferred from the input queue i to output network j

  26. Optimal Traffic Allocation (6) Performance Metrics • Delivery delay over the output networks • Average Financial Cost

  27. Optimal Traffic Allocation (7) Optimization Problem • The performance metrics defined above are all functions of the allocation policy Uij(t) • Minimize/maximize one of the performance metrics given the constraints of the other average performance metrics, with guarantees on the mean rate stability of the system queues

  28. Illustration • Input queues queue1: Large packets with relaxed delay constraints queue2: Small packets with stringent delay constraints • Output queues queue 1: shared wired Internet network (large delivery rate, small delay, large amount of exogenous traffic, small financial cost) queue 2: shared wireless networks (relatively large output rate and small delay, large amount of exogenous traffic, high financial cost) queue 3: PLC (small output rate, large delivery delay, no exogenous traffic, on financial cost) • Packets Arrival λiin – input queues λjo - exogenous packets • Objective Minimize the overall financial cost while keeping the queues stable and meet constraints on the throughput and output buffer plus delivery delay

  29. Illustration • Simulation Results Figure. 8 throughput, delay and financial cost as a function of the exogenous arrival rate λ1o in network 1

  30. OUTLINE • Background • Traditional Energy Grid vs. Smart Grid • Heterogeneity of Smart Grid Communication • Heterogeneous Communication Architecture • User Sensor Network (USN) Access Network Level • USN Next-generation Network (NGN) Level • USN Middleware Level • Optimal Traffic Allocation to Heterogeneous Networks • System Model • Illustration of Optimal Allocation Strategy • Conclusions

  31. Conclusions • Distributed energy production, consumption and dispersed users in smart grid system pose a great necessity for ICT infrastructure • The heterogeneity of smart grid control and application messages and the available delivery networks requires an integrated system that can achieve interoperability among the heterogeneous technologies seamlessly • Traffic assignment (admission control) problem is far more complicated and need efforts for future exploration

More Related