0% found this document useful (0 votes)
62 views6 pages

P2 PEnergy Trading

This document discusses key performance indicators (KPIs) for evaluating communication technologies for peer-to-peer energy trading and grid control in smart grids. It identifies 16 KPIs across several domains and uses the analytic hierarchy process to prioritize them. The top KPIs are latency, reliability, security, scalability, robustness, and costs. It then assesses the feasibility of various communication technologies against the important KPIs and identifies the most suitable candidates for smart grid applications.

Uploaded by

Nirranjan J
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
62 views6 pages

P2 PEnergy Trading

This document discusses key performance indicators (KPIs) for evaluating communication technologies for peer-to-peer energy trading and grid control in smart grids. It identifies 16 KPIs across several domains and uses the analytic hierarchy process to prioritize them. The top KPIs are latency, reliability, security, scalability, robustness, and costs. It then assesses the feasibility of various communication technologies against the important KPIs and identifies the most suitable candidates for smart grid applications.

Uploaded by

Nirranjan J
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325966196

Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading and Grid Control Communications Solutions'


Feasibility Assessment Based on Key Performance Indicators

Conference Paper · June 2018


DOI: 10.1109/VTCSpring.2018.8417871

CITATIONS READS

7 1,037

16 authors, including:

Jussi Haapola Samad Ali


University of Oulu University of Oulu
60 PUBLICATIONS   1,221 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Juho Markkula Nandana Rajatheva


University of Oulu University of Oulu
11 PUBLICATIONS   104 CITATIONS    346 PUBLICATIONS   3,889 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Algorithms and Stochastic models for Positioning, Tracking and Navigation View project

Channel coding View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samad Ali on 06 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading and Grid Control
Communications Solutions’ Feasibility Assessment
based on Key Performance Indicators
Jussi Haapola1 , Samad Ali1 , Charalampos Kalalas3 , Juho Markkula1 , Nandana Rajatheva1 , Ari Pouttu1 ,
José Manuel Martín Rapún2 , Iván Lalaguna2 , Francisco Vazquez-Gallego3 , Jesus Alonso-Zarate3 , Geert Deconinck4 ,
Hamada Almasalma4 , Jianzhong Wu5 , Chenghua Zhang5 , Eloisa Porras Muñoz6 , Francisco David Gallego7
1
Centre for Wireless Communications, University of Oulu | 2 Inycom, Spain | 6 Endesa S.A., Spain
3
Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, Spain | 4 ESAT-ELECTA, KU Leuven, Belgium
5
Cardiff University, United Kingdom | 7 Regenera Levante, Murcia, Spain

Abstract—Selection of the most appropriate communications The key contributions of this paper are the identification
technology for a smart grid (SG) application is far from trivial. and the prioritization of the most relevant key performance
We propose such a feasibility assessment starting from iden- indicators (KPIs) with respect to P2P energy trading and grid
tification of key performance indicators (KPIs) required for
peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading and grid control operations control communications using the analytic hierarchy process
from a communications perspective. A set of cross-disciplinary (AHP), and the communications technology feasibility assess-
KPIs, both quantitative and qualitative, are considered from ment against the most important KPIs. We propose a set of
communications, power, business, actor involvement, financial, cross-disciplinary KPIs and a feasibility assessment of com-
and demand side management categories. They serve as a general munications technologies against those KPIs. The candidate
baseline for use cases, as there have been few previous works
attempting to capture the essential features of P2P SG operations. wireless technologies [2] include license-free bands solutions
The KPIs are briefly identified along with their relations to P2P (e.g., IEEE 802.15.4 and WiFi), new internet-of-things (IoT)
energy trading and grid control. A straightforward comparison specific technologies such as LoRaWAN and IEEE 802.15.4-
of the quantitative and qualitative KPIs’ impact on technology 2015 LECIM, and cellular communication systems and their
selection is not feasible. This paper addresses the comparison evolved versions for machine-to-machine (M2M) communica-
with: 1) a prioritization of the KPIs using the analytic hierarchy
process; 2) a comparison of technology solutions evaluated in tions [3]; all potential for SG applications. SGs involve a wide
our previous works against the KPIs’ requirements; and 3) a range of applications with various communications require-
total feasibility evaluation of the solutions against selected KPIs. ments; some with demanding quality of service requirements
The prioritization shows latency, reliability, security, scalability, of very low latency and high reliability [4].
robustness, costs of information and communication technologies The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
(ICT) devices, and costs of ICT deployment are the most
important KPIs in enabling P2P energy trading and grid control. proposes and briefly elaborates the KPIs. Section III briefly
Further, the technology feasibility assessment enables identifica- introduces the AHP and derives the relative priorities of the
tion of the most suitable candidates for an SG application. KPIs. Section IV proposes technology feasibility assessment
against the most important KPIs and shows the results. Section
I. I NTRODUCTION V concludes the paper.
The current electric power system has a structure enabling II. K EY P ERFORMANCE I NDICATORS
one-way flow of electricity from bulk generation units to
P2P energy trading and grid control KPIs are categorized in
energy consumers. In the advent of emerging penetration
domains shown in Fig. 1. Due to page restrictions, we provide
of renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, and customer
only a brief definition of each KPI. More detailed description
energy flexibility down to household and even to individual
can be found from P2P-SmarTest Deliverable D3.2 [5].
electrical load level, solutions that empower the consumers are
of essence. The ageing power grid system lacks the required A. Communications domain
technology and flexibility to integrate distributed generation 1) Data Delivery Rate: refers to the required successfully
elements. Advanced control and information and communica- delivered data to an entity over a given transmission time.
tion technologies (ICT) are hence required in the power grid 2) Distance: refers to the feasible physical separation of
to include such elements, creating the Smart Grid (SG) [1]. two entities for SG communications.
Adding renewable energy resources opens up new business 3) Latency: refers to the (end-to-end) time elapsed from
opportunities, such as peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading. P2P the moment a data packet is generated at the transmitter side
energy trading consists of the exchange of surplus electricity until it can be properly decoded on the intended receiver
between prosumers of energy in the SG with the help of side. Latency in SG communications is divided into regular,
innovative business models and advanced ICT technologies. emergency, and protection circuitry cases.
15) Openness: is an attribute related to the availability of
information about the communication device and the ability
to make changes for it. Since in SGs new applications, such
as P2P functionalities could be added, it is very important for
devices to be able to be updated.
16) Robustness: refers to communication hardware and
software that should withstand challenging ambient conditions
and continue performing its tasks for several years. The
number of particular hardware vendors is a feasible measure
of robustness.
B. Power domain
1) Share of RES/DER: (renewable energy sources / dis-
Fig. 1: Categorization of key performance indicator domains.
tributed energy resources) refers to the capability of a technol-
4) Reliability: refers to the ability of a communications link ogy to support RES and DER. With RES we refer to wind and
to consistently deliver data. Typically, 98% delivery ratio is solar generation connected to distribution networks whereas
required, and it can be up to 99.99% [4]. In demand response DER refers to both renewable and non-renewable small and
(DR), reliability of > 99.5% [6] is expected. medium distributed resources connected to a distribution grid.
5) Energy Efficiency: refers to the useful power output 2) Share of EV/Storage: refers to electric vehicles (EV)
divided by the total electrical power consumed, and constitutes and the batteries represent new loads connected to the low
an essential concern in communications [7]. voltage network, originally planned without considering these
6) Spectrum Efficiency: refers to the information rate trans- active players [13]. These new connections impose additional
mitted over a given bandwidth. requirements and patterns for communications and increases
7) Number of Supported Users: refers to the number of SG the complexity of the distribution grid control and operation.
entities that can be supported by a single coordinator device C. Business domain
or data collection point. Due to smart meter on/off behavior it 1) Number of Market Players and Tariff Schemes: The
is important to design proper network access mechanisms to number of market players is one of the KPIs that affects the
provide connectivity to the entities [8]. P2P energy trading communications. Number of tariff schemes
8) Scalability: refers to the ability of the communication offered to consumers in P2P energy trading business models
network to adjust its dimensions to accommodate large number have effect on the amount of exchanged data and hence the
of users and be flexible to add more users. communication system.
9) Trust (Security): refers to data integrity and trust rela-
tionship required regardless of the communication medium. D. Actor Involvement domain
Security is the ability of the system to combat cyber-attacks 1) Degree/Easiness to which Consumers can become Pro-
and threats on the network. Since in P2P-enabled SGs cyber- sumers: There will be more communication among prosumers
attacks can degrade the system performance and cause severe compared with traditional consumers in the system. This
damage, security is of very high importance [9]. indicator can describe which consumers can become pro-
10) Data Transmission Frequency: refer to the time instants sumers, and as a result, have the potential to require more
when data should be communicated in SGs and they depend communications than others.
on the application. Monitoring and metering information have 2) Controlling – Home Automation (HA): should support
periodic data traffic patterns and modest inter-arrival times demand response actions. The type of the demand response
whereas control and protection functions are event-based with program defines the amount of the data delivered between the
short inter-arrival times. P2P energy trading and grid control HA and the energy retailer.
is mostly monitoring and metering, while at times the data can E. Financial domain
be event driven and have high bursts [10], [11], [12].
1) Amount of Investment for ICT devices: refers to com-
11) Computing Capabilities: represents the capability of a
munications hardware, possible subscription fees, and required
communication entity in processing the measured and com-
servers of SG communications entities.
municated data.
2) Amount of investment needed to install ICT: refers to the
12) Information Storage Capabilities: refers to memory in personnel training, labor, and maintenance costs related to the
devices and it helps in cases of failure of the communica- items mentioned in the previous KPI and grows significantly
tion system. Combined with computing capabilities, it could for every new type of technology.
provide local intelligence which is an enabler of P2P actions.
13) Flexible Communications, Ports and Protocols: refer F. Demand Side Management (DSM) domain
to the compatibility of communication equipment with wide 1) Demand Side Flexibility: refers to ability of a prosumer
range of devices installed in an SG. to select between various DR programs. There will be no
14) Size: refers to the communication equipment dimen- significant impact on communications as long as the selected
sions as there may be limited room for metering equipment. DR criteria can be satisfied.
TABLE I: Results of AHP
is given in a linguistic form [15]. Rather than prescribing a
KPI AHP weights
Latency, protection circuitry 11.7% "correct" decision, the AHP helps in determining one. The
Latency, emergency case 10.5% AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for
Reliability 9.9% structuring a problem, for representing and quantifying its
Trust (Security) 6.4%
Robustness 5.4%
elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for
Amount of investment for ICT devices 5.3% evaluating alternative solutions. There are three main levels
Number of supported users 4.8% of hierarchy in the AHP: the overall goal on the top, the
Scalability 4.5% available alternatives at the bottom, and the (sub)criteria in
Amount of investment needed to install ICT 4.1%
Communication time frequency 3.0% the middle. The middle part containing the (sub)criteria can
Latency, normal case 2.9% span over an arbitrary depth of levels of hierarchy itself. The
Openness 2.9% compared alternatives and criteria (objects) form a linguistic
Number of market players (subjective) scale for making a comparison. The linguistic
2.7%
and tariff schemes
Distance 2.6% scale is characterized as one object being from "extremely
Computing capabilities 2.5% less important" to "extremely more important" than another
Degree/easiness to which consumers object. This linguistic scale must be transitive [16] i.e., if
2.3%
can become prosumers
Information storage capabilities 2.2% KPI#1 is "moderately more important" than KPI#2 and KPI#2
Controlling: home automation 1.9% is "strongly more important" than KPI#3, then KPI#1 must be
Flexible communications 1.8% more than "strongly more important" than KPI#3. This can
Size 1.7%
be monitored by a consistency ratio (CR) upon solving the
Power Efficiency 1.6%
Demand-side flexibility 1.5% AHP using the eigenvector method. The linguistic scale is then
Data delivery rate 1.4% translated into a numerical format, e.g., by using the Saaty
Spectrum Efficiency 1.4% scale [17].
Share of RES/DER 0.9%
Share of EV + Storage 0.9%
To achieve prioritization, a priority vector is derived from
Share of DMS 0.8% the numerical pair-wise comparisons. The two most com-
Potential for time shift 0.8% mon prioritization methods are the eigenvalue method and
the logarithmic least squares method [17]. The eigenvalue
2) Share of DSM: evaluates the percentage of loads to be method is applied here, where the principal eigenvector of
shifted or disconnected in order to face a congestion in the grid the numerical pair-wise comparison matrix A = (aij )n×n ,
due to energy demand peaks. The KPI provides an estimation aij = f (dij ), i, j ∈ [1, n] is the desired priority vector w. The
of the potential demand flexibility of a "consumer peer" to be w can be obtained by solving the linear system
included in a demand bids of the P2P trading algorithm.
Aw = λw, eT w = 1, (1)
3) Potential for Time Shift: refers to the time slots in which
a number of loads can be shifted or disconnected. The KPI where λ is the eigenvalue of matrix A [17]. Solving the linear
is relevant for P2P energy trading communications because it system of Eq. (1) provides a matrix of eigenvectors and a
has to be conveyed in the demand bids that are exchanged diagonal matrix of eigenvalues, where the largest real eigen-
among peers by the P2P trading algorithms. value corresponds to the principal eigenvalue. The principal
eigenvector is then the column corresponding to the column
III. KPI P RIORITIZATION of the principal eigenvalue. The w is then normalized by the
KPI prioritization provides a method for understanding sum of its elements so that the normalized sum equals to
the most important quantitative and qualitative KPIs in P2P 1. The normalized priority vector then provides the relative
energy trading and grid control communications. The analytic importance of each alternative.
hierarchy process (AHP) [14] is applied here as it enables the
relative comparison of arbitrary objects with one another and a B. Analytic hierarchy process of the KPIs
mathematically formulated method of addressing the problem. A flat AHP structure is used to carry out the pair-wise
Even though some of the items in the prioritization process can comparisons as the relative weights of Fig. 1 categories are
be correlated, this correlation is not a problem in AHP. The not known i.e., all the KPIs (alternatives) are compared with
AHP does not require uncorrelated objects [14] since it is not one another. The relative weight of each KPI is the goal of the
an optimization tool, but rather a tool to understand relative AHP and the KPIs are the alternatives. Pair-wise comparisons
weights between the objects. were carried out by the Partners of P2P-SmarTest project, from
the perspective ‘if we need to communicate information, how
A. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) does KPI#n relate to KPI#m?". Furthermore, as the interest is
A number of methods have been developed to address pair- in P2P energy trading and grid control: "is KPI#n more/less
wise comparisons of the alternatives and for solving multi- important than KPI#m?" Bearing the previous factors in mind
criteria decision-making (MCDM) [14] between finite alterna- and using the 17-step linguistic set and its corresponding
tives. AHP is a very popular approach to MCDM that involves numerical values [17], a pair-wise comparison matrix was
qualitative data. The method uses a reciprocal decision matrix constructed for each contribution and the linear system of Eq.
obtained by pair-wise comparisons so that the information (1) was solved. This was done to confirm the consistency of all
contributions. The consistency of pair-wise comparisons can in design of communication system for this application. In
be observed from calculation of the consistency index (CI) both cases there are both quantitative and qualitative KPIs. To
determine the KPI weighted suitability of a communications
λmax − k technologies for a given application, one could construct for
CI = , (2)
k−1 example a single compound metric as in [19] to evaluate which
where λmax is the largest eigenvalue of the comparison matrix one prevails. In this paper, we consider the KPIs ‘Reliability’,
and k is size of the matrix. The consistency ratio (CR) is ‘Trust’, ‘Robustness’, Cost (‘Amount of investment for ICT
the measure indicating if the inconsistency is acceptable in devices’ and ‘Amount of investment needed to install ICT’),
the matrix. The CR should be less than 0.1 for pair-wise and ‘Number of supported users’ in all the three applications.
CI
comparisons to be consistent and CR = RI 0 , where RI is the In energy trading we also consider ‘Latency, normal case’ and
random consistency index for a matrix the size of n. Here with in grid control ‘Latency, emergency case’ as an evaluated KPI.
n = 28, a value of 1.577 was used for the RI. For application 1 we have simulated the IEEE 802.15.4-
After observing that the individual pair-wise comparison 2015 LECIM network and LoRaWAN network equipped with
matrices were reasonably consistent, an average pair-wise an LTE capable coordinator node (LTE – LoRaWAN). These
comparison matrix was produced using a pure arithmetic technologies do not scale up in DR scenarios due to regulatory
average over each element of the matrix. The resulting [28×28] and data volume issues. The application 2 technologies: Cat
element matrix was inspected element by element and each 4 LTE, ad hoc LTE [20] (similar to 3GPP release 14 cellular
element with a value of 1 or higher was rounded to the nearest V2X mode 4), IEEE 802.11n, IEEE 802.15.4-2015 with LTE
integer value. Finally, as the pair-wise comparison matrix capable coordinator (LTE – IEEE 802.15.4), and IEEE 802.11n
must be reciprocal, the reciprocal element of each rounded with LTE capable coordinator (LTE – IEEE 802.11n) can all
element was recomputed to be the reciprocal of the just manage also application 1 but cannot exploit very long link
rounded value. Lastly, the obtained averaged and reciprocal distances. For application 3 we have considered Cat 4 LTE,
pair-wise comparison matrix was solved using Eq. (1). Solving LTE with optimized random access channel (RACH), and LTE
the matrix yields a consistency ratio of 0.0677, which is enhanced with device-to-device communications.
significantly less than the CR limit proposed by Saaty.
The relative weight vector of KPIs is illustrated in Table A. Feasibility point evaluation
I. Latency in emergency and critical cases, reliability, trust, We evaluate the feasibility points of the communications
robustness, investment needed, installation costs, number of solutions with the six KPIs in all applications in the following
supported users, and scalability are generally the most impor- way. In the case a solution fulfils a ‘Latency’ or ‘Reliability’
tant KPIs. One must note that not all the KPIs are applicable KPI, it receives full feasibility points as indicated by the
KPItarget
in all P2P energy trading and grid control scenarios. KPI weight in Table I. If not, formula KPIachieved KPIweight is
used for latency (normal/emergency cases), and the formula
IV. T ECHNOLOGY FEASIBILITY AGAINST KPI S KPIachieved
KPItarget KPIweight is used for the reliability, where KPItarget
In the P2P-SmarTest project we simulated and analyzed is the KPI performance requirement, KPIachieved is the com-
multiple communications technologies relevant for SG appli- munications solution achieved performance, and KPIweight is
cations. The simulations were done using NS-3 and Riverbed the AHP weight of the KPI in Table I. The ‘Number of
Performance Modeler (former Opnet) simulators, the simu- supported users’ KPI utilizes the latter formula substituting
lators’ consistency was benchmarked, and initial performance KPItarget with the solution of highest number of supported
results were provided in [18] and later fine-tuned. We consider users in an application. The ‘Robustness’ KPI is evaluated
technology feasibility against KPIs in three applications: by the maturity of the technology in terms of number of
1) automatic meter reading (AMR) type energy trading: 98% vendors: full feasibility points if more than six available
reliability, 10 min data interval, maximise no. supported vendors, 0.8KPIweight if more than two vendors, 0.6KPIweight if
users, < 60 s latency; only one or two vendor(s). For ‘Security’ all the solutions are
2) DR type energy trading: 99.5% reliability, 4 s up- capable of key exchange mechanims: LTE-based solutions get
link/downlink data interval, maximise no.supported users full feasibility points due to their interference readiness, multi-
and, < 1 s latency; frequency or DSSS solutions get 0.9KPIweight , and single-
3) grid control: > 99.5% reliability, bursty high probability channel solutions 0.8KPIweight . In multi-technology solutions,
(50%) a of grid control event per 1 ms, 50 ms maximum the most unsecure technology defines the performance value.
latency. For the Cost assessment, we consider a practical network
Not all of the KPIs of Table I are relevant in all appli- deployment scenario where a number of smart meters is
cations. For example, we argue that in P2P DR ‘latency, installed within a suburban area of 5 km2 with a node density
protection circuitry’ and ‘latency, emergency case’ are not of 1000 smart meters/km2 . Then, for each proposed solution,
relevant and thus, ‘Reliability’, ‘Trust’, and ‘Robustness’, we carry out an evaluation on the needed coordinator devices
become the most important KPIs from the communications and LTE user equipment needed for subscription purposes. In
point of view. In distributed voltage control, the results show addition we consider the cost of all communications devices,
‘Latency, emergency case’, ‘Reliability’ and ‘Security’ being coordinator devices, personnel for training and maintenance,
the most important factors that should be taken into account development and subscription. We target a 20-year life cycle
TABLE II: Technology Feasibility against Key Performance Indicators
Quantitative KPIs Qualitative KPIs Total
Solution
Latency Reliability No. supported users Robustness Security Cost feasibility
IEEE 802.15.4 LECIM 4.8% 3.24% 9.4% 36%
AMR normal 2.9% 9.9% 5.76%
LTE – LoRaWAN 0.235% 4.32% 8.98% 32.01%
LTE Cat. 4 2.478% 5.4% 28.28%
6.4% 1.2%
LTE with ad hoc enhancement 1.239% 4.32% 25.96%
DR IEEE 802.11n normal 2.9% 9.9% 2.139% 9.4% 35.50%
LTE – IEEE 802.15.4 1.487% 5.4% 5.76% 8.62% 34.07%
LTE – IEEE 802.11n 4.8% 9.11% 37.87%
LTE Cat. 4 emg. 7.292% 2.566% 41.60%
Grid 5.4% 9.4%
LTE – RACH optimized emg. 6.646% 9.9% 4.8% 6.4% 42.55%
control
LTE with D2D enhancement emg. 10.5% 3.029% 4.32% 9.37% 43.52%

and derive per-month, per-smart meter costs. Based on these [4] M. Kuzlu, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Communication
network dimensioning considerations, we calculate the total network requirements for major smart grid applications in han, nan and
wan,” Computer Networks, vol. 67, pp. 74–88, 2014.
deployment and operations cost for each solution in the ap- [5] Deliverable D3.2, “Key performance indicators for p2p energy
plications 1-3. Then we normalize the resulting cost per tech- trading communications,” Peer to Peer Smart Energy Distribution
nology over the lowest achieved cost for AMR, DR, and grid Networks (P2P-SmarTest), Tech. Rep., 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.p2psmartest-h2020.eu/deliverables
control applications, respectively, and we multiply with the [6] L. Zheng, N. Lu, and L. Cai, “Reliable wireless communication networks
corresponding AHP weight (investment+installation= 9.4%). for demand response control,” Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 4,
The Table II presents the obtained feasibility points in no. 1, pp. 133–140, March 2013.
[7] D. Feng, C. Jiang, G. Lim, L. J. Cimini, G. Feng, and G. Y. Li, “A survey
percentages. As only limited set of KPIs were addressed the of energy-efficient wireless communications,” IEEE Communications
maximum points would be 38.8% for AMR and DR, and Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 167–178, 2013.
46.4% for grid control. Direct comparison between the appli- [8] J. J. Nielsen, G. C. Madueño, N. K. Pratas, R. B. Sørensen, C. Ste-
fanovic, and P. Popovski, “What can wireless cellular technologies do
cations is not meaningful due to qualitative KPI normalization about the upcoming smart metering traffic?” IEEE Communications
in each application. The results show that no solution obtains Magazine, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 41–47, 2015.
maximum total feasibility, but IEEE 802.15.4 LECIM, LTE [9] Y. Yan, Y. Qian, H. Sharif, and D. Tipper, “A survey on cyber security
for smart grid communications,” Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
– IEEE 802.11n, and LTE with D2D enhancement obtain the IEEE, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 998–1010, 2012.
highest total feasibility in applications 1 to 3, respectively. [10] C. Kalalas, F. Vazquez-Gallego, and J. Alonso-Zarate, “Handling
mission-critical communication in smart grid distribution automation
V. C ONCLUSION services through lte,” in Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm),
2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016.
This paper proposed a novel approach to assess communi- [11] B. G. Gebremedhin, J. Haapola, and J. Iinatti, “Performance evaluation
cations technologies feasibility in P2P energy trading and grid of ieee 802.15. 4k priority channel access with dsss phy,” in European
control SG communications based on KPIs. 28 KPIs were Wireless 2015. VDE, 2015, pp. 1–6.
[12] J. Markkula and J. Haapola, “Lte and hybrid sensor-lte network per-
identified and briefly elaborated from six SG domains and formances in smart grid demand response scenarios,” in Smart Grid
the KPIs were prioritized by applying the analytic hierarchy Communications (SmartGridComm), 2013 IEEE International Confer-
process, which was described in detail. Ten communications ence on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 187–192.
[13] F. Mwasilu, J. J. Justo, E.-K. Kim, T. D. Do, and J.-W. Jung, “Electric
technology solutions: two for AMR, five for DR, and three for vehicles and smart grid interaction: A review on vehicle to grid and re-
grid control applications performances were evaluated with newable energy sources integration,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
respect to the six highest priority KPIs requirements. The Reviews, vol. 34, pp. 501–516, 2014.
[14] T. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, 1980.
paper further proposed a feasibility evaluation of each com- [15] J. A. Alonso and M. T. Lamata, “Consistency in the analytic hierarchy
munications solution in the related applications with respect process: a new approach,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzzi-
to the KPIs and identified the best candidates. ness and Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 14, no. 04, pp. 445–459, 2006.
[16] J. Finan and W. Hurley, “Transitive calibration of the {AHP} verbal
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT scale,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, no. 2, pp.
367 – 372, 1999.
This paper describes work undertaken in the context of [17] Y. Dong, Y. Xu, H. Li, and M. Dai, “A comparative study of the
the P2P-SMARTEST project, Peer to Peer Smart Energy numerical scales and the prioritization methods in ahp,” European
Distribution Networks (http://www.p2psmartest-h2020.eu/), an Journal of Operational Research, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 229–242, 2008.
[18] Deliverable D3.3, “Device-to-device and hybrid sensor – telecom
Innovation Action funded by the H2020 Programme, contract infrastructure specifications for smart energy grids,” Peer to Peer
number 646469, reported in [5], [18], and Deliverable D3.4. Smart Energy Distribution Networks (P2P-SmarTest), Tech. Rep., 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://www.p2psmartest-h2020.eu/deliverables
R EFERENCES [19] J. Haapola, F. Martelli, and C. Pomalaza-Ráez, “Application-driven
analytic toolbox for wsns,” in 8th International Conference on Ad-Hoc
[1] H. Farhangi, “The path of the smart grid,” IEEE Power and Energy
Networks and Wireless (ADHOC-NOW), ser. LNCS 5793, September
Magazine, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 18–28, January 2010.
2009, pp. pp. 112 – 125.
[2] Q.-D. Ho, Y. Gao, and T. Le-Ngoc, “Challenges and research opportuni-
[20] J. Markkula and J. Haapola, “Ad hoc lte method for resilient smart
ties in wireless communication networks for smart grid,” IEEE Wireless
grid communications,” Wireless Personal Communications, Oct 2017.
Communications, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 89–95, 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-5018-1
[3] A. Rico-Alvarino, M. Vajapeyam, H. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Blankenship,
J. Bergman, T. Tirronen, and E. Yavuz, “An overview of 3gpp enhance-
ments on machine to machine communications,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 14–21, June 2016.

View publication stats

You might also like