The Contribution of Different Electric Vehicle Control Strategies to Dynamical GridStability

Sabine Auer,1, 2, ∗ Casper Roos,1 Jobst Heitzig,1 Frank Hellmann,1 and Jurgen Kurths1, 2, 3

1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14412 Potsdam, Germany2Department of Physics, Humboldt University Berlin, 12489 Berlin, Germany

3Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Science, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

A major challenge for power grids with a high share of renewable energy systems (RES), such asisland grids, is to provide frequency stability in the face of renewable fluctuations. In this work weevaluate the ability of electric vehicles (EV) to provide distributed primary control and to eliminatefrequency peaks. To do so we for the first time explicitly model the network structure and incorporatenon-Gaussian, strongly intermittent fluctuations typical for RES.

We show that EVs can completely eliminate frequency peaks. Using threshold randomizationwe further demonstrate that demand synchronization effects and battery stresses can be greatlyreduced. In contrast, explicit frequency averaging has a strong destabilizing effect, suggesting thatthe role of delays in distributed control schemes requires further studies.

Overall we find that distributed control outperforms central one. The results are robust againsta further increase in renewable power production and fluctuations.

With the increasing share of intermittent renewableenergy sources (RES) in Germany, it is becoming morechallenging to maintain the dynamical stability of powergrids [1, 2]. Intermittent RES have strong power outputfluctuations on a short time scale which cause imbalancesbetween the power production and consumption [3, 4].To maintain the grid’s dynamical stability, the authors of[5] suggested the concept of Decentral Smart Grid Con-trol (DSGC), where power consumers adjust their de-mand according to the locally measured grid frequency.The use of the locally measured grid frequency for DSGChas the advantage that the electrical appliances can beautomated with load controllers, such as the DistributedIntelligent Load Controller (DILC) [4, 6]. These loadcontrollers then adjust the power demand of an electricaldevice with a certain control strategy or heuristic [4].

Today, in Germany around 90% of RES are installed indistribution grids [7], the lower grid levels of the hierar-chical power grid infrastructure. In order to balance fluc-tuations locally where they appear, electric vehicles (EV)and their battery storage systems would present an idealuse case for DSGC [8, 9]. EVs can adjust their powerdemand within milliseconds and have the capability todeliver power back into the grid, also known as vehicle togrid (V2G) power transfer and vice versa simply charge– grid to vehicle [10, 11].

With a frequency control strategy, EVs essentially actas primary frequency control reserves, since they au-tonomously assist in stabilizing the grid frequency [8, 9].The fact that 94% of all U.S cars are parked at noon timeof a typical day [12] shows the great potential for EV con-trol. Instead of installing additional expensive balancinghardware, the anyways idle EVs may be used for gridcontrol purposes.

A control strategy that has been suggested and used in

∗ auer@pik-potsdam.de

order to maintain dynamical grid stability is the band gapstrategy [8, 13, 14]. In this control strategy a dead-band,the frequency interval between the battery thresholds forpositive and negative frequency deviations, is predefinedwhere no power, relative to the base charging scenario, istransferred between the EV and the power grid, as smallfrequency deviations are considered to be part of normaloperation. When the frequency deviations are out of thisband gap, the EV and power grid exchange an amountof power that depends on the magnitude of the deviationfrom the band gap and a predefined rate of power transfercalled the ramping rate. Thus, this rate of power trans-fer and the frequency band gap are the parameters whichdetermine the sensitivity of this control strategy. Theperformance of this control strategy is evaluated with re-gard to its grid stability improvement and the number ofbattery switchings. Switching events include the batteryaction changes: decharging to idle, charging to idle, idleto charging and idle to decharging. The grid stability isevaluated with regard to the threshold exceedance whichis the time share the frequency spends outside a givensafe band.

In this study, we aim to find an optimal parameteriza-tion for the EV control in a modeling scenario with verystrong Photovoltaic (PV) penetration [15]. Our param-eterization is such that it improves the grid’s dynamicalstability, minimizes the amount of switching events toavoid battery degradation, and ensures an effective con-trol at the same time. In addition, we test whether ran-domization will be useful in order to prevent undesirabledemand synchronization as observed in [4, 16–18].

In contrast to previous works, we explicitly model thenetwork structure as a complex network which gives usthe opportunity to investigate the influence of decentralvs. central control and model the interaction of appli-ances via the power grid. In addition, stochastic modelsreproducing solar power fluctuations are very recent [19]and we are the first to incorporate the true intermittentnature of fluctuations from RES in such a grid control

arX

iv:1

708.

0353

1v1

[ph

ysic

s.so

c-ph

] 1

1 A

ug 2

017

study.As a simplification, all nodes in our network have the

same absolute power and inertia to exclude any side ef-fects from network heterogeneities that make the evalu-ation of different control strategies more difficult.

For our model setup, by numerical simulations we finda minimal necessary (critical) ramping rate that com-pletely suppresses threshold exceedance and therefore im-proves grid stability. We reproduced the relation be-tween ramping rate and frequency deviation and thus ex-ceedance analytically. The same ramp for all EVs leads,as expected, to a synchronization of the control deviceswith the result of a large number of battery switchingevents. Thus, we complete the EV control scheme with arandomization approach and allow for a variance in bat-tery threshold. We identify this combination of rampingslope and randomized battery threshold as, to our knowl-edge, best to jointly reduce exceedance and switchingevents. In comparison, an approach, that uses time aver-aged frequency input signals for the EV control, did notshow the same success in switching event reduction buteven destabilized the power grid. Our identified best con-trol parameterization works over a wide range of powerproduction and thus for different fluctuations strength.We find that switching events only increase slightly. Re-garding the question of central vs. decentral control, weidentify decentral control to be more effective.

This paper is organized as follows. First, we intro-duce our model and the chosen grid parameterization,the modeling of the inverter dynamics and the EV inte-gration, and we present the stability methods to evaluatedifferent parameterization scenarios. In the Results sec-tion we start by investigating a base scenario without EVcontrol. Then we test different EV parameterizations orcontrol strategies and their robustness. We close the re-sults section with a comparison of decentral vs centralcontrol. Finally, we draw conclusions and discuss openquestions and future work.

MODEL AND STABILITY METHODS

ΔP

Δf

pmax

-pmax

fmax-fmax fmin-fmin

FIG. 1: Scheme of battery ramping. [−fmin, fmin] is thefrequency dead band for which the battery stays idle, ∆P = 0, nofrequency control is provided. fmin and fmax determine the rampat which the battery charges (∆P > 0) or discharges (∆P > 0).±pmax are the upper limits for charging and discharching.

Our model is designed to represent distribution grids.

Thus, we chose tree-shaped networks as the underly-ing network topology (generated with a random growthmodel [20]) and introduce lossy lines, since the commonassumption of non-lossy lines for transmission grids doesnot hold for distribution grids. The model uses time stepsof 0.01 seconds, and each control strategy was simulatedon 15 different power grids, using a Monte Carlo simula-tion in order to average out the influence of the networkstructure.

In the following, we elaborate on the modeling assump-tions concerning the type of node dynamics as well as theMid-Voltage (MV) grid and EV parameterization. Then,we describe what measures we use to evaluate the per-formance of different heuristics.

a. Inverter Dynamics Our choice of a MV grid re-gion with high PV penetration make the grid dynamicsinverter-dominated. Most PV and wind power plants areconnected to the grid via grid-feeding inverters, however,grid-forming inverters are important for dynamic stabil-ity [21]. Thus in our scenario, which is meant to representfuture MV grids, we assume that effective grid nodes rep-resenting an accumulation of production from the lowerLow-Voltage (LV) levels where each node has at leastone grid-forming inverter. This type of inverter is ableto provide virtual inertia whereas grid-feeding inverterscontribute no inertia. The classical power grid model(or swing equation) is derived from the Synchronous Ma-chine Model representing conventional generators andtheir rotating masses [22]. Grid-forming inverters andtheir power electronics may be programmed as VirtualSynchronous Machines, as mentioned before, by using asmooth droop control. This then leads to the same equa-tions for the voltage angle φ and frequency ω = 2πf interms of the (virtual) inertia H [23], power infeed P , (vir-tual) damping α, line susceptibilities, Y = G + jB, andvoltage magnitudes U for each node i:

φi =ωi,

ωi =1

Hi(Pi + δPi(t)− αωi − b(fi)

−∑k

Ui|Yik|Uk sin(φi − φk + φik)).

(1)

where b(f) is the function of the bandgap strategy illus-trated in Fig. 1 and equals

b(fi) = Θ(|fi| − fmin)sign(fi)(|fi| − fmin)r (2)

with the Heaviside step function Θ and the sign functionsign. The power ramping slope of the EV batteries isgiven by

r =pmax

fmax − fmin(3)

where pmax = 3.7kW is the maximum charging power.The virtual inertia and damping for the network model

is given by the low-pass filter exponent τp and thedroop control parameter kp from grid-forming inverters:

2

Δf

[mH

z]

80

40

0

-40

-80 1000 500200 300 400time [s]

FIG. 2: Base Scenario time series: Time series of all nodes’frequency for the base scenario of an example grid with powerproduction of 0.268 MW and 0.168 MW demand. The exceedanceis calculated as the time share of frequency trajectories outsidethe grey safety band of ±20 mHz. The dark grey dotted line at±10 mHz marks the threshold for battery control.

Hi = τp/kp, αi = 1/kp, ∀i with i = 1, .., N . Standardparameters for the droop and time constants of grid-forming inverters are in the range κp = [0.1, .., 10] andτp = [0.1, ..., 10] [23, 24]. As we are interested in the lowinertia case, with few low powered grid forming invert-ers at each node, we assume a weakly reacting, stronglysmoothed system. This leads us to consider α = 0.01sand H = 0.05s2. We note that the results are not sensi-tive to the exact choice of α and H.

b. Mid-Voltage (MV) grid Parameterization TheMV grid is a good testing case for modeling EV frequencycontrol as a reaction to power fluctuations caused by ahigh PV penetration. This is the case because most PVpower plants are connected to low-voltage (LV) or MVlevels. In this modeling scenario, we chose a networkof 100 nodes. It thereby represents an average GermanMV grid because Germany has 4,500 MV distributionnetworks that connect 500,000 LV distribution networks[25]. All nodes have the same amount of inflexible loadand production which a strong assumption in favor of ho-mogeneity that allows to attribute any difference in per-formance of EV control at different network nodes purelyto the chosen control strategy in combination with thenodes’ network properties.

For the inflexible load and average PV power gener-ation a challenging 2050 scenario was assumed, wherethe power production from PV is two times larger thanthe inflexible load in the MV nodes. Here, we assume0.268MW solar production for each MV node. This isa challenging, but realistic scenario, as the installed PVcapacity in some LV grids in south Germany can alreadyexceed the peak load by a factor of ten [26]. The in-flexible load of each node was 0.168MW, as the peakload in 2014 of 84 GW in the German grid was equallydivided among the MV nodes [27]. This peak load isassumed to remain unchanged until 2050, although it in-cluded the additional load from EVs. This is the casesince Smart Charging of EVs and the improved energyefficiency are expected to compensate for additional loadsfrom the growing amount of EVs [25]. Hence, the effec-tive power input Pi, the power which is injected into the

grid, equals Pi = 0.1MW.For simplicity and homogeneity, all 99 MV nodes then

also have the same inertia. For the representation ofthe upper grid levels there is one heavy node (slackbus, labeled as node 0) responsible for power balancewith a power input built from the negative sum overall MV nodes’ power in-feeds and losses on the lines:

P0 =∑N

i=1 Pi + Ploss. As the name “heavy node” tells,the slack bus’ inertia highly exceeds the lower level nodes’inertia, here we assume: H0 =

∑100i=1Hi.

The impedance of the lines for typical Mid-Voltagegrid lines with 20kV base voltage equals Z = Y −1 =(G + iB)−1 = (0.4 + 0.3j)Ω/km [28]. The couplingstrength between a node pair (i, j) then equals Kij =Ui|Yij |Uj . The addition of the resistance leads to linelosses and at the same time introduces a phase shift of

φij ≈ arctan(Gij

Bij) which was shown to have significant

consequences for stability [29].c. EV parameterization The EV’s maximum charg-

ing/injection power transfer rate is assumed to be 3.7kW (230V/16A), also referred to as private home charg-ing, since this type of EV charging is expected to have amarket share of 64,8% in Germany by 2050 [30, 31]. Thetotal battery capacity of an EV was 90 kWh, equal to themaximum capacity of a Tesla model S [32]. The energyconsumption during a driving event was 6.7 kW, by as-suming the average speed of the New European DrivingCycle of 33.6 km/h and the average power consumptionof 0.2 kWh/km for small and medium sized EVs [33, 34].At the beginning of each simulation 94% of the EVs wereavailable, in compliance with the findings from [12],whichdocumented that 94% of all U.S cars were parked at noonon a typical day. The 6% of unavailable EVs were ran-domly distributed among the MV nodes in the model.

The initial charge of all EVs is 72 kWh representing astate of charge (SOC) of 80%. For the EV battery thresh-old, we assume: fmin = 0.01 (see Figs. 1&2), which cor-responds to the so-called dead band from the Germantransmission code and defines at which frequency pri-mary control actions kick in to balance deviations fromthe desired 50Hz set point [35].

d. Stability Measures The stability measures typi-cally used in power grid synchronization analysis are notapplicable to our stochastic system [36–41]. Linear stabil-ity of a particular operational state, assumed to be a fixpoint of the grid model dynamic equations, against smallperturbations is given by the largest non-zero eigenvalueof the linearized dynamics around the fix point [38–40].However, problems arise for larger disturbances or if theLaplacian is not diagonalizable [42], e.g. if the ohmic re-sistances of transmission lines are not neglected. Thereare methods for the assessment of a dynamic systemeven against large perturbations that rely on a sampling-based approach. The global stability of a fixed pointof a dynamical system can be quantified by the volumeof its basin of attraction. Then, a system’s basin sta-bility equals the probability to asymptotically return tothe stable point of operation after an initial perturba-

3

tion [37]. Survivability measures the ability of a systemto keep within some predefined operating regime whenexperiencing large perturbations [36]. The previous sta-bility measures are mostly studied for deterministic sys-tems. Though first generalizations of Basin stability tostochastic systems have appeared [43, 44].

Here, we use the exceedance to quantify the stabilityof the synchronous state. It is the fraction of time anobservable stays outside a defined “safe” region. For ourcase we define a frequency threshold of 0.02 Hz (see Fig.2). We apply fluctuations to all network nodes but theslack bus and then record the frequency response for eachnode i = 1, .., N . Thus, we end up with N frequency timeseries from which stability measures are derived, namelythe exceedance Ei or probability pi for each node i toexceed 20 mHz.

Ei = pi(|fi| > 0.02 Hz). (4)

This can be further aggregated into the average ex-ceedance over all N nodes:

E =1

N

N∑i=1

Ei (5)

Besides frequency stabilization the performance of theproposed heuristics are evaluated with respect to theirinfluence on battery degradation. Hence, the batteryswitching events are recorded. Switching events includethe battery action changes: decharging to idle, chargingto idle, idle to charging and idle to decharging. Notethat we evaluate switching only for the primary control.However, the background charging for battery refilling isassumed to be fulfilled in our power balance and consid-ered to be a problem of secondary or tertiary control.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10

exce

edan

ce

# potential switchings/min20 30 70605040

FIG. 3: Sensitivity of Base Scenario (no EV Control):Exceedance (averaged over all nodes) plotted over the potentialaverage number of battery switchings for increasing powerproduction from 0.17 to 0.5 MW. The grey dotted lines (darkergrey for greater power production) show a network sample of 15random Mid-Voltage (MV) topologies with the black linerepresenting the ensemble average. The black diamonds mark thechosen base scenario.

RESULTS

The starting point of our investigations is the base sce-nario in order to gather an understanding of how ourpower system behaves with increasing power productionfrom RES without any EV primary control present. Inthe Model Section, we reasoned to choose a modelingscenario with an amount of intermittent RES produc-tion that provides a challenging base scenario for our EVDSGC. Nevertheless, at first we want to better under-stand how larger or lower values of RES production in-fluence the power system stability measures. Then, weidentify the battery ramping slope necessary to preventfrequency from exceeding the chosen safety margin of±0.02Hz. In order to identify not only a grid- but alsobattery-friendly control mechanism, we apply a suitablebattery threshold randomization. We compare this strat-egy with the alternative approach of averaging over pastfrequency values in order to overcome fast switching. Fi-nally, the importance of decentral control is investigatedmore closely with respective to their effectiveness.

e. Base Scenario - no EV control Fig. 3 shows howan increase in production equally leads to higher values ofexceedance and potential switching events. However, towhat extent this happens, strongly depends on the chosentype of network. A concise classification of networks withrespect to their robustness towards fluctuations will be aninteresting research problem for future work.

In this base scenario the EVs do not participate in fre-quency control. However, by measuring how many timesfmin was crossed, the potential switching events are de-termined. In order to challenge our EV grid control, aspreviously mentioned, we have picked a case of relativelyhigh production, Si = 0.268MW (marked by black dia-monds for each network in Fig. 3). Fig. 2 shows the fre-quency evolution for all 100 network nodes for this modelsetup. The frequency safety band illustrates how muchtime the nodal frequencies spend outside the given safetyband of ±20mHz. The grey dotted lines show where theEV control would be triggered, if enabled. The dead bandof ±10mHz is in accordance with the present frequencyregulation scheme where primary control kicks in [35].

f. How to avoid demand synchronization catastropheswith EV ramping. The advantage of EVs for grid con-trol, compared with devices that have a fixed runtime,is the possibility to smoothly ramp control up and downat any time. The need for battery charging is left to aninvestigation of secondary and tertiary grid control. Inthis work, the focus is on primary control balancing ofshort-term fluctuations centered around a zero frequencydeviation mean value.

In the following, different ramping parameterizationsare tested. As the control performance is probably verysensitive towards the chosen ramping slope, in the follow-ing we vary fmax and keep fmin = 0.01Hz fixed (see Fig.1). Fig. 4 shows how, for an ensemble of 15 networks,different slopes perform with respect to the number ofswitching events, that happen on average at each node

4

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0fmax

0510152025303540

# s

wic

htin

gs/m

in

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0fmax

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

exceedance

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16

ΔF/ΔP

100 200 300 400 500

time [s]

-10

Δf

[mH

z]

-5

0

5

10

15

-150

FIG. 4: Parameterization of EV ramping: Average number of nodal battery switchings (left) and average nodal exceedance (center)plotted over different ramping slopes r for 15 different networks (grey dashed lines). For fmax = 0.01 switching events go up to 500. Thesolid grey line represents the ensemble average. The second y-axis of the center plot shows the analytic result for global frequency offset∆F caused by a power change ∆P (see (6)). Right: Frequency time series for fmax = 0.02.

and how many times a node on average exceeds the givenfrequency threshold band. In the steady state, ωi = 0,the latter mean exceedance can be related to the globalfrequency deviation ∆F which again can be defined as afunction of fmax. By summing over all indices i, we get

0 =

N−1∑i=0

1

Hi

[δPi − 2παi∆F

− (∆F − fmin)pmax

fmax − fmin

]Thus, the shape of the exceedance over fmax function

can be easily reproduced analytically (shown in blue inFig. 4 (center)).

∆F =∆P/H(fmax − fmin) + c · fmin

d(fmax − fmin) + c(6)

where c = Npmax, d =∑

i 2παi/Hi and ∆P =∑N−1i=1 δPi is the absolute power mismatch in the grid

with contributions δPi from all nodes but the slack bus,i = 0, and thus H = Hi,∀i = 1, .., N . With theprobability distribution of ∆P values over time a ∆F -distribution could be derived and the integral over all val-ues above ∆F = 0.02Hz would result in the exceedancevalues. From Fig. 4 (center) we conclude that at leastfmax = 0.02Hz is necessary to reduce the exceedanceprobability to zero. Compared to other work, our con-trol scheme does not lead to an increased probability oflarge frequency peaks [45].

The switching events are relatively insensitive to a vari-ation in ramping slope. Only for fmax = 0.01Hz wherebatteries are charging and decharging with an infinitelylarge ramping slope, switchings shoot up to more than500 per minute. Nevertheless, in the zero exceedancerange of 0.01 < fmax < 0.02Hz the number of switch-ing events (with a mean of about 18/min) is very high.Fig. 4 (right) illustrates why this is the case. The fre-quency is fluctuating around the battery treshold becauseall batteries react almost simultaneously to the tresholdcrossings. Small differences in local frequency signals arenot enough to prevent the build-up of such an undesirablefeedback.

g. How to ensure sustainable battery operation withEV randomization. To reduce switching events, as pre-vious work suggested, we want to randomize batterythresholds fmin [4, 17, 18]. From Fig. 4 we have seenhow a high ramping slope is able to push exceedancedown to zero. However, an undesirably large number ofswitching events exists which would lead to fast batterydegradation. Thus, we draw the battery threshold foreach EV from a Gaussian probability distribution cen-tered around fmin = 0.01Hz. With this randomization,we prevent all EVs from switching on and off at the sametime which leads to a negative feedback and oscillationsaround the battery threshold. Fig.5 (left) demonstrateshow the switching events at first peak for very small vari-ance and then rapidly decrease. Already for 20% of vari-ance, switching events are reduced by around 60%, for60% variance they are down to 20% of its value with-out randomization. The power input evolution over timereveals another side effect. In addition to the switchingevents also the peaks in absolute power changes are re-duced. Finally, in frequency trajectories with randomiza-tion there are no oscillations around the battery thresholdanymore and a normal distribution of the battery thresh-old around 0.01Hz results in frequency fluctuations muchbelow this value (see Fig.5 right).

Because we still want to keep a dead band for all EVbatteries, in the following we will choose the 60% vari-ance as the standard model setup. For larger variances

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00510152025303540

# s

witch

ings

/ m

in

σ/fmin

FIG. 5: Reduced switchings through randomization. Left:Number of switching over normalized variance of the batterythreshold fmin = 10mHz for a 15 network ensemble. Right:Frequency trajectories for all nodes of an example network for anormalized variance of 0% (grey) and 60% (black).

5

0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .00

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0#

sw

icht

ings

/min

fmax

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10051015202530

0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5power production [MW]

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

# s

wit

chin

gs/

min

FIG. 6: Robustness of the chosen EV control scheme:Number of switchings for varying ramping slopes (left) and forincreasing power production (right) with 60% normalized variancein fmin.

an increasing number of EVs would already start theircontrol at very small frequency deviations or even closeto zero.

h. Robustness of control setup With this choice ofEV control parameterization, the ramping slope and in-put power variation is repeated in order to check for anyimprovements. Indeed, for immediate ramping (with infi-nite ramping slope) the strong repeated switching is sup-pressed and reduced by a factor 100 (see Fig. 6 left).However, in the evolution of exceedance over fmax (notshown here) there are no changes. According to Fig.6 (right) even with the randomization approach a lightincrease in switching events is unpreventable. At thesame time, with respect to the frequency exceedance, themodel setup is pretty robust towards increasing powerfluctuations.

i. Destabilizing effect of input signal averaging. Asan alternative to randomization, an input signal averag-ing approach was considered in order to reduce batteryswitchings. The influence of averaging on exceedanceand switchings, without any randomization present isshown in Fig. 7 (left and center). At averaging timesaround τ = 0.02 s the frequency fluctuations grow intime. Not only that the frequency safe-band is exceededbut the frequency is completely driven out of its sta-ble state. Normally distributing the battery thresholdaround fmin = 0.01 Hz does not eliminate the destabiliz-ing effect of averaging.

We suspect that this is due to the introduction of de-lays into the system [1, 5, 46], the further study of whichis outside the scope of this work.

j. How to ensure effective control – Central vs. de-central EC control Now we set up a control system that

0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .0 6 0 .0 8 0 .1 0

τ [s]

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

# s

wic

htin

gs/m

in

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

exce

edan

ce

τ [s]0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .0 6 0 .0 8 0 .1 0

FIG. 7: Influence of input signal averaging: Averaging overthe input frequency signal for different interval lengths τ (oraveraging times) changes exceedance (right) and switching (left).

both brings down the exceedance to zero and reducesswitching events through randomization. In the follow-ing, we want to test the robustness of our proposed con-trol scheme against a changing number of EVs in thepower system and compare how central vs. decentralcontrol performs. This is realized by either distribut-ing a number of M EVs homogeneously or inhomoge-neously in the power grid. In the decentral case all nodeshave the same number of EVs whereas in the centralizedapproach all nodes except the slack bus have only oneEV. The number of EVs place at the slack bus is thenM − (N − 1). It can be positively emphasized that bothregional distributions are able to bring down exceedancewhen there are more than a total of about 400 EVs inthe system (see Fig. 8 left). Thus, above a minimumnumber of EVs the exceedance of the 0.02 Hz-thresholdis independent of the way EVs are distributed. However,concerning the switching events, we see a considerabledifference in performance of both model cases. For thecentral distribution the mean switching number is one or-der of magnitude higher than for the homogeneous distri-bution and the variance in the performance for differentnetworks is very large, as Fig. 8 (mid-left) shows.

The frequency trajectories for either a central or decen-tral distribution of a total of 10, 000 EVs for an exemplarytime frame of 50s is illustrated in Fig. 8 (mid-right). Thefrequency fluctuations for the central case are up to threetimes larger for a few nodes. Because all 100 nodes’ fre-quency trajectories are plotted, these large fluctuationsmay be attributed to certain nodes in the network. In-deed, it is clearly visible how the decentral EV controlis able to better equally reduce frequency fluctuationsamong all network nodes, whereas the central controlscheme is not able to handle frequency fluctuations atnodes further away from the slack bus. Fig. 9 com-pares both cases by illustrating the maximum frequencydeviation for each node over the whole time horizon indifferent coloring. For stricter exceedance thresholds thiswould lead to notable differences in exceedance values forhigh numbers of EVs (see Fig. 8 (right)).

CONCLUSION

In this work, we demonstrated the feasibility and ad-vantages of decentral EV control for MV network ensem-bles with high shares of solar production and thus, strongintermittent power fluctuations. Here, we incorporated ahighly realistic stochastic representation of RES fluctua-tions and focused on the issue of primary control of short-term frequency fluctuations centered around a mean of50Hz, the stable set point of frequency synchronization.We explicitly model the network structure instead of fol-lowing a copper-plate approach which allows us to com-pare the performance of decentral vs central control bymodeling the interaction of all EV devices via the powergrid infrastructure.

In our analysis, we followed the three main aims of

6

total EV number

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

exce

edan

ce

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000total EV number

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# s

wit

chin

gs/

min

Δf [m

hz]

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-15100 200 300 400 500

time [s]0

100100010000

FIG. 8: Decentral vs central control: Single node exceedances (left) and nodal average of battery switching events (mid-left) for anincrease in the total number of EVs for a homogeneous (black dotted lines) and an inhomogeneous (grey solid) EV distribution. Themean values are plotted with a darker color gradient. In the decentral case all nodes have the same number of EVs, whereas in thecentralized approach each node but the heavy node has only 1 EV, all the other EVs are connected to the heavy node. Mid-Right:Exemplary 50s time frame of frequency trajectories (from 100-node example network) of an overall simulation time of 500s for thedecentral (black) and central (grey) EV distribution for the same total number of 10, 000 EVs. Right: Varying exceedance threshold andoverall network exceedance for central (dashed) and decentral (solid) control and different total EV number (see legend) for an examplegrid.

ensuring dynamic grid stability within a frequency safeband, engineering EV control for a sustainable batteryoperation and designing grid control in an effective man-ner. In order to ensure grid stability, we find a maximalnecessary (critical) ramping rate to completely suppressthreshold exceedance. The influence of the ramping rateon the exceedance can be reproduced analytically. The

0.01 0.02

decentral control

central control

maximum frequency deviation

slack bus

slack bus

FIG. 9: Maximum nodal frequency deviation for decentral (top)and central (bottom) EV control for an example grid with a totalof 10, 000 EVs. In the decentral case all nodes have the samenumber of EVs, whereas in the centralized approach each nodebut the heavy node has only 1 EV, all the other EVs areconnected to the slack bus.

ability of battery devices to be adjustable in their ramp-ing as well as charging and decharging times prevents anundesired synchronization catastrophe caused by nega-tive feedback loops. Hence, our suggested control schemedoes not lead to an increased probability of large fre-quency peaks [45].

Nevertheless, using the same ramp for all EVs leads, asexpected, not to a synchronization catastrophe but stillto a synchronization of the control devices with the re-sult of a large number of battery switching events. Toovercome this effect and prevent battery degradation, weintroduce a variance in battery threshold and randomizethe switching of the different EV devices. To our knowl-edge, this combination of ramping slope and random-ized battery threshold, performs best to jointly reduceexceedance and switching events. This control strategyparameterization is relatively robust against a further in-crease in power production and thus fluctuations. Theexceedance stays at zero level and switching events onlyincrease slightly.

In contrast to the randomization, an averaging ap-proach destabilizes the system. This highlights the needfor further research into the interaction of decentral fre-quency control and delayed control actions.

Another important finding of this paper is the advan-tage of decentral over central control for a more effectivefrequency balancing. While both control measures suc-ceed in keeping fluctuations within a given safe band, thedecentral control leads to an order of magnitude lowerswitchings and thus, allows for a more sustainable bat-tery operation. At the same time, the central controlwould introduce a strong heterogeneity in fluctuation am-plitudes among the network nodes.

For further work, we see a great potential in the exten-sion of our model setup to secondary and tertiary control.This would also allow to incorporate EV control into arealistic case study and compare it with other balancingtechniques with respect to their technical and economicfeasibility. Related to this issue is the interaction of EVcontrol with different inverter types and their individualcontrol schemes.

7

Generally, electric vehicles are an opportunity for thedecarbonization of both the electricity and traffic sector,especially by interconnecting the two. The use of state-of-the-art battery technology increases the availability ofstorage for the eradication of mid- and short-term powerfluctuations, e.g. from RES deployment. With our holis-tic network modeling approach, we demonstrated thetechnical feasibility of interconnected EV control devicesbut, there is much more work to follow to understand therisks and potential of decentral EV grid control.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

S.A. wants to thank her fellow colleagues Paul Schultzand Anton Plietzsch for helpful discussion and com-

ments. The authors gratefully acknowledge the supportof BMBF, CoNDyNet, FK. 03SF0472A and the Euro-pean Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the GermanFederal Ministry of Education and Research and theLand Brandenburg for supporting this project by provid-ing resources on the high performance computer systemat the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

[1] Schafer B, Grabow C, Auer S, Kurths J, Witthaut D,Timme M. Taming instabilities in power grid networksby decentralized control. The European Physical JournalSpecial Topics. 2016;225(3):569–582.

[2] Troester E. New German grid codes for connecting PVsystems to the medium voltage power grid. In: 2nd Inter-national workshop on concentrating photovoltaic powerplants: optical design, production, grid connection; 2009.p. 9–10.

[3] Rohden M. Synchronization and Stability in DynamicalModels of Power Supply Networks; 2015.

[4] Short JA, Infield DG, Freris LL. Stabilization of grid fre-quency through dynamic demand control. IEEE Trans-actions on power systems. 2007;22(3):1284–1293.

[5] Schafer B, Matthiae M, Timme M, Witthaut D. De-central smart grid control. New journal of physics.2015;17(1):015002.

[6] Ian W, Ruth K, Philip T, David R, Stathis T, Aristome-nis N. Intelligent load control strategies utilising com-munication capabilities to improve the power quality ofinverter based renewable island power systems. In: Inter-national Conference RES for Island, Tourism & Water;2003.

[7] for the Federal Ministry of Economics S, (BMWi) T.Moderne Verteilernetze fur Deutschland (Verteilernetzs-tudie);.

[8] Liu H, Hu Z, Song Y, Lin J. Decentralized vehicle-to-grid control for primary frequency regulation consideringcharging demands. IEEE Transactions on Power Sys-tems. 2013;28(3):3480–3489.

[9] Pillai JR, Bak-Jensen B. Vehicle-to-grid systems for fre-quency regulation in an Islanded Danish distribution net-work. In: 2010 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Con-ference. IEEE; 2010. p. 1–6.

[10] Pasaoglu G, Thiel C, Martino A, Zubaryeva A, FiorelloD, Zani L. Projections for Electric Vehicle Load Pro-files in Europe Based on Travel Survey Data. Joint Re-search Centre of the European Commission: Petten, TheNetherlands. 2013;.

[11] Wang J, Liu C, Ton D, Zhou Y, Kim J, Vyas A. Im-pact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on power systemswith demand response and wind power. Energy Policy.

2011;39(7):4016–4021.[12] Van Haaren R. Assessment of electric cars’ range re-

quirements and usage patterns based on driving behav-ior recorded in the National Household Travel Surveyof 2009. Earth and Environmental Engineering Depart-ment, Columbia University, Fu Foundation School of En-gineering and Applied Science, New York. 2011;51:53.

[13] Almeida PR, Lopes JP, Soares F, Seca L. Electric ve-hicles participating in frequency control: Operating is-landed systems with large penetration of renewable powersources. In: PowerTech, 2011 IEEE Trondheim. IEEE;2011. p. 1–6.

[14] Karki R, Billinton R, Verma AK. Reliability Modelingand Analysis of Smart Power Systems. Springer; 2014.

[15] Roos C. How different EV control strategies affect thedynamical grid stability; 2016.

[16] Krause SM, Borries S, Bornholdt S. Econophysics ofadaptive power markets: When a market does notdampen fluctuations but amplifies them. Physical Re-view E. 2015;92(1):012815.

[17] Mohsenian-Rad AH, Wong VW, Jatskevich J, Schober R,Leon-Garcia A. Autonomous demand-side managementbased on game-theoretic energy consumption schedulingfor the future smart grid. IEEE transactions on SmartGrid. 2010;1(3):320–331.

[18] Moghadam MRV, Zhang R, Ma RT. Distributed Fre-quency Control via Randomized Response of Electric Ve-hicles in Power Grid. IEEE Transactions on SustainableEnergy. 2016;7(1):312–324.

[19] Anvari M, Lohmann G, Wachter M, Milan P, LorenzE, Heinemann D, et al. Short term fluctuations ofwind and solar power systems. New Journal of Physics.2016;18(6):063027.

[20] Schultz P, Heitzig J, Kurths J. A random growth modelfor power grids and other spatially embedded infrastruc-ture networks. The European Physical Journal SpecialTopics. 2014;223(12):2593–2610.

[21] Schiffer J, Zonetti D, Ortega R, Stankovic AM, Sezi T,Raisch J. A survey on modeling of microgrids–From fun-damental physics to phasors and voltage sources. Auto-matica. 2016;74:135–150.

8

[22] Nishikawa T, Motter AE. Comparative analysis of exist-ing models for power-grid synchronization. New Journalof Physics. 2015;17(1):015012.

[23] Schiffer J, Goldin D, Raisch J, Sezi T. Synchronization ofdroop-controlled microgrids with distributed rotationaland electronic generation. In: Decision and Control(CDC), 2013 IEEE 52nd Annual Conference on. IEEE;2013. p. 2334–2339.

[24] Coelho EAA, Cortizo PC, Garcia PFD. Small-signal sta-bility for parallel-connected inverters in stand-alone ACsupply systems. IEEE Transactions on Industry Appli-cations. 2002;38(2):533–542.

[25] Boßmann T, Staffell I. The shape of future electricitydemand: exploring load curves in 2050s Germany andBritain. Energy. 2015;90:1317–1333.

[26] von Appen J, Braun M, Stetz T, Diwold K, Geibel D.Time in the sun: the challenge of high PV penetrationin the German electric grid. IEEE Power and Energymagazine. 2013;11(2):55–64.

[27] Bayer E. Report on the German power system. AgoraEnergieWende. 2015;.

[28] Auer S, Steinke F, Chunsen W, Szabo A, Sollacher R.Can distribution grids significantly contribute to trans-mission grids’ voltage management? In: PES Innova-tive Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), 2016 IEEE. IEEE; 2016. p. 1–6.

[29] Auer S, Hellmann F, Krause M, Kurths J. Stabilityof Synchrony against Local Intermittent Fluctuations inTree-like Power Grids. arXiv preprint arXiv:170208707.2017;.

[30] Madina C, Zamora I, Zabala E. Methodology for as-sessing electric vehicle charging infrastructure businessmodels. Energy Policy. 2016;89:284–293.

[31] Richter J, Lindenberger D. Potenziale der Elektro-mobilitat bis 2050–Eine szenarienbasierte Analyse derWirtschaftlichkeit. Umweltauswirkungen und System-integration ewi, Koln. 2010;.

[32] (n d ) TM. Model S Specifications;.[33] Metz M, Doetsch C. Electric vehicles as flexible loads–A

simulation approach using empirical mobility data. En-ergy. 2012;48(1):369–374.

[34] Silva C, Ross M, Farias T. Analysis and simulationof “low-cost” strategies to reduce fuel consumption and

emissions in conventional gasoline light-duty vehicles.Energy Conversion and Management. 2009;50(2):215–222.

[35] der Netzbetreiber V. TransmissionCode 2007;.[36] Hellmann F, Schultz P, Grabow C, Heitzig J, Kurths

J. Survivability: A Unifiying Concept for the TransientResilience of Deterministic Dynamical Systems. arXiv.2015;.

[37] Menck PJ, Heitzig J, Marwan N, Kurths J. How basinstability complements the linear-stability paradigm. Na-ture Physics. 2013;9(2):89–92.

[38] Nishikawa T, Motter AE. Synchronization is opti-mal in nondiagonalizable networks. Physical Review E.2006;73(6):065106.

[39] Pecora LM, Carroll TL. Master stability functions forsynchronized coupled systems. Physical review letters.1998;80(10):2109.

[40] Belykh VN, Belykh IV, Hasler M. Connection graph sta-bility method for synchronized coupled chaotic systems.Physica D: nonlinear phenomena. 2004;195(1):159–187.

[41] Auer S, Kleis K, Schultz P, Kurths J, Hellmann F. Theimpact of model detail on power grid resilience mea-sures. The European Physical Journal Special Topics.2016;225(3):609–625. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50265-9.

[42] Acharyya S, Amritkar RE. Synchronization of couplednonidentical dynamical systems; 2012.

[43] Zheng Y, Serdukova L, Duan J, Kurths J. Transitions ina genetic transcriptional regulatory system under Levymotion. Scientific reports. 2016;6:29274.

[44] Serdukova L, Zheng Y, Duan J, Kurths J. Stochas-tic basins of attraction for metastable states. Chaos:An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science.2016;26(7):073117.

[45] Tchuisseu ET, Gomila D, Brunner D, Colet P. Effectsof dynamic-demand-control appliances on the power gridfrequency;.

[46] Yu M, Roscoe AJ, Booth CD, Dysko A, Ierna R, Zhu J,et al. Use of an inertia-less virtual synchronous machinewithin future power networks with high penetrations ofconverters. In: Power Systems Computation Conference(PSCC), 2016. IEEE; 2016. p. 1–7.

9