IEEE Wireless Communications - April 2017 - page 18

IEEE Wireless Communications • April 2017
16
have considered shared cellular LTE networks
as the underlying ICT infrastructure to support
the smart grid. Specifically, we highlighted the
security and communication requirements such
as, e.g., end-to-end security, dynamic creden-
tial distribution, and highly reliable low latency
uplink communication. Further, we outlined the
solutions that were considered in the SUNSEED
project for tackling the communication related
challenges of ensuring successful operation of
the future smart grids.
In the last year of the SUNSEED project (until
Jan. 31, 2017), the suitability of the LTE cellular
network for facilitating the smart grid monitor-
ing and control functions was tested via a large
field trial in Slovenia consisting of four planned
areas with a total number of 42
m
PMU devices,
five PMC devices, 22 PLC concentrators, and 563
SMs as follows:
Kromberk area
with LTE coverage of 10
m
PMU
devices, one PMC device, six PLC concentra-
tors, and 116 SMs.
Bonifika area
with LTE coverage of seven
m
PMU devices, two PMC devices, five PLC con-
centrators, and 535 SMs.
Razdrto area
with UMTS coverage (due to lack
of LTE coverage) of 17
m
PMU devices, two
PMC devices, seven PLC concentrators, and 10
SMs.
Kneza area
as illustrated in Fig. 6, with LTE cov-
erage of three
m
PMU devices and two PLC
concentrators as well as satellite links (due to
the lack of coverage of any cellular network in
this mountainous region) covering five
m
PMU
devices, two PLC concentrators, and two SMs.
For more details, the reader is referred to the
project deliverables available via the project web-
page at
.
A
cknowledgment
This work is partially funded by the EU under
Grant agreement no. 619437 “SUNSEED.” The
SUNSEED project is a joint undertaking of nine
partner institutions, and their contributions are
fully acknowledged.
R
eferences
[1] A. von Meier and R. Arghandeh, “Chapter 34, Every
Moment Counts: Synchrophasors for Distribution Net-
works with Variable Resources,”
Renewable Energy Integra-
tion
, L. E. Jones, Ed., Boston: Academic Press, 2014, pp.
[2] S. F. Bush,
Smart Grid: Communication-Enabled Intelligence
for the Electric Power Grid
, John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
[3] Y. Ozturk
et al.
, “An Intelligent Home Energy Management
System to Improve Demand Response,”
IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid
, vol. 4, no. 2, 2013, pp. 694–701.
[4] Z. Zhu
et al.
, “A Game Theoretic Optimization Framework
for Home Demand Management Incorporating Local Ener-
gy Resources,”
IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics
, vol. 11, no.
2, 2015, pp. 353–62.
[5] Open Smart Grid SG-Network Task Force, “Network Sys-
tems Requirement Specification v5.0 (Final),” Feb. 2013,
[6] Z. Zhu and Z. Fan, “An Efficient Consumption Optimisation
for Dense Neighbourhood Area Demand Management,”
IEEE Int’l. Energy Conf. (ENERGYCON)
, Apr. 2016.
[7] D. Hardt, “The Oauth 2.0 Authorization Framework,” 2012.
[8] E. Maler
et al.
, “User-Managed Access (UMA) Profile of
Oauth 2.0,” 2015.
[9] ETSI, “Ts 103383 Smart Cards; Embedded UICC; Require-
ments Specification (Release 13),” 2015.
[10] L. Jorguseski
et al.
, “LTE Delay Assessment for Real-Time
Management of Future Smart Grids,”
1st EAI Int’l. Conf. Smart
Grid Inspired Future Technologies (SmartGIFT)
, EAI, 2016.
[11] G. C. Madueno
et al.
, “Massive M2M Access with Reliabil-
ity Guarantees in LTE Systems,”
2015 IEEE Int’l. Conf. Com-
mun. (ICC)
, 2015, pp. 2997--3002.
[12] G. C. Madue˜no
et al.
, “Assessment of LTE Wireless Access
for Monitoring of Energy Distribution in the Smart Grid,”
IEEE JSAC
, vol. 34, no. 3, Mar. 2016, pp. 675–88.
[13] D. C. Dimitrova, J. L. van den Berg, G. Heijenk, and R. Lit-
jens, “LTE Uplink Scheduling — Flow Level Analysis,”
Multi-
ple Access Communications: 4th Int’l. Wksp., MACOM 2011
,
[14] C. Anton-Haro and M. Dohler,
Machine-to-Machine (M2M)
Communications: Architecture, Performance and Applica-
tions
, Elsevier, 2014.
B
iographies
J
immy
J
essen
N
ielsen
is an associate professor
in wireless communications in the Department of Electronic
Systems, Aalborg University, Denmark. He obtained his Ph.D. in
wireless communications from Aalborg University in 2011. His
research interests are in traffic models for M2M systems, reliable
and low latency communications, wireless networks, and perfor-
mance analysis. He has authored and co-authored more than 40
publications in conferences, journals, and books. He has served
as a reviewer for various IEEE journals and conferences.
F
igure
5.
Assumptions for result plots: 12 preambles, 1 s interval and 1 s latency deadline for both
PMU and PMC/SM. Reliability:
PMU = 99.9 percent, PMC/SM = 95 percent: a) availability of random access resources when the active population increases; b)
achieved reliability of proposed scheme compared to legacy LTE random access.
Active population
(a)
0.2
0
0.1
0
Fraction of RAOs available
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.4 0.6 0.8
1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2
x 10
4
Active population
(b)
0.2
0
0
Reliability
0.999
0.99
0.9
0.9999
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
x 10
4
PMU for R=1/10
PMC/SM for R=1/10
PMU for R=1/3
PMC/SM for R=1/3
Legacy
PMU (of required) R=1/10
PMC/SM (of required) R=1/10
Best effort (of total) R=1/10
PMU (of required) R=1/3
PMC/SM (of required) R=1/3
Best effort (of total) R=1/3
1...,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,...132
Powered by FlippingBook