Download Heterogeneous Communication Architecture

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
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
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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.
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14
Architecture: USN Access Network Level(5)
Figure 3. Communication Network Proposed
15
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
16
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
17
Architecture: Middleware Level(1)
Figure 5. Middleware Interaction
18
Architecture: Middleware Level(2)
Figure 6. Message Exchange Process
19
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
20
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
21
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)=n liq
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
Optimal Traffic Allocation (6)
Performance Metrics
 Delivery delay over the output networks
 Average Financial Cost
26
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
27
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
28
Illustration
 Simulation Results
Figure. 8 throughput, delay and financial cost as a function
of the exogenous arrival rate λ1o in network 1
29
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
30
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
31