1.2in0.9in0.9in1.5in
Communication-Censored-ADMM for Electric Vehicle Charging in Unbalanced Distribution Grids
Abstract
We propose an alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM)-based algorithm for coordinating the charge and discharge of electric vehicles (EVs) to manage grid voltages while minimizing EV time-of-use energy costs. We prove that by including a Communication-Censored strategy, the algorithm maintains its solution integrity, while reducing peer-to-peer communications. By means of a case study on a representative unbalanced two node circuit, we demonstrate that our proposed Communication-Censored-ADMM (CC-ADMM) EV charging strategy reduces peer-to-peer communications by up to , compared to a benchmark ADMM approach.
Index Terms:
communication-censoring ADMM, electric vehicles, unbalanced distribution grids, voltage regulation, distributed optimizationI Introduction
The transportation sector is rapidly evolving to support the grid-integration of electric vehicles (EVs), unlocking financial and environmental benefits for EV customers [1, 2]. EV charging however, potentially increases the duration and magnitude of grid congestion peaks when not managed carefully. Furthermore, during periods of grid congestion, EV charging potentially fluctuates supply voltages beyond safe operating limits [3]. Consequently, a key challenge with EV proliferation is coordinating EV charging (and discharging) to ensure steady-state supply voltages across an electrical distribution grid remain within prescribed operating limits [4].
Numerous optimization strategies have been proposed to coordinate EV (dis)charging to manage voltages throughout the distribution grid ([5], [6], [7]), with recent works tackling the issue of model uncertainties (see [8], [9] for reinforcement learning approaches, and [10] for perspectives on online optimization). Optimization-based EV coordination approaches can be split into two main classes - centralized and distributed 111Some authors in the literature (such as Khaki et al. in [11]) use the term distributed even when including a coordinating agent. In this paper, distributed means fully decentralized — i.e., the EVs only communicate amongst themselves and not with a coordinating agent.. Comparatively, distributed approaches consider ways to parallelize and scale mathematical computations, allowing for larger populations of EVs to be coordinated across an electrical network [12]. Over the last decade, the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) [13] technique has provided a simple yet effective approach to distributed EV (dis)charging.
The ADMM-based EV coordination algorithms presented in [14] and [15] are designed to avoid system voltages breaches. The authors in [16] propose to minimize grid load variations using EV (dis)charging with a hierarchical ADMM approach. More recently, Nimalsiri et al. propose in [17] an ADMM-based approach to minimize time-of-use EV charge operational costs while regulating unbalanced supply voltages to within operational limits. Yet none of the aforementioned approaches consider ways to reduce the communication cost associated with ADMM-based distributed algorithms.
Specifically, the distributed algorithms in [15, 17] assume a communication network where each EV must communicate at every time step, with all other EVs in its vicinity. For large scale networks, this communication overhead dwarfs the associated distributed computation costs. Consequently, a tradeoff exists for EV scalability, in the context of ease of computation and growing communication costs, which has been studied in different contexts, e.g., [18, 19, 20]. As such, we are motivated to reduce ADMM-based communications in addition to minimizing time-of-use EV charge costs, all while regulating unbalanced grid voltages to avoid quasi steady-state operation breaches.
In this paper, we propose a distributed Communication-Censored-ADMM EV (dis)charging algorithm, which we refer to as 1, to reduce the overall communication costs of coordinating EV (dis)charging, while regulating unbalanced grid voltages to avoid quasi steady-state operation breaches. Furthermore, we seek to minimize time-of-use EV charge costs, all while preserving the ADMM-based algorithm accuracy. Specifically, we extend the ADMM-based algorithm presented in [17] for coordinated EV (dis)charging in a number of ways. First, we incorporate EV-based inverter reactive power control for improved voltage regulation. Then, we integrate the communication censored-ADMM approach of [21] with our model to create CC-ADMM. Most importantly, we obtain theoretical convergence guarantees that the CC-ADMM converges to an optimal solution of the EV (dis)charge problem. By means of a case study, we compare communication costs and solution accuracy of CC-ADMM against the benchmark Dis-Net-EVCD algorithm from [17], for two examples.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II we introduce a residential EV system which is connected to an unbalanced distribution grid. In Section III we present the EV (dis)charging problem as a centralized optimization problem. Section IV reformulates the centralized EV (dis)charging problem into the ADMM framework, and shows that the CC-ADMM algorithm converges to an optimal solution. Section V includes numerical simulation results to demonstrate the potential of the communication censored approach.
Notation
We use the symbols to denote the -dimensional vector space of real and complex numbers, respectively. Throughout, a vector represents a column vector. We denote by the transpose of , which is a row vector. For a vector we write for the component of . We write for the non-negative orthant in (the set of vectors which have only non-negative components). We write for the vector which has all components equal to 1 (we omit the subscript when the dimension is clear from the context). The inner product of vectors is denoted by or . Given two vectors the inequality is to be understood componentwise (i.e., for ). We denote by the Euclidian norm of , which is .
The set of real and complex matrices are denoted by and , respectively. Given a matrix , we write for the entry in row and column of the matrix . We denote the identity matrix in by (we omit the subscript when the size is clear from the context). The zero vector in is denoted by , and the zero matrix in is denoted by , where we omit the subscripts when the distinction and sizes can be easily deduced by the context. Given matrices , we denote the direct sum as
Given two sets , we use the following standard notations
and we denote by the cardinality of the set . Further notation will be introduced as necessary.
II Problem Formulation
II-A Residential EV Energy System
Fig. 1 illustrates the topology of a grid-connected Residential EV Energy System for a single customer, consisting of a meter, an EV and residential load situated behind the Point of Common Coupling (PCC). In what follows, we consider a set of customers , where each customer charges or discharges . We assume that for each customer, is enabled with both real and reactive power control by way of the EV battery inverter.
Let be a time interval length 222Emerging grid sensors such as micro-phasor measurement units (micro-PMUs) provide voltage and current phasor data at a high temporal resolution (see [22, 23]). We anticipate customer metering technology to follow a similar trajectory, reporting high temporal voltage and current data, which would also improve the applicability of our approach., and be a time horizon partition, so that the planning horizon is .
Let denote the real power to or from over the time period (in kW), and similarly, let denote the reactive power to or from over the time period (in kVAR).

The power profile of over is defined as
Each has associated with it the following set of design parameters; arrival time index , departure time index , battery capacity , inverter capacity , initial state of charge (SoC) , target SoC , minimum SoC , maximum SoC , maximum charge rate , and minimum charge rate . These design parameters are collected into the set
Remark II.1.
We do not include battery (dis)charge efficiencies in the set of design parameters for convenience. Adding these parameters will convert our optimization-based problem formulation (which follows) into a more difficult mixed integer program. However, with careful consideration, the core ideas we present in this paper can also be applied in the mixed integer program setting.
Let the apparent power to or from be denoted by , defined (for all ) by
The apparent power through the inverter of is constrained as , where denotes the inverter capacity. It follows that, for all ,
(1) |
Each customer must specify a departure time and target SoC which is feasible within the departure time, i.e., it must hold that
The battery SoC of at time is denoted by , which can be defined as
(2) |
and the SoC profile of is then defined as
II-B EV Battery Constraints and EV Operation Costs
The battery of is constrained to prevent over-(dis)charging, in the following way
(3) |
which implies that the SoC profile must satisfy
Let , and . Then using (2) together with (3) gives
(4) |
where
Due to the limited (dis)charging power of the battery, we have
which implies that the power profile vector is constrained as
(5) |
To incorporate the charging demand for , we let and enforce . Combining this charging demand with (2) gives
To limit the duration of (dis)charging for to the period is grid connected (), we define the availability matrix as follows
Accordingly, we further constrain and by
where is the identity matrix, and is the zero vector. Let us define
We now combine all of the battery constraints and the apparent power constraints, to write the feasibility set of power profile vectors
(6) |
The following proposition can be easily proven.
Proposition II.2.
is compact and convex.
We assume that each customer is compensated for delivering power to the grid at the same rate they are billed for consuming power from the grid. For our time horizon , we let the price profile be denoted by
where is the price of electricity (in $/kWh) over the time period . The operational cost for is then defined by
(7) |
where is a (small) regularization parameter which reduces to occurrence of unnecessary EV battery charge-discharge cycles. Specifically, we include the second term in (7) to maintain a smoother battery profile and avoiding unnecessary charge-discharge cycles [24], and in this way, we include the cost of battery degradation within our operational costs for . Positive values of represent financial costs whereas negative values of represent financial gains.
II-C Unbalanced Distribution Grid Model
We consider a three phase, unbalanced, radial distribution feeder that includes two phase and single phase laterals, represented by a graph . The set of vertices represent nodes along the feeder and the edges represent line segments along the feeder with cardinality .
Node is considered the root node (feeder head) which is taken as an infinite bus, decoupling the interaction between the feeder and the wider power grid. An edge exists if there is a line segment between node and node , with node being closest to node .
We assume that the graph is simple with no repeated edges or self loops for any . Let , and for each vertex let be the set of edges on the unique path from node to node .
Each edge is either a single phase, two phase, or three phase edge, and each vertex is either a single phase, two phase, or three phase node, where phases are labelled and . The set of all phases at node are denoted , e.g., for a three phase node we would have . We assume node is a three phase node.
The set of phases along edge is denoted as , e.g., for a three phase line segment. For any edge we have
Next, we denote phases as and , where .
Let represent the tuple of phases at node , e.g., if is a three phase node, then we have . Now let
with giving the sum of the total number of phases across all nodes in . Each element represents a supply point which serves customers, such that
(8) |
We label the customers by initializing the customer index at and increment the index through all customers at a supply point, before continuing the index at each following supply point, and across all supply points in in ascending order, respectively.
To identify the location of each customer with reference to a supply point , let be a binary matrix with rows indexed by elements of , and columns indexed by elements of , and define the entries of as
(9) |
Let and denote the resistance and reactance of line segment respectively, where and are the phases along the line segment. Then (where , so that each line segment has a complex impedance , e.g., for a three phase line segment
Let denote the sum of the impedances along the unique path which is common to the paths from node to node , and node to node , such that both paths incorporate phases and .
Let and let denote phase as a numeral, where we set . Let be a square matrix with rows and columns indexed by elements of , with the entries defined as
where , and . We similarly define the matrix as
where , and . and denote the real and imaginary parts respectively, and ∗ is the complex conjugate.
Let denote the squared voltage magnitude of phase at node , at time . For a node and time , let
for example, at a three phase node we have
Collecting across all nodes in we define
and let be the squared voltage magnitude of each phase at the root node, which we set to the nominal voltage. We also define .
Let denote the net real power (in kW) to or from node on phase over the time period . In particular, is the net real power to or from customers connected to phase at node . Given a node we let
and collecting over all nodes in we define
Similarly, let denote the net reactive power to or from node on phase over the time period . And analogously define
and
Since each supply point serves customers, and have contributions from the EV and non-EV load. Accordingly, let us denote by and , respectively, the net real and reactive power to or from the non-EV loads at node on phase over the time period . Likewise, we denote by and , respectively, the real and reactive power to or from the EV loads at supply point over the time period . Ignoring losses, we define
Similarly, we decompose terms , , and , such that for all , we define
II-C1 Power Flow Equations
Consider now the power flow equations from [25, 26], which extend the LinDistFlow equations to the unbalanced setting by
Let
which defines the baseline voltage from the aggregate non-EV loads over the time period . Then, our primary equation of interest becomes
(10) |
We now reformulate (10) in terms of the power transfer from each customer in (instead of each supply point in . We define
as vectors of real and reactive power to or from all EVs in over the time period (where clearly, the element is the power to or from ). Then, together with the matrix (9), we write
for any . Now let and , and write
where for each . We now rewrite (10) as
Let us now concatenate over the time horizon , and write
and similarly,
Letting
we obtain
(11) |
III Centralized EV (dis)charging
Here we formulate a centralized optimization problem to obtain the optimal (dis)charge rates for each . First, at each node we constrain the voltage magnitude on each phase to stay within safe operational limits , where are the respective lower and upper bounds for operational limits.
Let us define the following vectors,
and
We now constrain the voltage as follows
(12) |
To make the presentation clearer, let us define
so we may now write (12) as
IV Distributed Communication Censored Approach
In this section we reformulate problem (12) into an ADMM formulation. Then, we show that for this problem we can use the Communication-Censored-ADMM algorithm of [21], with guarantees of convergence.
Let us begin with a quick summary of the general ADMM paradigm.
IV-A ADMM Summary
Given an optimization problem
(13) |
ADMM proceeds by first defining the augmented Lagrangian
with dual variable , and regularization parameter ( can also be thought of as a stepsize, which balances convergence with constraints satisfaction). The decision variables are then updated sequentially on each iteration as,
The ADMM algorithm has many desirable properties, such as strong duality, linear convergence rates, etc. Importantly, the ADMM algorithm can be implemented in a distributed way, and can be applied to a variety of problems, as there are very few restrictions on the function in (13). For a more detailed explanation, the reader should consult [13].
IV-B ADMM Formulation for 12
We consider a communication network represented by a graph , where the vertex set is the set of EV customers (as defined previously), and the edges in represent communication links between EV customers (an example is presented in Fig. 2). Specifically, an edge allows bidirectional communication between customer and customer . Due to symmetry in the communication network, if edge , then we must also have . We denote the set of neighbors of customer as . We make the following assumption about .
Assumption IV.1.
The graph is connected.

Let us introduce a slack variable for each customer , and define the following
Then, we write the inequality constraint (12c) as
Define the sets
Denote the indicator function by
and let
Proposition IV.2.
The optimization problem (12) is equivalent to the following
(13a) | ||||
(13b) |
Since strong duality holds for Problem (13), together with Assumption IV.1, we can reformulate Problem (13) as a distributed consensus optimization problem using duality as in [27]. Specifically,
(13a) | ||||
(13b) | ||||
(13c) |
Here, is the customer’s local copy of the global dual variable , are auxiliary consensus variables, and for all
Notice that Problem (13) is in ADMM form (13). Accordingly, we proceed to solve it using a distributed ADMM algorithm, which have been shown to perform well in [28, 29].
The following assumption is necessary and standard for most optimization paradigms.
Assumption IV.3.
There exists an optimal solution to the problem (13).
IV-C Communication-Censored-ADMM Formulation for 13
We start with a brief summary of the Communication-Censored-ADMM algorithm.
At each iteration , each keeps the following local variables; the variable , the dual variable , the state variable which was the last broadcast made to its neighbors, and the state variables of its neighbors for , which was the last broadcast from its neighbors.
Let , and for constants , define
(14) |
Customer communicates with its neighbors only if , and in this way communication is restricted to only significant updates of the local primal variables. The complete algorithm, which is executed by each EV in parallel, is presented below in 1.
Iteration limit . Stepsize .
Local cost functions .
Censoring function .
Proof.
Note that the update step in 1 involves solving the following min-max optimization problem,
where is the stepsize (cf. in Section IV-A).
Following [27, Section IV-A], as the objective of this min-max problem is convex in and concave in , we can use the Minimax Theorem of [30, Proposition 2.6.2] to switch the order of the and operators. Let
Then the inner minimization problem has a solution
(15) |
and the outer maximization problem reduces to
(16) |
Updating the variable , by first updating as per (16) and then using (15) is computationally efficient. That is, 1 can be run in parallel by each EV, facilitating efficient paralleled EV charge and discharge operations.
Remark IV.6.
In the CC-ADMM paradigm, robustness to a communication failure of an individual agent is inherited from the underlying peer-to-peer communication network. That is, CC-ADMM is designed to limit the communication between agents at particular times based on the relevance of the transmitted information — it does not remove the ability to communicate.
V Numerical Simulations
To demonstrate 1 for EV (dis)charging, we consider a representative unbalanced three-phase, two node distribution circuit with time-varying loads across a day (). The circuit has unbalanced impedences — for instance, , , () 333The complete data of impedences and loads, and the simulation settings for all our examples is openly available at https://github.com/Abhishek-B/IREP-2022.. In what follows, there are 50 customers connected to each of the three supply points, as per the topology illustrated in Fig. 3. Note that each customer connects to the distribution circuit supply points via a PCC, as per the residential EV energy system depicted in Fig. 1.

We set the following: and the operational cost regularization , for all EVs. The remaining parameters are chosen randomly in accordance with the simulation setup of [4]. We do not list these parameters here, but all of our code and data is publicily available at https://github.com/Abhishek-B/IREP-2022, so that the reader can access our simulation setup, and test parameters there.
We compare 1 against the benchmark ADMM algorithm of [17] (by turning off the censoring), with step size , and iteration limit for both algorithms.
Example V.1.
We consider a completely connected communication network, i.e., every customer can communicate with every other customer (for ). Our simulation results are illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.

Firstly, notice from Fig. 4 that the solution obtained from the benchmark algorithm of [17] and the censored solution of 1 both satisfy safe operational limits of about the nominal voltage. Moreover, the censored solution of 1 presents with a generally flatter voltage profile.
The real success comes from looking at the censoring pattern from 1. In Fig. 5, a white square means that a customer broadcast information at that iteration, and black square means they did not. In Fig. 5, we observe that the communication is very sparse. In fact, 1 required of the communications that would be otherwise by required by the benchmark algorithm of [17]. Our simulation results are consistent with findings from [18], where it is discovered that communicating less frequently, provides improvements to the optimization methods over networks with communication.

Example V.2.
Next, we consider a communication network where each customer communicates with only 70 other grid-connected customers.

Again, we observe from Fig. 6 that the solution obtained by the benchmark algorithm of [17] and 1 are qualitatively the same, and both satisfy the safe operational constraints of about the nominal voltage. In fact, the solution from 1 generally results in a voltage profile closer to the nominal voltage ( p.u.).
Overall, 1 required of the communication that was otherwise required by the benchmark algorithm from [17]. From Fig. 7, we observe that the communication censoring pattern is sparser in the earlier iterations in comparison to Example V.1. However, we also observe that more customers communicate during later iterations when compared with Example V.1. Accordingly, we observe that 1 reduces the transmission of unnecessary information between EV customers, in the context of a peer-to-peer communication network.

The communication savings observed in these examples are remarkable, and it speaks to the potential of the censoring strategy for EV (dis)charge coordination in larger scale systems with more complicated dynamics.
VI Conclusion & Future Work
In this paper, we proposed an approach to coordinating EV (dis)charging in unbalanced electrical networks, using a Communication-Censored-ADMM algorithm. We proved that the algorithm is guaranteed to converge to the optimal solution, in the EV (dis)charge setting. The censoring strategy improved the optimization-based EV (dis)charging operations over an electrical network, while also reducing peer-to-peer communications. In the presented case study, we demonstrated the potential benefits of censoring communication between EVs. In future work, more realistic unbalanced electrical networks can be considered for benchmarking the proposed Communication-Censored-ADMM EV (dis)charging against other ADMM-based approaches. Ways to incorporate communication status (success/failure) checks, such as beaconing [31, Section 2.1], in line with Remark IV.6, are also possible.
Acknowledgment
The first author would like to thank Dr. P. Braun and Prof. I. Shames for insightful discussions throughout the project.
References
- [1] C. Macharis, J. Van Mierlo, and P. Van Den Bossche, “Combining intermodal transport with electric vehicles: Towards more sustainable solutions,” Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 30, no. 2-3, pp. 311–323, 2007.
- [2] H. Shareef, M. M. Islam, and A. Mohamed, “A review of the stage-of-the-art charging technologies, placement methodologies, and impacts of electric vehicles,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 64, pp. 403–420, 2016.
- [3] F. G. Venegas, M. Petit, and Y. Perez, “Active integration of electric vehicles into distribution grids: Barriers and frameworks for flexibility services,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 145, p. 111060, 2021.
- [4] N. I. Nimalsiri, E. L. Ratnam, C. P. Mediwaththe, D. B. Smith, and S. K. Halgamuge, “Coordinated charging and discharging control of electric vehicles to manage supply voltages in distribution networks: Assessing the customer benefit,” Applied Energy, vol. 291, p. 116857, 2021.
- [5] J. De Hoog, T. Alpcan, M. Brazil, D. Thomas, and I. Mareels, “Optima charging of electric vehicles taking distribution network constraints into account,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 365–375, 2014.
- [6] X. Huo and M. Liu, “Decentralized electric vehicle charging control via a novel shrunken primal-multi-dual subgradient (spmds) algorithm,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1367–1373.
- [7] M. Liu, P. Phanivong, Y. Shi, and D. Callaway, “Decentralized charging control of evs in residential distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 266–281, 2017.
- [8] Z. Wan, H. Li, H. He, and D. Prokhorov, “Model-free real-time ev charging scheduling based on deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 5246–5257, 2018.
- [9] H. Li, Z. Wan, and H. He, “Constrained ev charging scheduling based on safe deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 2427–2439, 2019.
- [10] D. Yuan, A. Bhardwaj, I. Petersen, E. L. Ratnam, and G. Shi, “Towards online optimization for power grids,” ACM SIGENERGY Energy Informatics Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2021.
- [11] B. Khaki, Y.-W. Chung, C. Chu, and R. Gadh, “Hierarchical distributed ev charging scheduling in distribution grids,” in 2019 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5.
- [12] D. K. Molzahn, F. Dörfler, H. Sandberg, S. H. Low, S. Chakrabarti, R. Baldick, and J. Lavaei, “A survey of distributed optimization and control algorithms for electric power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2941–2962, 2017.
- [13] S. Boyd, N. Parikh, and E. Chu, Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Now Publishers Inc, 2011.
- [14] X. Zhou, S. Zou, P. Wang, and Z. Ma, “Voltage regulation in constrained distribution networks by coordinating electric vehicle charging based on hierarchical admm,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 14, no. 17, pp. 3444–3457, 2020.
- [15] T. Rahman, Y. Xu, and Z. Qu, “Continuous-domain real-time distributed admm algorithm for aggregator scheduling and voltage stability in distribution network,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2021.
- [16] B. Khaki, C. Chu, and R. Gadh, “A hierarchical admm based framework for ev charging scheduling,” in 2018 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9.
- [17] N. Nimalsiri, E. Ratnam, D. Smith, C. Mediwaththe, and S. Halgamuge, “Distributed optimization-based electric vehicle charging and discharging in unbalanced distribution grids,” TechRxiv, 2021.
- [18] K. Tsianos, S. Lawlor, and M. Rabbat, “Communication/computation tradeoffs in consensus-based distributed optimization,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 25, 2012.
- [19] A. Nedić, A. Olshevsky, and M. G. Rabbat, “Network topology and communication-computation tradeoffs in decentralized optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 953–976, 2018.
- [20] A. S. Berahas, R. Bollapragada, N. S. Keskar, and E. Wei, “Balancing communication and computation in distributed optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 3141–3155, 2018.
- [21] Y. Liu, W. Xu, G. Wu, Z. Tian, and Q. Ling, “Communication-censored admm for decentralized consensus optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 2565–2579, 2019.
- [22] A. Von Meier, D. Culler, A. McEachern, and R. Arghandeh, “Micro-synchrophasors for distribution systems,” in ISGT 2014. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–5.
- [23] Y. Zhou, R. Arghandeh, I. Konstantakopoulos, S. Abdullah, A. von Meier, and C. J. Spanos, “Abnormal event detection with high resolution micro-pmu data,” in 2016 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–7.
- [24] J. Rivera, P. Wolfrum, S. Hirche, C. Goebel, and H.-A. Jacobsen, “Alternating direction method of multipliers for decentralized electric vehicle charging control,” in 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2013, pp. 6960–6965.
- [25] L. Gan and S. H. Low, “Convex relaxations and linear approximation for optimal power flow in multiphase radial networks,” in 2014 Power Systems Computation Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–9.
- [26] D. B. Arnold, M. Sankur, R. Dobbe, K. Brady, D. S. Callaway, and A. Von Meier, “Optimal dispatch of reactive power for voltage regulation and balancing in unbalanced distribution systems,” in 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–5.
- [27] T.-H. Chang, M. Hong, and X. Wang, “Multi-agent distributed optimization via inexact consensus admm,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 482–497, 2014.
- [28] A. Makhdoumi and A. Ozdaglar, “Convergence rate of distributed admm over networks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 5082–5095, 2017.
- [29] W. Shi, Q. Ling, K. Yuan, G. Wu, and W. Yin, “On the linear convergence of the admm in decentralized consensus optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1750–1761, 2014.
- [30] D. Bertsekas, A. Nedic, and A. Ozdaglar, Convex analysis and optimization. Athena Scientific, 2003, vol. 1.
- [31] R. Badonnel, O. Festor et al., “Fault monitoring in ad-hoc networks based on information theory,” in International Conference on Research in Networking. Springer, 2006, pp. 427–438.