Robust Control Framework for Time-Varying Power-Sharing among
Distributed Energy Resources

arXiv:1604.04154v1 [math.OC] 14 Apr 2016

Mayank Baranwal1,a and Srinivasa M. Salapaka1,b
Abstract— One of the most important challenges facing an
electric grid is to incorporate renewables and distributed
energy resources (DERs) to the grid. Because of the associated
uncertainties in power generations and peak power demands,
opportunities for improving the functioning and reliability
of the grid lie in the design of an efficient, yet pragmatic
distributed control framework with guaranteed robustness
margins. This paper addresses the problem of output voltage
regulation for multiple DC-DC converters connected to a grid,
and prescribes a robust scheme for sharing power among
different sources. More precisely, we develop a control architecture where, unlike most standard control frameworks, the
desired power ratios appear as reference signals to individual
converter systems, and not as internal parameters of the system
of parallel converters. This makes the proposed approach suited
for scenarios when the desired power ratios vary rapidly with
time. Additionally, the proposed control framework is suitable
to both centralized and decentralized implementations, i.e.,
the same control architecture can be employed for voltage
regulation irrespective of the availability of common loadcurrent (or power) measurement, without the need to modify
controller parameters. The control design is obtained using
robust optimal-control framework. Case studies presented show
the enhanced performance of prescribed optimal controllers for
voltage regulation and power sharing.

I. INTRODUCTION
High environmental impact of fossil-based energy sources
and demand for future energy sustainability have resulted in
increased interest in the use of renewable energy resources
such as solar and wind. Integration of renewable resources on
the community level is achieved through smart microgrids.
Microgrids are localized grid systems that are capable of
operating in parallel with, or independently from, the existing traditional grid [1], [2]. Microgrid technology enables
integration of renewable energy sources such as solar and
wind energy, distributed energy resources (DERs), energy
storage, and demand response. Fig. 1 shows a schematic
of a microgrid with multiple DC sources providing power
for AC loads. Although in most traditional grids that rely
on conventional sources of dispatchable electric power, the
power output of renewables can not be manipulated. Limited
predictability with such resources result in intermittent power
generation; moreover time-varying loads, practicability and
economics factors pose additional challenges in efficient
operation of microgrids. Thus it is required to develop efficient distributed control technologies for reliable operation
of smart microgrids.
1 Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 61801 IL, USA
a baranwa2@illinois.edu, b salapaka@illinois.edu

Fig. 1: A schematic of a microgrid. An array of DC sources provide
power for AC loads. Power sources provide power at DC-link,
their common output bus, at a voltage that is regulated to a setpoint. The control system at the respective DC-DC converter that
interfaces with a source is responsible for regulating the voltage at
he DC-link. An inverter that connects to the DC-link converts the
total current from the sources at the regulated voltage to alternating
current (AC) at its output to satisfy the power demands of the AC
loads. This paper describes an approach for control design of the
multiple converters systems associated with power transfer from
sources to the DC-link (shown by the dotted line).

In such smart grids, multiple DC power sources connected
in parallel, each interfaced with DC-DC converter, provide
power at their common output, the DC-link, at a regulated
voltage; this power can directly feed DC loads or be used by
an inverter to interface with AC loads. In this paper, we address the problem of distributed control of DC-DC converters
for output voltage regulation, and time-varying power sharing
(dictated by the economic layer) among multiple power
sources. The main challenges arise from the uncertainties
in the size and the schedules of loads, the complexity of
a coupled multi-converter network, the uncertainties in the
model parameters at each converter, and the adverse effects
of interfacing DC power sources with AC loads, such as the
120 Hz ripple that has to be provided by the DC sources.
Problems pertaining to robust and optimal control of
converters have received recent attention. Conventional PIDbased controllers often to fail address the problem of robustness and modeling uncertainties. In [3], a linear-matrixinequality (LMI) based based robust control design for boost
converters has resulted in significant improvements over PID
based control designs. In [4]–[6], robust H∞ -control framework is employed in the context of inverter systems. While
the issue of current sharing is extensively studied [7], [8],
most methods assume a single power source. A systematic

control design that addresses all the challenges and objectives
for the multi-converter control is still lacking. The control
architecture proposed in this paper addresses the following
primary objectives - 1) voltage regulation at the DC-link with
guaranteed robustness margins, 2) prescribed time-varying
power sharing in a network of parallel converters, 3) controlling the trade-off between 120Hz ripple on the total current
provided by the power sources and the ripple on the DC-link
voltage. While these objectives are partially addressed in our
prior work [9] on the robust control of DC-DC converters,
a main drawback of the design proposed in [9] is that the
control framework does not allow for time-varying power
sharing requirements. In this work, we propose a novel
control framework wherein the power requirements on each
converter are imposed through external references, and thus
the framework allows for time-varying power sharing by
incorporating high-bandwidth robust controllers.
The control architecture proposed in this work exploits
structural features of the paralleled multi-converter system,
which results in a modular and yet coordinated control
design. For instance, noting that the objective of voltage
regulation is common to all converters; accordingly at each
converter, it employs a nested (outer-voltage inner-current)
control structure [10], where all converters share the same
design for the outer-loop voltage controllers while the innerloop current controllers are so chosen that the entire closedloop multi-converter system can be reduced to an equivalent
single-converter system in terms of the transfer function from
the desired regulation setpoint Vref to the voltage at the
DC-link Vdc . The controllers are designed for fully centralized implementation with the instantaneous load current
iload measurement accessible to all converters; however, in
practice iload is often estimated through power calculations
on the AC side and communicated to individual converters
only at a rate slower than the sampling rate of the controllers.
In the wake of this limitation, we propose a novel method for
voltage regulation and power sharing that is inspired by conventional voltage droop method. An interesting aspect of the
proposed implementation is that the same outer controllers
Kv and Kr along with the shaped inner plant G̃c,n can be
employed even for the scenario where iload measurement
is unavailable. Thus the proposed framework is applicable
to both centralized and decentralized implementations. An
important revelation provided by the application of H∞
robust optimal control is the underlying optimal structure
in the outer-loop controllers Kv and Kr . While we are yet
to explore the reasoning behind the hidden optimal structure,
it helps in further reduction of the overall complexity of the
distributed control design from analysis and implementation
points of view.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Sec. II
describes the averaged modeling of DC-DC converters. We
then describe the control design methodology for a single
converter system in Sec. IV, followed by its extension to
a network of parallel converters in Sec. V. The underlying
theory is then corroborated by extensive simulations in Sec.
VI, followed by some important conclusions and immediate

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2: Schematics for (a) Buck converter, (b) Boost Converter. The
converters are assumed to operate in continuous-conduction-mode
(CCM).

directions to future works.
II. MODELING OF CONVERTERS
In this section, we describe the differential equations that
govern the dynamics of DC-DC converters. These converters
belong to a class of switched-mode power electronics, where
a semiconductor based high-frequency switching mechanism
(and associated electronic circuit) connected to a DC power
source enables changing voltage and current characteristics
at its output. The models presented below depict dynamics
for signals that are averaged over a switch cycle.
Fig. 2a shows a schematic of a Buck converter. Buck
converter regulates a voltage at its output which is lower
than the input voltage. The averaged dynamic model of a
Buck converter is given by
L

diL (t)
dt

−V (t) + d(t)Vg = ũ(t)
|
{z
}

=

ũ(t):=−V (t)+u(t)

dV (t)
C
dt

iL (t) − iload (t),

=

(1)

where d(t) represents the duty-cycle (or the proportion of
ON duration) at time t. Note that the prescribed averaged
model does not explicitly require any information on the
output load.
Similarly we can describe the averaged dynamics of a
Boost converter (shown in Fig. 2b), given by
L

diL (t)
= Vg − d0 (t)V (t) = ũ(t)
dt
|
{z
}
ũ(t):=Vg −u(t)



dV (t)
C
= D0 + d̂0 iL (t) − iload (t) ≈ D0 iL (t) − iload (t),
dt
| {z }
≈D 0

(2)

Fig. 3: Block diagram representation of a buck-type converter.
The control signal ũ is converted to an equivalent PWM signal
to command the gate of the transistor acting as a switch.
0

0

where d (t) := 1 − d(t) and D = (Vg /Vref ). Here
ˆ =
Vref represents the desired output voltage. Note that d(t)
0
0
d (t) − D is typically very small, and therefore allows
for a linear approximation around the nominal duty-cycle,
D = 1 − D0 . We use both V and Vdc interchangeably to
denote the output voltage at the DC-link.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
This paper addresses the following primary objectives
simultaneously - (1) Output voltage regulation in presence of
time-varying loads/generation and parametric uncertainties,
(2) time-varying current (power) sharing among multiple
sources, (3) 120Hz ripple current sharing between inductor
current iL and capacitor current iC . The last two objective is
dealt in our prior work [9] and is addressed by an appropriate
design of inner-controller described in Sec. IV-A and V.
In this paper, we primarily focus on achieving the first
two objectives, while inheriting the properties of the innercontroller for ripple current sharing.
IV. CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR SINGLE
CONVERTER

A. Design of the inner-loop controller
The design for the inner-loop controller Kc is inherited
from our previous work [9]. The inner-loop controller Kc is
designed as a 2nd -order controller to ensure a relatively lowT
order optimal controller Kv = [Kv , Kr ] (see Fig. 4). The
main objective for designing the inner-loop controller Kc
is to decide the trade-off between the 120Hz ripple on the
capacitor current iC (equivalently on the output voltage Vdc )
and the inductor current iL of the converter. Accordingly,
Kc is designed such that the inner-shaped plant G̃c is given
by



ω̃
s + ω̃

s2 + 2ζ1 ω0 s + ω02
s2 + 2ζ2 ω0 s + ω02

.

trol design. Exogenous signal Vref represents the desired output
voltage. The quantities Vdc , iload and iL represent the available
measurements.

where ω0 = 2π120rad/s and ω̃, ζ1 , ζ2 are design parameters.
The parameter ω̃ > ω0 and it is used to implement a lowpass filter to attenuate undesirable frequency content in iL
beyond ω̃. Thus, the bandwidth of the inner-shpaed plant is
decided by the choice of ω̃. The parameters ζ1 and ζ2 impart
a notch-like behavior to G̃c at ω0 = 120Hz, and the size of
the notch is determined by the ratio ζ1 /ζ2 . Note that G̃c
represents the inner closed-loop plant from the output of the
outer-loop controllers u to the inductor current iL , and since
iC = iL −iload , the ratio ζ1 /ζ2 can be appropriately designed
to achieve a specified trade-off between 120Hz ripple on iC
and iL . The stabilizing 2nd -order controller Kc that yields
the aforementioned inner closed-loop plant G̃c is explicitly
given by
Kc (s) = Lω̃

(s2

(s2 + 2ζ1 ω0 s + ω02 )
.
+ 2ζ2 ω0 s + ω02 + 2(ζ2 − ζ1 )ω0 ω̃)

(4)

The readers are encouraged to refer to Sec. III in [9] for
further details on the inner-loop control design.

In this section, we describe the inner-outer controller
architecture for a single Buck converter system. The corresponding block diagram representation of the dynamical
equations in 1 is shown in Fig. 3. While the design is easily
extendable to include other converter types such as Boost
and Buck-Boost, the discussion has been confined to Buck
converters only for the sake of brevity. Unlike most other
outer-controllers, the outer-controller proposed in this paper
takes into account both DC-link voltage V and load current
iload measurements. The requirements on current sharing
are imposed through this additional iload measurement (as
explained in Sec. V).

G̃c (s) =

Fig. 4: Block diagram representation of the inner-outer con-

(3)

B. Design of the outer-loop controller
For a given choice of inner-controller Kc , we present our
analysis and design of controller in terms of transfer function
block diagrams shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, G̃c represents
the inner shaped plant. The outer controllers are denoted by
Kv and Kr , and are designed to regulate the output DC
voltage Vdc to the desired reference voltage Vref and the
inductor current iL to the load current iload , respectively.
Note that from (1), iL is equal to iload at steady-state. The
augmentation of controller Kr forms the basis for timevarying power sharing and is explained in the next section.
The performance of a Buck converter is characterized
by its voltage and power reference tracking bandwidths,
better voltage signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), and robustness to
modeling uncertainties. The main objective for the design of
the controllers Kv and Kr is to make the tracking errors
small and simultaneously attenuate measurement noise to
achieve high resolution. This is achieved by posing a modelbased multi-objective optimization framework, where the
required objectives are described in terms of norms of the
corresponding transfer functions, as described below. From
Fig. 4, the transfer function from exogenous inputs w =
T
[Vref , iload , ũ] to regulated output z = [z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 , e1 , e2 ]

is given by








z1
z2
z3
z4
e1
e2





 
 
 
=
 
 


W1
0
0
0
1
0

W1 Gv
W2
0
−W4 Gv
Gv
1

−W1 Gv G̃c
−W2 G̃c
W3
W4 Gv G̃c
−Gv G̃c
−G̃c




 Vref

  iload  . (5)


ũ


The optimization problem is to find stabilizing controllers
T
Kouter = [Kv , Kr ] such that the H∞ -norm of the above
transfer function from w to z is minimized. Here the weights
W1 , W2 , W3 and W4 are chosen to reflect the design specifications of robustness to parametric uncertainties, tracking
bandwidth, and saturation limits on the control signal. More
specifically, the weight functions W1 (jω) and W2 (jω) are
chosen to be large in frequency range [0, ωBW ] to ensure
small tracking errors e1 = Vref − Vdc and e2 = iload − iL
in this frequency range. The design of weight function
W3 (jω) entails ensuring that the control effort lies within
saturation limits. The weight function W4 is designed as a
high-pass filter to ensure that the transfer function from iload
to Vdc is small at high frequencies to provide mitigation to
measurement noise.
Current droop compensation for voltage regulation without iload measurement: So far in our analysis, we assume that
iload is available for direct measurement for all converters.
However in practice, while the converters can measure their
common DC-link voltage Vdc , iload is only estimated through
power calculations on the AC side and communicated to individual converters only at a rate slower than the sampling rate
of the controllers. In the wake of this limitation, we propose
a novel method for voltage regulation and power sharing
that is inspired by conventional voltage droop method. An
interesting aspect of the proposed implementation is that the
same outer controllers Kv and Kr along with the shaped
inner plant G̃c,n can be employed even for the scenario
where iload measurement is unavailable. In this case, the
outer controller Kr regulates the inductor current iL to
iref + f (·) ∗ (Vref − Vdc ), where f (·) represents an LTI filter
and ∗ is the convolution operator. This can be understood
as follows. Let us suppose that iref > iload = (Vref /R),
where R is the output load resistance. This in turn implies
that Vdc = iref R is bigger than Vref . Thus the compensation
term (Vref − Vdc ) < 0 and the reference to the outerloop controller Kr becomes smaller than iref , as required.
A similar inference can be drawn when iref < iload . The
corresponding block diagram is shown in Fig. 5.
Extension to Boost Converters: The extension of the
proposed control design to Boost and Buck-Boost DC-DC
converters is easily explained after noting that their averaged
models are structurally identical to Buck converters, except
that the dependence of duty cycles on the control signal u
or constant parameter D0 are different. The differences in
how duty cycles depend on u(t) do not matter from the
control design viewpoint since duty cycles for pulse-width
modulation are obtained only after obtaining the control
designs (that use the averaged models). Fig. 6 shows the

Fig. 5: Modified architecture for decentralized implementation.
F (s) represents the Laplace transform of the corresponding LTI
filter f (·). The reference to the outer controller Kr is iref + f (·) ∗
(Vref − Vdc ).

Fig. 6: Block diagram representation of the inner-outer control
design for boost-converter. Note that this representation differs from
that of the buck converter only in terms of the constant parameter
D0 and the expression that is used to obtain the duty-cycle from
the control signal ũ.

equivalent schematic of the proposed control framework for
a Boost converter system.
V. EXTENSION TO A SYSTEM OF PARALLEL
CONVERTERS
In this section we extend our control framework for a
single converter to a system of DC-DC converters connected
in parallel in the context of power sharing, keeping in
mind the practicability and robustness to modeling and load
uncertainties.
Fig. 7a represents an inner-outer control framework for a
system of m parallel connected converters. Note that instead
of feeding iload directly to the k th outer controller Krk , the
measurement signal is prescaled by a time-varying multiplier
γk , 0 ≤ γk ≤ 1. The choice of γk dictates the power sharing
requirements on the k th converter. In fact, we later show that
the proposed implementation distributes the output power in
the ratios γ1 : γ2 : .. : γm . After noting that the voltageregulation and current reference tracking is common to all
the outer controllers, in our architecture, we impose the
same design for outer-controllers for all the converters, i.e.,
Kv1 = Kv2 = .. = Kvm and Kr1 = Kr2 = .. = Krm .
This imposition enables significant reduction in the overall
complexity of the distributed control design for a parallel
network of converters and power sources, thus ensuring the
practicability of the proposed design which allows integration
of power sources of different types and values.
We design inner-controllers Kck such that the inner-shaped
plants from ũk to iLk are same and given by,

G̃c,n (s) =

ω̃
s + ω̃



s2 + 2ζ1,n ω0 s + ω02
s2 + 2ζ2,n ω0 s + ω02


,

(6)

(a)
(b)
Fig. 7: (a) Control framework for a network of m parallel converters. Here γk represents the proportion of power demanded from the
kth source. (b) A multiple-converters system with shaped inner plants G̃c . In the proposed implementation, we adopt the same outer
1
controller for different converters, i.e., Kv1 = Kv2 = .. = Kvm = m
Kv and Kr1 = Kr2 = .. = Krm = Kr .

where the ratio ζ1,n /ζ2,n determines the tradeoff of 120Hz
m
P
ripple between the total inductor current iL =
iLk
k=1

and the capacitor current iC . Note that for given values of
ζ1,n , ζ2,n and inductance Lk , explicit design of Kck exists
1
Kv and
and is given by (4). After noting that Kvk = m
Krk = Kr , the system in Fig. 7a can be simplified to Fig.
7b.
Indeed, by our choice of inner and outer controllers, the
transfer functions from external references Vref and ikref to
the desired output Vdc are identical for all converters. Hence
the entire network of parallel converters can be analyzed in
the context of an equivalent single converter system. This
implies that Kvk and Krk can be computed by solving H∞ optimization problem (as discussed in the previous section)
similar to the single converter case. We make these design
specifications more precise and bring out the equivalence
of the control design for the single and multiple converter
systems in the following theorem.
We say that the system representation in Fig. 4 is equivalent to that in Fig. 7b, when the transfer functions from the
reference voltage Vref and load current iload to the DClink voltage Vdc (and therefore the total current sourced
i = iL ) in Fig. 4 are identical to the corresponding
transfer functions in Fig. 7b. In the following theorem, we
denote the outer-voltage sensitivity
transfer function

 in Fig.
1
and the
4 from Vref to Vdc by S1 = 1+G̃ K +G
c,n r
v G̃c,n Kv
corresponding complementary sensitivity transfer function
by T1 = Gv G̃c,n Kv S1 . Similarly, we denote the outer
current sensitivity transfer function by S2 = 1+G̃ 1 K
c,n r
and the corresponding complementary transfer function by
T2 = 1 − S2 . Moreover, we define H = G̃c,n Kv S1 .
Theorem 1: Consider the single-converter system in Figure 4 with inner-shaped plant G̃c,n (s) as given in (6), outer
controllers Kv , Kr and external references Vref , iload ; and
the multi-converter system described in Figures 7a and 7b

with inner-shaped plants G̃ck = G̃c,n (s) and outer con1
trollers Kvk = m
Kv ; Krk = Kr , and external references
Vref , ikref for 1 ≤ k ≤ m. P
m
1. [System Equivalence]: If
k=1 ikref = iload , then the
system representations in Fig. 4 and Fig. 7b are equivalent.
2. [Power Sharing]: If controllers Kv and Kr are designed
such that |H(jω)|
< , |S2 (jω)| <  and the total current
P
mismatch | k ikref (jω) − iload (jω)| < ∆ at frequncy ω
for some  > 0 and ∆ > 0, then |iLk (jω) − ikref (jω)| <
(|Vref (jω)|+m|ikref (jω)|+(1+)|iload (jω)|)
m

2

∆
+ (1+)
.
m
Remark 1: Since the system representations in Figs. 4 and
7b are equivalent, the analysis and design of the entire multiconverter system can be done using an equivalent single
converter system, where the multi-converter system inherits
the performance and robustness achieved by a design for the
single-converter system.
Remark 2: While the sensitivity transfer functions S1 and
S2 can be made sufficiently small by designing appropriate
high DC-gain controllers, the transfer function H is also
small at sufficiently low-frequencies. In fact, it can be easily
shown that |H(j0)| = 0, since |G̃c,n (j0)| = 1 and Gv (s) =
1/(sC), which has infinite DC-gain.
Remark 3: Note that from power-sharing
result in the above
P
theorem, if ikref = γk iload , where k γk = 1, γk ≥ 0, then
the output current at the DC-link gets divided approximately
in the ratio γ1 : γ2 : · · · : γm ; more precisely the lowfrequency components (and thus the steady-state) iL1 : iL2 :
· · · : iLm ≈ γ1 : γ2 : · · · : γm .
Proof: See Appendix.

VI. CASE STUDIES: SIMULATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS
In this section, we report some simulation studies that
cover different aspects of the proposed distributed control
design. All simulations are performed in MATLAB/Simulink
using SimPower/SimElectronics library. Note that the experiments are underway and therefore not reported in this paper.

In order to include nonlinearities associated with real-world
experiments, and effects of switching frequencies on voltage
regulation and power sharing, we use non-ideal components
(such as diodes with non-zero forward-bias voltage, IGBT
switches, stray capacitances, parametric uncertainties) and
switched level implementation.
A. Robustness to Modeling Parameters
Traditional control techniques such as proportionalintegral (PI) based control designs exhibit satisfactory performance when the actual converter system parameters (L, C)
lie close to the nominal system parameters for which the
controllers are to be designed. A slight deviation from
the nominal values may result in rapid degradation in the
tracking performance and power sharing. The issue is particularly critical in power electronic systems where individual
component values have large tolerance about the nominal
values. The lack of robustness is addressed through H∞ robust control framework, where an optimizing controller with
guaranteed margins of robustness to modeling uncertainties
is sought.
Fig. 8a shows the tracking performance of the proposed
robust inner-outer controllers for 20% uncertainty in indcutance (L) and capacitance (C) values. The actual converter
parameters are chosen as:
C = 500µF, L = 1.2mH, Switching-frequency fs = 50kHz,
Input voltage Vg = 480V , Desired output voltage Vref =
240V , Load-current iload = 20 + 0.4 sin(2π120t)
The design parameters for the inner-controller Kc are:
Damping factors ζ1 = 1.2, ζ2 = 2.1, and ω̃ = 2π200rad/s.
The outer controllers Kv and Kr are obtained by solving the
stacked H∞ optimization problem (see Eq. (5)) [11] with the
weighting functions:
W1 =

0.5(s + 628.3)
0.5(s + 502.7)
, W2 =
, W3 = 0.1
(s + 2.513)
(s + 3.142)

The resulting outer-controllers are reduced to sixth-order
using balanced reduction [12] and are given by,
Kv

=

Kr

=

(s − 8.69e5) (s + 2.01e4) (s + 2577)
(s + 2.73e4) (s + 1.07e4) (s + 433.9)
(s + 194.2) (s2 + 0.02s + 0.0001)
(s + 2.498) (s2 + 0.01978s + 0.0008)
(s + 4.07e5) (s + 2474) (s + 191.7)
0.065
(s + 1.15e4) (s + 422.4) (s + 3.11)
(s + 3.20) (s + 0.01)(s + 0.0099)
(s + 2.03) (s2 + 0.01978s + 0.0008)
−0.0076

Optimal structure of outer-loop controllers: For the
stacked H∞ problem, the outer-loop controllers Kv and
Kr are observed to be constant multiples of each other for
a number of choices of weighting functions W1 and W2 .
While we are yet to explore the reasons for the underlying
optimal structure, the optimal structure significantly reduces
the complexity of the distributed control design by allowing
to get rid of the controller Kr from the outer-loop and
modifying the input of the controller Kv to Vref − Vdc +
α(iload − iL ). Here α > 0 is an appropriate constant which
captures the relationship between the outer-loop controllers
Kv and Kr . We believe that the constant α is related to the

Fig. 9: Power sharing among three buck-converters for Vref =
240V and R = 12Ω in the prescribed ratios. The controllers allow
for rapidly varying power-sharing requirements.

system parameters L and C, however, this is something we
would definitely like to explore in our future work.
B. Current Sharing among Converters
Fig. 9 shows the system performance for time-varying
output current sharing among three Buck converters. The
following parameters are assumed for the three converters
- L1 = 1.2mH, Vg1 = 480V ; L2 = 1.6mH, Vg2 = 460V ;
L3 = 1.9mH, Vg3 = 480V . Clearly, the total load current
is 20A. The converters divide the load current in the ratios
10 : 4 : 6 for t ∈ [0, 0.3s]; 4 : 8 : 8 for t ∈ [0.3s, 0.5s] and
6 : 4 : 10 for t ∈ [0.5s, 0.6s], as required.
C. Current Sharing and Voltage Regulation without iload
measurement
We now consider the scenario when iload measurement
is unavailable. In this case, the input to the outer-loop
controller Kr is some nominal reference current iref plus a
compensation term which is a manifestation of error in voltage reference tracking. This can be understood as follows.
Fig. 10 shows the system performance for voltage reference
tracking for the proposed decentralized implementation. Note
that despite the unavailability of load current measurement,
the controller regulates the DC-link voltage to the desired
reference voltage, albeit with relatively larger overshoot.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
In this work, we propose a distributed control architecture for voltage tracking and power sharing for a network
of DC-DC converters connected in parallel. The proposed
design is capable of achieving multiple objectives such as
robustness to modeling uncertainties, reference DC voltage
generation and output power sharing among multiple DC
sources. The controllers are designed using a robust optimal
control framework. We also propose a novel approach for
decentralized implementation, where the load current is not
available for measurement. We are currently setting up the
experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
implementation. Moreover, the optimal structure of the outerloop controllers Kv and Kr needs to be analyzed in full
details to gain further insights into the problem of voltage
control of DC-DC converters.

(a)
(b)
Fig. 8: (a) Robustness to model parameters. The proposed controller tracks the desired voltage in presence of parametric uncertainties
and ripple in load current. (b) Bode plots of the outer-loop controllers. It can be observed that the two controller transfer functions are
constant multiples of one-another.

ikref for the k th converter (in terms of signals Vref , iload
and ikref ) is given by
iLk − ikref =

1
1
HVref − T1 T2
m
m
+

!
X

ikr ef − iload

k

1
T1 S2 iload − S2 ikr ef
m

(9)

Moreover, we have |T1 (jω)| < 1 +  and |T2 (jω)| < 1 + .
Thus from (9) and conditions of the theorem, we get
|iLk (jω) − ikref (jω)| <

Fig. 10: A droop-like approach for voltage regulation in the
absence of iload measurement. The converter is required to regulate
the output voltage to 240V . The load R is chosen to be 12Ω. This
corresponds to an iload = 20A. However, in the absence of iload
measurement, we assume iref = 16A. The filter transfer function
376.99
is chosen as F (s) = s+314.16
.

APPENDIX

Proof: The underlying equivalence is straightforward
to derive. From Fig. 4, with G̃c (s) = G̃c,n (s), the output
DC-link voltage in terms of the exogenous signals Vref and
iload is given by


1
1+ G̃c,n Kr +Gv G̃c,n Kv



Gv G̃c,n Kv Vref − Gv iload



(7)

However, from Figs. 7a and 7b, we obtain
Vdc = Gv

−iload + G̃c,n

m
X

!
ũk

k=1


ũk =

1
1 + G̃c,n Kr



Additionally, if ikref = γk iload , then the total current mismatch term in (9) is zero. Moreover, through an appropriate
design of high DC-gain controllers, we have that there exists
a sufficiently small  > 0 such that for ω << ωBW , where
ωBW is bandwidth of the closed-loop system, |H(jω)| < 
and |S2 (jω)| < . Then from (10) we obtain,
|iLk (jω)−γk iload (jω)| <

Proof of Theorem 1: System Equivalence

Vdc =

(1 + )

|Vref (jω)| +
|iload (jω)|
m
m
2
(1 + ) ∆
+
+ |ikref (jω)| (10)
m

1
Kv (Vref − Vdc ) + Kr ikref
m


(8)

Pm
From Eq. (8) and using the fact that k=1 ikref = iload we
recover Eq. (7), which establishes the required equivalence.

Proof of Theorem 1: Power Sharing
Proof: From Fig. 8b, it can be shown that the difference
between the inductor current iLk and the reference current



|Vref (jω)|+ |iload (jω)|
m
m
+|ikref (jω)|

(11)

Thus |iLk (jω)−γk iload (jω)| is small for ω << ωBW and
therefore, the load current gets approximately divided in the
ratio γ1 : γ2 : · · · : γm .
R EFERENCES
[1] R. H. Lasseter, “Microgrids,” in Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting, 2002. IEEE, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. 305–308.
[2] N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani, and C. Marnay, “Microgrids,”
Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 78–94, 2007.
[3] C. Olalla, R. Leyva, A. El Aroudi, P. Garces, and I. Queinnec,
“Lmi robust control design for boost pwm converters,” IET Power
Electronics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 2010.
[4] G. Weiss, Q.-C. Zhong, T. C. Green, and J. Liang, “H repetitive
control of dc-ac converters in microgrids,” Power Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 219–230, 2004.
[5] T. Hornik and Q.-C. Zhong, “A current-control strategy for voltagesource inverters in microgrids based on and repetitive control,” Power
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 943–952, 2011.
[6] S. Salapaka, B. Johnson, B. Lundstrom, S. Kim, S. Collyer, and
M. Salapaka, “Viability and analysis of implementing only voltagepower droop for parallel inverter systems,” in Decision and Control
(CDC), 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp.
3246–3251.

[7] Y. Panov, J. Rajagopalan, and F. C. Lee, “Analysis and design
of n paralleled dc-dc converters with master-slave current-sharing
control,” in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition,
1997. APEC’97 Conference Proceedings 1997., Twelfth Annual, vol. 1.
IEEE, 1997, pp. 436–442.
[8] R.-H. Wu, T. Kohama, Y. Kodera, T. Ninomiya, and F. Ihara, “Loadcurrent-sharing control for parallel operation of dc-to-dc converters,”
in Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 1993. PESC’93 Record.,
24th Annual IEEE. IEEE, 1993, pp. 101–107.
[9] M. Baranwal, S. M. Salapaka, and M. V. Salapaka, “Robust decentralized voltage control of dc-dc converters with applications to
power sharing and ripple sharing,” in American Control Conference
(ACC), 2016 - To Appear. IEEE, 2016, http://web.engr.illinois.edu/
∼baranwa2/ACC2016/2016ACC 1392 FI.pdf.
[10] R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of power electronics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
[11] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable feedback control:
analysis and design. Wiley New York, 2007, vol. 2.
[12] G. E. Dullerud and F. Paganini, A course in robust control theory: a
convex approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, vol. 36.

