Mixed Voltage Angle and Frequency Droop Control for Transient
Stability of Interconnected Microgrids

arXiv:1803.02918v1 [] 7 Mar 2018

S Sivaranjani* , Etika Agarwal* , Le Xie, Vijay Gupta and Panos Antsaklis
Abstract— We present a dissipativity-based control design for
transient stability of voltage angle droop controlled interconnected microgrids, in scenarios where voltage angle measurements may be lost. In the absence of angle measurements
from some microgrids, we show that indirect control via
traditional frequency droop controllers can be employed in
those microgrids to guarantee stability of the interconnection.
We model this mixed angle-frequency droop control (MAFD)
framework as a nonlinear switched system, and provide control
design equations in the form of linear matrix inequalities to
guarantee stability under arbitrary switching between angle
droop and frequency droop controllers. We demonstrate the
performance of this design on a test system of interconnected
microgrids under conditions of measurement loss and load
changes.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The large-scale integration of renewable and distributed
energy resources (DERs) into the power grid, especially
at the distribution level, has motivated the deployment of
architectures where several small DERs, storage units and
local loads are aggregated into clusters known as microgrids.
These microgrids exchange power with each other in order to
compensate for transient conditions like intermittency in renewable generation and mismatches between local generation
and loads [1]. While the stabilization of individual microgrids
is an extensively studied problem (see [2] and the references
therein), guaranteeing stable operation of interconnected microgrids under transient conditions has only recently gained
attention [3]-[6].
In traditional power grids with synchronous generators,
the real and reactive power outputs of the generators are controlled using frequency and voltage droop controllers respectively. On the other hand, the use of fast-acting voltage angle
droop controllers in lieu of frequency droop controllers has
been demonstrated to result in superior transient performance
and stability properties in interconnected AC microgrids
with high renewable energy penetration, where synchronous
generators are replaced by power electronic interfaced asynchronous generators [7]. The reliable functioning of these
angle droop controllers is contingent upon the availability
of an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) signal for
synchronization of the angle reference across the system.
However, GPS signals are frequently lost due to factors such
as weather events, atmospheric disturbances and antenna
S Sivaranjani, Etika Agarwal, Vijay Gupta and Panos Antsaklis are
with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame,
South Bend, IN. {sseethar,eagarwal,vgupta2,pantsakl}@nd.edu. Le Xie is
with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX. le.xie@tamu.edu.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.

failure, leading to the loss of angle measurements [8], which
can potentially result in poor transient performance and even
instability in the system.
In this paper, we present a novel mixed angle-frequency
droop control framework where traditional frequency droop
controllers are used to indirectly regulate real power in those
microgrids where angle measurements are lost. In this framework, we first model the interconnection of microgrids as a
nonlinear switched system where each microgrid switches
arbitrarily between one of two modes, corresponding to the
use of angle droop or frequency droop controllers respectively. We then design a controller based on a linearization
of this model, that uses either angle or frequency measurements depending on availability, to render the original
nonlinear switched system QSR-dissipative [9], [10], and
hence stable. We employ a dissipativity-based control design
approach since several properties like stability, robustness
and performance bounds can be captured in this framework. Furthermore, dissipativity-based designs [11]-[13] and
related energy-based designs [14], [15] have been shown
to improve stability margins and transient performance in
both traditional grids as well as microgrids with large-scale
renewable integration.
The contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we
provide a novel modeling framework for mixed voltage
angle and frequency droop control, termed in short as mixed
angle-frequency droop control (MAFD), of interconnected
microgrids where loss of voltage angle measurements is
compensated for by the use of frequency measurements.
To the best of our knowledge, this framework is the first
to actively account and compensate for the loss of angle
measurements in droop controlled microgrids. Second, we
design dissipativity-based angle and frequency droop controllers that guarantee the stability of the interconnected
microgrid system even when angle measurements are lost.
Third, the control design equations are provided in the form
of simple linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) that guarantee
stability of the nonlinear switched system model based on
its linear approximation. This result extends the passivitybased state-feedback control design for nonlinear discretetime switched systems in our earlier work [11] to a more
general continuous-time output-feedback dissipativity framework. Finally, we demonstrate the performance of this design
by simulation on a test system under conditions of angle
measurement loss and load changes.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we
describe the MAFD modeling framework in detail and formally state the transient stability problem. In Section III,

we propose a dissipativity-based control design that ensures
transient stability of the interconnected microgrid system
with MAFD. Finally, we provide a case study in Section
IV to demonstrate the performance of the proposed design,
and provide directions for future work in Section V.
Notation: The set of real numbers, the set of positive real
numbers including zero, and the set of n-dimensional real
vectors are denoted by R, R+ and Rn respectively. The ith component of a vector v is denoted by [v]i . For a matrix
A ∈ Rm×n , the (i, j)-th element is represented by [A]i,j and
the transpose is represented by A0 ∈ Rn×m . The standard
identity matrix is denoted by I, with dimensions clear from
the context. If a symmetric matrix P ∈ Rn×n is positive
definite, it is represented as P > 0 (and as P ≥ 0, if
it is positive semi-definite). For a set B, |B| denotes its
cardinality. For two sets A and B, A\B represents the set of
all elements √
of A that are not in B. For a complex number
n = a + b −1, a, b ∈ R, |n| represents its magnitude
√
a2 + b2 and ∠n represents its phase angle arctan(b/a).
For a set Σ = {a, b}, a, b ∈ R and n ∈ R+ \{0}, Σn
represents the set of all possible v ∈ Rn , where each
[v]i ∈ Σ, i ∈ 1, . . . , n.
II. MAFD M ODEL AND T RANSIENT S TABILITY
P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
In this section, we derive a model for mixed anglefrequency droop control (MAFD) of interconnected microgrids. We define the network of interconnected microgrids
by a weighted undirected graph G(V, E), whose nodes V
represent buses and edges E represent power transmission
lines connecting these buses. We assume that a power
electronic interfaced microgrid is connected to every node
v ∈ V. The incidence matrix for this network is denoted
by T ∈ R|V|×|V| , where T = [Tjk ], j, k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , |V|},
with Tjk = 1 if there exists an edge connecting node j to k
and Tjk = 0 otherwise. We assume Tjj = 1, that is, every
node has a self-loop. To every edge between
nodes j and k,
√
we assign a weight Yjk = Gjk + Bjk −1, representing the
complex admittance of the line between j and k, with Gjk
and Bjk being its conductance and susceptance respectively.
Similarly, the self
√ admittance at node j ∈ V is denoted by
Yjj = Gjj +Bjj −1. The set of neighbors of microgrid j is
denoted by Nj = {k ∈ V : Tjk = 1}. Using the standard AC
power flow model, the net real and reactive power injections,
j
Pinj
(t) and Qjinj (t) at the j-th bus at time t are given by
j
Pinj
(t) =

X

Vj (t)Vk (t)|Yjk | sin(δjk (t) + π/2 − ∠Yjk )

k∈Nj

Qjinj (t)

=

X

Vj (t)Vk (t)|Yjk | sin(δjk (t) − ∠Yjk ),

(1)

k∈Nj

where Vj (t) and δj (t) represent the voltage magnitude and
phase angle at the j-th bus respectively, and δjk (t) = δj (t)−
δk (t).
Frequency Droop Control: Traditionally, the real and reactive power injections are regulated to desired set points (to
compensate for the generation-load mismatch) by frequency
droop and voltage droop controllers respectively. For every

i ∈ V, the error dynamics of the microgrid (with frequency
and voltage droop control) connected to bus i are given by
∆δ̇i (t) = ∆ωi (t)
Jωi ∆ω̇i (t) =
JVi ∆V̇i (t) =

(2)

i
i
−Dωi ∆ωi (t) + ∆Pext
(t) − ∆Pinj
(t)
i
i
−DVi ∆Vi (t) + ∆Qext (t) − ∆Qinj (t),

(3)
(4)

where ∆δi (t) = δi (t) − δiref , ∆ωi (t) = ωi (t) − ωiref ,
i,ref
i
i
∆Vi (t) = Vi (t) − Viref , ∆Pinj
(t) = Pinj
(t) − Pinj
and
are
the
deviations
of
the
angle,
∆Qiinj (t) = Qiinj − Qi,ref
inj
frequency, voltage and real and reactive power injections at
the i-th bus from their reference values δiref , ωiref , Viref ,
i,ref
i
i
and Qi,ref
Pinj
inj respectively, and ∆Pext (t) and ∆Qext (t)
represent the mismatch between the net generation and load
at the i-th microgrid. The constants Jωi , Dωi , JVi and DVi
represent the equivalent inertia and damping coefficients of
the microgrid dynamics corresponding to the frequency and
i
voltage control loops. Note that (1) holds with Pinj
(t) =
i,ref
i,ref
ref
i
Pinj , Qinj (t) = Qinj , Vj (t) = Vj , Vk (t) = Vkref and
δjk (t) = δjref − δkref .
Remark 1: The references for the voltages, angles, frequencies and power injections have been assumed to be constant. This assumption is reasonable, since these references
are typically recomputed by solving (1) at intervals of several
minutes to hours, and can be assumed to be constant with
respect to the fast time scales involved in transient analysis.
Angle Droop Control: The frequency droop control
scheme regulates the real power injection in (1) by indirect
control of the angle via (2) and (3). However, frequency
droop control has been demonstrated to suffer from issues
like slow transient response and frequency drifts [7]. In
converter interfaced microgrids, direct control of the voltage
angle by fast-acting power electronics has emerged as an
attractive alternative to classical frequency droop control
[3][5]. Such angle droop control techniques have been enabled by advances in traditional and micro phasor measurement unit (PMU) technology that have made it possible
to obtain accurate angle measurements in real-time. In this
paper, we employ the angle droop control scheme in [12],
where the error dynamics of the microgrid connected to every
i ∈ V at time t are described by
i
i
Jδi ∆δ̇i (t) = −Dδi ∆δi (t) + ∆Pext
(t) − ∆Pinj
(t)

JVi ∆V̇i (t) = −DVi ∆Vi (t) +

∆Qiext (t)

−

∆Qiinj (t),

(5)
(6)

where Jδi and Dδi are the equivalent inertia and damping
coefficients of the i-th microgrid with respect to the angle
droop control loop (see [12] for the computation of these
coefficients).
Mixed Angle-Frequency Droop Control (MAFD): The
real-time measurement of angle by PMUs relies on a GPS
signal to provide an accurate reference for measurement
synchronization. Therefore, angle measurements may be frequently lost due to weather and atmospheric events affecting
the GPS signal [8]. Occasionally, sensor malfunction may
also lead to loss of angle measurements. Due to the high sensitivity and fast-acting dynamics of the angle droop control

loop, a loss of angle measurement may quickly lead to poor
transient performance and even instability in the network. To
address this issue, we propose an MAFD scheme that uses
traditional frequency droop control in lieu of angle droop
control when angle measurements are lost. We now formulate
this MAFD framework as a switched system model.
For every i ∈ V, we define a switching signal σi (t) :
R+ → Σ, where Σ = {1, 2} is the set of admissible
switching values. At every time t, σi (t) can arbitrarily take
a value of either 1 or 2, corresponding to the availability or
non-availability of angle measurements respectively, at the
i-th microgrid. While the switching signal is not known a
priori, we assume that its instantaneous value is available in
real-time. The error dynamics of the the i-th microgrid are
now written as
ẋi (t) = fσi i (t) (xi (t), ui (t), wi (t))
(7)
ui (t) = hi (xi (t)),
where xi (t)
=
[∆δi (t)
∆ωi (t)
∆Vi (t)]0 ,
i
i
0
ui (t)
=
[∆Pinj (t) ∆Qinj (t)] and wi (t)
=
i
[∆Pext
(t) ∆Qiext (t)]0 . When σi (t) = 2, that is, in
the absence of angle measurements, the frequency droop
controllers are employed and the system dynamics
f2i (xi (t), ui (t), wi (t)) are described by (2)-(4). When
σi (t) = 1, the angle droop controllers are used, and the
dynamics f1i (xi (t), ui (t), wi (t)) are described by (5) and
(6). In addition, we propagate the dynamics of the frequency
error ∆ωi (t) in the angle droop control mode as

Dδ
1
Dδi
i
− i ∆δi (t) +
∆Pext
(t)
∆ω̇i (t) = −
Jδi
Jδi
Jδi

(8)
1
1
i
i
∆Pinj
(t) −
∆Ṗinj
(t),
−
Jδi
Jδi
i
i
where ∆Ṗinj
(t) is the derivative of ∆Pinj
(t) with respect to
time t, which can be computed from (1). Note that regardless
of the value of σi (t), hi (xi (t)) is given by (1) since the
power flow equations do not change with angle or frequency
droop control.
Remark 2: Typical models used in angle droop control ignore the dynamics of the frequency error since experimental
studies have demonstrated that the variations in frequency are
negligible with these angle droop designs [3][7]. However, in
contrast to these models, we propagate the dynamics of the
frequency error ∆ωi (t) through (8) even in the angle droop
control mode in the MAFD framework for two reasons:
(i) To ensure continuity of the state xi (t), (2) must be
satisfied at every switching instant. This is automatically
ensured for switches from the frequency droop to the
angle droop mode. For switches from the angle droop
mode to the frequency droop mode, (8) is sufficient to
ensure continuity of the state at the switching instant,
since it enforces ∆ω̇i (t) = ∆δ¨i (t) for all time t.
(ii) Since frequency measurements may not be instantaneously available at the time of switching, the dynamics
in (8) can provide the added advantage of serving as an
estimate of the frequency error that can be used by the
frequency droop controller at the switching instant.

Note that (8) has been derived by assuming that the derivative
i
∆Ṗext
(t) = 0. This is a reasonable assumption since the
mismatch error is small when the system is close to steady
state. We define the augmented state, input and disturbance
vectors for this system as x(t)=[x01 (t), x02 (t), . . . , x0|V| (t)]0 ,
u(t)=[u01 (t), u02 (t), . . . , u0|V| (t)]0
and
w(t)
=
0
[w10 (t), w20 (t), . . . , w|V|
(t)]0 respectively. We also define an
output vector yi (t) for every i ∈ V as
yi (t) = gσi i (t) (xi (t), ui (t), wi (t)),

(9)

where gσi i (t) (t) = [∆δ̇i (t) ∆Vi (t)]0 when σi (t) = 1 and
gσi i (t) (t) = [∆ω̇i (t) ∆Vi (t)]0 when σi (t) = 2. With the
augmented switching vector σ(t) = [σ1 (t), · · · , σ|V| (t)]0
where σ(t) ∈ Σ|V| , we can write the dynamics of the
interconnected microgrids in the MAFD framework as the
nonlinear switched system
ẋ(t) = fσ(t) (x(t), u(t), w(t))
y(t) = gσ(t) (x(t), w(t))

(10a)

u(t) = h(x(t)),

 1

 1
fσ11 (t)
gσ1 (t)
h
 . 
 . 

. 
 . 
. 
=
 .  , gσ(t) =  .  , h =  ..  .
|V|
|V|
h|V|
fσ|V| (t)
gσ|V| (t)


fσ(t)

(10b)
Note that the origin x(t) = 0 is an equilibrium of (10). We
linearize each mode j ∈ Σ|V| of (10) around the origin to
obtain the linear switched system model
(1)

(2)

ẋ(t) = Aσ(t) x(t) + Bσ(t) u(t) + Bσ(t) w(t)
(11a)

y(t) = Cσ(t) x(t) + Dσ(t) w(t)
u(t) = Hx(t),
Aj =

∂fj
∂x

Cj =

∂gj
∂x

,
x=0
w=0

,
x=0
w=0



(1)

Bj

=

Dj =
∂u1
∂x1

 .
.
H=
 .

∂u|V|
∂x1

∂fj
∂u
∂gj
∂w

···
..
.
···

(2)

,

Bj

x=0
w=0

=

,

∂fj
∂w

x=0
w=0

(11b)

x=0
w=0
∂u1 
∂x|V|

.. 
. 


∂u|V|
∂x|V|

(11c)

x=0,w=0

where
 ∂∆P i
inj
∂ui
∂∆δk

=
∂∆Qiinj
∂xk
∂∆δk

i
∂∆Pinj
∂∆ωk

i
∂∆Pinj
∂∆Vk

∂∆Qiinj
∂∆ωk

∂∆Qiinj
∂∆Vk


, i, k ∈ {1, · · · , |V|}.

The matrix H is known as the power flow Jacobian corresponding to the linearization of (1). We now formally state
the transient stability problem addressed in this paper.
Problem: [Transient Stability] Given the linearized
switched system model (11), design an output-feedback
control input ũ(t) = Kσ(t) y(t), Kj ∈ R2|V|×2|V| , j ∈ Σ|V| ,

such that the nonlinear switched system (10) with u(t) 7→
u(t)+ ũ(t) is locally stable with respect to w(t) (in the sense
of L2 stability) for an arbitrary switching signal σ(t).
III. C ONTROL S YNTHESIS
We now present an approach based on the notion of QSRdissipativity [9], [10] to design control inputs for the MAFD
framework discussed in Section II, with the aim of ensuring
stability when the system switches arbitrarily between angle
droop and frequency droop control modes. The proofs of all
the results in this section are collected in the Appendix for
enhanced clarity.
A. Preliminaries
We begin by presenting some preliminary definitions and
results that will be used in this work.
Definition 1: (QSR-dissipativity) A switched system (10)
is said to be QSR-dissipative with input w and dissipativity
matrices Qj , Sj and Rj , j ∈ Σ|V| , if there exists a positive
definite storage function V (x) : R3|V| → R+ such that for
all t ≥ t0 ≥ 0
0 


Z t
Qj Sj y(τ )
y(τ )
dτ ≥ V (x(t)) − V (x(t0 ))
Sj0 Rj w(τ )
t0 w(τ )
(12)
holds where x(t) is the state at time t resulting from the
initial condition x(t0 ) and input function w(·). If the storage
function V (·) is differentiable, (12) can also be written as

0 


Qj Sj y(t)
y(t)
≥ V̇ (x(t)), ∀t ∈ R+ . (13)
Sj0 Rj w(t)
w(t)
Additionally, (10) is said to be QSR-state strictly input
dissipative (QSR-SSID) if, for all t ∈ R+ and j ∈ Σ|V| ,
we have

0 


Qj Sj y(t)
y(t)
≥ V̇ (x(t))
Sj0 Rj w(t)
w(t)
+ φj (w(t)) + ψj (x(t)),

(14)

where φj (·), ψj (·) are positive definite functions of w(t) and
x(t) respectively.
Definition 2: (Local QSR-dissipativity) A switched system (10) is said to be locally QSR-dissipative if it is QSRdissipative for all x ∈ X and w ∈ W where X × W is a
neighborhood of x = 0 and w = 0.
Note that QSR-dissipativity is a special case of the dissipativity notion for switched systems in [16] with quadratic
supply rate functions and a common energy storage function
V (·) for all the modes. QSR-dissipativity is closely related
to input-output stability of the switched system as follows.
Theorem 1: A QSR-dissipative switched system (10) is
L2 stable if Qj < 0 for every j ∈ Σ|V| .
In addition to the stability guarantee in Theorem 1, the
QSR-dissipativity can also be used to capture several other
properties such as robustness and transient performance via
appropriate choice of the Qj , Sj and Rj matrices.

B. Design Equations
Given the background in Section III-A, it is clear that
local stability of closed loop system can be guaranteed by
choosing the control input ũ(t) such that (10) is locally
QSR-dissipative for u(t) 7→ u(t) + ũ(t), with Qj < 0,
j ∈ Σ|V| . However, it can be quite difficult to design such a
control input for nonlinear systems, especially with the added
complexity resulting from switching dynamics. Therefore,
we develop a novel control design to ensure local QSRdissipativity of the nonlinear switched system (10) from that
of its first order approximation (11).
We first provide a relationship between the QSRdissipativity properties of (10) and (11). We then formulate
the output feedback control design equations for ũ(t) as a
set of LMIs that guarantee the QSR-dissipativity, and hence
stability of the nonlinear switched system (10).
Proposition 1: The nonlinear switched system (10) is
locally QSR-dissipative if its linear approximation in (11)
is QSR-SSID with the same dissipativity matrices and a
quadratic storage function V (x(t)) = x(t)0 P x(t), where
P ∈ R3|V|×3|V| and P > 0.
Theorem 2: The linear switched system (11) is QSRSSID with dissipativity matrices Qj < 0, Sj and Rj ,
j ∈ Σ|V| and a quadratic storage function if there exists
a symmetric positive definite P ∈ R3|V|×3|V| such that


(2)
1/2
−P Ãj − Ã0j P
Cj0 Sj − P Bj
−Cj0 Qj−


0
 0

>0
Sj Cj − Bj(2) P Dj0 Sj + Sj0 Dj + Rj −Dj0 Q1/2
j− 


1/2
1/2
−Qj− Cj
−Qj− Dj
I
(15)
(1)
holds for all j ∈ Σ|V| , where Ãj = Aj + Bj H and
1/2 1/2
Qj− Qj− = −Qj .
We now design output feedback controllers
ũ(t) = Kσ(t) y(t)
such that the closed loop system (10) with u(t) 7→ u(t)+ũ(t)
is locally-QSR dissipative.
(1)
Theorem 3: If for all j ∈ Σ|V| , Bj is full column rank
and there exists symmetric positive definite matrix P ∈
R3|V|×3|V| and matrices Uj , Vj of appropriate dimensions
such that (16) holds, then the output feedback control law
u(t) 7→ u(t) + ũ(t) where ũ(t) = Kσ(t) y(t) with
Kj = Vj−1 Uj ,

∀j ∈ Σ|V|

(17)

renders the system (10) locally QSR-dissipative for arbitrary
switching. The dissipativity matrices for closed loop system
are given by Qj < 0, Sj and Rj , j ∈ Σ|V| . Furthermore, the
closed loop system is locally L2 stable.
Theorem 3 provides control design equations to ensure local
stability of the nonlinear switched system (10), based on its
linearized model (11).
Remark 3: We make the following comments about the
proposed control synthesis.
(i) The design equations in (16) are provided in the form
of simple LMIs, rather than the nonlinear matrix inequalities typically encountered in dissipativity-based


(1)0
(1)
(1)
(1)
−P (Aj + Bj H) − (Aj + Bj H)0 P − Bj Uj Cj − Cj0 Uj0 Bj


(2)0
(1)0

−Bj P − Dj0 Uj0 Bj + Sj0 Cj

1/2
−Qj− Cj
(1)

P Bj

(1)

= Bj Vj ,

designs for nonlinear switched systems [17]–[19]. The
controller thus obtained is sufficient to guarantee the
stability of the interconnected microgrid system (10)
under arbitrary loss of angle measurement.
(ii) Note that the results in Section III-B are more generally applicable to any nonlinear switched system with
arbitrary switching, not restricted to interconnected microgrids system of the form of (10).
(iii) The linear controllers in (17) can be easily implemented
using battery energy storage systems (BESS) [5].

1/2

(2)
−P Bj

(1)
Bj Uj Dj

+

+ Sj0 Dj +
1/2
−Qj− Dj

Rj

−

Dj0 S



1/2
−Cj0 Qj−

1/2 
−Dj0 Qj− 


>0

I

(16a)
(16b)

1/2

Qj− Qj− = −Qj

Fig. 1.

Interconnected microgrid network parameters (p.u.).

IV. C ASE S TUDY
We consider a three-microgrid interconnection as shown
in Fig. 1 with the power flow operating point provided in
Table I to illustrate the MAFD design. We obtain a nonlinear
switched system model of this network (σ(t) ∈ Σ3 ), which
is then linearized around the power flow operating point.
We design an output-feedback MAFD controller by solving
(16) using YALMIP/SeDuMi [20], [21] with the linearized
model for every j ∈ Σ3 . For comparison, we also design a
dissipativity-based angle droop controller by solving (16) for
the linearized model obtained from (1), (5) and (6). In both
cases, the dissipativity matrices Qj , Sj and Rj are suitably
chosen to ensure L2 stability. The MAFD and angle droop
controllers are implemented by varying the real and reactive
power reserves of 5 p.u. and 3 p.u respectively at each microgrid, proportional to ũ(t) = Kσ(t) y(t), using BESS [5]. We
compare the performance of the MAFD controller with the
angle droop controller (Fig. 2) by simulation on the original
nonlinear system (10), when angle measurements are lost at
µG1 and µG3 from t=4s to t=12s (σ(t)=[2 1 2]0 from t=4s
to t=12s and σ(t) = [1 1 1]0 otherwise), and a load change
(disturbance) of w(t) = [∆Pext (t) ∆Qext (t)]0 = [1.5 1.5]0
p.u. occurs from t=5s to t=8s. During measurement loss, the
angle droop controller uses the last available measurements
at µG1 and µG3 . We make the following observations:
• The MAFD scheme shows superior transient performance and stability, driving the voltage and angle errors
to zero, while the angle droop control scheme suffers
from large voltage and angle overshoots (≈ 40%).
• With angle droop control alone, the voltage error continues to rise until the disturbance is withdrawn at t = 8s,
indicating that the controller is unable to stabilize the
system with this disturbance. On the other hand, the
voltage error with the MAFD scheme settles at t = 6.7s,
even while the disturbance is active, indicating that the
MAFD scheme enhances system stability.

Cj0 Sj

TABLE I
P OWER FLOW SOLUTION

µG1
µG2
µG3

ref
Pinj
(p.u.)

Qref
inj
(p.u.)

ref
Pload
(p.u.)

Qref
load
(p.u.)

V ref
(p.u.)

δ ref
(deg.)

0.60
0.60
0.40

0.48
0.20
0.10

0.92
0.23
0.45

0.47
0.11
0.20

1.000
1.002
1.001

0.000
0.089
0.108

Fig. 2. Angle and voltage errors with angle droop control and MAFD under
loss of angle measurement at µG1 and µG3 from t = 4s to t = 12s, and
a load change of ∆Pext = ∆Qext = 1.5p.u. from t = 5s to t = 8s.

V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
We presented a mixed angle-frequency droop control
(MAFD) framework for interconnected microgrids where
angle measurements may be intermittently lost and proposed
a dissipativity-based control design that guarantees transient
stability. Future work will involve distributed designs to
facilitate ad-hoc interconnection architectures and reduce the
computational complexity for large-scale implementation.

A PPENDIX

R EFERENCES

Proof of Theorem 1: Since (12) with Qj < 0 holds for all
j ∈ Σ|V| , from [22, Theorem 7.2], every mode of (10a) is
L2 -stable. If the L2 -gain of j th mode is γj , then it can easily
be seen that the switched system (10) is also L2 -stable with
a gain max{γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γ|V| }.

Proof of Proposition 1: Due to space constraints, we only
provide an outline of the proof. If the linear switched system
(11) is QSR-SSID, then (14) is true for all j ∈ Σ|V| .
Substituting the dynamics (11) in (14), we have

0 

x(t)
x(t)
Γj
> φj (w(t)) + ψj (x(t)),
(18)
w(t)
w(t)

[1] R. H. Lasseter, “Smart distribution: Coupled microgrids,” Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1074–1082, 2011.
[2] D. E. Olivares, A. Mehrizi-Sani, A. H. Etemadi, C. A. Cañizares,
R. Iravani, M. Kazerani, A. H. Hajimiragha, O. Gomis-Bellmunt,
M. Saeedifard, R. Palma-Behnke, et al., “Trends in microgrid control,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1905–1919, 2014.
[3] R. Majumder, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich, and F. Zare, “Power management and power flow control with back-to-back converters in a utility
connected microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25,
no. 2, pp. 821–834, 2010.
[4] Y. Zhang, L. Xie, and Q. Ding, “Interactive control of coupled
microgrids for guaranteed system-wide small signal stability,” IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1088–1096, 2016.
[5] Y. Zhang and L. Xie, “A transient stability assessment framework in
power electronic-interfaced distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 5106–5114, 2016.
[6] Y. Song, D. J. Hill, T. Liu, and Y. Zheng, “A distributed framework
for stability evaluation and enhancement of inverter-based microgrids,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3020–3034, 2017.
[7] R. Majumder, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich, and F. Zare, “Angle droop versus
frequency droop in a voltage source converter based autonomous
microgrid,” in IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 2009,
pp. 1–8.
[8] W. Yao, Y. Liu, D. Zhou, Z. Pan, J. Zhao, M. Till, L. Zhu, L. Zhan,
Q. Tang, and Y. Liu, “Impact of gps signal loss and its mitigation in
power system synchronized measurement devices,” IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1141–1149, 2018.
[9] D. J. Hill and P. J. Moylan, “Dissipative dynamical systems: Basic
input-output and state properties,” Journal of the Franklin Institute,
vol. 309, no. 5, pp. 327–357, 1980.
[10] P. Moylan and D. Hill, “Stability criteria for large-scale systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 143–149,
1978.
[11] E. Agarwal, S. Sivaranjani, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Feedback passivation
of nonlinear switched systems using linear approximations,” in Indian
Control Conference (ICC), 2017, pp. 12–17.
[12] Y. Zhang and L. Xie, “Online dynamic security assessment of microgrid interconnections in smart distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3246–3254, 2015.
[13] S. Sivaranjani, J. R. Forbes, P. Seiler, and V. Gupta, “Conic-sectorbased analysis and control synthesis for linear parameter varying
systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 224–229,
2018.
[14] S. Y. Caliskan and P. Tabuada, “Compositional transient stability
analysis of multimachine power networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Control of Network systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–14, 2014.
[15] J. Schiffer, R. Ortega, A. Astolfi, J. Raisch, and T. Sezi, “Conditions
for stability of droop-controlled inverter-based microgrids,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2457–2469, 2014.
[16] J. Zhao and D. J. Hill, “Dissipativity theory for switched systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 941–953,
2008.
[17] W. Chen and M. Saif, “Passivity and passivity based controller design
of a class of switched control systems,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 676–681, 2005.
[18] J. Li, J. Zhao, and C. Chen, “Dissipativity and feedback passivation for
switched discrete-time nonlinear systems,” Systems & Control Letters,
vol. 87, pp. 47–55, 2016.
[19] H. Pang and J. Zhao, “Incremental (q, s, r)-dissipativity and incremental stability for switched nonlinear systems,” Journal of the Franklin
Institute, vol. 353, no. 17, pp. 4542–4564, 2016.
[20] J. Lofberg, “Yalmip: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in
matlab,” in Computer Aided Control Systems Design, 2004 IEEE
International Symposium on. IEEE, 2004, pp. 284–289.
[21] J. F. Sturm, “Using sedumi 1.02, a matlab toolbox for optimization
over symmetric cones,” Optimization methods and software, vol. 11,
no. 1-4, pp. 625–653, 1999.
[22] W. Haddad and V. Chellaboina, Nonlinear Dynamics Systems and
Control. Princeton University Press, 2008.
[23] H. Wang and J. Zhao, “Passivity and h control of switched discretetime nonlinear systems using linearisation,” International Journal of
Systems Science, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 68–83, 2018.

(1)

(1)

where [Γj ]1,1 =Cj0 Qj Cj −P (Aj +Bj H)−(Aj +Bj H)0 P ,
(2)
[Γj ]1,2 =Cj0 Qj Dj +Cj0 Sj −P Bj , [Γj ]2,1 =[Γj ]01,2
and
[Γj ]2,2 = Dj0 Qj Dj +Dj0 Sj +Sj0 Dj +Rj . Now consider

Λj =

y(t)
w(t)

0 
Qj
Sj0

Sj
Rj




y(t)
w(t)

− V̇ (x(t)) − φj (w(t)) − ψj (x(t)), j ∈ Σ|V| ,

(19)

for the nonlinear switched system (10). Since the linearization (11) is obtained by computing a first order Taylor
approximation of every mode of the nonlinear switched
system (10), we can substitute for ẋ(t) and y(t) from (10) in
(19) and write the Taylor series expansions of fj , gj and h
around x = 0 and w = 0. Using (18), we can then show that
Λj is upper bounded by a function of the higher order terms
in the Taylor series expansion. Then, along the lines of [23,
Theorem 3.1], these higher order terms can be upper bounded
to show that Λj > 0 in a neighborhood of x = 0, w = 0 for
all j ∈ Σ|V| , completing the proof.

Proof of Theorem 2: By Definition 1, for (11) to be QSRSSID with dissipativity matrices Qj , Sj and a quadratic
storage function, (14) must hold for all j ∈ Σ|V| with
V (x(t)) = x(t)0 P x(t). Since φj (·) and ψj (·) are positive
definite, substituting for y(t) in terms of w(t) in (11),


Cj0 Qj Cj − P Ãj − Ã0j P
∗


(2)
Cj0 Qj Dj + Cj0 Sj − P Bj
> 0,
Dj0 Qj Dj + Dj0 Sj + Sj0 Dj + Rj

∀j ∈ Σ|V| , which is the Schur’s complement of (15).

Proof of Theorem 3: The dynamics of closed loop system
(11) with output feedback controller u(t) 7→ u(t) + ũ(t),
ũ(t) = Kσ(t) y(t) are given by
(2)

ẋ(t) = Âσ(t) x(t) + B̂σ(t) w(t)

(20a)

y(t) = Ĉσ(t) x(t) + D̂σ(t) w(t),

(20b)

(1)

(1)

(2)

where Âσ(t) = Aσ(t) + Bσ(t) H + Bσ(t) Kσ(t) Cσ(t) , B̂σ(t) =
(2)

(1)

Bσ(t) + Bσ(t) Kσ(t) Dσ(t) , Ĉσ(t) = Cσ(t) and D̂σ(t) = Dσ(t) .
(1)

Since P > 0, it is full rank. If matrices Bj , j ∈ Σ|V|
are full column rank, then Vj satisfying (16b) are invertible.
Substituting equations (17) and (16b) in (16a) gives (15)
(2)
(2)
with Ãj 7→ Âj , Bj 7→ B̂j , Cj 7→ Ĉj and Dj 7→ D̂j .
This proves that Theorem 2 holds for (20), and the closed
loop system in (20) is QSR-SSID. Using Proposition 1 and
Theorem 1 now completes the proof.


