Plug-and-play and coordinated control for bus-connected AC
islanded microgrids
Stefano Riverso

∗ 1

, Michele Tucci †2 , Juan C. Vasquez ‡ 3 , Josep M. Guerrero
and Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate ¶4

arXiv:1703.10222v1 [cs.SY] 29 Mar 2017

1

§ 3

,

United Technologies Research Center Ireland, 4th Floor, Penrose Business
Center, Penrose Wharf, Cork, Ireland
2
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione, Università degli Studi
di Pavia, Italy
3
Institute of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark
4
Automatic Control Laboratory, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
(EPFL), Switzerland
Technical Report
March, 2017

Abstract
This paper presents a distributed control architecture for voltage and frequency stabilization in AC islanded microgrids. In the primary control layer, each generation unit is equipped
with a local controller acting on the corresponding voltage-source converter. Following the
plug-and-play design approach previously proposed by some of the authors, whenever the
addition/removal of a distributed generation unit is required, feasibility of the operation is
automatically checked by designing local controllers through convex optimization. The update
of the voltage-control layer, when units plug -in/-out, is therefore automatized and stability
of the microgrid is always preserved. Moreover, local control design is based only on the
knowledge of parameters of power lines and it does not require to store a global microgrid
model. In this work, we focus on bus-connected microgrid topologies and enhance the primary
plug-and-play layer with local virtual impedance loops and secondary coordinated controllers
ensuring bus voltage tracking and reactive power sharing. In particular, the secondary control architecture is distributed, hence mirroring the modularity of the primary control layer.
We validate primary and secondary controllers by performing experiments with balanced,
unbalanced and nonlinear loads, on a setup composed of three bus-connected distributed generation units. Most importantly, the stability of the microgrid after the addition/removal
of distributed generation units is assessed. Overall, the experimental results show the feasibility of the proposed modular control design framework, where generation units can be
added/removed on the fly, thus enabling the deployment of virtual power plants that can be
resized over time.
Keywords: Distributed control, secondary control, plug-and-play design, AC islanded microgrid, voltage and frequency control.

∗ Electronic

address:
address:
‡ Electronic address:
§ Electronic address:
¶ Electronic address:
† Electronic

riverss@utrc.utc.com
michele.tucci02@universitadipavia.it
juq@et.aau.dk
joz@et.aau.dk
giancarlo.ferraritrecate@epfl.ch

1

1

Introduction

Islanded microGrids (ImGs) are autonomous energy systems composed of the interconnection of
Distributed Generation Units (DGUs) and loads. In view of their capability of supplying loads in
absence of a connection to the main grid, ImGs provide a flexible solution for bringing power to
remote areas or islands [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Furthermore, they can be used for improving the robustness
of the main grid, e.g. by guaranteeing power supply after the occurrence of an islanding event.
Self-sufficient and flexible generation islands also promote the deregulation of the energy market
and they have been advocated as a key component of future smart power systems [6]. One of the
key issues of ImGs is scalability, i.e. how to add and remove DGUs without compromising the safe
operation of the whole system. This problem is not trivial, as voltage stability must be guaranteed
by regulating the Voltage-Source Converter (VSC) of individual DGUs. Furthermore, in order
to make online computations grow nicely with the ImG size, decentralized control architectures
(where each DGU is equipped with a local regulator) must be used [7, 8, 9]. As each local controller
measures variables of the corresponding DGU only, the plugging-in or -out of a DGU can easily
destabilize the whole ImG if the control layer is not properly updated [10]. In order to overcome
this problem, in [1, 10] the authors present a methodology for designing local primary regulators
in order to allow Plug-and-Play (PnP) operations [11, 12] while preserving voltage and frequency
stability of the overall ImG. More precisely, when a DGU issues a plug-in or -out request, the
safety of the operation is first checked by solving optimization problems that involve only the
corresponding DGU and parameters of power lines connecting it to the neighboring units. If
the test is passed, stability-preserving regulators are synthesized for the DGU and its neighbors.
Compared to other decentralized primary control architectures for ImGs, such as the combination
of inner loops and droop controllers [3, 13, 14], PnP controllers are simpler and they are not
based on the idea of mimicking regulators for inertial generators. Moreover, differently from
decentralized regulators based on robust control [7, 8], the knowledge of the whole ImG model is
not required for local control design. Rather, just the parameters of power lines are used in the
synthesis algorithm.
In this paper, we adapt PnP controllers proposed in [1, 10] for achieving several goals and we
validate the control architecture through experiments performed on an AC ImG facility. First,
since the method in [1] allows to compute local stabilizing controllers for ImGs arranged in loadconnected topologies only (i.e. where local loads appear at the output terminals of each DGU), we
propose a simple procedure for mapping bus-connected ImGs (i.e. networks with a common load,
supplied by all the DGUs - which are frequently found in several applications) into their equivalent
load-connected models. Secondly, we enhance basic PnP controllers with virtual impedance loops,
which are needed for setting the output impedance of bus-connected VSCs. Thirdly, we equip the
PnP-controlled ImG with a secondary coordinated control layer for voltage tracking at the load
bus and sharing of reactive power among parallel VSCs. Notably, since secondary controllers are
commonly used in ImGs [7], we aim to show how they can be easily coupled with low-level PnP
controllers for improving performance without compromising the collective ImG stability.
We conduct several experiments on a bus-connected ImG and assess performance of PnP
controllers in tracking set-point voltages. Besides showing the negligible impact of transients
when the addition/removal of a DGU is performed, we also demonstrate the good behavior of the
closed-loop ImG in presence of both linear and nonlinear loads.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the electrical model of a loadconnected ImG and derive the formulae for computing the equivalent load-connected network of
a bus-connected one. In Section 3, we briefly describe the PnP control approach in [1] and show
how to extend the design of PnP voltage and frequency regulators to the case of bus-connected
ImGs. In Section 4, the secondary coordinated control layer is presented. Section 5 is devoted to
the assessment, through experiments, of PnP control alone and in combination with the secondary
coordinated control layer. Some conclusions are presented in Section 6.

2

Line ij

DGU i
Rti

Lti

Iti

PCCi
Vi

Iij

Rij

Lij

Vj

ILi
VSC i

Vti

Cti

Figure 1: Equivalent single-phase electrical scheme of DGU i and power line ij in a load-connected
ImG.

2
2.1

Microgrid models
Load-connected DGU model

In this Section, we present the electrical ImG model considered in [1] for designing decentralized
voltage and frequency PnP regulators. We assume three-phase electrical signals without zerosequence components and balanced network parameters. The single-phase equivalent scheme of
DGU i is shown in Figure 1. As in [1], we have a DC voltage source for modeling a generic
renewable resource, and a VSC is controlled in order to supply a local load (hence the name loadconnected topology) connected to the Point of Common Coupling (PCC) through an RLC filter.
Moreover, we assume that loads ILi are unknown and we treat them as exogenous disturbances
[8].
Assume now that our ImG is composed of N DGUs. We can define the set VDGU = {1, . . . , N },
and call two DGUs neighbors if there is a power line connecting their PCCs. In particular, we
denote the subset of neighbors of DGU i with Ni ⊂ VDGU . We further observe that the neighboring
relation is symmetric (i.e. j ∈ Ni implies i ∈ Nj ).
Let ω0 be the reference network frequency. By exploiting Quasi Stationary Line (QSL) approximation of power lines [1, 15], we get the following DGU model in dq reference frame (rotating
with speed ω0 ) [1, 16]

!
dq
dq

X 1
Vjdq − Vidq

ILi
d dq
Iti
dq


(1a)

 dt Vi = −iω0 Vi + Cti − Cti +
Cti
Zij
j∈Ni
DGU i:




Rti
d dq
V dq
V dq

dq

 Iti = −
+ iω0 Iti
− i + ti
(1b)

dt
Lti
Lti
Lti
where quantities Vi , Vj , Iti , ILi , Vti , Rti , Cti and Lti are shown in Figure 1. Notably, (i) Vi
and Iti represent the i-th PCC voltage and filter current, respectively, (ii) Vti is the command
input to the corresponding VSC, (iii) Rti , Lti and Cti are the converter parameters, and (iv) Vj
indicates the voltage at the PCC of each neighboring DGU j ∈ Ni . Moreover, Zij = Rij + iω0 Lij ,
where Rij and Lij are, respectively, the resistance and impedance of the three-phase power line
connecting DGUs i and j. Finally, we indicate with Glc = (VDGU , Elc , Wlc ) the directed electric
graph associated to the load-connected ImG (see, e.g., Figure 2-b), where weights Wij of edges
eij ∈ Elc coincide with the admittances Z1ij in (1a).

2.2

From bus-connected to load-connected topology

The fact that the method in [1] allows to design stabilizing PnP controllers for load-connected
ImGs only, does not represent a limitation. In fact, as shown in [17, 16], arbitrary interconnections of loads and DGUs can always be mapped into their equivalent load-connected topologies
by means of Kron reduction [18]. Kron reduction is a well-known method for simplifying linear
3

1

2

e1

1

e12

2

e2

4

e13

e23

e3

3

3

a)

b)

Figure 2: Graphs of a bus-connected ImG with 3 DGUs (on the left) and its equivalent loadconnected network (on the right). Red squares indicate DGUs with corresponding local loads
ILi (boundary nodes), while the blue circle denotes the unique load at the common bus (internal
node).
electrical networks while preserving the behavior of electrical variables at target nodes (also called
boundary nodes). In particular, Kron reduction provides an algebraic procedure for computing
(i) the corresponding load-connected topology (where only boundary nodes are connected) of the
original, arbitrarily connected network, (ii) the admittances of the new edges and (iii) the equivalent currents injected at boundary nodes accounting for the effect of the currents of the eliminated
nodes (also called internal nodes) in the original network. An example of the transformation is
provided in Figure 2.
Since several works from the literature consider ImGs arranged in bus-connected topology
[19, 20, 21], we are interested in mapping these topologies into the corresponding load-connected
ones. While it goes without saying that Kron reduction can also be applied to this aim (by
eliminating the node representing the load bus1 ), it requires the inversion of an admittance matrix.
In the following, instead, we provide an equivalent procedure, leading to explicit formulae, for
computing the admittances of the power lines of the corresponding load-connected network (e.g.
the weights of edges e12 , e13 and e23 in Figure 2). This method relies on Kirchhoff’s Current Law
(KCL), Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law (KVL) and QSL approximation.
As a starting point, let us consider a bus-connected ImG with N DGUs feeding a common load
(IL ) connected to the Point of Load (PoL). Figure 3 provides an example with N = 3 and shows
parameters Ri , Li and currents Ii characterizing each DGU. As usual, we assume balanced lines.
By applying KCL and KVL in the abc-frame and performing the Park’s transformation [22], we
have that the dynamics of DGU i in dq-coordinates, with ω = ω0 , are described by
d dq
I dq
I dq
Vi = ti − i − iω0 Vidq
dt
Cti
Cti

(2)

and (1b). For 1 ≤ j ≤ N , j 6= i, it holds
Vidq − Vjdq = Ri Iidq + Li

d dq
d
Ii + iω0 Li Iidq − Rj Ijdq − Lj Ijdq − iω0 Lj Ijdq .
dt
dt

By virtue of QSL approximations (see [1, 15]), in (3), we set
equation (3) becomes
Vidq − Vjdq = Ri Iidq + iω0 Li Iidq − Rj Ijdq − iω0 Lj Ijdq ,
1 Node

4 in the example in Figure 2.

4

d dq
dt Ii

(3)

= 0, ∀i ∈ VDGU . Hence,

1 ≤ j ≤ N, j 6= i.

Next, defining Zi = Ri + i ω0 Li , one gets
Ijdq =

Vjdq − Vidq
Zi dq
+
I ,
Zj
Zj i

1 ≤ j ≤ N, j 6= i.

(4)

Applying KCL at the PoL, we have
Iidq +

X

Ijdq = ILdq

(5)

j6=i

and, inserting (4) in (5), we obtain


dq
X
I
1
Vidq
L




+
Iidq = 
P
P
Zi
Zj
1 + j6=i Z
1 + j6=i
j6=i
j

Zi
Zj

−

X Vjdq
j6=i

Zj



1+

1
P

Zi
j6=i Zj

.

(6)

Observing that, in the formula above


1+

1
P

Zi
j6=i Zj

=

Zi

1
PN

1
k=1 Zk

,

we can introduce the following notation
1
1
=
PN
Zij
Zj Zi k=1

1
Zk

, ∀j 6= i,

which implies


X 1
  P1

N
Zj
Z
j6=i

1
k=1 Zk

i

=

X 1
.
Zij

(7)

j6=i

At this point, by replacing (7) in (6), and then substituting the resulting expression into (2),
one gets that the dynamics of Vidq have the form (1a). In other words, we have derived the
equivalent load-connected model of a bus-connected ImG with complex power lines admittances
1/Zi , i = 1, ..., N . Notably, the weights of the equivalent load-connected network (indicated with
1/Zij i, j = 1, ..., N, i 6= j, as in (1a)) are given by (7), while the effect of the eliminated node
(i.e. the PoL) at the i-th PCC is accounted by the following injected current
dq
ILi
=

Zi

ILdq
PN

1
k=1 Zk

.

(8)

Finally, we highlight that, since admittances 1/Zij i, j = 1, ..., N, i 6= j are all nonzero, the
described transformation always returns a fully connected reduced network (see the example in
Figure 2-b, where each pair of distinct nodes is connected by a unique edge).

3
3.1

Plug-and-play primary control layer
Control architecture

Figure 4 shows a bus-connected DGU, equipped with a decentralized PnP controller. Each local
dq
regulator exploits measurements of the voltage Vidq at the PCC and the current Iti
, in order to
dq
dq
control the voltage Vti at the VSC i and make Vi track a reference signal. We notice that the
proposed controller is multivariable, where the only tunable parameter is the matrix gain Ki in
Figure 4. Compared to common solutions found in the literature [3, 21], the proposed scheme
breaks the hierarchical structure composed of inner current and voltage loops and droop control.
5

DGU 1
Rt1

Line 1

It1 Lt1

R1

P CC1

Line 2

L1

L2

P oL
I1

V1

DGU 2
R2

Lt2 I
t2

P CC2

I2

Rt2

V2

IL
VSC 1

Vt1

Ct1

Vt2

Ct2

Line 3
L3

VSC 2

DGU 3

R3

Lt3 I
t3

P CC3

Rt3

V3

I3

Vt3

Ct3

VSC 3

PnP-control and virtual impedance

Figure 3: Electrical scheme of a bus-connected ImG composed of three DGUs and a common
unmodeled load.

zi
Ki

1
s

abc
dq0

+

Voltage
Reference

Vi,v

dq0
abc

dq0
abc

dq0
abc

Rti

Lti

Virtual
Impedance

dq0
abc

PWM

DGU-i

DC Link

DC

Vi

Iti

PCCi

Ri

Li

Ii

Cti

load bus (PoL)
Figure 4: Bus-connected DGU equipped with local PnP regulator and virtual impedance loop.
However, as in single-input single-output current and voltage loops, feedback information consists
of the current provided by the VSC and the voltage at the PCC. Most importantly, the presence
of the integrators guarantees tracking of constant set-point references in the dq-frame, and hence
of three-phase sinusoidal quantities in the abc-frame.
Figure 4 also reveals the presence of a virtual impedance loop. Virtual impedance is a widely
used tool in control of parallel interconnected VSCs [23, 21]. Its employment is instrumental
for lowering the circulating currents between DGUs generated by line-impedance unbalance and
mismatch in inverter parameters. In practice, as shown in Figure 4, the virtual impedance reduces
the voltage reference by a term proportional to the line current, thus mimicking an RL impedance
connected in series to the output filter of the inverter. We also highlight that virtual resistances
and inductances should be chosen sufficiently large so as to outnumber such uncertainties in the
electrical parameters. In contrast with a physical device, a virtual impedance has no power losses.
In [23, 21], the virtual impedance is expressed in αβ-coordinates. Similarly, we can model it in

6

dq-coordinates as follows:
dIid
− ω0 Li,v Iiq
dt
(9)
dIiq
q
q
d
Vi,v = Ri,v Ii + Li,v
+ ω0 Li,v Ii
dt
where Ri,v and Li,v are the virtual resistance and inductance parameters and Vi,v and Ii are the
voltage and current in the dq-frame shown in Figure 4.
d
Vi,v
= Ri,v Iid + Li,v

3.2

Plug-and-play design of local controllers

In the following, we first summarize the PnP algorithm in [1] for designing the matrix gain Ki
in Figure 4. Then, since the algorithm in [1] assumes load-connected ImGs only, we exploit the
result derived in Section 2.2 to apply the above methodology to bus-connected networks.
PnP design of local controllers proposed in [1] guarantees overall voltage and frequency stability,
with the main advantage that a global ImG model is not required in any design step. Moreover,
individual DGUs can test if the addition/removal of a subsystem is dangerous for the ImG stability
by following the procedure below.
Assume that the plug-in of a DGU (say DGU i) is required. This new unit issues a plug-in
request to its future neighboring DGUs j, j ∈ Ni , and then solves the Linear Matrix Inequality
(LMI) test (19) in [1], which is a convex optimization problem depending only upon the parameters
of power lines ij, j ∈ Ni (e.g., Rij and Lij in Figure 1). If the optimization is feasible, the above
test returns the matrix gain Ki . Moreover, since also DGUs j ∈ Ni will have a new neighbor,
they must retune their controller, so as to account for the presence of new coupling terms. The
update of the j-th controller is done by solving an LMI problem analogous to the one solved for
DGU i. If one of the above LMI tests is unfeasible, the plug-in of DGU i is denied. Otherwise,
DGU i (equipped with controller Ki ) can be connected to the network without compromising the
collective voltage and frequency stability of the ImG.
Unplugging of a DGU (say DGU m) follows a similar procedure. As line mk is disconnected,
only DGUs k, k ∈ Nm must successfully recompute their local controllers before allowing the
disconnection of DGU k (see [1] for details).
Let us consider now the case in which we have a bus-connected ImG. Whenever we want to
plug-in a new DGU (say DGU i), the first step is to compute the line impedances between DGU
i and each DGU j, j ∈ VDGU \ {i}, using (7). Subsequently, the LMI test (19) in [1] must be
successfully solved for all the DGUs, in order to allow the safe connection of DGU i. On the other
hand, if only one of these tests LMI is infeasible, the plug-in of DGU i is denied. Unplugging of a
DGU can be performed in a similar way.
Remark 1. The procedure for handling plug-in/-out operations when the original network is
arranged either in a load- or bus-connected topology can be simplified as follows. Let us assume
that the hot plug-in (i.e. the plug-in in real-time) of DGU i has been allowed and scheduled at a
future time t̄. At the same time instant, DGUs j (with j ∈ Ni if the ImG is load-connected, or
j ∈ VDGU \ {i} if the ImG is bus-connected) will start using the new gains. Retuning of gains Kj ,
however, could be avoided if previous gains are still feasible for the corresponding LMI test. In
other words, for such DGUs j, one can check if matrix gains Kj working for t < t̄ still fulfill the
constraints of their corresponding optimization problem (19) in [1]. Preserving previously designed
controllers, in fact, has the advantage of reducing perturbations on electrical signals right after t̄,
which might be caused by controller switching.
In a similar way, if DGU m is disconnected, the retuning of controllers of DGUs k (with
k ∈ Nm or k ∈ VDGU \ {m} if the ImG is load- or bus- connected, respectively) can be avoided if
the LMI test (19) in [1] is feasible for previously designed matrix gains Kk .

7

3.3

Clock synchronization for primary control

The computation of VSC commands assumes that all clocks of local controllers, used for performing
abc to dq transformations, are synchronized. As also highlighted in [7], each DGU can include a
Rt
crystal oscillator that generates the angular phase θ(t) = 0 ω0 dτ . However, if the local oscillators
are not synchronized, the local angular phase is given by θi (t) = θ(t) + θi,0 , where θi,0 is the initial
offset. In [7], the authors propose a synchronization using GPS radio clock, which could achieve
an accuracy higher than 1µs [24].
An alternative solution is to synchronize clocks using communication between controllers. This
operation can be performed quite rarely because, as noted in [7], currently available crystal oscillators are characterized by high accuracy (from 2 µs to 20 ps in a year [25]). Moreover, synchronization can be done through packet networks, using either a distributed protocol (e.g. Berkeley
algorithm [26]) or approaches based on all-to-all communication, such as instantaneous averaging
[27].
If an ImG is equipped with primary PnP regulators, prior to allowing the plug-in of a new
DGU, it is mandatory to synchronize it with all the ones already connected to the PoL. Therefore,
in the experiments described in Section 5, we let each new DGU estimate θi,0 by computing the
average angular phases of all the other DGUs.

3.4

Harmonic compensation by tuning the PnP control bandwidth

Besides collective voltage and frequency stability, PnP design can guarantee good harmonic compensation, even in absence of low-level resonant controllers (described, e.g., in [21]). In fact, as
explained in [1], one can also shape, in a desired fashion, the singular values of the overall closedloop ImG. More specifically, in order to provide suitable attenuation of the 5-th, 7-th and 11-th
harmonics in abc-frame, we design primary PnP controllers that attenuate the 4-th, 6-th and 10th harmonics in the rotating dq-frame. An example is provided in Figure 5 for an ImG with two
DGUs. The singular values of closed-loop ImG transfer function from voltage references to the
voltages at the PCCs are represented in Figure 5a. Similarly, the singular values of the transfer function from voltage references to the currents in the filters are given in Figure 5b. Notice
that good attenuation can be obtained also when couplings between DGUs are accounted for. In
fact, assuming f0 = 50 Hz, from Figure 5a, the attenuation of the 5-th, 7-th and 11-th voltage
harmonics is 50 dB, 60 dB and 70 dB, respectively.
Singular Values
50

0

0

−50

Singular Values (dB)

Singular Values (dB)

Singular Values
50

−100
−150
−200

−100
−150
−200

−250
−300
−350

−50

−250

CL without couplings
CL with couplings
−5

10

0

10
Frequency (rad/s)

−300

5

10

CL without couplings
CL with couplings
−5

10

0

10
Frequency (rad/s)

5

10

(a) Singular values of the transfer function matrix (b) Singular values of the transfer function matrix
from dq voltage references to dq voltages at the from dq voltage references to dq currents in the filPCCs.
ters.

Figure 5: Singular values for the closed-loop ImG with two DGUs.

8

4

Coordinated control

Using PnP controllers described in Section 3.2, we are able to guarantee voltage and frequency stability for the overall ImG. Notably, each local controller regulates the voltage at the corresponding
PCC, according to the following reference in the abc-frame
Vi∗a (t) = Vi∗ sin (ω0 t + φ∗i )


2π
Vi∗b (t) = Vi∗ sin ω0 t + φ∗i −
3


2π
Vi∗c (t) = Vi∗ sin ω0 t + φ∗i +
.
3

(10)

In bus-connected ImGs, one can indirectly control voltage and frequency at the PoL by choosing
voltages Vi∗ , i = 1, . . . , N in (10). In several control architectures, the use of a Power-Management
System (PMS) has been proposed for this purpose (see for example [7]). The basic idea is to
compute voltage references such that each DGU injects prescribed active and reactive power. The
PMS must be run in real-time in order to maintain a prescribed power flow, even if loads change.
In the following, we propose a distributed secondary control layer capable to guarantee (i) a desired
voltage at the PoL, and (ii) sharing of reactive power injections among DGUs.

4.1

Voltage tracking at the PoL

Let us indicate the desired PoL voltage with VP∗oL ∠02 . In absence of loads, in order to guarantee
the reference at the PoL, we could set, in (10), Vi∗ = VP∗oL and φ∗i = 0. However, due to the
presence of time-varying loads, Vi∗ and φ∗i must be adapted over time. We propose that each
DGU changes its set-point according to
Vi∗a (t) = (VP∗oL + ∆VP oL ) sin (ω0 t + ∆φP oL )


2π
Vi∗b (t) = (VP∗oL + ∆VP oL ) sin ω0 t + ∆φP oL −
3


2π
Vi∗c (t) = (VP∗oL + ∆VP oL ) sin ω0 t + ∆φP oL +
,
3

(11)

instead of using (10). The next aim is to compute ∆VP oL and ∆φP oL in order to keep PoL voltage
close to its reference. Since we can not measure the voltage at the PoL, we estimate its amplitude
and phase averaging local measurements
VP oL =

N
X
VP oL,i
i=1

φP oL =

N

N
X
φP oL,i
i=1

(12)

N

where VP oL,i and φP oL,i are computed by each DGU from Vi and Ii (shown in Figure 4) as follows
VP oL,i =
where

q

(VPdoL,i )2

+

(VPqoL,i )2

φP oL,i =

VPqoL,i
VPdoL,i

,

(13)

VPdoL,i = Vid + ω0 Li Iiq
VPqoL,i = Viq − ω0 Li Iid .

We equip each DGU with the local controller in Figure 6 for computing ∆VP oL and ∆φP oL in
(11). We note that the controller in Figure 6 is replicated in each DGU instead of being unique
for the whole ImG. As shown in [28], replicating the controller has several advantages when the
communication latency increases. Differently from the PnP control architecture that is completely
2 Without

loss of generality, the phase has been assumed equal to zero.

9

*
VPoL

KPv

+

ΔVPoL

+
+

VPoL
mean

1
1+sTIv

VPoL … VPoL
1
N

0

KPΦ

+

ΔΦPoL

+
+

ΦPoL
mean

1
1+sTIΦ

ΦPoL 1…ΦPoL N

Figure 6: Coordinated control layer: computation of correction terms ∆VP oL and ∆φP oL . Parameters KP V and KP φ are the voltage and phase proportional coefficients, while TIV and TIφ
are the voltage and phase integral time constants.
decentralized, the secondary layer of controllers is distributed as it needs a communication network
in order to exchange values VP oL,i and φP oL,i , and then to compute locally the averages (12).
Formula (12) requires a fully connected communication network, as all measurements VP oL,i and
φP oL,i have to be broadcasted to all DGUs. However, this limitation could be avoided by resorting
to distributed algorithms, based on consensus strategies, for tracking the average of time-varying
signals [29]. Indeed, these methods only require sparse, yet connected, networks. In Figure 7 we
show the flow of information for the proposed coordinated controller. Each controller in Figure 6
Coordinated
Control 1

Communica)on

Coordinated
Control 2

network

PnP Control 1

PnP Control 2

PoL

DGU1

DGU2
load

Figure 7: Scheme of the coordinated control.
is a PI regulator with an anti-windup scheme accounting for saturations on ∆VP oL and ∆φP oL .
These saturations are needed to limit the amplitude and phase deviations, thus preventing the
opening of breakers connecting inverters to the PoL. When saturations are not active, ∆VP oL and
∆φP oL are computed through the standard PI formulae
Z t
∆VP oL (t) = KP V (VP∗oL − VP oL (t)) + KIV

(VP∗oL − VP oL (τ )) dτ

(14)

0

Z
∆φP oL (t) = KP φ (0 − φP oL (t)) + KIφ

t

(0 − φP oL (τ )) dτ.

(15)

0

Next, we discuss the tuning of PI parameters. The integral time constants TIV = KP V /KIV
and TIφ = KP φ /KIφ in Figure 6 are chosen to make the corresponding PI control loop sufficiently
slower than the inner PnP control loop. To this aim, we use the following first-order approximation
10

of each DGU equipped with the corresponding stabilizing PnP controller
Vid =

1
V ∗d
1 + sTid i

Viq =

1
V ∗q .
1 + sTiq i

Furthermore, since the overall PnP architecture is stable and due to the presence of output
impedance for each DGU, we can also state that
q

d

VPdoL,i =

µdi e−sτi ∗d
V
1 + sTid i

VPqoL,i =

µqi e−sτi ∗q
V
1 + sTiq i

where µdi , µqi , τid and τiq depend
impedance. Using (13), assuming τi = τid ≈ τiq ,
pon the output
q
q
Ti = Tid ≈ Ti and setting µi = (µdi )2 + (µi )2 , we obtain
VP oL,i =

µi e−sτi ∗
V
1 + sTi i

φP oL,i = φ∗i .

(16)

Therefore, using (16) and (12), we can provide a linear model of the effect of Vi∗ and φ∗i on VP oL
and φP oL , respectively. Furthermore, since Vi∗ = VP∗oL + ∆VP oL and φ∗i = 0 + ∆φP oL , we also
obtain a small-signal model of the effect of ∆VP oL and ∆φP oL on VP oL and φP oL , respectively.
As regards the phase deviation, since φP oL,i = φ∗i = ∆φP oL , we can easily derive a simplified
model as
∆φP oL
φP oL =
N
which can be used for computing the PI control action in (15).
For deriving a simplified model of the amplitude deviation, the closed-loop DGU dynamics in the
first control layer must be considered. The second control layer should act mostly when the first
control layer is at steady-state. Hence, using (16), we can write a local approximate dynamics as
VP CC,i =

µi e−sτP CC ∗
µi e−sτP CC
Vi =
(V ∗
+ ∆VP CC )
1 + sTP CC
1 + sTP CC P CC

where τP oL = max(τ1 , . . . , τN ) and TP oL = max(T1 , . . . , TN ). Next, using (12), we can derive
VP oL =

µe−sτP oL ∗
µe−sτP oL
VP oL +
∆VP oL
1 + sTP oL
1 + sTP oL

PN
where µ = i=1 µNi . In conclusion, we tune the gains of the PI controller assuming the system
under control has the transfer function
µe−sτP oL
VP oL
=
.
∆VP oL
1 + sTP oL

4.2

Sharing of reactive power

Inner PnP regulators complemented with coordinated controllers for voltage tracking at the PoL
cannot alone guarantee accurate reactive power sharing among DGUs. For this reason, we propose
an additional coordinated controller dedicated to this aim. We assume that DGUs are connected
to the PoL through mostly inductive lines3 . In this case, the sharing of the reactive power is due
to the amplitude of the voltages [30, 31]. Therefore, we propose to change the amplitude of the
set-point for each DGU as
Vi∗ = VP∗oL + ∆VP oL + ∆ViQ ,
(17)
where VP∗oL is the reference for voltage at PoL, ∆VP oL is computed as in (14) and ∆ViQ is a voltage
correction to guarantee reactive power sharing. Voltage ∆ViQ is computed by the PI controller
3 Results

can be easily adapted to the case of lines that are mostly resistive.

11

equipped with anti-windup shown in Figure 8. In particular, when the saturation on ∆ViQ is not
active, one has
Z t
∆ViQ (t) = KP Q (Q(t) − Qi (t)) + KIQ

(Q(τ ) − Qi (τ )) dτ
0

where Qi is the reactive power injected by the local DGU and Q(t) is the average of the injected
reactive powers. The PI regulator in Figure 8 is replicated in each DGU. Moreover, the whole
control layer requires the communication network displayed in Figure 7 since all units must exchange the values of reactive power Qi (t) for computing locally average Q(t).
Similarly to what we have done for the PI regulators in Figure 6, each integral time constant TIQ
#%$ *$ #.$
#$

!"#$%%

+


!"#$

+,-$

+
+

#-$
%
%&'()#$

Figure 8: Control scheme for the computation of ∆ViQ . Parameters KP Q and TIQ are the reactive
power proportional term and the reactive power time constant, respectively.
is designed to make the corresponding PI controller slower than the inner PnP ones.

5
5.1

Experimental results
Microgrid setup

We tested the performance of the proposed approach using the ImG platform in Figure 9a; it
consists of three Danfoss inverters (2.2kVA with RLC filters), a dSPACE1103 control board and
LEM sensors. Inverters operate in parallel to emulate DGUs while different load conditions are
obtained by connecting to the bus resistive loads and/or a diode rectifier. All the inverters are
supplied by a DC source generator, therefore neither renewable sources nor energy storage devices
are present in the experimental setup. Although this does not allow to study the effect of power
fluctuations from renewable sources, the reliability of our experimental validation is guaranteed
by the fact that, in general, changes in the power supplied by renewables take place at a timescale
that is slower than the one we are interested in for stability analysis.
The controllers have been implemented in Simulink and compiled to the dSPACE system in
order to command the inverter switches at a frequency of 10 kHz. Although the dSPACE platform
is unique (see also Figure 9b), separate local controllers for each inverter were implemented so as
to guarantee the control architecture can be implemented in a real distributed inverter system.
The scheme of the experimental setup is depicted in Figure 9a.
In the performed experiments, we make sure that, at time t = 0 s, all the controllers are already
activated so that all the voltages at the PCCs start from their reference value (230 V).
The control and electrical parameters are reported in Table 1. Furthermore, we highlight that
the clocks of local controllers have been synchronized using the procedure described in Section 3.3.
In the following sections, we validate primary PnP controllers under linear, unbalanced and
nonlinear load conditions, as well as the combination of such primary layer with the proposed
secondary coordinated controllers.

12

Nonlinear Load

Inverter 1

CNL

DC
Power
Supply

RLC ﬁlter

RNL

Z1
LNL

It1

V1

I1

PC-Simulink
RTW & dSPACE
Control Desk

It2
DC
Power
Supply

RLC ﬁlter

V2

Z2

It3

I2
DC
Power
Supply

V3

RLC ﬁlter

I3
RL

Z3

Inverter 3

Inverter 2

(a) Experimental ImG setup.

Resis4ve Load

PoL

(b) Scheme of the experimental setup. Red lines indicate the
electrical variables measured at each DGU level. Blue lines represent the control commands to the inverters.

Figure 9: Experimental validation: ImG setup and implemented control scheme.

5.2
5.2.1

Experimental results: plug-and-play control
Voltage regulation at the PCCs with resistive load

In this first experiment, we test the capability of PnP primary controllers to handle connection and
disconnection of inverters in a bus-connected ImG. At this stage, coordinated controllers described
in Section 4 are not used.
At time t = 0 s, the first and second inverter are connected to the bus; since there is no load
at the PoL, the RMS voltages at PCCs 1 and 2 (red and green line, respectively, in Figure 10a)
coincide with the reference.
At t = 5 s, we connect a resistive load (R = 92 Ω) at the PoL. Consequently, the active powers
provided by inverters 1 and 2 increase in order to compensate the load (see Figure 10c). We also
notice that the frequencies are promptly restored after the load connection (as shown in Figure
10b).
Since the voltage references at PCCs are fixed, PnP controllers alone cannot guarantee a good
voltage regulation at the PoL. Moreover, as recalled in Section 3.1, the presence of a local virtual
impedance induces a drop (proportional to the output current) in the corresponding reference
voltage. This behavior is shown, for instance, in Figure 10a, where we notice a decrement in the
voltages at PCCs 1 and 2 when the load is connected to the PoL (at t = 5 s).
At time t = 15 s, we plug-in inverter 3. This event induces spikes in the frequencies (see Figure
10b), whose maximal amplitude, however, is less than 0.2 Hz. Moreover, Figure 10c shows that
all the inverters provide the same active power to compensate the load.
At times t = 25 s and t = 35 s, we change the load to R = 460 Ω and R = 154 Ω, respectively. These events generate drops in the active power of more than 50%. Moreover, voltages
and frequencies are instantaneously restored (see Figures 10a and 10b). Differently from droopcontrollers, PnP controllers are not inertia-based and hence they are capable to provide faster
transients.
Finally, at t = 40 s and t = 45 s we plug-out inverters 3 and 2, respectively, thus eventually
feeding the resistive load with inverter 1 only. Also in this case, the impact of the unplugging
events on the frequency profile is minor.
5.2.2

Voltage regulation at the PCCs with unbalanced load

In this experiment, we show performance of PnP controllers under unbalanced load conditions. For
the sake of simplicity, in Figures 11b-11e we show the evolution of the main electrical quantities
13

(b) Frequencies (phase a).

(a) Voltages Vi at the PCCs (phase a).

(c) Active power provided by the inverters to the
(d) Reactive power provided by the inverters to the
load.
load.

Figure 10: Voltage regulation at the PCCs with resistive load (Section 5.2.1). Red, green and
blue lines are, respectively, for VSC 1, 2 and 3. Load change, plug-in and unplugging events are
indicated with orange, magenta and black arrows, respectively.
of inverter 1 only.
At t = 0 s, all the inverters are connected to the PoL and no load is present. Then, at t = 5
s we connect a balanced resistive load (R = 115 Ω) to the common bus. Consequently, inverter 1
provides the output current shown in Figure 11b. At t = 10 s, we change phase b of the load to
R = 57 Ω, thus causing the unbalance in the output current 1 shown in Figure 11c. Moreover, the
average of the imbalanced ratios [32] for all the inverters is 0.5 % (see Figure 11a). At t = 15 s, we
change phase c of the load to R = 230 Ω. As a consequence, in Figure 11d we note an additional
unbalance in the output current 1. Moreover, from Figure 11a, we see that the average of the
imbalanced ratios increases to 0.75 %. Finally, at t = 20 s and t = 25 s, we unplug inverters 2 and
3, respectively: since inverter 1 must provide all the power required by the load, the amplitude of
its output current increases (Figure 11e). Figure 11a shows that also its imbalance ratio increases
to 1 % and then to 1.65 %. However, we notice that, during the whole experiment, the imbalance
ratio is quite small and always lower than the maximum value (3 %) recommended by IEEE in
[32].
5.2.3

Voltage regulation at the PCCs with nonlinear load

In this scenario, we show features of PnP controllers in presence of nonlinear loads. At time t = 0
s, inverters 1 and 2 are connected to the diode rectifier shown in Figure 9b. Hence, the active
power provided by inverter 3 is zero (see Figure 12c) and the THD4 (Total Harmonic Distortion
index in [32]) is higher for the voltages at PCCs 1 and 2 (as shown in Figure 12e). At t = 5 s,
we increase the power required at the PoL by connecting a resistive load (R = 154 Ω) in parallel
with the nonlinear one.
The plugging-in operation of inverter 3 is performed at t = 15 s. Notice that the frequencies are
promptly restored to the nominal value (variations less than 0.2Hz), total active power is equally
shared between all inverters and THDs are reduced for all inverters.
In order to assess the robustness of local PnP regulators to unknown load dynamics, at times
4 For the sake of simplicity, in Figure 12e we show only the THD indices of phase a of the corresponding PCC
voltages.

14

(a) Imbalance ratios. Red, green and blue lines are,
respectively, for VSC 1, 2 and 3. Load connection,
phase b load unbalancing, phase c load unbalancing
and unplugging events are indicated with orange,
(b) Output current for inverter 1 around time t =
magenta, grey and black arrows, respectively.
8.65 s (effect of balanced load connection at t = 5
s).

(c) Output current for inverter 1 around time t = (d) Output current for inverter 1 around time t =
11.65 s (effect of load phase b unbalancing at t = 10 16.65 s (effect of load phase c unbalancing at t = 15
s).
s).

(e) Output current for inverter 1 around time t =
28.65 s (after the unplugging of VSCs 2 and 3).

Figure 11: Voltage regulation at the PCCs with unbalanced load (Section 5.2.2).
t = 25 s and t = 35 s, we switch the resistive load to R = 460 Ω and R = 154 Ω, respectively.
Figures 12a and 12b show fast transients of voltages and frequencies at the PCCs.
Finally, at t = 40 s and t = 45 s, we unplug inverter 3 and 2, respectively. Consequently, the
THD of the voltage at PCC 1 increases. However, as shown in Figure 12e, the THD values are

15

always below the maximum limit (5%) recommended in [32]. Concluding, this experiment reveals
that, even in absence of inner resonant controllers, PnP regulators are capable to guarantee high
levels of robustness to load variations and harmonic attenuation.

(b) Frequencies (phase a).

(a) Voltages Vi at the PCCs (phase a).

(c) Active power provided by the inverters to the (d) Reactive power provided by the inverters to the
load.
load.

(e) Total harmonic distortion.

Figure 12: Voltage regulation at the PCCs with nonlinear load (Section 5.2.3). Red, green and
blue lines are, respectively, for VSC 1, 2 and 3. Load change, plug-in and unplugging events are
indicated with orange, magenta and black arrows, respectively.

5.3

Experimental results: plug-and-play and coordinated control

In this Section, we validate the combination of the coordinated control layer presented in Section
4 and PnP primary regulators.
As a first test, we consider the same experimental scenario as in Section 5.2.3, complemented
with the coordinated controllers presented in Section 4.1 for voltage tracking at the PoL. This
operation is desirable because, as shown in Figure 12a, PnP regulators alone fail to keep the
PoL voltage at the nominal value, even though the voltages at the PCCs are stabilized. As
highlighted in Section 4, this issue is due to the fixed voltage set-points for the PnP controllers. In
this experiment, we activate coordinated controllers at time t = 20 s. Consequently, as shown in
Figure 13a, the voltages at the PCCs increase in order to track the nominal PoL voltage. Moreover,
the proposed coordinated controllers are capable to keep the PoL voltage at the desired level (by
regulating the voltages at the PCCs) even when load changes (at times t = 25 s and t = 35 s)
and disconnection of inverters (at t = 40 s and t = 45 s) are performed (see Figure 13). We also
highlight that the presence of the coordinated controllers does not affect the frequency profiles
(see Figure 13b). On the other hand, Figure 13d reveals that the total reactive power is still not
shared equally between the inverters.
16

Parameter

Symbol
Value
Virtual impedance
Virtual resistance
Ri,v
3
Virtual inductance
Li,v
0.03
Voltage tracking at the PoL
Module proportional term
KP V
10−3
Module integral term
KIV
0.6
Phase proportional term
KP φ
10−3
Phase integral term
KIφ
4
Reactive power sharing
Reactive power proportional term
KP Q
10−4
Reactive power integral term
KIQ
10−2
Electrical Setup
PCC reference voltage
Vref
230
ImG frequency
f0
50
Switching frequency
fsw
10
Filter resistance
Rti
0.1
Filter inductance
Lti
1.8
Filter capacitance
Cti
25
Line resistance
Ri
0.1
Line inductance
Li
1.8
Phase resistive load
Ra,b,c
57-115-230-460
Nonlinear load
RN L
460

Units
Ω
H
V
Hz
kHz
Ω
mH
µF
Ω
mH
Ω
Ω

Table 1: Electrical setup and control parameters.

(b) Frequencies (phase a).

(a) Voltages Vi at the PCCs (phase a).

(c) Active power provided by the inverters to the (d) Reactive power provided by the inverters to the
load.
load.

Figure 13: PnP regulators and coordinated controllers for voltage tracking at the PoL with nonlinear load. Red, green and blue lines are, respectively, for VSC 1, 2 and 3. Load change, plug-in and
unplugging events are indicated with orange, magenta and black arrows, respectively. Moreover,
the grey arrow denotes the activation of secondary controllers described in Section 4.1.
In order to ameliorate also aspect, we run a second experiment in which the previous control

17

scheme is complemented with coordinated controllers for reactive power sharing (described in
Section 4.2). In particular, we notice that, right after their activation (at time t = 20 s), the total
reactive power is equally shared (see Figure 14b, to be compared with Figure 13d). This goal is
achieved through the computation of terms ∆ViQ in (17), which are shown in Figure 14a.

(a) Amplitude deviations ∆ViQ in (17) leading to
the sharing of total reactive power.

(b) Reactive power produced by each VSC.

Figure 14: PnP regulators and coordinated controllers for voltage tracking at the PoL and reactive
power sharing with nonlinear load. Red, green and blue lines are respectively for VSC 1, 2 and
3. Load change, plug-in and unplugging events are indicated with orange, magenta and black
arrows, respectively. Moreover, the grey arrow denotes the simultaneous activation of secondary
controllers described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

6

Conclusions

In this paper, we showed how to adapt the PnP control scheme [1, 10] for voltage and frequency
regulation in AC ImGs to bus-connected topologies. Moreover, we introduced a secondary control
layer and performed an experimental validation of the overall control hierarchy. Using the parallel
connection of three VSCs, we showed that stability, efficient tracking of the voltage bus and
sharing of reactive power can be obtained. Moreover, experiments with linear and nonlinear loads
show that the harmonic distortion and imbalance ratio are kept within acceptable bounds. In our
implementation, time-synchronization of DGU clocks and the secondary control layer assume allto-all communication among DGUs. Future research will focus on distributing these computations
as well, by exploiting only partial communication among DGUs and, as in [33], consensus-like
protocols for estimating averages of global variables

7

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Alessandro Floriduz for insightful discussions.

18

References
[1] S. Riverso, F. Sarzo, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Plug-and-play voltage and frequency control
of islanded microgrids with meshed topology,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
1176–1184, 2015.
[2] D. Olivares, A. Mehrizi-Sani, A. Etemadi, C. Canizares, R. Iravani, M. Kazerani, A. Hajimiragha, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, M. Saeedifard, R. Palma-Behnke, G. Jimenez-Estevez, and
N. Hatziargyriou, “Trends in microgrid control,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
1905–1919, 2014.
[3] J. M. Guerrero, M. Chandorkar, T. Lee, and P. C. Loh, “Advanced Control Architectures for
Intelligent Microgrids — Part I: Decentralized and Hierarchical Control,” IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1254–1262, 2013.
[4] M. Ranaboldo, B. D. Lega, D. V. Ferrenbach, L. Ferrer-Martí, R. P. Moreno, and A. GarcíaVilloria, “Renewable energy projects to electrify rural communities in cape verde,” Applied
energy, vol. 118, pp. 280–291, 2014.
[5] G. Kyriakarakos, A. I. Dounis, S. Rozakis, K. G. Arvanitis, and G. Papadakis, “Polygeneration microgrids: a viable solution in remote areas for supplying power, potable water and
hydrogen as transportation fuel,” Applied Energy, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 4517–4526, 2011.
[6] J. Kumagai, “The rise of the personal power plant,” IEEE Spectr., vol. 6, no. 51, pp. 54–59,
2014.
[7] A. H. Etemadi, E. J. Davison, and R. Iravani, “A Decentralized Robust Control Strategy for
Multi-DER Microgrids - Part I: Fundamental Concepts,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 27,
no. 4, pp. 1843–1853, 2012.
[8] M. Babazadeh and H. Karimi, “A Robust Two-Degree-of-Freedom Control Strategy for an
Islanded Microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1339–1347, 2013.
[9] C. D. Persis, N. Monshizadeh, J. Schiffer, and F. Dörfler, “A lyapunov approach to control of microgrids with a network-preserved differential-algebraic model,” in 2016 IEEE 55th
Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec 2016, pp. 2595–2600.
[10] S. Riverso, F. Sarzo, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Plug-and-play voltage and frequency control
of islanded microgrids with meshed topology,” Tech. Rep., 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2421
[11] S. Riverso, M. Farina, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Plug-and-Play Decentralized Model Predictive
Control for Linear Systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 2608–2614,
2013.
[12] S. Riverso, “Distributed and plug-and-play control for constrained systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Università degli studi di Pavia, 2014.
[13] K. De Brabandere, B. Bolsens, J. Van den Keybus, A. Woyte, J. Driesen, and R. Belmans,
“A voltage and frequency droop control method for parallel inverters,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1107–1115, 2007.
[14] J. Kim, J. M. Guerrero, P. Rodriguez, R. Teodorescu, and K. Nam, “Mode adaptive droop
control with virtual output impedances for an inverter-based flexible AC microgrid,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 689–701, 2011.
[15] V. Venkatasubramanian, H. Schattler, and J. Zaborszky, “Fast Time-Varying Phasor Analysis
in the Balanced Three-Phase Large Electric Power System,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1975–1982, 1995.
19

[16] M. Tucci, A. Floriduz, S. Riverso, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Plug-and-play control of AC
islanded microgrids with general topology,” in European Control Conference (ECC), 2016,
pp. 1493–1500.
[17] F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “Kron reduction of graphs with applications to electrical networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 150–163,
2013.
[18] G. Kron, Tensor analysis of networks.

John Wiley and Sons, 1939.

[19] J. Schiffer, C. A. Hans, T. Kral, R. Ortega, and J. Raisch, “Modelling, analysis and experimental validation of clock drift effects in low-inertia power systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 2016.
[20] H. Han, X. Hou, J. Yang, J. Wu, M. Su, and J. M. Guerrero, “Review of power sharing
control strategies for islanding operation of AC microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 200–215, Jan 2016.
[21] J. C. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero, M. Savaghebi, J. Eloy-Garcia, and R. Teodorescu, “Modeling,
Analysis, and Design of Stationary-Reference-Frame Droop-Controlled Parallel Three-Phase
Voltage Source Inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1271–1280, 2013.
[22] R. H. Park, “Two-Reaction Theory of Synchronous Machines - Generalized Method of Analysis - Part I,” Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol. 48, no. 3,
pp. 716–727, 1929.
[23] J. He and Y. Lee, “Analysis and design of interfacing inverter output virtual impedance in
a low voltage microgrid,” in IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE),
Atlanta, GA, USA, September 12-16, 2010, p. 2857–2864.
[24] A. Phadkeand, J. Thorp, and M. Pai, Synchronized Phasor Measurements and Their Applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2008.
[25] J. Vig, “Quartz crystal resonators and oscillators for frequency control and timing applications: A tutorial,” U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ,
USA, Tech. Rep. Tech. Rep. SLCET-TR-88-1 (Rev. 8.4.2), 2009.
[26] R. Gusella and S. Zatt, “The accuracy of the clock synchronization achieved by tempo in
berkeley unix 4.3 bsd,” IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 847–853, 1989.
[27] “IEEE Draft Standard Profile for Use of IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol in Power System
Applications,” IEEE PC37.238/D21.3, January 2017, pp. 1–40, Jan 2017.
[28] Q. Shafiee, J. M. Guerrero, and J. C. Vasquez, “Distributed Secondary Control for Islanded
Microgrids — A Novel Approach,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1018–
1031, 2014.
[29] F. Bullo, Lectures on Network Systems.
http://motion.me.ucsb.edu/book-lns

Version 0.85, 2016. [Online]. Available:

[30] A. Yazdani and R. Iravani, Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Systems: Modeling, Control,
and Applications. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[31] R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and P. Rodriguez, Grid converters for photovoltaic and wind power
systems. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[32] IEEE, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring Electric Power Quality,” IEEE Std
1159TM -2009, 3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA, Tech. Rep. June, 2009.

20

[33] Q. Shafiee, C. Stefanovic, T. Dragicevic, P. Popovski, J. Vasquez, and J. Guerrero, “Robust
networked control scheme for distributed secondary control of islanded microgrids,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 5363–5374, 2014.

21

