Distributed Frequency Control in Power Grids
Under Limited Communication
Marzieh Parandehgheibi ∗ , Konstantin Turitsyn
∗ Laboratory

†

and Eytan Modiano

∗

for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

arXiv:1605.00947v1 [cs.SY] 3 May 2016

† Department

Abstract—In this paper, we analyze the impact of communication failures on the performance of optimal distributed frequency
control. We consider a consensus-based control scheme, and
show that it does not converge to the optimal solution when
the communication network is disconnected. We propose a new
control scheme that uses the dynamics of power grid to replicate
the information not received from the communication network,
and prove that it achieves the optimal solution under any single
communication link failure. In addition, we show that this control
improves cost under multiple communication link failures.
Next, we analyze the impact of discrete-time communication on
the performance of distributed frequency control. In particular, we
will show that the convergence time increases as the time interval
between two messages increases. We propose a new algorithm
that uses the dynamics of the power grid, and show through
simulation that it improves the convergence time of the control
scheme significantly.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The main objective of a power grid is to generate power, and
transmit it to the consumers. The power grid balances supply
and demand through frequency control. This is done both at the
local (generator) level, and the wide-area level as follows.
1) Primary Frequency Control (Droop Control): A local
frequency controller that balances the power by speeding
up or slowing down the generators; i.e. creating deviation
from the 60Hz nominal frequency; this controller responds
to the changes in power within milliseconds to seconds.
2) Secondary Frequency Control (AGC): AGC is a centralized frequency controller that re-adjusts the set points of
generators to balance the power and restores the nominal
frequency; this is a close-loop automatic controller that
is applied every 2-4 seconds and requires communication
network between AGC and generators.
3) Economic Dispatch: This is a centralized controller that
reschedules the generators to minimize the cost of generation; this control decision is made by the ISO every 1015 minutes, and requires communication network between
ISO and generators.
The future power grid is going to integrate renewable energy
resources. This will increase the fluctuations in the generation,
and requires more reserve capacity to balance the power. One of
the approaches to balancing power without having large reserve
capacities is demand response, where loads are “adjustable” and
participate in balancing the power. Since the number of loads is
large, they cannot be controlled in a centralized manner. Thus, it
is essential to use “distributed” control for demand response that
incorporates all three stages of traditional frequency control.
Recently, there have been many attempts to develop distributed frequency control mechanisms. In [1], the authors
consider the case that the total amount of required power is

known, and designed a distributed algorithm that determines
the amount of load participation to minimize the cost. In [2],
the authors design a distributed frequency controller which
balances the power under unknown changes in the amount
of generation and load, and compare its performance with a
centralized controller.
In [3], the authors propose a primary control mechanism,
similar to the droop control, for microgrids leading to a desirable
distribution of power among the participants, and propose
a distributed integral controller to balance the power. These
results are extended in [4], where the authors use a similar
averaging-based distributed algorithm to incorporate all three
stages of frequency control in microgrids. Moreover, in [5], the
authors propose a similar consensus-based algorithm for optimal
frequency control in transmission power grid.
In [6], the authors use a primal-dual algorithm to design a
primary frequency control for demand response in power grid.
The results are extended in [7] and [8], where the authors design
a primal-dual algorithm to model all three stages of a traditional
frequency control in the power grid.
Although there exist several different distributed frequency
control mechanisms in the literature, they all rely on the
use of communication to exchange control information (e.g.,
Lagrangian multipliers). Moreover, convergence to an optimal
solution requires the underlying communication network to be
connected. In addition, in the design and analysis of all these
controllers, it is assumed that the communication messages
between neighboring nodes are transmitted in continuous time;
however, in practice, these messages will be transmitted in
discrete time. In this paper, we analyze the performance of a
consensus-based control scheme under communication failures.
We show that when the communication network is disconnected, the control scheme balances the power by retrieving the
normal frequency; however, its cost is not optimal. Moreover,
we analyze the effect of discrete-time communication on the
convergence time of this control scheme.
Next, we propose a novel control algorithm which uses
the information from the power flow to replicate the direct
information received from the communication network. We
prove that our algorithm achieves the optimal solution under any
single communication link failure. We also show via simulation
results that our algorithm improves the cost under multiple communication failures. Finally, we propose a sequential algorithm
based on our control mechanism, and show that it improves the
convergence time under discrete-time communication.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section
II, we describe the power grid’s model. In Section III, we
describe a consensus-based distributed frequency control, and
analyze it under communication link failures and discrete-

time communication. In Section IV, we will propose a novel
decentralized control for a two-node system and prove its
optimality and stability, and in Section V, we extend our
control mechanism for multi-node systems under disconnected
communication networks. Next, in Section VI, we propose a
sequential control algorithm that improves the convergence time
under discrete-time communication. Finally, we conclude in
Section VII.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Let GP = {NP , EP } be the power grid, where NP denotes
the set of power nodes, and EP denotes the set of power lines.
The power at every node j, whether it is a generator or a load,
consists of adjustable and unadjustable parts. The unadjustable
part is the amount of power that cannot be changed; i.e. fixed
demand or generation. The adjustable part is the amount of
power that can be changed; i.e. controllable load or generation.
The sum of the total power determines the amount of power
imbalance in the grid, which leads to the frequency deviation.
The role of a controller is to balance the power by using the
adjustable power at all nodes with minimum cost. Next, we
describe the dynamics of the power grid which translate the
power imbalance to frequency deviation. Then, we describe the
optimal control policy.
Let Mj be the inertia of node j, and Dj be the droop
coefficient of node j. Moreover, let pj (t) be the unadjustable
power and uj (t) be the adjustable power (control) at node j and
at time t. In addition, let Bjk be the susceptance of power line
(j, k), and fjk (t) be the amount of power flow from node j to
node k at time t. We can describe the dynamics of the power
grid using the swing equation at every node and the power flow
equation at every line as follows.
X
Mj ω˙j (t) = −Dj ωj (t) + pj (t) + uj (t) −
fjk (t)

of communication nodes, and EC denotes the set of communication links. The optimal distributed frequency control can be
described by the following differential equation.
X
Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − Ci
(Ci ui (t) − Cj uj (t)) i ∈ NP
j:(i,j)∈EC

(3)
Accordingly, the distributed control works as follows: node
i measures the local frequency ωi , receives the information
Cj uj (t) from the neighbor nodes via the communication network, and updates the local control value ui (t). It is shown
in [5] and [4] that if the communication network is connected,
the control mechanism in equation (3) converges to the optimal
solution, which is globally asymptotically stable.
A. Impact of Communication Link Failures
The control mechanism in equation (3) will achieve the
optimal solution if the communication network is connected.
However, if the communication network is disconnected, while
power will be balanced, optimal cost may not be achieved; i.e.
it cannot guarantee that Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j for all i, j nodes. Next,
we show via an example that the impact on the cost could be
significant.
Consider the power grid in Figure 1 (The data of the grid
and the costs can be found in Appendix A). In this example,
the communication network has the same topology as the power
grid. The total load in this grid is 25 p.u., and we increase the
load in node 3 by 5 p.u. (20% total increase). Simulation results
show that the optimal cost, by applying control mechanism 3
under a fully connected communication network, is 23.27. If
the communication link between nodes 2 and 7 fails, the cost
increases to 35.69, while the cost under no communication
is 39.11. This example shows that the failue of only one
communication link could have a significant impact on the cost
of distributed control.

k:(j,k)∈EP

˙ (t) = Bjk (ωj (t) − ωk (t))
fjk

j ∈ NP

(1a)

(j, k) ∈ EP

(1b)

The objective of our control is to minimize the total cost of
adjustable power at steady-state while balancing power. Let p∗j
be the steady-state unadjustable power, and u∗j be the steady∗
state adjustable power (control) at node j. Moreover, let fjk
be
the steady-state power flow from node j to node k. The optimal
steady-state control can be formulated as follows.
min

u∗ ,f ∗

s.t.

X 1
Cj u∗2
j
2
j∈NP
X
p∗j + u∗j −

(2a)
∗
fjk
= 0 j ∈ NP

(2b)

k:(j,k)∈EP

It was shown in [5] and [4] that the optimalP
solution to
equation (2) has the form of Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j , where j∈N u∗j =
P
− j∈N p∗j 1 .
III. D ISTRIBUTED C ONTROL
Let the power grid be supported by a connected communication network GC = {NC , EC }, where NC denotes the set
1 Note that satisfying condition C u∗ = C u∗ can also be interpreted as
i i
j j
fairness in sharing the loads.

Fig. 1. Power Grid Toy Example - Solid lines are power lines and dashed
lines are communication lines.

B. Impact of Discrete-time Communication
In the design and analysis of the distributed control mechanism described in equation (3), it is assumed that the communication messages are updated in continuous time. However, in
reality, the communication messages will be updated in discrete
time. Let T be the time interval between two communication
messages. Then, the distributed control can be described as
follows.
Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − Ci

X

(Ci ui (t) − Cj uj (KT ))

j:(i,j)∈EC

i ∈ NP ,

KT ≤ t ≤ (K + 1)T

(4)

Define the convergence time t∗ to be the first time such that
|(Cost(t∗ ) − Cost∗ )| < 0.01, where Cost(t∗ ) is the cost at
time t∗ and Cost∗ is the optimal cost. By running the control
in equation (4) on the power grid in Figure 1 for different values
of T , it can be seen that the time of convergence increases as
T increases (See Figure 2).

claim that the new control achieves the optimal solution (See
Figure 3).

(a) Two-Node System
Communication

with

(b) Two-Node System without
Communication

Fig. 3. Let t0 be the time failure: node i knows cj uj (t0 ) and node j knows
ci ui (t0 ); Nodes i and j can initialize qi (t0 ) and qj (t0 ) properly to guarantee
optimality

Fig. 2.

Using the new control as in equations (5), the dynamics of
the system can be written as follows.

Convergence Time increases as T increases.

IV. D ECENTRALIZED C ONTROL FOR T WO - NODE S YSTEM
In this section, we consider a two-node system connected
by a power line and communication link as in Figure 3(a).
As described, when the communication link fails, node i does
not receive information Cj uj (t) and node j does not receive
information Ci ui (t). Therefore, the optimal cost cannot be
achieved. Next, we propose a control algorithm that uses the
dynamics of the power grid instead of direct information Ci ui (t)
and Cj uj (t), and still achieves the optimal solution.
Previously, the adjustable power at both nodes i and j
was updated based on the local frequency and the information
received from the neighboring node. In our control scheme, we
update the adjustable power at every node based on the local
frequency and a local artificial variable, where this variable
is updated based on the power flow dynamics between the
two nodes. Since the changes in the flow is a function of the
frequency at both nodes, it contains some indirect information
about the adjustable control as well as the cost of the neighbor
node. We prove that this information is enough to guarantee the
optimality of the our control scheme.
Let qi and qj be the two artificial variables at nodes i and j,
respectively. Our decentralized control for the two-node system
can be described as follows.
Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − qi (t)
Cj u˙j (t) = −ωj − qj (t)
f˙ij
− 2qi (t)
q˙i (t) = −
Bij
f˙ij
− 2qj (t)
q˙j (t) =
Bij

(5a)
(5b)
(5c)
(5d)

As described, control at node i is updated only based on
the local frequency ωi and the value of artificial variable qi .
Moreover, value of qi is updated based on the derivative of
flow fij which can be observed locally. Similarly, control at
node j depends on the local frequency ωj and the derivative of
flow fji which can be observed locally. Thus, there is no need
to a communication network between nodes i and j. Next, we

Mi ω̇i (t) = −Di ωi (t) + pi (t) + ui (t) − fij (t)
Mj ω˙j (t) = −Dj ωj (t) + pj (t) + uj (t) + fij (t)
f˙ij (t) = Bij (ωi (t) − ωj (t))
Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − qi (t)
Cj u˙j (t) = −ωj (t) − qj (t)
q˙i (t) = −(ωi (t) − ωj (t)) − 2qi (t)
q˙j (t) = −(ωj (t) − ωi (t)) − 2qj (t)

(6a)
(6b)
(6c)
(6d)
(6e)
(6f)
(6g)

In the following, we will prove the optimality and stability
of the dynamical system described in equation (6).
A. Optimality
Theorem 1: Let qi (t0 ) = −qj (t0 ) = Ci ui (t0 ) − Cj uj (t0 ).
Then, the equilibrium point of the system described in equation
(6) achieves the optimal cost.
Proof:
In order to prove the optimality, we need to show that
equation (6) guarantees ωi∗ = ωj∗ = 0 and Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j at the
equilibrium point; i.e. power is balanced, and cost is minimized.
At the equilibrium, all of the derivatives in equation (6) are
equal to zero. Therefore, we will have the following equations.
ωi∗ − ωj∗ = 0
ωi∗ − qi∗ = 0
ωj∗ − qj∗ = 0
− (ωi∗ − ωj∗ ) − 2qi∗ = 0
− (ωj∗ − ωi∗ ) − 2qj∗ = 0

(7a)
(7b)
(7c)
(7d)
(7e)

Solving equations (7) results in ωi∗ = ωj∗ = 0, which
guarantees that power is balances at the equilibrium point. In
addition, we will have qi∗ = qj∗ = 0.
Equations (6f) and (6g) show that q˙i (t) = −q˙j (t) for all
time t ≥ t0 . Since we have initialized qi (t0 ) = −qj (t0 ), it is
easy to see that qi (t) = −qj (t) for t ≥ t0 .
Next, we subtract equation (6e) from equation (6d). Thus,
we will have Ci u̇i − Cj u˙j = −(ωi − ωj ) − 2qi which is equal
to the equation (6f). Therefore, q˙i = Ci u̇i − Cj u˙j .

By taking integral over both sides from t = t0 to infinity, we
will have (Ci u∗i −Ci ui (t0 ))−(Cj u∗j −Cj uj (t0 )) = qi∗ −qi (t0 ),
and assumption qi (t0 ) = Ci ui (t0 ) − Cj uj (t0 ) results in ci u∗i −
Cj u∗j = qi∗ . Since qi∗ = 0, Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j which guarantees the
optimality of the equilibrium point.
B. Stability
Next, we prove that the equilibrium point of the dynamical
system described in equation (6) is globally asymptotically
stable. Since our dynamical system is linear, it is enough to show
that the roots of the characteristic polynomial of the system are
all located in the negative side of the plane.
Let D, M, C ∈ R2×2 be diagonal matrices denoting the
droop coefficient, inertia and cost at nodes i and j, respectively.
Let B be the susceptance of the power line between nodes i
and j. Moreover, let Ap ∈ R2×1 be the node-edge incidence
T
matrix, LB
p = Ap BAp be the weighted laplacian matrix of
the power grid, and Lc ∈ R2×2 be the laplacian matrix of the
communication network. Finally, let s(λ) be the characteristic
polynomial of the system.
By applying the schur complement formula as well as elementary row operations, s(λ) can be simplified to the following
(See Appendix B-A for more details).
s(λ) = (λ + 2)det(M −1 )det(H(λ)) where H(λ) =

 2
(λ D + λ3 M + λC −1 ) + (λLc D + λ2 Lc M + (2 + λ)LB
p)
Since the system is linear, it is enough to show that the real
parts of all roots of characteristic polynomial s(λ) are negative.
Theorem 2: The conditions in equation (8) are sufficient to
guarantee that the equilibrium point of the system described in
equation 6 is globally asymptotically stable.
M 0
(8a)
1
(Lc M + M Lc ) + D  0
(8b)
2
1
−1
(Lc D + DLc ) + LB
0
(8c)
P +C
2
1
−1
λmin [(LB
)]×
p + (Lc D + DLc ) + C
2
1
λmin [( (Lc M + M Lc ) + D)] > 4B max{M1 , M2 } (8d)
2
Proof: See Appendix B-B.
Next, we argue that sufficient conditions in equations (8a)(8d) often hold in practice. Condition (8a) holds as inertia is a
positive value. Condition (8b) holds as the inertia of nodes in
a distribution network is very small; and the matrix becomes
strictly diagonally dominant. Conditions (8c) and (8d) hold if
the cost values are scaled down; i.e. increase C −1 . Note that the
only requirement for optimality of the control is that the ratio of
power distribution be proportional to the inverse ratio of costs.
Thus, scaling all the cost values will not affect the solution.
V. C ONTROL UNDER C OMMUNICATION L INK FAILURES
In this section, we extend the idea in Section IV to multinode systems. In particular, we introduce a new control mechanism that uses the dynamics of the power flow between
adjacent nodes to replicate the direct information transmitted
between them via a communication link. We show that our
new control mechanism achieves the optimal solution under
single communication link failure, and improves the cost under
multiple communication link failures.

A. Single Communication Link Failure
Consider the power grid and communication network in
Figure 4. Suppose the communication link between nodes i and
j fails. We claim that if nodes i and j update their local control
decision only based on the power flow between nodes i and j,
and the rest of the nodes keep their previous control rule, the
dynamical system will converge to the optimal solution. The
new control mechanism can be described as follows.
Ck u˙k (t) = −ωk (t) − Ck

X

(Ck uk (t) − Cl ul (t))

l:(k,l)∈EC

k ∈ N \{i, j}
Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − qi (t)
Cj u˙j (t) = −ωj (t) − qj (t)
q˙i (t) = −(ωi (t) − ωj (t)) − 2qi (t)
q˙j (t) = −(ωj (t) − ωi (t)) − 2qj (t)

(9a)
(9b)
(9c)
(9d)
(9e)

Fig. 4. Power Grid and Communication Network - Solid lines are power lines
and dashed lines are communication lines.

According to equation (9), all the nodes that are connected to
node i via the communication network, receive the information
ci ui (t) from node i; however, node i does not update its
control based on the information received from other nodes via
communication network. Similarly, all the nodes connected to
node j via the communication network, update their control
based on the information Cj uj they receive from node j;
however, node j does not use the information it receives from
other nodes via the communication network. Instead, nodes i
and j update their control only based on their local frequency
and the power flow between nodes i and j. This control rule
can be interpreted as a master/slave algorithm, where nodes i
and j are the master nodes that guarantee Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j , and
the rest of nodes are the slave nodes that follow the changes in
nodes i and j.
Theorem 3: Suppose the communication link between
nodes i and j fails at time t0 , but they are connected via a power
line. By updating the control mechanism according to equation
(9), and initializing qi (t0 ) = −qj (t0 ) = Ci ui (t0 ) − Cj uj (t0 ),
the optimal solution will be achieved.
Proof: Equation (9a) guarantees that Ck u∗k = Cl u∗l for all
k ∈ N \{i, j}. In particular, for any node k connected to node
i, Ck u∗k = Ci u∗i , and for any node k connected to node j,
Ck u∗k = Cj u∗j . On the hand, equations (9b)-(9e) guarantee that
Ci u∗i = Cj u∗j (See Theorem 1 for optimality of a two-node
system). Therefore, the equilibrium point is optimal.

Corollary 1: Suppose the power grid has a connected topology, and the original communication network contains a subtree
of the power grid. Then, the control mechanism described in
equation (9) achieves the optimal solution, under any single
communication link failure.
Proof: Let an arbitrary communication link (i, j) fail. If
there does not exist a power line between nodes i and j, the
communication topology is guaranteed to remain connected as
it still contains a subtree of the power grid. Thus, the control
mechanism will not be updated, and the optimal solution will
be achieved. If there exists a power line between nodes i and
j, the control mechanism will be updated as in equation (9),
which guarantees to achieve the optimal solution.
Similar to the two-node system, one can find sufficient
conditions under which the updated control mechanism in
equation (9) is globally asymptotically stable for a multi-node
system. For more details See Appendix C.
Consider Figure 1, and suppose that the communication
link between nodes 2 and 7 fail. Under the original control
mechanism, the cost increases from 23.27 to 35.69. However,
the new control mechanism will achieve the optimal solution.
We compare the frequency response of the original control
under full communication and the new control under single
communication link failure. For simplicity, we only show the
angular velocities at nodes 2 and 7 in Figures 5(a) and 5(b);
however, the same results hold for all the other nodes. We
observed that for all nodes, the frequency response of the two
control mechanisms are very similar, indicating that the new
control mechanism will not create any abrupt changes in the
frequency of the system.

(a) Frequency Response of Original (b) Frequency Response of New
Control under Full Communication Control under Single Link Communication Failure
Fig. 5.

Comparing the frequency responses

B. Multiple Communication Link Failures
In this section, we consider the case that multiple communication links fail (See Figure 6 as an example.) We generalize
the control mechanism described for the single communication
link failures as follows.
Consider pairs of nodes that have lost their communication links, but they are connected via power lines. Let F
be the set of such nodes. Moreover, let qi be the artificial
variable for every node i ∈ F , and initialize it as qi (t0 ) =
P
j∈F :(i,j)∈EP (Ci ui (t0 ) − Cj uj (t0 )).

Fig. 6. Power Grid and Communication Network - Solid lines are power lines
and dashed lines are communication lines.

The update control rule can be written as follows.
Cr u˙r (t) = −ωr (t) − Cr

X

(Cr ur (t) − Cl ul (t))

r ∈ N \F

l:(r,l)∈EC

Ci u̇i (t) = −ωi (t) − qi (t) i ∈ F
X
q˙i (t) = −
(ωi (t) − ωj (t)) − 2qi (t)

(10a)
(10b)
(10c)

j∈F :(i,j)∈EP

It can be seen from equation (10) that every pair of node i
and j that have lost their communication link, but are connected
via a power line will switch to the new control rule, where the
control rule at the rest of nodes remains the same. This control
rule does not guarantee to achieve the optimal solution; however,
we show that in practice it improves the cost.
Consider the power grid in Figure 1, and assume that the
communication links between nodes 1 and 2 and nodes 2 and
5 have failed. Under the original control, the cost increases
from 23.27 to 36.87 which is 58% increase in the optimal
cost. However, our control described in equation (10) achieves
a cost of 25.45, which is only 9% increase in the optimal
cost (49% improvement). In addition, we observed that the new
control policy will not lead to any unacceptable changes in the
frequency response.
VI. C ONTROL WITH D ISCRETE -T IME C OMMUNICATION
In this Section, we study the impact of discrete-time communication on the performance of distributed frequency control. As discussed in Section III-B, when the time interval
between communication messages increases, the convergence
time increases. In this Section, we propose an algorithm that
sequentially updates the control of pairs of nodes using the
dynamics of the power flow between them. Using simulation
results, we show that the new algorithm converges much faster
than the original one.
Let T be the time interval between communication messages. Let ES = {e1 , · · · , em } = EP ∩ EC be the set of pairs of
nodes that share the power lines and communication links. The
algorithm is as follows.
Let communication messages update at time instants KT ,
where K ≥ 0. At each time interval KT ≤ t < (K + 1)T ,
the algorithm selects a link er ∈ ES , and updates the control
according to equations (9), where i and j are the end-nodes of

the selected link er . The only difference is in equation (9a),
where the control should be updated based on the most recent
communicationPmessage received at time KT ; i.e. Ck u˙k (t) =
−ωk (t) − Ck l:(k,l)∈EC (Ck uk (t) − Cl ul (KT )) ∀k 6= i, j.
At the beginning of next time interval, new communication
messages will be received, and the algorithm selects the next
link in ES . The algorithm keeps iterating on the links in
sequence until convergence is achieved.
Figure 7 shows the sequence of link selection and control
updates at nodes. This algorithm improves the convergence rate
because during each interval, it uses the additional information
from the dynamics of the power grid to update the control at
each node.

Fig. 7. Power Grid and Communication Network - Solid lines are power
lines and dashed lines are communication lines. The shared edges between the
power grid and communication network are (2, 3), (3, 4), (3, 5), (5, 6), and the
algorithm sequentially selects one of these edges, and uses its power flow to
control the power changes at nodes.

We applied the original control scheme as well as the new
control scheme to the power grid in Figure 1. For simplicity, we
only show the results for two nodes 1 and 5; however, the results
are the same for the rest of nodes. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) show
that increasing the value of T increases the convergence time
under the original control. Figures 8(c) and 8(d) indicate that by
applying the new control mechanism, the convergence time for
T = 1s is similar to the convergence time of the original control
for T = 1ms. In addition, it can be seen that although the
general behavior of the power under both control mechanisms
are similar, there are some fluctuations in the value of power
under the new control algorithm. However, by comparing the
frequency response of the control mechanisms in Figures 8(e)
and 8(f), it can be seen that the fluctuations in the frequency
response of nodes under the new algorithm are negligible.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we analyzed the impact of communication
failures as well as discrete-time communication messages on
the performance of optimal distributed frequency control. We
considered the consensus-based algorithm proposed in [5] and
[4], and showed that although the control mechanism can
balance the power, it will not achieve the optimal solution under
communication failures.
Next, we proposed a novel control mechanism that uses
the dynamics of the power flow between two nodes instead
of the information received directly from the communication
link between them. We proved that our algorithm achieves the
optimal solution under any single communication link failure.
We also used simulation results to show that the new control
improves the cost under multiple communication link failures.

(a) T=1ms; Original Control

(b) T=1s; Original Control

(c) T=1ms; Original Control

(d) T=1s; New Control Algorithm

(e) Frequency Response of Original (f) Frequency Response of New
Control for T=1ms
Control for T=1s
Fig. 8. Comparing the power and frequency response for large T under new
control with small T under the original control

Finally, we showed that the convergence time of the distributed control increases as the time between two communication messages increases. We proposed a sequential control
scheme which uses the dynamics of the power grid, and using
simulation results, we showed that it improves the convergence
time significantly.
R EFERENCES
[1]

A. D. Dominguez-Garcia and C. N. Hadjicostis, “Coordination and control
of distributed energy resources for provision of ancillary services,” in
Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), 2010 First IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 537–542.
[2] M. Andreasson, D. V. Dimarogonas, K. H. Johansson, and H. Sandberg,
“Distributed vs. centralized power systems frequency control,” in 2013
12th European Control Conference, ECC 2013; Zurich; Switzerland; 17
July 2013 through 19 July 2013, 2013, pp. 3524–3529.
[3] J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. Dörfler, and F. Bullo, “Synchronization and power
sharing for droop-controlled inverters in islanded microgrids,” Automatica,
vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 2603–2611, 2013.
[4] F. Dorfler, J. Simpson-Porco, and F. Bullo, “Breaking the hierarchy:
Distributed control & economic optimality in microgrids,” 2014.
[5] C. Zhao, E. Mallada, and F. Dörfler, “Distributed frequency control for
stability and economic dispatch in power networks,” in Proceedings of
American Control Conference, 2015.
[6] C. Zhao, U. Topcu, N. Li, and S. Low, “Design and stability of load-side
primary frequency control in power systems,” Automatic Control, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1177–1189, 2014.
[7] E. Mallada and S. Low, “Distributed frequency-preserving optimal load
control,” in World Congress, vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, pp. 5411–5418.
[8] E. Mallada, C. Zhao, and S. Low, “Optimal load-side control for frequency
regulation in smart grids,” in Communication, Control, and Computing

(Allerton), 2014 52nd Annual Allerton Conference on.
731–738.

IEEE, 2014, pp.

A PPENDIX A
DATA OF THE POWER GRID IN F IGURE 1
Inertia, initial power, droop control and cost of adjustable
control at nodes 1 to 10 are as follows.
M = [0.01, 0.02, 0.01, 0.1, 0.05, 0.8, 0.05, 1, 0.1, 0.01]
P0 = [1, 5, −2, 6, −5, −10, −4, 8, 5, −4]
D = |P30 |
∼ [0.33, 1.67, 0.67, 2, 1.67, 3.33, 1.33, 2.67, 1.67, 1.33]
Cost = [10, 10, 100, 100, 5, 10, 7, 9, 5, 10]
Reactance of lines 1 to 10 are as follows.
Reactance = [1, 2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 1, 9, 1]
A PPENDIX B
S TABILITY OF T WO -N ODE S YSTEM
First, we show the process of simplifying the characteristic
polynomial; and then, discuss the conditions under which the
characteristic polynomial has negative roots.
A. Simplifying s(λ) for Two node system
Let the state vector of the two-node system be
[ωi , ωj , fij , ui , uj , qi , qj ]. We can rewrite the state matrix of our
dynamical system as follows.

By simplifying the matrices, we will get the following.

−M −1 D − λI −M −1 Ap
M −1
BATp
−λ
01×2 
s(λ) = λ(λ+2)det 
−1
2×1
−C
0
−Lc − λI
By schur complement formula,
s(λ) = λ(λ + 2)det(Lc + λ)
−M −1 D − λI − M −1 (Lc + λI)−1 C −1
det
BATp

−M −1 Ap
−λ



We apply the schur complement formula, one more time.
s(λ) = λ2 (λ + 2)det(Lc + λ)

det −M −1 D − λI − M −1 (Lc + λI)−1 C −1 − λ1 M −1 Ap BATp
s(λ)
= (λ + 2)det(M −1 )det(Lc + λ) 

det λD + λ2 M + λ(Lc + λI)−1 C −1 + LB
p
s(λ)
= (λ + 2)det(M −1 )


det λ(Lc + λ)D + λ2 (Lc + λ)M + λC −1 + (Lc + λ)LB
p
−1
)det(H(λ)), where H(λ) =
 2s(λ) =3 (λ + 2)det(M
−1
(λ D + λ M + λC ) + (λLc D + λ2 Lc M + (2 + λ)LB
p)

B. Proof of Stability
Roots of s(λ) are 0, −2 and roots det(H(λ)). Thus, it
is enough to show that under the conditions in equations 8,
det(H(λ)) does not have a root on the right-hand side of the
plane.
The necessary condition for det(H(λ)) = 0 is that there
exists eigenvector y 6= 0 such that H(λ)y = 0. Therefore,
Let s(λ) = det(A − λI) be the characteristic polynomial of
y ∗ H(λ)y = 0.
matrix A.
We show that under the conditions in equations 8, for any
s(λ)


x 6= 0, roots of x∗ H(λ)x = 0 will be in the left-hand side of
−M −1 D − λI 2×2 −M −1 Ap M −1 I 2×2
02×2
 the plane; thus, it is a sufficient condition for the stability of

BATp
−λ
01×2
01×2
= det 
 our system.
−C −1
02×1
−λI 2×2
−C −1
2×1
2×2
2×2
−Lc
0
0
−(2 + λ)I
Without loss of generality, we assume x∗ x = 1, and rewrite
∗
x H(λ)x as follows.
x∗ H(λ)x = a0 + a1 λ + a2 λ2 + a3 λ3 = 0, where a0 =
By schur complement
formula,


−1
2×2
−1
−1
∗
∗
B
−1
−M D − λI
−M Ap
M
x (2LB
)x, a2 = x∗ (Lc M + D)x
p )x, a1 = x (Lp + Lc D + C
∗
T
1×2
2
 and a3 = x (M )x.
BAp
−λ
0
s(λ) = (2+λ) det 
Lc
C −1 [ 2+λ
− I 2×2 ]
02×1
−λI 2×2
Under the conditions in equations 8, coefficients a1 , a2 , a3
are all positive.

−M −1 D
 BATp
A=
−C −1
−Lc

−M −1 Ap
01×1
02×1
02×1

M −1 I 2×2
01×2
02×2
02×2


02×2
01×2 

−C −1
−2I 2×2

Next, we take (2 + λ)2 into the matrix by multiplying the
last row with (2 + λ)I 2×2 .
Thus,
 s(λ)−1

−M D − λI 2×2 −M −1 Ap
M −1

BATp
−λ
01×2
= det 
−1
2×1
2×2
C [Lc − (λ + 2)I]
0
−λ(λ + 2)I
Next, we take out [Lc − (λ + 2)I] from the big matrix as
follows.
s(λ)
det(−[Lc − (λ + 2)I])
" =
−1
2×2
−1
−M

det

D − λI
BATp
−C −1

−M Ap
−λ
02×1

M −1
01×2
λ(λ + 2)[Lc − (λ + 2)I]−1

#

-

-

-

1
−1
a1 = x∗ (LB
)x = x∗ (LB
p + Lc D + C
p + 2 (Lc D +
−1
B
DLc )+C )x; Lp is positive semidefinite, and C −1 is
positive definite. 12 (Lc D+DLc ) is also positive definite
by conditions in 8.
a2 = x∗ (Lc M + D)x = x∗ ( 21 (Lc M + M Lc ) + D)x;
D is a positive definite matrix; 21 (Lc M + M Lc ) is also
positive definite by conditions in 8.
a3 = x∗ (M )x > 0, since M is a positive definite
matrix.

However, since LB
p , the laplacian matrix of the power grid,
is a positive semidefinite matrix, the coefficient a0 will be
nonnegative; i.e. a0 = x∗ (2LB
p )x ≥ 0. We consider both cases
where a0 = 0 and a0 > 0, and show that in each case, the roots
of det(H(λ)) will be in the left-hand side of the plane.

Case I: Let a0 = 0; Thus, x∗ H(λ)x = a1 λ+a2 λ2 +a3 λ3 =
λ(a1 + a2 λ + a3 λ2 ) = 0. One root of the above equation is
λ = 0, and since a1 , a2 , a3 > 0, the other two roots will be in
the left-hand side of the plane by the Routh-Hurwitz stability
criteria.
Case II: Let a0 > 0. By Routh-Hurwitz stability criteria,
roots of x∗ H(λ)x will have negative real values, if ai > 0 for
i = 0, 1, 2, 3, and a0 a3 < a1 a2 .
−1
a1 a2 = [x∗ (LB
)x][x∗ (Lc M + D)x] >
p + Lc D + C
∗
B
∗
[x (2Lp )x][x (M )x] = a0 a3 if and only if
−1
[λmin (LB
)][λmin (Lc M + D)]
>
p + Lc D + C
B
λmax (2Lp )λmax (M )
A PPENDIX C
S TABILITY OF M ULTI -N ODE S YSTEM
A. Simplifying s(λ) for Multi-Node System
Let D, M, C ∈ RNP ×NP be the diagonal matrices of droop,
inertia and cost values of the all nodes in the power grid.
Moreover, let I ∈ RNP ×NP be the identity matrix.
Suppose that we label the nodes such that nodes NP and
NP − 1 be the nodes that have lost their communication link.
Let Ap be the adjacency matrix of the power grid. Moreover,
let Lc be the laplacian
network.
 matrix of the communication

Lc1
∗
Finally, define Lc = 2×N −2
, where
0
|Lc2 C2−1


1 −1
Lc1 = Lc [1 : NP − 2, 1 : NP − 2] and Lc2 =
be
−1 1
the laplacian matrix of a two-node system.
Then, the characteristic polynomial of our multi-node system
is as follows.
s(λ)

 =−1λ(λ + 2)N ×N
−M D − λI
−M −1 Ap
M −1 I N ×N

−λI E×E
0E×N
BATp
det 
−1
N ×E
∗
−C
0
−Lc C − λI N ×N
Using the same techniques as in Section B-A, the characteristic polynomial can be simplified as follows.
s(λ) = λ1+E (λ + 2)det(L∗c C + λ)
det [−M −1 D − λI − M −1 (L∗c C + λI)−1 C −1 − λ1 M −1 Ap BATp ]
Let LB
p be the weighted laplacian matrix of the power grid,
T
where LB
p = Ap BAp .
Therefore,
s(λ) = (−1)N λ1+E−N (λ + 2)det(M −1 )det(H(λ)),
where H(λ) = (λ2 D + λ3 M + λC −1 )
+ (λL∗c CD + λ2 L∗c CM + (L∗c C + λ)LB
p)
B. Proof of Stability
In this section, we claim that the following conditions are
sufficient for the stability of the multi-node system.
M 0
(11a)
1 ∗
(L CM + M CL∗T
(11b)
c )+D 0
2 c
1 ∗
∗T
−1
LB
0
(11c)
p + (Lc CD + DCLc ) + C
2
B
∗
−1
∗
[λmin (Lp + Lc CD + C )][λmin (Lc CM + D)]
> λmax (L∗c CLB
p )λmax (M )

(11d)

Similar to the two-node system, in order to prove the
stability of the multi-node system, it is enough to show that
the real-parts of all eigenvalues are negative. This is due to the
fact that we have a linear system. Thus, we need to prove that
the all the roots of s(λ) are in the negative-side of the plane.
Since the power grid is a connected network, it contains a
subtree; thus, E ≥ N −1. Therefore, the roots of s(λ) are 0, −2
and roots det(H(λ)). Thus, it is enough to show that det(H(λ))
does not have a root on the right-hand side of the plane.
Similar to the two-node system, the necessary condition for
det(H(λ)) = 0 is that there exists eigenvector y 6= 0 such that
H(λ)y = 0. Therefore, y ∗ H(λ)y = 0.
We show that under conditions 11, for any x 6= 0, roots of
x∗ H(λ)x = 0 will be in the left-hand side of the plane; thus,
these conditions are sufficient for the stability of our system.
Without loss of generality, we assume x∗ x = 1, and rewrite
∗
x H(λ)x as follows.
x∗ H(λ)x = a0 + a1 λ + a2 λ2 + a3 λ3 = 0, where
∗
B
∗
−1
)x, a2 =
a0 = x∗ (L∗c CLB
p )x, a1 = x (Lp + Lc CD + C
∗
∗
∗
x (Lc CM + D)x and a3 = x (M )x.
Similar to the two-node system, we first show that under
conditions 11, coefficients a1 , a2 , a3 are positive.
-

-

1
∗
−1
∗
a1 = x∗ (LB
)x = x∗ (LB
p + Lc CD + C
p + 2 (Lc CD +
−1
∗T
DCLc ) + C )x > 0. This is guarantees under
condition 11c.
a2 = x∗ (L∗c CM + D)x = x∗ ( 21 (L∗c CM + M CL∗T
c )+
D)x > 0. This is guarantees under condition 11b.
a3 = x∗ (M )x > 0, which is guaranteed under condition 11a.

However, since LB
p , the laplacian matrix of the power grid,
is a positive semidefinite matrix, the coefficient a0 will be
nonnegative; i.e. a0 = x∗ (L∗c CLB
p )x ≥ 0. We consider both
cases where a0 = 0 and a0 > 0, and find the sufficient
conditions for each case under which the roots of det(H(λ))
are in the left-hand side of the plane.
Case I: Let a0 = 0; Thus, x∗ H(λ)x = a1 λ+a2 λ2 +a3 λ3 =
λ(a1 + a2 λ + a3 λ2 ) = 0. One root of the above equation is
λ = 0, and since a1 , a2 , a3 > 0, the other two roots will be in
the left-hand side of the plane by the Routh-Hurwitz stability
criteria.
Case II: Let a0 > 0. By Routh-Hurwitz stability criteria,
roots of x∗ H(λ)x will have negative real values, if ai > 0 for
i = 0, 1, 2, 3, and a0 a3 < a1 a2 .
∗
−1
a1 a2 = [x∗ (LB
)x][x∗ (L∗c CM + D)x] >
p + Lc CD + C
∗
∗
B
∗
[x (Lc CLp )x][x (M )x] = a0 a3 if and only if
∗
−1
[λmin (LB
)][λmin (L∗c CM + D)] >
p + Lc CD + C
∗
B
λmax (Lc CLp )λmax (M )

