energies

Article
Improved Droop Control with Washout Filter
Yalong Hu and Wei Wei *
College of Electrical and engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-138-6718-2377




Received: 30 August 2018; Accepted: 10 September 2018; Published: 12 September 2018


Abstract: In this paper, a droop washout filter controller (DWC), composed of a conventional droop
controller and a washout filter controller, is proposed. The droop controller is used to ensure the
“plug-and-play” capability, and the droop gain is set small. The washout filter is introduced to
compensate the active power dynamic performance (APDP). Compared to the droop controller,
the DWC can achieve accurate active power sharing and smaller frequency difference without losing
the APDP. Additionally, a novel modeling technology is proposed, using which a small-signal model
for an island microgrid (MG) is constructed as a singular system. The system’s stability is analyzed
and the DWC is verified using real-time (RT-LAB) simulation with hardware in the loop (HIL).

Keywords: microgrid (MG); droop control; washout filter; hardware in the loop (HIL)

1. Introduction
Due to the environmental pollution of fossil energy, distributed generators (DGs), such as
photovoltaic panels, have attracted great attention and their use is increasing rapidly. To effectively
integrate DGs, microgrid (MG) is introduced [1]. In an MG, the DG units, such as photovoltaic panels,
are always installed through power electronic units in parallel, which make them adjustable. An MG
should remain stable in island mode. The load should be shared by each DG proportionally when an
MG operates in island, where all DGs are connected in parallel.
By imitating the operations of synchronous in power system, the droop control strategy is
applied to achieve power sharing in an AC MG for its advantages such as no need for communication;
however, it also has many disadvantages such as frequency difference and poor reactive power sharing,
which many papers have analyzed [2,3]. To solve its defect, a secondary control strategy is widely
adopted, which can find the global information of an MG [4]. However, the secondary control always
needs additional communication links. When there are no communication links or the communication
fails, an MG must operate stably and meet the system needs.
To improve the active power dynamic performance (APDP) of a DG embedded with the droop
strategy, various control strategies have been put forward [5–9]. Another DOF (degree of freedom)
is added in [5], in which the derivative term is introduced to achieve a better APDP [7]. In [6],
the coefficients of the derivative control loop among DGs are set proportionally. The APDP is improved
by introducing derivative control with an adaptive coefficient which is small [8]. In [9], the angle
and frequency droop control strategies are combined to improve the performance of active power
output. A washout, i.e., the lack of low-frequency component of output power, filter control strategy is
proposed in [10]. It is actually a band-pass filter (BPF) to restore the voltage and frequency without
communication. However, the over dependence on the initial state makes it weak on “plug-and-play”.
In [11], a secondary controller based on washout filter is proposed which analyzes the parameter
setting conditions of the secondary controller. In this paper, a droop washout filter controller (DWC) is
proposed which combines the conventional droop controller and the washout filter. Compared with the
washout filter controller presented above, the DWC maintains important advantage of “plug-and-play”

Energies 2018, 11, 2415; doi:10.3390/en11092415 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 2415 2 of 18

in the droop control loop. Compared with the controller that only contains droop controller, the droop
coefficient could be set smaller, which results in a smaller frequency difference in the steady state,
and the APDP can be compensated by the washout filter control loop.
The stability of the MG embedded with the DWC is analyzed using small signal method in this
paper. In [12], the entire model of an inverter based MG is established in state-space form, which has
been adopted by many articles [11,13–20]. The active load is modeled and its characteristics are
analyzed in [13]. In [14], the accurate model of an islanded MG with the phase-locked loop (PLL) is built
and discussed. Using the singular perturbation technique, the states of the inductor-capacitor-inductor
(LCL) filter and PLL block are divided as fast states, which reduced the system order and calculation
burden [15]. In [16], a system with the internal model controller is modeled and discussed. To find
the optimal set of proportional parameters in inner controllers and droop gains, an objective function
is designed on the basis of the small signal model of an MG using genetic algorithm [17]. An MG
which contains current source DGs and voltage source DGs are modeled in [18]. In these articles, a key
technology named virtual resistor is used, using which each component in an MG could be modeled
together, and it is first presented in [12]. By analyzing the system, we found that the virtual resistor
technology works by introducing several poles which are away from the imaginary axis when the
virtual resistor value is very large. In this paper, the virtual resistor technology is abandoned and an
islanded MG is remodeled as a singular system [21].
The structure of this paper is as follows. The conventional droop controller and the washout filter
controller are analyzed in Section 2. In Section 3, the DWC, which combines the droop controller and
washout filter controller, is presented. In Section 4, the model of an MG is constructed embedded with
the DWC. The stability of an islanded MG, which is composed of two inverters and an impedance load,
is analyzed in Section 5. The hardware in the loop (HIL) simulation results are presented in Section 6
to show the validity of the DWC. Finally, the conclusions are summarized in Section 7.

2. Frequency and Voltage Amplitude Deviations Analysis

2.1. Conventional Droop Controller

The line impedances are assumed to be mainly inductive in this paper. The power flow between
two nodes can be expressed as:
E E2
P= 1 δ (1)
X
E1 ( E1 − E2 )
Q= , (2)
X
where E1 and E2 are the voltage amplitudes, δ is the phase angle difference, and X is the line impedance.
From the two equations, it can be informed that the real power is proportional to δ; and the reactive
power is determined by the difference between E1 and E2 with fixed line impedance.
Using the dq theory, the instantaneous output power p and q, are given by

p = vod iod + voq ioq (3)

q = vod ioq − voq iod . (4)

The power controller received the measured output power through a low pass filter (LPF),
which can be expressed as:
ωf
P= p (5)
s + ωf
ωf
Q= q, (6)
s + ωf
where ω f is the cut-off frequency.
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 3 of 18

The conventional droop control scheme can be expressed as:

ω = ω ∗ − m p ( P − P∗ ) (7)

V = V ∗ − n q ( Q − Q ∗ ), (8)

where ω and V are the angular velocity and amplitude of the output voltage, ω ∗ and V ∗ are the
reference values, P∗ and Q∗ are the reference values of active and reactive power, and m p and nq are
the active and reactive power droop coefficients, respectively.
The active power output is adjusted by the frequency. However, it is directly determined by the
phase angular and not the frequency from Equation (1). The relation between them is

1
∆δ = ∆ω. (9)
s
From Equation (8), it can be seen that the amplitude difference is necessary for reactive power
sharing. However, ∆ω is not necessary theoretically. The relationship between them in the steady state
can be expressed as:
∆ω = −m p ∆P (10)

∆V = −nq ∆Q, (11)

where ∆V = V − V ∗ , ∆P = P − P∗ and ∆Q = Q − Q∗ .

2.2. Washout Filter

The washout filter controller is a BPF without the low frequency component and can eliminate
the frequency and amplitude deviations of output voltage in theory. As explained in [10], the control
mechanism of the washout filter controller could be expressed as:
s
ω = ω∗ − m p · ·( P − P∗ ) (12)
s + ωh
s
V = V ∗ − nq · ·( Q − Q∗ ), (13)
s + ωh
where ωh is the cut-frequency of the high pass filter (HPF). By examining Equations (5), (6), (12) and (13),
it can be derived that the following equation should be satisfied.

ωh < ω f . (14)

From Equations (5), (6), (12) and (13), the washout filter is a BPF indeed, as explained in [11].
When a load change happens, the selected frequency signals can be used by each DG to adjust its output
power which is proportional to the droop coefficients m p and nq . To remove the low-frequency signals,
the last parts of Equations (12) and (13) should be zero theoretically in the steady state. Compared
to the droop controller, the washout filter will not lead to frequency and amplitude deviation. It can
achieve active power sharing at the same time. However, the lack of low-frequency signals leads to its
inability to “plug and play”, which is shown in Section 6.
Equation (2) shows that the reactive power sharing relies on voltage amplitudes deviation between
different nodes. If the amplitude restores to the rated value for each DG, there will be no amplitude
deviation between each DG, and the reactive power output will be inversely proportional to the
line impedance value if the network topology is star [22,23], which indicates that the washout filter
controller does nothing on reactive power sharing in the steady state.
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 4 of 18

3. Proposed Control Strategy

As explained in Section 2, the conventional droop can achieve power sharing and “plug and play”
but with frequency and amplitude differences of the output voltage. The washout filter can easily
eliminate the frequency and amplitude differences, but with poor reactive power sharing and cannot
realize “plug and play”. Inspired by this, a novel control strategy which combines the two control
strategies together is proposed in this part, as shown in Figure 1. The droop control loop consists of an
LPF, which
Energiesmakes
2018, 11, it maintain
x FOR the “plug and play” advantage, and the washout filter control4 loop
PEER REVIEW of 18 aims
to compensate the APDP caused by the small droop coefficient. Thus, the control scheme of the DWC
can becontrol
derived loop
as:aims to compensate the APDP caused by the small droop coefficient. Thus, the control
scheme of the DWC can be derived as: s
ω = ω ∗ − ml ·( P1 − P∗ ) − mh · ·( P2 − P∗ ), (15)
= ∗
− ∗
∙ ( − ) −
s
∙
+ ω∙ ( − ∗ ),
h
(15)
where P1 = s+ωωl1 p, P2 = s+ωωl2 p, ml is the droop coefficient, and mh is the washout filter coefficient.
where =l1 , = l2 , is the droop coefficient, and is the washout filter coefficient.
The DWC consists of two independent frequency bands whose frequency characteristics are shown in
FigureThe
2. ItDWC consists of two independent frequency bands whose frequency characteristics are shown
should be noted that there is no size relationship between ωl1 and ωh . When ωh = ωl1 and
in Figure 2. It should be noted that there is no size relationship between and . When =
ωl2  ωl1 , the DWCEnergies
degenerates to a PD (proportional–differential) control method
2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
[6,9], where the
and ≫ , the
m DWC degenerates to a PD (proportional–differential) control method [6,9],
h aims to compensate the APDP caused by the small droop coefficient. Thus, the control
differential coefficient is loop
control .
where the differentialωcoefficient is .
scheme of hthe DWC can be derived as:
∗ ∗ ∗
= − ∙( − ) − ∙ ∙( − ), (15)

where = , = , is the droop coefficient, and is the washout filter coefficient.

rf Lf rc Lc
DC
Bus
The DWC consists of two independent frequency bands whose frequency characteristics are shown
in Figure 2. It should be noted that there is no size relationship between and . When = node1
and ≫ , the DWC degeneratesito a PD (proportional–differential) control method [6,9],
labc
where the differential coefficient is . Cf
θ
abc
dq voabc line1
PWM
Modulator
ildq abc ioabc
P-f droop Lf
θ Lcdq
rf rc
DC controller

Load
Current controller
ildq* node1
+−
P
Bus
+
θ
abc
dq
node3
ildq θ + Washout filter P
θ
ilabc
abc
Cf vodq
voabc line1
controller dq

PWM
Modulator
ildq P&Q θ abc ioabc
P-f droop dq

vodq controller calculation

Load
Current controller
ildq*
Vodq+* Q node3 line2
abc
θ
− vodqiodq
dq
P +
θ
+

− P
PI ildq Q-V+droop Washout filter
controller
controller P&Q
Voltage controller vodq calculation

− Vodq
*
Q iodq line2
DG1 DG2
+

PI Q-V droop

Voltage controller
controller
node2
DG1 DG2 node2
FigureFigure
1. The1.study
The study
microgridmicrogrid
(MG)
Figure 1. The study
(MG) and
and(MG)
microgrid the and the droop
droop washout
the droop
washout filter
filter
washout filter
controller
controller
controller
(DWC).
(DWC).
(DWC). DC: direct-
DC:
DC: direct-
direct-current;
PWM:current; PWM: modulation;
pulse width pulse
current;width modulation;
PWM: pulse width
PI: PI: PI:
modulation;
proportional proportional
proportional
integral. integral.
integral.

dB
ml mh
dB 0
ml mh
0 −3

−3 0

Figure 2. Figure 2. Frequency characteristics of the DWC.

Frequency characteristics of the DWC.
Regardless of the difference between and and combined with Equation (1), Equation
(15) can be rewritten as:
Regardless of the difference 0 between ωl1 and ωl2 and combined with Equation (1), Equation (15)
− ∗ = − ∙ ( − ∗) − ∙ − ∙ ∙ ( − ), (16)
can be rewritten as:
where is the frequency of the MG. Comparing Equation (16) and the virtual synchronous
Figure 2. Frequency characteristics of the DWC.
1 dω m +m E E
generator control equation in [24], which can be expressed as:
ω − ω ∗ = −ml ·(−P1 ∗− P∗ ) − − ∗) ·− − − l ∙ ( −h ·), 1 2 · ω − (17)


=− ∙(
ωg , (16)
Regardless of the difference between h dt
ωand andωcombined
h X with Equation (1), Equation
where is the virtual inertia and is the damping factor, it can be derived that
(15) can be rewritten as:
where ω g is the frequency of the MG. Comparing Equation (16) and the virtual synchronous generator
− ∗ can
control equation in [24], which ( − ∗ ) −as: ∙ −
= − be ∙expressed ∙ ∙ ( − ), (16)

where is the frequency of the MG. Comparing Equation dω (16) and the virtual synchronous
ω − ω ∗ in ∗


generator control equation −mlwhich
= [24], ·( Pout can
− Pbe − Jml ω as: − Dml · ω − ω g ,
)expressed (17)
dt
∗ ∗)
− =− ∙( − − − ∙( − ), (17)

where is the virtual inertia and is the damping factor, it can be derived that
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 5 of 18

where J is the virtual inertia and D is the damping factor, it can be derived that

 J= 1
ωml ωh
m
1+ mh . (18)
 D = ωh l · E1XE2

Thus, the APDP of the DWC can be adjusted by tuning ωh and mh [25].
With the analysis above, the correspondence between different control strategies can be
summarized as:

1. The “P-f” droop control strategy is equivalent to J = 0 and D = 0 [24].

mh E1 E2
2. The “PD” control strategy [5–9] is equivalent to J = 0 with D = ml · X .
3. The washout filter control [10] is equivalent to removing the parameter ml .
4. The DWC is equivalent to the “PD” controller with ωh = ωl1 and ωl2  ωl1 .
5. The DWC is equal to the virtual synchronous generator control strategy with ωl2 = ωl1 .

Since the washout filter cannot reduce amplitude difference, the reactive power controller adopts
the conventional Q − V droop controller as follows:

V = V ∗ − nl ·( Q − Q∗ ), (19)

where Q = s+ωωl1 q, and nl is the reactive power control loop coefficient.

l1
The coefficient ml of each inverter should be set as [26]:

ml,i ∆Pi = ml,j ∆Pj . (20)

Considering the APDP of the inverters, the same rule applies to coefficient mh

mh,i ∆Pi = mh,j ∆Pj . (21)

Since the frequency difference in the steady state has nothing to do with washout filter, it only
relies on the droop controller. To reduce the frequency difference in the steady state, the value of
ml should be set smaller compared to the conventional droop controller. However, small droop
gain always leads to slow dynamic adjustment process, which is not desired. As analyzed above,
the DWC can be seen as a virtual synchronous generator controller, so the APDP can be compensated
by regulating ωh and mh .
The inner control loop includes a voltage controller which is a PI (proportional–integral) regulator
and a current controller which is a P regulator.

4. Small Signal Model

The small signal model of an islanded MG embedded with the DWC is constructed as a singular
system in this section. Based on the model, the stability is analyzed. Before modeling, some symbols
need to be defined. Suppose the system has “m” nodes, “s” inverters, “n” lines, and “p” load points [12].
The complete model consists of a differential algebraic part and an algebraic part. Since the differential
equations has been discussed by many articles [4,12–15], the details of some matrices are given in
Appendix A and not repeat in each section.

4.1. Differential Algebraic Equations

4.1.1. Load and Network Models

The state equations of loads which are general resistive and inductive loads are expressed
as follows:
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 6 of 18

.
ELOAD ∆iloadDQ = A LOAD ∆iloadDQ + B1LOAD ∆vbDQ + B2LOAD [∆ω ]
     

∆iloadDQ = CLOAD ∆iloadDQ

   
(22)
 h i
∆vbDQ = ∆vbDQ,1 ∆vbDQ,2 · · · ∆vbDQ,m ,


where ELOAD is a unit matrix of 2p-dimensions and Cload is a unit matrix of 2p-dimensions, too.
The model of the network can be represented by the following equations:
.
ENET ∆ilineDQ = A NET ∆ilineDQ + B1NET ∆vbDQ + B2NET [∆ω ]
     
(23)
∆ilineDQ = Cline ∆ilineDQ ,
   

where ENET and Cline are two unit matrixes of 2n-dimensions.

4.1.2. Singular Inverter Model

Power Controller: To model the power controller, Equation (15) needs to be rewritten as:

∆ω = ∆ω1 + ∆ω2 , (24)

where ∆ω1 = −ml ·∆P1 , and ∆ω2 = −mh · s+sω ·∆P2 . Combining with Equation (9), the relations
h
between the power angles and active power variables can be expressed as [27]:

∆δ1 = − ms l ·∆P1
(
. (25)
∆δ2 = −mh · s+1ω ·∆P2
h

By linearizing Equations (19) and (25), the model of the power controller can be expressed as:


. ∆ildq
EP ∆x p = A P ∆x p + BP  ∆vodq  + BPωcom [∆ωcom ]
     
∆ioDQ
h i . (26)
∆v∗odq = CPV ∆x p
 

[∆ω ]= CPω ∆x p
 

In Equation (26),
 h iT
∆x p = ∆δ1 ∆2 ∆P1 ∆P2 ∆Q

. (27)

Voltage and Current Controllers: As the voltage controller is a PI regulator and the current is a P
regulator, they are formulated together for convenience:
 
h . i h i h ∆ildq
i
EVC ∆∅dq = [0] ∆∅dq + BVC1 ∆v∗odq + BVC2  ∆vodq 
 
∆ioDQ
  (28)
h i h i h i ∆ildq
∗
∆vidq = CVC ∆∅dq + DVC1 ∆v∗odq + DVC2  ∆vodq ,
 
∆ioDQ

LCL Filter: The LCL filter can be modeled as follows:

. h i
ELCL [∆xlcl ] = A LCL [∆xlcl ] + BLCL1 ∆vidq + BLCL2 ∆vbDQ + BLCL3 [∆ω ]
 
(29)
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 7 of 18

In Equation (29),
h iT
[∆xlcl ] = ∆ildq ∆vodq ∆iodq . (30)

Common Frame Transformation: For the convenience of system modeling, the small signal
model of each inverter can be built separately. Every DG’s dq transformation is on its local reference
frame (d − q). However, the output variables of each component should be converted to the common
reference frame (D − Q) to construct a whole system, and the transformation equations for these
variables could be written as [12]:
h i
∆ioDQ = TS ∆iodq + TC [∆δ]
 
(31)
h i
∆vbdq = TS−1 ∆voDQ + TV−1 [∆δ].
 
(32)

Complete Model of an Individual Inverter: The complete model of an individual inverter consists
of the circuit part and the controller part which has 13 state variables. The complete model of an
inverter can be expressed as:
.
E I NVi [∆xinvi ]= A I NVi [∆xinvi ] + B I NVi ∆vbDQi + Biωcom [∆ωcom ]
 
" # " #
∆ω C I NVwi (33)
= [∆xinvi ],
∆ioDQi C I NVci

where h iT
[∆xinvi ] = ∆x pi ∆∅dqi ∆xlcli . (34)

4.1.3. Combined Model of All Inverters

As an individual model of an inverter has been built, the combined model of all inverters in an
islanded MG can be expressed as follows:
.
E I NV [∆x I NV ]= A I NV [∆x I NV ] + B I NV ∆vbDQ
 
(35)
∆ioDQ = C I NVc [∆x I NV ],
 

where h iT
[∆x I NV ] = ∆xinv,1 ∆xinv,2 · · · ∆xinv,s . (36)

4.2. Algebraic Equations

Using Kirchhoff’s current law (KCL) for each node, it is easy to derive that
h i
[0] ∆vbDQ,i = ∆ioDQ,i − ∆iloadDQ,i + ∑ ∆ilineDQ,ji ,
     
(37)
jeG

where G is a set which contains the nodes connected to node i, and ∆vbDQ,i are algebraic variable.
Applying this relation to all nodes in the system, it can be obtained that

M I NV ∆ioDQ + M NET ∆ilineDQ + MLOAD ∆iloadDQ = 0,

     
(38)

where M I NV , M NET and MLOAD are the mapping matrix of the network structure of the system and
are detailed defined in [12].
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 8 of 18

4.3. Complete Microgrid (MG) Model

By combing all of the inverters, loads, distribution lines and the relations of coupling states,
the complete state matrix of an MG can be obtained as:
 . 
Esys ∆xsys = Asys ∆xsys ,
 
(39)

where
 h i
∆xsys = ∆x I NV ∆ilineDQ ∆iloadDQ ∆vbDQ

(40)
 
E I NV 0 0 0
 0 ENET 0 0 
Esys =
 
0 0 ELOAD 0

 
0 0 0 02m×2m
  (41)
A I NV 0 0 B I NV
 B2NET C I NVω A NET 0 B1NET 
Asys =  .
 
 B2LOAD C I NVω 0 A LOAD B1LOAD 
M I NV C I NVc M NET Cline MLOAD CLOAD 02m×2m
The matrix Esys is singular obviously, which indicates that the system is a singular system.

5. Stability Analysis
The small signal model built in Section 4 is singular. To analyzed the system, a determinant is
defined as:
∆(s) := sEsys − Asys .
 
(42)

The stability of the system is determined by the roots of ∆(s). A simple method to observe the
stability of the system is checking whether the real parts of all its finite eigenvalues are negative. If all
are negative, the system is stable [28]. The pencil (sEsys − Asys ) is regular when ∆(s) is not identically
zero. The model of an MG is always regular since it is a physical dynamical system [29].
In this paper, DG1 is chosen as the common reference frame, so ∆δ1 and ∆δ2 in DG1 are ignored
in calculation [15]. The eigenvalues can be easily calculated with function “eig(A,B)” in MATLAB
(MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA), where “A” corresponds to Asys , and “B” corresponds to Esys .
In this section, the MG shown in Figure 1 is analyzed. Its complete model is constructed using the
procedure shown in Section 4. The eigenvalues of the system can be found using the method described
above. The parameters of the MG are shown in Table 1, and the steady points, which are measured
from a MATLAB/SIMULINK simulation, of the MG are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1. Test System Parameters.

Parameter Value Parameter Value

VDC 800 V fs 5 kHz
ml1 6.3 × 10−6 Vg 380 V (line-line)
mh1 6 × 10−5 rL f 0.1 Ω
nl1 0.001 Lf 1 mH
ωl1 20 π rad/s Cf 800 µF
ωl2 60 π rad/s r Lc 0.03 Ω
ωh 40 π rad/s Lc 0.3 mH
K pv 0.1 ω0 50 Hz
Kiv 150 rline,1 0.12 Ω
K pc 0.002 Lline,1 1.2 mH
Rload 10 Ω rline,2 0.08 Ω
Lload 5 mH Lline,2 0.8 mH
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 9 of 18

Table 2. Initial Conditions.

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Vod (10.0 309.5) Voq (0 0)
Iod (20.0 10.1) Ioq (−1.2 −4.2)
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER
Ild REVIEW (20.0 10.1) Ilq (76.6 73.2) 9 of 18
Vbd (309.6 309.2 307.5) Vbq (29.6 27.6 23.9)
which improve the Ilined dynamic performance
(20.0 10.1) of the system,
Ilineq but oversized
(−0.81droop
−3.4) coefficients cause
system oscillation andδ0instability. (−0.2 0) Iloadq (30.3 −2.6)
Figure 3c shows the root locus of 𝑚ℎ1 as it moves from 0 to 1.4 × 10−3 , where 𝑚ℎ2 is always
two times 𝑚ℎ1 . When 𝑚ℎ1 increases, the three dominate poles move close to the imaginary axis. On
The root loci of the system are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3a is the eigenvalues for the parameters
the one hand, 𝜆1 and 𝜆2 increase the dynamic performance of the system but make it more
given in Table 2. The eigenvalues labeled Load are mainly affected by the load parameters. The modes
oscillatory. On the other hand, 𝜆3 suppresses the oscillation but increases the adjustment time of the
labeled Inner controllers are sensitive to the voltage and current controllers. In the group labeled
system. To improve the dynamic performance, 𝜆1 and 𝜆2 should be set close to the imaginary axis.
LCL filter, the modes are associated with the LCL filter parameters. The modes shown in Power
Figure 3d shows the root locus of 𝜔ℎ as it moves from 0 to 125.6, which results in the dominant
controller groupaway
poles moving are sensitive
from thetoimaginary
the poweraxis.
controller parameters.
Considering Figure The3c,d,modes
the 𝜆1labeled
and 𝜆2 Washout
could have filter
aremore
associated with the frequency parameters of the washout filter. Since the parameter
flexible assignment by adjusting parameters 𝜔ℎ and 𝑚ℎ . Thus, the larger 𝜔ℎ is, the faster ω l2 has little
the
effect on the dominant poles, the root locus is not shown here.
dynamic performance is. However, considering the impact on the inner control loop, it is set as 40 π
in Figure 3b shows
this paper. There isthe trajectory
another of shown
design the three dominant
in the polesInasthat
next section. thedesign,
droop coefficients
𝜔ℎ should beml1setchanges
very
from 6 × 10 −6 to 6 × 10−4 , where m is always two times of m . The influence of λ and λ is easily
small, and 𝑚ℎ is several times 𝑚𝑙 .l2 l1 1 2
analyzed. λ3 could
To sum be droop
up, the seen ascoefficient
an inertial𝑚link. When
𝑙 could droop
be set coefficients
smaller compared increase, the eigenvalues
to the conventional λ1 and
principle
move
λ2 to towards
reduce vertical axis
the frequency and thein
difference eigenvalue moves
the steadyλ3state, andaway
the from it, which
washout filter improve
could bethe
addeddynamic
to
compensateofthe
performance theAPDP.
system, but oversized droop coefficients cause system oscillation and instability.

LCL
filter

Inner
controllers Power
controller
Imaginary

Load

Washout
filter
Inner
controllers
LCL
filter

Real

(a) (b)
mh1=1.3×10﹣3,
mh2=2.6×10﹣3
l1 l1
l3
Imaginary

l3
Imaginary

l2 l2

Real Real

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 3. Dominant
3. Dominantrootroot
locus of the
locus of system: (a) eigenvalue
the system: spectrum
(a) eigenvalue of MGof
spectrum state
MGmatrix; (b) dominant
state matrix; (b)
−6 ,×610
𝑚𝑙110∈[6 , 6−4×];10(c)
×−610 −4
𝑚h1 10];−3 ];
10−3
dominant
root locus as root
ml1 ∈ as
locus [6 × ];dominant
(c)dominant rootlocus
root locus as
as m ℎ1 ∈∈ [0,
[0,1.4 ××
1.4
and
and (d)(d) dominant
dominant root locusasasω𝜔
rootlocus h ℎ∈∈[0,[0,125.6].
125.6].LCL:
LCL:inductor-capacitor-inductor.
inductor-capacitor-inductor.

6. Real Time Simulation Results

The DWC is verified in real-time simulations with HIL [30]. The MG shown in Figure 1 is
simulated in RT-LAB (Opal-RT, Montreal, QC, Canada) and the controllers run in STM32F407 MCUs
(STMicroelectronics, Geneva, Switzerland). The real-time simulation apparatus is shown in Figure 4.
 Energies 2018, 11, 2415 10 of 18

Figure 3c shows the root locus of mh1 as it moves from 0 to 1.4 × 10−3 , where mh2 is always two
times mh1 . When mh1 increases, the three dominate poles move close to the imaginary axis. On the one
hand, λ1 and λ2 increase the dynamic performance of the system but make it more oscillatory. On the
other hand, λ3 suppresses the oscillation but increases the adjustment time of the system. To improve
the dynamic performance, λ1 and λ2 should be set close to the imaginary axis.
Figure 3d shows the root locus of ωh as it moves from 0 to 125.6, which results in the dominant
poles moving away from the imaginary axis. Considering Figure 3c,d, the λ1 and λ2 could have more
flexible assignment by adjusting parameters ωh and mh . Thus, the larger ωh is, the faster the dynamic
performance is. However, considering the impact on the inner control loop, it is set as 40 π in this
paper. There is another design shown in the next section. In that design, ωh should be set very small,
and mh is several times ml .
To sum up, the droop coefficient ml could be set smaller compared to the conventional principle
to reduce the frequency difference in the steady state, and the washout filter could be added to
compensate the APDP.

6. Real Time Simulation Results

The DWC is verified in real-time simulations with HIL [30]. The MG shown in Figure 1 is
simulated in RT-LAB (Opal-RT, Montreal, QC, Canada) and the controllers run in STM32F407 MCUs
(STMicroelectronics,
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEERGeneva,
REVIEWSwitzerland). The real-time simulation apparatus is shown in Figure 4.
10 of 18

RTLAB
Load
X1 R1 X2 R2
In RTLAB
DG1 DG2

DC Link DC Link
Inverter Inverter

ioabc,1 ioabc,2
voabc,1 voabc,2
ilabc,1 PWM ilabc,2

Oscilloscope
Controller 1
Controller 2

Figure
Figure 4. Hardware
4. Hardware ininthe
theloop
loop(HIL)
(HIL) simulation
simulation setup
setupforfor
thethe
study system.
study system.
6.1. Performance Comparison with the Conventional Droop Controller
6.1. Performance Comparison with the Conventional Droop Controller
To verify the DWC on APDP and frequency deviation compared to the conventional droop
To verify
control the DWC
strategy, on APDP of
the performances and
the frequency
two control deviation compared
strategies are comparedto
in the
this conventional droop
section. Different
control strategy,
frequency the performances
ranges of the
are selected of the two control
washout filter to strategies
shown the are compared
performance of in
thethis section.
DWC. Different
The active
frequency ranges are selected of the washout filter to shown the performance of the DWC.
power performance is presented in Figure 5 and the corresponding frequency performance is presented The active
power performance
in Figure is defined
6, which is presented
as: in Figure 5 and the corresponding frequency performance is
presented in Figure 6, which is defined as: ∆ω = ω0 − ω. (43)

The parameters are listed in Table 1. The ∆ droop

= −
coefficients
. of the active power control loop for(43)
− 6 − 6
the two DGs are set as 6.3 ×10 and 12.6 ×10 in the three cases. Initially, the MG is in steady state.
The
At t =parameters are listed
1.5 s, a resistive in 15
load of Table 1. connected
kW is The drooptocoefficients of the
the MG. Figure 5a active
shows power control loop
the performance of for
the two
droop DGs are set
control method. × 10
as 6.3The droopand 12.6 ×in
coefficients 10Figurein 5b
theisthree cases.
two times of Initially,
Figure 5a.the MG5cisshows
Figure in steady
state.the
Atperformance
t = 1.5 s, a resistive
in which load of 15 kW
the washout is connected
filters coefficientsto
ωhthe
andMG. Figure
ωl2 are set as5a40shows theπ,performance
π and 60 mh1 and
of droop control method. The droop coefficients in Figure 5b is two times of Figure 5a. Figure 5c
shows the performance in which the washout filters coefficients and are set as 40 π and 60
π, and are set as 5 × 10 and 1 × 10 , respectively. In Figure 5d, and are set as
0.4π and 20π and and are set as 1.9 × 10 and 3.8 × 10 . The results are listed in Table
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 11 of 18

mh2 are set as 5 ×10−4 and 1 ×10−3 , respectively. In Figure 5d, ωh and ωl2 are set as 0.4π and 20π and
mh1 and mh2 are set as 1.9 ×10−5 and 3.8 ×10−5 . The results are listed in Table 3. In Figure 5a,b, it can
be seen that the APDP can be improved by increasing the droop coefficient, but it also increases the
frequency deviation in Figure 6a,b.

Table 3. Dynamic performance.

Figures 5 and 6 a b c d
Adjustment Time (ms) 600 350 350 300
Overshoot (%, DG2 ) 23 15 10 15
Frequency deviation (rad) 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.08

In Figure 5c, the washout filter is designed in high-frequency band. As analyzed in Section 5,
the eigenvalues are close to the imaginary axis in this design, which means the dynamic performance
of the system is fast. In Figure 5d, the washout filter is designed in low-frequency band. Although
the eigenvalue distribution is similar, the virtual inertia and damping factor are bigger compared
with Figure 5c. Figure 6c,d shows the corresponding frequency dynamic performances. In Figure 6c,
the frequency changes rapidly, as parameter ωh is large (small virtual inertia). Conversely, the frequency
changes slowly in Figure 6d, as ωh is small (large virtual inertia). In Figures 5 and 6, it can be seen that
the system using he DWC can achieve a better APDP with the same frequency deviation in the steady
state compared
Energies to the
2018, 11, x FOR droop
PEER controller.
REVIEW 11 of 18

600ms 350ms

Load Load
change P1 4KW
change P1 4KW
500ms 500ms

P2 P2

0 0
(a) (b)

350ms 300ms

Load Load
change P1 4KW change P1 4KW
500ms 500ms

P2 P2

0 0

(c) (d)
Figure 5.
Figure Active
5. Active power
power sharing
sharing performance:
performance: (a) droop
(a) droop with with =m6.3
controller
controller l1 ×=106.3 ,× 10−=6 ,
− 5 − 5 − 5
1.26
ml2 =× 10
1.26 × 10 droop
; (b) ; (b) controller
droop controller
with with=m1.26
l1 =×1.26
10 ×, 10 ,=m2.52
l2 = × 10 × ;10
2.52 ; (c) DWC
(c) DWC with with
largelarge;
ωh ; and
and (d) DWC
(d) DWC withwith smallsmall. ωh .

Δω
0.08rad
Δω 500ms
Load Load
change change

0.08rad
Δω_0 500ms
Δω_0

(a) (b)
Δω
0.08rad
Δω 500ms
0.08rad
Load
Load 500ms
 0 0

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Active power sharing performance: (a) droop controller with = 6.3 × 10 , =
1.262018,
Energies × 1011, 2415
; (b) droop controller with= 1.26 × 10 , = 2.52 × 10 ; (c) DWC with large ; of 18
12
and (d) DWC with small .

Δω
0.08rad
Δω 500ms
Load Load
change change

0.08rad
Δω_0 500ms
Δω_0

(a) (b)
Δω
0.08rad
Δω 500ms
0.08rad
Load
Load 500ms change
change

Δω_0 Δω_0

Energies (c) (d)

Energies 2018,
2018, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12
12 of
of 18
18
Frequency
Figure6.6.Frequency
Figure deviations
deviations performance:
performance: (a) droop
(a) droop with with=m
controller
controller 6.3
l1 ×=
10 6.3, × 10−6 ,
=
meets
meets mthe
the =requirements,
requirements, −5 ; (b)DG
DG 2 is reconnected to the MG. At this
2 is controller
reconnected −5 , mmoment, the10active power
−5 ; (c) DWC outputs are
1.26l2 × 10
1.26; ×(b)10droop droop
controller with with = toml1the
1.26 × MG.
= 10 ,At
1.26 × 10this moment,
= 2.52l2 =×2.52
10 ×the
; (c)active
DWC with power outputs
with
large ; are
large
13
13 kW
kWωhand
and 22(d)
kW,
kW, respectively.
respectively. The
The operating point does not meet the requirement and is different
and ;(d)
and DWC DWC
with with
smallsmall . ω h . operating point does not meet the requirement and is different
with
with the operating point from 0 s to 10
the operating point from 0 s to 10 s.
s. Figure
Figure 77 shows
shows the the washout
washout filter
filter is
is weak
weak on on “plug-and-
“plug-and-
6.2. Performance
play” for the lackComparison
of static with the Washout
component. Figure Filter
8 Controller
shows that
6.2. Performance
play” for the lack Comparison with the Washout
of static component. FigureFilter that the output power of the two DGs
Controller
8 shows the output power of the two DGs are
are 10
10
kW and
kW and 5 kW from
The5“plug-and-play” 0 s to
kW from 0 s to capabilities10 s and
10 s and fromfrom 30 s to
30 swashout
of the 50 s, respectively,
to 50 s, filter
respectively, which
which
controller indicates
and indicates
the DWCthe the sharing
aresharing
shown in is
is
The “plug-and-play”
accurate both before the linecapabilities
disconnectionof theand washout
after thefilter
line controller andFigure
reconnection. the DWC 8 are shown
verifies the in
“plug-
accurate
Figures 7both andbefore
8. Thethe line disconnection
parameters and after
of the washout theare
filter lineωreconnection.
= 0.4π and Figure
ω = 8 verifies
20π. The the “plug-
coefficients
Figures
and-play” 7 and 8. The parameters of the washout filter are =
h 0.4π and l2= 20π. The coefficients
are ml1 = 1capabilities
and-play” × 10−6 , ml2of
capabilities of=the
the2×DWC.
10−6 , mh1 = 2 × 10−6 , and mh2 = 4 × 10−6 .
DWC.
are = 1 × 10 , = 2 × 10 , = 2 × 10 , and = 4 × 10 .
In Figure 7, there is only a washout filter control loop in the power controller. From t = 0 s to t =
10 s, the system is under steady state. The output power of the two DGs are 9 kW and 6 kW,
P
respectively, the ratio of which Disconnected
does not meet P11 the designedReconnection
Reconnection
2:1. At t = 10 s, DG2 is disconnected from
Disconnected
the MG and, at t = 20 s, the synchronization process starts. When the angular and voltage amplitude
Synchronization
Synchronization

P_0
P_0
5KW
5s 5KW
P
P22 5s

Figure
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Performance
7. Performanceof
Performance ofthe
of the washout
the washout controller
washout controller under
controller under feeder
under feeder disturbance.
feeder disturbance.
disturbance.

P
P11 Reconnection
Disconnected Reconnection
Disconnected

Synchronization
Synchronization

P_0
P_0
5s 5KW
P 5s 5KW
P22

Figure
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Performance
8. Performance of
Performance of the
of the DWC
the DWC under
DWC under feeder
under feeder disturbance.
feeder disturbance.
disturbance.

7.
7. Conclusions
Conclusions
In
In this
this paper,
paper, an
an improved
improved droop
droop control
control strategy
strategy that
that combines
combines thethe droop
droop controller
controller and
and
washout filter controller is proposed, obtaining the advantages of both. The DWC can achieve
washout filter controller is proposed, obtaining the advantages of both. The DWC can achieve “plug-“plug-
and-play”
and-play” with
with the
the droop
droop control
control loop,
loop, and
and the
the washout
washout filter
filter controller
controller is
is used
used to
to improve
improve the
the APDP.
APDP.
The
The droop
droop gains
gains could
could be
be small
small to
to reduce
reduce the
the frequency
frequency difference
difference in
in the
the steady
steady state,
state, and
and the
the
washout filter is to compensate the APDP loss in this paper. In addition, a complete singular small
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 13 of 18

In Figure 7, there is only a washout filter control loop in the power controller. From t = 0 s to
t = 10 s, the system is under steady state. The output power of the two DGs are 9 kW and 6 kW,
respectively, the ratio of which does not meet the designed 2:1. At t = 10 s, DG2 is disconnected from
the MG and, at t = 20 s, the synchronization process starts. When the angular and voltage amplitude
meets the requirements, DG2 is reconnected to the MG. At this moment, the active power outputs are
13 kW and 2 kW, respectively. The operating point does not meet the requirement and is different with
the operating point from 0 s to 10 s. Figure 7 shows the washout filter is weak on “plug-and-play” for
the lack of static component. Figure 8 shows that the output power of the two DGs are 10 kW and
5 kW from 0 s to 10 s and from 30 s to 50 s, respectively, which indicates the sharing is accurate both
before the line disconnection and after the line reconnection. Figure 8 verifies the “plug-and-play”
capabilities of the DWC.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, an improved droop control strategy that combines the droop controller and washout
filter controller is proposed, obtaining the advantages of both. The DWC can achieve “plug-and-play”
with the droop control loop, and the washout filter controller is used to improve the APDP. The droop
gains could be small to reduce the frequency difference in the steady state, and the washout filter is to
compensate the APDP loss in this paper. In addition, a complete singular small signal model of an MG
using the DWC is rebuilt. Using the singular model, the stability of the system is discussed. Finally,
an MG embedded with the DWC has been tested with HIL, which demonstrates the effectiveness of
the DWC on frequency deviation and APDP.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.H.; Methodology, Y.H.; Software, Y.H.; Validation, Y.H.; Formal
Analysis, Y.H.; Investigation, Y.H.; Resources, W.W.; Data Curation, Y.H.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Y.H.;
Writing-Review & Editing, W.W.; Visualization, W.W.; Supervision, W.W.; Project Administration, W.W.; Funding
Acquisition, W.W.
Funding: This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China
(2016YFB0900500); State Grid Corporation Science and Technology Project (SGZJ0000BGJS1600312); Key Research
Program of Zhejiang province (2017C01039).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
The state space matrices of the load model are described here.
 
Aload,1 0 ··· 0

 0 Aload,2 ··· 0


A LOAD = .. .. .. .. 
. . . .
 
 
0 0 ··· Aload,p 2p×2p
 
B1load,1
 B1load,2
 

B1LOAD = .. 
.
 
 
B1load,p 2p×2m
 
B2load,1
 B2load,2
 

B2LOAD = .. 
.
 
 
B2load,p 2p×2m
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 14 of 18

 
− Rload,i
Lload,i ω0
Aload,i =  − Rload,i

− ω0 Lload,i

1
" #
··· Lload,i 0 ···
B1load,i = 1
··· 0 Lload,i ···
" #
IloadQi
B2load,i =
− IloadDi
State space matrices of the network are listed below.
 
A NET,1 0 ··· 0

 0 A NET,2 ··· 0


A NET =  .. .. .. .. 
. . . .
 
 
0 0 ··· A NET,n 2n×2m
 
B1NET,1
 B1NET,2 
 
B1NET =  .. 
.
 
 
B1NET,p 2p×2m
 
B2NET,1
 B2NET,2 
 
B2NET =  .. 
.

 
B2NET,n 2n×1
" −rline,i #
Lline,i ω0
A NET,i = −rline,i
− ω0 L line,i

1 −1
" #
··· Lline,i 0 ··· Lline,i 0 ···
B1NET,i = 1 −1
··· 0 Lline,i ··· 0 Lline,i ···
2×2m
" #
IlineQi
B2NET,i =
− IlineDi
The state space matrices of the power controllers are listed as follows.
E p is a unit matrix of five dimensions.
 
0 1 −ml 0 0

 0 −ωh 0 −mh 0 

AP =  0 0 −ωl1 0 0
 

−ωl2
 
 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 −ωl1
h i
BP = 05×2 B p1 B p2
 
0 0

 0 0 

BP1 = ωl1 Iod ωl1 Ioq
 

 
 ωl2 Iod ωl2 Ioq 
−ωl1 Ioq ωl1 Iod
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 15 of 18

 
0 0

 0 0 

BP2 = ωl1 Vod ωl1 Voq
 

 
 ωl2 Vod ωl2 Voq 
ωl1 Voq −ωl1 Vod
" #T
−1 0 0 0 0
BPωcom =
0 −1 0 0 0
" #
0 0 0 0 −nq
CPV =
0 0 0 0 0
" #
0 0 −ml 0 0
CPω =
0 −ωh 0 −mh 0
The state space matrices of the voltage and current controllers are listed as follows.
EVC is a unit matrix of two dimensions.
" #
1 0
BVC1 =
0 1
" #
0 0 −1 0 0 0
BVC2 =
0 0 0 −1 0 0
" #
K pc Kiv 0
CVC =
0 K pc Kiv
" #
K pc K pv 0
DVC1 =
0 K pc K pv
" #
−1 0 −K pc 0 0 0
DVC2 =
0 −1 0 −K pc 0 0
The state space matrices of the output LCL filter model are presented here.
Elcl is a unit matrix of six dimensions.
 rL 
− L ff ω0 − L1f 0 0 0
 rL 
 − ω0 − L f 1
0 − 0 0
 
 f Lf 

 1 0 0 ω0 1
− cf 0 
 cf
A LCL = 


1 1 
 0
 cf − ω0 0 0 − cf 
r
− L1c − LLcc
 
 0 0 0 ω0 
 rL 
0 0 0 − L1c −ω0 − L f f

" 1
#T
Lf 0 0 0 0 0
BLCL1 = 1
0 Lf 0 0 0 0
" #T
0 0 0 0 − L1c 0
BLCL2 =
0 0 0 0 0 − L1c
" #T
Ilq − Ild Voq −Vod Ioq − Iod
BLCL3 =
Ilq − Ild Voq −Vod Ioq − Iod
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 16 of 18

The state space matrices of the reference frame transformation are presented here.
" #
cos(δ0 ) − sin(δ0 )
TS =
sin(δ0 ) cos(δ0 )
" #
− Iod sin(δ10 ) − Ioq cos(δ10 ) − Iod sin(δ20 ) − Ioq cos(δ20 )
TC =
Iod cos(δ10 ) − Ioq sin(δ10 ) Iod cos(δ20 ) − Ioq sin(δ20 )
" #
−VbD sin(δ10 ) + VbQ cos(δ10 ) −VbD sin(δ20 ) + VbQ cos(δ20 )
TV−1 =
−VbD cos(δ10 ) − VbQ sin(δ10 ) −VbD cos(δ20 ) − VbQ sin(δ20 )
" #
−1 −VbD sin(δ0 ) + VbQ cos(δ0 )
TV =
−VbD cos(δ0 ) − VbQ sin(δ0 )
The state space matrices of the complete model of and individual inverter are presented here.
 
E pi 0 0
E I NVi = 0 Evci 0 
 
0 0 Elcli
13×13

 A I NVi = 
A Pi 0 BPi

 BVC1i CPVi 0 BVC2i 

h DVC1i CPVi + i
BLCL1i
 
 
 A LCLi + 
 BLCL2i TV−1 02 × 3 BLCL1i CVCi 
 BLCL1i DVC2i 
BLCL3i CPwi 13×13
" #
07×2
B I NVi =
BLCL2 TS−1
" #
BPωcom
Biωcom =
08×2
h i
 C
Pω 02×8 i=1
C I NVwi =
 [0
2×13 ] i 6= 1
h i
C I NVci = TC 02×9 TS

The state space matrices of the combined model of all inverters are presented here.

···
 
E I NV,1 0
E I NV =
 .. .. .. 
. . . 
0 · · · E I NV,s 13s×13s
 
A I NV1 + B1ωcom C I NVω1 0 ··· 0

 B2ωcom C I NVω1 A I NV2 ··· 0


A I NV = .. .. .. .. 
. . . .
 
 
Bsωcom C I NVω1 0 ··· A I NVs 13s×13s
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 17 of 18

 
B I NV1 0 ··· 0 ··· 0
0 B I NV2 · · · 0 ··· 0 
 

B I NV =  .. .. .. .. 
. . . . ··· 0 
 

0 0 · · · B I NVs · · · 0 13s×2m
 
C I NVc1 0 ··· 0

 0 C I NVc2 · · · 0


C I NVc =  . . . .. 

 .. .. .. .


0 0 · · · C I NVcs 13s×13s
 
C I NVc1 0 ··· 0

 0 C I NVc2 · · · 0


C I NVω =  . . .. .. 

 .. .. . .


0 0 · · · C I NVcs 13s×13s

References
1. Hossain, A.M.; Pota, R.H.; Issa, W.; Hossain, J.M. Overview of AC Microgrid Controls with Inverter-
Interfaced Generations. Energies 2017, 10, 1300. [CrossRef]
2. Li, D.; Zhao, B.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, L. An Improved Droop Control Strategy for Low-Voltage
Microgrids Based on Distributed Secondary Power Optimization Control. Energies 2017, 10, 1347. [CrossRef]
3. Dou, C.; Zhang, Z.; Yue, D.; Gao, H. An Improved Droop Control Strategy Based on Changeable Reference
in Low-Voltage Microgrids. Energies 2017, 10, 1080. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, H.; Kim, S.; Sun, Q.; Zhou, J. Distributed Adaptive Virtual Impedance Control for Accurate Reactive
Power Sharing Based on Consensus Control in Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016. [CrossRef]
5. Mohamed, Y.A.R.I.; El-Saadany, E.F. Adaptive Decentralized Droop Controller to Preserve Power Sharing
Stability of Paralleled Inverters in Distributed Generation Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2008, 23,
2806–2816. [CrossRef]
6. Kim, J.; Guerrero, J.M.; Rodriguez, P.; Teodorescu, R.; Nam, K. Mode Adaptive Droop Control With Virtual
Output Impedances for an Inverter-Based Flexible AC Microgrid. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2011, 26,
689–701. [CrossRef]
7. Mohamed, Y.A.-R.I.; Radwan, A.A. Hierarchical Control System for Robust Microgrid Operation and
Seamless Mode Transfer in Active Distribution Systems. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2011, 2, 352–362. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, J.; Wang, L.; Diao, L.; Du, H.; Liu, Z. Distributed Auxiliary Inverter of Urban Rail Train—Load Sharing
Control Strategy under Complicated Operation Condition. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 2518–2529.
[CrossRef]
9. Xia, Y.; Peng, Y.; Wei, W. Triple droop control method for ac microgrids. IET Power Electron. 2017, 10,
1705–1713. [CrossRef]
10. Yazdanian, M.; Mehrizi-Sani, A. Washout Filter-Based Power Sharing. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2015. [CrossRef]
11. Han, Y.; Li, H.; Xu, L.; Zhao, X.; Guerrero, J. Analysis of Washout Filter-Based Power Sharing Strategy—An
Equivalent Secondary Controller for Islanded Microgrid without LBC Lines. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017.
[CrossRef]
12. Pogaku, N.; Prodanovic, M.; Green, T.C. Modeling, Analysis and Testing of Autonomous Operation of an
Inverter-Based Microgrid. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2007, 22, 613–625. [CrossRef]
13. Bottrell, N.; Prodanovic, M.; Green, T.C. Dynamic Stability of a Microgrid with an Active Load. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2013, 28, 5107–5119. [CrossRef]
14. Rasheduzzaman, M.; Mueller, J.A.; Kimball, J.W. An Accurate Small-Signal Model of Inverter- Dominated
Islanded Microgrids Using $dq$ Reference Frame. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2014, 2, 1070–1080.
[CrossRef]
15. Rasheduzzaman, M.; Mueller, J.A.; Kimball, J.W. Reduced-Order Small-Signal Model of Microgrid Systems.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 1292–1305. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2415 18 of 18

16. Leitner, S.; Yazdanian, M.; Mehrizi-Sani, A.; Muetze, A. Small-Signal Stability Analysis of an Inverter-Based
Microgrid with Internal Model–Based Controllers. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017. [CrossRef]
17. Yu, K.; Ai, Q.; Wang, S.; Ni, J.; Lv, T. Analysis and Optimization of Droop Controller for Microgrid System
Based on Small-Signal Dynamic Model. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2015. [CrossRef]
18. Mohammadi, F.D.; Keshtkar, H.; Feliachi, A. State Space Modeling, Analysis and Distributed Secondary
Frequency Control of Isolated Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017. [CrossRef]
19. Peng, Y.; Shuai, Z.; Shen, J.; Wang, J.; Tu, C.; Cheng, Y. Reduced order modeling method of inverter-based
microgrid for stability analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition (APEC), Tampa, FL, USA, 26–30 March 2017; pp. 3470–3474.
20. Egwebe, A.M.; Fazeli, M.; Igic, P.; Holland, P.M. Implementation and Stability Study of Dynamic Droop in
Islanded Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2016, 31, 821–832. [CrossRef]
21. Rosenbrock, H.H. Structural properties of linear dynamical systems. Int. J. Control 2007, 20, 191–202.
[CrossRef]
22. Mahmood, H.; Michaelson, D.; Jiang, J. Reactive Power Sharing in Islanded Microgrids Using Adaptive
Voltage Droop Control. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2015, 6, 3052–3060. [CrossRef]
23. Zhou, J.; Kim, S.; Zhang, H.; Sun, Q.; Han, R. Consensus-based Distributed Control for Accurate Reactive,
Harmonic and Imbalance Power Sharing in Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2016. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, J.; Miura, Y.; Ise, T. Comparison of Dynamic Characteristics between Virtual Synchronous Generator
and Droop Control in Inverter-Based Distributed Generators. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 3600–3611.
[CrossRef]
25. Nguyen, C.-K.; Nguyen, T.-T.; Yoo, H.-J.; Kim, H.-M. Improving Transient Response of Power Converter in a
Stand-Alone Microgrid Using Virtual Synchronous Generator. Energies 2018, 11, 27. [CrossRef]
26. Guerrero, J.M.; Hang, L.; Uceda, J. Control of Distributed Uninterruptible Power Supply Systems. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 2845–2859. [CrossRef]
27. Sun, Y.; Hou, X.; Yang, J.; Han, H.; Su, M.; Guerrero, J.M. New Perspectives on Droop Control in AC
Microgrid. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 5741–5745. [CrossRef]
28. Lewis, F.L. A survey of linear singular systems. Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 1986, 5, 3–36. [CrossRef]
29. Milano, F.; Dassios, I. Primal and Dual Generalized Eigenvalue Problems for Power Systems Small-Signal
Stability Analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2017, 32, 4626–4635. [CrossRef]
30. Cai, H.; Xiang, J.; Wei, W.; Chen, M.Z.Q. V-dp/dv Droop Control for PV Sources in DC Microgrids. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2017. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).