energies

Article
An MPC Approach for Grid-Forming Inverters:
Theory and Experiment
Alessandro Labella 1 , Filip Filipovic 2 , Milutin Petronijevic 2 , Andrea Bonfiglio 1, * and
Renato Procopio 1
1 Department of Electrical, Electronic, ICT Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Genoa,
I-16145 Genova, Italy; alessandrogiuseppe.labella@edu.unige.it (A.L.); renato.procopio@unige.it (R.P.)
2 Faculty of Electronic Engineering, University of Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia; filip.filipovic@elfak.ni.ac.rs (F.F.);
milutin.petronijevic@elfak.ni.ac.rs (M.P.)
* Correspondence: a.bonfiglio@unige.it; Tel.: +39-0103532730




Received: 17 March 2020; Accepted: 23 April 2020; Published: 4 May 2020


Abstract: Microgrids (MGs) interest is growing very fast due to the environment urgency and
their capability to integrate renewable energy in a flexible way. In particular, islanded MGs in
which distributed energy resources (DERs) are connected to the infrastructure with power electronic
converters have attracted the interest of many researchers of both academia and industry because
management, control and protection of such systems is quite different from the case of traditional
networks. According to their operation mode, MGs that power electronic converters can be divided
into grid-forming, grid-feeding and grid-supporting inverters. In particular, grid forming inverters
are asked to impose voltage and frequency in the MG. This paper aims to propose a model predictive
control (MPC) based approach for grid-forming inverters in an islanded MG. The MPC strategy is
implemented because of its capability to define the optimal control actions that contemporarily track
the desired reference signals and accounts for equality and inequality constraints. The overall problem
formulation (objective function and relevant constraints) is described step by step and considers the
specificity of the considered DC source. The proposed approach allows for the obtaining of very
good results in terms of readiness against disturbances, even if it requires being fed only by local
measurements. In order to validate the developed method, this paper proposes an experimental
validation of the designed MPC controller in order to show its correct operation on a real system in a
power hardware in the loop set-up using a rapid control prototyping approach.

Keywords: model predictive control; grid-forming inverter; microgrid; primary control

1. Introduction
The interest in microgrids (MGs) is growing very fast as they represent a possible solution to a
complete integration of renewable energy sources (RES) thanks to their flexibility [1–3]. The massive
number of energy sources connected to the grid through power electronics converters is changing the
classic paradigm of the electric power systems [4,5]. This evolution claims for new strategies to ensure
power-sharing [6], voltage and frequency control [7] and grid support [8,9].
Inverters that interface distributed energy resources (DERs) to the MG can be classified according
to one of the three following operation ways: grid-feeding, grid-forming and grid-supporting power
converters [10–12].
Grid-feeding converters are designed to supply a specified value of active and reactive power.
This operation allows for the considering of the controlled DER as an ideal current source connected to
the grid in parallel with high impedance.

Energies 2020, 13, 2270; doi:10.3390/en13092270 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 2270 2 of 17

Grid-forming converters can be represented as an ideal AC voltage source with a low impedance
in series, defining the frequency of the MG and the voltage amplitude at its terminals.
Finally, grid-supporting converters can be either seen as a current or voltage sources in which
the current (voltage) is selected according to specified control laws (e.g., droop characteristic [13],
voltage/reactive power control curves [14,15], active power/reactive power characteristic [14,15] and so
on). Figure 1 schematically represents these operation modes.

Figure 1. Elementary scheme for (a) grid forming; (b) grid feeding; (c) grid supporting acting as voltage
source; (d) grid supporting acting as current source (adapted from [6]).

The traditional control scheme for a grid-forming converter can be found in Figure 2. It is
composed of two internal loops regulated by proportional-integrator (PI) controllers [16]. In this
control scheme, the amplitude of the voltage at the point of common coupling (PCC) and current
are measured and transformed in the dq reference frame by applying the park transformation and
comparing to reference values as shown in Figure 2. According to Figure 2, V* represents the AC
voltage reference at PCC, vd* and vq* are its d and q components, respectively, while vd (vq ) is the
measured direct (quadrature) axis voltage; id (iq ) is the measured direct (quadrature) axis current and
id* (iq* ) is the corresponding reference; finally Ud (Uq ) is the d (q) component inverter AC side voltage.
The current trend in developing new grid-forming strategies is to emulate the behavior of a
traditional synchronous generator, indeed in that way it is possible to (i) simplify their integration in
MG providing virtual inertia and/or to (ii) bring them to behave as similar as possible to something
that is well-know and spread [17]; thus it results in the so-called virtual synchronous machine (VSM)
control strategy. Converters managed with this kind of control can be used both in island and
connected MGs. These strategies use the measurement of the AC variables to detect disturbance,
voltage drops or frequency deviation and, through suitable command laws implemented in their
own control, make the inverter mimic the synchronous machine. Since VSMs are very flexible, the
authors of [18] proposed and verified an approach to mitigate voltage and frequency deviations in MG
with synchronous generators. In [19], VSM and droop control dynamics are compared to exploring
swing equations. In [20], the authors propose a control strategy in which, using an internal model
for the harmonic oscillator, the converter dynamic results increased and exactly matched with the
synchronous machine one.
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 3 of 17

Figure 2. Grid-forming base control scheme (adapted from [16]).

Another important control family is composed by controllers that use sliding mode control to
improve the transient response [16], applying it in for the inner current control loop [21,22].
Model predictive control (MPC) is also used with success in many fields of applications [23]
thanks to its ability to manage multi-objective optimization problems in constrained systems. In [24],
authors propose an MPC regulator able to optimize energy and power flows between MGs. In [25], an
energy management optimization based on a distributed MPC is proposed; then in [26] a centralized
MPC regulator for dynamic optimal power flow between energy storage systems is developed. Finally,
MPC has also been used to ensure power grids transient stability [27]. Paper [28] proposes an MPC
primary regulator for islanded MGs to control the output voltage of each inverter; instead, in [29] MPC
is exploited with sliding mode (SM) to control the inverter output voltage and to limit the current in
overload scenarios. Another interesting use of MPC for MGs voltage control is described in [30] where
a distributed MPC control is proposed, in which each unit solves its own cost function. Reference [30]
proposes a new way to implement secondary control for voltage restoration but there is no novelty
for primary control (a simple droop logic is used) and there is no possibility to avoid communication
among the units.
Another MPC based approach is provided in [31] where the traditional MPC is coupled with
a finite control set MPC, a strategy very common in the power control field, in order to improve
the stability and to reduce the total harmonic distortion. An alternative interesting development is
provided by [32], in which four MPC implementations are proposed. In this frame, MPC is used with a
minimal prediction horizon (one step forward), in fact MPC is used just to provide a better estimation
of voltage measurement; it acts similarly to a feedforward compensation. For this reason, the cost
function has a very simple formulation
The present paper aims at adopting the MPC control strategy to make the inverter behave like an
ideal voltage source (grid-forming mode). This is normally done using conventional PI controllers;
however, in this case the physical limitation of the converter itself (e.g., maximum current limitation)
can be only imposed by means of a saturation in the inner current control loops (see Figure 2).
Consequently, when the outer voltage control loop asks for unfeasible currents, the inner loop opens,
which means that the overall control scheme is not able to track the voltage reference. Furthermore,
the presence of two nested control loops makes the design of the controllers quite cumbersome. In the
conventional strategy, there are four PI controllers (direct and quadrature axis voltage and current
regulators), which means that there are eight parameters to be set. To the best of the authors knowledge,
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 4 of 17

such choice is typically made by an empirical procedure that must ensure that the dynamics of the
outer voltage control loop is much slower than the current controllers one.
On the other hand, the proposed approach allows to impose equality and inequality constraints;
so, the controller selects the best control law that respects all such constraints. Furthermore, the only
parameters to be set are the weights in the objective function that, as will be clarified later on, are only
three and they can be selected independently of each other and represent the strength of the controller
to track the reference values for the AC voltage and the system inputs (i.e., the inverter modulating
signal frequency and the time derivative of the modulation index).
From a practical standpoint, the proposed MPC approach shall provide a more performing
operation of a grid-forming inverter reducing at minimum the condition of maloperation due to the
limitation of the converter and providing better time responses thanks to the model-based feature
of the MPC technique. Of course, this improved performance requires an increased CPU effort; to
check whether it is consistent with available computational resources, an experimental validation of
the proposed strategy is presented to highlight the elements to be taken into consideration for a real
control implementation and test the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Experimental results have been obtained thanks to a rapid prototyping system (RPS) located at
the laboratory for electric drives at the University of Niš, Serbia. Such RPS uses the dSPACE (DS1103,
dSPACE, Paderborn, Germany) environment that allows for the exchange of input and output between
on-field devices and the PC.

2. Some Remarks about the MPC Technique

Consider the following time-invariant-affine discrete time system:

xk+1 = Axk + Buk + f (1)

where xk ∈ Rn and uk ∈ Rm represent the states and inputs, respectively, at time kTs , being Ts the
sampling time. The MPC regulator acts to control the states of the system to a reference value xref by
computing the solution of the following constrained quadratic programming (QP) problem:

N−1
Xn o
min eTk+N Qek+N + eTk+i|k Qek+i|k + uTk+i Ruk+i (2)
U
i=0

s.t. xk+i+1|k = Axk+i|k + Buk+i|k + f (3)

Hu uk+i ≤ Ku , i = 0, . . . , N − 1 (4)

Hx xk+i ≤ Kx , i = 0, . . . , N − 1 (5)

where ek is the state vector error, xk + 1|k refers to the prediction of the state at time (k + 1)Ts calculated
at time kTs and N is the prediction horizon, i.e., the number of samples taken into account in the
iT
forecast. U = [u Tk . . . uTk+N − 1 is the vector containing the optimal input vector uk , while Q = QT , R
= RT are symmetric and positive semi-definite weighting matrices. Hu , Ku , Hx , Kx are the matrices
that define the constraints for the controlled system. The MPC controller generates the control action
using this strategy: at each step the control solves the optimization problem (2), predicts the evolution
of the state variables based on their current values and calculates the optimal input for the system
within the control horizon. Then, only the first step uk is applied to the system while the rest of the
solution is just discarded. The process is then repeated: a new prediction of the evolution of the states
is calculated based on the measurements of their current value, and another set of optimal control
action is produced (Figure 3).
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 5 of 17

Figure 3. Receding horizon technique.

If the considered model is not linear, at any sampling step kTs a linearization procedure around xk
is required to obtain the system described in (1). More details can be found in [33].

3. MPC Controller Design for Grid-Forming Inverters

The aim of the proposed MPC controller is that of providing a decentralized control of the MG
and thus the control needs to be implemented without knowing the MG topology and parameters and
relying only on local measurements.
Let’s consider a generic distributed generator (DG) as depicted in Figure 4. It consists of a generic
DC source, a DC link with suitable DC filters, a full IGBT bridge inverter, an AC filter and finally a PCC.

Figure 4. General layout of an inverter-based DG unit.

In order to perform the design procedure for the MPC controller, it is necessary to define a
mathematical model for the controlled system. Such a model is here proposed according to the
following assumptions [34,35]:

• AC side of the MG is supposed to be at steady state while DC dynamics are fully considered;
• Higher-order harmonics are neglected;
• DC inductor is neglected;
• The shunt section of the AC filter is neglected.

The resulting model, represented in Figure 5, has been extensively validated with experimental
measurements, as detailed in [35].
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 6 of 17

Figure 5. DG simplified layout used for the MPC controller design.

.
The phasor of the line-to-ground voltages at the inverter output V inv (t) and at the harmonic-filter
.
output V ac (t) can be respectively written as:

. ma (t)Vdc (t) jθ(t)

V inv (t) = √ e (6)
2 2
.
V ac (t) = Vac (t)e jθ f (t) (7)

where ma is the inverter modulation index, Vdc is the DC link voltage and Vac is the line-to-ground
voltage at the harmonic-filter output. The phase angles can be written as follows:

Zt
θ(t) = ω(τ)dτ + θ0 (8)
0

Zt
θ f (t) = ω f (τ)dτ + ϕ f (t) (9)
0

where ω is the angular frequency of the inverter modulation signals and ωf is the AC bus frequency
measured via phase lock-loop (PLL). In the following equations, the explicit time dependence will
be omitted for notation simplification. The active power flow Pac injected by the unit into the MG is
given by:
ma V Vac  
Pac = 3 √dc sin θ − θ f (10)
2 2x f
where xf is the longitudinal reactance of the harmonic-filter at rated frequency. Obviously, if the
AC filter is composed of an LCL configuration, xf represents the sum of the two reactances in series
according to the former hypothesis.
Substituting (8) and (9) in (10) one gets:

Zt 
 
3ma Vdc Vac 
  
Pac = sinθ0 − ϕ f + ω(τ) − ω f (τ) dτ

√ (11)
2 2x f  
0

Defining:
σ = θ0 − ϕ f (12)

and
Zt  
δ= ω(τ) − ω f (τ) dτ (13)
0
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 7 of 17

Equation (11) can be rewritten as:

ma Vdc Vac
Pac = 3 √ sin(σ + δ) (14)
2 2x f

Considering now the differential equation that describes the DC link voltage dynamics, it
follows that:
dV
Pdc − Pac = Vdc C dc (15)
dt
where C is the DC link capacitor and Pdc is the power coming from the DC source that can be written as:

Pdc = Idc (Vdc )Vdc (16)

where Idc is a given function of Vdc depending on the specific nature of the source.
Substituting (14) and (15) into (16), it is possible to write the dynamic system of the DG:
 " #
dVdc 3ma Vac
1
sin(σ + δ)



dt = C Idc (Vdc ) − √
2 2x f (17)



dδ
= ω − ωf


dt

System (17) is a non-linear continuous-time system in the form:

.
x = f (x, u, g) (18)

where u = [ma , ω]T is the input vector, i.e., the variable to be provided by the controller, x = [V dc , δ]T is
the state vector and g = [V ac , σ, ωf ]T is a vector that collects measurements and estimated variables.
In particular, Vac and ωf, can be easily measured, while σ can be estimated as follows:

 √  t
 2 2Pac x f  Z  
−1 
σ = sin   −
 ω ( τ ) − ω f ( τ ) dτ (19)
3ma Vdc Vac 
0

As specified before, the mathematical model for the prediction in MPC controllers (1) can be
obtained at any time t* linearizing System (17) around x(t* ). Performing the linearization procedure,
System (17) becomes:
.
x = A∗ x + B∗ u + G∗ g + D∗ (20)

where the system matrices are defined as:

  
 1 dIdc  − 3m V
√ a ac cos[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] 
A∗ =  C dVdc Vdc (t∗ )

 2 2x f C  (21)

 0 0
 ∗ 
 − 3V√ac (t ) sin[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] 0 
∗  2 2x f C
B =  
 (22)
 0 1 
 ∗ 3ma (t∗ )

 − 3ma (t )
 2 √2x f C sin[σ(t ) + δ(t )] cos[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )]
∗ ∗ − √ 0 
∗ 2 2x f C
G =  
 (23)
 0 0 −1 
3ma (t∗ )Vac (t∗ ) 
  
dI 
sin[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] + [σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] cos[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] + C1 Vdc (t∗ ) dVdc 

 √ 
∗ 2 2x f C dc Vdc (t∗ )
D =   (24)
 
 0 
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 8 of 17

Then, since MPC control works in the discrete-time domain, (20) needs to be further discretized
as follows:
xk+1 = (I + Ts A∗ )xk + Ts B∗ uk + Ts G∗ gk + Ts D∗ (25)

where the subscript k denotes the system variables discretized at the sampling time kTs . Since during
the prediction the time evolution of the measurements are unknown, they are supposed to remain
constant during the prediction horizon N, i.e., gk is considered as a state with no dynamics as described
by the following equation:
gk+1 = gk (26)

Furthermore, since the objective of the control is to reach a constant modulating index at a steady
state within the range (0–1.156) instead of considering ma as a control variable for the system, its
derivative J is taken as an input. Thus, a new dynamic equation ma,k + 1 = ma,k + Ts * JK is added to (25).
The resulting general DG model of the kind (1) necessary for the prediction computed by the controller
is written as:
xk+1 = A∗dme
e xk + B∗dme ∗
uk + fdm (27)

where: h iT
xk =
e xk , gk , ma,k (28)
h iT
euk = ωk , Jk (29)
  Ts 3Vac (t∗ )

I2 + Ts A∗ Ts G∗ Ts B∗ (1)   I2 + Ts A
∗ T s G∗ − sin[σ(t∗ ) + δ(t∗ )] 

√
2 2x f C

A∗dm
   
=  03×2 I3 03×1  =  03×2 I3 04×1

 (30)
  
01×2 01×3 1

01×2 01×3 1

 
" ∗
#  0 0 " ∗
#
Ts B (2) 05×1

B∗dm =  f = Ts D
  ∗
=  Ts 04×1  dm (31)
04×1 Ts  04×1
04×1 Ts


where Ts B∗ (1) and Ts B∗ (2) are the first and the second column of the matrix Ts B∗ , respectively.
Moreover, some relevant constraints (see (4) and (5)) are implemented. The angular frequency
for the inverter modulation signals ω acts on the system to satisfy the control objectives within the
operational limits to achieve MG power quality:

2π fmin ≤ ω ≤ 2π fmax (32)

The modulation index is constrained, as follows, to guarantee the inverter working in its linear
operational range:
ma,min ≤ ma ≤ ma,max (33)

To ensure that even during a transient the inverter capability curve is never exceeded
(i.e., the inverter is never overloaded) the following constraint, after a linearization procedure,
is implemented:
q
P2ac + Q2ac ≤ Amax (34)

where Qac can be expressed as a combination of state and input as follows:

 2 2 
 ma Vdc ma Vdc Vac 
Qac = 3 − √ cos(σ + δ) (35)
8x f 2 2x f
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 9 of 17

As specified before, grid-forming inverters must regulate their AC terminal voltage. In the
proposed approach, the aforementioned goal is obtained expressing the desired voltage in terms of
states and inputs of the controlled system and using the industrial voltage drop expression:

ma Vdc
Vac = √ − ∆v
2 2
∆v ≈ 1 1 (36)
3Vinv (R f Pac + x f Qac ) = ma Vdc (R f Pac + x f Qac )
3 √
2 2

One can combine (36), (35), (14) and (6) to obtain the Vac formulation composed of just states,
inputs and constants:
Rf
" #
ma V
Vac = √ dc − sin(σ + δ) + cos(σ + δ) (37)
2 2 xf
Indicating with ωn the rated frequency of the MG and with
Vac,ref the reference for Vac , one can define e = Vac − Vac,ref and eure f = [ωn 0]T (where the zero in
the second component of e ure f means that the control objective is to obtain a constant modulation index
no matter its value).
The resulting objective function is then:

N−1
^T ^
X 
min
^
eTk+N QV ek+N + eTk+i|k QV ek+i|k + u k+i R u k+i (38)
U i=0

iT
where Ŭ = [ŭTk . . . ŭTk+N−1 is the vector containing the optimal input vector ŭ = e
u−e ure f . R = diag
(Rω ; RJ ), where Rω and RJ represent the weights for the input and QV is the weight for the voltage error.
As a result, one obtains that MPC regulator works based on the following measurements: voltage,
active power, the angular frequency at the inverter AC side and DC link voltage. Then, the online
optimization process is performed to generate the control signals for the inverter PWM modulation.
The overall control scheme of the generic DG unit is reported in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Generic DG unit control scheme overview.

4. Experimental Setup
In order to validate the performances of the proposed MPC decentralized controller for
grid-forming inverters, an experimental set-up with rapid control prototyping features was realized.
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 10 of 17

The experimental layout is depicted in Figure 7 and was realized at the laboratory for electric drives at
the University of Niš, Serbia (Figure 8 includes a photo taken in the laboratory during the tests).

Figure 7. Experimental electrical layout with evidence of the measuring points and RPC set-up.

Figure 8. Experimental setup details at Niš University: 1—PC with dSpace DS1103; 2—LCL filter;
3—Variable load; 4—DC source; 5—grid inverter; 6—Current sensors; 7—Voltage sensors.

In order to experimentally confirm the proposed algorithm, and due to the lack of a programmable
DC power source, a simple setup was made. The DC side of the DG unit is achieved using rectification
of the AC grid voltage (400 V) using a variable-ratio autotransformer and a diode bridge rectifier.
The following part of the experimental set-up is composed by a DC link with suitable inductances and
capacitance, an IGBT inverter and two passive loads. The autotransformer rating is 7.6 kVA with ratio
400V/223 V and 4.7% short circuit voltage. The data of the main passive components from Figure 7 can
be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters of main passive components.

C 1.1 mF RLg 11 mΩ
L 2.35 mH Cf 3.3 µF
Li 28 mH Lg 1.3 mH
RLi 0.17 Ω
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 11 of 17

Two different constant resistive loads are at disposal: i.e., Load1 and Load2 with a resistance of
66 Ω and 160 Ω, respectively. The inverter is a Danfoss FC 302, rate current 8.2 A. The inverter is
controlled via a dSPACE DS 1103 real-time controller, whose board was used to collect the measured
signals and to drive the inverter. The control algorithm is developed in MATLAB/Simulink (2017b,
Natick, MA USA), while some parts of code are made as C++ (Microtec PowerPC C/C++ Compiler Ver.
3.8.61, dSPACE, Paderborn, Germany) functions in order to solve the QP problem in real-time. In these
experiments, the QP problem was solved using qpOASES (v 3.0, OPTEC) [36,37], an open-source
library for C++, which proposes some simplified tools for this kind of interface in which more than
one software is involved. In Table 2, it is possible to find the control variables used in the experimental
test described in the following section.

Table 2. MPC controller parameters.

QV 3 fmin 49.5 Hz
Rω 10 fmax 50.5 Hz
RJ 5 ma,min 0.18
N 3 ma,max 1.156
ωn 314.159 rad/s Amax 4 kVA

Examining (16), it is apparent that a relationship between voltage and current of the DC source is
required. Thus, before proceeding with the MPC controller implementation, a simple experimental
campaign has been performed to define the V/I characteristic of the available source (main grid
and autotransformer, diode bridge, DC link). More details about this procedure are included in the
Appendix A For the specified powertrain, the obtained characteristic is shown in Figure 9, in which
the blue stars represent the discrete experimental characteristic and the red line represents the best 5th
order polynomial interpolation used for the controller implementation.

Figure 9. Recorded V/I characteristic of the experimental DC source.

For the sake of completeness, it is important to highlight that this procedure is useless if a DC/DC
converter is inserted in the power train between the source and the inverter because the converter can
be controlled in order to impose any desired V/I characteristic on the inverter DC side.
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 12 of 17

5. Experimental Results
This section aims at describing the HIL test performed to validate the proposed approach. Such
a test includes several events in cascade. At first, a ramp increase is provided for the grid voltage,
from 35 V to 175 V RMS phase to phase in 4 s, starting at 5 s. This first part allows pointing out the
proper operation of voltage control. In this first phase, only Load1 is connected. Secondly, Load2 is
connected in parallel with Load1 at 16 s, before being disconnected at 19.5 s. Finally, at 22.3 s, Load1 is
also disconnected, leaving the system in a no-load condition.
Figure 10 represents the measured RMS grid voltage; its profile is very satisfactory since it never
exceeds the range Vac,ref ± 10%. Instead, Figure 11 shows the active power supplied by the converter.

Figure 10. Grid voltage (RMS) time profile.

Figure 11. Active power supplied by the grid-forming inverter.

From Figure 11 one can notice that in the first transient, power increases due to the increase of
voltage and the resistive nature of the load. Once that voltage reached its final value, the active power
production is equal to 1752 /66 = 464 W. Then, at about 16 s, power increases due to the connection of
the second load up to ((1/66) + (1/165)) * 1752 = 650 W before reducing progressively up to almost zero
(compensating losses in the system). Looking together at Figures 10 and 11, one can notice how the
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 13 of 17

voltage regulation has low sensitivity to power variation, providing a very satisfactory result for the
inverter operation. For the sake of completeness, Figures 12 and 13 report the two MPC controller
outputs i.e., the modulation index and the modulation frequency.

Figure 12. MPC output—modulation index time profile.

Figure 13. MPC output—angular frequency time profile.

Finally, Figure 14 highlights the dynamics of the DC link voltage during the experiment. As can
be seen from the figure, in correspondence of each load increase, the DC voltage decreases because
it is the DC capacitor that initially provides the necessary load power. Then, the DC source current
increases providing itself the necessary amount of power for the load, which results in a stabilization
of the DC voltage. Please note that no DC voltage controller is implemented here because this would
be strictly related to the specific nature of the DC source (e.g., a PV unit should implement a MPPT
algorithm, a storage should be equipped with a suitable battery management system and so on).
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 14 of 17

Figure 14. DC voltage across the input DC-side capacitor during the test.

During this test, the run time of the QP was recorded between 0.78 and 0.91 ms, i.e., shorter than
the MPC sampling time (Ts ) equal to 1 ms.

6. Conclusions
This paper proposed an innovative control architecture for grid-forming inverter control in
islanded MGs. The proposed approach is based on the well-known MPC technique that has been
implemented that considers the specific characteristic of the DG unit source on the inverter DC side.
In the first part of the paper, the proposed MPC controller has been fully described providing all the
necessary information to implement the features of a grid-forming inverter (control goals) accounting
for quality ranges of the involved variables (control constraints). After the definition of the proposed
MPC controller, the paper focused on the validation of the proposed approach. As well known,
the MPC approach usually suffers from implementation issues, due to the fact that it requires the
solution of an optimization problem, and this may be too cumbersome from a computational point of
view. For this reason, an experimental validation of a proposed control system was performed at the
laboratory for electric drives of the University of Niš, Serbia. The experimental validation pointed out
the good operation of the proposed controller from both a technical and computational point of view.
On the basis of this important result, the future development of this activity will point to the
extension of the proposed MPC approach in a multi-inverter islanded MG, where more than one
inverter will have to cope with frequency and voltage regulation. The capabilities of the proposed MPC
approach may allow for the elaboration of the design of a communication-less architecture capable of
coping with primary regulation in an islanded MG in an effective and reliable way.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.P.; methodology, A.L. and A.B.; software, F.F.; validation, A.L. and
F.F.; formal analysis, A.L. and F.F.; investigation, M.P. and A.B.; data curation, A.L.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.L.; writing—review and editing, A.L.; visualization, A.B.; supervision, R.P., A.B and M.P.; project
administration, M.P. and A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
The appendix aims to explain how the V/I characterization of the specific powertrain was obtained.
The setup is summarized in Figure A1. It is worth reminding that any characterization process is
meaningful if the conditions in which the characterization takes place is the same used in the utilization.
This means that in the characterization activity DC filter, the diode bridge and autotransformer are
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 15 of 17

the same used and described in Sections 3 and 4. V/I characteristic was determined by defining 23
different working points (Vdc ; Idc ) obtained with 23 different values of the resistor Rc in the range
(50 Ω–∞) (see dots in Figure 9). Current and voltage measuring devices appear in Figure A1. Then a
fitting tool (e.g., Matlab Basic Fitting) allowed to obtain an analytical relationship Idc (Vdc ) between
DC voltage and current that best fits experimental data. In this work, a 5th order polynomial is used,
whose coefficients are listed in Table A1.

Table A1. Polynomial coefficients.

5th 4th 3th 2th 1th 0

−2.5 × 10−7 7.87 × 10−4 −0.471 114 −2.12 × 104 1.27 × 106

Figure A1. Characterization experiment setup.

References
1. Bendato, I.; Bonfiglio, A.; Brignone, M.; Delfino, F.; Pampararo, F.; Procopio, R. Definition and on-field
validation of a microgrid energy management system to manage load and renewables uncertainties and
system operator requirements. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2017, 146, 349–361. [CrossRef]
2. Bendato, I.; Bonfiglio, A.; Brignone, M.; Delfino, F.; Pampararo, F.; Procopio, R.; Rossi, M. Design criteria for
the optimal sizing of integrated photovoltaic-storage systems. Energy 2018, 149, 505–515. [CrossRef]
3. Bonfiglio, A.; Brignone, M.; Delfino, F.; Invernizzi, M.; Pampararo, F.; Procopio, R. A technique for the
optimal control and operation of grid-connected photovoltaic production units. In Proceedings of the 2012
47th International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), Middlesex, UK, 4–7 September 2012;
pp. 1–6.
4. Olivares, D.E.; Mehrizi-Sani, A.; Etemadi, A.H.; Cañizares, C.A.; Iravani, R.; Kazerani, M.; Hajimiragha, A.H.;
Gomis-Bellmunt, O.; Saeedifard, M.; Palma-Behnke, R.; et al. Trends in Microgrid Control. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 2014, 5, 1905–1919. [CrossRef]
5. Shrivastwa, R.; Hably, A.; Melizi, K.; Bacha, S. Understanding Microgrids and Their Future Trends.
In Proceedings of the IEEE ICIT 2019, Melbourne, Australia, 13–15 February 2019.
6. Bonfiglio, A.; Barillari, L.; Bendato, I.; Bracco, S.; Brignone, M.; Delfino, F.; Pampararo, F.; Procopio, R.;
Robba, M.; Rossi, M. Day ahead microgrid optimization: A comparison among different models.
In Proceedings of the OPT-i 2014—1st International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences
Optimization, Kos, Greece, 4–6 June 2014; pp. 1153–1165.
7. Fornari, F.; Procopio, R.; Bollen, M.H.J. SSC compensation capability of unbalanced voltage sags. IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 2005, 20, 2030–2037. [CrossRef]
8. Gonzalez-Longatt, F.M.; Bonfiglio, A.; Procopio, R.; Verduci, B. Evaluation of inertial response controllers for
full-rated power converter wind turbine (Type 4). In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, USA, 17–21 July 2016; pp. 1–5.
9. Bonfiglio, A.; Invernizzi, M.; Labella, A.; Procopio, R. Design and Implementation of a Variable Synthetic
Inertia Controller for Wind Turbine Generators. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2019, 34, 754–764. [CrossRef]
10. Rocabert, J.; Luna, A.; Blaabjerg, F.; Rodríguez, P. Control of Power Converters in AC Microgrids. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2012, 27, 4734–4749. [CrossRef]
11. Viinamäki, J.; Kuperman, A.; Suntio, T. Grid-Forming-Mode Operation of Boost-Power-Stage Converter in
PV-Generator-Interfacing Applications. Energies 2017, 10, 1033. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 16 of 17

12. IEEE Life Senior Member Daley PE DGCP; IEEE Member Houser PE. Assessment of DER Interconnection
Installation for Conformance with IEEE Std 1547. In Assessment of DER Interconnection Installation for
Conformance with IEEE Std 1547; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–18.
13. Hou, X.; Sun, Y.; Yuan, W.; Han, H.; Zhong, C.; Guerrero, J. Conventional P-ω/Q-V Droop Control in Highly
Resistive Line of Low-Voltage Converter-Based AC Microgrid. Energies 2016, 9, 943. [CrossRef]
14. Italian Standard C. CEI 0-16—Technical Rules for the Connection of Active Passive Consumers to the HV MV
Electrical Networks of Distribution Company; CEI: Milan, Italy, 2008.
15. IEEE. IEEE. IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with
Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces. In IEEE Std 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547–2003); IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–138. [CrossRef]
16. Bouzid, A.M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Cheriti, A.; Bouhamida, M.; Sicard, P.; Benghanem, M.J.R.; Reviews, S.E. A
survey on control of electric power distributed generation systems for microgrid applications. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 751–766. [CrossRef]
17. Serban, I.; Ion, C.P.; Systems, E. Microgrid control based on a grid-forming inverter operating as virtual
synchronous generator with enhanced dynamic response capability. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2017,
89, 94–105. [CrossRef]
18. Hirase, Y.; Abe, K.; Sugimoto, K.; Sakimoto, K.; Bevrani, H.; Ise, T. A novel control approach for virtual
synchronous generators to suppress frequency and voltage fluctuations in microgrids. Appl. Energy 2018,
210, 699–710. [CrossRef]
19. 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]
20. Arghir, C.; Jouini, T.; Dörfler, F. Grid-forming control for power converters based on matching of synchronous
machines. Automatica 2018, 95, 273–282. [CrossRef]
21. Huseinbegovic, S.; Perunicic-Drazenovic, B. A sliding mode based direct power control of three-phase
grid-connected multilevel inverter. In Proceedings of the 2012 13th International Conference on Optimization
of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM), Brasov, Romania, 24–26 May 2012; pp. 790–797.
22. Li, Z.; Zang, C.; Zeng, P.; Yu, H.; Li, S.; Bian, J. Control of a Grid-Forming Inverter Based on Sliding-Mode
and Mixed ${H_2}/{H_\infty }$ Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 3862–3872. [CrossRef]
23. Vazquez, S.; Rodriguez, J.; Rivera, M.; Franquelo, L.G.; Norambuena, M. Model Predictive Control for Power
Converters and Drives: Advances and Trends. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 935–947. [CrossRef]
24. Hans, C.A.; Braun, P.; Raisch, J.; Grune, L.; Reincke-Collon, C. Hierarchical Distributed Model Predictive
Control of Interconnected Microgrids. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 10, 407–416. [CrossRef]
25. Zheng, Y.; Li, S.; Tan, R. Distributed Model Predictive Control for On-Connected Microgrid Power
Management. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2018, 26, 1028–1039. [CrossRef]
26. Morstyn, T.; Hredzak, B.; Aguilera, R.P.; Agelidis, V.G. Model Predictive Control for Distributed Microgrid
Battery Energy Storage Systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2018, 26, 1107–1114. [CrossRef]
27. Bonfiglio, A.; Oliveri, A.; Procopio, R.; Delfino, F.; Denegrí, G.B.; Invernizzi, M.; Storace, M. Improving
power grids transient stability via Model Predictive Control. In Proceedings of the 2014 Power Systems
Computation Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 18–22 August 2014; pp. 1–7.
28. Babqi, A.J.; Etemadi, A.H. MPC-based microgrid control with supplementary fault current limitation and
smooth transition mechanisms. IET Gener. Trans. Distrib. 2017, 11, 2164–2172. [CrossRef]
29. Tavakoli, A.; Negnevitsky, M.; Muttaqi, K.M. A decentralized model predictive control for multiple distributed
generators in the islanded mode of operation. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, Addison, TX, USA, 18–22 October 2015; pp. 1–8.
30. Anderson, S.; Hidalgo-Gonzalez, P.; Dobbe, R.; Tomlin, C.J. Distributed Model Predictive Control for
Autonomous Droop-Controlled Inverter-Based Microgrids. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 58th Conference
on Decision and Control (CDC), Nice, France, 11–13 December 2019; pp. 6242–6248.
31. Dragicevic, T.; Alhasheem, M.; Lu, M.; Blaabjerg, F. Improved model predictive control for high voltage
quality in microgrid applications. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition (ECCE), Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1–5 October 2017; pp. 4475–4480.
32. Alhasheem, M.; Blaabjerg, F.; Davari, P. Performance Assessment of Grid Forming Converters Using Different
Finite Control Set Model Predictive Control (FCS-MPC) Algorithms. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3513. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2270 17 of 17

33. Allgöwer, F.; Zheng, A. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2012; Volume 26.
34. Bonfiglio, A.; Brignone, M.; Invernizzi, M.; Labella, A.; Mestriner, D.; Procopio, R. A Simplified Microgrid
Model for the Validation of Islanded Control Logics. Energies 2017, 10, 1141. [CrossRef]
35. Bonfiglio, A.; Delfino, F.; Labella, A.; Mestriner, D.; Pampararo, F.; Procopio, R.; Guerrero, J.M. Modeling
and Experimental Validation of an Islanded No-Inertia Microgrid Site. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018,
9, 1812–1821. [CrossRef]
36. Ferreau, H.J.; Kirches, C.; Potschka, A.; Bock, H.G.; Diehl, M. qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm
for quadratic programming. Math. Programm. Comput. 2014, 6, 327–363. [CrossRef]
37. Ferreau, H.J.; Bock, H.G.; Diehl, M. An online active set strategy to overcome the limitations of explicit MPC.
Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control IFAC-Affil. J. 2008, 18, 816–830. [CrossRef]

© 2020 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/).