Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Control analysis of parallel DC-DC converters in a DC microgrid with T

constant power loads
⁎
Mahesh Srinivasan , Alexis Kwasinski1
Electrical & Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper proposes a general methodology for designing hierarchical control schemes for DC microgrids loaded
Communication link by constant power loads. This paper addresses issues when interfacing sources with a wide voltage range al-
Constant power loads lowing for any general choice for a power source. The control strategy consists of two levels. The lower level
Droop control consists of droop-based primary controllers. This controller enables current-sharing among paralleled sources
Microgrids
and also damps limit cycle oscillations due to constant power loads. The higher level is a secondary controller
Secondary control
Stability
which compensates for voltage deviations due to primary controller and performs voltage control of the mi-
crogrid. It also maintains the current sharing obtained in the primary stage. In the proposed secondary control,
high-speed communication links to the primary controllers is implemented. The stability conditions are ex-
plained using the equivalent circuit of converters. Using this approach, stability conditions can be derived for
microgrids of an arbitrary size and converter topology. The proposed control scheme is shown to be scalable and
robust. The results obtained for the three basic DC-DC converter configurations are compared based on a mi-
crogrid with a parallel configuration of buck-boost converters. Simulations and experimental results are pre-
sented to verify the validity of the proposed control schemes.

1. Introduction networks, availability is improved by supplying power with a DC dis-

tribution architecture [12].
Recent energy concerns include power systems reliability, avail- One of the main challenges for microgrids is that constant power
ability and resilience, increase in energy consumed beyond of existing loads (CPLs) may constitute a major proportion of the load [13,14]. The
transmission capacity [1,2]. With increasing penetration of distributed presence of CPLs may cause limit cycle oscillations in the microgrid
generation (DG), microgrids have come to coexist with traditional voltage and currents due to their negative incremental resistance [15].
power system architectures [3]. The DC microgrid test bed im- An important preference to improve microgrids availability is to use
plemented by the city college of New York (CCNY) [4] is an example of distributed and autonomous control of the constituent converters [16].
a microgrid coexisting with the traditional power grid. Analysis in [5] This issue is addressed in [17] in which a general framework of a
showed that microgrids with diverse sources and a redundant archi- hierarchical control scheme for both grid-connected as well as islanded
tecture can achieve high availability suitable for critical applications, microgrids was introduced. Based on the framework in [17], hier-
such as data centers [6] with air-conditioning systems [7]. Compared to archical control scheme is proposed in [18–20] for a multi-bus DC
conventional grid, microgrids seem to be robust for critical infra- microgrid with low bandwidth communication based secondary control
structures in the event of natural disasters [8]. Although more devel- scheme. In the method proposed in [21], system damping is reduced by
opment work has focused on AC microgrids, recently DC microgrids are lumping the loads to a single bus. The methods proposed in [18–21] do
also receiving renewed attention [9]. DC microgrids do not have fre- not seem to address the issues due to CPLs in the microgrids. This is
quency or reactive power related issues and, hence, analysis and design because the methods proposed in [18–21] assume that microgrid loads
of control loops may be simpler [10]. In addition, a number of sources are resistive and not CPLs. The review paper on hierarchical control
like solar panels, fuel cells, energy storage and present-day electronic [22] states that, the objectives of achieving current sharing accuracy
loads are inherently DC [11]. In case of power supply for telecom and voltage restoration by using secondary control are complementary.

⁎
Corresponding author at: 25 Summer Ln, Hicksville, NY 11801, USA.
E-mail addresses: srinimahesh@utexas.edu (M. Srinivasan), akwasins@pitt.edu (A. Kwasinski).
1
A. Kwasinski is with University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106207
Received 29 September 2019; Received in revised form 17 May 2020; Accepted 19 May 2020
Available online 05 June 2020
0142-0615/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Thus, the objective of accurate current sharing in addition to voltage is the DC-DC buck-boost converter. Higher order converters may
regulation is yet to be achieved. Some recent work in [23,24] try to have additional advantages. But they contain additional passive
address this issue by using non-linear droop characteristics. But some components which may increase converters failure rates [40].
non-linear droop characteristics may lead to unstable equilibrium Hence, each stage of controller design process and stability analysis
points in the presence of CPLs [24]. Nevertheless, using the methods is explained by considering a DC microgrid containing parallel buck-
proposed in [23,24] leads to steady state voltage deviation under high boost converters. This approach is shown to be scalable to micro-
load conditions. However, secondary control proposed in this paper grids of an arbitrary topology, converter configuration and in the
achieves zero steady-state error in the microgrid voltage even under presence of additional microgrid elements. To cover a wide range of
heavy loads source converter topologies, results obtained for the 3 basic DC-DC
A significant sub-domain of research on hierarchical control in- converter topologies are also compared.
volves interfacing renewable energy sources (RESs) and energy storage
systems (ESSs) to the DC microgrid. In this related area, the function of Each of the contributions mentioned in the previous paragraph are
secondary controller is mainly on efficient utilization of RES and ESS improvements over the work presented in the current literature. In
[25–27]. In this context in [25,26] ESS, solar, wind turbine generators [41], microgrid loads are assumed to be constant current loads. In this
are interfaced to a microgrid. The method proposed in [27] uses bat- paper, microgrid loads are assumed as CPLs which is more realistic. The
teries and ultracapacitors interfaced to a DC microgrid using converters. active damping method proposed in [42] only damps the limit cycle
In the methods proposed in [25–27], microgrid voltage is allowed to oscillations, whereas primary controller proposed in this paper per-
vary and is not tightly regulated. The method proposed in [28,29] uses forms current sharing as well as damping oscillations. In [43], load
additional ESSs with adjustable droops. In [30], a control scheme for current sharing is performed with the help of centralized communica-
minimizing the losses of the DC-DC converters in the microgrid is im- tion scheme and hence it is not autonomous. Since droop scheme is used
plemented. However, the main objective of secondary control in for current sharing in this paper, the primary controller is fully au-
[28–30] seems to be that of balancing the state of charge of the ESS. In tonomous which takes advantage in order to plug and play various
[31], the goal of secondary controller is the economic dispatch of microgrid sources. In [44], a low bandwidth based communication
sources connected to the microgrid. In [32] the objective of secondary scheme is used for current sharing among converters. If primary control
control is that of efficient charging of ESS. Even if some of the works relies on communication links, limit cycle oscillations in currents and
like [33,34] consider microgrid loads as CPLs, the source interfacing voltages are observed in the occasion of failure of such links. Local
converters are of buck or boost topology. Detailed quantitative analysis autonomous primary controller proposed in this paper, allows the mi-
in [35] showed that microgrids with diverse sources can achieve high crogrid to still operate, although, possibly, in a suboptimal state, even
availability. In order to maximize the range of source voltages that when communication links fail. Under light loaded conditions, micro-
could be interfaced, converters capable of providing wider output vol- grid voltage level may still be acceptable. Methods to perform voltage
tage ranges may be required [36]. Further, microgrid stability condi- regulation of DC microgrid locally have been proposed in literature in
tions derived in [18–22,25–34] only pertain to the respective systems [45]. However, this could eventually lead to instability due to differ-
considered and it may not be generalized. In this paper, a single bus DC ences in sensor parameters [39]. In this paper, secondary control is
microgrid is considered which is consistent with the existing approach implemented using a controller area network (CAN) communication
[37]. In addition, a single bus microgrid also minimizes the effect of protocol [20] which performs voltage control of the microgrid from a
system damping. In a recent work [38], connecting lines, filters and single location. Additionally, in a recent work [23] while performing
resistive loads have been considered, which may partly aid in damping stability analysis, converters are modeled as voltage sources in series
CPL oscillations. This paper does not consider such damping elements with a resistance, which may lead to model inaccuracies. Such simple
and hence the proposed control scheme entirely damps the limit cycle models do not provide any information regarding the effects of con-
oscillations. In addition, the system efficiency is higher than that in verter parameters on microgrid stability. In this paper, a detailed model
[38] because there is no power dissipation in added passive elements. of source converters is considered and no state variables are neglected.
In the later part of this paper, connecting lines have been considered in Even though [46] mentions that buck-boost converters are used as
order to show that the proposed control scheme works well in the source interfacing converters, it assumes that CPLs fed by such con-
presence of other circuit elements. verters are inherently stable. Further, no information regarding the
This paper presents following novel contributions. converter model seems to be available in [46].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a general metho-
1. Hierarchical control schemes are proposed for DC microgrids with dology for designing the primary and secondary controllers for a DC
CPLs instead of linear loads. microgrid containing non-isolated DC-DC converters is presented. In
2. The primary controller performs dual functions of current sharing as Section 3, equivalent circuits of the converters are used to obtain sta-
well as damping limit cycle oscillations due to CPLs. bility conditions. Further, stability of the proposed control scheme is
3. The secondary controller performs voltage regulation. The integral also studied. Simulation and experimental results are presented in
control gains of the secondary controller are designed such that Section 4 to verify the proposed control strategies. In each of the sec-
current sharing obtained using primary control is maintained. Thus, tions, DC-DC buck-boost topology is used to describe the results derived
this paper addresses complementary issues listed in [22]. and the results obtained for the three basic DC-DC converter topologies
4. Secondary control is implemented using a controller area network are compared.
(CAN) communication protocol [20]. This ensures better accuracy in
current sharing and avoids instability due to racing condition in the
event of multiple controllers trying to regulate microgrid voltage 2. Controller design and analysis
[39].
5. Stability conditions are derived using a computationally simpler Consider a system of m parallel-connected source converters sup-
approach based on the converter equivalent circuit model. The plying power to r CPLs [47] as shown in Fig. 1. The source converters
proposed approach is scalable in terms of microgrid size and number are assumed to be operating in continuous conduction mode (CCM).
of power sources. The average state equations for such a system are
6. This paper addresses issues when interfacing sources with a wide
voltage range allowing for any general choice for a power source.
The basic DC-DC converter configurations that satisfy this condition

2
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

so that the control laws are symmetric. Calculating the system ja-
cobian, A we obtain

A(m + 1) × (m + 1)
1 m+1 (E + x
1 ) ∂g 1
⎡ L1 ∂x 1
… 0 (g
L1 1
− 1) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ (Em + xm + 1 ) ∂gm 1 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⋯ Lm ∂xm Lm m
(g − 1) ⎥
=⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ m
⎢ ∑ Cj
( ∂g
1 − g1 − x1 ∂x1
1 ) ⋯ m
1

∑ Cj
(1 − g m − xm m
P
2
∑ Cj xm +1 ⎥
⎥
⎢ j=1 j=1 j=1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣
∂gm
∂xm ) ⎥
⎦ (6)
It can be observed from (6) that in order for all the m + 1 eigen-
values to lie on the left half of the s plane (LHP), one of the necessary
conditions is that trace of A must be negative. Hence,
Fig. 1. A system of m parallel buck-boost converters supplying r CPLs. ∂gj
<0
∂x j (7)
⎧ f1 (x, E, P , d) From an implementation standpoint, the simplest means to ensure
⎪ f2 (x, E, P , d)
f (x, t ) = that (7) is satisfied is by providing a proportional negative feedback of
⎨ ⋮
⎪ f (x, E, P , d) the inductor currents of the respective converters.
⎩ n Constraint 4: Duty ratio constraint. Since 0 < dj < 1 in (5), the
P = P1 + P2. .....+Pr following control laws can be used for the primary controller in (5).
d = [d1, d2, …dm ]T , E = [E1, E2, …Em ]T , x = [x1, x2 , …x n ]T (1) kOL, j Ej − Rdj xj
dj = Ej
where x is the state vector with components given by the inductor
kOL, j Ej
currents and capacitor voltages. It is assumed that there are n state = Vnl, 0 < kOL, j < 1
1 − kOL, j (8)
variables in the system with n = m + 1. The instantaneous duty cycle
and source voltage of the ith converter are given by di and Ei, respec- where Vnl refers to the no load voltage of the DC microgrid, kOL,j and Rdj
tively. To ensure stable operation of source converters, consider the are the open-loop duty ratio and virtual droop resistance of the jth
vector of duty cycles, d in (1) to involve state variables feedback. converter respectively. The control inputs of the jth converter given by
Hence, let (8) are conveniently referred to as the primary control inputs dj,pri. The
equilibrium point obtained using the control inputs (8) is given by
d = g (x) (2)
Xeq,pri. The individual components of Xeq,pri are given by [X1eq,X2eq…
From a control standpoint, the individual components of g(x), X(m+1)eq]T. Strict droop controllers enable current sharing at the cost of
namely g1, g2…gm may be any linear or non-linear functions of x. poor voltage regulation. This can be remedied by adding secondary
However, from the system and implementation standpoint, there are control inputs containing integral control terms [17]. The overall con-
several constraints to be taken into account while deriving g(x). The trol inputs are then given by
aim of this section is to take into account each of these constraints and
kOL, j Ej − x j Rdj + ki, j ∫ (Vnl − x m + 1) dt
arrive at a feasible option. dj =
Constraint 1: The chosen state feedback maintains the asymptotic Ej (9)
stability of the corresponding equilibrium point, Xeq. The stability of where ki,j is the integral control gain of the j converter. The equili- th

Xeq is estimated by linearizing the equations about the equilibrium brium point obtained using the control inputs (9) is given by Xeq,sec.
point [48]. As an example, consider the system shown in Fig. 1. The The individual components of Xeq,sec are given by [X1eq,sec,X2eq,sec…X(m
average state space equation for the system is T
+1)eq,sec] . To obtain the expressions for equilibrium points, current

dx
j
sharing ratios and integral control gains in terms of other state vari-
⎧ Lj dt = dj Ej − d′j x m + 1 ables, consider the case where m = 2 without loss of generality. For a
⎪
f (x,t ) = m
multi-converter system such as the one in Fig. 1, the variation of mi-
⎨ (C1 + ...+Cm ) dxm + 1 = ∑ (d′j x j ) − P
⎪ dt xm + 1 crogrid voltage with load power is of considerable interest. Consider the
⎩ j=1

′
dj = 1 − dj , j = 1, 2, ...,m system equations (3). At Xeq,pri, the LHS of (3) is zero. To obtain X1eq
and X2eq in terms of X3eq, we do the following. The control input (8) is
x = [x1, ...,x m , x m + 1 ]T = [iL1, ....,iLm, vC ]T (3) substituted in the first equation in (3). The variables x1, x2 and x3 are
where d1, d2, …, dm refer to the instantaneous duty cycles of the m replaced by X1eq, X2eq and X3eq respectively. Writing X1eq and X2eq in
parallel converters.Constraint 2: The duty ratio function of one con- terms of X3eq in the first equation in (3), we can obtain
verter cannot include the feedback of inductor current of another kOL, j Ej2 + Ej X3eq (kOL, j − 1)
converter. This is important to ensure the plug and play operation of the Xjeq = , j = 1, 2
Rdj (Ej + X3eq ) (10)
microgrid sources [40]. Hence
dj = gj (x j , x m + 1), j = 1, 2. .,m Writing X1eq, d1′ , X2eq, d 2′ in terms of X3eq in the second equation in
(4)
(3) and ordering terms according to powers of X3eq, we can obtain
Constraint 3: The primary controller is fully autonomous [16] This (11).The equilibrium point, Xeq,pri can be obtained in terms of Rd1, Rd2,
means that primary controller of a converter can only include a feed- E1, E2, kOL,1, kOL,2 and P by solving the following quartic equation.
back signal of its own inductor current. Hence let’s assume that
fpri (X3eq ): a4 X34eq + a3 X33eq + a2 X32eq + a1 X3eq + a 0 = 0 (11)
dj = gj (x j ), j = 1, 2. .,m (5)
where

3
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Table 1
Primary control results for the 3 basic topologies [59,60].
Quantity Buck Boost Buck-boost

X3eq at P = 0 Vnl = kOL,1E1 Vnl =

E1 E1 kOL,1
(1 − kOL,1 ) Vnl =
(1 − kOL,1 )
X3eq at P = Pmax Vnl E1 if E1 > E2 0 < X3eq, min ⩽
Vnl
2 E2 if E1 < E2 2

qIshare R d2 E12 Rd2 (1 − kOL,1 )2Rd2 (E2 + X3eq ) kOL,2

Rd1
E22 Rd1 (1 − kOL,2 )2Rd1 (E1 + X3eq ) kOL,1

of the secondary controller. In the case of simple converter topologies,

this is possible only if the converter inductor is either at the input or the
Fig. 2. X3eq Vs P characteristics for parallel buck-boost converters in Fig. 1 with output of the converter. The term qIshare is also used to represent the
m = 2 [25]. ratio of inductor currents in the secondary control stage similar to (16).
In the case of parallel buck-boost converters, the equilibrium point
a4 = −E12 (1 − kOL,1) Rd2 − E22 (1 − kOL,2) Rd1 − PRd1 Rd2 obtained using the control inputs (9) is given by
a3 = E13 kOL,1 Rd2 + E23 kOL,2 Rd1 − 2Rd1 E22 E1 (1 − kOL,2) i,1 d2k PR
⎡ ⎤
− 2Rd2 E12 E2 (1
− kOL,1) ⎡ X1eq, sec ⎤ ⎢ Vnl (ki,1 Rd2 (1 − kOL,1) + ki,2 Rd1 (1 − kOL,2)) ⎥
X eq,sec = ⎢ X2eq, sec ⎥ = ⎢ ki,2 PRd1 ⎥
− 2PRd1 Rd2 (E1 + E2) ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ Vnl (ki,1 Rd2 (1 − kOL,1) + ki,2 Rd1 (1 − kOL,2)) ⎥
X3eq, sec
a2 = 2E13 E2 kOL,1 Rd2 + 2E23 E1 kOL,2 Rd1 − E12 (1 − kOL,1) E22 Rd2 ⎣ ⎦ ⎢ Vnl ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (18)
− E22 (1 − kOL,2) E12 Rd1 − 4PRd1 Rd2 E1 E2 − PRd1 Rd2 (E12 + E22)
We need to calculate the input currents of the top and bottom
a1 = E13 E22 kOL,1 Rd2 + E23 E12 kOL,2 Rd1 − 2PRd1 Rd2 E1 E2 (E1 + E2)
converters in the primary stage. Consider Fig. 3 which contains the
a 0 = −E12 E22 PRd1 Rd2 (12) equivalent circuit of the system in Fig. 1 with m = 2 and hierarchical
control scheme of (8) and (9) implemented. The vector of input currents
The significance of (11) is as follows. For practical values of E1, E2,
in the primary stage is given by Iin,pri. The individual components of
Rd1, Rd2, kOL,1 and kOL,2, X3eq Vs P characteristic is indicated in Fig. 2. Of
Iin,pri are given by [Iin1,pri,Iin2,pri]T. The transformer voltages in Fig. 3
the four roots from (11), two of them are always complex. The nature of
can be calculated after substituting the equilibrium point (17) in the
the other two roots is as follows. When P = 0, one of the other two
italicized expressions in Fig. 3. The current through the circuit elements
roots is X3eq = Vnl and the remaining other is X3eq = 0. As P is in-
can be calculated after equating the input and output power of the
creased, both the real roots start moving towards each other. At
transformer. Thus, the input current of the top converter, Iin1,pri can be
P = Pmax, both of these roots equal to X3eq,min. Beyond Pmax, there are
calculated by simplifying the expression (19) after substituting for X1eq
no real roots for the equation (11). Thus, the locus of real root which
from (17)
starts at X3eq = Vnl for P = 0 and moves left till it reaches P = Pmax
represents the locus of microgrid voltage. The characteristic obtained in E1 X3eq ⎞
Fig. 2 is similar to that obtained for parallel buck converters in [25,59], E1 Iin1, pri = X1eq ⎛⎜ ⎟

however, there are differences. In the case of parallel buck converters, ⎝ eq + E1 ⎠

X3 (19)
X3eq,min is a constant and is given by
Calculating Iin,pri, we get
V
X3eq,min = nl Iin1, pri ⎤ ⎡ Ej (1 − kOL, j )(Vnl − X3eq ) X3eq ⎤
2 (13)
Iin,pri = ⎡ = , j = 1, 2
⎢ Iin2, pri ⎥ ⎢ Rdj (Ej + X3eq )2 ⎥
In case of parallel buck-boost converters, ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦2X 1 (20)

Vnl Consider the ratio of the input currents of the converters similar to
0 < X3eq,min ⩽
2 (14) (16). Rewriting X3eq = Vnl-Vdr (Vdr is the droop voltage), substituting for
For stability considerations, the parallel buck-boost operation can Vnl from (8) and simplifying
be restricted to lie in the region 2

Vnl
⩽ X3eq ⩽ Vnl
Iin1, pri
=
E1 (1 − kOL,1) Rd2 ( E2
(1 − kOL,2 ) )
− Vdr
2
Iin2, pri
2 (15) E2 (1 − kOL,2) Rd1 ( E1
(1 − kOL,1 )
−V ) dr
(21)
The primary control inputs (8) enable current sharing according to
X1eq Since kOL,2 < 1 and kOL,1 < 1 and considering
qI share =
X2eq (16)

The equilibrium point, Xeq,pri obtained in terms of X3eq is given by

E (1 − k )(V − X )
⎡ 1 OL,1 nl 3eq
⎤
⎡ X1eq ⎤ ⎢ Rd1 (X3eq + E1)
⎥
X eq,pri ⎢
= X2eq =⎥ ⎢ E2 (1 − k OL,2 )(Vnl − X3eq ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ Rd2 (X3eq + E2) ⎥
X3eq
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ X3eq ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (17)

Table 1 gives the results regarding primary equilibrium point,

Xeq,pri for three basic configurations. Fig. 3. Equivalent circuit of system in Fig. 1 (m = 2) with control scheme (8),
For ideal microgrid operation, it is desired that current sharing (9) implemented [49]. The italicized values at the bottom represent transformer
obtained with the primary control stage is maintained after the addition voltages in circuits.

4
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Ej
> Vnl > Vdr , j = 1, 2
(1 − kOL, j ) (22)
then, from (22) and (15), Vdr can be neglected in (21) and the fol-
lowing approximation can be made.
Iin1, pri E2 (1 − kOL,1)3Rd2
≈
Iin2, pri E1 (1 − kOL,2)3Rd1 (23)
The vector of input currents in the secondary stage is given by
Iin,sec. The individual components of Iin,sec are given by [Iin1,sec,Iin2,sec]T.
For calculating Iin,sec, we follow the same procedure that we did in
order to calculate Iin,pri but in Fig. 3, we use values from (18) instead of
(17). Calculating Iin,sec, from (18) it yields
k PR
i,1 d2 OL,1 k
Iin1, sec ⎤ ⎡ Vnl (ki,1 Rd2 (1 − kOL,1) + ki,2 Rd1 (1 − kOL,2)) ⎤
Iin,sec =⎡ =⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣ Iin2, sec ⎥
k PR k ,2
⎦ ⎢ V (k R (1 − ki,2 d) 1+ OL ⎥
⎣ nl i,1 d2 OL,1 ki,2 Rd1 (1 − kOL,2))
⎦ (24)
Equating (23) and (24) to equalize the shared current (at the con- Fig. 4. Control architecture for the DC microgrid.
verter input) in the primary and secondary stages we obtain
ki,1 = ki kOL,2 E2 (1 − kOL,1 )3 circuit respectively. Using (29), the condition given by (27) can be
ki,2 = ki kOL,1 E1 (1 − kOL,2 )3 written as
(25)
m
where ki is the integral control constant which is common for all the 1 1
∑ τi, R − L
>
τR − C
converters. Table 2 provides the results regarding the secondary con- i=1 (30)
troller for the 3 basic converter configurations. A control diagram for an
m parallel converter configuration is given in Fig. 4. If the CPL and droop resistance are located on different sides of
transformer as in Fig. 3, they have to be referred to the same side of the
3. Stability conditions transformer by multiplying by the appropriate voltage transformation
ratios. The physical significance of the condition (30) is that the rate of
3.1. Circuit analysis of stability conditions rise of current in the input R-L circuits should be greater than the rate of
rise of current in the output R-C circuit. Calculating Det(A) in (28) re-
The system’s characteristic equation calculated at Xeq,pri is given by sults in a series circuit comprising of an equivalent voltage source,
source and load impedances of the microgrid. Evaluating the stability
det (s I - A) = s n + an − 1 s n − 1 + ………+a1 s + a0 (26) condition for the circuit described above yields the Middlebrook cri-
where the coefficients an-1, ….a1, a0 are real numbers. Among the terion, which is used for verifying stability of converters with CPLs
necessary conditions to ensure local asymptotic stability, those that can [13,50]. The Middlebrook criterion applied to microgrids, can be re-
be obtained directly using the A matrix (without calculating its eigen- stated as follows [47,51]. Microgrids power distribution architecture
values) are given by the following equations [48]. consist of cascaded converters. In microgrids, the equilibrium point
n
stability is determined by the ratio of Zs/Zl where Zs is the output im-
an − 1 > 0 ⇒ trace (A) < 0 ⇒ ∑ A i, i < 0 pedance of the source converters and Zl is the input impedance of the
i=1 (27) load converters. Equilibrium point stability can be ensured if Zs/Zl does
not encircle −1 + j0 point. In a conservative sense, stability can be
det (A) < 0 if n is odd ensured if |Zs| < |Zl| at all frequencies [47]. It has been mentioned in
a0 >0 ⇒ ⎧
⎨
⎩ det (A) > 0 if n is even (28) [40] that in the case of a DC microgrid, the source and load impedances
th consist only of resistive terms. Observing from the microgrid terminal,
where Ai,i is the i diagonal element of A. To explain the condition
equivalent source and load resistances can be calculated and the sta-
given by (27), consider the following. The primary controllers are de-
bility condition given by (28) can be stated as
signed so a virtual resistance is added in series with each converter
inductor as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, |Rsource | < |RCPL| (31)

⎧ Rdi 1 where Rsource is the equivalent source resistance and RCPL is the line-
= τ , 1⩽i⩽m
∂ 2x i ⎪ Li i, R − L
arized resistance of CPL.
|Ai, i| = = P 1
∂t ∂x i ⎨ = τ ,i=n The stability criteria listed in (27) and (28) are examined for system
⎪ (∑m
q = 1 Cq ) Xμg , eq
2 R−C
⎩ (29) in Fig. 1. Consider the characteristic polynomial for the A matrix given
by (26). Following the steps explained in the previous paragraph and
where Xμg,eq is the equilibrium value of the microgrid voltage, τi,R-L and
calculating the condition given by (27), we obtain
τR-C are the time constants of the ith R-L circuit and the output R-C
m
Rdq ⎛ Xμg, eq ⎞ P
Table 2 ∑ ⎜1 + ⎟ >

Secondary control results for the 3 basic topologies [59,60]. q=1

Lq ⎝ Eq ⎠
(m
)2
∑q = 1 Cq Xμg , eq (32)
Quantity Buck Boost Buck-boost
where Rdq, Lq, Eq and Cq are the droop resistance, inductance, source
Integral control gain ki,1 = ki,2 = ki ki,1 = ki E12 ki,1 = ki kOL,2 E2 (1 − kOL,1 )3 voltage and capacitance of the qth converter and Xμg,eq is the microgrid
ki,2 = ki E22 ki,2 = ki kOL,1 E1 (1 − kOL,2 )3 equilibrium voltage. To obtain the condition corresponding to (28)
qIshare R d2 E12 Rd2 kOL,2 E2 (1 − kOL,1 )3Rd2
consider the equivalent circuit of the parallel buck-boost configuration
Rd1
E22 Rd1 kOL,1 E1 (1 − kOL,2 )3Rd1 given in Fig. 3. Observing from the microgrid terminal and making use
of the expression (31), we obtain

5
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Table 3
Stability results for the buck and boost topologies [59,60].
Condition Buck Boost

a2 > 0 m R
∑
dq
>
P ⎡ m Rdq ⎤ P
Lq Xμg, eq ⎢ ∑ >
q=1 ⎛ m ⎞ 2 Lq Eq ⎥ ⎛ m ⎞ 2
⎜⎜ ∑ Cq ⎟⎟ Xμg , eq ⎣q = 1 ⎦ ⎜⎜ ∑ Cq ⎟⎟ Xμg , eq
⎝q = 1 ⎠
⎝q = 1 ⎠
a0 > 0 m m 2
1 P Eq ⎤
∑ ⎡
∑ > 1 P
Rdq 2 >
q=1 Xμg , eq 2
Xμg ⎢ Rdq ⎥
, eq q = 1
2
Xμg , eq
⎣ ⎦
Fig. 6. Augmented microgrid with additional elements.

m 2
⎛ 1 ⎡ Eq ⎤⎞ > P
∑ ⎜R ⎢ E + Xμg, eq ⎥ ⎟ 2
dq ⎣ q ⎦⎠ Xμg , eq (33)
q=1 ⎝
Table 3 provides the stability results corresponding to (27) and (28)
for the buck and boost configurations.

3.2. Stability analysis

To show that the primary controller ensures stability of the equili-

brium point given by (17), an eigenvalue analysis is performed. The
circuit parameters used for simulations and experiments are the fol- Fig. 7. Eigenvalues for the augmented microgrid in Fig. 6.
lowing: E1 = 36 V, E2 = 28 V, C1 = C2 = 660μF, L1 = L2 = 400μH,
Rd1 = 0.4 Ω, Rd2 = 0.3 Ω, Vnl = 32 V, P = 130 W. Eigenvalues of the A
connecting lines [50]. In microgrids XL≪RL where RL and XL are the
matrix are obtained in the following cases and are shown in Fig. 5.
resistance and reactance of the lines [54–56]. Thus, connecting line
Initially, the circuit is operated in open loop with kOL,1 = 0.471 and
inductances are negligible in a DC microgrid. However, in a general
kOL,2 = 0.533. The eigenvalues for this case are indicated as λOL. Droop
case, the circuit shown in Fig. 6 represents line impedance including the
controllers may introduce low frequency oscillations around the equi-
addition of a decoupling capacitor which are almost always added in
librium point [52,53]. In the case of buck-boost configuration, when the
this type of circuits. Modified circuit parameters are E3 = 30 V,
microgrid voltage is drooped in proportion to the output current of the
kOL,3 = 0.516, Rd1 = 0.2 Ω, Rd2 = 0.22 Ω, Rd3 = 0.15 Ω, Lt = 10μH,
converter, it results in unstable equilibrium point. Consider primary
Rt = 0.21 Ω, Ct = 16.67μF. Firstly eigenvalues of A are evaluated in
control inputs to the converter given by
open loop and those that lie on RHP are shown as λOL in Fig. 7. For the
kOL, j Ej −
P
R next case, consider the primary controller given in (8). The load power
xμg dj
dj, pri = , j = 1, 2 P is increased in steps from 200 W. The locus of dominant eigenvalues is
Ej (34) also plotted in Fig. 7 indicating that the proposed controller maintains
the stability of the system till a maximum P of around 500 W. This
where xμg is the instantaneous microgrid voltage. Eigenvalues calcu-
stable behavior is also observed when evaluating all of the ten eigen-
lated for this case are indicated as λconv. For the next case, consider
values of the augmented system represented in Fig. 6. Table 4 gives
primary controllers given by (8). To show that insufficient droop re-
dominant eigenvalues λd in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 at discrete values of P. The
sistances may result in an unstable equilibrium point, consider the case
stability analysis performed in this section is more accurate compared
Rd1 = 0.02, Rd2 = 0.015. Eigenvalues for this case are indicated as
to the analysis performed in [57]. In [57], a system similar to Fig. 6 is
λunstable which are 5 ± j973 and −86 + j0. For each of the above
considered. But, the system model takes into account the state equa-
mentioned cases, it can be observed that there is at least one eigenvalue
tions of the RLC filter alone. In case of boost and buck-boost topologies,
in the right half plane (RHP) indicating instability. Next consider in-
converter L, C values are much higher compared to L, C values of filters
creasing the droop resistances to Rd1 = 0.4 Ω, Rd2 = 0.3 Ω. Eigenvalues
and connecting lines. In this paper, the CPL is realized by loading the
for this case are indicated as λstable. For this case, P is increased in steps
microgrid with a buck converter acting as a POL converter, whose
from 130 W and the dominant eigenvalues are plotted. For this case, all
output voltage is maintained constant using a fast regulating PI
the eigenvalues are shifted to the LHP. It can be observed from Fig. 5
that a stable equilibrium point is obtained till P = 342 W. To consider
the effect of line impedances in droop-controlled microgrids, the ori- Table 4
ginal system is augmented as shown in Fig. 6. A third buck-boost Largest eigenvalues at discrete P for original and augmented microgrids. Refer
Fig. 5 and Fig. 7.
converter is also added. The additional circuits in Fig. 6 represent
λd for microgrid in

P(W) Fig. 1(m = 2) Fig. 6

130 −717.7 ± j693.9 −417.2 ± j858.2

170 −656.6 ± j759.9 −398.5 ± j871.4
210 −581.7 ± j819.4 −378 ± j884.3
240 −512.1 ± j858.5 −361.2 ± j893.7
270 −424.4 ± j890 −343 ± j902.8
300 −306.1 ± j906.4 –323.3 ± j911.4
330 −125.2 ± j881.8 −301.6 ± j919.6
342 −13.9 ± j837.7 −292.4 ± j922.7
400 unstable −241.8 ± j935.7
450 unstable −187.9 ± j943
497 unstable −124 ± j943.6
Fig. 5. Eigenvalues for DC microgrid in Fig. 1 (m = 2) for different test cases.

6
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Fig. 8. Simulation results for parallel buck-boost converters transitioning from

open loop to primary control.

controller [14]. The parameters of the POL converter are as follows.

LL = 300µH, CL = 1680µF, VL = 16.2 V, RL = 2 Ω.

4. Simulation and Experimental results

4.1. Simulation results

Simulation and experiments based on the circuit in Fig. 1 are per-

formed to show the validity of the analysis.

4.1.1. Case 1: With primary control only

The simulation results for transition from open loop to primary Fig. 10. Digital control and CAN network.
control are given in Fig. 8. For t < 0.2 s, limit cycle oscillations of
around 150 Hz are observed in the current and voltage waveforms. The protocol [58]. A total of 3 launch-pads are used. Two launch-pads are
primary controllers (8) are switched on at t = 0.2 s and the limit cycle used for the local control of paralleled converters. One launch-pad is
oscillations are damped in around 10 ms. It can be observed from Fig. 8 used to sense the microgrid voltage and communicate secondary con-
that iL1 (x1), iL2 (x2) and vC (x3) settle down at equilibrium values of trol signals to the paralleled converters.
4.43A, 4.64A and 26.2 V respectively. The current sharing ratio, given
by IL2eq:IL1eq (X2eq:X1eq) equals 1.05. The input currents of the two
converters are Iin1,pri = 1.87A and Iin2,pri = 2.25A and are shared in the 4.2.1. Case 1: With primary control only
ratio Iin2,pri:Iin1,pri = 1.20. The open loop waveforms of the state variables are shown in Fig. 11.
During open loop operation, x1 and x2 depend on internal impedance of
4.1.2. Case 2: Addition of secondary control the two input voltage sources. Transition from open loop to primary
A secondary controller with ki = 0.9 is added at t = 0.5 s. Fig. 9 control is given in Fig. 12. A solid line is drawn in Fig. 12 which se-
shows the simulation results for the transition from primary to sec- parates the current and voltage waveforms in open loop from the cor-
ondary control mode. It can be observed from Fig. 9 that vC (x3) raises responding waveforms after primary controller is inserted. To the left of
to 32 V. The currents, iL1 (x1) and iL2 (x2) initially overshoot to around the solid line, limit cycle oscillations identical to Fig. 11 can be ob-
7A individually. However, they quickly decrease and settle down at served. To show that the oscillations disappear with the proposed
their steady state values of 4.02A and 4.16A respectively. The current control, the state-variable dynamics after the primary control is in-
sharing ratio, given by IL2eq,sec:IL1eq,sec (X2eq,sec:X1eq,sec) equals 1.04. The serted, the timescale in Fig. 12 is increased to 50 ms/div instead of
corresponding input current values are Iin1,sec = 1.89A and 10 ms/div in Fig. 11. Looking at Fig. 12, one can observe the following.
Iin2,sec = 2.22A and the ratio is Iin2,sec:Iin1,sec = 1.18. As soon as the primary controller is switched on, limit cycle oscillations
are damped in about 30 ms. The currents and voltages settle down at
4.2. Experimental results their equilibrium values. The primary controller enables current

Digital control implemented in the experimental setup is shown in

Fig. 10. Texas Instruments TM4C123 launch-pads are used as digital
controllers, which includes a communication interface using the CAN

Fig. 9. Simulation results for parallel buck-boost converters transitioning from

primary control to secondary control. Fig. 11. Experimental results of parallel buck-boost converters-open loop.

7
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Fig. 12. Experimental results for parallel buck-boost converters transitioning Fig. 14. Experimental results for line regulation of parallel buck-boost con-
from open loop to primary control. verters.

sharing with a ratio is given by X2eq:X1eq = 1.05.

4.2.2. Case 2: Addition of secondary control

The results showing the transition from primary to secondary con-
trol mode is given in Fig. 13. As soon as the secondary controller is
switched on, the microgrid voltage raises to 32 V. The two inductor
currents x1 and x2 slightly decrease and settle down to their new
equilibrium values in about 50 ms. The current sharing ratio is given by
X2eq,sec:X1eq,sec = 1.04 which is almost identical to that yielded by the
primary control stage. Secondary controllers enable line and load reg-
ulation. To test line regulation, E2 is reduced to 23 V and the results are
given in Fig. 14. It can be observed that x2 decreases to 1.88A, x1 in-
creases to 6.19A and x3 is restored to 32 V within 150 ms. To test load
regulation, the load power is increased from 130 W to 180 W and re-
sults are given in Fig. 15. It can be observed that x1 and x2 increase to
their new equilibrium values of X1eq,sec = 5.55A, X2eq,sec = 5.75A. The
microgrid voltage, X3eq,sec is restored to 32 V within 70 ms. The sharing Fig. 15. Experimental results for load regulation of parallel buck-boost con-
verters.
of inductor currents, X2eq,sec:X1eq,sec = 1.04 and the input currents,
Iin2,sec:Iin1,sec = 1.17 are identical to those obtained in the primary and
secondary control stages. controller, secondary control is added. The secondary control commu-
nicates to primary controllers using a high speed communication link
5. Conclusions and future directions based on a CAN protocol. The secondary control gains are designed to
ensure that current sharing obtained using the primary controller is
A control scheme for parallel connected DC-DC converters is de- maintained. The stability conditions are derived and explained using
veloped for DC microgrids loaded with CPLs. The control scheme con- the equivalent circuit of constituent converters. The robustness and
sists of two levels. The lower control level, namely the primary control, scalability of the control scheme is also demonstrated. The results ob-
enables current sharing and also damps limit cycle oscillations due to tained for three basic topologies namely buck, boost and buck-boost are
the CPL. To compensate for the voltage deviations due to the primary compared. To enable interfacing of sources with a wide voltage range, a
prototype microgrid containing parallel buck-boost converters is con-
sidered. Simulation and experimental results in such a microgrid are
provided to verify the analysis.
The concept of multiple microgrid clusters is gaining interest from
researchers. Hence, a natural next step for this research is to explore
such concept and develop a voltage stability index for the individual
microgrids in a cluster. Such an index could determine the degree of
influence each microgrid wields on the stability of the cluster as a
whole.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Mahesh Srinivasan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Software,

Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Alexis Kwasinski:
Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Methodology.

Fig. 13. Experimental results for parallel buck-boost converters transitioning

from primary to secondary control.

8
M. Srinivasan and A. Kwasinski Electrical Power and Energy Systems 122 (2020) 106207

Declaration of Competing Interest 2015;30(4):2328–37.

[28] Diaz NL, Dragicevic T, Vasquez J, Guerrero J. Intelligent distr generation & storage
units for DC microgrids: A new concept on co-op control without communications
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial beyond droop control. IEEE Trans Smart Grid Sep. 2014;5(5):2476–85.
[29] Oliveira TR, Silva WWAG, Donoso-Garcia PF. Distributed secondary level control
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- for energy storage management in DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid Nov.
ence the work reported in this paper. 2017;8(6):2597–607.
[30] Meng L, Dragicevic T, Vasquez J, Guerrero J, Sanseverino ER. Hierarchical control
with virtual resistance optimization for efficiency enhancement and State-of-charge
References balancing in DC microgrids. Proc. IEEE 1st Int. Conf. DC Microgrids (ICDCM). 2015.
p. 1–6.
[1] Chiradeja P, Ramakumar R. An approach to quantify the technical benefits of dis- [31] Zhao J, Dörfler F. Distributed control, load sharing, and dispatch in DC microgrids.
tributed generation. IEEE Trans Energy Convers Dec. 2004;19(4):764–73. Proc. Amer. Control Conf. (ACC). 2015. p. 3304–9.
[2] Zhang C, Xu Y, Dong ZY, Wong KP. Robust coordination of distributed generation [32] Eghtedarpour N, Farjah E. Distributed charge/discharge control of energy storages
and price-based demand response in microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid Sep. in a renewable-energy-based DC micro-grid. IET Renew Power Gener Jan.
2018;9(5):4236–47. 2014;8(1):45–57.
[3] Chen P, Salcedo R, Zhu Q, et al. Analysis of voltage profile problems due to the [33] Lu X, Guerrero JM, Sun K, Vasquez JC. An improved droop control method for DC
penetration of distributed generation in low-voltage secondary distribution net- microgrids based on low bandwidth communication with DC bus voltage restora-
works. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2012;27(4):2020–8. tion and enhanced current sharing accuracy. IEEE Trans Power Electron Apr.
[4] Saleh M, Esa Y, Mhandi Y, Brandauer W, Mohamed A. Design and implementation 2014;29(4):1800–12.
of CCNY DC microgrid testbed. 2016 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual [34] Jin C, Wang P, Xiao J, Tang Y, Choo FH. Implementation of hierarchical control in
Meeting. 2016. p. 1–7. DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Electron Aug. 2014;61(8):4032–42.
[5] Hebner RE, et al. Technical cross-fertilization between terrestrial microgrids and [35] Kwasinski A. Quantitative evaluation of DC microgrids availability: Effects of
ship power systems. J Modern Power Syst Clean Energy Apr. 2016;4(2):161–79. system architecture and converter topology design choices. IEEE Trans Power
[6] Yu L, Jiang T, Cao Y. Energy cost minimization for distributed Internet data centers Electron Mar. 2011;26(3):835–51.
in smart microgrids considering power outages. IEEE Trans Parallel Dist Sys Jan. [36] Ochoa F, Feltrin AP, Harrison GP. Evaluating distributed generation impacts with a
2015;26(1):120–30. multiobjective index. IEEE Trans Power Del 2006;21(3):1452–8.
[7] Kwasinski A, Kwasinski A. Operational aspects and power architecture design for a [37] Gao F, Bozhko S, Costabeber A, Asher GM, Wheeler PW. Control design and voltage
microgrid to increase the use of renewable energy in wireless communication net- stability analysis of a droop-controlled electrical power system for more electric
works. IPEC-Hiroshima 2014-ECCE ASIA. 2014. p. 2649–55. aircraft. IEEE Trans Ind Electron Dec. 2017;64(12):9271–81.
[8] Liu X, Shahidehpour M, Li Z, Liu X, Cao Y, Bie Z. Microgrids for enhancing the [38] Han R, Meng L, Guerrero JM, Vasquez JC. Distributed nonlinear control with event-
power grid resilience in extreme conditions. IEEE Trans Smart Grid triggered communication to achieve current-sharing and voltage regulation in DC
2017;8(2):589–97. microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Electron Jul. 2018;33(7):6416–33.
[9] Dragičević T, Lu X, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. DC microgrids—Part I: A review of [39] Kundur P. Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
control strategies and stabilization techniques. IEEE Trans Power Electron Jul. [40] Kim M, Kwasinski A, Krishnamurthy V. A storage integrated modular power elec-
2016;31(7):4876–91. tronic interface for higher power distribution availability. IEEE Trans Power
[10] Dragicevic T, Lu X, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. DC microgrids – Part II: A review of Electron May 2015;30(5):2645–59.
power architectures, applications and standardization issues. IEEE Trans Power [41] Sahoo S, Mishra S. A distributed finite-time secondary average voltage regulation
Electron May 2016;31(5):3528–49. and current sharing controller for DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid.
[11] Morstyn T, Savkin AV, Hredzak B, Agelidis VG. “Multi-agent sliding mode control [42] Qu Z, Ebrahimi S, Amiri N, Jatskevich J, Pizniur A. Adaptive Control Method for
for state of charge balancing between battery energy storage systems distributed in Stabilizing DC Distribution Systems with Constant-Power Loads Based on Tunable
a DC microgrid. IEEE Trans Smart Grid Sep 2018;9(5). Active Damping. 2018 IEEE 19th Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power
[12] Kumar D, Zare F, Ghosh A. DC microgrid technology: System architectures AC grid Electronics (COMPEL). 2018. p. 1–6.
interfaces grounding schemes power quality communication networks applications [43] Setiawan MA, Abu-Siada A, Shahnia F. A new technique for simultaneous load
and standardizations aspects. IEEE Access 2017;5:12230–56. current sharing and voltage regulation in DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Inform
[13] Kwasinski A, Onwuchekwa CN. Dynamic behavior and stabilization of DC micro- 2018;14(4):1403–14.
grids with instantaneous constant-power loads. IEEE Trans Power Electronics Mar. [44] Liu X-K, He H, Wang Y-W, Xu Q, Guo F. Distributed hybrid secondary control for a
2011;26(3):822–34. DC microgrid via discrete-time interaction. IEEE Trans Energy Convers Dec.
[14] Kwasinski A, Krein PT. Passivity-based control of buck converters with constant- 2018;33(4):1865–75.
power loads. Proc. 2007 Power Electronics Specialists Conference. PESC. 2007. p. [45] Khayat, Shafiee, Bevrani, Dragicevic. Decentralized Model Predictive Control of DC
259–65. Microgrids with Constant Power Load. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electronics.
[15] Emadi A, Khaligh A, Rivetta C, Williamson G. Constant power loads and negative http://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2019.2957231.
impedance instability in automotive systems: Definition, modeling, stability, and [46] Fan B, Guo SL, Peng JK, Yang Q, Liu W, Liu L. A Consensus-Based Algorithm for
control of power electronic converters and motor drives. IEEE Trans Veh Technol Power Sharing and Voltage Regulation in DC Microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Inform
Jul. 2006;55(4):1112–25. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2019.2941268.
[16] Kwasinski A. Towards a “Power-Net”: Impact of smart grids development for ICT [47] Feng X, Ye Z, Xing K, Lee FC, Borojevic D. Impedance specification and impedance
networks during critical events. Proc. Int. Symp. Appl. Sci. Biomed. Commun. improvement for DC distributed power system. Proc IEEE PESC. 2:889–94.
Technol. 2011. p. 1–8. [48] Ogata K. Modern Control engineering. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1997.
[17] Guerrero JM, Vasquez JC, Matas J, de Vicuna LG, Castilla M. Hierarchical control of [49] Middlebrook RD, Cuk S. A general unified approach to modeling switching-con-
droop-controlled AC and DC microgrids - A general approach toward standardiza- verter power stages. Proc IEEE PESC. 1976:18–34.
tion. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electr. 2011;58(1):158–72. [50] Boroyevich D, Cvetkovic I, Dong D, Burgos R, Fei W, Lee F. Future electronic power
[18] Nasirian V, Moayedi S, Davoudi A, Lewis FL. Distributed cooperative control of DC distribution systems a contemplative view. In: Proc 12th Int Conf Optim Electr
microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Electron Apr. 2015;30(4):2288–303. Electron Equip, p. 1369–80.
[19] Nasirian V, Davoudi A, Lewis FL, Guerrero JM. Distributed adaptive droop control [51] Middlebrook RD. Input Filter Consideration in Design and Application of Switching
for DC distribution systems. IEEE Trans Energy Convers Dec. 2014;29(4):944–56. Regulators. IEEE Indus Appl Soc Ann Meet 1976.
[20] Anand S, Fernandes BG, Guerrero JM. Distributed control to ensure proportional [52] Hamzeh M, Ghafouri M, Karimi H, Sheshyekani K, Guerrero JM. Power oscillations
load sharing and improve voltage regulation in low-voltage DC microgrids. IEEE damping in DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Energy Convers Sep. 2016;31(3):970–80.
Trans Power Electron 2013;28(4):1900–13. [53] Rashidirad N, Hamzeh M, Sheshyekani K, Afjei E. An Effective Method for Low-
[21] Wang P, Lu X, Yang X, Wang W, Xu D. An improved distributed secondary control Frequency Oscillations Damping in MultiBus DC Microgrids. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top
method for DC microgrids with enhance dynamic current sharing performance. Circuits Syst Sept. 2017;7(3):403–12.
IEEE Trans Power Electronics 2016;31(9):6658–73. [54] Kwasinski A, Weaver W, Balog RS. Microgrids & other Local Area Power and Energy
[22] Meng L, et al. Review on control of DC microgrids and multiple microgrid clusters. Systems. vol. 1, Cambridge Univ Press; 2016.
IEEE J Emerg Sel Topics Power Electron Sep. 2017;5(3):928–48. [55] Vandoorn TL, De Kooning JDM, Meersman B, Guerrero JM, Vandevelde L.
[23] Prabhakaran P, Goyal Y, Agarwal V. Novel nonlinear droop control techniques to Automatic power-sharing modification of P/V droop controllers in low-voltage re-
overcome the load sharing and voltage regulation issues in DC microgrid. IEEE sistive microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Del Oct. 2012;27(4):2318–25.
Trans Power Electron May 2018;33(5):4477–87. [56] Guerrero JM, Matas J, de Vicuna LG, Castilla M, Miret J. Decentralized control for
[24] Chen F, Burgos R, Boroyevich D, Vasquez JC, Guerrero JM. Investigation of non- parallel operation of distributed generation inverters using resistive output im-
linear droop control in DC power distribution systems: Load sharing voltage reg- pedance. IEEE Trans Ind Electron Apr. 2007;54(2):994–1004.
ulation efficiency and stability. IEEE Trans Power Electron Oct. [57] Peng J, Fan B, Duan J, Yang Q, Liu W. Adaptive decentralized output-constrained
2019;34(10):9404–21. control of single-bus DC microgrids. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin 2019;6(2):424–32.
[25] Dragicevic T, Guerrero J, Vasquez J, Skrlec D. Supervisory control of an adaptive- [58] Valvano JW. Embedded Systems: Real-time Interfacing of Arm® Cortex(TM)-M4
droop regulated DC microgrid with battery management capability. IEEE Trans Microcontrollers. CreateSpace Independent 2014;vol 2.
Power Electronics 2014;29(2):695–706. [59] Srinivasan M, Kwasinski A. Autonomous Hierarchical Control of DC microgrids with
[26] Lu X, Sun K, Guerrero JM, Vasquez JC, Huang L. Double-quadrant state-of-charge- Constant Power Loads. Proc Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition
based droop control method for distributed energy storage systems in autonomous (APEC). 2015. p. 2808–15.
DC microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid Jan. 2015;6(1):147–57. [60] Srinivasan M, Kwasinski A. Decentralized Control of a Vehicular Microgrid with
[27] Gu YJ, Li WH, He XN. Frequency-coordinating virtual impedance for autonomous Constant Power Loads. Proc IEEE Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC) 2014:1–8.
power management of DC microgrid. IEEE Trans Power Electron Apr.