1

Clustering and Cooperative Control of Distributed

Generators for Maintaining Microgrid Unified
Voltage Profile and Complex Power Control
Ali Maknouninejad, Student Member, IEEE, Zhihua Qu, Fellow, IEEE, Johan Enslin, Senior Member, IEEE,
Nasser Kutkut Senior Member, IEEE,

Abstract—To meet several power objectives, the idea of orga- Indeed, it is feasible to organize DGs in a microgrid
nizing DGs into several clusters in a microgrid is proposed in this structure, which connects to the main grid through the point of
paper. Power objectives include maintaining active power flow to common coupling (PCC). There maybe several buses through
the main grid at a predetermined level, minimizing the reactive
power flow to the main grid and maintaining a unified voltage which, capacitor banks, motors, generators and DGs are con-
profile across the microgrid. DGs are organized differently for nected to the microgrid. Depending on the system configura-
active and reactive power control. All DGs realize active power tions and loads and generator types, different voltage profiles
objective in one group. As reactive power is used to maintain the will be imposed along the feeders. The power generation
unified voltage, DGs are grouped in several clusters to regulate capacity of DGs should be exploited properly to secure a
multiple critical point voltages. The closest cluster to the point of
common coupling, minimizes the reactive power flow and others unified voltage profile across the system.
manage their reactive power to regulate their critical points. Each However, it is impossible to regulate the voltage at every
cluster has a virtual leader which other DGs follow, utilizing the and each node, but a proper control strategy can provide a
cooperative control. The cooperative law is also derived, based unified voltage profile across the microgrid. [2] proposed using
on the dynamics of the inverters. the available reactive power of DGs to regulate a critical bus
Index Terms—Distributed generators (DGs), cooperative con- voltage on the power system. However, all DGs focusing on
trol, DG clustering, microgrid, voltage profile. one node, may disturb the voltage on other nodes or may cause
excessive reactive power flow through the main grid. In power
systems, reactive power flow through the main transmission
I. I NTRODUCTION
lines is avoided, as it imposes more current and losses.
The global increase of the electricity demand, combined As such, a modified reactive power control is proposed in
with both economical and environmental constraints of con- this paper to overcome these shortcomings. DGs are organized
ventional energy sources such as fossil or nuclear energy, is within several clusters. The closest cluster to the PCC, mini-
putting more demand on finding alternative energy sources. mizes the reactive power flow to the main grid. Other clusters
Renewable energy sources are of special interest as alternative are formed around the critical points of the microgrid and try
energy. This has lead to the outburst of the distributed gener- to regulate the voltage of that point. DGs dynamically join
ators (DGs) and smartgrid concepts. DGs have many different the cluster of the closest critical point. As such, the cluster
forms, such as solar or wind energy, fuel cells or even small structures are dynamically updated based on the demands of
diesel generators. To increase the harness of the alternative the system and potential changes of the system configuration.
energy, DGs will be installed near the loads and be spread On each cluster, the closest DG to the critical point takes
widely across the distribution network. virtual leader responsibility, sets the power policy and others
It is believed that the high penetration of DGs, will result follow. As active and reactive power policies usually are
in the reduction of power losses, voltage profile improvement, different, the clustering may be different for the active and
meeting future load demand, and optimizing the use of non- reactive power control purposes. Cooperative control is utilized
conventional energy sources [1]. However, more serious prob- to have DGs operate within each cluster.
lems will arise if a decent control mechanism is not exploited. On the rest of the paper, the proposed control is first
An improperly managed high PV penetration, may cause formulated in the Section II. Then the discussed control
voltage profile disturbance, make conflict with the conven- scheme is designed in the Section III. Finally, the simulation
tional network protection devices, interfere with transformer results are provided to illustrate the improvements gained by
tap changers, and as a result, cause network instability. the proposed control.

Ali Maknouninejad and Zhihua Qu are with the Department of Electrical

Engineering and Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Fl, 32826 USA.
J. Enslin is with Petra Solar Inc., South Plainfield, NJ 07080 USA. A. DG Organizing
Nasser Kutkut is with the Department of Business Administration, Univer- Depending on the structure of the microgrid, different power
sity of Central Florida, Orlando, Fl, 32826 USA.
This work is partially supported by the US Department of Energy, under objectives may be defined. Then the DGs form different
the Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems (SEGIS) program. groups to cooperatively satisfy those power objectives, as

978-1-4673-1935-5/12/$31.00 ©2012
Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut IEEE
Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2

M ≡ Motor
Maingrid
G ≡ Generator Power flow to the
main grid
DG ≡ Distributed Generator Group1 of DGs

≡ Typical Load
Point of Common
CP ≡ Critical Point Coupling = PCC

DG Capacitor DG
DG Bank
CP3
DG M
CP4
G DG
DG M

DG DG M
DG G
DG
Group4 of DGs DG
CP2

Group3 of DGs Group2 of DGs

Fig. 1: Typical structure of a microgrid with distributed generators, organized in groups

shown in Fig. 1. In each group, a module which has access formed accordingly:
to the related power flow or voltage profile data, takes the 
l = 1, ..., L,
responsibility of being the virtual leader and others follow DGi ∈ G j , i f Di j < Dil , (1)
l = j
it. Based on the assigned power objective for each group,
virtual leader searches for the proper active/reactive power where DGi is the ith DG in the microgrid, G j is the jth DG
dispatch of the units on its group. Proper definition of the group in the microgrid, Di j is the distance between the ith
power objectives and grouping DGs accordingly, is critical in DG and the jth virtual leader, and L is the number of virtual
the decent operation of the microgrid. Power objectives may leaders at the microgrid.
be securing a desired power flow or regulating some critical Fig.1 illustrates the clustering discussed above. DGs in
point (C.P) voltages. group 1 are supposed to support power objective 1, minimizing
As active and reactive power policies are different, dif- the reactive power flow to the main grid. groups 2-4 try to
ferent DG groups are defined for active and reactive power regulate the marked critical point voltages.
objectives. As proposed by [2], the active power policy may
be keeping active power flow to the main grid at a desired B. Cooperative Control Scheme
level. To this end, all the DGs in the microgrid are organized
in one group from the active power control perspective and To encourage DGs produce renewable energy, the smartgrid
cooperatively operate to realize this objective. provides incentives to the energy delivered by them. Thus,
Reactive power generation capacity of inverters is used to every DG tries to maximize its interest by more generation.
regulate the voltage. This paper proposes to maintain a unified However, in the utility market of a smartgrid, the desire of each
voltage profile across the microgrid, some critical points be participant to maximize its own profit needs to be coordinated
identified on the microgrid and DGs try to regulate the voltage or constrained to ensure the system operation and to minimize
of these critical nodes. At the same time, the reactive power the overall cost.
flow to the main grid is desired to be kept as minimum as Main grid and microgrid profit differently from renewable
possible. As such, two sets of DG groups are required as energy generation and it was shown in [3] that the interaction
follows to satisfy these objectives: between the main grid and the microgrid can be modeled
as a Stackelberg game. The main grid tries to motivate
• Power objective1: microgrid to generate power by offering appropriate energy
Qμ −G → 0, price, and at the same time, tries to minimize its own cost.
• Power objective2: On the other hand, microgrid tries to maximize its profit by
Vcpi → 1P.U 1 ≤ i ≤ NCP . generating appropriate active power, Pμ . Therefore, injecting
where Qμ −G is the reactive power flow from the microgrid to all the available power to the grid is not of the interest of the
the main grid, V cpi is the ith critical point voltage and NCP microgrid anymore. The microgrid secures Pμ by releasing
is the number of critical points on the microgrid. The closest the appropriate portion of the available power of DGs. As
DGs to the critical points or PCC, which have access to the such, microgrid is continuously controlling the active power
demanded power flow or voltage measurements, take virtual generation and storage to maximize its interest.
leader responsibility and set the power policies. DGs join the The microgrid power management should be in such a way
group of the closest virtual leader and clusters of DGs are not only meet certain power policies, but also provide the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3

possibility that all the DGs in each group, contribute equally.

Therefore, fair utilization ratios, α p and αq , are introduced PPref +
to determine how many percentage of the available active or
reactive power is to be generated by every DG: kp 1
S
D pref
-
Pi PP
α pi = , (2)
Pi
NDG
Pμ = ∑ Pi − PLa, Fig. 2: Search for the active power flow fair utilization ratio
i=1

where α pi , Pi and Pi are the active power fair utilization ratio, 2) Reactive Power Control: Usually the active power that
output active power and the available active power of the ith DGs produce is less than the power ratings of the inverters. As
inverter respectively. Pμ is the aggregated active power flow such, the excessive power capacity of inverters may be used to
from the microgrid to the main grid and NDG is the number produce reactive power to help microgrid voltage regulation.
of installed DGs. PLa is the sum of the aggregated load and [2] proposed the reactive power capacity of inverters being
losses at the microgrid. used to regulate a critical point voltage. However, in large
Each inverter has a nominal power rating, Si . If the active scale microgrids, all DGs focusing on regulating one point may
power generated by a DG is less than this nominal rating, the cause some other problems. For instance, voltage profile on
excessive power capacity may be exploited to generate reactive other locations may be disturbed or excessive reactive power
power: ⎧ may flow to the main grid.

⎪
⎪ 2 2 The proper reactive power management should both, keep
⎨ Qi = Si − Pi ,
Qi (3) a unified voltage profile across the microgrid and at the same
⎪ αqi = Qi ,
⎪ time, minimize reactive power flow to the main grid. As such,
⎩ NDG
Qμ = ∑i=1 Qi − QaL , as shown in Fig.1 and explained in Section II, DGs need to
be organized in different groups.
where Qi and Qi are the generated and the maximum available
The number of DG groups depends on the select critical
reactive power of the ith unit respectively. QaL is the aggregated
points. DGs from one or several feeders may form a group
microgrid reactive load and Qμ is the aggregated reactive
to regulate a critical point voltage. The choice of the critical
power flow from the microgrid to the main grid. Equation
point depends on the system requirements and configurations.
(3) indicates how many percentage of the available reactive
Fig.3 shows some possible choices. As shown, critical point
power is to be fed to the grid.
may be the downstream point in a feeder, as it usually
DGs should utilize communication links to communicate undergoes the highest voltage drop due to more distance from
and converge to the same operating points, α pre f and αqre f , the source, or a specific location with critical loads, such as
provided by the virtual leaders. However, communication links special business area. Other alternative for critical node in a
may be asynchronous, intermittent, of time-varying topology, distribution network is the sampling point of the under load
and of low bandwidth. In this paper, it is shown how to transformer tap changer (ULTC), as shown in Fig. 3a. This
develop a cooperative control to utilize such non consistent way, the conflict between inverters operation and ULTCs is
communication links and have the DGs in a group converge minimized, the DGs capacity is effectively utilized to maintain
to the reference utilization ratios. the desired voltage profile and also the transformer tap changer
operation is minimized.
III. C ONTROL D EVELOPMENT NCP DG group is required to regulate the NCP critical points.
One more group is needed to minimize the reactive power flow
A. DG Organizing to the main grid. Considering one inverter in each group as
1) Active Power Control: Active power objective is to keep a minimum requirement, the lower bound for the number of
active power flow to the main grid at a desired level [2]. As demanded inverters on the microgrid, NDG , is:
such, all DGs form a group and cooperatively try to realize
NDG ≥ NCP + 1.
this objective. Therefore, a virtual leader monitors the active
re f
power flow and adjusts the active power utilization ratio, α p Virtual leader uses an integrator controller to search for its
accordingly. Then all DGs will follow this utilization ratio, group reference fair utilization ratio, αqire f , as follows for the
utilizing the cooperative control. The virtual leader uses an ith critical point:
integrator controller to search for the proper utilization ratio
as follows and shown in Fig.2 : ⎧
⎪ re f
⎨ α̇q0 = kq (Qre f − Q), To regulate reactive power flow,
α̇ pre f = k p (Pμre f − Pμ ), (4) ⎪ α̇qre f = kv (Vcre f − Vci ), To regulate ith critical point,
⎩ i 1 ≤ i ≤ NCP ,
re f
where k p is the controller gain and Pμ and Pμ are the (5)
re f
reference and actual active power flow to the main grid, where Vc = 1P.U, Qre f = 0 and kq and kv are the controllers
respectively. gains.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 4

ULTC sampling point where

≡   
critical point
(ui − Ii )dt idi α pi
xi = , Ii = , yi = ,
Ii iqi αqi
L1 L2 L3 Ln ⎡ ⎤
ULTC
... 
ui1
0
⎢ 0
0
0
−1
0
0
−1 ⎥
X ui = , Ai = ⎢
⎣ Ki K ⎥,
ui2 L 0 − Lp 0 ⎦
Ki K
DG1 DG2 DG3 DGm 0 L 0 − Lp
⎡ ⎤
1 0  
(a) ULTC sampling point as the critical point VGi
⎢ 0 1 ⎥ 0 0 0
Bi = ⎢
⎣ Kp
⎥, Ci = Pi
.
critical point L 0 ⎦ 0 0 0 − VQGi
Kp i
L1 L2 LCritical Ln
0 L

... Here, Ii is the output current. It is noteworthy that all the

X measurements on the inverter are with respect to the voltage
measured at the output terminal, VGi . As such, Vdi = VGi and
DG1 DG2 DG3 DGm Vqi = 0. Therefore, the output power of the ith inverter can be
expressed as:
(b) Critical loads as the critical point
Pi = idiVGi , Qi = −iqiVGi .
critical point
L1 L2 L3 Ln Appendix A provides the details of the inverter modeling and
... deriving the dynamics.
DGs in each group, should utilize communication links to
X
communicate and converge to the same operating point, α pre f
re f
DG1 DG2 DG3 DGm and αq , provided by the virtual leaders. However, commu-
nication links may be asynchronous, intermittent, of time-
(c) End of the feeder as a critical point
varying topology, and of low bandwidth. The instantaneous
Fig. 3: Different choices of the critical point on a typical feeder communication topology is defined by the following matrix:
⎡ ⎤
s11 (t) s12 (t) · · · s1n (t)
⎢s21 (t) s22 (t) · · · s2n (t)⎥
⎢ ⎥
S(t) = ⎢ . .. .. .. ⎥ (7)
⎣ .. . . . ⎦
B. Cooperative Control Design
sn1 (t) sn2 (t) · · · snn (t)
In (7), sii = 1 for all i; si j = 1 if the output of the jth DG is
DGs are usually connected to the grid through fast respond- known to the ith DG at time t, and si j = 0 if otherwise.The
ing DC/AC converters (inverters) [4]. The typical structure of communication matrix should be piecewise constant over time,
a DG, coupled to the grid by an inverter, is shown in Fig.4. and the corresponding sequence be sequentially complete [2].
Using PI controllers in the d − q reference frame, the following Cooperative control has the advantage that utilizing such
non consistent communication links, can have a group of
agents/modules exhibit cooperative behaviors and make the
Solar Panel
system act as one group. Cooperative control has been already
DC/DC
converter
Inverter
L
ia applied to autonomous vehicle control [5], [6] and its basic
= = Va L ib
application for DG control on power systems was introduced
Vb L
ic
= ≈ Vc
in [2]. In this section, to facilitate DGs in a cluster converge
Storage Controllable
Load VGc VGb VGa
to the same operating point, the design of cooperative control
with respect to the dynamics of the inverters is provided. The
cooperative control law for the system of (6) for a group of
Fig. 4: Typical structure of a PV based DG, coupled to the NDG inverters is as follows.
⎧
grid using a three phase inverter ⎪
⎪
NDG
¯ i0 α pre f − α pi + ∑ di j α p j )
⎪
⎪ ui1 = KpLVGi {P(d
⎪
⎪ j=1
⎪
⎨
−[(V̇Gi −VGi KLP )x3i +VGi KLi x1i ]}
NDG , (8)
⎪
⎪ L  α re f − α +
state space equations are derived to describe the dynamics of ⎪
⎪ ui2 = {−Q̄(di0 q qi ∑ di j αq j )
⎪
⎪
K pVGi
j=1
the ith inverter: ⎪
⎩
−[(V̇Gi −VGi L )x4i +VGi KLi x2i ]}
KP

 where
ẋi = Ai xi + Bi ui si j
, (6) di j = NDG
, , i = 0, 2, ...NDG (9)
yi = Ci xi ∑ j=0 si j

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 5

Power flow to the main grid

0.151+j.296%

Point of Common Coupling =

Feeder5 Feeder4 PCC

1.75+j1.3% Feeder3 Feeder2 Feeder1

DG8
3MVA 3.564+j2.661% 6.065+j10.15% 3.976+j5.127%

1MVAR 3.564+j2.661%

2.56+ L3
Feeder21 DG1
L7 DG5
j0.332%
DG4 DG2
DG7 0.5MVA 1.3MVA 0.423+ 2MVA 1.2MVA
0.732+j0.095% 0.104+j0.135%
2.7MVA j0.154% 2.56+
j0.332% 1.2+j0.88%
L6 3.2MW
0.75MW Critical DG6 L5 L4 1.9MVAR DG3
L2 L1
0.8MVA
Point2 Critical 1MVA
0.8MW 0.9MW 0.9MW Point1 1MW 1.5MW 0.8MW
0.6MVAR 0.2MVAR 1.0MVAR 0.47MVAR

Group 3 of
DGs
Group 2 of
DGs Group 1 of
DGs

Fig. 5: The system diagram of the case of study microgrid


si j is a generic entry of matrix S defined in (7); di0 and di0 active power objective. DGs in each group are managed by

are defined similar to (9) and for them, si0 , si0 are 1 if DGi the cooperative control.
has communication with the active and reactive virtual leaders, Simulation results are shown in Figs. 6-10. Waveforms of
respectively. Otherwise, si0 , si0 = 0. DGs operation without reactive power generation are also
included as a reference. Fig.6, Fig.7 and Fig.8 show voltages
IV. S IMULATIONS of critical point1, critical point2 and PCC respectively. Fig.9
and Fig.10 also show the active and reactive power flow to the
A modified version of the bus system proposed by the IEEE main grid. It is seen that the single critical point regulation
399-1997 standard is used to represent the microgrid case has resulted in the unity voltage at its critical point, but at
of study for simulations as shown in Fig.5. Simulations are the expense of increasing the voltage at other nodes and
performed using the Simpower System Toolbox of Simulink imposing a great deal of reactive power flow to the main
to demonstrate the performance of the single and multiple grid. Contradictorily, DG clustering (multiple critical point
critical points voltage regulation controls. There are 5 feeders regulation), results in a fair voltage regulation of its critical
and 8 DGs are distributed across the microgrid with a total points and PCC and at the same time, minimizes the reactive
of 12.5MVA generation capacity. The total load is 9.85KW + power flow to the main grid. The DG clustering also shows
4.17KVAR. better dynamic response in damping the voltage transient,
Inverters connect to the microgrid at t = 0.4. Two asyn- caused by the motors start up.
chronous motors, each 300KVA, connect to the first feeder
at t = 4s. The startup of these motors causes voltage dip on
Critical Point1 (DG3) Voltage
the microgrid and this transient takes couple of seconds to be 1.03 No Reative Power Generation by DGs
damped. Multi Critical Point Regulation
1.02 Single Critical Point Regulation
The objective is to keep the active power flow to the main
grid constant at 5.85MW, minimize the reactive power flow 1.01
to the grid, and secure a unified voltage profile across the
1
microgrid.
Voltage (p.U)

For single critical point regulation, the end point of feeder2 0.99
is selected as the critical point. For multiple critical points reg-
0.98
ulation technique, end points of feeders2 and 4 are selected as
the critical points and DG clusters are organized accordingly. 0.97
DG3 and DG6 are connected to these points and as such,
0.96
are the virtual leaders. DGs are clustered into three groups.
DG1, DG2 and DG3 form group one, with DG3 as the virtual 0.95
leader, to regulate critical point1. DG4, DG5 and DG6 form
0.94
the second group with DG6 as the virtual leader to regulate the 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
second critical point. DG7 and DG8 form the third group to
minimize the reactive power flow to the main grid with DG8 as Fig. 6: Critical point1 voltage
the virtual leader. DG8 is also the active power fair utilization
ratio virtual leader to lead all the DGs as a group, realize the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 6

Reactive Power Flow to the Main Grid

Critical Point2 (DG6) Voltage 0.6
1.03

1.02 0.4

1.01
0.2

Reactive Power (P.U)

1
0
Voltage (p.U)

0.99

0.98 −0.2

0.97
−0.4

0.96
No Reative Power Generation by DGs −0.6 No Reative Power Generation by DGs
0.95 Multi Critical Point Regulation Multi Critical Point Regulation
Single Critical Point Regulation Single Critical Point Regulation
−0.8
0.94 0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Time (s)

Fig. 7: Critical point2 voltage Fig. 10: Main grid-microgrid reactive power flow

Point of Common Coupling Voltage V. CONCLUSION

1.03
To satisfy multiple power objectives in a typical microgrid,
1.02
the idea of grouping DGs in the form of several clusters and
1.01 controlling them accordingly, is proposed in this paper. DGs
may be organized differently for active and reactive power
1
control purposes. Here, power objectives are maintaining the
Voltage (p.U)

0.99 active power flow to the main grid at a desired level, minimiz-
ing the reactive power flow to the main grid and at the same
0.98
time, securing a unified voltage profile across the microgrid.
0.97 To this end, all the DGs are cooperatively operating together
to realize the active power objective. Voltage profile across
0.96
the microgrid is regulated by the proper management of the
0.95
No Reative Power Generation by DGs reactive power generation. It is shown that DGs may be
Multi Critical Point Regulation
Single Critical Point Regulation organized into several clusters. A group which is closer to
0.94
0 2 4 6 8 10 the point of common coupling, minimizes the reactive power
Time (s) flow to the main grid. Other clusters, regulate their respective
critical point voltages. This way, a unified voltage profile
Fig. 8: Point of common coupling (PCC) voltage
across the microgrid is achieved and also the reactive power
flow to the main grid is minimized.
Active Power Flow to the Main Grid Single critical point voltage regulation organizes DGs in
1.2
one group for reactive power control to regulate its respective
critical point. Simulation results show that clustering DGs
1
and defining multiple critical points provides a more unified
voltage profile across the microgrid, minimizes the reactive
0.8
power flow to the main grid, and improves the transient
Active Power (p.U)

response.
0.6
Also, to have DG groups operate cooperatively, the coop-
erative control law based on the dynamics of the inverters is
0.4
derived.
0.2
A PPENDIX A
0
No Reative Power Generation by DGs I NVERTER M ODEL
Multi Critical Point Regulation
Single Critical Point Regulation The system equation of Fig. 4 is as follow:
−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 
Time (s) Vabc = L didtabc + VGabc
, (10)
Vabc = KVcabc
Fig. 9: Main grid-microgrid active power flow
where K is the inverter gain and Vcabc is the overall controller

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 7

VGd Decoupling Inverter

Control

id -
- KP Vcd
ui1 Vd + 1
+ K-1 K 1/L
Ki S id D pi
- PWM Gain
S
ωL
ω
dq
=>
αp,αq
-ω

ωL
KP Vcq iq D qi
ui 2 + Vq + 1
K-1 K 1/L
Ki S
- -
PWM Gain
S
iq

V Gq

Fig. 11: Inverter model block diagram with the PI control

output which is applied to the inverter. To make the appli- [2] H. Xin, Z. Qu, J. Seuss, and A. Maknouninejad, “A self-organizing strat-
cation of PI controllers viable, sinusoidal variables should be egy for power flow control of photovoltaic generators in a distribution
network,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 26, pp. 1462–1473,
transformed into d − q reference frame [7], [8], [9]. 2011.
Applying the park transformation on the above equations, [3] A. Maknouninejad, W. Lin, H. G. Harno, Z. Qu, and M. A. Simaan, “Co-
provides the d − q equivalent equations [8], [10]: operative control for self-organizing microgrids and game strategies for
 optimal dispatch of distributed renewable generations,” to be published
di 0 ω 1 at Energy Systems, 2011.
= i + (KVc − VG ), (11) [4] F. Katiraei, R. Iravani, N. Hatziargyriou, and A. Dimeas, “Microgrids
dt −ω 0 L management,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 54–65,
2008.
where [5] Z. Qu, Cooperative Control of Dynamical Systems. London, UK:
Springer, 2009.
i = [id iq ]T ,Vc = [Vcd Vcq ]T ,VG = [VGd VGq ]T . [6] Z. Qu, J. Wang, and R. A. Hull, “Cooperative control of dynamical
systems with application to autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions
Here, i is the output current, Vc is the input voltage command on Automatic Control, vol. 53, pp. 894–911, 2008.
to the inverter, K is the inverter PWM gain, and VG is the [7] H. F. Bilgin and M. Ermis, “Design and implementation of a current-
source converter for use in industry applications of d-statcom,” IEEE
grid voltage at the inverter terminals. Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 25, pp. 1943–1957, 2010.
[8] F. Katiraei, M. Iravani, and P. Lehn, “Small-signal dynamics model
The model (11) indicates that current components, id,q , are of a micro-grid including conventional and electronically interfaced
distributed resources,” IET Generation, Transmission, and Distribution,
coupled through ω id and ω iq terms. This coupling can be vol. 1, pp. 369–378, 2007.
eliminated by introducing the new variables V , as given by: [9] D. N. Zmood and D. G. Holmes, “Improved voltage regulation for
current-source inverters,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
vol. 37, pp. 1028–1036, 2001.
V = KVc − VG + ω L[iq − iq ]T , (12) [10] C. Schauder and H. Mehta, “Vector analysis and control of the advanced
T static VAR compensators,” IEE Proceedings C - Generation, Transmis-
where V = [Vd Vq ] . Substituting (12) in (11) yields: sion, and Distribution, vol. 140, pp. 299–306, 1993.
di 1
= V.
dt L
This equation represents decoupled id,q currents. Once the de-
coupled variables have been defined as in (12), a PI controller Ali Maknouninejad Received his Electrical Engi-
may be applied to control the overall system. This system neering B.Sc from University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
in 2001. Then he joined power supply production
block diagram is shown in Fig.11 [3]. Combining the inverter (P.S.P) Co., Tehran, Iran, where as a research en-
plant, decoupling section and controller in Fig. 11, inverter gineer, worked on the design and construction of
state space dynamic model of (6) is obtained. DC/AC inverter converters up to 30KVA for use
in UPS systems. He joined University of Central
Florida (UCF), Orlando, Fl. in 2008 and received
R EFERENCES his M.Sc in Electrical Engineering in 2010. He is
currently a PhD student at UCF. His research in-
[1] S. Ganguly, N. C. Sahoo, and D. Das, “A novel multi-objective pso for terests include smart grid and distributed generators
electrical distribution system planning incorporating distributed genera- control and stability analysis.
tion,” Energy Systems, vol. 1, pp. 291–337, 2010.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 8

Zhihua Qu (M90S93F09) received the Ph.D. degree

in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute
of Technology, Atlanta, in June 1990. Since then,
he has been with the University of Central Florida
(UCF), Orlando. Currently, he is the SAIC Endowed
Professor and the Chair of Electrical and Computer
Engineering. His areas of expertise are nonlinear
systems and control, energy and power systems, au-
tonomous vehicles, and robotics. In energy systems,
his research covers such subjects as low-speed power
generation, dynamic stability of distributed power
systems, anti-islanding control and protection, distributed generation and load
sharing control, distributed VAR compensation, distributed optimization, and
cooperative control. Dr. Qu is the author of three books: Robust Tracking
Control of Robot Manipulators (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1996), Robust
Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems(New York: Wiley, 1998), and Co-
operative Control of Dynamical Systems with Applications to Autonomous
Vehicles (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2009). Dr. Qu is currently serving on the
Board of Governors of the IEEE Control Systems Society and as an Associate
Editor for Automatica and IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

Johan Enslin Ph.D., Pr.Eng. is the Chief Tech-

nology Officer at Petra Solar where he leads the
technology strategy and value proposition for Petra
Solars unique sustainable and smart grid solution for
power utilities. Johan has combined a 29 year career
with leadership activities in industry and university
in the USA, Europe and South Africa. He is a sea-
soned leader in transmission and distribution plan-
ning, wind and solar renewable integration, FACTS,
HVDC, Distributed Power and Energy Storage. He
is very experienced in R&D, planning, commercial-
ization and integration of small and large-scale renewable wind and solar
power plants in Africa, Europe and the USA. He was also the principal in
establishing a new medium voltage, smart grid and power electronics research,
development and testing laboratory in Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Nasser Kutkut holds a PhD degree in elec-

trical engineering and an MBA in management
and entrepreneurship, both from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He has more than 15 years of
entrepreneurial and technology management experi-
ence and was the founder / co-founder of a number
of high tech companies. He is a holder of 12 issued
U.S. and international patents and has published
more than 50 journal and conference papers. Dr.
Kutkut held adjunct faculty positions at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin - Madison and the University of
Central Florida. Since 2010, he has been a lecturer at the Department of
Business Administration at the University of Central Florida.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Institut Teknologi Bandung. Downloaded on September 22,2024 at 11:16:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.