QUT Digital Repository:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

Majumder, Ritwik and Ghosh, Arindam and Ledwich, Gerard and Zare, Firuz (2010)
Load frequency control for rural distributed generation. Electric Power Components and
Systems, 38(6). pp. 637-656.

Copyright 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Load Frequency Control for Rural Distributed Generation
Ritwik Majumder, Arindam Ghosh, Gerard Ledwich and Firuz Zare
School of Engineering Systems
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia.

ABSTRACT: In rural low voltage networks, distribution lines are usually highly resistive.

When many distributed generators (DGs) are connected to such lines, power sharing amongst them

is difficult using conventional droop control as the real and reactive power have strong coupling

with each other. A high droop gain can alleviate this problem, but may lead the system to instability.

To overcome this, two droop control methods are proposed for accurate load sharing with frequency

droop controller. The first method considers no communication among the DGs and regulates the

output voltage and frequency ensuring acceptable load sharing. The droop equations are modified

with a transformation matrix based on the line R/X ratio for this purpose. The second proposed

method, with minimal low bandwidth communication, modifies the reference frequency of the DGs

based on the active and reactive power flow in the lines connected to the points of common coupling

(PCC). The performance of these two proposed controllers is compared with that of a controller

which includes an expensive high bandwidth communication system through time-domain

simulation of a test system. The magnitude of errors in power sharing between these three droop

control schemes are evaluated and tabulated.

Keywords: Autonomous microgrid, Load frequency droop, Active and reactive Power

sharing, Resistive lines, Rural distribution system.

1. Introduction

Decentralized power sharing among distributed generators (DG) can be achieved in a microgrid

using droop control method. The real and reactive power outputs of the DGs are controlled by frequency
and voltage droop characteristics [1, 2]. Rural electrification should ensure the availability of electricity

irrespective of the technologies, sources and forms of generation, but many cannot afford it due to a

shortage of resources. Distributed generation is one of the best available solutions for rural microgrids. But

the locations of the micro sources are very important. The success and failure of the rural electrification

activities in a developing country invariably depend on the extent to which the relevant issues have been

systematically analyzed and addressed [3]. In [4] a power electronic converter solution is introduced that is

capable of providing rural electrification at a fraction of the current electrification cost for weaker

networks which inevitably lead to poor voltage regulation.

A highly resistive line typical of low or medium voltage rural network challenges the power

sharing controller efficacy. The strong coupling of real and reactive power in the network leads to an

inaccurate load frequency control. High values of droop gains are required to ensure proper load sharing,

especially under weak system conditions. However, high droop gains have a negative impact on overall

stability of the system. Unfortunately however, proper load sharing cannot be ensured even with a high

gain if the lines are highly resistive. In such cases, the main assumption of the droop control that active and

reactive powers are decoupled is violated and the conventional droop control [1] is not able to provide an

acceptable power sharing among the DGs.

At Anangu Solar Station of South Australia [5], with the off grid renewable connection, 220 kW

power is distributed covering 10,000 square km among number of communities up to 500 people. The

minigrid connection at Hermannsburg in central Australia [5] supplies three communities, each with

several hundred household (720 kW total power consumption). These are some of the examples of the

scenario under consideration where the micro sources and loads are geographically far from each other in a

low voltage network.

Two methods have been proposed in this paper for power sharing with both inertial (rotary) and

converter interfaced DGs. The first method considers a decentralized operation and the conventional

frequency droop control is modified to accommodate the highly resistive line. A transformation matrix is
derived for the control parameter and feedback gains taking in consideration of the R-by-X ratio of the

lines. The second method requires a low bandwidth communication (100byte/s), where the reference

frequency of each DG output is modified based on the desired active and reactive power flow and the line

impedances. A low-cost web-based communication system [6-7] is used in this paper to serve this purpose.

In [6] it is shown how a distributed measuring system is able to monitor a number of power-quality indices

on every load connected to the same PCC and transmit the measured values to a master device that

processes them. The same philosophy is utilized here.

The main contribution of the paper lies in the proposed set of droop control algorithm to support

the microgrid with particular emphasis on highly resistive lines. The proposed methods overcome the

shortcoming of the conventional droop control in a rural network. The accuracy of the controllers is shown

in different weak system conditions where the conventional droop fails to share the power as desired.

Mathematical derivations and time domain simulations are used to illustrate the methodologies.

2. Power Sharing with the Proposed Droop Control Methods

To show the power sharing with frequency droop, a system of two DGs with a load is considered as

shown in Fig. 1. The conventional frequency droop equation [1] of the DGs are given by

1 1rated m1 P1 P1rated
(1)
2 2 rated m2 P2 P2 rated

where the rated power of the DGs are denoted by P1rated and P2rated . The droop coefficients are chosen to

ensure load sharing is proportional to the DGs rating by,

m2 P1rated

m1 P2 rated

2.1. Controller-1: Frequency Droop Control without Communication

 As discussed before, in a rural distribution system of medium or low voltage level, the lines are

mostly resistive (high R/X ratio) and the values of the line resistance are not negligible. In that case, the

conventional load frequency droop control is not able to ensure a proper sharing of load. This is because

the conventional droop control assumes that the lines are inductive in nature so the real and reactive power

can be independently controlled with frequency and voltage respectively. But in rural netwrok with high

R/X ratio network this is not valid due to high real and reactive power coupling. Fig. 1 is redrawn without

the output inductances of the DGs as shown in Fig. 2. Here the line reactance value XD is chosen to be the

same as line resistance value RD. The line impedance values are shown in Table-I. In this sub-section a

modified droop control is proposed without any communication for the control of the resistive lines. In the

next sub-section it is shown with a low cost minimum communication, the controller performance can be

improved significantly.

The power flow from DG-1 for system shown in Fig. 2 as

P1 RD1 V11 V cos(11 X D1V sin(11 )

Q1 RD1V sin(11 ) X D1 V11 V cos(11

where

V11 R 2 D1 X 2 D1

From the above equation, multiplying Q1 by RD1 and subtracting the product from the multiplication of P1

and XD1 we get

X D1 P1 RD1Q1 V11V sin(11 ) (2)

In a similar way, we also get

RD1 P1 X D1Q1 V112 VV11 cos(11 ) (3)

It is to be noted that DG-1 does not have any control over the load voltage magnitude and angle.

Hence they can be assumed as constant. Thus the linearization of (2) and (3) around the nominal values of

V110 and 110 results in

 X D1P1 RD1Q1 V110V 11 (110V )V11 (4)

RD1P1 X D1Q1 ( 2V110 V )V11 (5)

where indicates the perturbed value from the nominal values that are indicated by the subscript 0. From

(4) and (5), the output voltage magnitude and angle of a DG-1 can be written in terms of real and reactive

power as,

X D1 RD1
Z
11 Z1 P1 P
V K 1 KT 1 (6)
11 X D1 RD1 Q1 Q1
Z1 Z1

where the impedance Z1 and the matrix K are given by

1
V V 110V
Z1 R X
2 2
K Z1 110
2V110 V
D1 D1
0

It can be seen that in (6), the output voltage angle and magnitude are influenced both by real and

reactive power output. So they can not be independently controlled as in conventional droop.

Defining pseudo real and reactive power as

P1 P1
Q T Q
1 1

equation (6) can be written as

11 P1
V K Q (7)
11 1

The above equation forms the basis of modified droop sharing. A similar equation can be derived for DG-2

as well.

The droop control equation for DG-1 is then written as

 1 1rated m1 P1' P1rated '
V V T n ' '
(8)
11 11rated 1 Q1 Q1rated

where the rated powers (P1rated, Q1rated) are also represented after multiplying the conversion matrix [T].

Similar transformation is also used for the rated powers of DG-2 as well. The droop gains of the both the

DGs are also transformed by the matrix T and are given by as

m1 m1 m2 m2
n T n and n T n (9)
1 1 2 2

where the real and reactive power droop coefficients are

m2 P1rated n Q
and 2 1rated (10)
m1 P2 rated n1 Q2 rated

It is to be noted that in this case we need to regulate the voltage V11, which is assumed to be DG output

voltage. This can be done by changing the converter output filter from LCL to LC structure and so the DG

output inductance is not present in this case. The converter structure and control is discussed in detail in

the Section 3.

2.2. Controller-2: Proposed Controller with Minimal Communication

In this sub-section, a droop control is proposed that requires minimal communication. The system in Fig.

1 is considered here and the DGs are connected to the microgrid with their output inductances. For small

angle difference between the DGs and their respective local buses shown in Fig. 1, the power flow

equations [8] of the DGs are given by

1 11 1 P1
(11)
2 22 2 P2

where, 1 = Lf1/(V11V1), 2 = Lf2/(V22V2).

As both the active and reactive power flow in a highly resistive line are determined by angle difference in

the terminal voltages, the PCC voltages of the DGs can be expressed as,

11 D1Q1 D1 P1
(12)
22 D 2Q2 D 2 P2

where D1= RD1/(V11V) , D2 = RD2/(V22V) and D1 = LD1/(V11V), D2 = LD2/(V22V),

From (11) and (12) we get,

1 1 P1 D1Q1 D1 P1
(13)
2 2 P2 D 2Q2 D 2 P2

From (13) we can write,

1 2 1 P1 D1Q1 D1 P1 D 2 P2 D 2Q2 D 2 P2 (14)

Linearizing (14) we get,

1 2 1P1 D1Q1 D1P1 D 2 P2 D 2 Q2 D 2 P2

Since the = d/dt, taking derivative on both sides of the above equation, we get

1 2 1P1 D1Q1 D1P1 2 P2 D 2 Q 2 D 2 P2 (15)

From (1) we get, the frequency deviation as

1 2 1rated 2 rated m1 P1rated P1 m2 P2 rated P2 (16)

Let us now choose the reference frequency deviation as

1rated 1P1 D1Q1 D1P1

P Q P
2 rated 2 2 D2 2 D2 2

Then comparing (15) and (16), we can write

m1 P1rated P1 m2 P2 rated P2 0 (17)

As the droop gains are chosen as

m2 P1rated

m1 P2 rated

We get from (17)

P1 m2 P1rated
m1P1 m 2 P2 (18)
P2 m1 P2 rated

It can be seen that the power sharing of the DGs are proportional to their rating. This control technique

shown with above simple example can be extended to multiple DG system, as well.

2.2.1. Multiple DG system

Fig. 3 shows the multiple DG system where three DGs are connected at different location of the

microgrid. DG-1 and DG-2 is assumed to be inertia less and converter interfaced while DG-3 is a

synchronous machine. This is to ensure that the proposed control work even with the presents of inertial

DGs in a microgrid (As in most of cases the inertial DGs limits the control law for the converter interfaced

DGs in a microgrid). The four loads of the microgrid are shown as Load_1, Load_2, Load_3 and Load_4.

The real and reactive power supply from the DGs are denoted by Pi, Qi, i = 1,,3. The real and reactive

power flow for different line sections and load demand are shown in Fig. 3. The line impedances are

denoted as ZDi (= RDi + jXDi), i = 1,, 6. Each of the DG controllers needs to measure its local quantities

only and hence, the real and reactive power flow measurements into and out of the DG local bus are

required. It is to be noted all the line impedances and loads are assumed to be lumped.

From the power output of DG-3 we can write,

3 L 4 3 P3 D 6Q3 R D 6 P3 R (19)

where 6= RD6/(V33VL4) and 6= XD6/(V33VL4)

Similarly from the DG-2 power output we can write,

2 L 3 2 P2 D 4Q2 R D 4 P2 R (20)

The angle difference between the loads can be represented as,

L 3 L 4 D 5Q3 L D 5 P3 L D 6Q3 R D 6 P3 R (21)

From (20) and (21) we get,

2 L 4 2 P2 D 4Q2 R D 6 P3 R D 5Q3 L D 5 P3 L D 6Q3 R D 6 P3 R (22)

Similarly the power output of DG-1 can be expressed as,

1 L 4 1 P1 D 2Q1R D 2 P1R D 3Q2 L D 3 P2 L

(23)
D 4Q2 R D 4 P2 R D 5Q3 L D 5 P3 L D 6Q3 R D 6 P3 L

It is to be noted that in (22) and (23), all the active and reactive power quantities, except the first

term, are not locally measureable. The angle difference shown in (21) can be measured by DG-3 and then

communicated to DG-2 and DG-1. As these quantities only modify the reference angle to ensure better

load sharing, updates can be done using slower sample rates with a low bandwidth communication

channel. This can be done since the frequency droop, given by (1), is always active. The primary control

action is instantaneous and ensures a rough load sharing among the DGs. The longer time allow us to use

web based communication for this purpose [6-7]. The reference frequency deviation is then controlled with

the rate of change of the angle.

We can write (23) as

1 L 4 1 p 11 12 13 (24)

where,
 1 p 1P1 , 11 D 2Q1R 2 D P1R
12 3 DQ2 L 3 D P2 L D 4Q2 R D 4 P2 R
13 D 5Q3 L D 5 P3 L D 6Q3 R D 6 P3 L

Similar expressions can be derived for the other DGs as well.

2.2.2. Web Based Low Bandwidth Communication

A low bandwidth (100 bytes/s) web based data transfer method is used for the minimal

communication droop control. The web-based measurement system is shown in Fig. 4. The real and

reactive power outputs, measured at each DG unit, are communicated to a dedicated website or company

intranet with the help of a modem. Assuming that the PQ measurement units are already installed at each

DG location, the additional equipment needed for each DG unit are a computer to collect the

measurements from local and remote units, and a modem to transmit the measurements to the dedicated

website, or to download remote measurements from it. Fig. 4 (a) shows the web connection of all the DGs,

while the communication in each DG is shown in Fig. 4 (b). The power monitoring unit sends the real and

reactive power measurement to the computer to calculate 11 for DG-1, as shown in (24). The other angle

component 12 and 13 are received by the modem and communicated to the DG control unit through the

computer. The change in frequency reference is calculated from these measurements as discussed in

Section 2.2.1. As mentioned before, the main load sharing is based on local measurement frequency droop

and so even in case of communication failure a rough load sharing is ensured among the DGs.

It is to be noted that the optimum power sharing could be different from proportional to the power

rating in many scenarios. It could be cost based, generation based or based on other criteria. However this

paper aims to share power proportional to the rating of the DGs, which is very common in rural distributed

generation system. Moreover, with droop control power sharing can be achieved in a desired ratio by the
proper selection of the droop gains as per (8). The proposed control methods in this paper ensure that the

real and reactive power output can be controlled in presence of a strong coupling in a high R/X ratio line.

3. Converter Structure and Control

DG-1 and DG-2 are assumed to be an ideal dc voltage source supplying a voltage of Vdc to the

voltage source converters (VSCs). The structure of the VSC is shown in Fig. 6. It contains three H-bridges

that are supplied from the common dc bus. The outputs of the H-bridges are connected to three single-

phase transformers that are connected in wye for required isolation and voltage boosting [9]. The

resistance RT represents the switching and transformer losses, while the inductance LT represents the

leakage reactance of the transformers. The filter capacitor Cf is connected to the output of the transformers

to bypass switching harmonics, while Lf represents the output inductance of the DG source. The voltages

across the filter capacitors, the currents through them and the currents inject to the microgrid are denoted

respectively by vcfi, icfi and i2i, i = a,b,c.

From the circuit of Fig. 5, the following state vector is chosen

xT i2 icf vcf (25)

Then the state space description of the system can be given as

x Ax Bu (26)

A state feedback control law is chosen as

uc K x xref (27)

where K is the gain matrix and xref is the reference vector for the states given by (25). The gain matrix, in

this paper, is obtained through linear quadratic regulator (LQR) design. Based on this control law, the

switching actions are taken as [10]

 If uc h then u 1
(28)
elseif uc h then u 1

where h is a small hysteresis band.

The control law discussed so far is for the system in which the DGs have an output inductor. It can

be seen from Fig. 5 that this implies the converter output stage has LCL (or T) filter structure.

Alternatively, when the DGs do not have an output inductance, the inductance Lfi is removed and the

output filter is a simple LC filter. The system states are then modified as

xT icf vcf
However the state space is similar to (26) and the control law (27) and switching logic (28) remain the

same. This control strategy is applied to DG-1 and DG-2, when operating without any communication of

Section 2.1.

3.1. DG Reference Generation

It is evident from (27) that a reference for all the elements of the states, given in (26), is required

for state feedback. The reference for the capacitor voltage and current are given by

vcfref V cos t (29)

icfref V C f sin t (30)

For the LCL filter, the reference for the current i2 can be calculated as

i2 ref I 2 ref sin t 2 ref (31)

From Fig. 5, it can be seen that

P2 Q2
I 2 ref and 2 ref tan 1 Q / P
Vcf
 Since V and are obtained from the droop equation, to calculate the reference in (29)-(31), the

value of has to be obtained. The voltage angle controller of the converter generates a rotating angle 1*

[11] which is equal to t + 1. The angle 1* is reset after every 2, i.e.,

t0 2 t1

Therefore we have

t1 t0 (32)

It is to be noted that the converters are current limited at twice of their rated current [12, 13].

During a fault or in case of excessively high load demand, the output current reaches limit. The reactive

power capability of the DGs are also limited by the current limit and controlled by the voltage droop as

shown in (8).

4. Synchronous Machine Structure and Control

The DG-3 is assumed to be a synchronous machine. The synchronous machine model given in [14]

is used in this paper. The generator field is supplied by a static exciter and automatic voltage regulator

(AVR). The transfer function of the exciter-AVR is given by

e fd Ke
(33)
err sTe 1

where efd is the field voltage and err is the error in voltage given by Vtref |V2|. Ke and Te are the AVR gain

and time constant, respectively. A mini hydraulic turbine is used as the prime mover [15]. The real and

reactive power output of the synchronous machine is controlled by the load frequency droop and voltage

reactive power droop as the other DGs.

 5. Simulation Studies

Simulation studies are carried out in PSCAD/EMTDC (version 4.2). Different configurations of

load and power sharing of the DGs are considered. To consider the web based communication, a delay of 5

ms is incorporated in the control signals which are not locally measureable. As only one measurement is

taken in one main cycle, a 100 byte/s communication is needed (which is a very low speed communication

compared to any of the high bandwidth communication). The system parameters are shown in Table-I

while the numerical values of the simulation are given in Table-II.

5.1. Case-1: Load_2 and Load_3 are connected to Microgrid

In this case, all the three DGs are connected to the microgrid and supplying Load_2 and Load_3.

While the system in steady state, DG-2 is disconnected from the microgrid at 0.5 s. Fig. 6 (a) shows the

power output of the DGs and Fig. 6 (b) shows the power sharing ratios with conventional frequency droop

controller. It can be seen that due to high line impedance, the power sharing of the DGs are not as desired.

Fig. 7 shows the system response with proposed controller 1. The error in power sharing is reduced

significantly (Table-II). Fig. 8 shows the system response with proposed controller 2. The power sharing

ratio of the DGs, shown in Table-II, are much closer to the desired sharing and the system reaches steady

state within 4-5 cycles as in the case with the conventional controller. Fig 9 shows the operating

frequencies of the DGs. It is to be noted that the deviation in frequency depends on the droop gain and

limited by the system regulations. It can be seen that the system is running within a very narrow frequency

band in all the cases. As the frequency droop share the power by droping the frequency, in a continuous

load changing situation frequency regulation could be a problem in some other senerios. This could be

solved by operating one generator in isochronous mode. The other way could be integrating the reset of

frequency reference function in the droop control of all the DGs [16].
 Fig. 10 shows the reactive power output and the output voltages of the DGs with conventional

controller. Due to the high reactive power demand from the loads the voltage droop coefficients are chosen

small to ensure the voltage drops are within regulation. The reactive power outputs of the DGs with the

proposed controller are shown in Fig. 11. It can be seen that reactive power demand is distributed among

the DGs and after loss of DG-2, DG-1 and DG-3 supply the total reactive power demand.

5.2. Case-2: Load_1 and Load_4 Connected to Microgrid

It is assumed all the DGs are connected to the microgrid and they are supplying Load_1 and

Load_4. The system response shown in Fig 12 is with the conventional controller. Load_1 is disconnected

at 0.5s and the DGs supply Load_4 only. It can be seen from Table-II that the power sharing ratio deviates

much after Load_1 is disconnected. Fig. 13 shows the power sharing with proposed Controller-1 and after

Load_1 is disconnected, the power sharing ratio of DG-1 and DG-3 falls to 1.1. The system response with

proposed minimal communication (Controller-2) is shown in Fig. 14. It can be seen that an acceptable

power sharing is achieved with the proposed controllers. The high line impedance (and high R/X ratio)

between the DGs and load makes the power sharing difficult and the power sharing with conventional

controller shown in Fig. 12 is far from desired.

5.3. Performance Comparison

The performance of the two proposed controllers is compared with that of a controller equipped

with a high bandwidth communication channel. In such a scheme, the droop control becomes redundant

since all load and control parameters are measurable from any DG connecting of the network without any

significant time delay. With the similar condition as in Case-2, the system is simulated and this results in

very accurate load sharing with error of 0.3% or less, which are not shown here. However as mentioned
before, the cost involved in a high bandwidth communication is much higher compared to the proposed

no-communication or web based minimal communication control.

The mean percentage errors in the above-mentioned three different control techniques are

compared, along with that of a conventional droop controller. The results are shown in Fig. 15 for the two

cases discussed above. Note that these cases were chosen for weak system conditions, where the micro

sources and loads are not symmetrically distributed throughout the network. This results in high values of

power sharing error with conventional droop controller. However it can be seen that, with the proposed

control methods, the error can be reduced significantly. While Controller-1 can reduce the error below

4.1%, the web based Controller-2 has an error below 1.78%. Though the error in case with an advanced

communication system is much lower, the cost involved is likely to be prohibitively high. Therefore the

proposed controllers can provide an economical solution in a low voltage, high resistive network.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, two load frequency control strategies are proposed with special emphasis on highly

resistive line in an autonomous microgrid. The first method requires no communication and the feedback

quantities and droop controller gain matrix are transformed with a transformation matrix based on the line

resistance reactance ratio of the line for proper power sharing of the DGs. In the second method, a low

bandwidth web based communication system is used and the frequency references are modified based on

the active and reactive power flow in the line connected at PCC. It is shown that a more economical and

acceptable power sharing solution is possible with the proposed control methods. The difference in error

margin between proposed control schemes and a costly high bandwidth based communication system is

not significant. Therefore, considering the cost involved, the implementation of a controller based on a

high bandwidth communication system may not be justifiable, especially in rural systems that span over a

large geographical area.

 Appendix

The current limiting operation of the converters is shown in this appendix. A three phase fault is

simulated at the DG-1(Fig. 3) terminal and cleared after 2 cycles. The converter is controlled by state

feedback given in (25-27). Also the reference voltage is set from droop equations. However during the

fault, the magnitude of the output current is limited and its angle can be chosen arbitrarily. If the fault is

not cleared within 4-5 cycles, the converter is blocked, which is not considered here. Fig. 16 shows the

terminal voltage and output current of the DG. It can be seen that the DG is current limited during the

fault. Once the fault is cleared the output current comes down to its initial value.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Australian Research Council (ARC) for the financial support for this project

through the ARC Discovery Grant DP 0774092.

References

[1] M. C. Chandorkar, D. M. Divan and R. Adapa, Control of parallel connected inverters in standalone

ac supply systems, IEEE Trans. On Industry Applications, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 136-143, 1993.

[2] A.M. Salamah, S.J. Finney, B.W. Williams, Autonomous controller for improved dynamic

performance of AC grid, parallel-connected, single-phase inverters, Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 209-218, 2008.

[3] M. Munasinghe, Rural electrification in the Third World, Power Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, No.

4, pp. 189-202, July 1990.

[4] S. Thiel, C.H. Mostert, J.H.R Enslin, Universal power electronic solution to low-cost rural

electrification, 4th IEEE AFRICON, Vol. 1, pp. :335 340, 1996.

[5] Australian Business Council Sustainable Energy, web http://www.bcse.org.au/home.asp.

[6] L. Cristaldi, A. F. Etal, A distributed system for electric power quality measurement, IEEE Trans.

Instrumentation and Measurements, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 776 - 781, August 2002.

[7] L. Nian, Z. Jianhua, L. Wenxia, A Security Mechanism of Web Services-Based Communication for

Wind Power Plants, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 1930-1938, 2008.

[8] Lynn Powell, Power System Load Flow Analysis, McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, November

2004.

[9] A. Ghosh and A. Joshi, A new approach to load balancing and power factor correction in power

distribution system, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 417-422, 2000.

[10] A. Ghosh and G. Ledwich, Power Quality Enhancement using Custom Power Devices, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2002.

[11] R. Majumder, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich and F. Zare, Control of parallel converters for load sharing

with seamless transfer between grid connected and islanded modes, Power and Energy Society

General Meeting, Pittsburgh, 20-24 July 2008.

[12] M. Brucoli, T. C. Green, and J. D. F. McDonald, Modelling and analysis of fault behaviour of

inverter microgrids to aid future fault detection, System of Systems Engineering, SoSE '07. IEEE

International Conference on, pp. 1-6, 2007.

[13] H. Nikkhajoei and R. H. Lasseter, Microgrid protection, Power Engineering Society General

Meeting, IEEE, pp. 1-6, 2007.

[14] K. R. Padiyar, Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control, Anshan Publisher, August 2004.

[15] Working Group on Prime Mover and Energy Supply, Hydraulic turbine and turbine control models

for system dynamic studies, IEEE Trans. In Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 1, Feb. 1992 Page(s):167

179.

[16] F. Katiraei and M. R. Iravani, Power Management Strategies for a Microgrid With Multiple

Distributed Generation Units IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.. 21, No. 4, November 2006

1821-1831.
 TABLE-I: NOMINAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS

System Quantities Values

Systems frequency 50 Hz
Feeder impedance
ZD1 1.0 + j 1.0
ZD2 0.4 + j 0.4
ZD3 0.5 + j 0.5
ZD3 0.4 + j 0.4
ZD3
0.4 + j 0.4
Load ratings
Load1 11.8 kW and 7.5 kVAr
Load2 16.8 kW and 13.5 kVAr
Load3 26.25 kW and 16.0 kVAr
Load4 26.25 kW and 16.0 kVAr
DG ratings (nominal)
DG-1 18 kVA, 0.3 to0.95 pf
DG-2 27 kVA, 0.3 to0.95 pf
DG-3 27 kVA, 0.3 to0.95 pf
Output inductances
Lf1 7.5 mH
Lf2 5.0 mh
DGs and VSCs
DC voltages (Vdc1 to Vdc4) 0.220 kV
Transformer rating 0.220 kV/0.440 kV, 0.5
VSC losses (Rf) MVA, 2.5% Lf
Filter capacitance (Cf) 1.5
Hysteresis constant (h) 50 F
10-5
Droop Coefficients
Powerangle
m1 25 rad/s/MW
m2 16.67 rad/s/MW
m3 16.67 rad/s/MW
VoltageQ
n1 0.6 V/KVAr
n2 0.4 V/KVAr
n3 0.4 V/KVAr

Synchronous Machine
 Inertia constant, H 0.2 s
Damping constant D 1.0
Direct axis transient time constant 1.497 s
Td0
Quadrature axis transient time 0.223 s
constant Tq0
Armature resistance Ra 0.01 pu
Direct axis reactance Xd 0.8 pu
Quadrature axis reactance Xq 0.752 pu
Direct axis transient reactance 0.16 pu
Xd
Quadrature axis transient 0.325
reactance Xq
Synchronous speed s 100 rad/s
Exciter
Gain Ke 12.0
Time constant Te 0.05 s

TABLE-II: SIMULATION RESULTS

Case Controller Power Sharing Ratio

P2 /P1 P3 /P1 P3 /P2
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
1 Desired Values 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 1.0 NA
Conventional controller 1.55 0 2.21 1.6 1.426 NA
Controller-1 1.54 0 1.52 1.51 0.98 NA
Controller-2 1.50 0 1.53 1.61 1.04 NA
2 Desired Values 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.0 1.0
Conventional controller 1.82 2.32 1.21 1.83 0.665 0.789
Controller-1 1.48 2.0 1.48 1.67 0.993 0.835
Controller-2 1.51 1.5 1.57 1.79 1.07 1.19
 Fig. 1. Power Sharing with Angle Droop.

Fig. 2. Power sharing in resistive-inductive line.

Fig. 3. Multiple DG connected to microgrid

 Fig. 4 (a) Web Based PQ Monitoring Scheme

Fig. 4(b). Web Based Communication for DG-1

Fig. 5. Converter structure.

Fig. 6. Power sharing with conventional controller: Case-1.

Fig. 7. Power sharing with Controller-1: Case-1.

Fig. 8. Power sharing with Controller-2: Case-1.

 Fig. 9. Operating frequency of the DGs

Fig. 10. Reactive power output and output voltages of the DGs

Fig. 11. Reactive power output of the DGs with proposed controllers
Fig. 12. Power sharing with conventional controller: Case-2.

Fig. 13. Power sharing with Controller-1: Case-2.

Fig. 14. Power sharing with Controller-2: Case-2.

 Mean Error

12

10

Conventional Control
8

Prposed Decentralized
% Error 6 Control
Proposed Minimum Com.
4 Control
High Bandwidth Control
2

0
1
Control Methods

Fig. 15. Error in power sharing with different control techniques

Fig. 16. Current limiting operation of the converters