Control principles of microsource inverters used in microgrid
 Wenming Guo^{1}Email author and
 Longhua Mu^{1}
DOI: 10.1186/s4160101600198
© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 12 May 2016
Accepted: 16 May 2016
Published: 27 June 2016
Abstract
Since microsources are mostly interfaced to microgrid by power inverters, this paper gives an insight of the control methods of the microsource inverters by reviewing some recent documents. Firstly, the basic principles of different inverter control methods are illustrated by analyzing the electrical circuits and control loops. Then, the main problems and some typical improved schemes of the ωUdroop gridsupporting inverter are presented. In results and discussion part, the comparison of different kinds of inverters is presented and some notable research points is discussed. It is concluded that the most promising control method should be the ωUdroop control, and it is meaningful to study the performance improvement methods under realistic operation conditions in the future work.
Keywords
Mirogrid Microsource inverter Droop control Control principleIntroduction
Recently, with the increased concern on environment and intensified global energy crisis, the traditional centralized power supply has shown many disadvantages.Meanwhile, the highefficiency, lesspolluting distributed generation (DG) has received increasing attentions [1, 2]. Microgrids [3–5], which comprise microsources, energy storage devices, loads, and control and protection system, are the most effective carrier of DGs. When a microgrid is connects to the utility grid, it behaves like a controlled load or generator, which removes the power quality and safety problems caused by DGs’ direct connection. Microgrids can also operate in islanded mode, thus increase system reliability and availability of the power supply.
Proper control is a precondition for microgrids’ stable and efficient operation. The detailed control requirements come from different aspects, such as voltage and frequency regulation, power flow optimization etc. Since these requirements are of different importance and time scale, a threelevel microgrid control structure is proposed in [6]. As the foundation of microgrid control system, the primary control is aimed at maintaining the basic operation of the microgrid without communication, which has become a hot research topic recently. Since most microsources utilize inverters to convert electrical energy, the primary control is essentially the management of power inverters. Microsource inverters are required to work in a coordinated manner based only on local measurements and the control strategies decide the roles of each microsource. According to the principle of master–slave control, the microsource inverters can be divided into gridfeeding, gridforming, and PQdroop gridsupporting inverters. From the perspective of peer control, the ωUdroop gridsupporting invertershelp to realize microgrids’ plug and play function. Although being widely discussed in the technical literatures, it still lacks a sufficient practical control method andexisting control technologies need to be further studied and improved. This paper describes the control principles of several typical microsource inverters and compares their characteristics so as to provide a fundamental understanding of microgrids’ primary control.
Method
Gridfeeding inverter
T _{c}(s) needs be designed in a way to ensure G _{c}(s) have sufficient bandwidth. Meanwhile, the gain and phase shift of G _{c}(s) around fundamental frequency should be close to 0 dB and 0 degree respectively. Therefore, the output current of the GFD inverter can track their references quickly and accurately.
For unbalanced operation cases, the GFD inverters need simultaneously controlthe positive and negative sequence currents [8, 9]. Under such condition, using PR controller [10] in αβ reference frame might be a better choice as a single PR controller can regulate both the positive and negative sequence currents, and the control effect is similar to that of using two PI controllers in double positive/negative dq reference frames.
Gridforming inverter
According to the above analysis, the GFM inverters can also precisely control their inductor current by a properly designed inner current loop. The impact of the grid current on capacitor voltage is removed by current feedforward and thus, u is fully controlled by adjusting i.
Gridsupporting inverter

the line impedance of a lowvoltage microgrid has a large resistive component, thus Pω and QU droop control is no longer suitable.

the voltages at the PCs of each inverter are not completely equal, thus the GS inverters cannot share reactive power precisely.
 A.
Decoupling transformation method
As depicted in Fig. 6, the voltage at the PC of theωUdroop GS inverter is denoted by U∠δ, and the voltage at the microgrid bus is denoted by E∠0. Z_{L} is the line impedance between the inverter’s filter capacitor and the microgrid bus with an impedance angle of θ.
 B.
Virtual impedance method
where G _{u}(s) is the voltage closedloop transfer function of the ωUdroop GS inverter, and Z _{V} is virtual impedance.
 C.
Reactive power sharing method based on communication
To improve the reactive power sharing accuracy, a common method is to revise the GS inverters’ droop control parameters, including noload voltage and droop coefficient. The following analysis takes the inductive line (cosθ ≈ 0,sinθ ≈ 1) as examples. According to Eq. (11), the relation between the output reactive power and the voltage of the GS inverter’s PC is shown as:
In the QU plane, the intersection of the operational curve described by Eq. (20) and the reactive power droop curve is the GS inverter’s stable operating point [19].
In this method, the output reactive power of each GS inverter is independent to the line impedance Z _{L}. By delivering the voltage information of the microgrid bus to each GS inverter, accurate reactive power sharing can be realized. This method doesn’t require a central controller to participate, avoiding the usage of complicated algorithms. Besides, the additional parameter, K _{u}, can be used to adjust the dynamic response of reactive power control.
Results and Discussion
As can be seen from the above sections, the GFD inverter behaves as constant power source and it participates neither in voltage regulation nor in load variations sharing. The GFM inverter behaves as constant voltage source and it is responsible not only for maintaining the microgrid’s voltage and frequency, but also for keeping power balance. Load sharing among the GFM inverters is a function of the impedances between the inverters and microgrid bus. The PQdroop and ωUdroop GS inverters can be regarded as the upgraded version of the GFD and GFM inverters, and they behave as controlled power source and controlled voltage source, respectively. When the microgrid operation conditions change, they can adaptively adjust the output power or voltage to achieve a more flexible load sharing. Currently the most promising control method is the ωUdroop control, because it can make the system autonomy and achieve seamless mode switching. When the microgrid is operated in islanded mode, any addition or reduction of a single ωUdroop GS inverter do not influence the configuration of the original system. When the microgrid operated in gridconnected mode, the ωUdroop GS inverter can output the specified power by modifying its noload voltage and frequency. However, this autonomous control method is not widely applied among numerous experimental microgrids, because there still exist many practical problems, such as the dynamic response speed, the impact of control parameters on system stability, the capability to deal with unbalanced and nonlinear loads, and control strategies under fault conditions. In addition, it can be seen from the above analysis that the performance of the ωUdroop GS inverter operating with no communication is inferior. In order to enhance the accuracy of reactive load sharing, it is worthwhile to study the design of the control algorithms with reduced communication requirements.
Conclusions
This paper illustrates the control principles of microsource inverters, including gridfeeding, gridforming, and gridsupporting inverters. The PQdroop and ωUdroop gridsupporting inverters can be regarded as the upgraded version of gridfeeding and gridforming inverters with a more flexible load sharing capability. Since the conventional ωUdroop control exists some shortages, several improved methods of ωUdroop based gridsupporting inverters are presented. The comparison of various inverters is carried out and the valuable research points are also discussed.
Declarations
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by Nation Natural Science Foundation of China (51407128) and the key technologies research project on distribution network reconfiguration of State Grid Hunan Electric Power Company (5216A1300JV).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
WG and LM conceived and designed the study. WG wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
About the authors
W. M. Guo was born in 1989 in Hunan, China. He received his B.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Tongji University in 2011, where he is currently working towards a Ph.D. degree. His current research interests are microgrid protection and control.
L. H. Mu was born in 1963 in Jiangsu, China. He is currently a full professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. His current research interests include protective relaying of power system, microgrid and power quality.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Kroposki, B., Pink, C., Deblasio, R., et al. (2010). Benefits of power electronic interfaces for distributed energy systems. IEEE Transactions on EnergyConversion, 25, 901–908.Google Scholar
 Walling, R. A., Saint, R., Dugan, R. C., et al. (2008). Summary of distributed resources impact on power delivery systems. IEEE Transactions on PowerDelivery, 23, 1636–1643.Google Scholar
 Lopes, J. A. P., Moreira, C. L., & Madureira, A. G. (2006). Defining control strategies for MicroGrids islanded operation. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21, 916–924.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nikkhajoei, H., & Lasseter, R. H. (2009). Distributed generation interface to the CERTS microgrid. IEEE Transactions onPower Delivery, 24, 1598–1608.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Olivares, D. E., MehriziSani, A., Etemadi, A. H., et al. (2014). Trends in microgrid control. IEEE Transactions onSmart Grid, 5, 1905–1919.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ali, B., & Ali, D. (2012). Hierarchical structure of microgrids control system. IEEE Transactions onSmart Grid, 3, 1963–1976.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fangzheng, P., & JihSheng, L. (1996). Generalized instantaneous reactive power theory for threephase power systems. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 45, 293–297.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Camacho, A., Castilla, M., Miret, J., et al. (2015). Active and reactive power strategies with peak current limitation for distributed generation inverters during unbalanced grid faults. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 62, 1515–1525.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Miret, J., Camacho, A., Castilla, M., et al. (2013). Control scheme with voltage support capability for distributed generation inverters under voltage sags. IEEE Transactions onPower Electronics, 28, 5252–5262.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zmood, D. N., Holmes, D. G., & Bode, G. H. (2001). Frequencydomain analysis of threephase linear current regulators. IEEE Transactions onIndustry Applications, 37, 601–610.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rocabert, J., Luna, A., Blaabjerg, F., et al. (2012). Control of power converters in AC microgrids. IEEE Transactions onPower Electronics, 27, 4734–4749.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 De Brabandere, K., Bolsens, B., Van den Keybus, J., et al. (2007). A voltage and frequency droop control method for parallel inverters. IEEE Transactions onPower Electronics, 22, 1107–1115.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhou, X., Rong, F., Lu, Z., et al. (2012). A coordinate rotational transformation based virtual power V/f droop control method for low voltage microgrid. Automation of Electric Power Systems, 36, 47–51.Google Scholar
 Li, Y., & Li, Y. W. (2011). Power management of inverter interfaced autonomous microgrid based on virtual frequencyvoltage frame. IEEE Transactions onSmart Grid, 2, 30–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Guerrero, J. M., Vicuña, D., García, L., et al. (2005). Output impedance design of parallelconnected UPS inverters with wireless loadsharing control. IEEE Transactions onIndustrial Electronics, 52, 1126–1135.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhang, P., Shi, J., Ronggui, L. I., et al. (2014). A control strategy of virtual negative impedance for inverters in Lowvoltage microgrid. Proceedings of the CSEE, 34, 1844–1852.Google Scholar
 Chen, Y., Luo, A., Long, J., et al. (2013). Circulating current analysis and robust droop multiple loop control method for parallel inverters using resistive output impedance. Proceedings of the CSEE, 33, 18–29.Google Scholar
 Matas, J., Castilla, M., et al. (2010). Virtual impedance loop for droopcontrolled singlephase parallel inverters using a secondorder generalintegrator scheme. IEEE Transactions onPower Electronics, 25, 2993–3002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Han, H., Liu, Y., Sun, Y., et al. (2014). An improved control strategy for reactive power sharing in microgrids. Proceedings of the CSEE, 34, 2639–2648.Google Scholar
 Jin, P., Xin, A. I., & Wang, Y. (2012). Reactive power control strategy of microgird using potential function method. Proceedings of the CSEE, 32, 44–51.Google Scholar
 Sao, C. K., & Lehn, P. W. (2005). Autonomous load sharing of voltage source converters. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 20, 1009–1016.View ArticleGoogle Scholar