Power flow control of intertied ac microgrids
Abstract
Microgrids are small reliable grids formed by clustering distributed sources and loads together. They can, in principle, operate at different voltages and frequencies like 50, 60, 400 Hz or even dc. Tying them together or to the mains grid for energy sharing would therefore require the insertion of interlinking power converters. Active and reactive power flows of these converters should preferably be managed autonomously without demanding for fast communication links. A scheme that can fulfill the objectives is now proposed, which upon realised, will result in more robustly integrated microgrids with higher efficiency and lower reserve requirement. The scheme presented has been tested in experiments with results captured and discussed in a later section.
1 Introduction
Global demand for energy and rising environmental concerns have brought forward the concept of distributed generation by various unconventional sources like photovoltaic, wind, tidal, geothermal and high-speed diesel generators [1, 2]. These sources are known to have their own advantages and disadvantages with no one source suiting all requirements. That prompts the intentional grouping of a few distributed sources and loads together to form small microgrids [3, 4], which in principle, also include distribution grids found in electric ships and aircrafts [5-8]. The formed microgrids are, by nature, independent entities, whose operating voltages and frequencies can be set to suit their respective source and load characteristics. The microgrids can then operate in isolation or tied to the utility grid. Among themselves, there can also be intertying to reinforce their reserve sharing, security and energy trading. Such intertying would definitely require the insertion of power converters [9-12], whose main responsibility is to harmonise the different operating conditions of the microgrids. Usual line-frequency transformers can also be used, but only for different voltages and not frequencies within the microgrids. Adding of power converters is therefore a more universal approach likely to draw more interest.
Besides harmonising different operating conditions, control schemes used with the inserted power converters can be designed with reactive power support and active power transfer among the microgrids. These power flow control mechanisms should preferably be efficient and autonomous without demanding for fast communication links. The latter is important since distributed sources are widely dispersed, and hence impossible or too costly to link using fast communication links. Methods that can avoid fast communication links are usually based on the droop operating principles, whose control decisions are deduced from locally measured variables only. Although droop control has presently been developed into many variants, they are mostly discussed for accurate power sharing within a single ac microgrid. Its extension to multiple intertied microgrids is presently lacking even though there might be a few references moving along that trend.
For example, in [13], the tying of a microgrid to the utility grid through an ac–dc–ac converter is discussed with two droop modes applied to them. In mode 1, sources in the microgrid are droop-controlled, whereas the utility grid is regulated at a constant contractual power through the ac–dc–ac converter. Their roles are reversed in mode 2 with the microgrid sources operating at their fixed full-rated power and the ac–dc–ac converter operating like a droop-controlled source. Although the system studied might appear more complex, the underlying droop scheme remains the same as for a single ac microgrid, since at any instant, only one grid is droop-controlled, whereas the other behaves like a constant power source. In addition, the utility grid in [13] is treated like an infinite bus with its load conditions not affecting control decisions within the microgrid. Management of this utility-tied microgrid is thus close to that of a single ac microgrid. A second example can be found in [14, 15], where the intertying of two single-phase microgrids has been discussed. The focus there is, however, more on improving transient response and minimising power pulsation at the dc-link of the intertying converter. These are no doubt important performance considerations applicable to most power electronic applications, rather than specifically related to intertied microgrids. They are therefore not directly related to the power flow management of intertied microgrids, which is presently lacking.
This study now extends the droop power control scheme from a single ac microgrid to the intertying of at least two microgrids having their own preferred operating voltages and frequencies. The added operating complexity is mainly directed at the interlinking power converters found between any two of the intertied microgrids. These converters, upon implemented appropriately, will result in more flexible active power transfer and reactive power support within the microgrids based only on locally measured variables. Their operations can also be planned such that they operate only when necessary, rather than continuously. Unnecessary operating time and losses can therefore be minimised on average, resulting in a more efficient intertied system. Generating capacity available within each microgrid is also higher and better shared even with no costly standby generators added. Theories and experimental results have thoroughly been discussed in the paper with the scheme demonstrated for both islanded and grid-connected modes.
2 Droop scheme in single microgrid



Illustration of intertied microgrids





Active droop characteristics of microgrids and interlinking converters

Reactive droop characteristics of microgrids and interlinking converters
3 Interlinking droop scheme
- Active power flow from under-loaded to overloaded microgrid for reinforcement. At any instant in the steady state, active power balance must be maintained at the two ends of the interlinking converters to keep their common dc-link voltage Vdc stable.
- Reactive power reinforcement provided by interlinking converters upon requested. Reactive power reinforcement need not be balanced at the two ends of the interlinking converters, and can hence be independently performed.
- Priority tuning between active and reactive power generations. Depending on the load types and their associated power factors, priority to supply active or reactive power by the interlinking converters can be set accordingly.
- Unnecessary operating time and losses of interlinking converters can be minimised. This happens when the intertied microgrids are either all under-loaded or heavily overloaded. The former means the microgrids do not need additional generation, while the latter means they are close to their ratings, and hence do not have additional generating capacities for sharing.
3.1 Islanded mode
To isolate the intertied microgrids, the static switch connected to the utility in Fig. 1 must be opened. With no utility grid, supply–demand balancing within the microgrids is generally more stringent since any surplus cannot be channeled to the grid and any deficit cannot be replenished from it. It is hence necessary for the interlinking converters to measure generating conditions of the two microgrids in Fig. 1, before deciding on the amount of power to transfer between them. The eventual goal is to arrive at a supply–demand balance for the intertied microgrids in the steady state. Before proceeding further, it is helpful to clarify that this method of interlinking control is different from that explained in Section 2 for a single source in a single microgrid. The former requires measurements from two microgrids before appropriately combining them to produce the necessary interlinking control action, which to date has not been reported in the literature. The latter, on the other hand, measures operating conditions within a single microgrid with no interlinking intelligence needed. It is hence much simpler, and no doubt has already been well established.

















To further strengthen confidence with (5)–(7), a simple case to show how they can be applied is described here, where it is assumed that the two microgrids can produce the same maximum power Pmax. Other relevant maximum power values mentioned earlier can hence be set as Px,IC,max = Px,max = Pmax (x = A or B). It can next be assumed that the microgrids are loaded such that their requested powers are related by PA,IC = 1.5PB,IC. Substituting into (6) then gives rise to K = 0.5PB,IC/Pmax and . The latter simply means that the interlinking converters must transfer 0.5PB,IC from microgrid ‘B’ to assist the more overloaded condition in microgrid ‘A’, as intended, hence proving the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.







3.2 Grid-connected mode



3.3 Other variations
The above interlinking control description is based on the assumption of P–f and Q–V droop lines used within each microgrid. This is, however, not always the case. For example, P–V and Q–f droop lines can be used for microgrids, whose line impedances are mostly resistive. Regardless of that, the same interlinking droop principles can still be used, but with V now measured to determine P and f measured to determine Q. The same reasoning can be applied to other hybrid droop relationships used with microgrids having equally prominent resistive and inductive line impedances. The only slight changes expected are the interlinking P and Q commands are now determined by applying the desired interlinking droop relationships to both f and V.
4 Experimental results

Entities/Parameters | Ratings/Values |
---|---|
Interlinking Converters | 2 kVA per converter, 350 V (dc-link) |
Microgrid ‘A’ | 2 kVA, 190.5 V (ac rms), 3-phase (60 ± 1)Hz ⇒ fA,max = 61 Hz, fA,min = 59 Hz |
Microgrid ‘B’ | 2 kVA, 190.5 V (ac rms), 3-phase (50 ± 1)Hz ⇒ fB,max = 51 Hz, fB,min = 49 Hz |
Droop Coefficients | mA = mB = 1.25 and nA = nB = 0 to 19.2 |
Base Power | 2 kVA |
Base Voltage | 190.5 V (ac rms) |
For the experimental setup, it should also be mentioned that each microgrid was emulated with a source inverter and a local resistive-inductive load bank for adjusting its loading. The source inverter was within the considered microgrid, and should hence not be confused with the interlinking converters tying the two microgrids together. The source inverter was controlled using the droop scheme reviewed in Section 2 with a usual outer voltage and inner current double-loop controller whose design could be found in [20]. The interlinking converters, on the other hand, were implemented with two six-switch converters sharing a common dc-link. Their common droop scheme was discussed earlier in Section 3. Unlike the source droop scheme whose output was a voltage reference, references from the interlinking droop scheme were represented by the power expression given in (10). Its tracking controller must therefore be modified accordingly with the outer being the power tracking loop and the inner being the usual voltage–current tracking loop.
The outer power loop was realised with two PI controllers for acting on the active and reactive
power errors. Their outputs were the frequency and voltage magnitude commands, which could then be combined to give the three-phase voltage commands
for tracking by the inner voltage–current tracking loop. Including this outer power loop, illustration of the overall control scheme for the interlinking converters could be found in Fig. 4. DC-link voltage tracking was not shown in the figure because it had already been accounted by
explained in Section 3.1. The experiment was performed with five scenarios, whose responses had been intentionally slowed down. This was to allow for continuous tracking of operating points on the interlinking active and reactive request lines, which like all droop schemes, applied only to steady-state responses. Snapshots of the tracking were then shown in appropriate figures to be discussed next.

Block diagram of interlinking droop scheme
4.1 Islanded scenario 1 (Fig. 5, and 0–100 s in Fig. 6)
The experiment was started with the interlinking converters not yet activated from 0 to approximately 20 s. During this time, the respective load banks in the microgrids were adjusted such that frequency of microgrid ‘A’ was at fA = − 0.5 p.u., whereas that of microgrid ‘B’ was at fB = 0.6 p.u. They corresponded to those operating points marked as ‘1a’ in Fig. 5(a). Microgrid ‘A’ was thus classified as overloaded, whereas microgrid ‘B’ was considered as under-loaded. The actual active power transferred should hence be from microgrid ‘B’ to ‘A’, which indeed happened when the interlinking converters were activated from 20s onwards. This transfer of active power caused frequency of microgrid ‘B’ to drop since it was generating the transferred power. Frequency of microgrid ‘A’, on the other hand, rose since it was receiving the transferred power. Operating points ‘1a’ therefore moved to points ‘1b’ in the steady state, whose actual power values read from Fig. 6a were These values were not exactly equal in magnitude because of a small difference
needed to keep the dc-link capacitor voltage in Fig. 6c constant.

Operating point trajectories on
a Frequency against active power and
b Voltage against reactive power characteristics when in islanded mode

Experimental results showing
a Frequency and active power
b Voltage and reactive power
c dc-link voltage of interlinking converters during islanded mode
Terminal voltages wise, their respective initial values were read from Fig. 6b as VA = VB = 0.97 p.u. from 0 to 20 s, before activating the interlinking converters. They corresponded to those operating points, also marked with ‘1a’ in Fig. 5b. The two microgrids were thus classified as overloaded, and would hence request for reactive powers from the interlinking converters once they were activated from 20 s onwards. This was observed in Fig. 6b, where the common steady-state reactive power injected to each microgrid was read as from 20 s onwards. With this reactive support provided by the interlinking converters, the microgrid terminal voltages rose slightly to those operating points marked with ‘1b’ in Fig. 5b. These operating points laid on the dashed droop lines, whose common maximum value computed from (9) was given by
4.2 Islanded scenario 2 (Fig. 5, and 100–200 s in Fig. 6)
Active loading of microgrid ‘A’ in scenario 2 had been lowered such that its frequency rose to fA = 0 p.u. Operating points of the microgrids were therefore those marked with ‘2’ in Fig. 5a, whose corresponding active powers requested, and hence actual active powers transferred were all zero. This was observed in Fig. 6a, where both actual powers transferred and
were noted to gradually drop to zero from 100 s onwards. Reactive loadings in both microgrids were also decreased in scenario 2, causing them to move to operating points ‘2’ in Fig. 5b. Their reactive power generations
and
were thus zero, as confirmed by the second plot in Fig. 6b. Since active and reactive powers demanded from the interlinking converters were zero, they could be turned off to keep operating costs low rather than operating them continuously.
4.3 Islanded scenario 3 (Fig. 5, and 200–250 s in Fig. 6)
In scenario 3, the only change introduced was to increase the reactive loading of microgrid ‘B’ until its terminal voltage entered the overloaded range. Reactive power , read from Fig. 6b, was thus generated by interlinking converter ‘B’ for microgrid ‘B’ from 200 s onwards. Interlinking converter ‘A’, on the other hand, remained off since no reactive power was requested from it and the actual active power transferred by the two converters remained at zero. Steady-state operating points of the two converters were thus those marked with ‘3’ in Figs. 5a and b.
4.4 Grid-connected scenario 4 (Fig. 7, and 0–180 s in Fig. 8)
Scenario 4 was tested with microgrid ‘B’ tied to the utility grid, emulated by a threephase programmable ac source for the experiment. Its voltage and frequency were therefore fixed at 190.5 V and 50 Hz, corresponding to 1 and 0 p.u. in the under-loaded ranges. Active and reactive powers requested from interlinking converter ‘B’ were hence zero according to (5) and (8). Microgrid ‘A’, on the other hand, was loaded such that its voltage and frequency entered their respective overloaded ranges marked by operating points ‘4a’ in Figs. 7a and b. It remained at these operating points from 0 to 20 s, during which the interlinking converters were not yet activated. Active and reactive powers generated by the converters from 0 to 20 s were thus zero, as seen from Figs. 8a and b, respectively. The converters were activated only from 20 s onwards, after which interlinking converter ‘A’ started to generate actual active and reactive powers for microgrid ‘A’. Their values were read as and
from Figs. 8a and b, respectively. With these added capacities provided to microgrid ‘A’, its source generation could relax slightly, leading to slight increases in its voltage and frequency. Operating points ‘4a’ therefore moved to ‘4b’ in the steady state. Throughout the trajectory, dc-link voltage of the interlinking converters had been kept constant, as seen from Fig. 8c.

Operating point trajectories on
a Frequency against active power
b Voltage against reactive power characteristics when in grid-connected mode

Experimental results showing
a Frequency and active power
b Voltage and reactive power, and
c dc-link voltage of interlinking converters during grid-connected mode
4.5 Grid-connected scenario 5 (Fig. 7, and 180–250 s in Fig. 8)
From 180 to 250s, active and reactive loadings of microgrid ‘A’ were reduced until its frequency and voltage rose to fA = 0 p.u. and VA = 1.05 p.u., indicated by those steady-state operating points marked with ‘5’ in Figs. 7a and b. Since they were in the under-loaded ranges, their requested and hence actual active and reactive power flows were zero. These were clearly seen in Figs. 8a and b, where and
gradually dropped to zero.
5 Conclusion
An interlinking droop scheme for tying microgrids at different nominal frequencies and voltages has been proposed. With the scheme implemented, interlinking converters between microgrids will autonomously transfer an appropriate amount of active power from the under-loaded to overloaded microgrid for reinforcement. Independent reactive power reinforcement can also be provided by the interlinking converters for supporting terminal voltages of the microgrids during high reactive loading conditions. These power flow features are achieved with no requirement for fast communication links and at a minimised operating cost for the interlinking converters. Theories and experimental results have been presented to validate the performances anticipated.