IET Power Electronics

Research Article

ISSN 1755-4535
Multi-objective control of multi-functional Received on 6th May 2015
Revised on 28th August 2015
grid-connected inverter for renewable energy Accepted on 2nd September 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2015.0317
integration and power quality service www.ietdl.org

Zheng Zeng 1 ✉, Hui Li 1, Shengqing Tang 2, Huan Yang 2, Rongxiang Zhao 2

1
State Key Laboratory of Power Transmission Equipment and System Security and New Technology, School of Electrical Engineering,
Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, People’s Republic of China
2
College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China
✉ E-mail: zengerzheng@126.com

Abstract: Multi-functional grid-connected inverters (MFGCIs) not only interface renewable energy sources into the utility,
but also provide ancillary power quality enhancement service. Therefore, extra installment of power quality conditioners
can be partially avoided in a micro-grid including MFGCIs. Because the capacity of an MFGCI employed for power quality
compensation is limited, how to balance the multiple functions and optimally utilise the limited capacity becomes a
challenging for MFGCI application, and this is studied in details in this paper. First, to set up a benchmark for balancing
the multiple functions of the MFGCI, a comprehensive power quality evaluation (CPQE) index is presented based on
the catastrophe decision theory to quantify the power quality of a micro-grid. Then, for the strategic utilisation of the
limited capacity, a multi-objective optimal compensation model is proposed in which the objectives are to optimise the
CPQE index and minimise the occupied capacity of an MFGCI for power quality compensation. Finally, the solutions of
the model are derived on the basis of Pareto approach. As a result, the MFGCI can flexibly customise the power quality
of the micro-grid according to its available capacity margin and the users’ requirement. Finally, the experimental
results performed on a 10 kVA MFGCI prototype have confirmed the validity of the proposed model.

1 Introduction However, aiming to the optimal control of a MFGCI in limited

To interface solar, wind and other renewable energy sources (RESs)
into the utility, micro-grid is regarded as a good choice [1–3].
However, due to the numerous converters and local loads, the power
quality issues, such as phase unbalance, reactive power, waveform
distortion, and so on, have become the challenges which affect the
stability and effective operation of the micro-grid [4–6]. To enhance
the power quality of a micro-grid, some passive and/or active
devices employed in distribution networks were recommended
[7, 8]. However, the grid-connected inverters can be embedded in
the power quality enhancement function, apart from renewable
integration function. This kind of grid-connected inverter with
ancillary service of power quality enhancement is usually called as
multi-functional grid-connected inverter (MFGCI) [9–13]. With the
aid of MFGCIs, extra power quality conditioners may no longer be
essential in an inverter-dominated micro-grid avoiding the additional
investment and operational cost of power quality conditioners.
The circuit topologies and control strategies of MFGCIs for
single-phase application are well documented in [9, 14, 15].
Authors in [16–20] have proposed some control schemes of
three-phase MFGCIs, and some MFGCIs with the functions of
uniformed power quality conditioners were validated in [21, 22].
In these literatures, it is clear that the power quality enhancement
is just the auxiliary function of an MFGCI compared with RES
integration. The capacity of an MFGCI used for power quality
enhancement is limited and related to its working condition.
Therefore, how to utilise the limited capacity margin of an MFGCI
and optimise its power quality enhancement function is a very
important issue. In [23, 24], a limiter with strategic control is used
to guarantee that the output current of the MFGCI is in the safe
level. In [25], an agent-based communication strategy is proposed
to coordinate the multiple MFGCIs to share the power quality
issues in a micro-grid. Without using communication channels, a
cascaded control scheme based on the limitations of conductance
and susceptance is further presented in [26].
capacity condition, there are two issues should be further
investigated.
† First, the power quality levels of a micro-grid, before and after the
compensation of MFGCI, are hardly quantified. A comprehensive
power quality evaluation (CPQE) model is needed to guide the
power quality service of an MFGCI and the strategic usage of the
limited capacity. In this paper, a catastrophe-decision-based CPQE
method is proposed to quantify the power quality of a micro-grid
and judge the performance of an MFGCI on power quality service.
It can hugely eliminate the influence from experts’ experience
compared with traditional CPQE approaches based on analytic
hierarchy processing [27], fuzzy logic [28], or artificial neural
network [29].
† Second, harmonic and reactive power issues were set with the
same weights in the previous MFGCI application studies [23–26].
However, to optimally utilise the limited capacity of an MFGCI,
the harmonic and reactive power issues should be assigned with
the independent weights. In such a way, it can enhance the power
quality of the micro-grid as much as possible guided by the
CPQE-based model [11].
In this paper, a multi-objective optimal compensation control
strategy is proposed for MFGCI application in a micro-grid. This
control strategy aims to use the minimum capacity of an MFGCI
and optimise the defined CPQE index. The rest of this paper is
organised as follows. In Section 2, the typical micro-grid feeder
studied in this paper is briefly introduced. The multi-objective
control model for the optimised power quality compensation for
MFGCI application is presented in Section 3. In Section 4, some
experimental results performed on a 10 kVA prototype are selected
to verify the validity and feasibility of the proposed
multi-objective-based optimal control strategy. Section 5 concludes
this paper.

IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 761
2 Mathematical model and control scheme
of MFGCI
The configuration of a typical micro-grid feeder is depicted in Fig. 1.
The line-to-neutral root-mean-square (RMS) voltage and
fundamental line-frequency of the utility are Un = 110 V and fn =
50 Hz, respectively. The feeder consists of a diode rectifier with
resistive load, a resistive-capacitive load, and an MFGCI. The
external parts of the feeder are equivalently regarded as a set of
voltage sources with inner inductor Lg at the point of common
coupling (PCC). The MFGCI employs a typical three-phase
two-level converter with output filter inductor L. Furthermore, the
dc-link of the MFGCI is considered as a dc voltage source with
voltage Udc associated with capacitor Cdc. Normally, the MFGCI
for RES integration injects purely active power into the micro-grid
[30–32], but the current igabc flows through PCC may be low
power factor (PF) and high total harmonic distortion (THD) due to
the reactive and harmonic loads in the feeder. However, if the
MFGCI can also partially generate reactive and harmonic current
to feed the local loads in the micro-grid, the power quality at PCC
can be greatly enhanced.
It is supposed that the three phases of the grid are symmetrical.
According to the circuit model of the MFGCI, the dynamic
characteristic of the grid-tied current iabc across filter inductors L
can be expressed as
.
Liabc = uoabc − uabc − Rd iabc (1)
where uoabc and uabc stand for the output voltage of the MFGTI and
PCC, respectively; Rd represents the equivalent parasitic resistor of
filter inductor, insulated gate nipolar transistors (IGBTs), and lines.
According to (1), the transfer function from the grid-tied current to
the output voltage of MFGTI can be written as
G1 = I(s)/Uo (s) = 1/(Ls + Rd ) (2)
Similarly, the transfer function from the grid-tied current to the
voltage of PCC can be expressed as
G2 = I(s)/U (s) = −1/(Ls + Rd ) (3)
Taking any phase for instance, the block model of the MFGTI can be
derived, with the aid of (2) and (3), as indicated in Fig. 1b, where
Kpwm = Udc/2 is the equivalent gain of the MFGTI.
To confirm the accuracy current-tracking for RESs integration and
power quality compensation, a multiple proportional-resonant (PR)
is employed, which can be expressed as

2Krh vch s
GPR (s) = Kp + (4)
s 2 + 2 v s + v2
ch h (10)
h=1,3,5,7
where ω1(ωc1) and ωh(ωch) are angular frequency (cut-off angular
frequency) of fundamental and hth harmonic components; Kp and
Krh (h = 1, 3, 5, 7) are proportional and integral gains of the PR
controller, respectively. The open-loop and close-loop Bode
diagrams of the MFGCI with PR controller are given in Figs. 1c
and d, where ωc1 = ωch = 1 rad/s, Kp = 2.5 and Krh = 20. It can be
seen that appropriate zero-error current-tracking feature can be
achieved at the resonant angular frequencies, thanks to the high
gain and zero phase-shift performance of the PR controller at such
frequencies, where the controlled plant model is G = GPRG1.
3 Multi-objective optimal compensation of the
MFGCI
3.1 Model of the multi-objective optimal compensation
To quantify the cared power quality of the micro-grid, a CPQE
model is established based on the catastrophe decision theory as
shown in Fig. 2 [33].
762
As shown in Fig. 2, the CPQE index F1 consists of the two factors,
namely THD and true power factor (TPF), where the TPF except for
harmonic is defined as
TPF = P/(3UI1 ) (5)
where U is the line-to-neutral RMS utility voltage, I1 is the RMS
value of the fundamental current of igabc in any phase, P stands
for the active power.
According to catastrophe decision theory, the two factors forms a
cusp catastrophe model, as depicted in Fig. 2, and it can be expressed
as
f (y) = y4 + x1 y2 + x2 y (6)
where y represents the state variable, x1 and x2 are the THD and TPF
of grid-connected current igabc through the PCC, respectively.
The points in the equilibrium surface of the cusp catastrophe
model satisfy f′(y) = 0. While its set of singularities can be got by
setting f’′(y) = 0. As a result, the points in the bifurcation equation
of the model can be expressed as

f ′ (y) = 4y3 + 2x1 y + x2
(7)
f ′′ (y) = 12y2 + 2x1
Eliminating the y in (7), it can be derived that
 
ya = −x1 /6, yb = 3 x2 /8 (8)
To guarantee x1, x2, and y all within [0, 1] for decision application, x1
in ya multiplies –6, and x2 in yb are reduced 8 times, as indicated in
[33]. Hence the normalised bifurcation equations can be rewritten as
√ √
y′a = x1 , y′b = 3 x2 (9)
Since the model in (6) is special and just two factors can be
contained, a further consideration is needed for other analytical
indexes includes more than two factors. According to the
catastrophe theory, when the factors of CPQE index to be
considered are more than two, some other models such as
swallowtail catastrophe, butterfly catastrophe, etc. can be
employed, as indicated in [33].
To eliminate the influence of variables with different units, the
factors x1 and x2 need to be normalised. It should be noted that,
normalised factors have ‘smaller-and-better’ feature. The
normalised x1 and x2 can be written as

x p1 = (x1 − x1min )/(x1max − x1min ) = y1 x1 + l1
x p2 = (x2max − x2 )/(x2max − x2min ) = y2 x2 + l2
where
 
y1 = 1/(x1max − x1min ) l1 = −x1min /(x1max − x1min )
, (11)
y2 = −1/(x2max − x2min ) l2 = x2max /(x2max − x2min )
where x1max and x1min can be chosen as the THD of current through
PCC igabc before the MFGCI compensating and zero, respectively; in
contrast, x2max and x2min can be chosen as unity and the TPF of igabc
before the MFGCI compensating, respectively. Because, the THD
and TPF of igabc are ideally controlled as zero and unity, after the
MFGCI carries out perfect power quality compensation. It should
be noted that the reference values for x1max and x2max are base
values for the normalising process, and they also can be chosen as
other values. For instance, maximum THD x1max also can be 100%,
and the maximum power quality PF x2max can be 1. In practice, all
the optimal compensation algorithm can be embedded in the
micro-grid central controller (MGCC) as discussed in Section 6.
The multi-objective optimal compensation control strategy for
MFGCI application will be established step-by-step as follows.
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 1 Configuration of studied micro-grid and MFGCI
a Micro-grid feeder with MFGCI
b Schematic of current-tracking control of MFGCI
c Open-loop Bode diagram of MFGCI
d Close-loop Bode diagram of MFGCI

IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 763

Fig. 2 CPQE model based on catastrophe decision theory
3.1.1 Optimal objectives: The first objective for an MFGCI is
the CPQE index. According to the catastrophe decision theory and
the normalised factors in (10) and (11) [33], CPQE index can be
expressed as
 
F1 = 0.5 x p1 + 3 x p2
 
= 0.5 y1 x1 + l1 + 3 y2 x2 + l2 (12)
It should be noted that the contribution of TPF to F1 is the cube root
of xp2 and it is much less important than factor xp1, since the
contribution of TPF is less than the same THD in F1, as shown in
Fig. 2. Generally, the reactive results from the loads associated
with electric or magnetic field, and all components of the power
system such as generators, conductors, transformers, and
switchgear would be increased in size (and cost) to carry the extra
reactive current [34]. On the other hand, the harmonic results from
the non-linear factors of machine, transformer, electronic elements,
etc., and harmonics have a number of undesirable effects on power
system components and loads. It may cause nuisance tripping of
sensitive electronic loads and overheating of transformers, and
even can degrade meter accuracy, etc. [35]. As a result, a series of
standard requirements on harmonic and reactive has been
promulgated to confirm the safety and economic operation of the
utility. Usually, it is typically required that the TPF is more than
0.9 to 0.95 and the THD is less than 5% [36]. For example, if the
TPF of a power system is 0.9, the acceptable reactive current
should be Iq = I1sin(cos–10.9) = 0.45I1. On the contrary, for a same
power system, if the THD is 5%, the allowable harmonic current
is Ih = 0.05I1. That is to say, a power system can accept much
more reactive current compared with harmonic current, hence the
THD is paid much more attention to quantify the CPQE index.
The second objective for the MFGCI is the apparent capacity
utilised for power quality enhancement, which can be written as

F2 = S12 + S22 (13)
where S1 and S2 are apparent capacity of the MFGCI employed to
compensate harmonic and reactive current, respectively. The
calculation of S1 and S2 will be discussed separately as follows.
First, for the capacity to compensate harmonic components S1, the
RMS values of harmonic components of grid-connected current igabc
before and after compensation are Ih0 and Ih. Correspondingly, the
THD results of igabc in these cases are x10 and x1, respectively.
Then, the capacity of harmonic components of igabc before and
764
after compensation of the MFGCI, Sh0 and Sh, can be expressed as
Sh0 = 3UIh0 = 3U (x10 I1 ) (14)
Sh = 3UIh = 3U (x1 I1 ) = 3UI1 (1 − a1 )x10 (15)
where α1 = (Ih0–Ih)/Ih0 is the compensated percentage of harmonic
current and needs to be optimally selected. To avoid injecting
surplus harmonic current into the utility and introducing extra
power quality problem, the output harmonic current of the MFGCI
should not be larger than the initialised current of local load,
namely Ih ≤ Ih0. If the MFGCI does not activate the power quality
service function, the harmonic current remained in the micro-grid
is Ih = Ih0 and α1 = 0. If the MFGCI compensates all the harmonic
current in the micro-grid, there is no harmonic current in the
micro-grid, Ih = 0 and α1 = 1. Hence the compensation coefficient
α1 is limited between 0 and 1. Apparent capacity of the MFGCI
for harmonic current compensation can be written as
 
S1 = 2 − S 2 = 3UI
Sh0 h 1 x10 − x1
2 2 (16)
Second, for the capacity to compensate reactive components, before
and after the MFGCI activates the power quality service, the reactive
capacity of igabc are Sq0 and Sq, respectively. As indicated in Fig. 3,
the PFs before and after compensation can be, respectively,
expressed as

TPF0 = cos w0 = x20 = P/ P2 + Q0 2 (17)

TPF = cos w = x2 = P/ P2 + Q2 (18)
where Q0 and Q are the reactive power flow through PCC before and
after power quality compensation, and P is the active power through
PCC. j0 and j are TPF angles before and after reactive current
compensation of the MFGCI, while x20 and x2 are the
corresponding TPFs.
According to the power analysis of reactive compensation shown
in Fig. 3, the capacity of the MFGCI used for reactive compensation
can be expressed as
DQ = Q0 − Q = P( tan w0 − tan w) (19)
The TPF at the PCC before and after compensation satisfies as
tan w = tan(cos−1 x2 ) = Q/P = (1 − a2 )Q0 /P (20)
where α2 = (Q0–Q)/Q0 is the compensated percentage of the reactive
current that should be optimally designed. Similar to the results of
coefficient α1 mentioned before, the coefficient α2 is also limited
between 0 and 1. There is α2 = 0, if there is no reactive
compensation of the MFGCI. If the MFGCI carries out full
reactive compensation, it is α2 = 1. Thus, apparent capacity of the
MFGCI for reactive compensation can be written as
S2 = DQ = P( tan w0 − tan w) = a2 Q0 (21)
Fig. 3 Power analysis before and after MFGCI compensation
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
3.1.2 Constraints conditions: As previously mentioned, Table 1 Parameters of simulated model
compensation coefficients α1 and α2 should be naturally restricted
utility line–line voltage 380 V, fundamental frequency 50 Hz, inner
among 0 and 1, that is inductor 1 mH.
PV string modules BP365 65 W, 20 series and 10 parallel, open voltage

0 ≤ a1 ≤ 1 400 V, short current 41 A, temperature 25°, solar insolation
(22) 800 W/m2.
0 ≤ a2 ≤ 1 MFGCI DC-link voltage 650 V, capacitor 6000 μF, LC filter 1 mH and
20 μF.
local diode-rectifier resistor 50 Ω, resistive and capacitive 10 Ω and
The power quality should be enhanced after the MFGCI activates loads 1000 μF.
power quality enhancement function, namely

0 ≤ x1 ≤ x10
(23)
x20 ≤ x2 ≤ 1 current iabc. Thus, no matter what the load is, the load current iLabc
always equals to igabc + iabc by using Kirchhoff’s Current Law.
In summary, the multi-objective optimal compensation model for The reference current iref,dq in rotating dq frame of the MFGCI
MFGCI can be derived, according to (10)–(23), as consists of two parts. One part igdq is used to track the power
generation of RESs. The other part icdq is utilised to optimally
  compensate the power quality issues at the PCC. The
min F1 = 0.5 x p10 + 3 x p20 transformation matrix T1 in Fig. 4 is utilised to calculate the
 reference current for power generation tracking, which can be
min F2 = S12 + S22 written as
⎧




⎪ 0 ≤ a1 , a2 ≤ 1 (24)

ud
ud
⎪
⎪ igd 1 Pref Qref
⎨0 ≤ x ≤ x , x ≤ x ≤ 1 = T1 = (26)
1
10

20 2 igq
uq u
2d +
u2q −Qref Pref
uq
s.t.
⎪
⎪ S = 3UI x2 − x2
⎪
⎩
1 1 10 1
S2 = a2 Q0 where Pref and Qref are the reference active and reactive power,
respectively. In addition, transformation matrix T2 is employed to
It should be noted that the CPQE index of PCC after compensation separate the fundamental active and reactive current from the
will be smaller than the one before compensation and not less than equivalent load current [11], which can be expressed as
zero, namely




ipd
ud
id +
uq
iq 1 0
ud
F1 [ [0, s) = (27)
(25) ipq
u2d +
u2q 0 1
uq
 



√ √
uq
id −
ud
iq 0 1
ud
where s = 0.5 x p10 + 3 x p20 is the maximum CPQE of iqd
= (28)
micro-grid before the power quality compensation is activated. iqq
u2d +
u2q −1 0
uq

3.2 Reference current generation algorithm
Aforementioned CPQE-based multi-objective optimal compensation
model considers the harmonic and reactive components separately,
and it requires compensating these components distinguishably.
Therefore, the algorithm of reference current generation should
independently detect harmonic and reactive components of the
equivalent load current at PCC. In such condition, an algorithm
can meet the requirements of the optimal model is presented as
shown in Fig. 4, where Tabc/dq is the Park transformation and Tdq/
abc is its inverse transformation. Besides, an extra block is
employed to detect the zero-sequence current i0 and eliminate its
influence. To obtain the fundamental positive-sequence
components of voltage and current, low pass filters (LPFs) are also
employed as shown in Fig. 4. It should be noted that, thanks to
the ‘T’-type structure of MFGCI in Figs. 1a and 4, the reference
current generation algorithm is independent of the active and
passive elements of local loads, because the total load current can
be obtained by the summation of utility current igabc and MFGCI
where ipdq and iqdq are the active and reactive parts of the
fundamental component of equivalent load current iLabc = iabc +
igabc in rotating dq frame [26].
udq and
idq , corresponding to
fundamental components of voltage and current in natural abc
frame, are constants in rotating dq frame and can be filtered out by
LPFs.
Therefore, the harmonic components of the equivalent load
current in synchronous rotating dq frame ihdq can be derived as
ihdq = idq − i pdq − iqdq (29)
To calculate the compensation part of the reference current icdq of the
MFGCI, the detected harmonic and reactive components ihdq and iqdq
should multiply the compensation coefficients α1 and α2 according
to the multi-objective optimal model mentioned before, which can
be expressed as
icdq = a1 ihdq + a2 iqdq (30)

Fig. 4 Reference current generation algorithm of the MFGCI

IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 765
Fig. 5 Simulated results of MFGCI for power quality service
a Utility voltage
b Output current of MFGCI
c Utility current at PCC of micro-grid
d Voltage and current of PV by MPPT
e Power loss of IGBTs and diodes
f dc current of MFGCI
g dc voltage of MFGCI
h Zoom in of dc-link voltage
i Zoom in of dc-link voltage

In summary, power generation part igdq and power quality

compensation part icdq comprise the reference current of the
MFGCI in rotating dq frame. With the help of the inverse Park
transformation, the reference current of the MFGCI in abc frame
can be achieved. As a result, the MFGCI can be properly

Table 2 Parameters of the experimental test rig

utility line-neutral RMS voltage Un = 110 V, frequency

fn = 50 Hz, inner inductor Lg = 3 mH Fig. 6 Measured steady-state and dynamic responses of the MFGCI
MFGCI dc link voltage Udc = 350 V and capacitor Cdc =
a Instantaneous current and power waveforms
4400 μF, switching frequency 10 kHz, sampling
b Performance of the PR-based current-tracking controller
frequency 20 kHz, filter inductor L = 0.5 mH
c Steady-state performances
non-linear load diode rectifier with resistor RL = 20 Ω
d Power quality service function activated
resistive-capacitive R = 10 Ω, C = 1000 μF
e Harmonic distribution of PCC current before and after compensation to full
load
compensation

IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770

766 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
controlled by the previously mentioned PR-based current-tracking
controller as shown in Fig. 1.
4 Simulated results and analysis
To verify the performance of MFGCI for power quality service, a
detailed simulation study is achieved by using PLECS. Parameters
of the simulated model are listed in Table 1. A typical boost
converter is used to link the photovoltaic (PV) and MFGCI, and
incremental conductance method is employed for the maximum
power point tracking (MPPT).
Fig. 5 shows the dynamic responses when MFGCI activated the
power quality compensation function at 0.5 s. It can be found from
Figs. 5a–c that, because of the power quality service of MFGCI,
the output current of MFGCI is distorted. However, the power
quality of interaction current between micro-grid and the utility is
enhanced.
Figs. 5d–i further indicates how the power quality service
influences the MFGCI. From Fig. 5d, it can be seen that the
auxiliary service hardly affects the MPPT control of PV string.
However, as shown in Fig. 5e, the extra harmonic and reactive
current generation of the MFGCI will increase the power loss of
IGBTs and diodes in the inverter, which will decrease the
efficiency of MFGCI. As demonstrated in Fig. 5f, the extra current
output of the MFGCI for power quality service calls for much
more dc current. The power quality service also introduces the
fluctuations of dc voltage, as shown in Figs. 5g–i. When the
compensation function starts working, there is a transient process,
where the dc-link voltage slightly deviates from its reference
value, as depicted in Fig. 5h. Besides, as displayed in Fig. 5i,
because of the harmonic current compensation, the voltage of
dc-link contains small sixth-order harmonic component.
5 Experimental validation
To verify the validity and feasibility of the proposed multi-objective
optimal control strategy, a micro-grid feeder with a 10 kVA MFGCI
prototype as displayed in Fig. 1 is built and tested. The key
parameters of the system are listed in Table 2.
5.1 Power generation tracking of the MFGCI
To confirm the steady-state and dynamic performances of the
MFGCI without power quality service function, the waveforms of
dynamic responses (the MFGCI starts up and active power Pref
steps from 5 to 8 kW) are illustrated in Figs. 6a and b. It can be
observed that the PR controller can accurately track the reference
power generation or grid-connected current, and the magnitude of
the steady-state current-tracking error is approximate 1.5 A.
Fig. 6c depicts the TPF, THD of grid-connected current, and
efficiency of the MFGCI in different active power generation
Fig. 7 Pareto solutions of the multi-objective optimal compensation model of the MFGCI
a Pareto fronts
b Optimal compensation coefficients
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
conditions. It can be seen that the THD is below 5% and the TPF
approximates 99.9% as long as the active power is bigger than
half of its rated capacity. Especially, the efficiency of the MFGCI
in condition of power quality service is also measured. Due to the
extra current output for reactive and harmonic compensation, the
loss of the MFGCI is slightly increased. The efficiency of MFGCI
with compensation is decreased compared with normal
grid-connected inverter without compensation.
In cases of that active/reactive power generation reference of the
MFGCI is Pref = 1.5 kW, Qref = 0 var, Fig. 6d demonstrates the
dynamic responses of the MFGCI from no compensation to full
compensation of the power quality issues in the micro-grid feeder.
The instantaneous waveforms of the voltage, current, and power at
PCC are illustrated in Fig. 6d. It can be observed that the MFGCI
can seamlessly transfer from no compensation to full
compensation. Besides, the oscillation of active and reactive power
can be significantly eliminated, which is caused by the harmonic
current of the non-linear load. Fig. 6e presents the harmonic
distribution of the PCC current before and after the MFGCI
carrying out full compensation. It can be seen that the 6n ± 1
(n = 1, 2, 3, …) orders of harmonic components mainly distort the
PCC current due to the diode rectifier with resistive load. Before
full compensation of the MFGCI, TPF and THD of the PCC
current are 0.9808 and 15.45%, respectively. After the MFGCI
activates its full compensation, the TPF of the PCC current is
enhanced to 0.9999 and its THD is reduced to 5.31%.
5.2 Multi-objective optimal compensation of the MFGCI
To achieve optimal compensation of the MFGCI, the Pareto
solutions of the multi-objective optimal compensation model in
Section 3 should be derived. With the help of MATLAB, in the
case of mentioned condition x1max = 15.45% and x2max = 0.9808,
the Pareto fronts of the multi-objective optimal model can be
obtained, as shown in Fig. 7.
It can be found from Fig. 6d that, for the micro-grid feeder in
Fig. 1, without power quality compensation (α1 = α2 = 0) of the
MFGCI in Fig. 4, the CPQE index of the PCC current are F1 =
0.6342 in the conditions of TPF0 = 0.9808 and THD0 = 15.45%
initially; meanwhile, the apparent capacity of the MFGCI for
power quality enhancement is F2 = 0 VA. On the other hand, to
compensate all the harmonic and reactive current through the
PCC, the CPQE index will be F1 = 0, but the MFGCI should
employ compensation capacity 1.8185 kVA. This condition, where
α1 = α2 = 1 in Fig. 4, is called as full compensation in the
following part. It should be noted that 18.19% of the rated
capacity of the MFGCI will be utilised to enhance power quality.
However, this kind of full compensation condition may not be
available. Especially, when renewable energy is very sufficient and
most of the MFGCI capacity is used for active power generation,
the rest apparent capacity of the MFGCI for power quality
enhancement may not be enough to compensate all the harmonic
and reactive current components through PCC. Therefore, the
767
Pareto fronts are very important for optimal compensation of the
MFGCI. Thanks to the Pareto fronts in Fig. 7, the MFGCI can
optimally operate and enhance the power quality of the PCC
current according to its available capacity margin F2. Hence the
power quality compensation of the MFGCI can be much more
flexible.
It also should be noted that the employed PR controller of the
MFGCI cannot perform perfect zero-error on tracking high-order
Fig. 8 Experimental results of the optimal compensation strategies
a Waveforms of the dynamic from half compensation to optimal compensation I
b Harmonic distribution of PCC current igabc in strategy I
c Waveforms of the dynamic from half compensation to optimal compensation II
d Harmonic distribution of PCC current igabc in strategy II
768
harmonic current as indicated by the experimental results in Fig. 6.
Thus, the MFGCI cannot ideally compensate all the harmonic
components in practice.
In summary, due to the cut-off frequency of the controller,
steady-state error of current-tracking, and the limited available
apparent capacity for power quality compensation, it is hard to
exactly and ideally compensate all the harmonic and reactive
current through PCC. To optimally utilise the limited capacity and
enhance the power quality as well as possible, the proposed
multi-objective optimal compensation strategy is a good choice.
To verify the effectiveness and flexibility of the proposed optimal
model and strategic compensation, the optimal compensation
results compared with the results of half compensation are given
as follows. The half compensation is defined as operation mode
with α1 = α2 = 0.5. In half compensation condition, the CPQE
index is F1 = 0.3565, and the apparent capacity is F2 = 0.7060 kVA
according to (12)–(21).
5.2.1 Optimal compensation strategy I: Optimal
compensation has the same CPQE index as half
compensation does: According to the Pareto solution of the
multi-objective optimal model in Fig. 7, the optimal coefficients
are α1 = 0.5379 and α2 = 0.05973, in the condition of F1 = 0.36
and F2 = 0.6121 kVA. That is, to achieve the same power quality
level of half compensation, the harmonic and reactive current can
be compensated in different percentages, because of the CPQE
index model in Fig. 2 and the control scheme in Fig. 4, where the
harmonic and reactive factors are separately considered. In such an
optimal way that, the apparent capacity of the MFGCI for power
quality compensation can be saved.
Experimental results of the dynamic responses from half
compensation to optimal compensation using optimal
compensation strategy I are shown in Fig. 8. The waveforms of
instantaneous voltage, current, and power at PCC are illustrated in
Fig. 8a. It is validated that the optimal strategy I focuses on
reactive compensation less, compared with the ones of half
compensation. Meanwhile, the harmonic current after optimal
compensation is similar with the results of half compensation as
previously mentioned α1 = α2 = 0.5 for half compensation and α1 =
0.5379, α2 = 0.05973 for optimal compensation I. Furthermore, the
digital results of harmonic distribution are displayed in Fig. 8b.
The TPF of the PCC current is 0.9953 and 0.9837, as well as the
THD is 8.71% and 7.69% in half compensation and optimal
compensation I, respectively. In addition, for the half
compensation and optimal compensation I, the actual CPQE
indexes are 0.3654 and 0.3904, as well as the utilised capacity for
power quality compensation is 0.8825 kVA and 0.5461 kVA,
respectively, according to (12) and (13). Compared with the
theoretical solutions mentioned before, the actual compensation
capacity employed is less due to the error of current-tracking.
5.2.2 Optimal compensation strategy II: Optimal
compensation has the same apparent capacity as half
compensation does: According to the Pareto solutions in
Fig. 7, if the optimal compensation strategy II have utilised the
same capacity as the one of half compensation F2 = 0.7060 kVA,
the optimal compensation coefficients of harmonic and reactive
components are α1 = 0.6359 and α2 = 0.07095, respectively. It
should be noted that the CPQE index of the PCC can be
effectively decreased from 0.3565 to 0.31. It can be found that,
using optimal control strategy II, the power quality at PCC can be
greatly enhanced in the cases of the MFGCI utilising the same
compensation capacity as half compensation doing.
Experimental results of the dynamic responses from half
compensation to optimal compensation using optimal
compensation strategy II are demonstrated in Fig. 8. The
waveforms of instantaneous voltage, current, and power at PCC
provided in Fig. 8c, it is revealed that the optimal strategy pays
less attention to the reactive compensation, compared with the
results of half compensation as analysed in the CPQE model.
Meanwhile, the harmonic current after optimal compensation is
little smaller than the ones of half compensation because the
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 9 Hierarchical-based micro-grid application of the proposed optimal strategy
a Configuration of a micro-grid combines multiple MFGCIs
b Algorithm of the tertiary controller in the MGCC to coordinate MFGCIs
coefficients for harmonic compensation are 0.6359 and 0.5,
respectively. Hence employed harmonic compensation in optimal
compensation II has small difference from the one in half
compensation. Furthermore, the harmonic distribution is shown in
Fig. 8d. The TPF of the PCC current is 0.9953 and 0.9841, as
well as the THD is 8.632% and 6.729% in half compensation and
optimal compensation II, respectively. In addition, for half
compensation and optimal compensation II, actual CPQE indexes
are 0.3582 and 0.3456, as well as the utilised capacity for power
quality compensation is 0.8921 kVA and 0.6459 kVA,
respectively. Compared with the optimal compensation strategy I,
strategy II pays much attention to the harmonic and reactive
current compensation. As a result, there is more capacity is utilised
and the CPQE index is much smaller than the one of strategy I. In
summary, more capacity usage of the MFGCI, better power
quality at PCC can be guaranteed. If the available capacity for
power quality enhancement is limited, the MFGCI can flexibly and
optimally work based on the multi-objective compensation in
Fig. 7 to customise the power quality to a certain level.
6 Discussions
To integrate the multiple MFGCIs in a micro-grid, a configuration is
displayed in Fig. 9 to show how the proposed method can
cooperatively handle the power quality issues in a feeder with
communication. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the proposed
multi-objective optimal compensation model can be solved by the
CPQE-based multi-objective optimal model in the MGCC, and the
MGCC also download the optimal compensation coefficients α1
and α2 to MFGCIs’ local controllers. In general, the MGCC can
be a hierarchical controller as indicated in [37, 38], and it also
should be noted that the optimal compensation of MFGCIs may be
embedded in the tertiary control to dispatch the MFGCIs to
provide optimal power quality services.
In the micro-grid, the MGCC detects the utility voltage uPCC and
current iPCC at PCC, and then the THD and TPF of the current can be
computed. In addition, the initial information of the optimal model
can be given. Therefore, the aforementioned multi-objective
optimal model in Section 3 can be solved in the tertiary control,
and the obtained Pareto fronts solution is numerically saved in the
MGCC. To meet the requirement of the system operator or the
owner of the micro-grid on the CPQE index F1, the desired
compensation coefficients, α1 and α2, can be obtained and sent to
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
the multiple MFGCIs in the micro-grid. With the guide of MGCC,
each MFGCI just partly compensates the power quality issues in
the micro-grid according to the multi-objective optimal model in
the tertiary control. Thus, each MFGCI can autonomously work as
an individual module without needing the information of other
MFGCIs. In the secondary control, the power generation of
MFGCIs is exchanged and modified by the MGCC to ensure the
safe and economic operation of the micro-grid as suggested in
[37, 38]. In the local primary controller of the MFGCI, the output
current tracking controller is embedded, and the MFGCI can
generate the desired active, reactive, and harmonic current to the
micro-grid to fulfill the functions to interface DERs into utility and
enhance the power quality of the micro-grid as expected as
demonstrated in [37, 38].
7 Conclusions
In micro-grids, provision of power quality enhancement service by
MFGCIs is important. As the apparent power capacity of an
MFGCI is limited, it is necessary to utilise the limited capacity
effectively and enhance the power quality of the micro-grid as
much as possible. A multi-objective optimal compensation
strategy for MFGCI application is proposed in this paper.
Besides, a CPQE approach based on catastrophe decision theory
is applied to evaluate the micro-grid power quality in a
comprehensive and quantitative way. In such a way, an MFGCI
can flexibly and optimally enhance the power quality of the
micro-grid without extra power quality conditioners to a certain
extent. Experimental results from a feeder of a micro-grid have
confirmed the validity and feasibility of the proposed optimal
compensation strategy.
8 Acknowledgments
Thanks for the financial supports from National Key Basic Research
Program of China (‘973 Program’) (under grant no.
2012CB215200), National High Technology Research and
Development Program (‘863 Program’) (under grant no.
2011AA050204), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(under grant no. 51377184), and Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities (under grant nos.
106112015CDJXY150005, CDJZR12150074).
769
9 References
1 Loh, P.C., Chai, Y.K., Li, D., et al.: ‘Autonomous operation of distributed storages
in microgrids’, IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (1), pp. 23–30
2 Nutkani, I.U., Loh, P.C., Blaabjerg, F.: ‘Cost-based droop scheme with lower
generation costs for microgrids’, IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (5), pp. 1171–1180
3 Guo, Z., Sha, D., Liao, X.: ‘Energy management by using point of common
coupling frequency as an agent for islanded microgrids’, IET Power Electron.,
2014, 7, (8), pp. 2111–2122
4 Enslin, J.H.R., Heskes, P.J.M.: ‘Harmonic interaction between a large number of
distributed power inverters and the distribution network’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2004, 19, (6), pp. 1586–1593
5 Bollen, M.H., Hassan, F.: ‘Integration of distributed generation in the power
system’ (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2011)
6 Eloy-Garcia, J., Vasquez, J.C., Guerrero, J.M.: ‘Grid simulator for power quality
assessment of micro-grids’, IET Power Electron., 2013, 6, (4), pp. 700–709
7 Prodanovic, M., Green, T.C.: ‘High-quality power generation through distributed
control of a power park microgrid’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2006, 53, (5),
pp. 1471–1482
8 Rahmani, B., Bina, M.T.: ‘Reciprocal effects of the distorted wind turbine source
and the shunt active power filter: full compensation of unbalance and harmonics
under ‘capacitive non-linear load’ condition’, IET Power Electron., 2013, 6, (8),
pp. 1668–1682
9 Zeng, Z., Zhao, R., Yang, H., et al.: ‘Topologies and control strategies of
multi-functional grid-connected inverters for power quality enhancement: A
comprehensive review’, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2013, 24, pp. 223–270
10 Fan, L.L., Miao, Z.X.: ‘Mitigating SSR using DFIG-based wind generation’, IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2012, 3, (3), pp. 349–358
11 Zeng, Z., Yang, H., Tang, S., et al.: ‘Objective-oriented power quality
compensation of multi-functional grid-tied inverters and its application in
micro-grids’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2015, 30, (3), pp. 1255–1265
12 Tummuru, N.R., Mishra, M.K., Srinivas, S.: ‘Multifunctional VSC controlled
microgrid using instantaneous symmetrical components theory’, IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, 2014, 5, (1), pp. 313–322
13 Zeng, Z., Yang, H., Guerrero, J.M., et al.: ‘Multi-functional distributed generation
unit for power quality enhancement’, IET Power Electron., 2015, 8, (3),
pp. 467–476
14 Dai, N.Y., Zhang, W.C., Wong, M.C., et al.: ‘Analysis, control and experimental
verification of a single-phase capacitive-coupling grid-connected inverter’, IET
Power Electron., 2015, 8, (5), pp. 770–782
15 Vasquez, J.C., Mastromauro, R.A., Guerrero, J.M., et al.: ‘Voltage support
provided by a droop-controlled multifunctional inverter’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2009, 56, (11), pp. 4510–4519
16 Sawant, R.R., Chandorkar, M.C.: ‘Methods for multi-functional converter control
in three-phase four-wire systems’, IET Power Electron., 2009, 2, (1), pp. 52–66
17 Mahdianpoor, F.M., Hooshmand, R.A., Ataei, M.: ‘A new approach to
multifunctional dynamic voltage restorer implementation for emergency control
in distribution systems’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2011, 26
18 Singh, M., Khadkikar, V., Chandra, A.: ‘Grid synchronisation with harmonics and
reactive power compensation capability of a permanent magnet synchronous
generator-based variable speed wind energy conversion system’, IET Power
Electron., 2011, 4, (1), pp. 122–130
19 Todeschini, G., Emanuel, A.E.: ‘Wind energy conversion systems as active filters:
Design and comparison of three control methods’, IET Renew. Power Gener.,
2010, 4, (4), pp. 341–353
770
20 Wang, F., Duarte, J.L., Hendrix, M.A.M.: ‘Grid-interfacing converter systems with
enhanced voltage quality for microgrid application-concept and implementation’,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2011, 26, (12), pp. 3501–3513
21 Han, B., Bae, B., Kim, H., et al.: ‘Combined operation of unified power-quality
conditioner with distributed generation’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2006, 21,
(1), pp. 330–338
22 Li, Y., Vilathgamuwa, D.M., Loh, P.C.: ‘Microgrid power quality enhancement
using a three-phase four-wire grid-interfacing compensator’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., 2005, 41, (6), pp. 1707–1719
23 Wu, T.F., Nien, H.S., Shen, C.L., et al.: ‘A single-phase inverter system for PV
power injection and active power filtering with nonlinear inductor consideration’,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2005, 41, (4), pp. 1075–1083
24 Sawant, R.R., Chandorkar, M.C.: ‘Power boundaries in multifunctional converter
control for three-phase four-wire systems’. Proc. IEEE Region 10 Annual Int.
Conf., 2008, pp. 1–6
25 Macken, K.J.P., Vanthournout, K., Van den Keybus, J., et al.: ‘Distributed control
of renewable generation units with integrated active filter’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2004, 19, (5), pp. 1353–1360
26 Zeng, Z., Zhao, R., Yang, H.: ‘Coordinated control of multi-functional grid-tied
inverters using conductance and susceptance limitation’, IET Power Electron.,
2014, 7, (7), pp. 1821–1831
27 Farghal, S.A., Kandil, M.S., Elmitwally, A.: ‘Quantifying electric power quality
via fuzzy modelling and analytic hierarchy processing’, IEE Proc. – Gener.
Trans. Distrib., 2002, 149, (1), pp. 44–49
28 Morsi, W.G., El-Hawary, M.E.: ‘Power quality evaluation in smart grids
considering modern distortion in electric power systems’, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2011, 81, (5), pp. 1117–1123
29 Salarvand, A., Mirzaeian, B., Moallem, M.: ‘Obtaining a quantitative index for
power quality evaluation in competitive electricity market’, IET Gener. Trans.
Distrib., 2010, 4, (7), pp. 810–823
30 Hemdani, A., Dagbagi, M., Naouar, W.M., et al.: ‘Indirect sliding mode power
control for three phase grid connected power converter’, IET Power Electron.,
2015, 8, (6), pp. 977–985
31 Singh, B., Shahani, D.T., Verma, A.K.: ‘Neural network controlled grid interfaced
solar photovoltaic power generation’, IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (3),
pp. 614–626
32 Liu, T., Xia, C.L., Shi, T.H.: ‘Robust model predictive current control of
grid-connected converter without alternating current voltage sensors’, IET Power
Electron., 2014, 7, (12), pp. 2934–2944
33 Zhang, T., Ren, S., Li, S., et al.: ‘Application of the catastrophe progression method
in predicting coal and gas outburst new’, Min. Sci. Technol., 2009, 19, (4),
pp. 430–434
34 Grady, W.M., Santoso, S.: ‘Understanding power system harmonics’, IEEE Power
Eng. Rev., 2001, 21, (11), pp. 8–11
35 Cividino, L.: ‘Power factor, harmonic distortion; causes, effects and
considerations’. IEEE Int. Telecommunications Energy Conf., Washington, DC,
USA, 1992, pp. 506–513
36 Teodorescu, R., Liserre, M., Rodriguez, P.: ‘Grid converters for photovoltaic and
wind power systems’ (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, United Kingdom,
2011)
37 Guerrero, J.M., Vasquez, J.C., Matas, J., et al.: ‘Hierarchical control of
droop-controlled AC and DC microgrids-A general approach toward
standardization’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2011, 58, (1), pp. 158–172
38 Guerrero, J.M., Chandorkar, M., Lee, T., et al.: ‘Advanced control architectures for
intelligent microgrids—Part I: Decentralized and hierarchical control’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., 2013, 60, (4), pp. 1254–1262
IET Power Electron., 2016, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 761–770
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016