Stationary and Dynamic Reference Frame
Comparison Based Microgrid Application
ILYAS BENNIA1, ABDELGHANI HARRAG1,* AND YACINE DAILI1
1
Mechatronics Laboratory (LMETR), Optics and Precision Mechanics Institute,
Ferhat Abbas University Sétif 1
19000 Setif, Algeria
{ilyas.bennia, a.harrag, yacine.daili}@univ-setif.dz
Abstract— Control systems for voltage sources inverters (VSIs)
in distributed generators systems (DGs) and microgrids (MGs)
can be divided into two categories refers to their tasks, inner
loops (level zero) which allows local voltage and current control
and outer control loops (primary control) for ensuring power-
sharing control, inner loops are structured using voltage and
current controllers tied to pulse-width-modulator (PWM) block.
The inner loops provide the voltage reference for the PWM stage,
Moreover, inner loops are crucial for an excellent performance of
DGs and MG. The implementation of inner loops can be achieved
by employing PI controllers in the dq dynamic reference frame
or stationary αβ reference frame using PRES controllers. This
paper presents a comprehensive comparison for voltage and
current controllers implementation in both stationary and
dynamic reference frame for a microgrid (MG) application.
Diagrams of implementations are reviewed and analyzed, the
simulation results are presented to exhibit the performance of
each topology.
A. Keywords—microgrid; inner loops; voltage controller; current
controller ; stationary reference; dynamic reference.
I. INTRODUCTION
Conventional power resources, such as gas, coal, and diesel,
are the main energy sources of electrical energy produced by
traditional power generators worldwide. However, the high
electricity demand leads to the augmentation in consumption
of reserves of non-renewable resources, and generation of
electrical energy from non-renewable resources conducted to
environmental pollution. Therefore, the development of a
distributed generation (DG) system using renewable resources
such as solar and wind energy to produce electricity is
necessary [1].
These renewable resources face many issues to be integrated
and exploited due to the stochastic behavior of their prime
movers. A microgrid is an optimal solution to integrate and
control distributed generators and tied them to the main grid
using low-voltage distribution system based on DG units,
energy storage devices, and load. Additionally, MG can
operate in stand-alone mode or connected to the classical
system distribution [2]. Compared with a single DG unit, a
MG has high capacity and control flexibility to achieve power-
quality requirements [1].
Hierarchical control of MG was introduced in [2] to deal with
control challenges of MG and to enrich smartness and
flexibility to MGs, the hierarchical control consist of three
layers. The primary layer includes droop control method and
virtual impedance loop, this latter is responsible for providing
the voltage reference for inner loops which are often
considered as level zero, inner loops are responsible for
voltage and current regulating by a cascade of controllers, the
secondary layer allows the compensation of the deviations
produced by the primary control and the tertiary layer carry
out the economic side by managing the power flow among the
MG and electrical distribution system[3].
The inner loops are responsible for voltage and current
regulating by a direct interaction with the VSIs which are the
block stones and the significant components of a microgrid,
inner loops consist of a cascaded control structure using a
voltage and current controllers followed by a PWM block.
Here, the control loops regulate inverter state variables by
computing an output voltage reference, which is the
modulated signal by the PWM technic[4].
Inner loops can be implemented in a dq reference frame as
described in [5] [6]. using a conventional PI controller for a
microgrid application, although it can be implemented in αβ
stationary reference frame as studied in [6] [7][8] using PRES
resonant controller which is adopted in many literatures.
This paper is organized as follow. Primary control is
illustrated in section two, Inner loops were reviewed in section
three for either stationary and dynamic reference frame with a
comprehensive comparison to each other, simulation results
exhibit in section four and the paper is concluded by section
five.
II. PRIMARY CONTROL
Implemented locally primary control focuses on power-
sharing, voltage and frequency regulation in both grid forming
and grid feeding mode [6]. This hierarchical layer sends control
in intervals of various milliseconds to the VSIs to maintain the
MG stability, communication in this control layer is undesired
[9], the primary control is divided in two: inner loops or level
zero responsible for adjusting the power converters’ voltage
and current output, and the outer loop is presented by droop
method and virtual impedance loop, it is in charge of ensuring
reliable and correct power-sharing. Inner loops have been
widely studied in the literatures however this topic still subject
to research for enhancing the robustness and the flexibility
against uncertainties, improving dynamic response, reducing
unbalances and harmonic mitigation, developing control
schemes plans capable of working either in grid-connected or
islanded modes and providing a smooth transition for MG
between operations modes, outer loops are represented by the
well-known droop control technique and virtual impedance
loop, droop control has the ability to regulate the frequency and
the voltage amplitude of the voltage reference depending on
the active and reactive powers, and ensuring P and Q flow
which is lead for power-sharing among VSIs, virtual
impedance loop is added to improve the current sharing by
fixing and normalizing the output impedance, figure (2) shows
the primary control, more details are mentioned in [10].
Figure 1. Primary control structure
III. INNER LOOPS
The inner control loops are known as level -zero voltage and
current loops, it consists of two controllers for ensuring the
MG stability, where the voltage reference generated by the
droop control and virtual impedance is the input of the voltage
controller, which in turn generate the current reference for the
current controller, this latter provides the voltage reference for
the PWM block. In this section, level zero is reviewed in terms
of the reference frame used [11] [7].
A. Based on αβ stationary reference frame
Based on the abc/αβ transformation where a three-phase
system is represented in two independent single-phase
systems. Generally, the controller adopted in this topology is a
Proportional-resonant (PRES) controller, where generalized
integrators (GI) are used to perform zero steady-state error
[12], transfer functions of voltage and current controllers
expressed follow:
(1)
(2)
Where Kpv and Kpi are the proportional gains and Kiv, Kii are
the integral gains, and w0 represent the resonant frequency.
The PRES controller shows an infinite gain at the resonant
frequency, which is tuned at the MG frequency [13]. As PRES
controller depends on the frequency, it should be carefully
designed taking in account the frequency response, notice that
a small deviation of the fundamental frequency degrades his
performances. In that case, a frequency adaptive PR controller
is developed in [14], where the idea based on estimating the
resonant frequency using a PLL. Moreover, a harmonic
compensator is given in [7] by:
(3)
It can be added in parallel with the PRES, where h denotes the
order of the harmonic to be attenuated. Which minimize the
total harmonic distortion; in this paper harmonic compensators
are not included. Figure (3) shows the block diagram of level
zero implementation for three-phase VSI in αβ reference
frame.
Figure 2. Voltage and current controllers in αβ refrence frame
Notice that the power calculation in αβ frame using following
equations:
(4)
(5)
B. Based on dq dynamicreference frame
Synchronous or dq reference frame is a frame that rotates
synchronously with the detected MG frequency, using Park
transformation three-phase AC signals under control can be
transformed into DC components in an orthogonal dq frame.
In dq-control, traditional PI controllers has been broadly
adopted in the control of three-phase converters considering
their feature of adjusting direct signals without steady-state
error [13]. The transfer functions of PI controller is based on a
gain to reduce the error and an integrator to eliminate it, they
are described as following:
(6)
(7)
Where Kpv and Kpi represent the proportional gains and Kvi,
Kii are the integral gains, respectively.
In this reference frame, four independent controllers are
responsible for adjusting the direct/quadrature voltage and
current components. In grid-forming converters case, the
voltage reference is provided by the droop control method,
and the current references are generated by the voltage
controllers, however, in this topology, the PI controllers
remain helpless to adjust the oscillations that happen in the dq
signals under unbalanced conditions which means poor
performance in this case [6], notice that the capacity of
harmonic compensation using PI controllers is very low,
figure (4) shows the implementation of inner control loops in
dq reference frame using PI controllers including voltage and
current feed forwards with cross-coupling network to enhance
the performances of controllers , notice that the power
calculation in dq frame as shown in the following equations:
(8)
(9)
(2) for the αβ reference frame and figure (3) for the dq
reference frame both of them attached to a resistive load by
MTLAB-Simulink software without including virtual
impedance, the parameters are described in TABLE I.
Figure (4) and (9) show the tracking capabilities for both
voltage controllers PRES resonators in αβ frame and PI in dq
frame where they achieve a zero steady-state error with a
negligible overshoot for the topology using PR resonant
controller and as we see in figure (9) the AC components
becoming dc components in the synchronous frame, figure (5)
shows the dynamic operation from the current compensator,
where the alpha component of current follows the reference
current, which confirms the good performances of the PRES
in αβ frame, however, the transient response of the current
controller using PI in dq frame depicted in figure (9) is much
slower compared to this latter. Figure (6) presents a fast
dynamic and smooth response of the voltage curve which
confirms the effectiveness of the PRES in αβ frame as
mentioned before and figure (11) presents the voltage curve
using a PI controller in dq frame, the steady-state reached after
0.1 s. The measured active power in stationary reference frame
reached the nominal power which is more accurate than the
measured one in the dynamic reference frame notice that the
technic of measurement is different in each topology as
aforementioned. Total harmonic distortion presented in the
stationary frame using PRES regulator with a portion of
1.19% and 0.41% in the dynamic reference using PI
controllers.
TABLE I. MICROGRID AND CONTROLLERS PARAMETERS

Parameter name Symbol Value Units

Nominal AC voltage V 220 rms volt
Nominal frequency f 50 Hertz
Load resistance R 145.2 ohm
Filter output inductance L1 0.003 H
Filter capacitance C 4.8162e-06 F
Filter inductance L2 0.001 H
Droop control parameters
Proportional frequency droop 0.0003
Kw W/rd
coeffecient
Proportional amplitude droop 0.004
Kv Var/V
coeffecient
αβ frame
Proportional gain PRES 0.2
Kp v A/V
voltage controller
Integralgain PRESvoltage 100
Ki v A/(Vs)
controller
Proportional PRES gain 5
Kp i A −1
current controller
Integral gain PRES current 400
Ki i (As) −1
controller
0.03 × ω
Cut-off frequency W0 rad/s
nom
dq frame
Figure 3. Voltage and current controllers in dq refrence frame Proportional gain voltage 0.1
Kp v A/V
controller
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS Integral gain voltage 3
Ki v A/(Vs)
controller
To compare the performances of the voltage and current Proportional gain current 20
Kp i A −1
controllers under αβ reference frame and dq reference frame a controller
simulation was done using the control loops depicted in figure Integral gain current 1000
Ki i (As) −1
controller
 500 350
Valpha*
400 Valpha
300
Vd*
300
Vd
250
200

Voltage (V)
Voltage(V)

100 200

0 150

-100
100
-200

50
-300

-400 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 4. voltage tracking loop (Valpha) Figure 9. Voltage tracking loop (Vd compenent)

25 35
Ialpha* Id*
20 Ialpha Id
30
15

10 25

5
Current (A)

Current (A)
20
0
15
-5

-10 10

-15
5
-20

-25 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 5. Current tracking loop (Ialpha) Figure 10. Current tracking loop (Id compenent)

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100
Voltage (V)
Voltage(V)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300

-400
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
-400
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 6. Output voltage phase A (αβ framework) Figure 11. Output voltage phase A (dq framework)

9000 6000

8000
5000
7000

6000 4000
Active Power (W)

Active Power (W)

5000
3000
4000

3000 2000

2000
1000
1000

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (seconds) Time (seconds)

Figure 7. Active power curve (αβ framework) Figure 12. Active power curve (dq framework)

Fundamental (49.7Hz) = 311.1 , THD= 0.41%

Fundamental (49.6Hz) = 311.9 , THD= 1.19%

0.9 0.09

0.8 0.08
Mag (% of Fundamental)

0.7 0.07
Mag (% of Fundamental)

0.6 0.06

0.5 0.05

0.4 0.04

0.3 0.03

0.2 0.02

0.1 0.01

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. Output voltage spectrum frequency in αβ framework Figure 13. Output voltage spectrum frequency in dq framework.
From Figures 4 to 12, the PI controller in dq reference frame
is unable to track the sinusoidal reference with zero steady-
state error; while the PRES controller in αβ frame has a
better transient response, zero steady-state error and better
sinusoidal tracking capability which will minimize load
current distortion, as well as the harmonic contents
improving by the way the stability of the system. The THD
portion is bigger when using PRES controller. The
measured active power in the stationary reference frame is
more accurate than the measured one in the dynamic
reference frame. TABLE II shows a general comparison
adopting many features.
TABLE II. GENERAL COMPARAISON OF USING STATIONARY AND
DYNAMIC FRAMEWORK IN MICROGRIDS IMPLEMENTATION
Frames αβ frame dq frame
Accuracy Strong High
Tracking High High
PI tuning Difficult Less difficult
Complexcity Medieum High
THD 1.19% 0.41%
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented the main roles of voltage source
converters in distributed generation systems and microgrids.
The primary control is described and the implementation of
inner loops in both αβ and dq frame is reviewed, besides
this, a comprehensive comparison for the implementation of
inner loops in stationary reference frame using PRES
controllers and in dynamic reference frame using PI has
been presented, where PRES in αβ frame has a better
transient response, zero steady-state error and better
sinusoidal tracking capability this will minimize load
current distortion, as well as the harmonic contents which
help in the stability of the system, the PI controller in dq
reference frame is unable to track the sinusoidal reference
with zero steady-state error. The THD portion is bigger
when using PRES controller. The measured active power in
the stationary reference frame is more accurate than the
measured one in the dynamic reference frame. Finally, It has
been concluded that using a PRES controller in the
stationary reference frame is preferred than using a PI
controller in dq frame for inner loops implementation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and
Scientific Research via the DGRSDT supported this research
(PRFU Project code: A01L07UN190120180005).
REFERENCES
[1] U. B. Tayab, M. A. B. Roslan, L. J. Hwai, et M. Kashif,
« A review of droop control techniques for microgrid »,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 76, p. 717‑ 727, 2017.
[2] J. C. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero, J. Miret, M. Castilla, et L.
G. De Vicuna, « Hierarchical control of intelligent
microgrids », IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 4, no 4, p.
23‑29, 2010.
[3] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. De
Vicuña, et M. Castilla, « Hierarchical control of droop-
controlled AC and DC microgrids—A general approach
toward standardization », IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no 1, p. 158‑172, 2010.
[4] T. Dragicevic, S. Vazquez, et P. Wheeler, « Advanced
Control Methods for Power Converters in DG Systems
and Microgrids », IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2020.
[5] A. M. Bouzid, P. Sicard, S. Abourida, et J.-N. Paquin,
« Secondary Voltage and Frequency Restoration Control
of Droop-Controlled Inverter-Based Microgrids », 2017,
p. 1‑6.
[6] J. Rocabert, A. Luna, F. Blaabjerg, et P. Rodriguez,
« Control of power converters in AC microgrids », IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no 11, p. 4734‑4749,
2012.
[7] J. C. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero, M. Savaghebi, J. Eloy-
Garcia, et R. Teodorescu, « Modeling, analysis, and
design of stationary-reference-frame droop-controlled
parallel three-phase voltage source inverters », IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no 4, p. 1271‑1280, 2012.
[8] Y. Han, P. Shen, X. Zhao, et J. M. Guerrero, « Control
strategies for islanded microgrid using enhanced
hierarchical control structure with multiple current-loop
damping schemes », IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no
3, p. 1139‑1153, 2015.
[9] D. Y. Yamashita, I. Vechiu, et J.-P. Gaubert, « A review
of hierarchical control for building microgrids », Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 118, p. 109523, 2020.
[10] B. Naji Alhasnawi, B. H. Jasim, A. Anvari-Moghaddam,
et F. Blaabjerg, « A New Robust Control Strategy for
Parallel Operated Inverters in Green Energy
Applications », Energies, vol. 13, no 13, p. 3480, 2020.
[11] M. Z. Adil, M. R. Quan, et H. Y. Hiraj, « Modeling,
Analysis, and Design of Resonant Proportional
Stationary Frame Current Controller for Grid-Tide Three
Phase Controller », 2020, p. 471‑475.
[12] A. A. Nazeri, P. Zacharias, F. M. Ibanez, et S. Somkun,
« Design of Proportional-Resonant Controller with Zero
Steady-State Error for a Single-Phase Grid-Connected
Voltage Source Inverter with an LCL Output Filter »,
2019, p. 1‑6.
[13] J. Jia, G. Yang, A. H. Nielsen, et P. Rønne-Hansen,
« Study of control strategies of power electronics during
faults in microgrids », in Hybrid-Renewable Energy
Systems in Microgrids, Elsevier, 2018, p. 109‑146.
[14] A. V. Timbus, M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu, et F.
Blaabjerg, « Adaptive resonant controller for grid-
connected converters in distributed power generation
systems », 2006, p. 6-pp.