This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.
This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Distributed Cooperative Control Strategy for Stable
Voltage Restoration and Optimal Power Sharing in
Islanded DC Microgrids
Yuji Zeng, Graduate Student Member, IEEE, Qinjin Zhang, Member, IEEE, Yancheng Liu, Haohao
Guo, Member, IEEE, and Fengkui Zhang
Abstract—Conventionally, voltage regulation and economic
dispatch in DC microgrid are performed at different time scales,
which cannot keep the distributed generators (DGs) at the optimal
operating point in real time. In this paper, a novel distributed
cooperative control strategy is proposed to synchronously achieve
stable bus voltage restoration and optimal power sharing in
islanded DC microgrids. The proposed strategy breaks the
constraints of hierarchical control strategies, and incorporates the
objectives of voltage regulation and economic dispatch into a
distributed cooperative control framework to eliminate average
bus voltage deviation and minimize total power generation costs in
real time. The stability of the proposed strategy is verified by
eigenvalue analysis and steady-state analysis. Furthermore, the
concept of “incremental cost (IC) margin” is introduced in
cooperative control considering capacity constraints to avoid the
converter output power violation and performance degradation.
Finally, the MATLAB/Simulink simulation and StarSim HIL
experimental results verify the effectiveness and robustness of the
proposed strategy in an islanded DC microgrid under various
testing scenarios.
Index Terms—DC microgrid, distributed cooperative control,
economic dispatch, bus voltage restoration, consensus algorithm.
I. INTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, the objective of “carbon peaking and carbon
neutrality” has driven the low-carbon transformation of the
energy and power industry. Large-scale deployment of DGs
with DC characteristics, such as fuel cells, PV arrays, and
battery storage units, and aggregation of them with electricity
loads to form a microgrid, is considered to be an effective
solution for energy conservation and emission reduction [1].
Intuitively, DC microgrid are free of harmonic suppression,
frequency synchronization, and reactive power compensation,
and has more efficient power and load integration functions, so
it is widely used in ships, islands, data centers, etc. [2].
Categorically, the main control objectives in islanded AC or
DC microgrids are voltage/frequency regulation and active
power dispatch [3]. For AC microgrids, frequency/voltage
recovery and active power sharing are widely studied [4]-[6].
This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant 51979021 and Grant 51709028, in part by the China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grant 2021M700646, and in part by the
Dalian High-level Talent Innovation Support Program Project under Grant
2019RQ008. (Corresponding author: Qinjin Zhang.)
The authors are with the College of Marine Engineering, Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian 116026, People's Republic of China (e-mail:
zengyuji@foxmail.com; zqj20@dlmu.edu.cn; liuyc@dlmu.edu.cn; ghh1984@
dlmu.edu.cn; zhangfengkui@dlmu.edu.cn).
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
In [4], a fully distributed secondary control framework for AC
microgrids is proposed, which regulates frequency, voltage, and
active power by designing three secondary controllers and does
not require additional frequency measurement devices.
However, designing multiple PI-based regulation secondary
controllers increases the system order, which tends to lead to
system instability. To reduce the communication burden among
DGs, an event-triggered distributed secondary control is
proposed in [5] to achieve restoration of frequency and voltage
in islanded AC microgrids with accurate active power sharing.
However, the control law of local DGs in this method is updated
frequently at the triggering moments of neighbors, which may
lead to high-frequency oscillations of voltage and current. To
enhance the system operation performance, a finite-time
consensus-based secondary frequency control strategy is
proposed in [6], which achieves frequency regulation in finite
time. However, the bounded settling time of the finite-time
secondary controller depends on the initial state of the system.
If the initial state information is inaccurate or unavailable, it
would inevitably lead to controller failure.
For DC microgrids, related research works has mostly
focused on proportional power sharing among DGs and bus
voltage restoration in DC microgrids [7]-[10]. For example, an
improved secondary control strategy is proposed in [7] to
achieve load power sharing and average bus voltage restoration
through the coordination between multiple average controllers,
but requires monitoring the states of all DGs to calculate the
relevant average information. Considering reducing the system
communication burden, a distributed cooperative control
strategy based on virtual voltage drop consensus is developed
in [8], which achieves voltage restoration and power sharing by
obtaining global consensus of the virtual voltage drop, but
requires real-time acquisition of line impedance information.
To reduce the control loop, a distributed cooperative controller
with integrated voltage restoration and power sharing is
designed in [9]. On this basis, a distributed cooperative
controller based on the principle of droop slope regulation and
reference voltage shifting for parallel battery storage units is
designed in [10] to achieve dynamic State-of-Charge balancing,
proportional load power sharing, and average bus voltage
restoration. However, references [4]–[10] all focus on obtaining
proportional power sharing according to the nominal capacity
of DGs. Unfortunately, DGs usually have different generation
costs, so proportional power sharing based on DGs capacity is
not an economical solution.
Conventionally, hierarchical control is often used to achieve
voltage regulation and economic dispatch in islanded DC
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 2

TABLE I difficult to find the optimal working point. To improve system

COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC DISPATCH STRATEGIES IN MICROGRIDS
Number of
Real-time Stability Voltage
Methods communication
optimization analysis restoration
variables
[12]-[15] ✘ ✘ ✘ Many
[16] ✔ ✘ ✘ Two
[17] ✘ ✘ ✘ Three
[18] ✔ ✘ ✔ Three
[19] ✔ ✘ ✔ One
[20] ✔ ✘ ✔ Two
[21] ✔ ✘ ✔ Three
[22] ✔ ✔ ✘ Three
[23] ✔ ✔ ✔ Two
Proposed
✔ ✔ ✔ One
method
microgrids. In which, the secondary controller is used for bus
voltage restoration, whereas the tertiary controller obtains the
optimal power sharing, thereby improving the system power
quality and minimizing the total power generation cost [11].
Essentially, tertiary controller is a pre-dispatch problem that
requires consideration of DGs capacity constraints and
allocating the predicted total load demand to DGs based on
generation costs for optimal power sharing. Various
optimization algorithms, such as lambda iteration method [12],
gradient search method [13], genetic algorithm [14], particle
swarm optimization algorithm [15], have been developed to
solve economic dispatch problems in power systems. However,
these optimization methods rely on a central controller to
handle large amounts of information, which inevitably brings
expensive investment costs and single point of failure problems.
Motivated by the above observations, voltage control and
power optimization in related research works are usually
performed at different time scales. However, the disconnect
between control and optimization makes it difficult to respond
to frequent load power fluctuations in real time, and even small
disturbances can cause bus voltage and output power to deviate
from the optimal operating point. Therefore, economic dispatch
should also be performed with a real-time control manner.
Specifically, output power is optimized by matching ICs
between neighboring DGs, and obeying generation-demand
power balance and capacity constraints [13]. To solve the real-
time optimization problem of economic dispatch process, many
scholars have completed various explorations [16]-[23]. In [16],
an economic dispatch strategy for smart grids based on
distributed dynamic planning algorithms is proposed, which
formulates the discrete economic dispatch problem as a
conventional knapsack problem solved with distributed
dynamic planning algorithms to optimally allocate the total
power demand among different DGs. However, this method
requires high computational ability of the controller and is
difficult to be applied in practice. In [17], a two-stage economic
dispatch strategy based on leader-follower consensus algorithm
and adaptive weight adjustment technique is proposed, which is
able to achieve incremental cost consensus among DGs in the
presence of unknown communication uncertainty. However,
the disconnection between control and optimization makes it
robustness, a distributed event-triggered hierarchical control
strategy is proposed in [18] to achieve economic operation of
hybrid AC/DC microgrids, which achieves average bus voltage
restoration and optimal power sharing by designing two
different secondary controllers, but the control structure is more
complex. For DC microgrids, Ref. [19] combined the equal IC
criterion with the subgradient algorithm to develop a distributed
economic dispatch method, which can make full use of
renewable energy and reduce the power generation cost of DGs,
but this method has poor dynamic performance. Considering
the improvement of system dynamic response, a hierarchical
cooperative control strategy is proposed in [20] to solve the
problems of voltage restoration and optimal power sharing in
real time, but this method relies on complex topology models.
On this basis, Ref. [21] extends the research object to DC
microgrid clusters, and realizes voltage regulation and power
optimization through the coordination between two-layer cyber
networks and multi-level controllers, but a rigorous stability
proof is not given. Considering the output voltage constraint, an
optimal controller capable of minimizing the generation cost
and bounded bus voltage regulation is designed in [22].
However, the controller design process is complex and sensitive
to communication delays. To reduce the system order, a
cascaded controller capable of synchronously achieving
accurate voltage regulation and optimal power sharing is
designed in [23]. However, this method requires access to
common bus voltage information, and the influence of
parameter changes on the system stability has not been analyzed.
In summary, related research works require multiple
controllers to eliminate the bus voltage deviation and minimize
the total power generation cost, respectively. Intuitively, the
introduction of multiple controllers would inevitably bring
higher system order, which makes the system stability face
great challenges. Moreover, when the output power of DGs is
violated, the above control schemes all constrain its output
power at the power limit, which may deteriorate the converter
performance. Considering the above-mentioned concerns, a
distributed cooperative control strategy is proposed to achieve
stable average bus voltage restoration and optimal output power
sharing in islanded DC microgrids, and avoid DGs power
violations. Table I provides a comparison between some
economic dispatch strategies and the proposed control strategy
to highlight the advantages of the proposed scheme. The main
contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
1) A novel distributed cooperative controller is designed,
which can unify the objectives of voltage regulation and
economic dispatch into a cooperative controller based on
integral regulation for real-time implementation without
designing multiple PI-based secondary controllers, which
greatly simplifies the control structure and improves the system
stability.
2) The proposed strategy is implemented based on a multi-
agent consensus framework and requires only an average
virtual state variable to be transmitted between neighboring
DGs, which effectively reduces the system communication
burden. In addition, the distributed cooperative controller is
able to respond quickly to perturbations, thus improving the
voltage and current regulation performance.
3) The concept of “IC margin” is proposed, which constrains

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 1. Islanded DC microgrid structure with multiple DGs.
the ICs to the limit warning threshold rather than the limit value
when the output power of DGs is violated, thereby preventing
the converter from working at the power limit for a long time.
Therefore, the performance of the DGs converter is improved.
4) The effectiveness and robustness of the proposed control
strategy are verified by rigorous stability analysis, steady-state
analysis, simulation, and experimental results.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
introduces the islanded DC microgrid model, knowledge of
graph theory and average consensus algorithms, and the
economic dispatch problem. In Section III, a novel distributed
cooperative control strategy is proposed, and rigorous
eigenvalue stability analysis and steady-state analysis are
completed. Then, simulation tests for six different operating
conditions is completed in Section IV. Moreover, the StarSim
HIL experimental results are given in Section V. Finally, this
paper is concluded in Section VI.
II. PRELIMINARIES AND PROBLEM FORMULATION
A. Electrical and Communication Networks
The islanded DC microgrid structure containing multiple
DGs is shown in Fig. 1, which is mainly composed of electrical
and communication networks. In the electrical network, each
power generation unit and the boost DC-DC converter together
form a DG, and each DG is connected to the local load through
a DC bus. Multiple DC bus is connected in series through tie
lines to ensure that the power generated by DGs is transmitted
to each load. In the communication network, a neighbor-to-
neighbor communication topology is selected to share
information between neighboring DGs. RLi represents the local
load of DGi, rij represents the tie line resistance between DGi
and DGj, the green dashed arrow is the communication link and
the blue dashed arrow is the energy flow direction between DGs.
To simplify the analysis, the distribution lines are assumed
to be resistive [23]. Let uoi and ioi be the output voltage and
current of DGi connected to Busi, respectively. From Fig. 1, the
relationship between voltage and current is obtained based on
Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL):
ioi   y u
jNi
ij oi  uoj   iLi , i  1, 2, , N
where Ni is the neighboring bus of Busi and yij=yji is the
conductance of the distribution line between Busi and Busj,
yij=1/rij. If there is no physical connection between the two
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
buses, yij=yji=0.
B. Graph Theory and Average Consensus Algorithms
The communication network in Fig. 1 can be represented by
an undirected graph G=(V, E, A), where V={DG1, DG2, …,
DGN} is the node set, E⊆V×V is the edge set [24]. DGi and DGj
are neighbor nodes if and only if (DGi, DGj)∈E, then DGi can
transmit information to DGj. Considering the graph G is
undirected, (DGi, DGj)∈E⇔(DGj, DGi)∈E. The relationship
between nodes and edges in graph G can be described by a
weighted adjacency matrix A=[aij]∈RN×N, where aij is the
communication weight between nodes. If (DGi, DGj)∈E is
satisfied, then aij=1, otherwise aij=0. In addition, the weighted
degree of DGi is di. Therefore, the Laplacian matrix L=D–
A=[lij]∈RN×N is:
lii   N aij , i  j
j 1, j i
 (2)
lij  aij , i j
Without loss of generality, the dynamic average can be
achieved by an average consensus algorithm [25]:
xi (t )    aij  xi (t )  x j (t )   ri (t ) (3)
j N i
where xi(t) and xj(t) are the state variables of DGi and DGj,
respectively. ri(t) is a local monitoring variable.
To obtain global dynamics, rewrite (3) in compact form:
x (t )   Lx (t )  r(t ) (4)
T T
where x=[x1, x2, …, xN] and r=[r1, r2, …, rN] are vectors of
state variables and local monitoring variables, respectively.
C. Economic Dispatch Problem
The economic dispatch problem (EDP) is one of the
important problems in DC microgrids, which is often described
as an optimization problem [26]. The purpose of solving the
EDP is to find the best combination of output power of DGs and
to minimize the total generation cost under the premise of
obeying generation-demand power balance and capacity
constraints. In this work, the EDP of dispatchable DGs (e.g.
conventional generators, fuel cells, batteries) is considered.
Without loss of generality, the power generation cost function
of DGs can be approximated by a quadratic function [13]:
Ci ( Pi )  ai Pi 2  bi Pi  ci (5)
where Ci(Pi) is the power generation cost of DGi. Pi is the output
power of DGi. ai, bi, and ci are the coefficients of the cost
function.
Considering the generation-demand power balance and the
maximum/minimum capacity constraints of DGs, the economic
dispatch problem of DGs can be described as:
min C ( P)  min  i 1 Ci ( Pi )
N
s.t.  i 1
 N Pi  PD  PL  PT (6)
 Pmin,i  Pi  Pmax,i
where PD and PL are the total load demand power and the total
system line loss, respectively. PT is the total system demand
(1) power. Pmin,i and Pmax,i are the minimum and maximum output
power of DGi, respectively.
If the inequality constraints of (6) are ignored, the augmented
Lagrange function can be used to minimize the total power
generation cost [13]:
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 4

N

L( Pi ,  )   i 1 Ci ( Pi )   PT   i 1 Pi
N
 (7)
where λ is the Lagrange multiplier.
From (5), the cost function is strictly convex and
differentiable, and the equality constraints of (6) are convex
functions. Therefore, the conditional extremum problem would
be transformed into an unconstrained optimization problem,
and the solution of the EDP can be obtained by solving (7):
 L
P   i 1  2ai Pi  bi     0
N

i
 (8)
L
  PT  N Pi  0
   i 1
According to the equal IC criterion [13], the optimal IC of
DGi can be obtained from (8) as:
N bi
PT   i 1
2ai
opt,i    (9)
1
 i 1 2ai
N

Furthermore, the optimal output power of DGi is:
N bi 1
PT   i 1  bi  i 1
N
2ai 2ai
Popt,i 
N 1
ai  i 1
ai
However, if the maximum/minimum capacity constraints are
considered, the optimal solution can be extended to [27]:
2ai Popt,i  bi  opt,i , for Pmin,i  Popt,i  Pmax,i
 Furthermore, according to the equal IC criterion [13], the
2ai Popt,i  bi  opt,i , for Popt,i  Pmax,i
2ai Popt,i  bi  opt,i , for Popt,i  Pmin,i
 only if ICs converge to the same level.
From (9) and (10), if the total load demand power PT can be
predicted, the total power generation cost should be easily
minimized with a centralized control manner, which is the
conventional practice of the centralized economic dispatch
scheme. However, due to the power fluctuation of renewable
energy and loads, the above scheme may often cause DGs to
deviate from the predicted optimal operating point, so the
control effect of the forecast-based economic dispatch scheme
is poor. Therefore, it is required to develop a distributed control
strategy that can realize voltage regulation and economic
dispatch in real time to smooth frequent power fluctuations and
minimize the total power generation cost.
III. DISTRIBUTED COOPERATIVE CONTROL STRATEGY
In this section, the control objectives and structure of the
proposed strategy are first introduced. Then, the design process
and realization principle of proposed strategy without capacity
constraint and with capacity constraint are given, respectively.
A. Control Objectives and Structure
In this paper, a novel distributed cooperative control scheme
is developed to synchronously realize the control objectives of
average bus voltage restoration and optimal power sharing:
lim u nom  u avg,i (t )  0
t 
 (12)
lim i (t )   j (t )  0
t 
where unom is the nominal bus voltage. uavg,i(t) is the average bus
Fig. 2. Distributed cooperative control structure for DGi.
voltage calculated locally at the DGi. λi(t) and λj(t) are the ICs
(10) of DGi and DGj, respectively.
Remark 1: For large-scale DC microgrids, it is difficult to
obtain the bus voltage at the common terminal due to factors
such as long transmission distance, high measurement cost, and
low sensor accuracy. Therefore, restoring the average bus
voltage to the nominal value is a feasible solution [8].
(11)
optimal output power sharing of DGs can be achieved if and
Herein, a novel distributed cooperative control strategy is
developed to achieve the two control objectives of (12), where
the control structure of DGi is shown in Fig. 2. Without loss of
generality, a unidirectional boost DC/DC converter is chosen as
the connection module between the DGi and the DC bus. In the
primary control layer, droop control and voltage-current control
allow for basic voltage regulation and power distribution.
Beyond the primary control layer, a distributed cooperative
control structure is designed to synchronously realize average
bus voltage restoration and optimal power sharing. In the cyber
layer, each DG exchanges information with neighboring DGs
through a neighbor-to-neighbor communication network. The
following would focus on the design process and
implementation principle of the proposed strategy.
B. Proposed Strategy without Capacity Constraints
From Fig. 2, the voltage reference can be determined by:
uref,i  unom  Rvi ioi  ui (13)
where Rvi is the virtual resistance of DGi, i.e., droop coefficient.
ioi is the DGi output current. ui is the voltage correction term
determined by distributed cooperative control.
Inspired by [9] and [10], the ui can be designed as:
 avg,i 
ui    unom   (14)
 i 
where κ is the integrator gain. ξavg,i and γi are the average virtual
state variables and transition factors of DGi, respectively.
Combined with the average consensus algorithm of (3), they

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 5

can be designed as:

 i t
avg,i  i  N 0  aij avg, j  avg,i  dt
 i jNi
i   i uoi (15)
 i
 i  1   vm Fig. 3. Simplified model for stability analysis.

where ξi is the virtual state variable of DGi. αi is a consensus
gain of DGi. |Ni| is the number of neighbors of DGi. uoi is the where τe is a time constant.
output voltage of DGi. σ is a gain in the range [0, 1] to prevent The output current is connected with a low-pass filter, then:
γi from being zero. λvm is a sufficient large virtual IC, which is c
predetermined before the system runs, which can be expressed Glpf  (20)
c  s
as:
where ωc is a cut-off frequency.
vm  2a vm Pvm  bvm (16)
Furthermore, the output current of DG1 versus the output
where avm and bvm are sufficient large cost function coefficients, voltage can be obtained from Fig. 3:
and Pvm is a sufficient large output power of DGi.
io1   uo1   uo2 (21)
Remark 2: Different from the hierarchical control methods
in [16]-[23], the proposed control strategy only requires a where
distributed cooperative controller to synchronously realize  r2  RL
voltage regulation and economic dispatch, which can perform   r1r2  r1 RL  r2 RL
economic dispatch online and reduce the system order, so as to  (22)
  RL
avoid the “dimension disaster” caused by the parallel DGs.
Therefore, system stability is guaranteed, which would be  r1r2  r1 RL  r2 RL
demonstrated below. where RL is the load resistance.
Remark 3: It is worth pointing out that the proposed According to Fig. 3 and (17)–(22), the output voltage of DG1
distributed cooperative control strategy is also applicable to AC can be deduced:
and AC/DC microgrids, with only some modifications to the   avg,1 
proposed strategy according to the specific control task. In AC uo1  unom  Rv1io1Glpf  Gs  unom  Ge Gd  Gc (23)
microgrids, the use of this distributed cooperative control   1 
strategy can ensure frequency and voltage restoration whereas where Gd is the transfer function of the communication delay,
obtaining active power sharing of the parallel DGs. which can be expressed as:
Theorem 1: For the DC microgrid with multi-parallel DGs, 1  d s
the system stability is guaranteed after applying the proposed Gd  e d s  (24)
distributed cooperative control strategy. 1 d s
Proof: Without loss of generality, taking two parallel DGs as where τd is the communication delay time.
an example, an equivalent model for system stability analysis is Therefore, (23) can be rewritten as:
established, as shown in Fig. 3. Due to the fast switching action   2 
of the converter, the internal controller usually has a low-pass unom 1  Gs   uo2   Rv1Glpf  GeGs Gd  Gc
 2 1 
characteristic with a high bandwidth, which may not affect the uo1   (25)
performance of the droop control loop as long as it is designed  1 
1   Rv1Glpf  Ge GsGd  Gc
properly because their bandwidths are decoupled. As a result,  2 
the dynamic response speed of the internal controller is faster Linearizing the variables of (25), the small-signal model
than the distributed cooperative controller, the transfer function expression can be obtained as:
of the voltage-current controller can be equivalent as [10]:
uˆo1 1  Gs  Gc
1  (26)
Gc  1 (17) uˆnom  1 
1 s uˆo2  0
1    Rv1Glpf  GeGs Gd  Gc
where τ is a time constant. s is a Laplace operator.  2 
According to Fig. 2 and (14), the transfer function of the From (26), the characteristic equation of the closed-loop
integrator can be obtained as: system can be obtained:
 As4  Bs3  Cs2  Ds  E  0 (27)
Gs  (18) where
s
where κ is the integrator gain. A  2 e d
To simplify the analysis, the consensus iteration process for B  2 Rv1 c e d  2 c e d  2  e   d 
ξavg,1 in (15) can be equivalent to the conventional calculation
process of ξavg,1 multiplied by the inertial link, so we have: C  2 Rv1 c  e   d   2 c  e   d   2   d (28)
1 D  2 Rv1 c  2 c     c d
Ge  (19)
1 e s E   c

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 6

i i
ξavg  ξ  Aξavg  Dξavg
Ni Ni
(30)
i 
 ξ   D  A ξavg  ξ  i Lξavg
Ni Ni
where ξ=[ξ1, ξ2, …, ξN]T and ξavg=[ξavg,1, ξavg,2, …, ξavg,N]T are
vectors of virtual state variables and average virtual state
variables, respectively.
Performing Laplace transform on (30):
i
sΞavg  Ξavg (0)  sΞ  Ξ (0)  LΞavg (31)
Ni
where Ξavg and Ξ are the Laplace transforms of ξavg and ξ,
respectively.
By (28), Ξ(0)=Ξavg(0), so (31) can be simplified as:
Fig. 4. Characteristic root loci with parameters changing. (a) Rv1 increases 1
from 0.01 to 10. (b) κ increases from 1 to 50. (c) τe increases from 10 to  i 
Ξavg  s  sI N  L  Ξ  H obs Ξ (32)
1000ms. (d) τd increases from 10 to 500ms.
 Ni 
Without loss of generality, setting RL=80Ω, r1=1Ω, r2=0.5Ω, where IN and Hobs are the N-order identity matrix and the
ωc=50rad/s, the closed-loop pole root loci as Rv1, κ, τe and τd observer transfer function matrix, respectively.
varies can be plotted separately, as shown in Fig. 4. From Figs. Finally, applying the final value theorem to (32) [28]:
1
4(a)(c), the dominant poles ρ1 and ρ2 lies in the left half-plane  i 
of the imaginary axis and away from it when the relevant lim sξavg (t )  lim sΞavg  lim s  sI N  L   lim sΞ
t  s 0 s 0  Ni  s 0 (33)
parameters are increased, which shows that the system has a 
satisfactory stability margin. On the other hand, the conjugate  QN Ξ  Ξ 1N
ss ss
poles ρ3 and ρ4 vary less and neither of them crosses the ss
imaginary axis to the right half-plane, so the system stability is where Ξ is the steady state vector of the virtual state variable.
almost unaffected. From Fig. 4(b), the dominant poles ρ1 and ρ2 1N is a vector whose elements are all one. QN is an average
gradually move away from the imaginary axis as κ increases, matrix whose elements are all 1/N, and:
1 N
which indicate that the system enters the steady state more Ξ ss   i 1 iss (34)
quickly. However, the dominant poles ρ3 and ρ4 gradually move N
away from the real axis, which may lead to voltage and current From (33), the average virtual state variables of DGs reach a
oscillations. To make matters worse, when κ>23, ρ3 and ρ4 global consensus in steady state. This completes the proof.
crosses the imaginary axis to the right half-plane, which would Remark 4: The convergence rate of the observer depends on
lead to system instability. Therefore, the value of κ should not the consensus gain αi. Too small αi would seriously slow down
exceed 23 and requires the selection of a suitable value to the convergence speed of the observer, and too large αi may
ensure a compromise between the dynamic and steady state bring about the convergence oscillation problem. Therefore, the
performance of the system. From Fig. 4(d), the dominant poles choice of αi should consider the trade-off between steady-state
ρ1 and ρ2 gradually approach the imaginary axis as τd increases, and dynamic performance.
which would reduce the system stability margin. Unfortunately, Theorem 3: Through the regulation of (14), the control
when τd>260ms, the conjugate poles ρ3 and ρ4 crosses the objectives of average bus voltage restoration and optimal power
imaginary axis to the right half-plane, which lead to system sharing can be achieved synchronously in steady state.
instability. Thus, the proposed strategy has a communication Proof: Transfer (13) from the time domain to the frequency
delay margin of 260ms, which satisfies the requirements of domain:
engineering applications. This completes the proof. Uref  Unom  U  Rv Io (35)
Theorem 2: Applying the average virtual state variable
where Uref is the Laplace transform of uref=[uref,1, uref,2, …,
observer in (15) allows for the global consensus of the average
uref,N]T. Unom=(unom/s)1N is the Laplace transform of the nominal
virtual state variable in the steady state.
voltage vector. U is the Laplace transform of u=[u1, u2, …, uN]T.
Proof: From Theorem 1, the system stability is guaranteed,
Io is the Laplace transform of io=[io1, io2, …, ioN]T. Rv=diag{Rvi}
so the proposed distributed cooperative control strategy can be
is the droop coefficient matrix.
analyzed for steady state in the following. Differentiate the first
Combining (14) and (32), U can be expressed as:
term of (15):
i  Ξavg   H obs Ξ 
U  G  U nom    G  U nom 
avg,i  i 
(36)
Ni
 
jNi
avg, j  avg,i   Η   Η 


(29) where Gκ=diag{Gκ} is the transfer function matrix of the

i   integral regulator, Gκ=κ/s. H is the Laplace transform of γ=[γ1,
 i    avg, j  diavg,i  γ2, …, γN]T.
Ni  jNi  Furthermore, transfer the second term of (15) to the
Rewrite (29) in compact form: frequency domain:

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 7

Ξ  HUo (37) 1  2   N (53)

Substituting (36) and (37) into (35) to obtain: From (53), according to the equal IC criterion [13], the
U ref  U nom  G U nom  H obsU o   Rv I o (38) proposed strategy can achieve optimal power sharing of DGs.
Therefore, through the regulation of (14), the average bus
From Fig. 2, the global dynamics of the output voltage can
voltage restoration and optimal power sharing can be realized
be expressed as:
synchronously in steady state. This completes the proof.
Uo  GcUref (39) Remark 5: Intuitively, although the proposed strategy
where Gc=diag{Gci} is a transfer function matrix. requires only one controller to achieve the objectives of (12),
From (1), the output voltage is related to the output current the average bus voltage restoration and optimal power sharing
through the system admittance matrix: exhibit different time constants. Therefore, the dynamic
Io  YUo  IL (40) decoupling of the voltage regulation and the economic dispatch
Combined with (38)-(40), the global system dynamic model can be obtained through the bandwidth difference design.
can be obtained: C. Proposed Strategy with Capacity Constraints
Uo   Gc1  G H obs  RvY    I N  G  Unom  Rv I L  (41)
1
Considering the capacity constraints of DGs, the transition
Then, the steady-state output voltage vector can be derived factor γi of (15) is redesigned in this subsection. Specifically,
through applying the final value theorem to (41): the concept of “IC margin” is proposed to constrain ICs to the
uoss  lim suo (t )  lim sU o (s) limit warning threshold when the output power of DGs is
t  s 0 violated, thereby indirectly preventing the converter from
 lim  sG  sG H obs  sRvY 
1
1
c (42) working at the power generation limit for a long time. Therefore,
s 0
γi is redesigned as:
  s 2  I N  G  U nom  sRv I L   i
Since the voltage and current control of the main control 1      i  i   H,i  , for i   H,i
 vm
layer can respond quickly, its closed-loop transfer function can  
be approximated as [28]:  i  1   i , for  L,i  i   H,i (54)
  vm
Gc (0)  I N  Gc1 (0) (43)
 i
Moreover, the following constraints can be obtained from the 1     i  i   L,i  , for  i   L,i
definition of the observer transfer function:   vm
lim H obs  QN (44) where λH,i and λL,i are the upper and lower warning thresholds
s0
of IC, respectively, and εi is a limiting gain. λH,i and λL,i can be
Substituting (43) and (44) into (42) to get: expressed as:
uoss  QN1unom 1N (45)
H,i  max,i  marg,i
or, equivalently:  (55)
QN uoss  unom 1N (46) L,i   marg,i   min,i
where λmax,i=2aiPmax,i+bi and λmin,i=2aiPmin,i+bi are the
According to the definition of QN [28]:
maximum and minimum IC of DGi. λmarg,i=2aiPmarg,i+bi is the IC
QN x  x 1N (47) margin of DGi, and Pmarg,i is the power margin of DGi.
Combining (46) and (47) leads to: From (54), equation (15) is still valid if and only if the ICs
1 does not trigger the limit warning threshold. Once the ICs
uoss   i 1 uossi  unom
N
(48) triggers the upper or lower warning threshold, the ICs would be
N
constrained to the warning threshold instead of reaching the
From (48), the proposed strategy is able to restore the average maximum value. Therefore, the proposed strategy can satisfy
bus voltage to the nominal value in steady state. the capacity constraints while avoiding a series of adverse
On this basis, apply the final value theorem to (36): consequences caused by power violations of DGs.
uss  lim su(t )  lim sU ( s) The selection of the limiting gain εi becomes critical when
t  s 0
(49) the ICs trigger the limit warning threshold. The following
 lim  sG U nom  sG H obsUo 
s 0 would take the ICs trigger upper warning threshold of DGs as
or, equivalently: an example to deduce the selection range of εi. Since ICs cannot
uss  unom 1N  QN uoss   unom  uoss  1N  0 (50) reach its maximum value, it yields that:
1   H,i   i
Therefore, the following relationship holds in steady state by i    max,i (56)
combining (13) and (38): 
i
avg,1 avg,2 avg, N  vm
unom    (51) From (15), γ among DGs can quickly reach an average
1 2 N
consensus. Therefore, the selection range of εi can be deduced:
Substituting (15) into (51), we can infer that:
1  max,i
1 2 N 0  i   (57)
  (52)  marg,i  vm  m arg,i
 vm  vm  vm
Remark 6: Compared with existing economic dispatch
or, equivalently:
strategies considering capacity constraints, the proposed

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 8

TABLE II
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Islanded DC microgrid
Parameters DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
uin,i(V) 450 450 450 450
unom(V) 700
rij(Ω) 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.23
ai(¢/W2) 0.178 0.132 0.196 0.145
bi(¢/W) 4.9 6.5 5.3 3.4
ci(¢) 110 120 85 95
amax(¢/W2) 0.196
bmax(¢/W) 6.5
cmax(¢) 120
Pmax,i(W) 4500 4500 4500 4500
Pmin,i(W) 400 400 400 400
Primary control
Parameters DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
Rvi 1 1 1 1
KUP, KUI 1.5, 20
KIP, KII 0.05, 1
fk 20kHz
Distributed cooperative control
Parameters DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Fig. 5. Simulation results of Case I. (a) Output powers. (b) Incremental costs.
κ 10 (c) Total cost. (d) Output voltages.
αi 200 200 200 200
σ 0.5
εi 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Pvm(W) 10000
Pmarg,i(W) 100 100 100 100

strategy can limit the IC of DGs violating capacity constraints

to the limit warning threshold rather than the limit value, which
can effectively improve the performance of DGs converter. To
be mentioned, the DGs no longer participate in the consensus
protocol of (15) when ICs trigger the limit warning threshold,
but constrain their ICs to the limit warning threshold to avoid
power violation. Moreover, the remaining DGs would continue
to complete the tasks of voltage regulation and economic
dispatch based on the consensus protocol. In this case, the
output power of each DG is no longer optimal, but there is a
slight deviation from the optimal operating point.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

In this section, an islanded DC microgrid consisting of four
DGs and multiple loads is developed in the MATLAB/Simulink
environment, as shown in Fig. 1. Six different cases are
considered, such as normal operation, capacity constraints,
plug-and-play, communication delays, methods comparison,
time-varying loads simulation etc., to verify the effectiveness
and superiority of the proposed strategy. Moreover, the
simulation parameters are given in Table II, and the simulation
step is 1 microsecond.
A. Simulation Case I: Normal System Operation
In this case, the proposed strategy is tested under normal
system operation. The initial total load power is 5kW, which
rises to 7.5kW at t=5s and drops to 4kW at t=10s.
From Figs. 5(a)(b), the proposed strategy can promote the
convergence of ICs of DGs and ensure that their output power
track to the optimal value. When loads demand power changes
suddenly, the output power of DGs re-tracks to the optimal
value, and their ICs maintain a consistent state. From Figs.
5(c)(d), the proposed strategy guarantees to minimize the total
power generation cost and eliminate the average bus voltage
Fig. 6. Simulation results of Case II. (a) Output powers. (b) Incremental costs.
(c) Total cost. (d) Output voltages.
deviation. In addition, when the loads power changes, the bus
voltage fluctuation amplitude is only 1.3V and 1.9V, and it
recovers smoothly in a short time. Therefore, the proposed
strategy can achieve average bus voltage restoration and
optimal output power sharing, which keep the DGs at the
optimal operating point in real time.
B. Simulation Case II: Capacity Constraints
This case mainly explores the performance of the proposed
strategy when a DG reaches its own capacity constraint. The
initial total load demand power is 10kW, which rises to 14kW
at t=5s and drops to 8kW at t=10s.
From Figs. 6(a)(b)(c), the proposed strategy achieves the
optimal output power sharing before t=5s. At t=5s, since the IC
of DG2 triggers the upper warning threshold λH,2=1168.1¢/W, it
no longer participates in the consensus protocol in (15). In other
words, DG2 becomes an intermediary for information exchange
between other DGs. Therefore, the IC and output power of DG2

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 7. Simulation results of Case III. (a) Output powers. (b) Incremental costs.
(c) Total cost. (d) Output voltages. (e) Total cost.
are constrained to be around λ2=1167¢/W and P2=4400W,
respectively, and the output power that DG2 cannot afford is
shared by other DGs. To be mentioned, the output power of
DG2 is no longer optimal, but the ICs of the remaining DGs
continue to maintain a matching state, so the total power
generation cost is still close to the optimal value. At t=10s, the
capacity constraint state of DG2 is lifted, so each DG re-tracks
to the best working point. In addition, the average bus voltage
fluctuation amplitude is only 2.7V and 3.7V when the loads
changes, which is far below the limit (i.e. ±35V), and the
average bus voltage can quickly recover to the nominal value.
C. Simulation Case III: Comparison of different types of
methods
In this case, the proposed strategy is compared with droop
control and the proportional power sharing method in [9]. The
total load demand power is 10kW. Droop control, proportional
power sharing method, and the proposed strategy are applied at
0s, 5s and 10s, respectively.
From Figs. 7(a)(b)(c), droop control cannot achieve optimal
output power sharing and proportional power sharing. Although
the method in [9] can realize output power sharing of DGs, the
total power generation cost is higher, which is not an
economical solution. On the contrary, the proposed strategy
enables DGs to track the optimal operating point and minimize
the total power generation cost. Furthermore, the droop control
causes the average bus voltage to drop by about 3.6V, while the
proportional power sharing method and the proposed strategy
are able to stable the average bus voltage at the nominal value.
For the sake of intuition, Fig. 7(e) presents the histogram of the
total power generation cost of above three methods, it can be
observed that the total power generation cost of the proposed
strategy is significantly smaller than the other two methods, and
is equal to the optimal value. Therefore, the proposed strategy
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
9
Fig. 8. Simulation results of Case IV. (a) Output powers of method in Ref.
[21]. (b) Output voltages of method in Ref. [21]. (c) Output powers of
proposed method. (d) Output voltages of proposed method.
can simultaneously achieve average bus voltage restoration and
total power generation cost minimization.
D. Simulation Case IV: Comparison with state-of-the-art
methods
In this case, the proposed strategy is compared with the state-
of-the-art method in [21]. It is assumed that the local load power
of each DG in the initial stage is PL1=1kW, PL2=1kW, PL3=1kW,
and PL4=2kW. In addition, PL1 decreases from 1kW to 0 at t=5s
and PL3 increases from 1kW to 2kW at t=10 s.
From Figs. 8(a)(b), the method of [21] is able to achieve
optimal output power sharing and DC bus voltage restoration.
However, the output power ripple of DGs is large and there is
an overshoot of 22.5V and a drop of 13.8V in the bus voltage
during startup process, which can easily lead to system collapse
due to relay protection malfunction. In addition, the local load
connected to DG1 exits leading to high frequency oscillation of
the DC bus voltage, which is not conducive to stable system
operation. From Figs. 8(c)(d), the application of the proposed
strategy is also able to achieve optimal output power sharing
and DC bus voltage restoration. More importantly, the output
power ripple of DGs is small, the bus voltage quickly recovers
smoothly after a 2.1V overshoot during startup process, and it
shows better robustness in all other cases.
From the above observations, the introduction of multiple PI-
based secondary controllers in the method of [21] tends to lead
to the deterioration of the system dynamic and steady-state
performance, and the coupling effect between PI controllers
leads to a more difficult selection of PI parameters, which may
cause system instability. Fortunately, the proposed strategy is
able to combine the economic dispatch and voltage regulation
functions in a distributed cooperative controller based on
integral regulation, which can effectively reduce the system
order and thus improve the controller dynamic response speed
and ensure excellent steady-state performance.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 9. Simulation results of Case V. (a) Output powers. (b) Incremental costs.
(c) Total cost. (d) Output voltages.
Fig. 10. Simulation results of Case VI. (a1) Output powers with τd=5ms. (b1)
Incremental costs with τd=5ms. (a2) Output powers with τd=10ms. (b2)
Incremental costs with τd=10ms. (a3) Output powers with τd=15ms. (b3)
Incremental costs with τd=15ms.
E. Simulation Case V: Communication Abnormal and Plug
and Play
This case discusses the control performance of the proposed
strategy with communication interruption, communication
restoration, and plug-and-play. The total load demand power is
5kW. The communication link between DG1 and DG2 is broken
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
10
Fig. 11. Simulation results of Case VII. (a) Total load power. (b) Output
powers. (c) Incremental costs. (d) Total cost. (e) Output voltages.
at t=2s and restored at t=4s. DG4 is disconnected from the
system at t=5s, and reconnected at t=10s.
From Fig. 9, since the communication network still has a
minimum directed spanning tree when the communication link
between DG1 and DG2 is disconnected, the control effect is not
affected. Similarly, communication restoration has little effect
on the system performance. At t=5s, DG4 is out of operation due
to failure, and it no longer participates in the consensus protocol
in (15), which is equivalent to DG4 being removed from the
communication network. In this case, the remaining DGs are
required to bear the total load demand power, so they cannot
continue to operate at the optimal working point. However, the
ICs of the remaining DGs can still be matched in real time,
which keeps the total power generation cost as small as possible.
At t=10s, DG4 is re-inserted, which causes the average bus
voltage to fluctuate with an amplitude of about 7.6V.
Fortunately, the optimal output power sharing and average bus
voltage restoration can be re-implemented in a short time,
which validates the excellent plug-and-play performance of the
proposed strategy.
F. Simulation Case VI: Communication Delays
In this case, the proposed strategy is tested with different
communication delays. The droop control and the proposed
strategy are activated at 0s and 5s, respectively. The initial total
load demand power is 5kW, which rises to 7.5kW at t=10s.
From Figs. 10(a1)(b1), the 5ms communication delay has no
significant effect on the control performance of the proposed
strategy. If the communication delay increases to 10ms, the
output power and ICs of DGs oscillate during the control
method and the loads change process, but the steady state can
still be restored quickly, as shown in Figs. 10(a2)(b2). However,
when the communication delay is increased to 15ms, the output
power and ICs of DGs oscillate violently, and it is difficult to
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 12. Experimental platform.
Fig. 13. Experimental results of Case I. (a) Incremental costs. (b) Output
currents. (d) Output voltages.
fully restore to steady state, but the established control
objectives can still be achieved, as shown in Figs. 10(a3)(b3).
Although the proposed strategy is proved to be stable in the
range of 10-260ms communication delay in Theorem 1, the
constraints of voltage fluctuation range, current ripple, dynamic
response time and other technical indicators cannot be ignored,
so safety and reliability should be considered on the basis of
system stability. On the other hand, stability analysis using
simplified models has certain limitations, and the actual
controller may have unknown parameters, unmodeled
dynamics, external disturbances and other uncertainties, which
can lead to deviations between theoretical analysis and
simulation results. Therefore, only 15ms or less communication
delay can be tolerated in practical applications.
G. Simulation Case VII: Simulate Time-Varying Loads
In this case, the effectiveness of the proposed strategy under
time-varying load conditions is tested. Due to the limitation of
computer data storage, the total load demand power data within
24h in an islanded DC microgrid is proportionally reduced to
24s, as shown in Fig. 11(a).
From Figs. 11(b)(c)(d), the output power and total power
generation cost of DGs can still dynamically track to the
optimal value under time-varying load conditions. Moreover,
the proposed strategy can still keep the average bus voltage
around 700V, as shown in Fig. 11(e). Therefore, the proposed
strategy can realize average bus voltage restoration and optimal
output power sharing under time-varying load conditions, and
exhibits strong robustness and practicability.
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
11
Fig. 14. Experimental results of Case II. (a) Incremental costs. (b) Output
currents. (d) Output voltages.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In this section, an islanded DC microgrid experimental model
based on StarSim HIL is built, as shown in Fig. 12. Herein, the
islanded DC microgrid consisting of four DGs and several loads
is simulated by NI-PXIe-FPGA-7846R. Besides, the proposed
distributed cooperative strategy is implemented by DSP
controllers of TMS320F28379D with a sampling period of 100
microseconds. Moreover, the experimental system parameters
are given in Table II.
A. Experimental Case I: Capacity Constraints
The experimental results with the DG2 capacity constraint are
given in Fig. 13. The initial total load demand power is 10kW,
which rises to 15kW at t=3s and drops to 10kW at t=7s.
From Figs. 13(a)(b)(c), the proposed strategy is able to
realize stable bus voltage restoration and optimal output power
sharing until t=3s. When the load demand power suddenly rises,
the IC and output current of DG2 are limited to λ2=1163¢/W and
io2=6.25A due to trigger upper warning threshold, whereas the
remaining DGs still complete the voltage regulation and
economic dispatch tasks based on the consensus protocol.
When the load demand power suddenly drops, the capacity
constraint state is lifted, so each DG re-tracks to the optimal
operating point. The DC bus voltage produces a drift during the
sudden change of load power, but can recover to the nominal
value quickly. The above experimental results are similar to the
results of simulation Case II, which verifies the effectiveness of
the proposed strategy with a certain DG capacity constraint.
B. Experimental Case II: Methods Comparison
Fig. 14 presents the experimental results under the
comparison between different methods. The total load demand
power is 10kW. The droop control, proportional power sharing
method, and the proposed strategy are applied at 0s, 3s and 7s,
respectively.
From Figs. 14(a)(b)(c), both droop control and proportional
power sharing methods cannot achieve bus voltage restoration
and optimal power sharing at the same time, whereas the
proposed strategy can solve this problem well. Therefore, DGs
are able to track the optimal operating point in real time to
eliminate average bus voltage deviation and minimize total
power generation cost, which is similar to the results of
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
simulation Case III.
VI. CONCLUSION
A novel distributed cooperative control strategy is developed
for stable bus voltage restoration and optimal power sharing in
islanded DC microgrids. Different from the centralized control
or hierarchical control, the proposed strategy can unify the
objectives of voltage regulation and economic dispatch in
single controller with a fully distributed manner, thereby
eliminating the average bus voltage deviation and minimizing
the total power generation cost in real time. Furthermore, the
concept of “IC margin” is introduced to constrain the ICs to the
limit warning threshold when the output power of DGs is
violated, thus avoiding the deterioration of the converter
performance. Finally, the simulation and experimental results
verify the effectiveness of the proposed strategy in an islanded
DC microgrid under various testing scenarios.
It is worth pointing out that communication delays have
become an important factor restricting the development of
distributed control strategies, and strengthening the influence of
time-varying communication delays on the proposed strategy
would be the focus of future research work.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. Vicuña, and M. Castilla,
“Hierarchical control of droop-controlled AC and DC microgrids—a
general approach toward standardization,” IEEE Trans. Ind Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 158–172, Jan. 2011.
[2] T. Dragičevič, X. Lu, J. C. Vasquez, and J. M. Guerrero, “DC
microgrids—part I: a review of control strategies and stabilization
techniques,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 4876–4891,
Jul. 2016.
[3] X. Lu, J. M. Guerrero, K. Sun, and J. C. Vasquez, “An improved droop
control method for DC microgrids based on low bandwidth
communication with DC bus voltage restoration and enhanced current
sharing accuracy,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 4, pp.
1800–1812, Apr. 2014.
[4] Q. Shafiee, V. Nasirian, J. C. Vasquez, J. M. Guerrero and A. Davoudi,
“A multi-functional fully distributed control framework for AC
microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3247–3258, Jul.
2018.
[5] M. Chen, X. Xiao, and J. M. Guerrero, “Secondary restoration control of
islanded microgrids with a decentralized event-triggered strategy,” IEEE
Trans Ind. Informat., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 3870–3880, Sep. 2018.
[6] S. Deng, L. Chen, X. Lu, T. Zheng, and S. Mei, “Distributed finite-time
secondary frequency control of islanded microgrids with enhanced
operational flexibility,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 36, no. 3, pp.
1733–1742, Sep. 2021.
[7] P. Wang, X. Lu, X. Yang, W. Wang and, D. Xu, “An improved
distributed secondary control method for DC microgrids with enhanced
dynamic current sharing performance,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 6658–6673, Sep. 2016.
[8] L. Xing, Y. Mishra, F. Guo, P. Lin, Y. Yang, G. Ledwich, and Y. Tian,
“Distributed secondary control for current sharing and voltage restoration
in DC microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 2487–
2497, May. 2020.
[9] W. W. A. G. Silva, T. R. Oliveira, and P. F. Donoso-Garcia, “An
improved voltage-shifting strategy to attain concomitant accurate power
sharing and voltage restoration in droop-controlled DC microgrids,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 2396–2406, Feb. 2021.
[10] Q. Zhang, Y. Zeng, Y. Liu, X. Zhuang, H. Zhang, W. Hu and H. Guo,
“An improved distributed cooperative control strategy for multiple
energy storages parallel in islanded DC microgrid,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics
Power Electron, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 455–468, Feb. 2022.
[11] A. A. Hamad, M. A. Azzouz, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Multiagent
supervisory control for power management in DC microgrids,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1057–1068, Mar. 2016.
© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
12
[12] C. E. Lin and G. L. Viviani, “Hierarchical economic dispatch for
piecewise quadratic cost functions,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.
PAS-103, pp. 1170–1175, Jun. 1984.
[13] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation, and
Control, 2nd ed. New York: Knovel, 1996.
[14] P. Chen, and H. Chang, “Large-scale economic dispatch by genetic
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1919–1926, Nov.
1995.
[15] P. Jong-Bae, J. Yun-Won, S. Joong-Rin, and K. Y. Lee, “An improved
particle swarm optimization for nonconvex economic dispatch problems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 156–166, Feb. 2010.
[16] Y. Xu, W. Zhang, and W. Liu, “Distributed dynamic programming-based
approach for economic dispatch in smart grids,” IEEE Trans Ind.
Informat., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 166–175, Feb. 2015.
[17] G. Wen, X. Yu, Z. Liu, and W. Yu, “Adaptive consensus-based robust
strategy for economic dispatch of smart grids subject to communication
uncertainties,” IEEE Trans Ind. Informat., vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2484–2496,
Jun. 2018.
[18] Z. Li, Z. Cheng, J. Si, and S. Li, “Distributed event-triggered hierarchical
control to improve economic operation of hybrid AC/DC microgrids,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3653–3668, Sep. 2022.
[19] Z. Wang, W. Wu, and B. Zhang, “A distributed control method with
minimum generation cost for DC microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1462–1470, Dec. 2016.
[20] J. Hu, J. Duan, H. Ma, and M. Y. Chow, “Distributed adaptive droop
control for optimal power dispatch in DC microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Ind
Electron., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 778–789, Jan. 2018.
[21] M. Zaery, P. Wang, W. Wang, and, D. Xu, “Distributed global
economical load sharing for a cluster of DC microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 3410–3420, Sep. 2020.
[22] J. Peng, B. Fan, and W. Liu, “Voltage-based distributed optimal control
for generation cost minimization and bounded bus voltage regulation in
DC microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 106–116,
Jan. 2021.
[23] Y. Dou, M. Chi, Z. W. Liu, G. Wen, and Q. Sun, “Distributed secondary
control for voltage regulation and optimal power sharing in DC
microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 30, no. 6, pp.
2561–2572, Nov. 2022.
[24] Y. Zeng, Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, X. Zhuang, X. Lv, and H. Wang, “An
improved distributed secondary control strategy for battery storage
system in DC shipboard microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Ind Appl., vol. 58, no.
3, pp. 4062–4075, May. 2022.
[25] R. Olfati-Saber, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of
agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, Sep. 2004.
[26] Z. Fan, B. Fan, and W. Liu, “Distributed control of DC microgrids for
optimal coordination of conventional and renewable generators,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 4607–4615, Nov. 2021.
[27] S. Yang, S. Tan, and J. X. Xu, “Consensus based approach for economic
dispatch problem in a smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 4416–4426, Nov. 2013.
[28] V. Nasirian, S. Moayedi, A. Davoudi, and F. L. Lewis, “Distributed
cooperative control of DC microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 2288–2303, Apr. 2015.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3274932

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS 13

Yuji Zeng (Graduate Student Member, IEEE) was born

in Guangdong, China, in 1996. He received the B.S.
degree in marine engineering from Guangdong Ocean
University, Zhanjiang, China, in 2018.
He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in
marine engineering from Dalian Maritime University,
Dalian, China. His current research interests include dc
microgrids, energy storage system, fuel cell system,
energy management system, and shipboard hybrid
power system.

Qinjin Zhang (Member, IEEE) was born in Jiangsu,

China, in 1986. He received the B.S. degree in
electrical engineering and automation and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in marine engineering from Dalian
Maritime University, Dalian, China, in 2009, 2011,
and 2015, respectively.
Since 2020, he has been an Associate Professor with
the Marine Engineering College, Dalian Maritime
University. His research interests include distributed
energy generation technology, power electronics
converters, microgrids, and ship dc integrated power
system.

Yancheng Liu was born in Liaoning, China. He

received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical
engineering from Harbin Industrial University, Harbin,
China, in 1985 and 1988, respectively, and the Ph.D.
degree in marine engineering from Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, China, in 2002. He is currently a
Professor with Marine Engineering College, Dalian
Maritime University. His research interests include
A.C. motor control, power electronic converters, ship
electrical propulsion technology, renewable energy
systems, and microgrids.

Haohao Guo (Member, IEEE) was born in Jiangxi,

China, in 1984. He received the M.S. and B.S. degrees
from Marine Engineering College, Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, China, in 2007 and 2012,
respectively. He is currently a Lecturer with Marine
Engineering College, Dalian Maritime University.
Since 2019, he has been a Visiting Scholar with
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. His research
interests include ship electrical propulsion technology
and PMSM control.

Fengkui Zhang was born in Hebei Province, China,

in 1990. He received the B.Eng. and M.Eng. degrees
in marine engineering from Dalian Maritime
University, Dalian, China, in 2013 and 2016,
respectively He is currently an Experimental Teacher
with Dalian Maritime University. His research
focuses on control of marine permanent magnet
propulsion motor.

© 2023 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Murdoch University. Downloaded on May 14,2023 at 15:52:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.