IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO.
1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024
Hybrid Sensor Fault Tolerant Control of
Low Voltage DC Microgrid
M. V. Satya Sai Chandra , Graduate Student Member, IEEE, and Sankarsan Mohapatro , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Low voltage DC (LVDC) microgrids have recently
gained popularity. In applications such as rural electrification,
data center power systems, and satellite microgrids stand-alone
LVDC microgrids have proven to be extremely beneficial. In the
case of standalone LVDC microgrids, voltage control and energy
management are crucial. In such standalone and safety-critical
systems, sensor faults are especially important to address. There-
fore, we present a hybrid sensor fault tolerant control (HSFTC)
approach with redundancy features at the software and hardware
levels. To address voltage sensor failures, an analytical redundancy
component employs a sliding mode observer in conjunction with
adaptive passivity-based control. To overcome battery current sen-
sor failures, a double modular hardware redundancy component is
included. Both MATLAB simulations and hardware experiments
on the microgrid testbed are used to verify the performance of
this HSFTC in a variety of scenarios involving sensor malfunctions
and load disturbances. We observe that the suggested HSFTC can
address sensor faults and load disturbances simultaneously. The
effectiveness of our control approach in dealing with sensor mal-
functions is evaluated in comparison to reference control strategies.
Index Terms—Fault-tolerant control, hardware redundancy,
LVDC microgrid, passivity control, sensor fault.
I. INTRODUCTION
C MICROGRIDS that operate independently have found
D widespread use in places such as electric aircraft, satellites,
and ships. Research on low voltage direct current (LVDC) micro-
grids has also increased significantly in recent years, particularly
for use in applications such as rural electricity. [1], [2]. Voltage
regulation and energy management in isolated microgrids are
difficult tasks because of the lack of grid support. Battery storage
interface control is essential for stable system voltage because
of source and load variability. The linear control strategies of the
microgrid, such as voltage mode control and cascaded control
[3], have been developed. Primary control mechanisms, such as
droop control and effective power-sharing controls, have been
Manuscript received 18 May 2023; revised 26 July 2023; accepted 5 Septem-
ber 2023. Date of publication 14 September 2023; date of current version 18
January 2024. Paper 2023-IACC-0821.R1, presented at the 2022 IEEE Global
Conference on Computing, Power and Communication Technologies, New
Delhi, India, Sep 23–25, and approved for publication in the IEEE TRANSAC-
TIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Industrial Automation and Control
Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society [DOI: 10.1109/Glob-
ConPT57482.2022.9938148]. (Corresponding author: Sankarsan Mohapatro.)
The authors are with the School of Electrical Sciences, Indian In-
stitute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar 751013, India (e-mail:
msc11@iitbbs.ac.in; sankarsan@iitbbs.ac.in).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2023.3315276.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2023.3315276
0093-9994 © 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: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1705
the subject of extensive research and development [4]. Nonlinear
loads and sudden, substantial disruptions of the system are
difficult for these linear control systems to handle [5]. As a
result, many studies have developed sophisticated and nonlinear
methods of control.
Nonlinear control strategies such as sliding mode control
(SMC) are useful for addressing disturbances and nonlinear
loading in complex systems. Initially, researchers developed
SMC systems based on equivalent control that use control
signals with varying frequencies [6]. Pulse width modulation
(PWM)-based SMC control techniques were created so that they
could be easily implemented in hardware [7], [8]. An adaptive
SMC approach for dealing with nonlinear loading conditions is
also presented in [9]. Few other works have been reported on
advanced controllers such as passivity-based control [10] and
Lyapunov-based control [11] for microgrid applications. The
goal of these control strategies is to address the intermittent
nature of the sources, as well as disturbances in the system,
nonlinear loading, and dynamic effects.
Sensors play a crucial role in the operation of the systems,
as they offer the necessary measurements for control and mon-
itoring. However, sensor faults can occur, resulting in subpar
performance or even system failure if they are not dealt with
properly. Sensor faults can reduce performance in the afore-
mentioned well-designed controllers. Inaccurate readings from
malfunctioning sensors can cause a number of issues, includ-
ing a loss of reference tracking and the accidental triggering
of safety mechanisms. Therefore, fault-tolerant control (FTC)
must be implemented to lessen the effects of sensor failures
and keep the system operational and safe [13]. For essential
systems such as electric aircraft and satellite microgrids, as
well as other standalone microgrid systems, FTC is absolutely
essential.
Active FTC schemes are quite popular which include the
fault detection and isolation (FDI) unit and control reconfig-
uration. Analytical redundancy-based systems and hardware
redundancy-based methods are two subsets of this larger group
[14]. To achieve fault tolerance [15], analytical redundancy
systems make use of state observers, while hardware redundancy
methods make use of redundant hardware units. Active fault
tolerance control (FTC) techniques have been researched for
their potential use in mitigating sensor and actuator failures in
complex systems [16], [17]. In the control systems literature,
active FTC has been investigated for a variety of uses, including
solar water pumping [18], power converter control, and motor
drives [19]. Across these applications, FTC can help detect
 1706
and compensate for faults, allowing continuous and efficient
operation even in the presence of faults.
For fault detection and control reconfiguration, state-
observer-based analytical redundancy FTC methods have
proven very popular [19]. The estimated states of a observer
act as a reference for the detection of sensor faults for the
corresponding state. Significant efforts have been made toward
developing sensor FTC schemes using popular observers such
as Kalman filters [20] and sliding mode observers (SMOs) [21].
For such FTC systems, SMO is a widely-used set of observers
due to its reliability in delivering accurate estimations [22],
[23], [24]. SMO is used for developing a current sensor FTC
in speed sensor-less induction motor drive applications [21]. To
address voltage and current sensor problems in grid-connected
photovoltaic (PV) systems, FTC schemes based on SMO have
been developed [25]. For the purpose of regulating the voltage
and frequency of three-phase AC microgrids, a fault-tolerant
control scheme is designed and implemented based on optimal
SMO-based current and voltage sensor fault estimation [26]. To
maintain the grid voltage and frequency stability an SMO based
FTC scheme is developed to handle the PV voltage sensor faults
and grid current sensor faults in a grid connected DC microgrid
[27]. Such observer-based approaches suffer from computa-
tional cost and modeling complexity in the FTC schemes that
handle numerous sensor faults and the inclusion of augmented
fault variables. Therefore, the FTC design becomes more com-
plicated and cumbersome at times.
Fault tolerance is achieved using redundant hardware mod-
ules in hardware redundancy schemes. Hardware redundancy
schemes generally use voter/decider logic to use the extra hard-
ware component in the case of fault detection [28], [29]. Unlike
analytical redundancy schemes, they offer the advantage of ease
of implementation. The adoption of supplementary hardware,
however, may not always be practical and cost-effective. There-
fore, a more efficient, feasible, and cost-effective approach in ap-
plications such as microgrids may be to combine analytical and
hardware-based redundancy techniques. Unfortunately, efforts
toward the application of a combination of both these schemes
together have been sparse, especially with consideration of
standalone DC microgrids.
To address these aforementioned research gaps, a hybrid
sensor fault tolerant control (HSFTC) technique is presented
here for efficiently dealing with voltage and current sensor
faults. This report is an extension of the work in [31] by the
same authors. In contrast to previous DC microgrid studies,
this study intends to make use of the benefits of both analytical
and hardware redundancy techniques. Additionally, unlike many
prior studies, this study attempts to address sensor failures and
load fluctuations occurring at the same time. The contributions
of this work are as follows:
r To address voltage and current sensor failures, a hybrid sen-
sor fault tolerant control (HSFTC) was developed, which
incorporated an analytical redundancy system based on
a sliding mode observer and a double modular hardware
redundancy scheme.
r A variety of sensor faults and changes in system load are
used to test the HSFTC’s resilience.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024
Fig. 1. Schematic of the equivalent LVDC Microgrid.
TABLE I
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
r The HSFTC is rigorously tested and assessed to verify how
well it handles various sensor faults and simultaneous load
fluctuations.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows: The
system is described in Section II. Sensor faults and fault toler-
ance are discussed in Section III. The proposed fault-tolerant
control technique is described in Section IV. The findings of
the simulations for the various case studies are discussed in
Section V. The proposed control is experimentally validated
for various instances in Section VI. Conclusions are offered in
Section VII.
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
A low voltage DC microgrid analog is considered, as shown
in Fig. 1. The system consists of a load connected to a common
DC bus, a bidirectional DC-DC converter (BDC), and a battery
storage system. The reference DC bus voltage is set at 48 V.
The most important step to achieving system voltage tracking
is controlling the switches of the BDC. For this task, boost
operation of BDC is considered.
The parameters of the system are shown in Table I.
A. Modelling the BDC Converter
BDC converters can be modeled using the average state space
model as in (1)-(2).
diL
L = vbat − (1 − u)vdc (1)
dt
C
dvdc
= (1 − u)iL − id (2)
dt
where inductor current (iL ) and DC bus voltage (vdc ) are the
state variables of the system, u is the control input to the
boost switch, battery voltage (Vbat ) is the input voltage, and
id is the disturbance current, which is the output load current
supplied. This current can be modeled as id = vRC , where R is
CHANDRA AND MOHAPATRO: HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL OF LOW VOLTAGE DC MICROGRID 1707

the equivalent load resistance as coupled to the battery storage

systems.
The BDC model is a nonlinear model with affinity between
state variables and control input. The presence of the external
disturbance in the form of id makes the system much more
difficult to control.

III. SENSOR FAULTS AND FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL

Fig. 2. Structure of Active Fault Tolerant Control Scheme.
Faults are considered to be unexpected events of deviation
from the regular operation of the system. The incidence of faults
hinders system performance and may have detrimental impacts
on how the system functions. Specifically, sensor and actuator B. Fault Tolerant Control
faults seem to be critical from the system control perspective. Fault Tolerant Control (FTC) has two popular categories:
Therefore, it is extremely desirable to develop control techniques Active Fault Tolerant Control (AFTC) and Passive Fault Tolerant
that can accomplish the control goals while tolerating sensor Control (PFTC). AFTC schemes are capable of handling a wide
faults. variety of faults compared to PFTC schemes. Further details of
the AFTC scheme are discussed as follows:
A. Sensor Fault Description 1) Active Fault Tolerant Control (AFTC): The AFTC
Sensor faults are generally categorized into multiplicative schemes are capable of handling many varieties of faults in the
faults and additive faults. They are mathematically modeled as system. The AFTC scheme has two functional units, namely,
in (3), [13], [30]: the fault detection and isolation (FDI) unit and control recon-
figuration. The structure of the AFTC scheme is shown in
z f = (βz )z + fz (3) Fig. 2. The implementation of AFTC schemes is performed
The actual sensor output is z, whereas the faulty sensor output is using two popular techniques, namely, analytical redundancy
z f . The multiplicative fault component or gain fault is modeled and hardware redundancy [14]. The details of these schemes are
as βz , where 0 ≤ βz ≤ 1. The additive fault component is discussed as follows:
modeled as fz . The sensor faults are categorized into different a) Analytical redundancy: Analytical redundancy schemes
types based on the characteristics of their occurrence. Some of use an extra analytical component that is used to achieve
them are discussed as follows: the FTC based on the mathematical model of the system.
1) Sustained Faults: Sustained faults correspond to the situ- Generally, state observer-based approaches are popularly
ation where the sensor is faulty right from the start of the system. used in analytical redundancy schemes [15]. The state
They can be modeled as in (4): observer is used for detecting faults and for the control
reconfiguration process after fault detection.
z f = (βz ∗ z + f0 ) : t ≥ 0 (4) b) Hardware redundancy: Hardware redundancy schemes
where z f is considered to be the faulty sensor output and z is use extra hardware components to achieve FTC of the sys-
the actual output of the sensor. tem. The purpose of the extra/redundant hardware module
2) Abrupt Faults: Abrupt faults are characterized by the oc- is to maintain the system operation even if one of the
currence of a sensor fault after a time t0 but not from the start. hardware components has a fault. A voter/decision logic
These faults can be modeled as in (5): component is present to detect the fault in one hardware
 module and then switch to the fault-free module.
z : t ≤ t0
z =
f
(5)
(βz ∗ z + f0 ) : t ≥ t0 IV. PROPOSED HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT
3) Intermittent Faults: Intermittent faults are characterized CONTROL STRATEGY
by the occurrence of a sensor fault between times t0 and t1 . Our controller is a hybrid configuration of the analytical
These faults can be modeled as in (6): redundancy and hardware redundancy schemes of the FTC. The
⎧
⎨ z : t ≤ t0 analytical redundancy scheme is designed based on the sliding
z f = (βz ∗ z + f0 ) : t0 ≤ t ≤ t1 (6) mode observer (SMO) in tandem with adaptive passivity-based
⎩
z : t ≥ t1 control to handle DC bus voltage sensor faults. A double modular
hardware redundancy scheme is designed to handle battery
4) Open Sensor Faults: Open sensor faults are characterized current sensor faults, as shown in Fig. 3. The motivation for using
by the sensor giving zero output instead of the actual sensed a hybrid FTC with both analytical and hardware redundancy is
value. between a time t0 and t1 . These faults can be modeled as as follows:
in (7): r The cost of the current sensor is almost 1/5th of that of the
⎧
⎨ z : t ≤ t0 voltage sensor (in view of the LEM sensors LA-55P and
z f = 0 : t 0 ≤ t ≤ t1 (7) LV-25P). Therefore, hardware redundancy is more cost-
⎩
z : t ≥ t1 effective, especially for current sensors.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1708 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024

The values of the observer gains are calculated by using the

conditions e = 0 and ė = 0, which are given in (11)
vdc
l1 = k1 (1 − u)
L
vdc
l2 = k 2 (11)
RC
where k1 and k2 are constants that are tunable to enable an
improved observer transient response. The proper choice of
the observer gains is made to maintain the error dynamics of
the observer stable, ensuring proper convergence of observer
estimates to the measured states [24].
2) Adaptive Passivity Based Control: Adaptive passivity-
based control [10] is used to generate the switching control signal
Fig. 3. Proposed Hybrid Sensor Fault Tolerant Control Strategy. to the BDC. This controller is used along with SMO to achieve
an analytical redundancy scheme to handle voltage sensor faults.
The average model of the BDC is given in (12) as follows:
r The estimation of both state variables is computationally 1
ẋ1 =[−(1 − u)x2 + E]
expensive with the need for a bank of observers. The L
observer modeling complexity problem is also a drawback 1
ẋ2 = [(1 − u)x1 − θx2 ] (12)
of analytical redundancy. C
where x1 = iL and x2 = vdc are the state variables. E is the
A. SMO-Based Analytical Redundancy battery voltage, and θ = (1/R0 ) is the output load conductance.
The state vector is defined as x, which is a column vector con-
As a part of this work, an SMO-based analytical redundancy sisting of x1 and x2 . The system’s unknown constant parameter
scheme has been incorporated into the controller to handle volt- vector is represented as Θ, which is a column vector containing
age sensor faults. An adaptive passivity-based controller is used E and θ. The parameter estimate vector for the unknowns is
with the SMO, along with the FDI and control reconfiguration denoted as Θ̂, a column vector consisting of the estimates for Ê
unit. and θ̂. The system given in (12) is represented as in (13).
1) Sliding Mode Observer Design: The sliding mode ob-
server is described bv the observer equations given in [23], [24]. G ẋ + (1 − u)J x + Rx = ζ (13)
The system dynamics are described by the general form given ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
L 0⎥ ⎢ 0 1⎥ ⎢0 0 ⎥ ⎢Ê ⎥
in (8). where G =⎢
⎣ ⎦ , J =⎣ ⎦, R = ⎣ ⎦, and ζ =⎣ ⎦.
0 C −1 0 0 θ̂ 0
ẋ = Ax + Bu (8) The error state variables are defined as x˜1 = x1 − x1d and x˜2 =
x2 − x2d , where x1d and x2d are the desired values of the states.
where x = [iL⎡vdc ]T is the state vector. ⎤The system matrix is The objective of the controller is to maintain the output
0 −(1 − u)/L⎥ voltage (x2 ) at a desired constant value (Vd ). Indirect control
given by A =⎢ ⎣ ⎦. A nonlinear term is is implemented due to the nonminimum value exhibited by the
(1 − u)/C −1/RC
boost converter. The error dynamics are therefore as in (14).
added to the state equation of the converter to obtain the observer
equation as in (9). This term is proportional to the difference G x̃˙ + (1 − u)J x̃ + Rx̃ = ζ − (G x˙d + (1 − u)J xd + Rxd )
between the actual value and the observed value. (14)
The error dynamics are rewritten after the addition of a damping
x̂˙ = Ax̂ + Bu + L sign(y − C x̂) (9)
term on both sides of (14), as shown in (15), (16).
where, x̂ = [iˆL vˆdc ]T denote the observed value of the state G x̃˙ + (1 − u)J x̃ + Rd x̃ = φ (15)
vector, sign(y − C x̂) is the non linear observer term, y is the
output of the system and L = [l1 l2 ]T is the observer gain vector. φ = ζ − (G x˙d + (1 − u)J xd + Rxd − RI x̃) (16)
⎡ ⎤
The observer error dynamics are given in (10) R1 0 ⎥
where RI =⎢
⎣ ⎦, R1 > 0 and Rd = RI + R. RI is the
−(1 − u)vdc 0 0
i˙L = + l1 sign(ȳ) additive damping term added to the error dynamics.
L
A quadratic energy function is applied using the state error
˙ = (1 − u)i̇L vdc vector and the control input. Correspondingly, a parameter adap-
vdc − + l2 sign(ȳ) (10)
C RC tation equation is derived as in (17).
˙
where iL = iˆL − iL , vdc = vˆdc − vdc and y = y − ŷ. Θ̂ = −Γ(Y x̃ − σ Θ̂) (17)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHANDRA AND MOHAPATRO: HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL OF LOW VOLTAGE DC MICROGRID 1709

 
Γ1 0
where Γ = , Γ1 , Γ2 > 0 is the gain matrix to adjust
0 Γ2
 T
the convergence rate of the parameters. Θ̂ = Ê θ̂ is the
parameter estimation vector of the system.  σ > 0 is a constant
−1 0
design parameter and Y = . In the present work,
0 x2 d
the input battery voltage is considered to be constant. Therefore,
Ê is considered to be 24 V.
The system incorporates an adaptation law block and a con-
troller dynamics block. The adaptation law block utilizes system
state information (x), and the desired voltage (x2d ) in order to
estimate the unknown parameter vector (Θ̂) based on a specified
relationship in (17). This estimation is continuously updated us- Fig. 4. Flowchart of SMO based analytical redundancy to handle voltage
ing the system’s response and the desired output. The dynamics sensor faults.
of the desired states are also considered in the development of
the control scheme for the system. The dynamics of the desired
state x1d are given by (18). Algorithm 1: Double Modular Hardware Redundancy Al-
2
gorithm.
Vd Step 1: Obtain the measurements of the battery current
ẋ1d = −Γ1 θ̂x̃1 − Γ2 Ê x̃2 x2d (18)
Ê (IL ) through both the current sensors as I1 and I2 .
Step 2: Compare both the readings of the current sensors.
where x1d = (vref )2 θ̂/Ê. The choice of the parameters Γ1 and
If | I1 − I2 |< IT hreshold , then its fault free condition.
Γ2 of the adaptation law is done in such a way to achieve desired
Step 3: If I1 − I2 ≥ IT hreshold then current sensor-2 is
updation of the unknown parameters θ̂ and Ê such that the
faulty. Fault status flag of current sensor-1 is high
overall control of the states is achieved effectively.
(S2 = 1). Output of current sensor-1 (I1 ) is fed back to
In addition, the controller dynamics block takes system states
the controller.
(x), the estimated parameter vector (Θ̂), and the desired output
Step 4: If I2 − I1 ≥ IT hreshold then current sensor-1 is
voltage (Vd ) as inputs. Its primary purpose is to generate the
faulty. Fault status flag of current sensor-1 is high
control input (u) for the plant based on these inputs. The control
(S1 = 1). Output of current sensor-1 (I2 ) is fed back to
input is then defined as per (19).
the controller.
1
u=1+ Lẋ1d − Ê − R1 x̃1 (19)
x2d TABLE II
PARAMETERS OF THE PROPOSED HSFTC
where R1 is the additive damping term chosen as mentioned in
(16). The dynamics of desired state x2d is given by (20).
1
ẋ2d = (1 − u)x1d − θ̂x2d (20)
C
Overall, the adaptation law block and the controller dynamics
block work in tandem to achieve the desired control objectives.
The adaptation law block continually refines the estimated pa-
rameter vector, while the controller dynamics block utilizes this current sensors. If the faulty sensor is detected, then the con-
estimated vector, along with system states and desired output troller feedback is routed from the healthy current sensor. The
voltage, to determine the appropriate control input. double modular hardware redundancy is implemented as in
3) Flowchart of SMO Based Analytical Redundancy Scheme: Algorithm 1.
The measured state is compared with the estimated states of the
observer and is used to generate the residuals as r = x − x̂.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the residuals, the sensor fault is detected, and control
reconfiguration is performed, as shown in Fig. 4. The performance of the proposed Hybrid FTC control is ana-
lyzed in simulation using the MATLAB/SIMULINK platforms.
B. Double Modular Hardware Redundancy The parameters of the simulated HSFTC are listed in Table II.

To handle the current sensor faults, a double modular hard-

ware redundancy scheme is used, as shown in Fig. 3. This A. Performance of the System Without Proposed HSFTC
system consists of two identical current sensors (CS-1 and CS-2) The performance of the system with only the adaptive
measuring the same battery current. There is a voter/decision passivity-based controller [10] is observed under the situation
logic to detect the faulty sensor in coordination with the two of a faulty voltage sensor.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1710 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024

Fig. 5. DC Bus voltage of the microgrid under the presence of faulty voltage Fig. 7. DC Bus voltage with sustained voltage sensor fault using proposed
sensor. HSFTC.

Fig. 8. Power balance with sustained voltage sensor fault using proposed
HSFTC.

Fig. 6. Impact of faulty voltage sensor on the load power.

Two situations of voltage sensor faults, sustained faults and

abrupt faults, are considered with multiplicative fault gain βz =
0.8 and additive bias fault of f0 = −2. Under such a situation
of a faulty voltage sensor, it is seen from Fig. 5 that the DC
bus voltage is highly deviating with a voltage of approximately
58 V instead of the 48 V reference. Additionally, it is a factor of
concern that the power consumed by the load is approximately
350 W, as seen in Fig. 6, which is approximately 110 W more
than its rated value of 240 W. Therefore, the presence of a faulty Fig. 9. DC Bus voltage with abrupt voltage sensor fault using proposed
voltage sensor is very problematic in view of the voltage tracking HSFTC.
and power balance criteria of the microgrid.
objective is achieved, as shown in Fig. 9. The transients in
B. Performance of the System With Voltage Sensor Faults With bus voltage due to the occurrence of an abrupt sensor fault
the Proposed HSFTC settle quickly in approximately 0.24 seconds with an overshoot
of approximately 1.2%. Power balance of the system is also
As discussed earlier, the SMO-based analytical redundancy
achieved, as shown in Fig. 10. The transients in power also settle
scheme present in our controller is used to handle voltage sensor
down in approximately 0.26 s with an overshoot of 2.2%.
faults. Two types of voltage sensor faults, namely, sustained and
abrupt sensor faults, are considered, which are discussed in this
section. C. Performance of the System With Current Sensor Faults
With the Proposed HSFTC
1) Sustained Voltage Sensor Gain Fault: A sustained voltage
sensor fault with multiplicative fault component βz = 0.8 and As discussed earlier, a double modular hardware redundancy
additive bias fault of f0 = −2 is considered. Under such a fault scheme present in our controller is used to handle the current
situation, it is observed in Fig. 7 that the DC bus voltage tracking sensor faults. Two identical current sensors are used to measure
with our HSFTC is proper at approximately 48 V. The power the battery current (IL ). These sensors have status flags S1 and
balance is also satisfied, as shown in Fig. 8. S2 , respectively, to indicate a corresponding sensor being faulty.
2) Abrupt Voltage Sensor Gain Fault: An abrupt voltage 1) Sustained Current Sensor Gain Fault: The current sensor-
sensor fault with multiplicative fault component βz = 0.8 and 1 is considered to have a sustained fault with a multiplicative
additive bias fault of f0 = −2 is considered to occur at t = 2 fault component βz = 0.8 and an additive bias fault of f0 =
seconds. In such a situation, the system’s voltage tracking −2. Under such circumstances, our controller is very capable

Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHANDRA AND MOHAPATRO: HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL OF LOW VOLTAGE DC MICROGRID
Fig. 10. Power balance with abrupt voltage sensor fault using proposed
HSFTC.
Fig. 11. DC Bus voltage and battery current with proposed HSFTC under the
situation of sustained current sensor fault.
Fig. 12. DC Bus voltage and battery current with abrupt current sensor fault
using proposed HSFTC.
of maintaining the DC bus voltage at approximately 48 V, as
shown in Fig. 11. The battery current is also observed to track the
reference current of approximately 10 A without any deviation
caused by the sensor fault. Power balance has been achieved
without any influence of the current sensor fault.
2) Abrupt Current Sensor Gain Faults: Current sensor-1 is
considered to have an abrupt fault at t = 2 seconds with mul-
tiplicative fault component βz = 0.8 and additive bias fault of
f0 = −2. In this situation, we observe that the system voltage
and battery current are maintained at their references, despite
the current sensor-1 becoming faulty at t = 2 seconds, as shown
in Fig. 12. The transients in the bus voltage due to the abrupt
current sensor fault are settled in approximately 0.11 seconds
with an overshoot of approximately 0.8%. Therefore, the voltage
transient recovers, and power balance is also achieved.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1711
Fig. 13. DC bus voltage & battery current with load disturbances, intermittent
voltage sensor fault and open current sensor fault using the proposed HSFTC.
Fig. 14. Power variations with load disturbances, intermittent voltage sensor
fault and open current sensor fault using the proposed HSFTC.
D. Performance of the System Under Load Disturbance With
the Proposed HSFTC
The aspect of handling load disturbances by the proposed FTC
is discussed here. The load disturbance of 20% increment and
20% decrement of the base load is considered at instants t =
4 s and t = 8 s, respectively. Along with the load disturbances,
an intermittent voltage sensor fault occurs between t = 2 s and
t = 6 s. Additionally, an open current sensor fault for current
sensor-1 is considered to be occurring between t = 3 s and t =
7 s. The performance of the proposed HSFTC in terms of the
system voltage profile and power profile is shown in Figs. 13
and 14, respectively.
The transient effect in the bus voltage due to the intermit-
tent voltage sensor fault is settled down in approximately 0.24
seconds with an overshoot of approximately 1.2%. The voltage
transients due to load change are also effectively handled within
a settling time of approximately 0.16 seconds with an overshoot
of approximately 2.2%. The load power transients are observed
with an overshoot of approximately 4% with a settling time of
approximately 0.15 seconds. Therefore, the load disturbances
are handled effectively by the our FTC, which demonstrates a
good transient response even under the presence of an intermit-
tent voltage sensor fault and open current sensor faults.
E. Performance of the System Under Simultaneous Load
Change and Sensor Faults With the Proposed HSFTC
The aspect of handling simultaneous events of load change
and sensor faults by our FTC is further investigated.
 1712 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024

Fig. 15. DC bus voltage with simultaneous load disturbance, abrupt voltage Fig. 17. Experimental setup of the considered LVDC Microgrid.
sensor fault, and abrupt current sensor fault at t = 2 s using the proposed
HSFTC.

Fig. 16. Power variation with simultaneous load disturbance, abrupt voltage
sensor fault, and abrupt current sensor fault at t = 2 s using the proposed
HSFTC. Fig. 18. DC bus voltage of the considered system with abrupt voltage sensor
fault at t = 2 s using the proposed HSFTC.

A load increment of approximately 20%, along with an abrupt

voltage sensor fault and an abrupt current sensor fault of current
sensor-1, is considered at the same instant t = 2 s. The voltage
tracking and system power balance aspects of the proposed FTC
are observed under such a situation, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
The transient effect in the bus voltage due to the simultaneous
occurrence of sensor faults and load change settles after ap-
proximately 0.22 seconds with an undershoot of approximately
1.2%. The load power transients are observed with an overshoot
of approximately 2.5% with a settling time of approximately
0.21 seconds. Despite the occurrence of sensor faults and load
changes at the same time, our HSFTC is able to handle the
voltage and power response effectively. Fig. 19. Power balance in the considered system with abrupt voltage sensor
fault at t = 2 s using the proposed HSFTC.
VI. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
This section describes the experimental validation of the
A. Performance of the System With Voltage Sensor Faults With
proposed HSFTC algorithm on the laboratory-scale LVDC mi-
crogrid testbed, as shown in Fig. 17. The setup consists of battery Proposed HSFTC
storage of 24 V and 100 Ah capacity interfaced to a Semikron An abrupt voltage sensor fault is considered to be occurring at
DC-DC buck-boost converter stack with a base resistive load t = 2 s with a gain fault component of β = 0.8 and an additive
of 240 W (12 Ohm, 12 A). A dSPACE 1103 interface is used fault component of −2. Under these conditions, the performance
to build the control logic and generate the PWM signals for of the FTC in terms of the voltage and power profiles is observed
the converter. To implement the closed-loop control for the in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively.
system, LEM voltage sensors (LV-20) and LEM current sensors Our controller therefore achieves reference tracking and
(LA-55P) are used. power balance in the system despite the presence of an abrupt
The performance of the proposed HSFTC under different voltage sensor fault. The battery supplies a current of approx-
situations is validated on the laboratory testbed. imately 10.4 A. The slight difference of approximately 10 W

Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CHANDRA AND MOHAPATRO: HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL OF LOW VOLTAGE DC MICROGRID
Fig. 20. DC bus voltage of the considered system with abrupt current sensor
fault at t = 2 s using the proposed HSFTC.
Fig. 21. Power balance in the considered system with abrupt current sensor
fault at t = 2 s using the proposed HSFTC.
between the battery power and the load power accounts for
the overall losses of the system. The transient bus voltage due
to the occurrence of an abrupt sensor fault settles quickly in
approximately 0.25 seconds with an overshoot of approximately
4%. The transients in power also settle down in approximately
0.26 s with an overshoot of 4.1%.
B. Performance of the System With Current Sensor Faults With
the Proposed HSFTC
Our HSFTC is further tested in its ability to handle the current
sensor faults acting alone. An abrupt current sensor fault is
considered to be occurring at t = 2 s with a gain fault component
of β = 0.8 and an additive fault component of −2. Under these
conditions, the performance of the FTC in terms of the voltage
and power profiles is shown in Figs. 20 and 21, respectively. The
transient bus voltage due to the occurrence of an abrupt current
sensor fault is settled in approximately 0.15 seconds with an
overshoot/undershoot of approximately 2%. The transients in
power also settle down in approximately 0.18 s with an overshoot
of 3%. Even under the presence of the abrupt current sensor
fault, the voltage is maintained at 48 V, and the power balance
is maintained in the system.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1713
Fig. 22. DC bus voltage of the considered System with load disturbances,
intermittent voltage sensor fault and open current sensor fault using the proposed
HSFTC.
Fig. 23. Power balance in the considered system with load disturbances,
intermittent voltage sensor fault and open current sensor fault using the proposed
HSFTC.
C. Performance of the System Under Load Disturbance With
the HSFTC
The aspect of handling load disturbances by the HSFTC is
discussed here. The load disturbance of 20% increment and 20%
decrement of the base load is considered at around t = 4 s and
t = 8 s, respectively.
Along with the load disturbances, an intermittent voltage
sensor fault occurs between t = 2 s and t = 6 s. Additionally,
an open current sensor fault of current sensor-1 is considered
to occur between t = 3 s and t = 7 s. The performance of the
FTC in terms of the system voltage profile and power profile is
shown in Figs. 22 and 23, respectively. The transient effect in the
bus voltage due to the intermittent voltage sensor fault settles in
approximately 0.24 seconds with an overshoot of approximately
3%. The voltage transients due to load change are also effectively
handled within a settling time of approximately 0.18 seconds
with an overshoot of approximately 3.2%. The load power
transients are observed with an overshoot of approximately 8.5%
with a settling time of approximately 0.2 seconds. Therefore,
the HSFTC performs well by maintaining the control objectives
even under the presence of intermittent voltage sensor faults and
open current sensor faults.
 1714 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 60, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024
Fig. 24. DC bus voltage of the considered system with load disturbance, abrupt
voltage sensor fault, and abrupt current sensor fault at t = 2 s using the proposed
HSFTC.
Fig. 25. Power balance in the considered system with load disturbance, abrupt
voltage sensor fault, and abrupt current sensor fault at t = 2 s using the proposed
HSFTC.
D. Performance of the System Under Simultaneous Load
Change and Sensor Faults With the HSFTC
The HSFTC is finally tested for handling simultaneous fault
events. The events of load increase (of 20%), abrupt voltage
sensor fault, and abrupt current sensor fault of current sensor-1
are considered to occur at t = 2 s.
The occurrence of the events at the same time is considered
as a severe situation for managing with a fail safe system.
Even under such a situation, the performance of our FTC is
evaluated positively, as shown in Figs. 24 and 25. In spite of
the three simultaneous events occurring at t = 2 s, our FTC
manages the voltage profile and the power profiles decently well.
The transient effect in the bus voltage due to the simultaneous
occurrence of sensor faults and load change settles in approxi-
mately 0.22 seconds with an undershoot of approximately 4%.
The load power transients are observed with an overshoot of
approximately 8.5% with a settling time of approximately 0.23
seconds. Therefore, the HSFTC is observed to handle a wide
variety of sensor fault situations and loading situations.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 26. Comparison of DC bus voltage with sensor fault using proposed
HSFTC and other control strategies.
E. Comparative Analysis
The performance of our controller under the situation of a
faulty voltage sensor is compared with several popular control
strategies, such as cascaded control [3], sliding mode control
[6], adaptive sliding mode control [9], and adaptive passivity
control [10]. In this comparison, a sustained voltage sensor fault
is considered with a multiplicative fault component βz = 0.8
and an additive bias fault of f0 = −2. As shown in Fig. 26,
the popular control strategies fail to deliver the voltage tracking
objective under the situation of a voltage sensor fault. Our
controller outperforms these popular control strategies with
effective voltage tracking even under sensor faults.
VII. CONCLUSION
The effect of sensor faults on the control performance of
an LVDC Microgrid has been thoroughly investigated. To ef-
fectively handle the presence of sensor faults in the system, a
hybrid FTC control has been implemented. This controller has
analytical = and hardware redundancy components to handle
voltage sensor and current sensor faults, respectively. The goal
of DC bus voltage regulation and power balance in the system is
effectively achieved even in the presence of voltage and current
sensor faults. The performance of our controller is verified under
different sensor fault situations. We observed that the proposed
control outperforms some of the popular controls in terms of
fault tolerance, voltage tracking, and transient response for load
disturbances and sensor faults.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Jhunjhunwala and P. Kaur, “Solar energy, DC distribution, and mi-
crogrids: Ensuring quality power in Rural India,” IEEE Electrific. Mag.,
vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 32–39, Dec. 2018.
[2] M. V. Satya Sai Chandra, B. D. B, L. V. Kumar, and S. Mphapatro, “Voltage
control and energy management of solar PV fed stand-alone low voltage
DC microgrid for rural electrification,” in Proc. 21st Nat. Power Syst.
Conf., 2020 pp. 1–6.
[3] S. Bacha, I. Munteanu, and A. I. Bratcu, Power Electronic Converters
Modelling and Control: With Case Studies, vol. 454. Berlin, Germany:
Springer, 2014.
[4] F. Cingoz, A. Elrayyah, and Y. Sozer, “Optimized settings of droop
parameters using stochastic load modeling for effective DC microgrids
operation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1358–1371,
Mar./Apr. 2017.
[5] R. Bhosale, R. Gupta, and V. Agarwal, “A novel control strategy to achieve
SOC balancing for batteries in a DC microgrid without droop control,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 4196–4206, Jul./Aug. 2021.
CHANDRA AND MOHAPATRO: HYBRID SENSOR FAULT TOLERANT CONTROL OF LOW VOLTAGE DC MICROGRID
[6] D. K. Fulwani and S. Singh, Mitigation of Negative Impedance Instabil-
ities in DC Distribution Systems(SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and
Technology). Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2017.
[7] Y. Zhao, W. Qiao, and D. Ha, “A sliding-mode duty-ratio controller for
DC/DC buck converters with constant power loads,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1448–1458, Mar./Apr. 2014.
[8] S. Singh, D. Fulwani, and V. Kumar, “Robust sliding-mode control of
DC/DC boost converter feeding a constant power load,” IET Power Elec-
tron, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1230–1237, 2015.
[9] G. Mustafa, F. Ahmad, R. Zhang, E. Ul Haq, and M. Hussain, “Adaptive
sliding mode control of buck converter feeding resistive and constant power
load in DC microgrid,” Energy Rep., vol. 9, pp. 1026–1035, 2023.
[10] A. M. Dissanayake and N. C. Ekneligoda, “Adaptive passivity based
control of DC-DC power electronic converters,” in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power
Electron. Conf. Expo., 2019, pp. 2984–2988.
[11] A. Abedi, B. Rezaie, A. Khosravi, and M. Shahabi, “DC-bus voltage
control based on direct Lyapunov method for a converter-based stand-alone
DC micro-grid,” Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 187, 2020, Art. no. 106451.
[12] J. Wu and Y. Lu, “Adaptive backstepping sliding mode control for
boost converter with constant power load,” IEEE Access, vol. 7,
pp. 50797–50807, 2019.
[13] Y. Wang, D. Zhou, S. J. Qin, and H. Wang, “Active fault-tolerant control
for a class of nonlinear systems with sensor faults,” Int. J. Control. Autom.
Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 339–350, 2008.
[14] M. S. Mahmoud and Y. Xia, Analysis and Synthesis of Fault-Tolerant
Control Systems. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2014.
[15] M. V. Satya Sai Chandra and S. Mohapatro, “Active sensor fault tolerant
control of bus voltage in standalone low voltage DC microgrid,” Elect.
Eng., vol. 105, pp. 1079–1092, 2023.
[16] D. Li, Y. Wang, J. Wang, C. Wang, and Y. Duan, “Recent advances in
sensor fault diagnosis: A review,” Sensors Actuators A: Phys., vol. 309,
2020, Art. no. 111990.
[17] T. H. Lee, C. P. Lim, S. Nahavandi, and R. G. Roberts, “Observer-based
H∞ fault-tolerant control for linear systems with sensor and actuator
faults,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1981–1990, Jun. 2019.
[18] Z. Ben Safia, M. Kharrat, M. Allouche, and M. Chaabane, “TS fuzzy fault-
tolerant tracking control of a PV pumping system based on an induction
motor,” IETE J. Res., vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 4826–4835, 2023.
[19] A. A. Amin and K. M. Hasan, “A review of fault tolerant control sys-
tems: Advancements and applications,” Measurement, vol. 143, pp. 58–68,
2019.
[20] G. H. B. Foo, X. Zhang, and D. M. Vilathgamuwa, “A sensor fault detection
and isolation method in interior permanent-magnet synchronous motor
drives based on an extended Kalman filter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 3485–3495, Aug. 2013.
[21] Y. Zuo et al., “Current sensor fault-tolerant control for speed-sensorless in-
duction motor drives based on the SEPLL current reconstruction scheme,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 845–856, Jan./Feb. 2023.
[22] C. Edwards and C. P. Tan, “Sensor fault tolerant control using sliding mode
observers,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 897–908, 2006.
[23] S. Drakunov and V. Utkin, “Sliding mode observers. Tutorial,” in Proc.
IEEE 34th Conf. Decis. Control, 1995, vol. 4, pp. 3376–3378.
[24] P. Bhartiya, N. Rathore, and D. Fulwani, “A tutorial on implementation
of sliding mode observer for DC/DC power converters using FPGA,” in
Proc. IECON Proc. Ind. Electron. Conf., 2014, pp. 4153–4159.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology. Downloaded on April 22,2024 at 14:07:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1715
[25] S. Saha et al., “Diagnosis and mitigation of voltage and current sensors
malfunctioning in a grid connected PV system,” Int. J. Elect. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 115, 2020, Art. no. 105381.
[26] E. Shahzad et al., “Sensor fault-tolerant control of microgrid using robust
sliding-mode observer,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1–38, 2022.
[27] S. Saha, T. K. Roy, M. A. Mahmud, M. E. Haque, and S. N. Islam, “Sensor
fault and cyber attack resilient operation of DC microgrids,” Int. J. Elect.
Power Energy Syst., vol. 99, pp. 540–554, 2018.
[28] S. Mehdi and A. Mehdi, “New hardware redundancy approach for making
modules tolerate faults using a new fault detecting voter unit structure,”
IET Circuits, Devices Syst., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 980–989, 2020.
[29] E. Moradi, H. Iman-Eini, and S. Sheikhaei, “A simple hardware-based
fault-tolerant method for cascaded H-bridge converters,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 9711–9720, Oct. 2022.
[30] S. Das and M. Manohar, “A resilient current sensor fault tolerant strategy
for vector-controlled induction motor drive,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel.
Topics Power Electron., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 4313–4320, Aug. 2023.
[31] M. V. S. S. Chandra and S. Mohapatro, “Hybrid sensor fault toler-
ant control of low voltage DC microgrid,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Conf.
Comput., Power Commun. Technol., 2022, pp. 01–06, doi: 10.1109/Glob-
ConPT57482.2022.9938148.
M. V. Satya Sai Chandra (Graduate Student Mem-
ber, IEEE) was born in Srikakulam, India, in 1993. He
received the B.Tech. degree from Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University, Kakinada, India, in 2014,
and the M.Tech. degree in instrumentation and con-
trol systems from the National Institute of Technol-
ogy, Calicut, India, in 2017. He is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
with DEI Laboratory, Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India. His research
interests include fault-tolerant control applications,
advanced control of DC microgrids, and energy management of DC microgrids.
Sankarsan Mohapatro (Senior Member, IEEE) was
born in Cuttack, India, in 1983. He received the B.E.
degree from the National Institute of Science and
Technology, Berhampur, India, in 2005, and the M.Sc.
(Eng.) and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangaluru, India,
in 2008 and 2011, respectively. He is currently an
Associate Professor with the School of Electrical Sci-
ences, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar,
India. His research interests include high voltage ap-
plications for reducing air pollution, DC microgrids,
and renewable energy.