Solid State Transformer Control Aspects For
Various Smart Grid Scenarios
Naga Brahmendra Yadav Gorla, Sandeep Kolluri and Sanjib Kumar Panda
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
National University of Singapore, Singapore-119077
Email: naga@u.nus.edu
Abstract—The power distribution networks can be classified
as active/passive and stiff/weak based on the nature of loads and
network impedances. As an alternative to the conventional iron-
and-copper based passive transformer, a solid state transformer
(SST) can be used for interfacing such distribution networks to
the medium voltage AC grids. Although the power architectures
of SST for distribution grids are studied in detail, the control
schemes for SST considering the nature of network is yet to
be explored. In this paper, the control aspects for the popular
three-stage cascaded multilevel solid state transformer (CMSST)
are studied for the following grid scenarios: (i) SST interfacing
two stiff grids, (ii) SST interfacing a stiff grid and a weak grid,
and (iii) SST interfacing a stiff grid with a passive network. In
this context, an average model of the CMSST is developed by
replacing the basic switching cell (H-bridge) with its equivalent
average model. It is shown that the control aspects are network
specific and are not interchangeable.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Integration of distributed energy resources (DER) and elec-
tric vehicles (EV) into the distribution networks has opened
up many problems such as voltage instability, protection
malfunction and unintentional islanding etc., [1]–[3]. Until
now the distribution networks are connected to the medium
voltage (MV) grids through an iron-and-copper based passive
transformer at the distribution substation. Due to the passive
nature of the conventional transformer, any disturbances on
the distribution networks will be reflected onto the MV grid
and eventually healthy networks will be affected. A solid state
transformer (SST) can solve these problems in the distribution
network by not only facilitating a controlled bidirectional
flow of active and reactive powers, but also providing a
stiff DC bus for decoupling the disturbance on both sides of
transformer. The distributed energy storage (DES) devices, EV
loads and DERs can be integrated into the DC bus of the
SST. However, realizing an SST that can compete with the
conventional transformer interms of efficiency and reliabity
itself is a challenge [4], [5].
Various SST architectures viz., fully-modular, semi-modular
and non-modular architectures are being explored keeping in
mind the functionalities that it has to provide for distribution
grids [6], [7]. A three-stage cascaded multilevel SST (CMSST)
is a popular fully-modular SST architecture that is studied
more often for distribution grid applications [8]–[10]. The
three-stage CMSST architecture, which is hereafter referred
to as an SST, has three stages. Stage-1 consists of a cascaded
multilevel AC-DC rectifier to convert medium voltage AC
c
978-1-5386-4950-3/17/$31.0
2017 IEEE
(MVAC) to medium voltage DC (MVDC). A high frequency
transformer isolated dual active bridge (DAB) is used in stage-
2 to convert MVDC to low voltage DC (LVDC). Finally, a
three-phase inverter in stage-3 converts LVDC to low voltage
AC (LVAC). The reliability of this fully-modular SST archi-
tecture can be improved by integrating extra healthy redundant
modules and put them to operation in the event of any fault
in the active modules [11].
The power conversion stages of the three-stage CMSST
have been standardized by comparing various options, for
example, resonant DC-DC converters are compared with non-
resonant type DC-DC converters to find a suitable choice
for isolation stage [12]. Similarly, various multilevel architec-
tures viz., cascaded H-bridge, cascaded neutral point clamped
(NPC) and flying capacitor (FC) multilevel configuations are
compared and the cascaded H-bridge is preferred in the first
stage of the CMSST especially for higher number of levels
[13], [14]. However, the control aspects of the three-stage
CMSST have not been explored in depth. In most of the
SST experiments, the LVAC side is considered as a passive
network and the SST is designed to act as a grid forming
converter [15], [16]. In [17], the LVAC grid is modelled as
a voltage source neglecting the impedance of the distribution
network which is not practical because most of the distribution
networks are either resistive or inductive depending on the
length of feeder. Hence, the focus of this paper is to explore
various grid scenarios, understand them and propose suitable
control techniques for the SST.
Power networks/grids can be classified as active and passive
depending on the nature of loads connected to the network.
Now-a-days, most of the distribution networks are becoming
active due to the integration of DES and DER. Some of the
unforeseen challenges with the active distribution networks are
the reverse power flow at the distribution transformer, voltage
raise, voltage flicker, harmonics, unexpected islanding and
sympathetic tripping [2]. Although researchers have coined
several solutions for these problems such as dynamic on-load
tap changers and reactive control of DER etc., the solution
are limited by the nature of the network [18]. The second
classification of power grids is based on the impedance,
whether it is a strong grid or a weak network.
A detailed analysis on the classification of AC networks
and loads is presented in Section II of this paper. Rest of the
paper is organized as follows. The three-stage CMSST and
its average model are introduced in Section III. A detailed earlier for stiff and weak grids are valid in this case as well
analysis on the control aspects for the SST considering the expect that the reverse power flow at the PCC is not possible.
following scenarios: (i) SST interfacing two stiff grids, (ii) SST
interfacing a stiff grid with a weak grid, (iii) SST interfacing
a stiff grid with a passive network are discussed in Section
IV. PLECS simulation results are presented for each case to
validate the analysis. Section V concludes the paper.
II. C LASSIFICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF GRIDS
Considering the quality and variations in the voltage and
frequency at the point of common coupling (PCC), AC grids
can be classified into three categories: (i) stiff/strong grids, (ii)
Figure 1: Model for stiff grid.
weak grids and (iii) passive grid/network. In this section, the
dependency of voltage and frequency at the PCC on the load
are studied for various grids.
A. Stiff grid
In a stiff grid, the voltage and frequency at the PCC will
remain constant irrespective of the direction and magnitude of
active and reactive powers. The stiff grids can be modelled
using a voltage source and a small series impedance as shown
in Fig. 1. Where, CPL stands for constant power loads. A
generator feeding a small distance transmission feeder is a Figure 2: Model for weak grid.
good example of stiff grid.
Characteristics of the stiff grid:
1) Voltage and frequency at the PCC is decided by the grid
voltage (Vg ) and grid frequency (fg ) irrespective of the
load.
2) CPL will not affect the voltage at the PCC because of
low gird impedance (Zs ≈ 0).
3) Power flow at the PCC can be bidirectional as it does
not affect the voltage or frequency at the PCC. The
bidirectional flow of active and reactive powers does not
have any limitations in this case. Figure 3: Model for grid with passive network.

B. Weak grid
A grid is said to be weak when the voltage and frequency at
the PCC changes with respect to the magnitude and direction
of active and reactive power drawn by the load. The weak grid
can be modelled as a source in series with a large impedance
as shown in Fig. 2. Examples of weak grids are a radial
distribution network, islanded micro grids, etc.
1) Voltage at the PCC is decided by the active and reactive
power drawn by the load.
2) CPLs will affect the voltage at the PCC because of high
gird impedance.
3) The reverse flow of both active and reactive power at the
PCC should be limited as it can make the PCC voltage
to hit the upper or lower limits, triggering the protection
equipment.
C. Passive network
A network is said to be passive when it does not have any
active elements like DERs as shown in Fig. 3. Any distribution
network without distributed generation and energy storage is
a good example of the passive network. The arguments made
When a solid state transformer (SST) is interfaced into
the grid, the control aspects of the SST depend on the grid
requirements at PCC i.e., voltage and frequency regulation,
active and reactive power flow control etc. Since the grid
requirements at the PCC depend on the nature of the grid,
it is necessary to choose appropriate control architectures for
the SST for different gird cases. The details are presented in
the subsequent sections.
III. S OLID STATE TRANSFORMER ARCHITECTURE
A solid state transformer is used to interface two net-
works/grids as shown in Fig. 4. An SST can be viewed as
a three terminal transformer with two AC ports connected
to MVAC and LVAC grids and a DC port that can be used
to interface DES and DER. In a conventional transformer,
the active and reactive power flow from primary side to
secondary side is unregulated, the secondary side voltage
and frequency are dictated by the primary side voltage and
frequency respectively, and any disturbance on either sides
will be reflected on the other side. However, an SST provides
feasibility to control the bidirectional flow of both active
 Table I: Simulation parameters
Parameter name Symbol Value
MVAC side specifications
Grid phase voltage V1 6.6 kV
Grid frequency f1 50 Hz
LVAC side specifications
Grid phase voltage V2 230 V
Grid frequency f2 50 Hz
MVAC load specifications
Active power (linear load) PlM V 0 kW
Reactive power (linear load) QlM V 0 kV ar
LVAC load specifications
Active power (linear load) PlLV 30 kW
Reactive power (linear load) QlLV 0 kV ar
Active power (non-linear load) PnlLV 25 kW
Specifications of the SST
Number of series H-bridge in stage 1 n 5
MVAC side filter inductor Lg 100 mH
MVDC bus capacitors Chf 10 mF
MVDC bus voltage Vhf 2200 V
LVDC bus capacitors Clf 5 mF
LVDC bus voltage Vlf 700 V
Figure 4: A three-stage CMSST with its block representation. LVAC side filter inductor Lacf , Lacg 10 mH

Figure 5: Average model for the basic H-bridge cell in an SST.
ma1 and ma2 are the modulation indices of two legs of the
H-bridge and are given as follows:
1 + ma 1 − ma
ma1 = and ma2 = ; (1)
2 2
where, ma is the modulation index from the controller. The
developed average model of the SST retains all the dynamics
due to the filter elements (inductors and capacitors) and
controllers. Hence, this is a most suitable model that is useful
while working on the system level simulations. The control
aspects of the SST are discussed in the subsequent section.

and reactive power, regulate the voltage and frequency of IV. C ONTROL ASPECTS OF THE SST
secondary side independent of the primary side voltage and
As stated earlier, the control aspects of the SST depend
frequency, and disturbance decoupling is possible due to the
on the type of grid to which it is interfaced, i.e., whether
intermediate DC port. Due to such attractive features, SST will
it is interfaced to a stiff grid or a weak grid or a passive
become a suitable alternative for the conventional transformer.
network. The control aspects of SST for the following cases
As shown in Fig. 4, a three-stage CMSST architecture which
are discussed in detail in the rest of the paper.
has been widely discussed in literature is considered in this
study. The operation and basic control schemes of the three- 1) SST interfacing two stiff grids.
stage CMSST are discussed in [8]–[10] and are not discussed 2) SST interfacing a stiff grid with a weak grid.
here again. 3) SST interfacing a stiff grid with a passive network.

A. SST interfacing two stiff grids

A. SST modelling
To validate the control aspects of the SST, the average model
of an SST is developed first. Details of the average models are
presented in this section.
The basic switching cell of the three-stage CMSST pre-
sented in Fig. 4 is a H-bridge. The pole voltage (vp ) and DC
bus current (idc ) of the basic switching cell are functions of
modulation indices (ma1 and ma2 ), input current (ig ) and DC
bus voltage (vdc ). The pole voltage (vp ) and DC bus current
(idc ) can be modelled as controlled voltage and controlled
current sources as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, the complete
average model of the SST can be developed by replacing the
basic H-bridge switching cell with its average model. Where,
An SST interfacing two stiff grids is shown in Fig. 6. As
stated before, the voltage at the PCC of the MVAC side is
dictated by the source voltage v1 . Similarly, the voltage at the
PCC of the LVAC side is decided by the LVAC grid voltage
v2 . This is mainly because of negligible source impedance
(i.e., Zs ≈ 0) in stiff grids. The SST control objectives and
requirements in this case are as follows:
1) To regulate the active power flow between MVAC and
LVAC grids. This can be achieved by incorporating a
power flow controller in the isolation stage. Since the
MVAC and LVAC grid are stiff in nature, it is not
necessary to limit the negative power from one grid to
another.
 MVAC Stiff grid P* & Q* LVAC Stiff grid
v1, f1 v2, f2
PCC
Zs≈0 MVAC LVAC Zs≈0
A R
B ~ Y
~
C ~
~ B
PCC N
v1, f1 v2, f2
DC Port
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CPL Zl CPL Zl

DER DES

Figure 6: SST interfacing two stiff grids.

Figure 8: Power transferred between LVAC grid, load and SST.

Figure 7: Control scheme for interfacing SST between two stiff grids.

2) To support the MVAC and LVAC grids with required

reactive power. This can be achieved by incorporating
the d-q control or P-Q control in the multilevel rectifier
stage and inverter stage.
3) Any disturbances such are harmonic currents, voltage sag
and swell as a result of faults etc., on the MVAC side
should not be reflected on to the LVAC side and vice
versa. This can be achieved by choosing sufficient energy
buffer at the DC bus.
Based on the above mentioned objectives, the control archi-
tecture for the SST can be as shown in the Fig. 7. The DC
bus controllers in the first and third stages regulate the MVDC
and LVDC bus voltages respectively. According to the current
reference given to the DAB in the second stage, power will
be transferred between the two regulated DC buses. Using
the average model, the SST interfacing two stiff grids case is
simulated in PLECS simulation software for the specifications
shown in Table. I. The active and reactive power references
Figure 9: MVDC and LVDC bus voltages in SST.
provided to the SST are shown in Table. II.
The simulation results showing the active and reactive
power delivered by the LVAC grid and SST, and DC bus
voltages of SST for various cases are presented in Fig. 8 and
9. It is evident from these results that the SST can control the
active and reactive power transferred to the LVAC grid. It can
be observed from Fig. 9 that the maximum peak overshoot
of the LVDC voltage is about 50 V, where as the maximum
peak overshoot in the MVDC bus is less than 10 V. It can be
concluded from these results that it is possible to mitigate the
effect of LVAC side disturbances on the MVAC side.
 MVAC Stiff grid Q* Passive network
v1, f1 v2, f2
PCC
Zs≈0 MVAC LVAC
A R
B ~ Y
~
C ~
~ B
PCC N
v1, f1
DC Port
~ ~ ~
CPL Zl CPL Zl Znl

DER DES

Figure 10: SST interfacing a stiff grid with a passive network.

Figure 11: Control scheme for interfacing SST between a stiff grid and a
passive network.
Table II: Active and reactive power references of SST
Time stamp Pref (kW ) Qref (kV ar)
t = 0 Sec 0 0
t = 5 Sec -20 0
t = 10 Sec -60 0 As shown in Fig. 11, a control scheme for the SST is designed
t = 15 Sec -60 -7.5
B. SST interfacing stiff grid with a passive network
An SST interfacing a stiff grid with a passive network is
shown in Fig. 10. The voltage and frequency at the PCC of the
MVAC side are dictated by the source voltage v1 and source
frequency f1 as the MVAC gird is stiff in nature. The voltage
and frequency at the PCC of the LVAC side has to be provided
by the SST as the LVAC network is passive in nature. The
control objectives and requirements in this case are as follows:
1) To provide the LVAC grid with stable voltage source,
whose voltage and frequency have to be maintained
constant within certain tolerance irrespective of the load
variations. This can be achieved by controlling the in-
verter stage as a grid forming inverter.
2) To support the MVAC grid with required reactive power
which can be achieved by using a P-Q or a d-q control
as explained earlier.
3) Any disturbances such as harmonic currents, voltage sag
Figure 12: LVAC terminal voltage and currents of SST with a passive network.
and swell as a result of sudden variations in load on
LVAC side should not be reflected on to the MVAC side.
Sufficient energy buffer at LVDC and MVDC buses will
help in this case.
to fulfil the above mentioned objectives. Unlike the control in
two stiff grids case, the LVDC bus should be regulated at a
fixed value by the DAB. In the proposed control, a simple
voltage controller is used to perform this task. Alternatively
a cascaded two loop control can be used to achieve better
dynamic performance. It should be noted that while designing
the grid forming inverter, the output impedance of the SST
(LVAC side) should be designed appropriately. High output
impedance can cause distortion in the terminal voltage when
harmonic loads are present in the passive network. It can be
seen from the simulation results presented in Fig. 12 that the
SST can support a passive network by behaving as a grid
forming converter.
C. SST interfacing stiff grid with a weak grid
As mentioned in Section II, fluctuation or flickering of
voltages at the PCC is a major concerns in weak distribution
network. One of the reasons for this voltage instability is
the intermittent distributed power generation (DG) especially
when the load in the distribution network is less than the
generated power from the DG. Several power management
methods were proposed in literature, for example [19], to
manage the power in an islanded microgrid. Such methods can
be extended to the weak network case when it is interfaced
to the grid through an SST and voltage at the PCC can be
regulated by controlling the reverse power flow from LV side
to MV side. Recent work published in [20] is along the similar
lines.
V. C ONCLUSION
The control aspects of a three-stage cascaded multilevel SST
for various grid scenarios are studied in detail in this paper.
The scenarios considered during this study include (i) SST
interfacing two stiff grids, (ii) SST interfacing a stiff grid and
a weak grid and (iii) SST interfacing a stiff grid and a passive
network. Followings are the summary of the control objectives
for the above mentioned scenarios:
1) The control objectives are straight forward when SST is
interfaced between two stiff grids, i.e., (a) A d-q control
in the first stage regulates the MVDC bus and controls
the reactive power flow to the MVAC grid; (b) A d-q/P-Q
control in the third stage regulates the LVDC bus voltage
and controls the reactive power flow to the LVAC grid;
and (c) A current controller in the DAB stage can control
the power flow between MVDC and LVDC bus.
2) When an SST interfaces a stiff grid to a passive network,
the control objectives differ in the second and third stages.
The isolation stage has to be controlled to regulate the
LVDC bus at a fixed reference. The control in the third
stage will be to regulate the LVAC voltage as it needs to
behave like a grid forming inverter.
3) The control becomes complicated when the SST is in-
terfaced between a stiff grid and a weak grid. Popular
control schemes such as ”droop controllers” or ”virtual
synchronous generator” can be implemented in the in-
verter stage to improve the voltage stability of the LVAC
grid.
The average model of the SST is simulated in PLECS sim-
ulation platform to verify the designed control schemes. The
presented simulation results confirm that the designed control
schemes meet the control objectives considered for various
cases.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. J. Coster, J. M. Myrzik, B. Kruimer, and W. L. Kling, “Integration
issues of distributed generation in distribution grids,” Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 28–39, 2011.
[2] T. Ackermann and V. Knyazkin, “Interaction between distributed gen-
eration and the distribution network: operation aspects,” in Transmis-
sion and Distribution Conference and Exhibition 2002: Asia Pacific.
IEEE/PES, vol. 2. IEEE, 2002, pp. 1357–1362.
[3] K. I. Jennett, C. D. Booth, F. Coffele, and A. J. Roscoe, “Investigation
of the sympathetic tripping problem in power systems with large
penetrations of distributed generation,” IET Generation, Transmission
& Distribution, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 379–385, 2014.
[4] A. Ipakchi and F. Albuyeh, “Grid of the future,” IEEE power and energy
magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 52–62, 2009.
[5] X. She, A. Q. Huang, and R. Burgos, “Review of solid-state transformer
technologies and their application in power distribution systems,” IEEE
Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 1,
no. 3, pp. 186–198, 2013.
[6] J. E. Huber, D. Rothmund, and J. W. Kolar, “Comparative evaluation
of isolated front end and isolated back end multi-cell ssts,” in Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conference (IPEMC-ECCE Asia), 2016
IEEE 8th International. IEEE, 2016, pp. 3536–3545.
[7] J. E. Huber and J. W. Kolar, “Solid-state transformers: On the origins
and evolution of key concepts,” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 19–28, 2016.
[8] D. Rothmund, G. Ortiz, T. Guillod, and J. Kolar, “10kv sic-based isolated
dc-dc converter for medium voltage-connected solid-state transformers,”
in 2015 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition
(APEC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1096–1103.
[9] T. Zhao, G. Wang, S. Bhattacharya, and A. Q. Huang, “Voltage and
power balance control for a cascaded h-bridge converter-based solid-
state transformer,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28,
no. 4, pp. 1523–1532, 2013.
[10] L. Wang, D. Zhang, Y. Wang, B. Wu, and H. S. Athab, “Power and
voltage balance control of a novel three-phase solid-state transformer
using multilevel cascaded h-bridge inverters for microgrid applications,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 3289–3301,
2016.
[11] A. Ghazanfari and Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, “A resilient framework for
fault-tolerant operation of modular multilevel converters,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 2669–2678, 2016.
[12] S. Inoue and H. Akagi, “A bidirectional isolated dc–dc converter as a
core circuit of the next-generation medium-voltage power conversion
system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp.
535–542, 2007.
[13] S. Madhusoodhanan, A. Tripathi, D. Patel, K. Mainali, A. Kadavelugu,
S. Hazra, S. Bhattacharya, and K. Hatua, “Solid-state transformer and
mv grid tie applications enabled by 15 kv sic igbts and 10 kv sic
mosfets based multilevel converters,” IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 3343–3360, 2015.
[14] V. Dargahi, A. K. Sadigh, M. Abarzadeh, M. R. A. Pahlavani, and
A. Shoulaie, “Flying capacitors reduction in an improved double fly-
ing capacitor multicell converter controlled by a modified modulation
method,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 27, no. 9, pp.
3875–3887, 2012.
[15] S.-H. Hwang, X. Liu, J.-M. Kim, and H. Li, “Distributed digital
control of modular-based solid-state transformer using dsp+ fpga,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 670–680, 2013.
[16] J. Ge, Z. Zhao, L. Yuan, and T. Lu, “Energy feed-forward and direct
feed-forward control for solid-state transformer,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 4042–4047, 2015.
[17] B. Zhao, Q. Song, and W. Liu, “A practical solution of high-frequency-
link bidirectional solid-state transformer based on advanced components
in hybrid microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 4587–4597, 2015.
[18] Y. W. Li and C.-N. Kao, “An accurate power control strategy for power-
electronics-interfaced distributed generation units operating in a low-
voltage multibus microgrid,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2977–2988, 2009.
[19] Y. Karimi, H. Oraee, and J. M. Guerrero, “Decentralized method for
load sharing and power management in a hybrid single/three-phase-
islanded microgrid consisting of hybrid source pv/battery units,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 6135–6144, 2017.
[20] G. De Carne, G. Buticchi, Z.-X. Zou, and M. Liserre, “Reverse power
flow control in a st-fed distribution grid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 2017.