Time-Delay Effect on Load Frequency Control for Microgrids
Carlos Andrés Macana, Eduardo Mojica-Nava, and Nicanor Quijano
Abstract—The time-delay effect on load frequency control (LFC) for
power smart grids systems based on microgrids (MGs) is analyzed. A
new cyber-physical modeling approach is used to identify system signals
that are vulnerable to communication constraints. An analytic approach
based on the Rekasius substitution and sum of squares decomposition is
proposed to find the time-delay stability margin of LFC in microgrids.
The cyber physical modeling and time-delay margin analysis approaches
are applied to a microgrid example based on a distributed diesel generator
and a photo-voltaic generator. In addition, the impact of time-delays for
these class of systems is shown in simulation. The proposed approach
can be used to analyze other cybernetic constraints in smart grid power
systems and the methodology used to find delay stability margin can be
extended to power systems of larger scale, as interconnected microgrids.
Index Terms—Cyber Physical Systems, Distributed Power Generation,
Smart Grids, Time-delay, Microgrids.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The smart grid (SG), as the natural evolution of the actual elec-
tricity network, has brought several interesting challenges in terms
of integration of distributed generation (DG) and digital technologies
to make it more intelligent. New distributed power generation tech-
nologies, such as photo-voltaic (PV) generation, diesel generation,
micro gas turbine generation, or energy storage devices, are currently
available to offer integrated performance and flexibility for new power
energy systems in low voltage microgrids (MGs) [1]. The integration
of these new technologies to the current power system generates then
new control challenges. An interesting challenge is load frequency
control (LFC) in low voltage (LV) MGs. A large interconnected
power system generally has sizeable system inertia, and frequency
deviation in the presence of distributed generators in LV MGs is
negligible. However, the combination of DGs systems in a system of
small inertia, as a low voltage MG, has an impact on the frequency
deviation of the MG. Therefore, load frequency control strategies
must consider this situation [2].
For a satisfactory power system operation, the frequency should
remain nearly constant. The frequency control and power genera-
tion is commonly referred to LFC, which is a major function of
automatic generation control (AGC) systems. In an interconnected
power system, a control area (group of generators and loads) should
to be used, where all the generators respond to load variations
settings [2]. The power system frequency depends on real power
balance in high voltage power systems [3]. In low voltage MGs,
this is not assured. However, recent research has proposed control
techniques for decoupling real power-frequency and reactive power-
voltage performance in low voltage MGs in autonomous operation
[4], [5]. Classical techniques for LFC of high voltage power systems
can be applied to LFC in low voltage MGs with some considerations.
Carlos Macana and Nicanor Quijano are with Departamento de Ingenierı́a
Eléctrica y Electrónica, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá. {ca.macana966,
nquijano} @uniandes.edu.co. Carlos Macana is with Programa de Ingenierı́a
Electrónica, Universidad Manuela Beltrán, Bogotá and Eduardo Mojica is
with Departamento de Ingeniera Eléctrica y Electrónica, Universidad Nacional
de Colombia. eamojican@unal.edu.co. This work has been supported by
Programa Jóvenes Investigadores, Colciencias, Convocatoria 2011, Facultad
de Ingenierı́a, Universidad de Los Andes, and Vicerectoria de Investigaciones,
Universidad Manuela Beltrán.
978-1-4673-5200-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
LFC applied to small power systems MGs, and DGs has been pro-
posed in [6], [7], [8], [9] and AGC systems for distributed generation
have been introduced in [10]. However, cybernetic constraints (such
as communication delays and throughput limitation), have not been
considered yet. In [2], the author proposes some challenges related
with time-delays in multi-area power systems in the transmission
context. Also, the author introduces the new challenges that renewable
energies in traditional power system possess. In addition, some
contributions to delay-dependent stability for LFC have been made
recently [11]. However, these issues have not been addressed in low
voltage MGs, where DG sources could have an important impact in
the isolated scenario for LFC.
In this context, MGs need an open communication infrastructure to
support the increasing decentralized property of control processes to
migrate to an effective smart grid. A major challenge in this new en-
vironment is to integrate computing, communication, and control into
appropriate levels of power system operation and control [2]. This
new conception has been called cyber physical systems (CPS) [12],
and its application to energy systems is said to be a cyber physical
energy systems (CPES) [13]. In spite of the advanced measurement
technology already developed for the SGs, there are unavoidable
time-delay and throughput constraints involved before these signals
are received at the control center. For large scale interconnected power
systems, communication delays are often ignored in the power system
control designs. Needless to say, this issue becomes a pertinent topic
in recent years with the proposal of wide area power system control
design [14].
An approach to address the time-delay impact, is to find an index
of control system, called time-delay margin. This is the maximum
time-delay that the system can bear without losing stability [15]. In
linear systems, this issue has been widely studied. However, due to
the computational complexity, today is an open research topic [16],
[17]. In [16] the authors propose a computational tool based on the
Rekasius substitution [18] and sum of squares (SOS) decomposition,
in order to find the time-delay margin of a linear system. In this work,
we propose a study of the impact of time-delays in LFC for smart
microgrids. In this way, we can determine the maximum time-delay
that the LFC system can bear without losing stability. The approach
is based on a CPES modeling methodology, that is used to identify
and to characterize the cybernetic signals vulnerable to time-delays,
and on the Rekasius substitution and SOS decomposition, that is used
to find the time delay-margin.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, a cyber physical
MG model is introduced. This model includes a single distributed
diesel generator (DG) and a PV generator. In Section III, time-delays
on LFC signals are analyzed in terms of stability. The analysis is
developed using an analytic tool based on the Rekasius substitution
and SOS decomposition tool. In Section IV simulation results are
presented and discussed. Finally, in Section V conclusions and future
directions are drawn.
II. C YBER P HYSICAL M ICROGRID M ODEL
The MG concept assumes a cluster of loads and microsources
operating as a single controllable system that provides both power
544
and heat to its local area [19]. This concept provides a new paradigm MG 1
for defining the operation of distributed generation. Standard archi-
tectures have been proposed for the concept of MGs [20]. These G1
Load 1
architectures show the MG as an interconnection of distributed
PV
energy sources, such as microturbines, wind turbines, fuel cells, and Generation 1

photovoltaic panels integrated with storage devices, such as batteries,

flywheels and power capacitors on low voltage distribution systems.
In addition, the smart grid (SG) conception has emerged on the Fig. 1. Schematic model for an MG.
power system context to incorporate a network of computers to
control the grid generation, load, and distribution assets. These com-
Frequency Deviation
puters interact over large-scale communication networks [21]. The SG Δf (s)
Δf

represents a vision for the future of power distribution in which grid ΔPs (s)

stability and reliability are enhanced through reconfigurable control Ps∗

−
[21], where energy systems should exhibit adaptive performance. +
Pg (s)
This performance can only be done through a systematic embedding
Distributed Generator
of cyber technologies capable of monitoring, communicating, and Gg (s)

controlling the evolving physical systems [21], [22].

An initial strategy to obtain an adaptive performance of the energy
system includes the installation of a monitoring sensor grid. This
monitoring system would provide important physical and economic
signals. However, the system can be flooded by data that without an
appropriate model of the system and control scheme will not help to
operate the grid [13]. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) methodologies
have emerged as a new alternative to model and control these class
of systems. The CPS concept is the integration of computational and
physical processes. Embedded computers and networks monitor and
control the physical processes, usually with feedback loops where
physical processes affect computations, and vice versa [12].
The CPS control strategies consider that communication networks
have throughput limitations and they constrain the amount of infor-
mation that can be transmitted be passed between grid components.
The main aspect when we consider communication constraints is
that control tasks with time-delays can degrade the overall system
performance and even cause system instability [23]. Besides, limiting
a control system feedback information can easily degrade the overall
system stability [21].
We propose a study of these impacts based on a CPS methodology
to model the SG. This modeling strategy includes the impact of
communication networks and cyber components with respect to
the relevant information of the physical system. We follow some
ideas proposed in [13], where a basic CPS modeling approach is
considered.
First, we identify some basic components of the cyber-physical
model for our MG. These basic elements are: i) distributed generators
based on inverters; ii) distributed synchronic generators; iii) loads;
and iv) a central network. In order to find a general model of the
MG, we develop a dynamic model for each module identified and
then, we establish the physical interconnection of the modules. For
that, we first develop a simple model with one synchronic distributed
generator (diesel generator), and one distributed PV generator, (see
the schematic model in Figure 1). The small power generation
network consists of a diesel generator and a photovoltaic system that
generates power to supply the local demand. Also, we assume that
the small power generation network is not connected to the wide
power grid, and it always operates independently as an islanded power
system.
In this scheme, each MG component has a controller. The con-
troller associated to the generation source is called microsource
controller (MC) and in the SG context it operates coordinated by
a microgrid central controller (MGCC), which can operate in remote
mode [20]. We develop a CPS module for each MG component.
Ug (s)
Fig. 2. CPS module of a diesel generator. The dotted line corresponds to a
cyber signal, while the solid line corresponds to a physical signal.
The diesel generator CPS module is shown in Figure 2. In this
module, we identify one cyber output (Δ𝑓 ) corresponding to the
frequency deviation of the system, one cyber input (𝑈𝑔 ), and a
physical output (𝑃𝑠 ). 𝑈𝑔 input corresponds to the MGCC signal
control, defined as a cyber input and the sensing frequency deviation
Δ𝑓 is as a cyber output. Also, we identify a physical output (𝑃𝑔 ),
that corresponds to output power of diesel generator. Following the
methodology proposed in [13], each cyber and physical module must
have a dynamic model associated. A simplified dynamical linear
model based on [24], [25], [26], [10] is adapted to the CPS module.
This model only considers the low-frequency domain to control.
The dynamics for the diesel generator are represented by a transfer
function
𝑃𝑔 (𝑠) 1
𝐺𝑔 (𝑠) = = (1)
𝑈𝑔 (𝑠) 𝑇𝑔 𝑠 + 1
where 𝑇𝑔 is the time constant of the diesel generator. On the other
hand, as it was discussed in the introduction, in low voltage MGs
is possible to assume that there exists a relation between real power
generated and frequency variation. Many recent works in distributed
generation control have assumed this [24], [25], [26], [10]. For this
reason, dynamic behavior in frequency in a low voltage MG is
represented by
Δ𝑓 (𝑠) 1
= (2)
Δ𝑃𝑠 (𝑠) 𝑀𝑠 + 𝐷
where Δ𝑃𝑔 corresponds to power imbalance between power de-
manded 𝑃𝑠 and power generated 𝑃𝑔 , 𝐷 is the load damping constant
and 𝑀 is the inertia constant.
In addition, two CPS modules are identified in our MG model.
These are CPS modules for the MGCC controller and extended local
load demand (it includes a load demand block and a PV generator).
These CPS modules are shown in Figure 3. So, it is necessary to
develop a dynamic model associated to the MGCC and extended
load demand CPS modules, similar to the one defined for the diesel
generator.
To obtain the dynamic model for the extended load demand CPS
module, we assume that variations in load and power supplied by the

545
 TABLE I
Load Demand PL
S IMULATION PARAMETERS
Δf Ug (s)
MGCC
Ps∗
+
−
Inertia constant, 𝑀 0.2 puMW-s/Hz
Photovoltaic Damping constant, 𝐷 0.012 puMW/Hz
Cyber signal
Generator PP V Diesel time constant, 𝑇𝑔 2s
Physical signal Integral gain, 𝑘𝑖 -0.18
Proportional gain, 𝑘𝑝 -0.12
Fig. 3. CPS modules of the MGCC and the extended local load demand (it
includes a load demand block and a PV generator.)

is developed. In this way, the physical output of the extended local

Frequency Deviation
Load Demand PL
+
−
Ps∗
Photovoltaic
Generator PP V
Δf
MGCC
Ug (s)
Distributed Generator
e−τ s
Fig. 4. CPS interconnection of load demand, MGCC, and PV generator CPS
modules.
photovoltaic generator (𝑃𝑃 𝑉 ) are automatically compensated by the
power generated. Load demand (physical signal 𝑃𝐿 ) is assumed to
be a constant step between 0[pu] and 1[pu]. The load demand model
includes both classical load demand (𝑃𝐿 ) and PV generation source,
as a negative load, i.e., 𝑃𝑠 = 𝑃𝐿 − 𝑃𝑃 𝑉 , where 𝑃𝑠 is the real power
demanded for the MG, minus the power generated by the PV system.
We assume random variations in PV power generation because
these are uncertainties in environmental conditions of solar radiation.
Hence, the PV generator has a random disturbance power. The tempo-
ral behavior of the power variation in a photovoltaic generator is char-
acterized by a standard deviation (𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑉 ), PV system time response
𝑇𝑃 𝑉 and a power base (𝑃𝑃 𝑉 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 ). The mathematical
( ) √ used
model
for the PV generator is 𝑃𝑃 𝑉 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑉 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 + 𝜂 𝑇𝑃 𝑉1𝑠+1 𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑉 ,
where 𝜂 is a white noise, which is included to simulate the random
fluctuations of real-time energy photovoltaic generation. We assume
also that 𝑑𝑃𝑃 𝑉 = 0.05[pu] and that the power base is 𝑃𝑃 𝑉 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
= 0.1[pu]. The output of the photovoltaic generator is defined as
𝑃𝑃 𝑉 . Finally, the dynamical MGCC model is associated to its
corresponding CPS module. A simple PI control strategy proposed in
[10] is used to control the frequency error, where the control output
is defined as
𝑈𝑔 (𝑠) = − (𝑈𝑖 (𝑠) + 𝑈𝑝 (𝑠)) = −
where 𝑈𝑖 is the integral controller output, 𝑈𝑝 is the proportional
controller output, and 𝑘𝑖 and 𝑘𝑝 are the integral and proportional gains
respectively. Finally a time delay effect is represented by a simple
CPS module, that has as dynamic model associated 𝑥𝜏 = 𝑥𝑒−𝜏 𝑠 ,
where 𝑥 is the input without time-delays and 𝑥𝜏 the output with
time delays. The interconnection of the CPS modules is shown in
Figure 4. In this interconnection scheme the dotted lines represent
the cyber signals identified, and the solid lines represent physical
signals. Note that for easiness in the analysis we assume a unique
time delay in the output signal 𝑈𝑔 (𝑠) that includes all time-delays
effects on the MGCC inputs and outputs.
In order to analyze the general system performance, a state space
representation model of closed-loop DG based on the CPS model
Δf
load demand module (𝑃𝑠 ) is assumed as an external perturbation
Δf (s)
ΔPs (s) that does not affect the stability analysis because it is not included in
−
close loop of the system. For this reason by the stability analysis the
signal 𝑃𝑠 is assumed as zero, i.e., 𝑃𝑠 = 0 and in consequence, we
+
can find that Δ𝑃𝑠 = 𝑃𝑔 . A state representation of the form 𝑥˙ = 𝐴𝑥
Pg (s)
is performed, without time delay and⎛where the state vector ⎞ is defined
0 0 𝑘𝑖
as 𝑥 = [𝑈𝑖 , 𝑃𝑔 , Δ𝑓 ]⊤ , where 𝐴 = ⎝ 𝑇1𝑔 − 𝑇1𝑔 ⎠.
Gg (s) 𝑘𝑝
𝑇𝑔
1 𝐷
0 𝑀
−𝑀
We have developed CPS modules for an MG composed by a single
synchronic distributed generator (diesel generator), PV generator, and
local load demand. This CPS module allows a systematic analysis on
the possible challenges that the inclusion of cybernetic infrastructure
can generate in the SG system.
Typical parameters of diesel generator are assumed in agreement
with Table I [25], [10]. Based on these parameters, we obtain
the state space diesel generator
( ) model without delay with 𝐴 =
0 0 −0.18
0.5 −0.5 −0.06
0 83.33 −16.67
The eigenvalues of this matrix are 𝜆1,2 = −0.3930 ± 0.5508𝑗 and
𝜆3 = −16.3806, which implies that the system without time-delay
in the MGCC output is stable. In the following section, the CPS
model developed in this section for a single MG is used to see the
implications of the time-delay constraints on the remote control.
III. T IME -D ELAYS I MPACT ON L OAD F REQUENCY C ONTROL
W ITH PV G ENERATION
The MGCC uses the communication network to receive and send
information, which implies some constraints on the information sent
and received. Among these communication constraints, time delays
have been identified as a factor that can degrade the overall system
performance. The CPS model obtained in the previous section is used
to identify the possible signals vulnerable to time-delays. In Figure
4, it is possible to identify that the input signal controller (Δ𝑓 ) and
the controller output (𝑈𝑔 ) are vulnerable to time-delays in a context
( )
𝑘𝑖 of remote operation. We assume constants delays in (Δ𝑓 ) and (𝑈𝑔 ).
Δ𝑓 + 𝑘𝑝 Δ𝑓 (3)
𝑠 Additionally, both delays are represented in a unique constant time-
delay (𝜏 ), which is located at the MGCC output. So, (𝜏 ) includes both
input and output delays in the controller. In the following section the
delay margin is defined based on Rekasius SOS (RSOS) approach.
A. Definition of Delay Margin for an MG Model
If there exists a time-delay, the dynamic model associated to the
CPS diesel generator module can be deduced of the CPS interconec-
tion model shows in Figure 4. In this figure is possible to obtain
differential models based on the function transfer models proposed
in (1), (2) and (3). In this way, we find Δ𝑓 ˙ = 1 𝑃𝑔 − 𝐷 Δ𝑓 ,
𝑀 𝑀
𝑃˙𝑔 = 𝑇𝑔 𝑢𝑖 𝑒
1 −𝜏 𝑠 𝑘 𝑝 −𝜏 𝑠 1
+ 𝑇𝑔 Δ𝑓 𝑒 − 𝑇𝑔 𝑃𝑔 , and 𝑢˙𝑖 = Δ𝑓 𝑘𝑖 . These
differential equations can be rewritten like a delayed state space
model, as following,

546
 𝑥˙ = 𝐴0 𝑥 + 𝐴𝜏 𝑥(𝑡 − 𝜏 ) (4)
⎛ ⎞ 𝐷(𝑗𝜔, 𝑇 ) =
(8)
0 0 𝑘𝑖 det ((𝑗𝜔𝐼 − 𝐴0 )(1 + 𝑇 𝑗𝜔) − 𝐴𝜏 (1 − 𝑇 𝑗𝜔)) = 0,
where 𝐴0 = ⎝ 0 − 𝑇1𝑔 0 ⎠, and 𝐴𝜏 =
1 𝐷 for 𝑇 ∈ [0, ∞). The corresponding relation between 𝑇 and the time-
⎛ ⎞ 0 −𝑀
𝑀 delay 𝜏 is given by (6). This transformation is useful, since on the
0 0 0
imaginary axis (and only on the imaginary axis) (5) has a root on it
⎝ 1
𝑇𝑔
0
𝑘𝑝
𝑇𝑔
⎠.
if and only if (8) has a root on it [16]. Equation (8) allows to use
0 0 0 the a Routh-Hurwitz approach to analyze the stability under time-
Note that 𝑈𝑔 is the only input that is affected by the time-delay. delays. The Routh-Hurwitz array is then obtained using Equation
This is the cyber input of the distributed generator module, that has a (7). Expressing 𝐷(𝑠, 𝑇 ) in a compact form, we obtain 𝐷(𝑠, 𝑇 ) =
∑ 2𝑛
physical output 𝑃𝑔 . For this reason the only state affected by the time- 𝑘=0 𝑘
𝑏 𝑠𝑘 = 0, where 𝑛 is the basic system order. The main idea
delay model (𝑒−𝜏 𝑠 ) is 𝑃˙𝑔 . In Equation (4), 𝑥 ∈ R3 is the state vector, is either to find a maximum time-delay 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 such that the system is
𝑥(𝑡−𝜏 ) ∈ R3 is the vector of time-delayed state variables, where 𝜏 > asymptotically stable for all 𝜏 ∈ [0, 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 ], or to conclude that there is
0 is the time-delay, and 𝐴0 and 𝐴𝜏 are constant matrices. Suppose not such a time-delay. We have found that some simple power systems
that the time-delay system is stable when 𝜏 = 0, i.e., we assume that are very sensitive to time-delays. Through a line search optimization
𝐴0 +𝐴𝜏 is Hurwitz. Since the system is stable, all eigenvalues stay in algorithm, we find a 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , which is the maximum 𝑇 that satisfies
the left-half plane. However, if all the parameters remain the same and the constraint
𝜏 increases to a certain 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 , one eigenvalue moves to the imaginary ∣𝐷(𝑠, 𝑇 )∣ > 0, (9)
axis. Then, 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum time-delay that the system can bear
without losing stability, and it corresponds to the system delay margin which holds for all 𝑇 ∈ [0, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ], for all 𝜔 ∈ [0, ∞]. Also, for all
[27]. In SG operation, it is essential to keep the maximum time-delay 𝑇 ∈ [0, ∞], and for all 𝜔 ∈ [𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 , ∞].
below 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 to guarantee LFC system stability. However, since there A computationally efficient analysis algorithm using Rekasius’s
is an exponential term in the characteristic equation of the time-delay substitution and sum of squares (RSOS) is proposed in [16], [29].
system, it is very difficult to calculate the system delay margin [27], We have used this approach and it is explained briefly as follows.
[17]. The basic idea consists in writing the problem (9) in terms of
a polynomial inequality. To ensure strict positivity of ∣𝐷(𝑗𝜔, 𝑇 )∣,
B. Time Delay Margin
the strict positivity of ∣𝐷(𝑗𝜔, 𝑇 )∣2 is checked. The second step is
A well-known result on time-delayed linear invariant systems states to incorporate the constraints of problem (9), with the substitution
that the delay adds exponential transcendentality to the characteristic 𝑇 = 𝑇1+𝑢 𝑚𝑎𝑥 2
2 and 𝜔 = 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑣 , where 𝑢 and 𝑣 are dummy
equation. It has also been established that the delayed linear system is variables that are used to incorporate the constraints and to rewrite the
asymptotically stable if and only if all the roots of the characteristic problem as an SOS problem. Therefore, these substitutions map from
equation are on the left-half complex 𝑠-plane. There are infinitely 𝑢 → 𝑇 : (−∞, ∞) → [0, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), 𝑣 → [𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 , ∞), respectively. The
many roots to be considered and this is a difficult burden [17]. first substitution turns the characteristic equation (8) into a rational
The proposed methodology to analyze the impact of time-delays polinomial. However, by multiplying again with (1+𝑢2 )𝑛 , we obtain
on an LFC is as follows. First, we assume that the power system is a new polynomial, that is a necessary condition to use SOSTOOL.
asymptotically stable without delays, i.e, 𝐴 = 𝐴0 + 𝐴𝜏 is a Hurwitz The test stability analysis algorithm used, can be written as [16]:
matrix. The characteristic equation of (4) is given by Step 1: Check using sum of squares techniques if
𝐷(𝑠, 𝜏 ) = det(𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴0 − 𝐴𝜏 𝑒−𝜏 𝑠 ) (5) ( ) ( )
2 𝑛 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 2
1+𝑢 𝐷 𝑗𝜔, 2
≥ 𝜖, (10)
The system is asymptotically stable if and only if all roots of (5) are 1+𝑢
in the open left-half complex plane [28]. Then, we study the location where 𝜖 is a small positive constant and holds for all 𝜔, 𝑢 ∈ 𝑅.
of the roots of the characteristic equation using the so-called Rekasius
Step 2: Check using sum of squares techniques if
substitution [18], which is given by 𝑒−𝜏 𝑠 = 1−𝑇 𝑠
1+𝑇 𝑠
, 𝜏 ∈ R+ , 𝑇 ∈ R,
and it is defined only on the imaginary axis, i.e., 𝑠 = 𝑗𝜔, 𝜔 ∈ R.
𝐷(𝑗(𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑣 2 , 𝑇 2 ) 2 ≥ 𝜖, (11)
This exact transformation holds if and only if
( )
2 𝜋 where 𝜖 is a small constant and holds for all 𝑇, 𝑣 ∈ 𝑅.
𝜏 (𝜔, 𝑇 ) = tan−1 (𝜔𝑇 ) + 𝑙 , 𝑙 = 0, 1, 2, ... (6)
𝜔 2 Step 3: Compute a lower bound of 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 by
This equation describes an asymmetric mapping, where 𝑇 is mapped
into infinities 𝜏 ’s for a given 𝜔. On the other hand, a given 𝑇 and 𝜔 2
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = tan−1 (𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) (12)
correspond to an unique 𝜏 . The fundamental property of this substi- 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛
tution is that it transforms the transcendental characteristic equation
With this algorithm,it is possible to obtain the lower bound 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥
into an algebraic equation. We can restate ( the problem recasting ) it
as large as possible. We implement a complementary line search
into a simpler form as 𝐷(𝑠, 𝑇 ) = det 𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴0 − 𝐴𝜏 1−𝑇 𝑠
= 0.
1+𝑇 𝑠 algorithm to obtain 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , and 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 . With this algorithm, we max-
On the other hand, replacing 𝑠 = 𝑗𝑤 and rewriting (5), we have
imize 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 and we minimize 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 . An proper selection of bound
𝜖 produces convergence of line search algorithm. This parameter is
𝐷(𝑗𝜔, 𝜏 ) = det(𝑗𝜔𝐼 − 𝐴0 − 𝐴𝜏 𝑒−𝜏 𝑗𝜔 ) (7)
adjusted via trial and error. In this procedure we can identify that
(
Replacing 𝑠 = )𝑗𝑤, we obtain 𝐷(𝑗𝜔, 𝑇 ) = the magnitude of 𝜖 depends on complexity of dynamic model (e.g
det 𝑗𝜔𝐼 − 𝐴0 − 𝐴𝜏 1−𝑇 𝑗𝜔
1+𝑇 𝑗𝜔
= 0, which can be simplified order of matrix A). In following section we show an application of
as, the methodology and its validation via simulation results.

547
 Phothovoltaic power generation (PPV) Frequency variation with time delay and without PV generation
0.4
40
P (p.u) Δ f (τ = 1.67 s
PV
0.3 Δ f (τ = 1.75 s)
PPV (p.u) 20
0.2

Δ f (Hz)
0.1
0
0
0 50 100 150
−20
Frequency variation with time delay and without PV generation
2
Δ f (τ = 0 s)
1 −40
0 50 100 150
Δ f (Hz)

−1 Frequency variation with time delay and PV generation

30
−2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Δ f (τ = 1.67 s)
20
Δ f (τ = 1.75 s)
Frequency variation with time delay and PV generation
2 10
Δ f (τ = 0 s) s)

Δ f (Hz)
1 0
Δ f (Hz)

0
−10
−1
−20
−2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s) −30
0 50 100 150
Time (s)

Fig. 5. Simulation for a MG simple case without delay (single diesel

generator with PV generation). Fig. 6. Simulation for a MG simple case with time delay (single diesel
generator with PV generation).

IV. S IMULATIONS R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION

Based on a model of the MG simple case introduced
in Sections II and ( III-A, we obtain a time-delay ) model
0 0 −0.18
where 𝐴0 = 0 −0.50 0 and, 𝐴𝜏 =
−0.18 83.33 −16.67
( )
0 0 0
0.5 0 −0.06 .
0 0 0 do not show the exact time delay margin, since as is mentioned
Using the previous matrices (𝐴0 and 𝐴𝜏 ) and the RSOS algorithm,
with 𝜖 = 1 × 10−3 we obtain 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 and 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 that correspond to
the critical values. Hence, we find that 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.924 and 𝜔𝑚𝑖𝑛 =
0.614. These values lead to the system margin delay for the LFC
in a single MG, which is 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.682 s. This result is verified in
simulation results.
In order to compare the performance of LFC in the MG proposed,
without time delays and with time delays in the cybernetic signals
identified, we have proposed a simulation model which parameters
are taken from [25], [10], which correspond to those in Table I. In
Figure 5, the results for a simple case, without delays (𝜏 = 0), are
presented. A power demand load 𝑃𝐿 = 1 p.u is required at 𝑡 = 0
s. In 𝑡 = 30 s the load demand decreases to 𝑃𝐿 = 0.8 p.u. In
addition, two scenarios have been simulated. The first scenario does
not include a PV generator, while the second one includes a power
generated by a PV generator. The PV power generates (𝑃𝑃 𝑉 ) and
the frequency variation (Δ𝑓 ) for both cases are shown in Figure
5. For the case without time delay, the results confirm the stability
analysis presented in Section II. The system is stable and the MGCC
performance is appropriated for the two scenarios (i.e, with and
without PV generator). The order of frequency variation is lower
than 1 Hz. The PV generator generates random disturbances in Δ𝑓 ,
but the control performance is acceptable.
In order to study the effects of communication delays on the output
of the MGCC, we have simulated a constant communication delay
𝜏 = 1.67 s and 𝜏 = 1.75 s in Figure 6. The simulation model in
Matlab/Simulink uses a Padé approximation of second order simulate
the delays. As we can see in Figure 6, the results are coherent with the
analytical results obtained at the beginning of this section. The system
with time delays lower than the time delay margin found (𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
1.682 s) is asymptotically stable. However, the control performance
is poor since the system response is very oscillatory. In the second
scenario (with PV generation), the control performance decreases.
On the other hand, for a time delay greater than the margin delay,
the system is unstable, with and without PV generator. This is shown
in Figure 6, where the deviation frequency response is very similar
without PV generation and with PV generation. The simulations
before, the delays in simulation are based on the Padé approximation.
However, our methodology ensures a good non conservative margin
delay.
Based on these simulation results, it is possible to verify the
usefulness of the methodology for computing the time delay margin
of LFC task in power systems, such as MGs. On the other hand, the
accuracy of the solution is shown. According to these simple study
cases, it is possible to conclude that a time-delays lower than 2 s
can degrade the general performance of the controller, in control
signals for LFC in MGs based on diesel generators. Finally, in
agreement to the simulations results in cases without time-delays,
the inclusion of a PV generator without storage systems and random
variations in environmental conditions of solar radiation, can degrade
the frequency regulation performance.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the time-delay effects in load frequency control for
power smart grids systems based on microgrids have been analyzed.
First, we have introduced a cyber physical modeling approach, which
has been used to identify the cybernetic signals and the modules that
are vulnerable to time-delays. An MGCC cyber output is identified as
vulnerable to time-delays due to its remote operation. The modeling
approach used allows us to characterize the dynamic behavior of
each component of the system. A methodology based on the Rekasius
substitution and sum of squares (RSOS) algorithm is proposed to find
the time-delay margin stability and a simple example of MG for cyber
physical modeling and time-delay margin analysis is presented. The
results obtained show also that this class of simple power systems, in
the microgrids context, are very sensitive to time-delays. Simulation
results validate the analytical results obtained for a single MG. Hence,

548
we show that communication delays on the controller affect the [20] R. Zamora and A. K. Srivastava, “Controls for microgrids with storage:
system stability for the LFC task in MGs. Review, challenges, and research needs,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 2009 – 2018, 2010.
The methodology introduced can be generalized for other large [21] P. C. M.D. Lemmon and G. Venkataramanan, “Position paper - using
scale power systems, including interconnected MGs. As future direc- microgrids as a path towards smart grids,” in New Research Directions
tions, the proposed approach can be used to analyze other cybernetic for Future Cyber-Physical Energy Systems, 2009.
constraints in SG power systems and the methodology used to find [22] H. Farhangi, “The path of the smart grid,” Power and Energy Magazine,
the time-delay stability margin can be extended to power systems of IEEE, vol. 8, pp. 18 –28, jan. 2010.
[23] T. Yang, “Networked control system: a brief survey,” Control Theory
larger scale, e.g,. interconnected MGs. and Applications, IEE Proceedings -, vol. 153, no. 4, pp. 403 – 412,
2006.
R EFERENCES [24] D. Lee and L. Wang, “Small-signal stability analysis of an autonomous
hybrid renewable energy power generation/energy storage system part
[1] H. Farhangi, “The path of the smart grid,” Power and Energy Magazine, i: time-domain simulations,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
IEEE, vol. 8, pp. 18 –28, january-february 2010. vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 311–320, 2008.
[2] H. Bevrani, Robust power system frequency control. Springer Verlag, [25] T. Senjyu, T. Nakaji, K. Uezato, and T. Funabashi, “A hybrid power
2009. system using alternative energy facilities in isolated island,” Energy
[3] P. Kundur, N. Balu, and M. Lauby, Power system stability and control, Conversion, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 406–414, 2005.
vol. 4. McGraw-hill New York, 1994. [26] P. Ray, S. Mohanty, and N. Kishor, “Dynamic modeling and control
[4] Y. Li and Y. Li, “Decoupled power control for an inverter based low of renewable energy based hybrid system for large band wind speed
voltage microgrid in autonomous operation,” in Power Electronics and variation,” in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe
Motion Control Conference, 2009. IPEMC’09. IEEE 6th International, (ISGT Europe), 2010 IEEE PES, pp. 1–6, IEEE.
pp. 2490–2496, IEEE, 2009. [27] H. Jia, X. Cao, X. Yu, and P. Zhang, “A simple approach to determine
[5] K. De Brabandere, B. Bolsens, J. Van den Keybus, A. Woyte, J. Driesen, power system delay margin,” in Power Engineering Society General
and R. Belmans, “A voltage and frequency droop control method for Meeting, 2007. IEEE, pp. 1–7, IEEE.
parallel inverters,” Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 22, [28] K. Gu, V. Kharitonov, and J. Chen, Stability of time-delay systems.
no. 4, pp. 1107–1115, 2007. Birkhauser, 2003.
[6] T. L. Vandoorn, J. D. De Kooning, B. Meersman, and L. Vandevelde, [29] U. Munz, C. Ebenbauer, T. Haag, and F. Allgower, “Stability analy-
“Communication-based secondary control in microgrids with voltage- sis of time-delay systems with incommensurate delays using positive
based droop control,” in Transmission and Distribution Conference and polynomials,” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 54, no. 5,
Exposition (T D), 2012 IEEE PES, pp. 1 –6, may 2012. pp. 1019–1024, 2009.
[7] J. Guerrero, J. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. de Vicuna, and M. Castilla,
“Hierarchical control of droop-controlled ac and dc microgrids;a gen-
eral approach toward standardization,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, pp. 158 –172, jan. 2011.
[8] X. Li, Y. Song, and S. Han, “Frequency control in micro-grid power
system combined with electrolyzer system and fuzzy PI controller,”
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 180, no. 1, pp. 468–475, 2008.
[9] T. Senjyu, M. Datta, A. Yona, and C. Kim, “A control method for small
utility connected large pv system to reduce frequency deviation using
a minimal-order observer,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,
vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 520–528, 2009.
[10] B. Kumar and S. Mishra, “Agc for distributed generation,” in Sustainable
Energy Technologies, 2008. ICSET 2008. IEEE International Conference
on, pp. 89–94, IEEE, 2008.
[11] L. Jiang, W. Yao, J. Wen, S. Cheng, and Q. Wu, “Delay-dependent
stability for load frequency control with constant and time-varying
delays,” in Power Energy Society General Meeting, 2009. PES ’09.
IEEE, pp. 1 –6, july 2009.
[12] E. A. Lee, “Cyber physical systems: Design challenges,” Tech. Rep.
UCB/EECS-2008-8, EECS Department, University of California, Berke-
ley, Jan 2008.
[13] M. Ilic, L. Xie, U. Khan, and J. Moura, “Modeling of future cyber
physical energy systems for distributed sensing and control,” IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and
Humans, vol. 40, pp. 825 –838, jul. 2010.
[14] K. Tomsovic, D. Bakken, V. Venkatasubramanian, and A. Bose, “De-
signing the next generation of real-time control, communication, and
computations for large power systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 93,
pp. 965 –979, may 2005.
[15] L. Jiang, W. Yao, Q. Wu, J. Wen, and S. Cheng, “Delay-dependent
stability for load frequency control with constant and time-varying
delays,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, pp. 932 –941,
may 2012.
[16] C. Ebenbauer and F. Allgower, “Stability analysis for time-delay systems
using rekasius’s substitution and sum of squares,” in Decision and
Control, 2006 45th IEEE Conference on, pp. 5376–5381, IEEE, 2006.
[17] N. Olgac and R. Sipahi, “An exact method for the stability analysis
of time-delayed linear time-invariant (lti) systems,” Automatic Control,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 793–797, 2002.
[18] Z. Rekasius, “A stability test for systems with delays,” in Proc. Joint
Automatic Control Conf., Paper No. TP9-A., 1980.
[19] R. Lasseter, “Microgrids,” in Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting,
2002. IEEE, vol. 1, pp. 305 – 308 vol.1, 2002.

549