Modeling and Analysis of Droop Based Hybrid
Control Strategy for Parallel Inverters in Islanded
Microgrids
Shike WANG, Zeng LIU, Jinjun LIU, Baojin LIU, Xin MENG and Ronghui AN
State Key Lab of Electrical Insulation and Power Equipment
School of Electrical Engineering
Xi’an Jiaotong University
Xi’an, China
Abstract—The well-known active power-frequency and
reactive power-voltage amplitude droop scheme is widely used in
islanded microgrids to automatically share load power and
regulate output voltage of parallel voltage-controlled inverters
(VCIs) in microgrids. However, droop controlled VCIs tend to
lose stability as droop slopes increasing. Meanwhile, parameter
discrepancies extend synchronization time between VCIs which
degrade system dynamic performance. In order to compensating
above limitations of traditional method, this paper proposed a
droop based hybrid control strategy by exploiting advantages
from both voltage-controlled and current-controlled inverters.
Capturing the detail of inner control loops, a small-signal state-
space model is derived to analyze characteristics of the overall
parallel system. Comparing to traditional method, eigenvalues of
the hybrid control strategy indicate better stability and dynamic
performance. In agreement with theoretical analysis, both
simulation and experimental results are presented to validate the
advantages of this proposed strategy.
Keywords—active and reactive power droops; voltage-controlled
and current-controlled inverters; state-space model
I. INTRODUCTION
When it comes to coordinative control strategies of parallel
inverters in standalone ac supply systems, two dominant
schemes are master-salve control and droop control methods
[1]. In master-slave control structure, one voltage-controlled
inverter (VCI) acts as master voltage source to maintain
constant voltage on ac bus while other current-controlled
inverters (CCIs) act as slave current sources to track
distributive current references. It is easy to implement this
control strategy and achieve tight current sharing [2]. Owing to
limit flexibility brought by critical intercommunication links,
master-slave control is confined to centralized applications like
uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems. The droop control
method is also called peer to peer control, which is based on
the active power-frequency (P-ω*) and reactive power-voltage
amplitude (Q-V *) droop mechanism to realize automatic power
sharing and voltage regulation between parallel inverters [3].
The independency of communication make droop control
method become the most suitable choice for microgrids, where
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant 51437007, and the Power Electronics Science and
Education Development Program of Delta Environmental & Educational
Foundation under Grant DREM2014002.
978-1-5090-5366-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
distributed generators and loads are interconnected separately.
Droop control strategy and its variants have appealed to a large
number of researchers in the last decade. Considerable efforts
were made to improve performance of droop controlled parallel
inverters operating in islanded microgrids. For example, virtual
impedance is introduced to the conventional droop controller,
providing better active and reactive power decoupling and
accurate reactive power sharing [4-6]. The concept of robust
droop controller is developed to manage the inherent trade-off
between power sharing accuracy and voltage deviation. [7-8].
The stability issues are also discussed detailedly in [9-10].
However, almost without exception only VCIs are focused.
Actually, a significant number of inverters belonging to
renewable energy generation operate in current-controlled
mode, like photovoltaic or wind power systems in microgrids
[11]. Besides stable voltage sources like large synchronous
generators, current sources like wind turbines could also
participate in the regulation of grid voltage in conventional
power systems [12]. As for microgrids, the potential grid-
supporting ability of CCIs were also noticed by authors in [13].
The basic control structure of grid-supporting inverter
operating as current source was defined. In grid-connected
mode, this kind of inverter could contribute to the regulation of
grid frequency and voltage by delivering proper values of
active and reactive power, yet no further investigations were
made. Comparing to voltage controlled mode, inverter
operating as current source has simpler control structure, faster
dynamic response and more independence in power flow
control [14]. If these advantages were properly introduced to a
parallel system, there would exist a chance to improve the
overall performance.
This paper initiates the idea of developing a droop based
hybrid control strategy for parallel inverters which exploits
advantages from both VCI and CCI. Firstly, the basic structure
of hybrid control is established. Secondly, capturing the detail
of inner control loops, a small-signal state-space model is
derived to analyze the operation of the parallel system.
Comparing to traditional droop method where only VCIs are
considered, the eigenvalues of the hybrid control strategy
indicate better stability and dynamic performance. Finally,
simulation and experimental results are presented to validate
the advantages of this proposed strategy.
3462
 Lf_M PCC
v i _M il_M vo_M io_M Lc_M vPCC Lc_S io_S vo_S il_S Lf_S vi _S

+
+

- -
Master Cf_M iload Cf_S Slave
VCI PLL CCI
θ_M θ_M Rload voq_S θ_S
PWM
abc
iodq_M PWM
abc Power kp+ki /s abc
*
vi _ M vodq_M vod_S
Cal
Lload
ωff dq v*i _S

+
dq vodq_M dq
+
ω
ildq_M PM QM
θ_S
 iodq_S
abc v *id _ M
Dual-loop * *
vd = v* , vq* ≡ 0 ω * = ω0 − m p _ M ( PM − P0 _ M )
*
PS* = P0 _ S + (ω 0 − ωS ) / m p _ S id = PS vod _ S v *id _S abc
Control
dq v * Current v *
iq _ M
θ_M ω* (
v* = V0 − nq _ M QM − Q0 _ M ) QS* = Q0 _ S + (V0 − vod _ S ) / nq _ S *
iq = QS* vod _ S Control iq _S dq
θ_M  Droop for Master Droop for Slave θ_S

Fig. 1. Hybrid control structure.

II. HYBRID CONTROL STRUCTURE
In a conventional droop controlled parallel inverter system,
all modules are equally treated as peer to peer voltage sources.
Different inverters coordinate with each other by regulating
their own output frequency and voltage amplitude based on the
P-ω* and Q-V *droop mechanism. In steady state, the overall
frequency is synchronized and load power proportionally
shared at the same time. However, parallel droop controlled
VCIs tend to lose stability if the value of droop slopes
increased [10]. Meanwhile, the synchronization between
different VCIs take relatively long time especially there exists
discrepancies in line inductance, which degrade the dynamic
response [15]. Unlike VCIs, CCIs do not generate frequency
references individually. A well-designed phase-locked loop can
ensure fast and precise tracking of the frequency at the point of
common coupling (PCC) [16]. Comparing to VCIs, CCIs have
faster dynamic response and more independence in power flow
control [14], which may compensate the limitations of VCIs
and improve the overall system performance.
In order to introduce CCIs into the parallel system, the
master-salve structure is an ideal choice considering the
absence of utility voltage support in islanded microgids. Fig.1
shows a basic structure of the hybrid control strategy which
consists of a master VCI and a slave CCI. The VCI adopts
conventional P-ω* and Q-V* droop control, operating as a
master voltage source to set up PCC voltage. As the left-hand
side blue equations shown in Fig.1:
ω = ω0 − m p _M ( PM − P0 _M )
*
(1)
v* = V0 − nq _M (QM − Q0 _M )
where ω* and v* are calculated output frequency and voltage
amplitude references. ω0 and V0 are nominal values of PCC
voltage. mp_M and nq_M are frequency and amplitude droop
slopes. P0 _M and Q0 _M are ideal operating set points for master
inverter.
According to the control diagram of current-controlled
grid-supporting inverter proposed in [13], the slave CCI adjusts
its output power with voltage amplitude and frequency
deviation following an inverse ω-P* and V-Q* droop
relationship. As the right-hand side blue equations shown in
Fig.1:
PS* = P0 _ S + (ω0 − ωS ) / m p _ S
(2)
QS* = Q0 _ S + (V0 − vod_S ) / nq _ S
where PS* and QS* are calculated output active and reactive
power reference. P0 _ S and Q0 _ S are the initial active and
reactive power references when ωS=ω0, vod_S=V0. ωS is the
estimated PCC frequency tracked by a synchronous reference
frame phase-locked loop. Through a feedback control loop, the
angular position of this dq reference frame is controlled to
drive the voq_S component to zero. Therefore, the value of vod_S
equals to the estimated PCC voltage amplitude. mp_S and nq_S
are the active and reactive power inverse droop slopes.
In steady state, the CCI synchronized with VCI which
means ωS=ω*, the active output power reference for CCI is:
PS* = P0 _ S + [ω0 − (ω0 − m p _ M ( PM − P0 _ M ))] / mp_S
(3)
 m p _ M PM − m p _ M P0 _ M =m p _S PS* − m p _S P0 _ S
If mp_M and mp_S for master and slave inverters are designed
proportional to their nominal output power set points, the
actual output active power of two inverters will be
automatically proportional shared based on their ratings as (4).
m p _ M P0 _ M = m p _S P0 _ S
(4)
 m p _ M PM = m p _S PS*
If line impedance Lc_M and Lc_S are identical (only inductive
component is included in Fig.1), the value of vod_S will equal to
v* of master inverter. Like active power in (3) and (4), there is
also similar relationship between reactive power of two
inverters: nq _ M QM = nq _SQS* . However, when Lc_M ≠ Lc_S the
reactive power cannot be proportional shared because of the
discrepancy between vod_S and v*.
In conclusion, this hybrid control strategy could realize the
same steady-state power sharing function as traditional droop
method where only VCIs are considered. After introducing the
inverse droop controlled slave CCI, the improvements on
system stability and dynamic performance will be analyzed via
small-signal state-space modeling, simulation and experimental
results comparison in following sections.

3463
 III. SMALL-SIGNAL STATE-SPACE MODELING 0 0 − nq _M 
CPω _ M = 0 − m p _M 0  CPv _ M =   (10)
The modeling approach to the two inverter parallel system
0 0 0 
in Fig.1 divides into several sub-modules: master VCI, slave
CCI, output LC filter and line impedance, and loads at PCC.
* *
ildq_M
The reference frame of master VCI is chosen as the common vdq_M
reference frame to construct the complete system model. kpv_M+kiv_M /s
vodq_M
A. Master VCI
1) Power Controller: For small-signal state space Fig. 2. Voltage controller of master VCI.
modelling of traditional droop controlled parallel VCIs, authors
2) Voltage Controller: The block diagram of voltage
from [10] have provided a well-established demonstration. The
controller in master VCI is shown in Fig.2. To simplify the
modeling procedures of master VCI in the hybrid control
calculation, no decoupling nor feed-forward terms are included.
strategy are conducted in accordance with [10]. In “Power Cal”
Defining intermediate state variables as:
block of Fig.1, firstly instantaneous active and reactive power
p and q are calculated as (5). d φd _ M d φq _ M
= vd* _ M − vod _ M , = vq* _ M − voq _ M (11)
p M = vod_M iod_M + voq_M ioq_M dt dt
(5) The small-signal state-space equation of ϕdq_M and ildq *
_M is:
qM = vod_M ioq_M − voq_M iod_M
Through a one order low-pass filter whose cut-off frequency is  Δildq _ M 
ωc, the average active and reactive power are obtained.

 
 Δφdq _ M  = [ 0] Δφdq _ M + BV 1  Δv  + BV 2  Δvodq _ M 
*
dq _M
ωc ωc  Δi  (12)
PM = p M , QM = qM (6)  odq _ M 
s + ωc s + ωc 1 0  0 0 − 1 0 0 0 
According to droop expression in (1), the small-signal equation BV 1 =   , BV 2 =  
of frequency and voltage amplitude references are:  0 1 0 0 0 − 1 0 0 
 Δildq _ M 
ΔωM = −m p _M ΔPM  
 Δi  = CV  Δφdq _ M  + DV 1  Δv  + DV 2  Δvodq _ M 
* *
* *
(7) ldq _ M dq _M
Δvod _M = − nq _M ΔQM , Δvoq ≡0  Δi 
 odq _ M 
Representing the angle between individual dq frame and the
common reference DQ frame, δ is defined in (8).  kiv _ M 0   k pv _ M 0 
CV =   , DV 1 =   (13)
0 kiv _ M   0 k pv _ M 
δ =  (ωi − ωcom ) Δδ = Δωi − Δωcom (8)
 0 0 − k pv _ M 0 0 0 
where ωi and ωcom are rotating frequency of individual inverter DV 2 =  
and common reference frame. After linearizing and simplifying  0 0 0 k pv _ M 0 0 
(5) to (8), the small-signal state-space model of power
controller can be written in (9) and (10). *
ildq_M v*idq_M
kpc_M+kic_M /s

 Δδ M   Δδ M   Δildq _ M  ildq_M
 ΔP  = A  ΔP  + B  
 M P _M  M  P _ M  Δvodq _ M  + BPω com _M Δωcom
Fig. 3. Current controller of master VCI.
 ΔQM   ΔQM   Δi 
 odq _ M  3) Current Controller: Fig.3 shows the block diagram of
 Δδ  inner current control loop of master VCI. Similarly,
 ΔωM  CPω _ M   M 
 * =   ΔPM  intermediate state variables γdq_M are defined.
 Δvodq _ M  CPv _ M   dγ d _ M * dγ q _ M *
 ΔQM  = ild _ M − ild _ M , = ilq _ M − ilq _ M (14)
(9) dt dt
0 − m p _M 0   −1
 
0  BPωcom _M =  0 
*
AP _M = 0 − ωc The small-signal state-space equation of γdq_M and vidq_M is:

 0 − ωc   0   Δildq _ M 
0 
 
0 0 0 0 0 0   Δγ dq _ M  = [ 0] Δγ dq _ M + BC1_ M  Δi
*
 + BC 2 _ M  Δvodq _ M 
ldq _M

   Δi 
BP _M = 0 0 ωc I od _M ωc I oq _M ωcVod _M ωcVoq _M   odq _ M  (15)
  1 0   −1 0 0 0 0 0 
0 0 ωc I oq _M − ωc I od _M − ωcVoq _M ωcVod _M  BC 1_ M =   , BC 2 _ M =  
 0 1 0 − 1 0 0 0 0 

3464
  Δildq _ M   Δid*   Δvod _ S 
   *  = D1ΔPLL + D2  
 Δv  = CC_M  Δγ dq _ M  + DC1_M  Δi  + DC 2_M  Δvodq _ M 
* *
idq _ M ldq _M
   Δiq   Δvoq _ S 
 Δiodq _ M   PS* kp 
 kic _ M 0   k pc _ M 0   ki  − 2 −  (23)
CC_M =  (16)  −   Vod _ S Vod _ S m p _ S 
 , DC1_M =   D1 =  Vod _ S m p _ S  D2 = 
 0 k 
ic _ M  0 k pc _ M  * 
 0   − Vod _ S + nq _ SQS 0 
 − k pc _ M 0 0 0 0 0   
DC 2_M =   nq _ SVod2 _ S
0 − k pc _ M 0 0 0 0 
Fig.4 shows the block diagram of current controller of slave
B. Slave CCI CCI. Like γdq_M in (14), intermediate state variables γdq_S are
1) PLL Controller: For salve CCI, as Fig.1 shows, the PLL defined.
model is firstly derived. Define a state variable PLL as: dγ d _ S dγ q _ S
d PLL = id* − iod _ S , = iq* _ S − ioq _ S (24)
= voq _ S (17) dt dt
dt
Then the small signal form of synchronized frequency ωs is: *
The small-signal state-space equation of γdq_S and vidq_S is:

ΔωS = k p Δvoq _ S + ki ΔPLL (18) 

 Δγ dq _ S  = [ 0 ] Δγ dq _ S + BC1_ S  Δidq  + BC 2 _ S  Δiodq _ S 

*

According to (8), CCI has δ S =  (ωS − ωcom ) as a state variable (25)

1 0   −1 0 
whose small signal form is: BC 1_ S =  , BC 2 _ S =  
 0 1  0 − 1

Δ δ S =ΔωS - Δωcom = k p Δvoq _ S + ki ΔPLL- Δωcom (19)
 Δvidq _S  = CC_S  Δγ dq _S  + DC1_S  Δidq _S  + DC 2_S  Δiodq _ S 
* *

Combining (17) and (19) as:  kic _ S 0   k pc _ S 0 

CC_S =   , DC1_S =   (26)

 0 k 
ic _ S  0 k pc _ S 
 Δδ S   Δδ S   Δvod _ S 
  = AP _ S   + BP _ S  Δv  + BPωcom _ S Δωcom  − k pc _ S 0 
 ΔPLL   ΔPLL   oq _ S  (20)
DC 2_S =  
0 − k pc _ S 
 0 ki  0 k p   −1
AP _ S =   BP _ S =   BPωcom _ S =  
0 0  0 1  0  C. Output LC filter and Line Impedance
As Fig.1 shows, the circuit of output LC filter and line
*
vidq_S
idq* impedance for VCI and CCI is identical. Assuming that all
kpc_S+kic_S /s inverters output the demanded voltage vi = vi* , the state space
iodq_S equations can be derived as:

Fig. 4. Current controller of slave CCI. dild 1 1

= ωilq + vid − vod
dt Lf Lf
2) Current Controller: Based on the inverse droop equation
in (2), the small signal form of active and reactive power dilq 1 1
= −ωild + viq − voq
references are: dt Lf Lf
−ΔωS −1 dvod 1 1
ΔPS* = = (k p Δvoq _ S + ki ΔPLL) = ω voq + ild − iod
mp _ S mp _ S dt Cf Cf
(21) (27)
* −Δvod _ S dvoq
ΔQS = 1 1
nq _ S = −ω vod + ilq − ioq
dt Cf Cf
Then the small signal form of current references for inner
current controller is: diod 1 1
= ωioq + vod − vPCCd
dt Lc Lc
ΔPS* P* dioq
Δid* = + (− 2S ) ⋅ Δvod _ S 1 1
Vod _ S Vod _ S = −ωiod + voq − vPCCq
(22) dt Lc Lc
* ΔQS* Q* Then the small-signal model is obtained in (28), where i =M, S
Δi =
q + (− 2 S ) ⋅ Δvod _ S
Vod _ S Vod _ S is to identify master and slave inverters. The variables in
capital form represent the steady-state operating points of the
Substituting (21) into (22): system.

3465
  Similarly, as the input variable for inverters, PCC voltage
 Δildq _ i   Δildq _ i  on common reference frame ∆vPCCDQ should be converted to
 Δv =A     individual reference frames using reverse transformation. Since
 odq _ i  LCL _ i  Δvodq _ i  + BLCL1_ i  Δvidq _ i 
the reference frame of master VCI is chosen as the common
Δ
 odq _ i 
i Δ
 odq _ i 
i reference frame, ∆ωcom =∆ωM, δ0M=0. The steady state angle
+ BLCL 2 _ i [ΔvPCCdq _ i ] + BLCL 3 _ i Δωi difference between slave CCI and the common reference frame
−1 δ0S is determined by the output of PLL.
 
0 ω0 0 0 0 
Lf _i  ΔvPCCdq _ i  = TS−__1 i  ΔvPCCDQ  + TV−_1i Δδ i
 
 −ω −1
 0 0 0 L 0 0   −VPCCD sin (δ 0i ) + VPCCQ cos (δ 0i )  (30)
 f _i
 TV−_1i =  
 1 −1 VPCCD cos (δ 0i ) − VPCCQ sin (δ 0i ) 
0 0 ω0 0 
C C f _i 
ALCL _ i =  f _ i  Combing (9), (12), (13), (15), (16), (28), (29) and (30), the
0 1 −1  sub-model of master VCI is obtained in (31). There are totally
− ω0 0 0
 C f _i C f _i  13 states, three inputs and three outputs.
 
0 1
0 0 ω0 

0
 Lc _ i  [ Δ xM ] = AM [ Δ xM ] + BM  Δ vPCCDQ  + Bωcom_M [ Δωcom ]
 1 
0 0 0 − ω0 0   ΔωM  CINVω _ M 
 Lc _ i   Δi =  [ Δ xM ] (31)
 oDQ _ M  CINVc _ M 
 1  0 0
where, [ Δ xM ] = [Δδ M ΔPM ΔQM Δφdq _ M
L 0 0 
0
 f _i  0 0 Δγ dq _M Δildq _ M Δvodq _ M Δiodq _ M ]13
T
0 1    ×13

 L  0 0 (28) Combing (20), (23), (25), (26), (28), (29) and (30), the sub-
BLCL _ i =  f _i
 BLCL 2 _ i =  −1  model of slave CCI is obtained in (32). There are totally 10
0 0 L 0 states, three inputs and two outputs.
0 0  c_i 
0 0  −1  

0 0  0 L  [ Δ xS ] = AS [ Δ xS ] + BS  Δ vPCCDQ  + Bωcom_S [ Δωcom ]

  c_i 
T  ΔioDQ _ S  = CINVc _ S  [ Δ xS ]
BLCL 3_ i =  I lq − I ld Voq − Vod I oq − I od  (32)
where, [ Δ xS ] = [Δδ S ΔPLL Δγ dq _S
D. Combined Model of VCI and CCI T
Δildq _ S Δvodq _ S Δiodq _ S ]10×10

q Q The combined small-signal model of two inverters is in

(33). Specific forms of relative matrices could be obtained by
pure mathematical deduction which are not given here.

ωi
d [ Δ xINV ] = AINV [ Δ xINV ] + BINV  Δ vPCCDQ 
∆δi  ΔioDQ  = CINVc Δ xINV

where, [ Δ xINV ] = [ Δ xM Δ xS ]23×1

T
δ0i ωcom
D
T
 ΔioDQ  =  ΔioDQ_M ΔioDQ_S  (33)
Fig. 5. Rotating reference frame transformation 4×1

As Fig.5 shows, to construct a complete system model,  AM + Bωcom_M CINVω _ M 0 

AINV =  
variables from individual sub-modules need to be converted to 0 AS + Bωcom_SCINVω _ M 
the common DQ reference frame. For master and slave inverter, 23×23

the output small-signal variables are output currents ∆iodq_i,  M

B  C INVc _ M 0
i=M, S. The equivalent transformed variables can be obtained. BINV =   CINVc =  
 BS  23×2  0 CINVc _ S  4×23
 ΔioDQ _ i  = TS _ i  Δiodq _ i  + TC _ i [ Δδ i ]
E. Load and PCC Voltage Model
 cos(δ 0 i ) − sin(δ 0 i ) 
TS _ i =   (29) A general RL load is considered in Fig.1. The state
sin(δ 0 i ) cos(δ 0 i )  equations and small-signal state space model are presented in
 − I od _ i sin(δ 0 i ) − I oq _ i cos(δ 0 i )  (34) and (35) respectively.
TC _ i =  
 I od _ i cos(δ 0 i ) − I oq _ i sin(δ 0 i ) 

3466
 diloadD − Rload 1
= iloadD + ωcom iloadQ + vPCCD
dt Lload Lload
(34)
diloadQ − Rload 1
= iloadQ − ωcomiloadD + vPCCQ

Imaginary ——>
dt Lload Lload


 ΔiloadDQ  = Aload  ΔiloadDQ  + Bload1  ΔvPCCDQ  + Bload2 Δωcom

 − Rload   1 
 L ω0  L 0 (35)
I 
Aload =   Bload1 =   Bload2 =  loadQ 
load load

 − Rload   1   − I loadD 
 −ω0 L  0 L 
 load   load 
In (33) and (35), ∆vpccDQ are regarded as inputs to each sub-
model. To ensure the PCC voltage is well defined, authors Fig. 6. Traces of eigenvalues as mp increasing.
from [10] come up with a solution which assume a sufficiently
large virtual resistor rN (1000 Ω) to be connected between PCC
and ground. Hence, the PCC voltage could be expressed as:

 ΔvpccDQ  = RN ( M INV  ΔioDQ  + M load  ΔiloadDQ  )

 rN 0  1 0 1 0   −1 0  (36)
RN =   , M INV =   , M load  
0 rN   0 1 0 1  0 − 1
Substituting (36) into (33) and (35), the complete state-
space model of the overall parallel system is obtained in (37).

 ΔxINV   ΔxINV 
  = Asys  
 ΔiloadDQ   ΔiloadDQ 
Asys = [ AINV + BINV RN M INV CINVc BINV RN M load ; (37) Fig. 7. Traces of eigenvalues as nq increasing.
Bload1 RN M INV CINVc + Bload2CINVω _M Aload + Bload1 RN M load ]25×25

IV. EIGENVALUE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON

A two-inverter-parallel prototype in accordance with Fig.1
was built to verify the model results and compare the
performance of traditional droop method and proposed hybrid
control strategy. The eigenvalue calculation, simulation and
experimental results are based on this prototype whose
parameters are listed in Table I.

TABLE I. SYSTEM PARAMETERS

Inverter Parameters
Parameter Value Parameter Value
ω0 100π rad/s V0 (per phase RMS) 200 V Fig. 8. Eigenvalue locations of two control schemes.
mp_M, mp_S 1e-4 nq_M, nq_S 1e-4 The matrix Asys in (37) describes the autonomous operation
P0_M, P0_S 1500 W Q0_M, Q0_S 200 Var of the two-inverter-parallel system under hybrid control
strategy. The eigenvalue locations indicate the small-signal
ωc 100 rad/s Lf_M, Lf_S 3 mH stability and dynamic performance. Fig. 6 plots the traces of
Cf_M, Cf_S 30 uF Lc_M, Lc_S 2.7 mH eigenvalues near origin as the active power droop gain mp
increasing from 1e-4 to 1e-3. Eigenvalues of traditional droop
kpv_M 1 kiv_M 66.67 controlled VCIs move to right half plane when mp > 7.4 e-4.
kpc_M 10 kic_M 1e-6 For hybrid VCI and CCI, the eigenvalues keep staying at left
half plane despite a small movement towards right. As for the
PLL: kp 50 PLL: ki 900 reactive power droop gain nq, the low frequency dominant
kpc_S 20 kic_S 400 eigenvalues of both two control methods show less sensitivity.
When nq increasing from 1e-4 to 1e-3, all eigenvalues in Fig. 7

3467
keep staying in left half plane. It suggests that this hybrid 2.3k
P_A P_B

control has larger stability allowable range of droop gain

O utput power W
2.0k
increase than traditional method.
1.8k
Fig. 8 plots the overall eigenvalue locations of two control 1.5k
schemes with the same parameters (mp, nq=1e-4, Lc_M =2.7 mH, 1.3k
Lc_S =1.4 mH). It could be clearly seen from cluster 3, 2 and 1 1.0k
that comparing to traditional method, the eigenvalues of hybrid f_A f_B
control at high, medium and low frequency range are all further 50.025

away from imaginary axis. When there exist discrepancies in

Frequency Hz
50.000
line inductance, this hybrid control could realize faster settling 49.975
speed and stronger damping on high frequency oscillation.
49.950

V. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 49.925

t s 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
As Fig.7 shows, both traditional droop controlled VCIs and
hybrid controlled VCI and CCI are not sensitive to reactive Fig. 11. Traditional droop controlled VCIs with load step change
power droop gain variation. For simplicity, only resistive loads P_M P_S
and active power were used to compare the performances of 2.3k
two methods in simulation and experiment. 2.0k

Output power W
1.8k
A. Simulation Results 1.5k
Simulations are conducted in PSCAD/EMTDC software. In 1.3k
hybrid control scheme, the master is drooped controlled voltage 1.0k
source and the slave is inverse droop controlled current source f_M f_PLL
50.025
whose parameters are listed in Table I. In traditional method, Frequency Hz
inverter A and B are both drooped controlled VCI whose 50.000
parameters are the same as master VCI in hybrid control 49.975
method.
49.950
P_A P_B
6.0k
49.925
5.0k t s 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

4.0k
Fig. 12. Hybrid controlled VCI and CCI with load step change.
Output power W

3.0k
Firstly, Fig. 9 and 10 shows the output active power
2.0k waveforms of two inverters. When droop gain mp increased
1.0k from 1e-4 to 1e-3 at 2s, the traditional droop controlled VCIs
0.0
lose stability immediately while master and slave inverters in
Fig.10 just experience a small oscillation within 0.1s then
-1.0k maintaining stable operation. Secondly, Fig. 11 and 12 shows
-2.0k the output active power and frequency waveforms of two
t s 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 inverters with mp, nq=1e-4, Lc_M/A =2.7 mH, Lc_S/B =1.4 mH.
When load power increased from 3kW to 4kW at 2s, the
Fig. 9. Traditional droop controlled VCIs with mp increasing.
settling time for traditional droop controlled VCIs in Fig. 11 is
P_M P_S about 1.5s while only 0.3s in Fig. 12. Furthermore, the
1.80k
waveforms of hybrid control strategy are smoother with less
1.70k
high frequency oscillations. Agree with eigenvalues from Fig.
6 to 8, the simulation results prove the validity of previous
Output Power W

1.60k modelling and theoretical analysis.

1.50k
B. Experimental Results
1.40k The hardware experiments are conducted in a platform
consisting of two parallel three-phase inverters (Product Name:
1.30k MYINV-9R144), whose parameters are listed in Table I. The
real-time values of the output active power were recorded by
t s
1.20k
the HIOKI Power Analyzer 3390 and plot via Matlab in Fig. 13
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50
and 14. Firstly, droop gain mp increased from 1e-4 to 1e-3 at
Fig. 10. Hybrid controlled VCI and CCI with mp increasing. 1.5s in Fig. 13. The traditional droop controlled VCIs in Fig.13
(a) lose stability and inverter B triggers protection then shuts
down. The hybrid controlled VCI and CCI maintaining stable

3468
operation in Fig.13 (b). In accordance with simulation results,
when line inductance of two inverters are different, the hybrid
control in Fig.14 (b) has shorter settling time and less
overshoot after load step changing from 1070W to 2750W.
(a) Traditional droop controlled VCIs
Output Power W
(b) Hybrid controlled VCI and CCI
Fig. 13. Output power waveform comparison with mp increasing.
(a) Traditional droop controlled VCIs
(b) Hybrid controlled VCI and CCI
Fig. 14. Output power waveform comparison with load step change.
3469
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed a droop based hybrid control strategy
by exploiting advantages from both voltage-controlled and
current-controlled inverters. A small-signal state-space model
is derived to analyze system properties. Both simulation and
experimental results are presented to validate that this hybrid
control strategy achieves better stability and dynamic
performance comparing to traditional method.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Guerrero, L. Hang, and J. Uceda, “Control of distributed
uninterruptible power supply systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.
55, no. 8, pp. 2845–2859, Aug. 2008.
[2] J. F. Chen and C.-L. Chu, “Combination voltage-controlled and current-
controlled PWM inverters for UPS parallel operation,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 547–558, Sep. 1995.
[3] M. C. Chandorkar, D. M. Divan, and R. Adapa, “Control of parallel
connected inverters in standalone AC supply systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 136–143, Jan./Feb. 1993.
[4] 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 Trans. Power Electron., vol.
24, no.12, pp. 2977-2988, Dec. 2009.
[5] H. Mahmood, D. Michaelson, and J. Jiang, “Accurate Reactive Power
Sharing in an Islanded Microgrid Using Adaptive Virtual Impedances,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no.3, pp. 1605-1617, Mar. 2015.
[6] H. Zhang, S. Kim, Q. Sun, and J. Zhou, “Distributed Adaptive Virtual
Impedance Control for Accurate Reactive Power Sharing Based on
Consensus Control in Microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. PP, no.
99, pp. 1-13, Jan. 2016.
[7] Y. Zeng and Q. C. Zhong, “A droop controller achieving proportional
power sharing without output voltage amplitude or frequency deviation,”
in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2014, pp. 2322-2327.
[8] Q. C. Zhong, “Robust Droop Controller for Accurate Proportional Load
Sharing Among Inverters Operated in Parallel,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 60, no.4, pp. 1281-1290, Apr. 2013.
[9] E. A. A. Coelho, P. Cortizo, and P. F. D. Gracia, “Small signal stability
for parallel-connected inverters in stand-alone ac supply systems,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 533–542, Mar./Apr. 2002.
[10] N. Pogaku, M. Prodanovic, and T. C. Green, “Modeling, Analysis and
Testing of Autonomous Operation of an Inverter-Based Microgrid,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no.2,pp. 613-625, Mar. 2007.
[11] J. T. Bialasiewicz, “Renewable energy systems with photovoltaic power
generators: Operation and modeling,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.
55, no. 7, pp. 2752–2758, Jul. 2008.
[12] N. R. Ullah, T. Thiringer, and D. Karlsson, “Voltage and transient
stability support by wind farms complying with the E.ON netz grid
code,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1647–1656, Nov.
2007.
[13] J. Rocabert, A. Luna, F. Blaabjerg and P. Rodríguez, “Control of power
converters in ac microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27,
no.11, pp. 4734–4749, Nov. 2012.
[14] K. Sung-Hun, S. R. Lee, H. Dehbonei, and C. V. Nayar, “Application of
voltage- and current-controlled voltage source inverters for distributed
generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 21, no. 3, pp.
782-792, Sep. 2006.
[15] J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “Synchronization and
power sharing for droop-controlled inverters in islanded microgrids,”
Automatica, Journal of International Federation of Automatic Control,
vol.49, pp.2603-2611, Jun. 2013.
[16] S.-K. Chung, “A phase tracking system for three phase utility interface
inverters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 431–438,
May 2000.