This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
Military-based Vehicle to Grid (V2G) and
Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) Microgrid –
System Architecture and Implementation
M. Abul Masrur, Fellow, IEEE, Annette G. Skowronska, Janie Hancock, Steven W. Kolhoff,
Dean Z. McGrew, James Vandiver, Jim Gatherer
Abstract— A real life military application of Vehicle-to-
Grid/Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2G-V2V) based microgrid
system is described in this paper. The system provides a
plug-and-play, very fast forming, smart, aggregated, and
efficient power solution for a contingency military base that
can be set up in less than 20 minutes and is ready to generate
up to 240kW of 208Y/120VAC 3-phase (3Ø) power. The
system uses vehicle Transmission-Integrated Generators
(TIGs) to produce 600VDC power for use by vehicle hotel-
loads (i.e. electrification of non-propulsion and auxiliary
loads) and off-board loads (tents/shelters, communications
centers, or other electrical loads). This effort involves four
tactical military vehicles - two M1152 HMMWV vehicles
equipped with 30kW of On-Board Vehicle Power (OBVP)
and two MaxxPro Dash MRAP vehicles equipped with
120kW 3000 Transmission-Integrated Generators (3TIGs)
with V2G and V2V capability, four 60kW DC-to-3Ø AC
power converters with 600 VDC bus distribution systems
and four 22.8 kWh Energy Storage Units (ESU).
Discussion of the methodology for power management for
maximizing fuel economy is included at the end. The paper
also includes some test results of sub-systems and some
results from modeling and simulation (M&S) of the system.
Our study demonstrates significant fuel economy benefits of
using V2V based system.
Index Terms— Vehicle to grid (V2G), vehicle to vehicle
(V2V), microgrid, power electronics, vehicle electrification,
military vehicles.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE basic idea in this work, which will be described in
ore more detail later, is as follows. When the army goes to a
zone of action, it needs to create a base where soldiers and
others reside. Regular utility level electric power is needed
there. To generate power, presently standalone generators
driven by internal combustion engines have to be carried to the
field. This is costly. On the other hand, lots of support vehicles
are there in the base anyway which stand idle and are just
parked. If the generators already existing in the vehicles could
__________________________________________________
*
This paper is based on various technical reports in the authors’ department,
and also includes parts of the authors’ earlier paper/work [1], with certain
modifications and additional materials as needed.
`
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
be utilized for power generation, this will remove the necessity
to carry separate standalone generators. However, to use all the
vehicles together to produce power by forming a microgrid
poses some challenge, and how to address those is the basic
theme in this paper.
One of the research efforts at the US Army TACOM-
TARDEC involving V2G-V2V demonstrates the capability to
assemble a vehicle based power supply for austere contingency
bases. This work* [1] describes efforts to achieve this
by providing 240 kW of 208Y/120V 3Ø, 5-wire AC power in
less than 20 minutes while achieving an estimated 20% or more
fuel savings over conventional methods, which involve
standalone fixed speed engine driven generators. Vehicles that
are not on a mission (i.e. not moving) can use the onboard
vehicle power systems (i.e. engine driven generators and energy
storage units) to reduce the fuel consumption for generating
power at contingency bases.
It is important to mention here that currently more than 55%
of the Army fuel consumption supports base electric power
production. Vehicles can act as mobile power generation and
storage systems, and have the potential to lower logistical costs
by reducing petroleum consumption [2]. Optimization of such
vehicles themselves has been a topic of research [3]. Data
shows that intelligent power distribution and management [4]
systems with prioritized loads can reduce fuel consumption by
more than 20%. It should be noted that in military applications
vehicles are not on missions (i.e. on the move) 95% of the time,
and such non-moving vehicles’ capability can be utilized for
stationary power generation with significant fuel economy
benefits. Although multisource microgrid systems are not new
and a significant amount of literature [5-13] exist in the area,
having multiple vehicular sources, along with batteries, and
managing those in a microgrid formation does create significant
challenges due to various vehicular engine speeds and ratings.
The authors did not find any significant literature that addressed
this issue. Optimizing the microgrid system for performance
and reliability considering many external loads and sources and
maximizing the fuel economy is a challenging problem. The
present work, which involves both research and engineering
development, is a step towards solving that problem and is the
main contribution of this paper. The paper describes a good
number of both research and engineering challenges that are
involved in making such a V2G-V2V system to function in a
stable manner, and practical experience of the authors on how
those are solved are also documented. The authors feel that
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

such engineering experience in military environment will help
the overall industry, military and commercial alike, in
implementing such V2G-V2V systems, which the authors did.
These documented real-life experiences in this paper are very
valuable and hence can be considered as technical contribution
to the much broader industry efforts. Since the application is
for military purposes, many details of implementation of our
work are not open to public domain; however, the overall
system description and results presented in this paper will easily
indicate that significant amount of research and engineering
development work were involved, which the authors believe is
a definite contribution to the technology of microgrid and smart
grids.
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND ARCHITECTURE
As noted earlier, the system involves four tactical vehicles;
two HMMWVs (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicle) equipped with 30kW of On-Board Vehicle Power
(OBVP) and two MRAPs (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected)
equipped with 120kW Transmission-Integrated Generators
(TIGs) with V2G and V2V capability, four 60kW AC to DC
power converters with 600 VDC bus distribution systems and
four 22.8 kWh Energy Storage Units (ESU) i.e. batteries. Each
vehicle is equipped with a Vehicle Communication Module
(VCM), which provides the appropriate information exchange
needed to facilitate transfer of up to 100kW of power via J1772
Combo Connectors between vehicles (V2V) and/or for export
power off-vehicle (V2G). Figure 1 shows the microgrid system
architecture. Two vehicles, MRAPs (80kW-capable, equipped
with 120kW generators) and two HMMWVs (30kW-capable)
were used. The 3200MSG system in the MRAP, shown in
Figure 2, consists of an Allison 3200SP transmission with an
integral 120kW Permanent Magnet Machine (PMM). A power
electronics assembly, the Generator Controller Bus Regulator

Figure 1. Microgrid System Diagram

(a) (b)
Figure 2 (a). MaxxPro MRAP Equipped with DRS/ATI 3200MSG 120kW OBVP System
(b). M1152 HMMWV Equipped with DRS 30kW OBVP System

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
(GCBR), uses a switching regulator to manage the PMM and to
generate the highly regulated 600 VDC bus used as the
microgrid power source. Figures 2 (a) and 2 (b) show the actual
vehicles used for the system with the inset diagrams showing
the generator and the power conversion devices.
III. MODIFIED DROOP CONTROL OF THE
MICROGRID SYSTEM
The microgrid system described in our paper involves
connecting multiple low-impedance DC sources to a common
bus while avoiding the danger of large circulating currents
between sources. Since the sources were to be separated by
large distances (about 60 feet in the case of vehicles), only
locally-measured voltages and currents (i.e. not the information
through some communication network) could be used to control
the sources and implement a degree of load sharing. In order to
allow parallel operation using only locally measured voltage
and current, these vehicles included modified power conversion
electronics to provide droop control [5-13] of the output voltage
based upon local load current.
Droop control is a well-known scheme to control load sharing
between multiple sources. It can be implemented by monitoring
the local load current at each source and decreasing the source
voltage as the local load current increases. By using the same
no load to full load voltage change for all sources, load sharing
is achieved in proportion to the power capability of each source.
Another way to look at droop control is that the voltage at each
coupling point indicates the amount of power that each load or
source will consume or supply.
The droop control scheme and power electronics effectively
inserted an impedance in series with each voltage source in the
system - not a physical resistance, which would waste power,
but a “virtual resistance” which caused the output voltage to
“droop or fall” as load current increased. Due to differences in
the design of the power electronics for the two vehicle types
(MRAP & HMMWV), the implementations were different in
each case. The droop voltage delta, the change in set point
voltage from no load to full load for all sources was 40V. The
droop voltage delta was established through consideration of a
reasonable set point range for the vehicle sources and test
results from the power conversion electronics used in the ESUs
(energy storage units or batteries). Using this number and either
rated current or power information for each source (including
power capability variation versus engine speed), virtual
impedances were calculated to implement droop control. By
“standardizing” the droop voltage delta (∆V) across the system
sources, load sharing proportional to output power capability in
the steady-state sense was achieved.
From the systems perspective, the above represented a
supervisory local control loop that adjusted the set point of each
source based on load:
V0 = Vref - Iout Rd
This implies that the no-load set point (V0) was reduced by a
value proportional to the load current (Iout), with virtual
impedance (Rd) determining the amount of droop per unit
`
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
current. At rated current (determined by maximum current or
current at maximum power depending upon the source), the
agreed-upon droop voltage was reached. The value of the
virtual impedance was a function of engine speed, since power
output capability (and therefore rated current) of the sources
was also dependent on the torque/speed curve of the engine. For
a given rated current:
Rd = ∆V/Irate (2)
Typical values of Rd for individual sources in this
demonstration system were on the order of 300 to 800
milliohms, with the larger values for lower-power sources.
Four vehicles represented approximately 100 milliohms to the
DC bus, neglecting wiring and contact resistances. The above
values of 300 to 800 milliohms is based on the following
rationale. It should be noted here that the value of this Rd or the
virtual resistance or impedance is based on a few things,
namely, the power transferred, the allowable voltage fluctuation
(or droop), and the minimum voltage acceptable at the load.
The calculation of the droop impedance is based on standard
circuit theory, where a resistance is interposed in between the
two power sources. In that case the virtual resistance is easily
calculated to be
Rd = ∆V*Vmin/P (3)
where ∆V is the voltage fluctuation (which in our case is 40
volts i.e. 620 - 580 volts), since we allow the grid voltage to
fluctuate between 580 to 620 volts, and Vmin = 580 volts. Hence
for the MRAP vehicle, which has P = 80 kW rated power, the
value of Rd will be = 0.29 ohms and for HMMWV which is
rated at 30 kW, the value of Rd will be = 0.773 ohms. Such
values also allow appropriate power sharing from the sources,
depending on the total power demand. It should also be noted
that the above are the ranges of the virtual resistance based on
the maximum power rating of the generators (driven by IC
engines). As the speed changes, the power output from the
generator also changes. Hence the virtual droop resistance
should be modified with speed. This, in our case, was done by
using a look up table.
In the case of the HMMWVs, the equipment included the
addition of a DC-DC converter to boost the 400VDC nominal
output of the OBVP Generator/System Controller to 600VDC
microgrid bus voltage, plus a High Voltage System Control Box
(HVSCB) to provide power, operator, and signal interfaces to
the VCM. The HVSCB handled the details of
connection/disconnection to/from the microgrid when
commanded to do so by the VCM. The droop control was
implemented on the HMMWVs by programming the HVSCB
microcontroller to read the analog current sensor output current
of the DC-DC converter and to reduce the analog voltage set
point of the converter as the load current increased. The virtual
(1) impedance (a scale factor internal to the microcontroller) was
set so that the output voltage (Vo) would decrease from the no-
load set point as the load current increased from zero to up to
50A, depending upon the engine speed, which determined the
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
Figure 3. HMMWV Generator Control Block Diagram
maximum available load power. Figure 3 presents the control
block diagram.
For the MRAPs, a HVSCB was used to provide power,
operator, and signal interfaces to the VCM. The HVSCB
handled the details of connection/disconnection to the DC
microgrid. The droop control described so far is quite common
in the literature and is well documented. However, for the
purpose of this work, which involves generators driven by
several IC engines running at different speeds and also since the
speed of a particular generator could vary, the standard droop
control mentioned above required some modification.
Accordingly, the virtual impedance was set so that the GCBR
output voltage would decrease from the no-load set point as the
load current increased from zero up to a maximum determined
by the available power, which was dependent upon the engine
speed. The range of virtual impedances over the allowed engine
speed range was handled by a look-up table with an index
representing 50 RPM increments from 800 to 2400 RPM. Due
to limitations of the engine speed control system, only two
operating speeds were used for this demonstration: 800 RPM
(idle) providing up to 65 kW, and 1150 RPM providing up to
about 80 kW. This constraint of having only two engine speeds
is not a general situation and was due to limitations of the
particular engine controller that was used in this work. The
control block diagram is shown in Figure 4.
IV. HIERARCHICAL CONTROL
A. Hierarchical Control: Primary
Droop control [5] was implemented as the primary control
to handle the steady-state load sharing of the vehicles based on
output power capability. Even if there is only one vehicle with
one generator, it is still beneficial to have droop control since
there may be other sources like ESUs (batteries) and it may be
necessary to share loads with those entities from time to time.
This will be discussed further during the discussion on ESU
management. The HVSCB on each vehicle was programmed
to handle the switching operations when commanded to connect
or disconnect from the DC microgrid by the VCM. That is, if a
connection was commanded by the VCM, the HVSCB would
adjust the no-load voltage set point of the source until the output
voltage approximately matched the microgrid voltage before
`
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Figure 4. MRAP Generator Control Block Diagram
closing contactors. This was done to reduce the unavoidable
current transient (due to the capacitance at the outputs of the
various system sources) that occurred when closing contactors.
Reference [1] suggested temporarily using the bus voltage as
the set point for a source about to be connected to the microgrid
in order to force the source output to accurately track the bus
voltage. For this work the bus voltage was approximately
matched by the HVSCB using a fairly high sampling rate; based
on testing done to date, this approach appeared to provide
satisfactory operation without “nuisance trips” due to large
transients during contact closure.
B. Hierarchical Control: Secondary
Disconnection of a source from the microgrid presented a
similar problem- specifically it was desirable to exit the
microgrid without causing a large transient on the bus and
without damage to contactors. If a disconnection was
commanded, the HVSCB adjusted the voltage set point of the
source in an attempt to reduce the current well below the rated
current of the contactors before opening. In this case, driving
the current to exactly zero before opening contactors was not
attempted nor was it necessary. In the case of the MRAPs,
vehicle-specific loads (a local inverter and DC-DC converter)
prevented the load current from being reduced to zero before
the contacts could be opened.
C. Hierarchical Control: Tertiary
Tertiary hierarchical control of the microgrid was provided by
the VCMs and the associated communications network. That is,
the set points of the various sources could be adjusted (as a
group) to affect the overall bus voltage, or individually to “trim”
the share of the total load handled by a given source.
V. SUBSYSTEMS IN THE V2G-V2V ARCHITECTURE
A. TVGM (Tactical Vehicle to Grid Module) System Overview
The TVGM (Figure 5) is the DC bus backbone architecture
for the V2G system. It is basically a power electronics system
interfacing between DC power coming from the vehicle
generator (after rectification and regulation) and translating it
to 60Hz sinewave AC for delivering the AC loads, or to DC at
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
a different voltage (if necessary) to interface with the batteries.
It also allows establishment of a common 600VDC bus (the
microgrid bus). The TVGMs can accept/deliver 100kW of
power at 600VDC to the vehicles. The power supplied to the
TVGM by the vehicles and/or ESU is inverted to 208Y/120V
3ØAC (three phases with neutral and ground), 60Hz output
power to serve the connected loads. The TVGM also
interconnects with other TVGMs to form a high voltage DC
ring bus. Power from one TVGM can then be transferred to one
or more connected TVGMs via the common 600VDC bus.
Figure 6 illustrates how multiple TVGMs interconnect with
each other, the vehicles and ESUs (batteries).
B. Inverter and System Efficiency
The TVGM employs a highly efficient DC to AC inverter to
convert the 600VDC power from the sources (vehicles and
ESUs) to the 208Y/120V 60Hz sinewave AC power required
by the AC loads. The inverter is approximately 96.5% efficient
when operating from within 50% to 70% of its nameplate
rating. Efficiency drops to its lowest at 90% when operating at
5% to 10% of the nameplate rating. The parasitic loads are all
fed from one of two power supplies within the TVGM. One
supply is 1000 watts and the second is 500 watts for a total of
1500 watts. This load is dynamic and varies according to
operating conditions. At the full output of 60kW under
operating conditions calling for maximum parasitic load of
1.5kW, the TVGM overall efficiency is 94% exceeding the 93%
requirement (based on design specifications) for total system
efficiency.
Figure 5. Tactical Vehicle to Grid Module (TVGM)
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Figure 6. Multiple TVGMs Interconnected by a Common 600VDC Bus
C. Some Practical Considerations and Challenges
The tactical microgrid for which the TVGM serves as the link
between unique power sources (vehicles and ESUs) and loads
is a complex power system that is significantly different from
traditional tactical power systems and therefore comes with
some unique challenges.
Two of the more unique challenges for the TVGM that
became evident during integration testing were
grounding/ground fault detection and the use of SAE J1772
combo connectors for connecting sources to the TVGM and
connecting TVGMs to other TVGMs (i.e. those in different
vehicles).
D. Ground Fault Detection
TVGM employs a differential scheme for detecting ground
faults on the 600VDC bus. The differential scheme was seen as
the simplest way to implement sound protection without
interfering with the input power source’s (vehicle or ESU) own
ground fault detection schemes. However, during integration
testing, it has been seen that the 600VDC bus was not always
balanced at certain times, causing nuisance trips. These trips
frequently happen when certain sources are joining the TVGM
or when TVGMs are connecting with other TVGMs. Various
types of solutions had to be devised and implemented to
assuage these trips and allow the system to operate more
robustly.
E. SAE J1772 Combo Connectors
A requirement for connection for this particular military
application was the use of SAE J1772 Combo connectors to
connect input power sources and create the 600VDC bus
linking TVGM to TVGM (in different vehicles). While this
scheme allows for quick connect and disconnect of the 600VDC
bus as well as future compatibility with other vehicle power
sources, it does come with unique challenges for a tactical
power system. In addition to transmitting power, the J1772
connections incorporate communications and control to sense
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

when a connection is made and to lock that connection in place
whenever voltage is present. The most prevalent challenge
affecting the TVGM was the implementation of the locking pin
on the J1772 inlet. Once a connection to a TVGM inlet port is
made, the connector is locked in place to ensure the connection
is safe from inadvertent disconnects once power begins to flow.
The first challenge involved an underpowered drive circuit for
the locking pin motor (used to actuate the locking pin).
Increasing the motor drive power made for an easy remedy.
The second challenge involved a few locking pin motors that
did not make contact with their internal status switch when the
locking pin was deployed. The result was that there was no
feedback signal for the locking pin. These motors had to be
modified such that when the locking pin was deployed the
switching was made and the feedback signal sent back to the
controller indicating that the port was indeed locked and ready
for power transfer.
F. Energy Storage Unit (ESU)
The Energy Storage Unit (ESU) or battery is a major
component for the V2G system. Each of the four units has an
energy storage capacity of approximately 22.8kWh. The ESU
interfaces with one TVGM as part of a grid component family
which consists of one (1) OBVP, one (1) TVGM, and the ESU.
The 22.8 kWh serves as a bidirectional power source charging
from the grid power along with providing power allowing for
HV 600VDC power bus stability. It has the capability to serve
as an upper and/or lower “guardrail” to aid in the stability of the
600VDC power bus. The ESU also allows for the
supplementing of power in support of system functions such as
minimizing the number of generators needed and the impact of
power transients due to the addition/removal of various power
loads.
G. Development Lessons Learned / Data Obtained
The droop control approach, which was mentioned earlier for
the generators, can also be applied to ESUs. This feature
allowed the voltage to remain within the tight threshold limits
that were desired even when significant power loads such as the
various ECUs or the 30kW laundry dryer were utilized. In other
words, when the grid voltage had a tendency to increase, the
ESUs (assuming the SOC was not too high and could allow
absorption of power) could absorb power and vice-versa when
the grid voltage decreased. Moreover, the ESU control was also
modified through certain requirements, i.e. depending on the
amount of power demand, the ESUs and the generators were
controlled so that certain maximum and minimum voltage
threshold constraints could be maintained. Consequently, the
droop control of the generators and ESUs were both modified
compared to conventional linear droop control.
H. Overview of the VCM “System Brain”
The hardware to run control system consists of 12 vehicle
communication modules (VCMs) that communicate with their
respective components and with each other. The architecture
of the system is shown in Figure 7.

V2G V2G V2G V2G

Interface Interface Interface Interface

Figure 7. Overall layout of grid components

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

I. Hardware and software VCM development
The development of the Vehicle Control Module (VCM)
presented several challenges and required these features:
 The computer board must provide sufficient computing
capacity in a relatively small volume that is subject to a
hostile environment related to temperature, vibration,
and moisture.
 The system needs to utilize power line carrier (PLC) to
avoid running extra Ethernet cables and to avoid
potential signal corruption from wireless technologies.
 Each VCM has 4 PLC channels to determine which port
components are connected to.
 The VCM must route traffic between four channels to
provide a network for the computers to communicate
over.
 The system has to communicate with different end
devices over the CAN-bus.
 Provide a graphic user interface (GUI) for the control
and observation of the system. This is provided via an
Ethernet connection to a web server hosted on the
computer.
difference in the function of the ESUs, specifically when they
have to act as “guard rails” on the grid. The term “guard rails”
implies some upper and lower bounds of voltage and when the
voltage crosses those limits, either the batteries will be charged
or discharged, and within the boundary it can be in either mode
or simply floating, based on the historical path the battery was
in.
Figure 8 shows the system response when there is a single 80
kW capable vehicle and a 20 kW capable battery. The vehicle
is operating in droop mode and the ESU is configured as a lower
guard rail with a voltage setting of 585 V. The ESU is
configured for positive current (supplying the bus) and no
negative current (drawing from the bus). The vehicle supplies
the entire load on the system from 0 to 70 kW. The bus voltage
goes down as the load increases due to the droop control
responding to the load change. When the system load increases
above 70 kW, the ESU now regulates the bus voltage to the set
point of 585 V and the bus voltage is constant until the ESU has
been fully utilized. When the battery (ESU) reaches its
maximum output of 20 kW, the ESU will output 20 kW constant
and the vehicle will control the bus voltage again until the
vehicle reaches its maximum output of 80 kW.

VI. VEHICLE MANAGEMENT

Vehicles are just one of the energy sources that can be

connected to the TVGMs. The vehicle and the TVGM must be
configured to safely and reliably step though the connection
process, setting voltages and checking for faults inside
components. Control sequences are in place for connecting
both running and non-running vehicles to the grid, as well as (a)
connecting a powered vehicle to both a de-energized and an
energized TVGM.
There are also algorithms in place for dispatching a vehicle
that is currently off and connected to the grid. This is
automatically done as the loads increase and there is a need for
additional power sources. Similarly, a separate algorithm
handles the curtailing of vehicles when the loads are low to
reduce fuel usage.
Control sequences also had to be implemented to treat the
cases where a vehicle must be disconnected from the grid (as
would happen when it is required for normal transportation
purposes). Before disconnecting, the amount of power is
checked on the grid to prevent the voltage from collapsing
under too much load. Similar to the permutations for
connecting vehicles, the disconnect sequences consider (b)
disconnecting a running and non-running vehicle from an
energized and de-energized TVGM. All these control
sequences noted above are quite elaborate to describe within the
scope of this paper.

VII. ESU MANAGEMENT

As previously stated, droop control strategy is also

Figure 8. (a) Bus voltage and (b) ESU/vehicle power response
applicable to batteries (with some modifications and with ESU as lower guard rail.
coordinated accordingly with the vehicle generators). These
energy storage units are treated similarly to the vehicles when
connecting or disconnecting, however, there is a significant
`

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. (a) Bus voltage and (b) ESU/vehicle power response
with ECU as upper guard-rail.
An example of an upper guard-rail is shown in Figure 9 with
the same vehicle and ESU as before, but now the ESU is
configured to operate in voltage mode with a set point of 615V.
The settings for the ESU would be configured for negative
current (drawing from the bus) and no positive current (supplied
into the bus). The vehicle supplies the entire load on the system
from 10 to 80 kW. The bus voltage goes down as the load
increases due to the droop control responding to the load
change. When the system load goes below 10 kW, the ESU
regulates the bus voltage to the set point of 615 V and the bus
voltage is constant until the ESU has been fully utilized. When
the battery reaches its maximum input of 20 kW, it remains
constant at that value and the vehicle will control the bus
voltage again until the vehicle reaches its minimum output of 0
kW. This configuration is used to protect the bus against surges
when loads are turned off suddenly. When this happens, the
brief excess power on the bus is absorbed by the ESU
configured as an upper guard-rail.
In addition to the guard-rails, the ESUs is also configured in
a mode to charge only and not regulate the bus voltage. In this
mode, the voltage set point is set toward the lower end of the
droop range (in this example 585V), and the power settings for
the ESU are configured for negative current (drawing from the
bus) and no positive current (supplying the bus). The bus
voltage should always be above this set point, so the ESU will
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. (a) Bus voltage and (b) ESU/vehicle power (bottom)
with battery configured for constant charge
just absorb a constant amount of power from the bus and
increase in charge. The bus voltage is determined only by the
vehicles in droop mode and the ESUs configured as guard-rails.
The voltage should be configured below the lowest guard-rail
but above the maximum output of the vehicles. Therefore, if
the system approaches maximum load, the charging battery will
reduce the amount of power absorbed to keep the bus energized.
An example of this operation is shown in Figure 10 for an 80
kW vehicle and a 20 kW ESU. Notice that below an inverter
load of 50 kW, the ESU draws a constant 20 kW charge and the
voltage on the bus is regulated by the vehicle. When the bus
voltage reaches the ESU set point of 585 V, the ESU regulates
the voltage and reduces the charging power from 20 to 0 kW.
After the ESU is no longer charging the bus voltage continues
to droop to the 80 kW maximum output of the vehicle.
When there are no vehicles present on the system (which can
happen in principle, i.e. the vehicles can leave the ESUs
(batteries) in place and move away for a certain duration), the
modes of the batteries are still the same, although in the settings
only the lower guard-rails are required and the highest lower
guard-rail should be configured slightly different. The constant
charging mode is not required as there are no other power
sources to charge the batteries from (since there are no vehicles
and hence no generators present to do the charging). There is
still a need for upper guard rails to absorb power from inductive
loads, however the highest lower guard can be configured to
provide the upper protection at the same time. When no
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

vehicles are present, ESUs currently in upper guard-rails and
constant charge modes are reconfigured to be lower guard-rails.
Similar to the vehicles, there are also a number of sequences
defined to handle the connection and disconnection of ESUs
from the grid. Additionally, there are also algorithms in place
to “rotate” the ESUs between lower and upper guard rail roles
as a function of their state of charge (SOC). This implies that
which particular ESU will be used for absorbing power from
the grid when the voltage reaches the upper threshold limit, and
which particular ESU will be used for delivering power to the
grid when the voltage reaches the lower threshold limit, will be
changing dynamically, depending on ESU state of charge.
Outside these limit zones, the linear droop control of the ESUs
could be implemented. In other words, the ESUs and
generators both undergo droop control with constraints.
The droop control discussed in this section was also
implemented in modeling and simulation work and has been
noted in section 9 in this paper. There the simulation results for
voltage and current have been shown clearly (in Figures 14(a)
and (b)) to illustrate the effect of droop control.
VIII. TVGM MANAGEMENT
The TVGMs (i.e. the smart power electronics system boxes)
are the major connection point between the various microgrid
components. They serve as the junction between the vehicles,
the batteries, and each other, and consequently are subject to a
number of unique control sequences.
Connecting two TVGMs together effectively combines two
mini-microgrids together into a single microgrid. There are
several variations for this scenario:
1. In the case where one of the TVGMs is powered and one
is not, a new TVGM without any connected sources will
be connecting to an established, powered grid. This
would be the case used when one TVGM has been
powered and another TVGM is connected to expand the
grid. After this sequence, both TVGMs will be powered.
2. In the case where both TVGMs are powered and
establishing a ring-bus configuration, there are multiple
TVGMs that will be forming a ring-bus configuration.
Electrically, the buses on both TVGMs are already joined
through the other connections and the additional ring-bus
connection is creating a duplicate path.
3. In the case where both TVGMs are powered but not
establishing a ring-bus configuration, there are two
completely isolated microgrids that need to be joined.
Since the voltages on the bus are not the same and cannot
be aligned before the connection, this type of joining is
prevented.
IX. MODELING AND SIMULATION (M&S)
The electric power system described in this work is an
enabling infrastructure supporting continuous operation of
different mission critical facilities, both at the component level
and the system level. For studying the system under different
conditions, M&S of the system is required. To do this, an
extensive library of V2G-V2V components was developed in
the simulation environment. This includes the development of
models for simulation of a variety of distributed generators and
short-term storage, including the corresponding control and
power electronics interface. A generic model is preferable to
enable the integration of various control strategies. In the M&S
work described in this paper, MATLAB/Simulink was used to
model each of the components of the system and is able to
describe both their steady-state and dynamic behaviors. The
transient responses are analyzed as well.

Figure 11. V2G-V2V Set-up

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

10

Calculation block for total system power and

fuel consumption based on quantities from
all 4 vehicles.
HMMWV2
Model

HMMWV1
Model

MRAP1
Model

MRAP2
Figure 12(a). V2G-V2V top level system diagram for M&S Model

This orange colored block and the other

orange colored blocks indicated, are the
connectors between the various vehicles

Figure 12(b). V2G-V2V One corner of the top level system diagram for M&S shown here for better visibility.

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
In order to study the four vehicle V2G-V2V system, the
architecture shown in Figure 11 was used and a MATLAB-
Simulink implementation was done.
The top level diagram of the MATLAB-Simulink system is
shown in Figure 12 (a) where the top left and right corners are
for HMMWVs and bottom left and right corners are for
MRAPs. Figure 12 (b) shows just one corner of the diagram for
better visibility since it is difficult to see clearly all 4 corners in
a single figure like Figure 12(a).
A couple of graphs from the simulation run showing the
engine rpm and total power requirement are given in Figures
13(a) and (b). The graphs are kept separate so that subtle
changes can be noticed with proper scales used.
Figures 13(a) and 13(b) show that engine speed varies with
load. So, as the load drops the engine speed reduces. Engine
speed varying to support load levels is done to improve system
efficiency by aligning with the vehicle’s engine map.
Part of the M&S portion of this work involves a modeled
system of the V2G/V2V using the Simscape toolbox in the
MATLAB/Simulink environment. The model is utilized to
understand the system performance and control based on three
layered architecture control loops –current, impedance and
voltage. For illustration, a couple of graphs showing the droop
control related to the top left corner of the M&S, i.e. the
HMMWV vehicle, are shown below, Figure 14(a) showing the
voltage at the bus where the HMMWV is connected and Figure
14(b) showing the current output coming out of the HMMWV
generator. It should be noted that this HMMWV power output
(corresponding to voltages and currents in Figures 14(a) and
(b)) is just its own power output, which contributes towards the
total power requirement shown in the earlier Figure 13(b). The
two figures (Figures 14(a) and (b)) show the inverse nature of
their change, i.e. as voltage goes down the current goes up due
to droop control implementation. The graphs are kept separate
so that subtle changes can be noticed with proper scales used.
A. Objectives of M&S and Comparison with Baseline
(Existing) System
One of the primary objectives of M&S of the system is to
evaluate, and analyze the energy efficiency and fuel
consumption for various scenarios in the system under different
power demand conditions. The results from the simulation will
be compared to system performance supported by existing
Tactical Quiet Generators (TQG) [14] based system. It should
be noted that currently the military uses TQGs, which are
stationary standalone generators run by IC engines at a fixed
speed and generates ac voltage for the loads at a particular
voltage. These TQGs are separate units and have to be carried
to the field. Each TQG that is used for the purpose of this
model is rated 30kW. Depending on the total load demand
several TQGs can be used. However, in this TQG-based system
there is no control in terms of engine map based fuel economy
to match the load demand with engine speed, and TQGs are not
interfaced in a microgrid system formation.
Basically, the M&S work done for the V2G-V2V system
includes a load profile for the microgrid. It also includes
mathematical models for the vehicle engines (HMMWV and
MRAP), the batteries, converters and inverters, and connectors,
`
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
to form the microgrid based vehicle power system depicted in
Figure 1. In addition, there is a protocol which is observed, that
allows allocating one or more vehicles in the system depending
on the average power demand. Based on the experimental
engine fuel economy information for the vehicles, a comparison
has been made between the vehicle-based micro-grid (V2G-
V2V), against the TQG based system which is currently used.
This study clearly demonstrates the fuel economy benefits of
using V2G-V2V based system. This is depicted in Figure 15,
which shows total fuel consumption in gallons/per hour. In
Figure 15 the orange colored graph indicates the number of
TQGs used at each point shown by arrows, and this number
varies from 1 to 6 TQGs, corresponding to a capacity of 30 kW
using only 1 TQG, to a capacity of 180 kW using 6 TQGs. In
a similar manner, the blue colored graph shows the combination
of HMMWVs (labeled as HMV) and MRAP vehicles with the
number of those vehicles used corresponding to each point in
the graph. In general it appears that V2G-V2V based system of
Figure 1 is significantly more (which can be 30% or even better
fuel economy in some cases, depending on load power)
efficient in terms of fuel economy compared to TQG based
system presently used in the military, except at very low power
output demand of around 5kW. The benefits can be enhanced
with complete throttle control, which allows for a wide
variation of speed in both HMMWV and MRAP.
Finally, it might be beneficial to indicate here the mechanism
of validation of the modeling and simulation. We have both
field data and modeled data for these TQG’s (which are fixed
speed generators) and we also have field data and modeled data
for the vehicles at different speed and power levels. Vehicle
based generator has the option to adjust speed, whereas TQG is
a fixed speed device. So, for a given power demand, once we
chose the combination i.e. how many HMMWV and how many
MRAPs are to be used, we can immediately calculate the fuel
consumption for the TQG based system, versus the vehicle
based microgrid system and thus compare the both.
In addition to the above, having several vehicles in the V2G-
V2V system provides logistical benefits in terms of avoiding
carrying extra equipment i.e. TQGs in the present military
systems. Another advantage of the V2G-V2V system is that
unlike the TQG based system, it will have batteries (ESU) as
well. Since batteries have high efficiency, it is advisable to use
batteries at very low load power demand (if the battery SOC
permits that). It is in general also advisable to keep some
reserve space in the batteries, so that generators can be run at
higher power than the minimum --- in other words some
additional power, beyond that needed for the loads could be
injected from the engine driven generator into the batteries and
store it there if the battery SOC allows that. Later on, this
additional energy going into the battery could be utilized to
deliver loads as needed. This helps realize better efficiency
from the engines when load demand is low. Usage of the
batteries notwithstanding, the real fuel economy will be mostly
due to the engine efficiency and correct allocation of the
vehicles, and operating those at the best possible point in the
engine fuel map.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

12

2800 620

2700 618

2600 616

2500
614

2400
612

Output voltage in volts

Speed in RPM

2300

610
2200

608
2100

606
2000

0 604
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time in seconds.

Figure 13(a). Simulation run showing engine rpm. 602

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time in seconds.

120
Figure 14(a). Simulation showing HMMWV voltage during droop control.

25
118

116
20

114

112
15
Output current (amps)
Power in kWs

110

108
10

106

104
5

102

100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time in seconds.
Time in seconds.
Figure 13(b). Simulation run showing the total power requirement.
Figure 14(b). Simulation showing HMMWV output current
during droop control.
`

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
Figure 15. Total Fuel Consumption Comparison: TQG vs V2V-V2G Systems
B. Observations Related to Reliability of the Microgrid System
In addition to optimizing against fuel consumption, and
obtaining some logistical benefits noted earlier, the Army is
also interested in analyzing the system as a whole over time to
optimize the reliability, availability and maintainability of the
system. To do this, again M&S is required using MATLAB-
Simulink in our case, or a similar tool. The microgrid model is
treated as a repairable system since it is restored to proper
operating condition over time as failures occur through
corrective maintenance. The system also goes through
preventive maintenance actions. Therefore, reliability of the
system must be determined over time and is a function of the
maintenance actions. Proper metrics must be used to analyze
the system since it is treated differently than a non-repairable
system. We use metrics such as Mean Time To Failure
(MTTF), Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), Availability and
Renewal theory to properly analyze the system to determine
how much maintenance to provide, and to improve reliability
and availability, while still keeping costs down [15]. The idea
of a minimal set of metrics helps to properly define the problem
for analysis. Through the use of the connectors described
above, and properly controlled (droop control) loads and
sources to avoid transients, different central control scheme
designs can be analyzed for their performance against a
minimal set of metrics. A microgrid model (first in MATLAB)
is run over time, typically to correspond to over a partial year
(due to computational costs). The model is run with random
loads, and sources are brought on and off-line to support those
loads. The control scheme is modified each time in order to
perform design optimization. A certain probabilistic rate of
failure is assumed for microgrid components and a fixed
maintenance process is assumed.
Current research is to perform the same design optimization
using a full physics-based MATLAB-Simulink model of a
microgrid to optimize the system under a minimal set of
metrics. Here computation costs will increase and the
simulated time will be reduced, but it is expected that failure
and maintenance rates will be more realistic, along with the
dynamic effects of power on the grid given the nature of loads
and sources coming on and off the grid over time.
`
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
13
X. TESTING
A. Some Test Results
The system described in this paper has already been tested and
demonstrated in the field. Testing started out with running the
inverter through a series of load-steps from 5kW to the full
60kW. Test data revealed that inverter efficiency increased
with load. The next line of testing involved running the Inverter
at steady-state loads at different levels (5kW, 10kW etc.) for
six-hour periods. Peak inverter efficiency was measured at
95% at the full 60kW output.
B. System Integration Testing
System Integration Testing of the complete system was
conducted at the US Army TARDEC (the Detroit Arsenal
facilities in Warren, MI). Testing began with HMMWV2 and
MRAP2 alternating as the power source. Both were connected
via J1772 cables to TVGM2 and ESU1 (i.e. battery # 1). The
inverter in TVGM2 showed 95% efficiency, consistent with the
data from TVGM1 tested at TARDEC. The ESU’s DC-DC
converter, required for making the current-source battery to
appear as a voltage source, ran at an incredible 99%, with
30.3kW input and exactly 30,000W out. It is important to note
here that 99% efficient is atypical, with averages efficiencies
between 90% and 96%.
C. Bottom-Line Results
Preliminary data indicates that a typical baseline 30kW MEP-
805B TQG will produce ~7kWh for every gallon it consumes
(i.e. 7kWh/gal). Figure 15 can be immediately used to generate
the numbers in corresponding units. The Tactical V2G-V2V
Demo System developed by TARDEC averaged 10 kWh/gal
for an equivalent resistive load, when considering the 0.8 pf
(power factor) of 3Ø AC loads. This corresponds to 30% fuel
saving compared to TQG based system (comparing 1/7 gallon
per kWh for the TQG system versus 1/10 gallon per kWh for
the V2G-V2V system). This result is somewhat more
conservative than the one in Figure 15. It should be noted that
Figure 15 had the option to combine the vehicles at speeds
which were considered best among the two available speeds of
the MRAP engines, and also it used a proper combination of the
vehicles based on load demand. The actual V2G-V2V field test
was not optimized in that sense with the most optimum
combination of vehicles, and hence there are increased
opportunities to have even better fuel economy using the V2G-
V2V through system optimization compared to TQG based
existing power system.
XI. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
TARDEC has already identified several opportunities for
improvement of the overall system. TVGMs and ESUs were
overweight (in terms of certain military-defined specifications)
for this exercise. The TVGMs’ weight and size can be reduced
to about 1/3 their present values, to be more suited to the
military ground-vehicle operating environment. The ESUs
were approximately 32% over their specified weight, and could
be reduced to about 1/2 to 1/3 their present size and weight,
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

14

making them, along with the TVGMs, much more manageable

to move and maneuver. It is estimated that an additional 10
percent reduction in fuel consumption can be realized through
these, and other measures of system optimization.
Another important activity that can be incorporated into the
above is the enhancement of the control system based on overall
power management requirements and optimizing the same [16].
The process is described as follows, through a block diagram
and a flow diagram. This flow diagram is based on the system
architecture shown in Figure 16, which includes only one
vehicle (i.e. one engine), for the sake of simplicity. The flow
diagram is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 16. System architecture of a single vehicle power system

Although the flow diagram shown Figure 17 indicates the

complete algorithm which involves choosing of the engine
speed and battery power, and was based on an iterative process,
it is possible to write a set of equations involving various
variables and develop a cost function which can then be
minimized. This can be done as indicated in the equations (4)
to (16). It should be noted that this is just an example on how
to form the cost function and there are other variants, which
could be utilized as well.
Total load = Pload = given load demand at a given
voltage Vload-ac
Vinv-ac-out = Vload-ac
Pinv-in-dc = f1(Pload, Vinv-ac) --- due to inverter loss
Vinv-dc = Vdc-dc-out
Vdc-dc-out = f2(Pbat, SOC) --- battery characteristics, Pbat is (8)
a chosen quantity
Pdc-dc-out = Pinv-in-dc – Pbat
Pdc-dc-in = f3(Pdc-dc-out, Vdc-dc-out) --- due to dc-dc
converter out
Pdc-dc-in = Pgen-out
Pgen-in = f4(Pgen-out, gen-speed) --- generator characteristics (12)
Pgen-in = Pengn-out
engn-speed = Gear ratio*gen speed
---chosen quantity
Fuel rate = f5(Pengn-out, engn-speed) --- engine map
Fuel rate = f6(Pload, Vload, Pbat, engine speed)
Figure 17. Flow chart algorithm for the architecture shown in Fig. 16.
The optimization problem can be posed as a minimization
(4) problem to minimize f6 for some given bounds related to Pbat
and engine speed. The equation f6 is a quite complex function
(5) based on the other equations involved in relating the various
(6) variables from equations (4) to (16). It can be done as an
(7) iterative process as indicated in the flow chart above. It can also
be done by writing the full nonlinear functional form equation
for f6 and then minimizing it by some nonlinear or dynamic
(9) programing technique or using artificial intelligence methods,
(10) fuzzy logic etc. This can be quite involved, as shown in various
literature [4, 16]. Another alternative approach can be to
(11) perform modeling and simulation and then create a look up
table, which provides a Pbat and engine speed corresponding to
(13) a Pload and Vload so that the fuel rate f6 is minimum. Once the
(14) best fuel rate at a particular engine speed is obtained, that will
immediately correspond to a throttle position, which can be
(15) implemented by appropriate throttle control mechanism.
(16)

XII. CONCLUSIONS

The military application involving a V2G-V2V based

microgrid clearly shows that the overall fuel economy benefit
of this system is significantly (which can be around 30% or
`

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification
even more depending on load power demand) better than the
existing TQG-based standalone systems used in the military. In
addition to fuel economy, there will be significant amount of
logistic benefit, since TQGs will not be needed to be carried to
the field for power generation purposes, thus saving additional
logistic expenses. Although for a V2G-V2V system, there will
be the necessity to upgrade the existing vehicular generators
and additional equipment (e.g. batteries and power electronics)
will be needed, still the overall benefit of the V2G-V2V system
will be appreciably higher than the existing TQG based system.
Additional benefits from the V2G-V2V system can be achieved
through more sophisticated power management techniques
outline in the previous section.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to thank the TARDEC management for
its support and acknowledge those individuals that at one point
or another participated in, and made up the Tactical V2G/V2V
Demo Team: IPERC – Mr. Bob Wood, (Island) Bob Harwig;
DRS – Scotty Hughes, Terry Stifflemire, and Mark Byron; TM3
Systems – John Gregory, and Ali Al Rikabi; DCS – David
Larabee, and Mike Smith; NAVITAS – Neil Johnson, Ben
Sinsheimer, Rich Miller, and Bryan Den-Hollander.
Disclaimer: Reference herein to any specific commercial
company, product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or
favoring by the United States Government or the Department of
the Army (DoA). The opinions of the authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or the DoA, and shall not be used for advertising
or product endorsement purposes.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Hancock, S. Kolhoff, D. McGrew, M. Masrur, A. Skowronska, J.
Vandiver, J. Gatherer, J. Palmer, R. Wood, P. Curtiss, and, M. Dorflinger,
“Tactical Vehicle to Grid and Vehicle to Vehicle Demonstration”, 2016
NDIA Ground Vehicle Systems Engineering and Technology Symposium
(GVSETS), August 2016, Novi, Michigan
[2] A. G. Skowronska, D. Gorsich, V. Pandey, Z.P. Mourelatos, 2015,
“Optimizing the Reliability and Performance of Remote Vehicle-to-Grid
Systems using a Minimal Set of Metrics”, ASME J. Energy Resour.
Technol., 15-1001
[3] Malikopoulos, 2012, “Impact of Component Sizing in Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles for Energy Resource and Greenhouse Emissions
Reduction,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 135(4), 041201, 9 pages.
[4] Y. Murphey, “Intelligent vehicular power management: An overview”, in
Studies in Computational Intelligence (SCI), vol. 132, Berlin, Germany,
Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp. 169-190.
[5] J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. de Vicuña, and M. Castilla,
“Hierarchical Control of Droop-Controlled AC and DC Microgrids — A
General Approach Toward Standardization”, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp 158-172, Jan. 2011
[6] P. Loh, D. Li, Y. Chai, and F. Blaabjerg, "Autonomous Control of
Interlinking Converter With Energy Storage in Hybrid AC–DC
Microgrid", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY
APPLICATIONS, VOL. 49, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2013
[7] R. Ferreira, H. Braga, A. Ferreira and P. Barbosa, "Analysis of Voltage
Droop Control Method for dc Microgrids with Simulink: Modelling and
Simulation", IEEE ICSET 2010, 6-9 Dec 2010.
2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
15
[8] T. Vandoorn, B. Meersman, J. Kooning, and L. Vandevelde, "Analogy
Between Conventional Grid Control and Islanded Microgrid Control
Based on a Global DC-Link Voltage Droop", IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 3, JULY 2012 1405
[9] P. Piagi and R. Lasseter, "Autonomous Control of Microgrids", IEEE PES
Meeting, Montreal, June 2006.
[10] E. Barklund, N. Pogaku, M. Prodanovic, C. Hernandez-Aramburo, and T.
Green, “Energy management in autonomous microgrid using stability
constrained droop control of inverters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol.
23, no. 5, pp. 2346–2352, Sep. 2008.
[11] Y. Mohamed and E. El-Saadany, “Adaptive decentralized droop
controller to preserve power sharing stability of paralleled inverters in
distributed generation microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23,
no. 6, pp. 2806–2816, Nov. 2008.
[12] A. Tuladhar, H. Jin, T. Unger, and K. Mauch, “Parallel operation of single
phase inverter modules with no control interconnections,” in Proc. 12th
Annu. APEC, Feb. 1997, vol. 1, pp. 94–100.
[13] R. Majumder, B. Chaudhuri, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich, and F. Zare,
“Improvement of stability and load sharing in an autonomous microgrid
using supplementary droop control loop,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
25, no. 2, pp. 796–808, May 2010
[14] M. Padden, "Tactical Electric Power -Now and for the Future", 2009 Joint
Service Power Expo, May 2009, New Orleans, LA, USA.
[15] V. Pandey, A.G. Skowronska, Z.P. Mourelatos, D. Gorsich, 2013,
“Reliability and Functionality of Repairable Systems Using a Minimal Set
of Metrics: Design and Maintenance of a Smart Charging Micorgrid.”,
2013 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
August 2013, Portland, Oregon.
[16] J. Park, Y. Murphey, M. Masrur, "Intelligent Energy Management and
Optimization in a Hybridized All-Terrain Vehicle with Simple On-Off
Control of the Internal Combustion Engine", IEEE Trans. on Veh. Tech.,
Vol. 65, No. 6, June 2016, pp 4584-96.
M. Abul Masrur (M’84-SM’93-F’12) received
the Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Texas A
& M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
Since April 2001, he has been with the US Army-
TARDEC (R&D) working in areas related to
hybrid electric vehicles, vehicular electric power
system architecture, electric power management,
and artificial intelligence based fault diagnostics
in electric drives. He was previously with the Scientific Research Labs., Ford
Motor Co. between 1984 to April 2001 and was involved in research and
development related to electric drives and power electronics, and advanced
automotive power system architectures, among other things.
Dr. Masrur has over 90 publications, of which about 70 are in public domain,
including international journals and conferences. He is the co-inventor in 8 US
patents, of which 2 are also patented in Europe, and 1 in Japan. He received the
Best Automotive Electronics Paper Award from the IEEE Vehicular
Technology Society in 1998 for his papers proposing novel vehicular power
system architectures in the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, and in
2006 Dr. Masrur was a joint recipient of the SAE (Society of Automotive
Engineers, USA) Environmental Excellence in Transportation Award -
Education, Training, & Public Awareness (also known as E2T) for a tutorial
course he has been teaching on hybrid electric vehicles, along with other
academia colleagues.
Dr. Masrur is a Fellow of the IEEE and from 1999-2007 he served as an
Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. He
previously served as Chair, Motor-Subcommittee (MSC) of the IEEE PES-
EMC (Power & Energy Society – Electric Machinery Committee). Dr. Masrur
also served as the Technical Program Chair of the IEMDC-2011 (International
Electric Machines and Drives Conference).
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TTE.2017.2779268, IEEE
Transactions on Transportation Electrification

16

Annette G. Skowronska (M’13) is a Research Staff Electrical Engineer at DRS Land Electronics in Huntsville, Alabama
Scientist at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive where he designs power electronics for use on military vehicles.
Research, Development and Engineering Center
(TARDEC). She is the technical lead for the
Ground Vehicle Power and Mobility group in the
area of Microgrids. Her current research interests
are state-of-the-art alternative energy technologies,
energy infrastructure for military ground vehicle,
reliability-based design optimization, microgrid
infrastructure and vehicle to grid technologies.
She is heavily involved in technology assessments, industry partnerships and
military research and development that enables TARDEC to collaborate in
complex and emerging new mission areas. She received her M.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from Oakland University in 2009 and her B.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from Oakland University in 2008. Currently, she is pursuing a
Doctorate degree in Reliability and Optimal Operation of Repairable Systems
with Application to a Smart Charging Microgrid with Vehicle to Grid
Capability.

Janie Hancock Janie Hancock is a Mechanical Engineer for the Advanced

Propulsion Team for US-Army–TARDEC–Ground Vehicle Power and
Mobility. She led the Tactical Vehicle to Grid and Vehicle to Vehicle
Demonstration for the Sustainability Logistics Basing (SLB) Science
Technology Objective Demonstration (STO-D) at Fort Devens, MA in 2016.
Mrs. Hancock began her Engineering career at General Motors and successfully
held positions in Manufacturing and Product Engineering before pursuing a
career in the Government. Mrs. Hancock is an Army Acquisition Professional;
Level 3 Acquisition Certification – Systems Engineering and holds a B.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from Wayne State University.

Steven W. Kolhoff received his B.S.E.E. degree from Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA, in 2000. He joined the US Army – Tank-Automotive
Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren, Michigan, USA, in 1994. From
1994 to 2001, he served as a co-op student with the Design Directorate at the
Tank-Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center. From 2001
to 2012, he served as a Project Engineer at the US Army – TARDEC National
Automotive Center (NAC). From 2011 to present, he serves as a Project Lead
for the Integrated Starter-Generator effort for military ground platforms.
His main areas of focus are Management & distribution of high-voltage high
power systems, permanent magnet synchronous machines, and their control
systems.
Dean Z. McGrew is the Advanced Propulsion
Team Leader for US-Army–TARDEC– Ground
Vehicle Power and Mobility (GVPM). His
team is providing a 10x increase in electrical
power generation for combat/tactical vehicles
and development Vehicle-to-Grid and Vehicle-
to-Vehicle power management. Mr. McGrew
was VP of Business Development for Azure
Dynamics – a truck and bus leader in hybrid and
electric systems. Mr. McGrew was VP of
Manufacturing and Engineering for locomotive assembly for Super Steel. Mr.
McGrew had many roles at GE Transportation Systems - Engineering for
locomotive assembly for Super Steel. Mr. McGrew had many roles at GE
Transportation Systems - leading producer of locomotives. He is an Army
Acquisition Professional with Level 3 Acquisition Certification – Systems
Engineering. He received the M.S., Mechanical Engineering from Case
Western Reserve University and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the
Michigan Technological University.

James C. Vandiver (M’82) received the B.S.E.E.

degree in electrical engineering from Christian
Brothers College in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1981,
and the M.S.E.E. degree in electrical engineering
from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta,
Georgia in 1982. Mr. Vandiver held various positions
designing space science payload electronics and high
voltage power supplies before joining DRS
Technologies in 2005. Presently he serves as a

2332-7782 (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.