On the Secondary Control Architectures of AC Microgrids: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication infrastructure (CI) in microgrids (MGs) allows for the application of different control architectures for the secondary control (SC) layer. The use of new SC architectures involving CI is motivated by the need to increase MG resilience and handle the intermittent nature of distributed generation units. The structure of SC is classified into three main categories, including centralized SC (CSC) with a CI, distributed SC (DISC) generally with a low-data-rate CI, and decentralized SC (DESC) with communication-free infrastructure. To meet the MGs' operational constraints and optimize performance, control and communication must be utilized simultaneously in different control layers. In this survey, we review and classify all types of SC policies from CI-based methods to communication-free policies, including CSC, averaging-based DISC, consensus-based DISC methods, containment pinning consensus, event-triggered DISC, washout-filter-based DESC, and state-estimation-based DESC. Each structure is scrutinized from the viewpoint of the relevant literature. Challenges such as clock drifts, cyber-security threats, and the advantage of event-triggered approaches are presented. Fully decentralized approaches based on state-estimation and observation methods are also addressed. Although these approaches eliminate the need of any CI for the voltage and frequency restoration, during black start process or other functionalities related to the tertiary layer, a CI is required. Power hardware-in-the-loop experimental tests are carried out to compare the merits and applicability of different SC structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".