pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.06576 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-09 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Dissipativity-Based Synthesis of Distributed Control and Communication Topology Co-Design for AC Microgrids

Mohammad Javad Najafirad , Shirantha Welikala , Lei Wu , Panos J. Antsaklis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords dissipativity theorydistributed controlcommunication topologyAC microgridsLMI optimizationvoltage regulationpower sharingfrequency synchronization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dissipativity theory reduces joint controller and topology design for AC microgrids to a convex LMI problem.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a dissipativity-based framework for simultaneously designing distributed controllers and sparse communication topologies in AC microgrids. It represents the system as networked subsystems and derives necessary and sufficient dissipativity conditions that ensure global performance. These conditions convert the co-design into a single convex LMI optimization that selects controller parameters and communication links while respecting the nonlinear dq-frame dynamics. A reader would care because the result delivers voltage regulation, frequency synchronization, and proportional power sharing with reduced communication needs.

Core claim

Leveraging dissipativity theory, the authors derive necessary and sufficient subsystem dissipativity conditions. The global co-design is then cast as a convex linear matrix inequality optimization that jointly determines distributed controller parameters and sparse communication architecture while managing the highly nonlinear, coupled dq-frame dynamics of the AC microgrid.

What carries the argument

Subsystem dissipativity conditions that convert global performance requirements into a convex LMI optimization jointly selecting controller gains and communication topology.

If this is right

  • The optimized topology is sparse and reduces communication requirements while preserving performance.
  • Robust guarantees hold for voltage regulation, frequency synchronization, and proportional power sharing.
  • The convex formulation handles the nonlinear coupled dynamics through dissipativity conditions.
  • A three-layer hierarchical structure separates steady-state setting, local tracking, and distributed consensus.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same dissipativity-to-LMI reduction could apply to other networked cyber-physical systems with topology constraints.
  • Joint topology optimization may scale better than fixed dense graphs when the number of generators grows.
  • The separation of steady-state optimization from dynamic dissipativity conditions supports modular extensions to uncertain loads.

Load-bearing premise

The necessary and sufficient dissipativity conditions derived for subsystems remain sufficient to guarantee global closed-loop performance for the full nonlinear, coupled dq-frame dynamics when the communication topology is also optimized.

What would settle it

Apply the derived LMI optimization to an AC microgrid model and check whether the resulting controllers and topology fail to achieve frequency synchronization or proportional power sharing under a sudden load change in simulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06576 by Lei Wu, Mohammad Javad Najafirad, Panos J. Antsaklis, Shirantha Welikala.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A representative diagram of the AC MG network. The sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Electrical schematic of a DG ΣDG i with a local load and a line ΣLine l . with state xˇm ≜ Vm, exogenous input ˇdm ≜ ¯ILm, coupling input uˇm ≜ Im, and matrices: Aˇm ≜ " − YLm Ctm ω0 −ω0 − YLm Ctm # , Bˇm ≜  − 1 Ctm 0 0 − 1 Ctm  . (9) D. Distribution Line Model Each line Σ line l , as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electrical scheme of ZIP load in AC MG. distribution. The complete closed-loop system is then for￾mulated as a networked system, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hierarchical control architecture combining local and distributed controllers through physical and communication interconnections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Networked system representation showing interconnections between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error networked system configuration showing interconnections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a dissipativity-based framework for the joint design of distributed controllers and communication topologies in AC microgrids (MGs), providing robust performance guarantees for voltage regulation, frequency synchronization, and proportional power sharing across distributed generators (DGs). The closed-loop AC MG is represented as a networked system in which DGs, distribution lines, and loads function as interconnected subsystems linked through cyber-physical networks. Each DG utilizes a three-layer hierarchical control structure: a steady-state controller for operating point configuration, a local feedback controller for voltage tracking, and a distributed droop-free controller implementing normalized power consensus for frequency coordination and proportional power distribution. The operating point design is formulated as an optimization problem. Leveraging dissipativity theory, we derive necessary and sufficient subsystem dissipativity conditions. The global co-design is then cast as a convex linear matrix inequality (LMI) optimization that jointly determines distributed controller parameters and sparse communication architecture while managing the highly nonlinear, coupled dq-frame dynamics characteristic of AC systems. Simulation results from an islanded AC MG in a MATLAB/Simulink environment verify that the proposed framework achieves robust voltage regulation, frequency synchronization, and proportional power sharing through the optimized communication topology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a dissipativity-based framework for jointly designing distributed controllers and communication topologies for AC microgrids. The system is modeled as a network of subsystems (DGs with three-layer control, lines, loads) interconnected via cyber-physical networks. Necessary and sufficient dissipativity conditions are derived for the subsystems, and the co-design problem is formulated as a convex LMI optimization that determines both the distributed controller parameters and the sparse communication architecture to ensure robust voltage regulation, frequency synchronization, and proportional power sharing while handling the nonlinear coupled dq-frame dynamics. Verification is provided through MATLAB/Simulink simulations of an islanded AC MG.

Significance. Should the central claims hold, particularly the composition of subsystem dissipativity conditions under optimized topology for the nonlinear dynamics, the paper would contribute a convex optimization tool for co-design in microgrid control, which is significant for achieving guaranteed performance in distributed power systems with variable communication. The hierarchical control structure and dissipativity approach address key challenges in AC systems, and the simulation results suggest practical utility. This could influence future work on topology-aware control synthesis in networked systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Global co-design as LMI optimization] The claim that the LMI optimization jointly determines controller parameters and sparse communication architecture while guaranteeing global performance relies on the sufficiency of subsystem dissipativity conditions. However, standard dissipativity composition results typically assume fixed interconnections. When the communication graph is a decision variable, the effective coupling in the nonlinear dq-dynamics may not be automatically covered. The manuscript should provide a detailed derivation showing that the optimized sparsity pattern preserves the global supply-rate inequality for the full nonlinear closed-loop system. This is load-bearing for the central claim of robust performance guarantees.
  2. [Simulation verification] The abstract states that simulations verify the claims, yet no error bars, baseline comparisons, or explicit confirmation that the LMI solution stabilizes the nonlinear plant (as opposed to a linear approximation) are mentioned. Without these, the empirical support for the performance under the co-designed topology remains limited, particularly given the highly nonlinear nature of the system.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'normalized power consensus' is used without definition; including a short explanation or reference would improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the specific implementation.
  2. [Overall] Ensure that all LMI variables and decision variables are clearly defined in the optimization problem formulation to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each major comment below and revised the manuscript to strengthen the theoretical justification and empirical validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Global co-design as LMI optimization] The claim that the LMI optimization jointly determines controller parameters and sparse communication architecture while guaranteeing global performance relies on the sufficiency of subsystem dissipativity conditions. However, standard dissipativity composition results typically assume fixed interconnections. When the communication graph is a decision variable, the effective coupling in the nonlinear dq-dynamics may not be automatically covered. The manuscript should provide a detailed derivation showing that the optimized sparsity pattern preserves the global supply-rate inequality for the full nonlinear closed-loop system. This is load-bearing for the central claim of robust performance guarantees.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. The subsystem dissipativity conditions in the manuscript are derived to be independent of any specific interconnection structure, with the LMI constraints formulated to enforce global dissipativity for any admissible sparse graph selected by the optimizer. This ensures that the composition theorem applies to the chosen topology while accounting for the nonlinear dq-frame couplings. To make the argument fully explicit, we will add a detailed derivation (including the relevant supply-rate inequalities and graph-dependent terms) as a new appendix in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Simulation verification] The abstract states that simulations verify the claims, yet no error bars, baseline comparisons, or explicit confirmation that the LMI solution stabilizes the nonlinear plant (as opposed to a linear approximation) are mentioned. Without these, the empirical support for the performance under the co-designed topology remains limited, particularly given the highly nonlinear nature of the system.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative details and explicit statements would strengthen the simulation section. In the revised manuscript we will report error bars obtained from repeated simulations under randomized initial conditions and load disturbances, include direct comparisons against a standard droop-based controller and a fixed-topology distributed controller, and explicitly confirm that all results are generated from the full nonlinear Simulink model of the AC microgrid (rather than any linearization), thereby verifying closed-loop stability and performance on the actual nonlinear plant. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation relies on external dissipativity theory and standard LMI casting

full rationale

The abstract states that dissipativity theory is leveraged to derive necessary and sufficient subsystem conditions, after which the global co-design is cast as a convex LMI optimization. No equations or steps are shown that reduce a claimed prediction or global guarantee to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition by construction. The framework is presented as building on standard networked dissipativity results and convex optimization, with simulation verification treated as separate evidence. This is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard dissipativity theory applied to interconnected subsystems and the assumption that an LMI formulation can capture the nonlinear dq dynamics sufficiently for synthesis; no new entities are postulated and no free parameters are explicitly fitted beyond the optimization variables themselves.

free parameters (1)
  • LMI decision variables for controller gains and topology
    These are solved for inside the convex optimization and directly determine the distributed controller parameters and which communication links are active.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dissipativity conditions on individual subsystems are necessary and sufficient for global performance of the networked nonlinear system
    Invoked when moving from subsystem dissipativity to the global LMI co-design problem.
  • domain assumption The three-layer hierarchical control structure (steady-state, local feedback, distributed consensus) can be represented as interconnected subsystems
    Used to model DGs, lines, and loads as a networked system.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5525 in / 1578 out tokens · 39345 ms · 2026-05-17T23:10:44.630037+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Dissipativity-Based Distributed Control and Communication Topology Co-Design for Nonlinear DC Microgrids

    eess.SY 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0

    Dissipativity analysis with the S-procedure yields LMI conditions for simultaneous design of PI controllers with anti-windup, consensus gains, and communication topology in nonlinear DC microgrids.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Review of Active and Reactive Power Sharing Strategies in Hierarchical Controlled Microgrids,

    Y . Han, H. Li, P. Shen, E. A. A. Coelho, and J. M. Guerrero, “Review of Active and Reactive Power Sharing Strategies in Hierarchical Controlled Microgrids,”IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2427–2451, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Trends in Microgrid Control,

    D. E. Olivares, A. Mehrizi-Sani, A. H. Etemadi, C. A. Ca ˜nizares, R. Iravani, M. Kazerani, A. H. Hajimiragha, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, M. Saeedifard, R. Palma-Behnkeet al., “Trends in Microgrid Control,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1905–1919, 2014

    work page 1905

  3. [3]

    Control of Power Converters in AC Microgrids,

    J. Rocabert, A. Luna, F. Blaabjerg, and P. Rodriguez, “Control of Power Converters in AC Microgrids,”IEEE trans. on Power Electron- ics, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 4734–4749, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Cyber Security in Control of Grid-Tied Power Electronic Converters—Challenges and Vulner- abilities,

    S. Sahoo, T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, and F. Blaabjerg, “Cyber Security in Control of Grid-Tied Power Electronic Converters—Challenges and Vulner- abilities,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 5326–5340, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Hierarchical Structure of Microgrids Control System,

    A. Bidram and A. Davoudi, “Hierarchical Structure of Microgrids Control System,”IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1963– 1976, 2012

    work page 1963

  6. [6]

    Distributed Secondary Control for Islanded Microgrids—a Novel Approach,

    Q. Shafiee, J. M. Guerrero, and J. C. Vasquez, “Distributed Secondary Control for Islanded Microgrids—a Novel Approach,”IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1018–1031, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Distributed Secondary V olt- age and Frequency Restoration Control of Droop-Controlled Inverter- Based Microgrids,

    F. Guo, C. Wen, J. Mao, and Y .-D. Song, “Distributed Secondary V olt- age and Frequency Restoration Control of Droop-Controlled Inverter- Based Microgrids,”IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 4355–4364, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Distributed Finite- Time V oltage and Frequency Restoration in Islanded AC Microgrids,

    S. Zuo, A. Davoudi, Y . Song, and F. L. Lewis, “Distributed Finite- Time V oltage and Frequency Restoration in Islanded AC Microgrids,” IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 5988–5997, 2016.   X11 p 0 0 0QX 11 p ¯C0 X 11 p Ec 0 ¯X11 ¯p 0 0 ¯X11 ¯pC0 ¯X11 ¯p ˇC ¯X11 ¯p ¯Ec 0 0 ˇX11 ˇp 0 0 ˇX11 ˇp ¯ˇC0 ˇX11 ˇp ˇEc 0 0 0 IH c ...

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    V oltage Stabilization in Microgrids via Quadratic Droop Control,

    J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. D ¨orfler, and F. Bullo, “V oltage Stabilization in Microgrids via Quadratic Droop Control,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1239–1253, 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Arcak, C

    M. Arcak, C. Meissen, and A. Packard,Networks of Dissipative Systems: Compositional Certification of Stability, Performance, and Safety. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Bregman Storage Functions for Microgrid Control,

    C. De Persis and N. Monshizadeh, “Bregman Storage Functions for Microgrid Control,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 53–68, 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Stabilization of Constant Power Loads in DC-DC Converters Using Passivity-Based Control,

    A. Kwasinski and P. T. Krein, “Stabilization of Constant Power Loads in DC-DC Converters Using Passivity-Based Control,” inINTELEC 07-29th International Telecommunications Energy Conference. IEEE, 2007, pp. 867–874

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    A Survey on Modeling of Microgrids—From Fundamental Physics to Phasors and V oltage Sources,

    J. Schiffer, D. Zonetti, R. Ortega, A. M. Stankovi ´c, T. Sezi, and J. Raisch, “A Survey on Modeling of Microgrids—From Fundamental Physics to Phasors and V oltage Sources,”Automatica, vol. 74, pp. 135– 150, 2016

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Distributed Optimal Load Frequency Control With Non-Passive Dynamics,

    S. Trip and C. De Persis, “Distributed Optimal Load Frequency Control With Non-Passive Dynamics,”IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1232–1244, 2017

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Review on Control of DC Microgrids and Multiple Microgrid Clusters,

    L. Meng, Q. Shafiee, G. F. Trecate, H. Karimi, D. Fulwani, X. Lu, and J. M. Guerrero, “Review on Control of DC Microgrids and Multiple Microgrid Clusters,”IEEE journal of emerging and selected topics in power electronics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 928–948, 2017

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    On the Secondary Control Architectures of AC Microgrids: An Overview,

    Y . Khayat, Q. Shafiee, R. Heydari, M. Naderi, T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. D ¨orfler, M. Fathi, F. Blaabjerg, J. M. Guerrero et al., “On the Secondary Control Architectures of AC Microgrids: An Overview,”IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 6482–6500, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Dissipativity-Based Distributed Droop-Free Control and Communication Topology Co-Design for DC Microgrids,

    M. J. Najafirad and S. Welikala, “Dissipativity-Based Distributed Droop-Free Control and Communication Topology Co-Design for DC Microgrids,” in2025 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1153–1160

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons: A Dissipativity-Based Approach,

    S. Welikala, Z. Song, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons: A Dissipativity-Based Approach,”Automatica, vol. 174, p. 112118, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    M. Arcak, “Compositional Design and Verification of Large-Scale Systems Using Dissipativity Theory: Determining Stability and Per- formance From Subsystem Properties and Interconnection Structures,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 51–62, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Non-Linear Networked Systems Analysis and Synthesis Using Dissipativity Theory,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Non-Linear Networked Systems Analysis and Synthesis Using Dissipativity Theory,” in2023 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2023, pp. 2951–2956

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    On-Line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,

    ——, “On-Line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2022, pp. 267–272

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Passivity-Based V oltage and Fre- quency Stabilization in AC Microgrids,

    P. Nahata and G. Ferrari-Treeate, “Passivity-Based V oltage and Fre- quency Stabilization in AC Microgrids,” in2019 18th European Control Conference. IEEE, 2019, pp. 1890–1895

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Active and Reactive Power Control of the V oltage Source Inverter in an AC Microgrid,

    H. S. Khan and A. Y . Memon, “Active and Reactive Power Control of the V oltage Source Inverter in an AC Microgrid,”Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 1621, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    An Asymptotic Stability Guaranteed Droop-Free Control Scheme for Normalized Power Consensus in Microgrids,

    K. Zuo and L. Wu, “An Asymptotic Stability Guaranteed Droop-Free Control Scheme for Normalized Power Consensus in Microgrids,” in 2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023