pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.27427 · v3 · submitted 2026-03-28 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

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

Mohammad Javad Najafirad , Shirantha Welikala This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords DC microgridsdissipativitydistributed controlcommunication topologyconstant-power loadsinput saturationlinear matrix inequalitiesvoltage regulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Local and distributed controller gains plus communication topology for DC microgrids are co-designed in one shot by solving sequential LMIs from dissipativity analysis that absorbs constant-power load and saturation nonlinearities.

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 to co-design local PI controllers with anti-windup compensation and distributed consensus controllers together with the communication topology for DC microgrids. The system is modeled as networked error dynamics that incorporate destabilizing constant-power loads and actuator saturation as sector-bounded nonlinearities. The S-procedure converts the dissipativity conditions directly into tight linear matrix inequalities, which are solved in a non-iterative sequence of local and global problems to obtain all gains and the topology matrix simultaneously. This produces voltage regulation and current sharing that remain stable across multiple operating scenarios. Readers care because it removes the need for separate iterative tuning steps that often fail when nonlinear loads and saturation limits interact in real power networks.

Core claim

By representing both the constant-power load nonlinearity and the saturation dead-zone as sector-bounded uncertainties and applying the S-procedure, the dissipativity conditions for the nonlinear networked error dynamics reduce to a set of LMIs. Solving these LMIs in a one-shot sequence simultaneously determines the local controller gains and passivity indices, the distributed controller gains, and the communication topology matrix, yielding a non-iterative co-design procedure that guarantees stability and performance.

What carries the argument

Dissipativity analysis of the networked error dynamics, in which sector bounds on constant-power loads and saturation dead-zones are absorbed via the S-procedure to produce feasible LMI conditions for simultaneous controller and topology design.

If this is right

  • Voltage regulation and proportional current sharing are guaranteed under varying loads and input saturation without separate droop adjustments.
  • The communication topology is selected as part of the design rather than assumed fixed, reducing unnecessary links while preserving stability.
  • Anti-windup compensation is automatically integrated into local controllers to maintain performance during saturation events.
  • The resulting closed-loop system outperforms conventional droop-based methods in simulations across multiple operating conditions.
  • The one-shot LMI sequence eliminates iterative redesign loops between local and global controllers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same sector-bound and S-procedure approach could be applied to AC microgrids if analogous bounds can be derived for AC-side nonlinearities.
  • Periodic re-solution of the LMIs with updated load estimates could enable online topology adaptation in response to changing generation or demand.
  • The co-design naturally produces sparse communication graphs that lower sensor and actuator hardware requirements in large installations.
  • Embedding the LMI solver on edge devices would allow real-time retuning when unmodeled dynamics such as line resistance appear.

Load-bearing premise

The constant-power load nonlinearity and the saturation dead-zone can both be tightly characterized as sector-bounded uncertainties so that the S-procedure produces non-conservative LMI conditions for the networked error dynamics.

What would settle it

A simulation or hardware test in which the closed-loop DC microgrid with the designed controllers loses voltage regulation or current sharing for a constant-power load value or saturation level that satisfies the sector bounds used in the LMI derivation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.27427 by Mohammad Javad Najafirad, Shirantha Welikala.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A generic networked system Σ. where x(t) ∈ R n, u(t) ∈ R q , y(t) ∈ R m, and f : R n×R q → R n and h : R n × R q → R m are continuously differentiable and f(0, 0) = 0 and h(0, 0) = 0. Definition 1: [19] The system (1) is dissipative under supply rate s : R q × R m → R if there exists a con￾tinuously differentiable storage function V : R n → R such that V (x) > 0, ∀x ̸= 0, V (0) = 0, and V˙ (x) = ∇xV (x)f(x… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: illustrates the schematic diagram of Σ DG i , including the local load, a connected transmission line, and the steady state, local, and distributed global controllers. By applying Kirchhoff’s Current Law (KCL) and Kirch￾hoff’s Voltage Law (KVL) at PCCi on the DG side, we get the following equations for Σ DG i , i ∈ NN : Σ DG i : ( Cti dVi dt = Iti − ILi(Vi) − Ii + wvi, Lti dIti dt = −Vi − RtiIti + sat(Vti)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: DC MG dynamics as a networked system configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DC MG error dynamics as a networked system with disturbance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The islanded DC MG with 4 DGs and 4 lines: (a) physical topology, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DG outputs: (a) voltages and (b) per-unit currents under the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a dissipativity-based distributed droop-free control and communication topology co-design framework for voltage regulation and current sharing in DC microgrids (MGs), where constant-power loads (CPLs) and voltage-source converter (VSC) input saturation introduce significant nonlinearities. In particular, CPLs introduce an inherently destabilizing nonlinearity, while VSC input saturation imposes hard amplitude constraints on applicable control input at each distributed generator (DG), collectively making the DC MG control system design extremely challenging. To this end, the DC MG is modeled as a networked system of DGs, transmission lines, and loads coupled through a static interconnection matrix. Each DG is equipped with a local PI-based controller with an anti-windup compensator and a distributed consensus-based global controller, from which a nonlinear networked error dynamics model is derived. The CPL nonlinearity is characterized via sector-boundedness with the S-procedure applied directly to yield tight LMI conditions, while the VSC input saturation is handled via a dead-zone decomposition and sector-boundedness, with both nonlinearities simultaneously absorbed into the dissipativity analysis. Both nonlinearities are simultaneously absorbed into the dissipativity analysis using the S-procedure. Subsequently, local controller gains and passivity indices, and distributed controller gains and the communication topology are co-designed by solving a sequence of local and global Linear Matrix Inequality (LMI) problems, enabling a one-shot co-design process that avoids iterative procedures. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is validated through simulation of an islanded DC MG under multiple operating scenarios, demonstrating robust performance superior to conventional control approaches.

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 presents a dissipativity-based framework for co-designing local PI controllers (with anti-windup) and distributed consensus controllers together with the communication topology for islanded DC microgrids containing constant-power loads and VSC input saturation. The system is modeled as a networked error dynamics whose nonlinearities are represented via sector bounds; the S-procedure is applied to obtain LMI conditions that certify dissipativity. These LMIs are solved in a local-then-global sequence to obtain all design parameters in one shot. Simulation results on a multi-DG DC MG under several operating scenarios are used to illustrate voltage regulation and current sharing.

Significance. If the sector bounds are sufficiently tight, the work supplies a systematic, non-iterative LMI route to simultaneous controller and topology design that directly incorporates two important nonlinearities. This is a useful contribution to distributed control of DC microgrids, where iterative tuning is common and topology selection is rarely co-optimized. The explicit use of dissipativity plus S-procedure for networked error dynamics is technically sound and could be extended to other networked systems with sector-bounded uncertainties.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV] §IV (Dissipativity analysis): The assertion that the S-procedure produces 'tight LMI conditions' for the simultaneous treatment of the CPL (i = P/v) and saturation dead-zone nonlinearities depends on the chosen sector parameters being non-conservative over the operating region. The manuscript does not provide an explicit procedure or numerical verification for selecting or optimizing these sector bounds (e.g., the lower/upper slopes for the CPL characteristic), leaving open the possibility that the resulting LMIs are more conservative than claimed and may become infeasible for realistic voltage excursions.
  2. [§VI] §VI (Numerical validation): Only deterministic simulation trajectories are reported. No Monte-Carlo runs, parameter-sensitivity sweeps, or quantitative comparison against the LMI-derived stability margins (e.g., minimum passivity index or decay rate) are given, so the practical tightness of the sector-bound design cannot be assessed and the superiority claim over conventional methods rests on a limited evidence base.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] The notation for the static interconnection matrix and the error-state vector could be collected in a single table for easier reference.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state which controller gains and topology were obtained from the LMI solution versus those used for comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the thorough review and the positive evaluation of the technical contributions of our work on dissipativity-based co-design for DC microgrids. We have carefully considered the major comments and provide point-by-point responses below, outlining the revisions we plan to implement to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§IV] §IV (Dissipativity analysis): The assertion that the S-procedure produces 'tight LMI conditions' for the simultaneous treatment of the CPL (i = P/v) and saturation dead-zone nonlinearities depends on the chosen sector parameters being non-conservative over the operating region. The manuscript does not provide an explicit procedure or numerical verification for selecting or optimizing these sector bounds (e.g., the lower/upper slopes for the CPL characteristic), leaving open the possibility that the resulting LMIs are more conservative than claimed and may become infeasible for realistic voltage excursions.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit procedure for sector-bound selection would improve clarity and allow readers to assess conservatism. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection in §IV that details how the CPL sector slopes are computed from the allowable voltage excursion range (e.g., ±10 % of nominal voltage as per MG specifications) and supplies a numerical verification by overlaying the sector lines on the actual i = P/v curve over that interval. For the saturation dead-zone the sector [0,1] is exact by construction. These additions will demonstrate that the chosen bounds are the tightest possible within the sector-bound framework and will include a brief feasibility check for the expected operating region. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§VI] §VI (Numerical validation): Only deterministic simulation trajectories are reported. No Monte-Carlo runs, parameter-sensitivity sweeps, or quantitative comparison against the LMI-derived stability margins (e.g., minimum passivity index or decay rate) are given, so the practical tightness of the sector-bound design cannot be assessed and the superiority claim over conventional methods rests on a limited evidence base.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present validation is limited to deterministic trajectories. In the revised §VI we will add Monte-Carlo results (100 runs with ±20 % random perturbations in CPL powers and line resistances) reporting the empirical success rate of LMI feasibility together with mean and standard-deviation performance metrics for voltage regulation and current sharing. We will also extract the minimum passivity index obtained from the solved LMIs and compare it directly with the observed exponential decay rates in both nominal and perturbed simulations, thereby providing a quantitative bridge between the theoretical margins and practical behavior. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: LMI co-design derives gains from dissipativity conditions

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from the networked error dynamics model, applies sector bounds to CPL nonlinearity (i = P/v) and saturation dead-zone, invokes the S-procedure to obtain LMI conditions on dissipativity, then solves the resulting local-then-global LMIs to compute the PI gains, passivity indices, distributed gains, and topology. All designed quantities are outputs of the LMI feasibility problem rather than inputs or fitted parameters; no self-definitional reduction, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears. The framework is self-contained against standard dissipativity and LMI theory.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach relies on standard dissipativity and S-procedure results from the literature; no new entities are postulated and the only parameters are the designed gains and topology produced by the LMIs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption CPL and saturation nonlinearities admit sector bounds that are known a priori from the operating region
    Invoked when applying the S-procedure to absorb both nonlinearities into the dissipativity LMI conditions
  • domain assumption The networked error dynamics admit a quadratic storage function whose supply rate yields the required passivity indices
    Central to converting stability and performance specifications into LMIs

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5598 in / 1403 out tokens · 39900 ms · 2026-05-14T21:21:44.945765+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Resilient Secondary Control and Stability Analysis for DC Microgrids Under Mixed Cyber Attacks,

    X.-K. Liu, S.-Q. Wang, M. Chi, Z.-W. Liu, and Y .-W. Wang, “Resilient Secondary Control and Stability Analysis for DC Microgrids Under Mixed Cyber Attacks,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1938–1947, 2023

    work page 1938

  2. [2]

    Distributed Sec- ondary Control for V oltage Regulation and Optimal Power Sharing in DC Microgrids,

    Y . Dou, M. Chi, Z.-W. Liu, G. Wen, and Q. Sun, “Distributed Sec- ondary Control for V oltage Regulation and Optimal Power Sharing in DC Microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2561–2572, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Hierarchical Control of Droop-Controlled AC and DC Microgrids—a General Approach Toward Standardization,

    J. M. Guerrero, J. C. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. G. De Vicu ˜na, and M. Castilla, “Hierarchical Control of Droop-Controlled AC and DC Microgrids—a General Approach Toward Standardization,”IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 158–172, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    A decentralized control method for a low-voltage dc microgrid,

    A. Khorsandi, M. Ashourloo, and H. Mokhtari, “A decentralized control method for a low-voltage dc microgrid,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 793–801, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Distributed Robust Finite-Time Secondary V oltage and Frequency Control of Islanded Microgrids,

    N. M. Dehkordi, N. Sadati, and M. Hamzeh, “Distributed Robust Finite-Time Secondary V oltage and Frequency Control of Islanded Microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Power systems, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3648–3659, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Distributed Adaptive Droop Control for DC Microgrids,

    V . Nasirian, A. Davoudi, and F. L. Lewis, “Distributed Adaptive Droop Control for DC Microgrids,” in2014 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition-APEC 2014. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1147–1152

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Droop-free optimal feed- back control of distributed generators in islanded dc microgrids,

    A. M. Dissanayake and N. C. Ekneligoda, “Droop-free optimal feed- back control of distributed generators in islanded dc microgrids,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1624–1637, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Droop- Free Distributed Cooperative Control Framework for Multisource Parallel in Seaport DC Microgrid,

    Q. Zhang, Y . Zeng, Y . Hu, Y . Liu, X. Zhuang, and H. Guo, “Droop- Free Distributed Cooperative Control Framework for Multisource Parallel in Seaport DC Microgrid,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 4231–4244, 2022

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Dynamic behavior and sta- bilization of dc microgrids with instantaneous constant-power loads,

    A. Kwasinski and C. N. Onwuchekwa, “Dynamic behavior and sta- bilization of dc microgrids with instantaneous constant-power loads,” IEEE Transactions on power electronics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 822–834, 2010

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    Dc shipboard microgrids with constant power loads: A review of advanced nonlinear control strategies and stabi- lization techniques,

    M. A. Hassan, C.-L. Su, J. Pou, G. Sulligoi, D. Almakhles, D. Bosich, and J. M. Guerrero, “Dc shipboard microgrids with constant power loads: A review of advanced nonlinear control strategies and stabi- lization techniques,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3422–3438, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Dissipativity-based distributed con- trol and communication topology co-design for dc microgrids with zip loads,

    M. J. Najafirad and S. Welikala, “Dissipativity-based distributed con- trol and communication topology co-design for dc microgrids with zip loads,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21042, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Dual-ekf-based fault-tolerant predictive control of nonlinear dc microgrids with actuator and sensor faults,

    N. Vafamand, M. M. Arefi, M. H. Asemani, M. S. Javadi, F. Wang, and J. P. Catal ˜ao, “Dual-ekf-based fault-tolerant predictive control of nonlinear dc microgrids with actuator and sensor faults,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 5438–5446, 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Design of quadratic d-stable fuzzy controller for dc microgrids with multiple cpls,

    M. M. Mardani, N. Vafamand, M. H. Khooban, T. Dragi ˇcevi´c, and F. Blaabjerg, “Design of quadratic d-stable fuzzy controller for dc microgrids with multiple cpls,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 4805–4812, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Stability and stabilization of aperiodic sampled-data systems subject to control input saturation: A set invariant approach,

    D. D. Huff, M. Fiacchini, and J. M. G. da Silva, “Stability and stabilization of aperiodic sampled-data systems subject to control input saturation: A set invariant approach,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1423–1429, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Constant power load stabilization in dc microgrid systems using passivity-based control with nonlinear disturbance observer,

    M. A. Hassan and Y . He, “Constant power load stabilization in dc microgrid systems using passivity-based control with nonlinear disturbance observer,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 92 393–92 406, 2020.   −piνi 0 0 0−p iνi ¯Cil −piνi 0−¯p l¯νl 0−¯p lξilCil 0−¯p l¯νl 0 0 1 ˜ρ i 1 0 0−C ilξil ¯pl ˜ρi pi ˜ρi − 1 2 pi ¯Cil ˜ρi − 1 2 Cil ¯pl ˜ρi − 1 2 pi ˜ρi − ¯...

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Observer-based backstepping sliding mode control de- sign for microgrids feeding a constant power load,

    M. Alipour, J. Zarei, R. Razavi-Far, M. Saif, N. Mijatovic, and T. Dragiˇcevi´c, “Observer-based backstepping sliding mode control de- sign for microgrids feeding a constant power load,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 465–473, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Cost-effective commu- nication network planning considering performance of pinning-based secondary control in microgrids,

    Q. Hu, S. Bu, Z. Li, B. Zhou, and D. Yang, “Cost-effective commu- nication network planning considering performance of pinning-based secondary control in microgrids,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 133, p. 107269, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Optimal design for distributed secondary voltage control in islanded microgrids: Communication topology and controller,

    G. Lou, W. Gu, J. Wang, W. Sheng, and L. Sun, “Optimal design for distributed secondary voltage control in islanded microgrids: Communication topology and controller,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 968–981, 2018

    work page 2018

  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]

    Data-driven passivity-based control design for modular dc microgrids,

    J. Loranca-Couti ˜no, J. C. Mayo-Maldonado, G. Escobar, T. M. Maupong, J. E. Valdez-Resendiz, and J. C. Rosas-Caro, “Data-driven passivity-based control design for modular dc microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 2545–2556, 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    An overview of AC and DC microgrid energy management systems,

    M. G. M. Almihat, “An overview of AC and DC microgrid energy management systems,”AIMS Energy, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1031–1069, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    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

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

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

    M. J. Najafirad, S. Welikala, L. Wu, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Dissipativity- based synthesis of distributed control and communication topology co-design for ac microgrids,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06576, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    On-Line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “On-Line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2022, pp. 267–272

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

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

    S. Welikala, Z. Song, P. J. Antsaklis, and H. Lin, “Dissipativity- Based Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06472, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson,Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2012

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    A Passivity-Based Approach to V oltage Stabilization in DC Microgrids With ZIP Loads,

    P. Nahata, R. Soloperto, M. Tucci, A. Martinelli, and G. Ferrari- Trecate, “A Passivity-Based Approach to V oltage Stabilization in DC Microgrids With ZIP Loads,”Automatica, vol. 113, p. 108770, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Kron Reduction of Graphs With Applications to Electrical Networks,

    F. Dorfler and F. Bullo, “Kron Reduction of Graphs With Applications to Electrical Networks,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 150–163, 2012

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Constant power loads and negative impedance instability in automotive systems: definition, modeling, stability, and control of power electronic convert- ers and motor drives,

    A. Emadi, A. Khaligh, C. H. Rivetta, and G. A. Williamson, “Constant power loads and negative impedance instability in automotive systems: definition, modeling, stability, and control of power electronic convert- ers and motor drives,”IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1112–1125, 2006

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Line-Independent Plug- and-Play Controllers for V oltage Stabilization in DC Microgrids,

    M. Tucci, S. Riverso, and G. Ferrari-Trecate, “Line-Independent Plug- and-Play Controllers for V oltage Stabilization in DC Microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1115–1123, 2017

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Anti-windup design: an overview of some recent advances and open problems,

    S. Tarbouriech and M. Turner, “Anti-windup design: an overview of some recent advances and open problems,”IET control theory & applications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    A Decentralized Analysis and Control Synthesis Approach for Networked Systems with Arbitrary Interconnections,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “A Decentralized Analysis and Control Synthesis Approach for Networked Systems with Arbitrary Interconnections,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, no. 0018-9286, 2024

    work page 2024