## 7 Conclusions  
This paper has recommended a novel technique based on droop control approach for precise power sharing among the parallel DGs in MGs. Since the differences in the impedance of the feeder causes an error in the reactive power sharing and increases the error, it will also cause an unequal voltage in the output terminal of the DGs. In this paper, the effect of different types of feeder impedances was investigated and the simulation results indicate that changes in this parameter (\(Z_{\text{line}}\)) do not affect the power sharing accuracy. Furthermore, reactive power sharing using feeder impedance compensation is proposed in the modified SMC algorithm, which allows the terminals voltage of each inverter to maintain itself, especially in the off-grid mode. The stability of the frequency and optimal active power sharing is the other results of the proposed scheme. Since the droop method is simple and can be implemented on a laboratory setup, the authors will analyze the coding of the proposed SMC method based on droop based on future works.  
A.S.-A., conceptualization and methodology; M.M., software and validation; A.G., investigation and analysis; E.P., review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research received no external funding.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 3**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** \\  & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** \\ \hline Conventional SMS & 0.0075 s & 3.16\% & 0.078 s & 0.0123 s & 3.23\% & 0.068 s & 0.008 s & 3.27\% & 0.063 s \\ \hline Proposed MSMC & 0.0051 s & 1.33\% & 0.053 s & 0.0076 s & 1.22\% & 0.031 s & 0.007 s & 1.05\% & 0.020 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Performance comparison of studied method for reactive power.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 2**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 3**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** & **Rise** & **Overshoot** & **Settling** \\  & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** & **Time** & **Overshoot** & **Time** \\ \hline Conventional SMC & 0.0051 s & 3.17\% & 0.075 s & 0.0128 s & 3.12\% & 0.065 s & 0.0086 s & 3.04\% & 0.059 s \\ \hline Proposed MSMC & 0.0035 s & 1.24\% & 0.042 s & 0.0096 s & 1.34\% & 0.036 s & 0.0075 s & 1.16\% & 0.027 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Performance comparison of studied method for active power.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Islamic Azad University of Iran, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Department of Engineering in Marvdasht branch.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.