Transient Stability Enhancement via Grid-Forming

IBRs on a 5000-bus New York Transmission System

Mohammad Ali Dashtaki, Xuheng Lin, Ziang Zhang Reza Pourramezan, Sagnik Basumallik
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Advanced Grid Innovation Lab for Energy
Binghamton University - SUNY New York Power Authority
Binghamton, NY, USA Albany, NY, USA
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
[email protected]

Abstract—The large-scale implementation of grid-forming methods are proposed in the literature to enhance the transient
(GFM) inverters can facilitate high penetration rates of stability of the utility grid: preventive control and emergency
inverter-based resources (IBRs). To ensure the stability of the control. Emergency control, which acts after contingencies,
grid, dynamic stability analysis of multiple GFM-based IBRs aims to rapidly stabilize the transient behavior and find the
under different contingencies, IBR penetration levels, and stable equilibrium point of the power system through
inverter controller parameter settings in utility-scale power temporary, but usually disruptive methods such as load
systems is needed. In this paper, the transient stability of droop- shedding and disconnecting a number of generators [7]. In
based and VSM-based GFM inverters is evaluated in a 5000-bus
contrast, preventive controls, which function before the
New York State transmission system model. The stability impact
disturbances, consider the long-term stability of the power
of different electrical distances between fault and IBR, various
IBR output power setpoints, and several controller parameter
system and ensure improved resiliency and decreased
settings coefficients have been studied. Using the Functional likelihood of instabilities in all possible contingencies through
Mock-up Units (FMUs) and ePHASORsim solver, a scalable certain methods, such as optimal power flow (OPF) and
approach is proposed to simulate a large number of GFMs in dispatch [8]. In [9], to design VSM controller parameters at
power systems. Additionally, potential preventive control the pre-fault level, the optimal preventive control problem is
methods have been introduced, which could be used by formulated using RL methods, and the transient performance
transmission system operators to improve the stability of future of the power system is improved in different cases.
power systems with higher penetration of IBRs.
Large-scale simulation of different GFM structures in
Keywords—Transient stability, preventative control, grid- mixed power grids that contain SGs, need to be studied to
forming inverter, VSM guarantee the resiliency and reliability requirements of the
transient preventive control. In [10], a hybrid IBR-SG power
I. INTRODUCTION system is developed, and different loss of synchronization
(LOS) categories are observed, resulting from the inertia
In conventional power grids, synchronous generators
mismatch and power imbalance between IBR and SG. In [11],
(SGs) have a crucial role in guaranteeing the transient stability
the performance of various GFMs such as VSM and dVOC in
of the grid, when a contingency like a three-phase fault
large grids using electromagnetic transient (EMT) software is
happens in the power system. By decarbonizing the power
evaluated for the first time. The transient stability
grid, inverter-based resources (IBRs) are the main players in
enhancement of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
supporting the electricity demanded and maintaining the
(ERCOT) grid with a high penetration of droop-based GFM
reliability and stability of the power system. To address these
in a large area, West Texas, is shown in [12]. In [13], the GFM
challenges, the implementation of grid-forming (GFM)
performance in stability enhancement of the transmission
converters has been proposed in the literature [1]. Different
network located in Queensland, Australia is tested. Most
GFM controller structures, such as droop control [2], virtual
studies focus on investigating a specific system configuration
synchronous machine (VSM) [3], and dispatchable virtual
and its stability impact to the system. There is a need for a
oscillator control (dVOC) [4] have been proposed in recent
holistic understanding of the stability impact of IBRs, and a
years. As investigated in the literature, the transient behavior
few actionable control methods for transmission system
characteristics of the mentioned GFM structures vary when
operators to enhance the stability of the grid for a given
their controller parameter settings are changed. In [5], the
contingency.
virtual inertia of VSM-based GFMs is tuned using
reinforcement learning (RL) approaches. A hybrid power With insights from previous studies, we attempt to
system with droop-based and VSM-based GFMs is summarize the key factors that can directly impact on the
investigated in [6], and it is shown that through a proper droop transient stability of the IBR-rich systems. The main
parameters design, the stability region of power systems can contributions of this paper are as below:
be enlarged on a 9-bus system. A larger scale study to validate
the potential benefit of GFMs is preferred. • Several system conditions that will impact the transient
stability of an IBR-rich power system have been
The transient stability of a post-fault power system is analyzed. The corresponding preventative control
affected by several system configurations, such as the type and methods have been proposed.
location of the fault, the post-fault power flow, the power
network, and the dynamics of all generators and IBRs in the • A scalable approach to implement and manage a large
system. While many of the abovementioned configurations number of IBR models in a large transmission model for
are not controllable by the system operators, the states of stability analysis has been proposed.
generators and IBRs can be controlled to enhance the stability • The proposed control and implementation methods have
of the system for a given contingency (fault). Two control been validated on a realistic 5000-bus, 800-machine New

XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE

 York State (NYS) model with nine IBRs at different 𝑡
locations of the system. 𝐸𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑝 = 𝐾𝑖𝑣 ∫ (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 )𝑑𝜏 + 𝐾𝑝𝑣 (𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 ), (2.4)
0
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The where 𝐾𝑃 , 𝐾𝑞 , 𝐾𝑖𝑣 , 𝐾𝑝𝑣 , 𝛼 and 𝛽 are the 𝑃 − 𝐹 droop gain,
models for different GFM controllers, NYS power system, 𝑄 − 𝑉 droop gain, PI controller proportional and integral
and FMU utilization are provided in Section II. The simulation gain, and the overload mitigation control output signals in
results, considering different fault electrical distances from each of the loops.
IBR, reference output active power of the IBR, controller The VSM-based controller structure is designed to mimic
parameter settings, and penetration rate of IBRs are performed the intrinsic behavior of Synchronous generators by utilizing
in section III. Section IV concludes this paper. the swing equation in the 𝑃 − 𝐹 loop. Accordingly, an
additional inertia can be provided to the power system
II. MODEL EXPLANATION
resulting in stability improvement. It is noteworthy that the
A. IBR Model Used in Phasor Domain 𝑄 − 𝑉 loop of the VSM-based and droop-based controller
The phasor-domain model of the droop-based GFM and structures is identical [15].
VSM is used for large-scale simulation. Phasor domain-based ̈
𝛿𝑉𝑆𝑀 ̇
= 𝐾𝑃 𝜔𝑐 (𝑃∗ − 𝑃0 ) − 𝜔𝑐 𝛿𝑉𝑆𝑀 , (3.1)
simulations use an average model of inverters and are 1 1
appropriate for capturing slower-frequency, inverter outer- 𝐽𝜔0 = , 𝐷𝑃 = (3.2)
loop control behavior. Accordingly, phasor-domain models 𝐾𝑃 𝜔𝑐 𝐾𝑃
are preferable for modeling utility-scale power systems, as Where J, 𝛿𝑉𝑆𝑀 , 𝜔0 , 𝐾𝑃 , 𝑃 ∗ and 𝑃0 are VSM inertia, phase
their computational burden could be handled [14]. As can be difference, nominal frequency, 𝑃 − 𝐹 loop coefficient, active
seen in Fig. 1, the GFM model can be represented as a voltage power reference, and output active power of the inverter,
source in the phasor domain, with VPOI and δGFM as its voltage respectively. Note that in the simulation section, 𝑃 − 𝐹 loop
at the point of interconnection and voltage angle, respectively. coefficient of droop-based and VSM-based GFM structures
On the other side of the power system, a voltage source and their transient stability impact will be studied.
representing the grid is shown. Note that Vg, δg , Lg, Rg, and Ig
B. The 5000-bus Bus New York State System Model
are the voltage, voltage angle, inductance, resistance, and
current of the grid. New York Power Authority (NYPA) has built a 5000-bus
ePHASORsim model converted from New York Independent
The phasor-domain equations of the power system shown System Operator (NYISO)’s PSS/E model that includes all the
in Fig. 1 can be derived as below. NYS's transmission components and generation units. In
𝑉𝑃𝑂𝐼 ∠−𝛿𝐺𝐹𝑀 − 𝑉𝑔 ∠ − 𝛿𝑔 addition to the components included in ePHASORSIM’s
𝑆𝑡 = 1.5𝑉𝐼𝑔∗ , 𝐼𝑔∗ = , (1.1) native library, the NYS model uses the accurate models of
𝑍∠ − 𝜃 generators, exciters, turbines, wind turbine generators, and
2
𝑉𝑃𝑂𝐼 − 𝑉𝑃𝑂𝐼 𝑉𝑔 ∠(𝛿𝐺𝐹𝑀 − 𝛿𝑔 ) power system stabilizers developed using Modelica language,
𝑆𝑡 = 1.5 ( ), (1.2)
𝑍∠ − 𝜃 exported as FMU and interfaced with the ePHASORSIM
where St is the total apparent power of the GFM. solver through FMI standard. Table 1 summarizes the number
Phasor-domain implementation of the droop controller is of different components used in the 5000-bus NYS
considered in this paper. In the 𝑃 − 𝐹 loop of the controller, transmission system model. Fig. 2 is an illustration of a
frequency deviations can be regulated through the negative contingency analysis performed in this paper on the 230 kV
feedback, and the synchronization of the power system when and above New York System. To avoid disclosure of sensitive
several GFMs are connected to the utility grid will be grid information and to make the presentation clear, only
guaranteed. In the 𝑄 − 𝑉 loop, the PI controller ensures that buses that are 230 kV and above will be plotted in this study.
the output voltage of the GFM is regulated according to its C. FMU Implementation
reference voltage value, and the large circulating reactive
power among the GFMs will be averted. Note that to prevent Modelica [16] enables fast simulation of large-scale
the output active and reactive power of the inverter from power systems with high penetration of IBRs. Using the
going beyond, or below its range, an additional loop is added functional mock-up interface (FMI) standard, the Modelica
to both of the loops. The droop-based GFM controller model will be compiled as FMU, which can greatly improve
equations are written below. the simulation efficiency and reduce modeling effort

∆𝜔 = (𝐾𝑃 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓 − 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) + 𝛼)𝜔0 , (2.1)

̇
𝛿𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑝 = ∆𝜔, (2.2)
𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑉𝑠𝑒𝑡 − 𝐾𝑞 𝑄𝑜𝑢𝑡 + 𝛽, (2.3)

Ig Lg Rg
POI
Z 
PGFM , QGFM VPOI GFM Vg g

Fig. 1. Phasor-domain model of a GFM

Fig. 2. A 230 kV and above New York Transmission Network
 TABLE I. COMPONENTS IN THE NYS 5000-BUS MODEL III. SIMULATION RESULTS
Component Number In this section, the transient stability of the 5000-bus New
York State power system in the presence of IBRs is studied in
Buses 5619
Line Segments 6804
various case scenarios. First, a baseline case, which validates
Transformers 5807
the adequate performance of the GFM in following the
Loads 4018
reference signals under various contingencies is introduced.
Classical Generator Models 375 Then, through the TSI method introduced in [18] and by
Sixth-order Generator Models 224 considering a three-phase fault contingency, the stability
Fifth-order Generator Models 66 impact of the NYS power system under different electrical
Exciter Models 278 distances, pre-fault power flow conditions, GFM controller
PSS Models 34 parameter values, and penetration rate of IBRs is investigated.
Turbine and Governor Models 147 A. Baseline Case
compared to the Simulink model [17]. Therefore, by applying In this section, the droop-based GFM structure is
FMUs in ePHASORsim, the transient stability of a large evaluated under different disturbances. The IBR under study
number of GFM-based IBRs can be analyzed through this is replaced with the SG located at the Oswego Harbor Power
scalable approach. Plant, which is a steam turbine generating station. The bus
The droop-based and VSM-based GFM inverters in voltage angle and magnitude of adjacent SGs and the GFM,
Modelica contain the voltage source model and the controller. the power system TSI, and the output active power of the IBR
The voltage source model is shown in Fig. 3. The inputs of plant are shown in Fig. 4. The reference active power of the
the voltage source model include internal voltage magnitude, IBR is 0.5 P.U. As can be seen at t=5s, a three-phase fault is
phase angle, and a trip signal. The outputs of the voltage applied in the middle of the line between Volney
source model contain active power measurement, reactive Transmission Station and Oswego Harbor Power Plant. Then,
power measurement, voltage magnitude, initial voltage at t=5.15s, the fault is cleared. As can be seen, despite the
magnitude, and angle. The Power Pin exchanges voltage and severity of the aforementioned contingency, the GFM
current withthe network solver. controller was able to stabilize the power system, dampen the
oscillations, and follow the reference value.
D. Real-time TSI Metric
The real-time TSI is used in this paper to quantify the B. Impact of Electrical Distance Between Fault and IBR
transient stability of the power system with IBRs under The electrical distance between the fault and IBR is taken
different contingencies [18]: into account in the simulations of this section. At t=5s, a
360° − 𝜃𝑑𝑒𝑣 (𝑡) three-phase fault is applied at different locations of the
𝑇𝑆𝐼(𝑡) = (4.1)
360° + 𝜃𝑑𝑒𝑣 (𝑡) Volney-Oswego transmission line, and the droop-based GFM
|𝜃1 (𝑡) − 𝜃𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑡)|, … , is connected to the Oswego bus. Note that the fault is cleared
𝜃𝑑𝑒𝑣 (𝑡) = max [ ] (4.2) at t=5.15s. The simulation results of this case are shown in
|𝜃𝑛 (𝑡) − 𝜃𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑡)| Fig. 5. The electrical distance from IBR is in percentage,
where the real-time voltage angle of each SG or GFM is meaning that when its value is 50%, the fault is between the
represented by 𝜃1 (𝑡), … 𝜃𝑛 (𝑡). The center of inertia concept IBR and the other bus, and when it is 90%, the fault is
(COI) is applied using 𝜃𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑡) in the above formulation. adjacent to the Volney substation and the other SGs
Accordingly, the real-time TSI index can evaluate the connected. As illustrated in case A, when the fault occurs in
stability of the system over time and its value is between -1 the exact middle of a transmission line (the farthest electrical
to 1. A larger values of this index means the system is more distance to any generation units on both sides of the bus), the
stable at that moment. To reduce the computational burden, voltage angles does not diverge, and the power system
we only calculated selected voltage angles from SGs and remains stable. Despite case A, in case B, when the fault is
GFMs that are close to the fault location, which can represent
the system stability without introduce too much computation.
The 𝜃𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑡) is calculated based on the largest 100 SGs in
the 5000-bus, 800-machine system.

Fig. 4. Baseline results of GFM-based IBR and adjacent SGs,

Fig. 3. FMU implementation in Modelica. after a three-phase fault at t=5s.
 Fig. 7. Impact of droop gains, left plots: selected bus voltage
Fig. 5. Impact of electrical distances, left plots: selected bus angle and TSI for Case A, where Kp=0.02; right plots:
voltage angle and TSI for Case A; right plots: Case B, where selected bus voltage angle and TSI for Case B, where Kp=2.
the fault is close to a generator.

close to a generator, the electrical distance between the fault increasingly oscillate after a while. Accordingly, it can be
and the generation unit is small, some of the voltage angles concluded that to consider worst case-scenarios to enhance
drastically deviates making the system unstable. The TSI the ISO/TSO-level preventive control, the 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓 value should
index used can fully demonstrate the instability happening in be maintained at a certain range.
the power system, as it converges to a value close to -1. As a D. Stability Impact of IBR Controller and Settings
conclusion, the fault electrical distance has a crucial effect on
stability. The droop and VSM controller parameter values can have
a significant effect on the transient stability of the power
C. Stability Impact of Pre-Fault Power Flow system when a severe contingency happens. In this section,
This section aims to show how pre-fault power flow the effect of 𝑃 − 𝐹 loop coefficient in the droop controller [2]
settings, such as the droop-based GFM reference output and the VSM structure on transient stability is taken into
active power can change the stability margin of the NYS account. In both cases, at t=5s, a three-phase fault happens at
power system. The simulation results are demonstrated in the Volney-Oswego transmission line, and the electrical
Fig. 6, where the 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓 value is changed from 0.5 to 0.6. As distance between the IBR and the fault is 50%. When the
shown, a three-phase fault occurred at t=5s, and its electrical droop gain in equation 2.1 changed from 𝐾𝑝 =0.02 to 𝐾𝑝 =2
distance from the IBR is 30%. Note that the fault is cleared p.u., the results are shown as cases A and B in Fig. 7,
after 0.15 seconds. In case A, where the 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓 value is 0.5, the respectively. By comparing the TSI schemes and bus voltage
power system remained stable, although the fault was close angles, it can be concluded that increasing 𝐾𝑝 may result in a
to the IBR. On the contrary, in case B, where 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑓 =0.6, the decreased stability margin in the power system. Note that the
injected power of IBR during the fault exceeds its limit and bus voltage angle of the nearby power plants oscillates
the system is not able to maintain its stability a few seconds drastically when 𝐾𝑝 is increased. The results for the VSM-
after the fault clearance. The bus voltage angle of SGs located based IBR are shown in Fig. 8, where the original 𝐾𝑝 =0.5. As
in adjacent power plants will lose their synchronization and shown, the system remains stable after the fault. Note that the

Fig. 8. Impact of virtual inertias, left plots: selected bus

Fig. 6. Impact of power flow, left plots: selected bus voltage voltage angle and TSI for Case A, where Kp=0.5; right plots:
angle and TSI for Case A, where Pref=0.5; right plots: selected
selected bus voltage angle and TSI for Case B, where Kp=4.5.
bus voltage angle and TSI for Case B, where Pref=0.6.
.
 IV. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the stability impact of different system
configurations have been summarized. We found that 1) the
electrical distance between the fault and a generation unit (SG
or GFM), 2) the pre-fault power flow, or the active power
output, and 3) the controller settings of GFMs could directly
affect the stability of the system. While the location of the
fault, network topology, and generator dynamics cannot be
changed for a given system, the output power setpoint of a
generation unit and the control parameters of GFM could be
used as potential preventative controls for transmission
Fig. 9. Location of IBRs and the fault. system operators to enhance the stability of the system.
Through the expandable approach introduced with FMU,
virtual inertia mentioned in equation 3.2 is relevant to 𝐾𝑝 employment of GFM-based IBRs in large number can be
studied in this section. On the contrary, by changing the 𝑃 − handled. All cases has been validate on the 5000-bus, 800-
𝐹 loop coefficient to 4.5 in case B, the stability margin of the machine NYS transmission system model in ePHASORsim
system will decrease and the GFM will lose its and FMU based GFM models.
synchronization after the contingency.
V. REFERENCES
E. Stability Impact of the Penetration Level of IBRs
[1] Y. Lin et al., “Research Roadmap on Grid-Forming Inverters,”
In this section, according to different simulation cases done Golden, CO (United States), Nov. 2020.
in the previous sections, the controller setting of a larger [2] W. Du et al., “Positive-Sequence Modeling of Droop-Controlled
Grid-Forming Inverters for Transient Stability Simulation of
number of GFMs is designed to enhance the transient Transmission Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
stability. Nine GFM-based IBRs are replaced with SGs vol. 39, no. 3, 2024.
adjacent to the Oswego bus. The location of the IBRs is [3] Q. C. Zhong, G. C. Konstantopoulos, B. Ren, and M. Krstic,
shown in Fig. 9. Considering the preventive control “Improved synchronverters with bounded frequency and voltage
for smart grid integration,” IEEE Trans Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 2,
knowledge gained in the previous sections, including the 2018.
controller parameter settings and pre-fault power flow values, [4] G. S. Seo, M. Colombino, I. Subotic, B. Johnson, D. Gros, and F.
the nine GFM-based IBRs added to the power system. As can Dorfler, “Dispatchable virtual oscillator control for decentralized
be seen in Fig. 10, case A, the power system remains stable inverter-dominated power systems: Analysis and experiments,” in
Conference Proceedings - IEEE Applied Power Electronics
under a higher penetration level of IBRs. Accordingly, the Conference and Exposition - APEC, 2019.
preventive control design knowledge can help us to design [5] Z. Liu and Z. Zhang, “Reinforcement Learning-based Parameter
GFM-based IBRs in a higher share level. Moreover, we tested Tuning for Virtual Synchronous Machine on Grid Transient
the droop-based GFM further by increasing 𝐾𝑝 value to 0.47 Stability Enhancement,” in IECON Proceedings (Industrial
Electronics Conference), 2020.
in case B. as illustrated, the system will be unstable when a [6] X. He, S. Pan, and H. Geng, “Transient Stability of Hybrid Power
three-phase contingency happens in the power system, and Systems Dominated by Different Types of Grid-Forming
the bus voltage of one of the inverters will jump drastically. Devices,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 37, no.
Consequently, it can be concluded that although the droop- 2, 2022.
[7] Q. Huang, R. Huang, W. Hao, J. Tan, R. Fan, and Z. Huang,
based GFM can enhance the transient stability, but the “Adaptive Power System Emergency Control Using Deep
controller settings should be chosen carefully. Reinforcement Learning,” IEEE Trans Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 2,
2020.
[8] J. U. Sevilla-Romero, A. Pizano-Martínez, C. R. Fuerte-Esquivel,
and R. Ramírez-Betancour, “Two-stage Transient-Stability-
Constrained Optimal Power Flow for Preventive Control of Rotor
Angle Stability and Voltage Sags,” Journal of Modern Power
Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1357–1369, 2024.
[9] X. Huang, J. Y. Gwak, L. Yu, Z. Zhang, and H. Cui, “Transient
Stability Preventive Control via Tuning the Parameters of Virtual
Synchronous Generators,” in IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2023.
[10] C. He, X. He, H. Geng, H. Sun, and S. Xu, “Transient Stability of
Low-Inertia Power Systems With Inverter-Based Generation,”
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 37, no. 4, 2022.
[11] J. Peralta, V. Velar, E. Quintana, J. Mahseredjian, H. Gras, and H.
Ashourian, “Dynamic Behavior of Grid-forming Inverters in
Large-scale Low-strength Power Grids,” in 2024 IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D),
2024, pp. 1–5.
[12] A. Quedan, A. Goharrizi, Y. Cheng, S.-H. F. Huang, W. Du, and
D. Ramasubramanian, “Grid-Forming Inverters for Stability
Improvements in Bulk Power Systems with High Inverter-Based
Resources Penetration,” in 2024 IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (PESGM), 2024, pp. 1–5.
Fig. 10. Impact of penetration levels, left plots: selected bus [13] Y. Zhou, R. Zhang, D. Kathriarachchi, J. Dennis, and S. Goyal,
voltage angle and TSI for Case A, where Kp=0.01; right plots: “Grid forming inverter and its applications to support system
selected bus voltage angle and TSI for Case B, where strength–A case study,” IET Generation, Transmission and
Kp=0.47. Distribution, vol. 17, no. 2, 2023.
[14] Z. Chen, H. Liu, P. J. Hart, W. Du, F. Tuffner, and U. C. Nwaneto, [17] E. Segerstrom, L. Vanfretti, C. Mishra, and K. D. Jones,
“Phasor-Domain Modeling of Inverter Based Resources “Modeling Components of a Turbine-Generator System for Sub-
Considering Unbalanced Grid Faults,” in 2024 IEEE Power & Synchronous Oscillation Studies with Modelica,” in Proceedings
Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), 2024, pp. 1–5. of the 15th International Modelica Conference 2023, Aachen,
[15] H. Yu, M. A. Awal, H. Tu, I. Husain, and S. Lukic, “Comparative October 9-11, 2023.
Transient Stability Assessment of Droop and Dispatchable Virtual [18] Xuheng Lin, Xiaoge Huang, Ziang Zhang, and Reza Pourramezan,
Oscillator Controlled Grid-Connected Inverters,” IEEE Trans “A Trade-Off Study Between the Primary and Transient
Power Electron, vol. 36, no. 2, 2021. Responses of Grid-Forming Inverters,” in IECON 2024- 50th
[16] L. F. Llerins, V. A. Lacerda, E. Prieto-Araujo, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
A. Guironnet, and Q. Cossart, “Modelling and Simulation of Chicago, 2024.
Power Systems with Grid-Connected Converters in
OpenModelica,” in 2022 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), 2022, pp. 1–6.