energies

Concept Paper
Overview on Grid-Forming Inverter Control Methods
Peter Unruh * , Maria Nuschke *, Philipp Strauß * and Friedrich Welck
Power System Stability and Converter Technology Division, Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and
Energy System Technology IEE, 34119 Kassel, Germany; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (P.U.); [email protected] (M.N.);
[email protected] (P.S.)




Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 6 May 2020; Published: 20 May 2020


Abstract: In this paper, different control approaches for grid-forming inverters are discussed and
compared with the grid-forming properties of synchronous machines. Grid-forming inverters are
able to operate AC grids with or without rotating machines. In the past, they have been successfully
deployed in inverter dominated island grids or in uninterruptable power supply (UPS) systems.
It is expected that with increasing shares of inverter-based electrical power generation, grid-forming
inverters will also become relevant for interconnected power systems. In contrast to conventional
current-controlled inverters, grid-forming inverters do not immediately follow the grid voltage.
They form voltage phasors that have an inertial behavior. In consequence, they can inherently deliver
momentary reserve and increase power grid resilience.

Keywords: droop control; grid-forming inverter; electrical inertia; inverter-dominated power system;
virtual synchronous machine; voltage-controlled inverter; voltage-forming inverter

1. Introduction
The ongoing transition of power systems from conventional generation, applying mainly
synchronous machines, to inverter-dominated generation is accompanied by the loss of directly
grid-coupled mass inertia. As a result, the need for inertia contribution from inverter-coupled
power units becomes evident. Furthermore, inverters should contribute to grid-voltage forming,
which in the interconnected power systems nowadays is being performed by synchronous generators.
Grid-forming inverters are available products and their applicability for island systems has been
shown [1]. Unlike conventional current-controlled inverters, such grid-forming inverters form a
voltage phasor that has a certain degree of autonomy but still operates synchronously to the grid
voltage. With a suitable control, the inverter can also deliver momentary reserve without any delay by
retarding the voltage phasor. The property of how the voltage phasor is actuated can be used as a key
indicator for the grid-forming attribute of inverters.
The idea of providing inertial response with inverters in cases of frequency deviations in order to
support angle stability or frequency stability in interconnected grids was published in [2]. Meanwhile,
several grid-forming control concepts for inverters have been introduced. Some of them were
specifically developed for island grid applications, but in future, they may also become relevant for
usage in interconnected systems. This paper’s aim is to give an overview of different kinds of control
schemes and to make these different approaches comparable.
In voltage source converters (VSC), the manipulated value is the switched dc-link voltage, which
is realized by means of the switching pattern of the converter legs. Therefore, the converter itself is
assumed to be a controlled voltage source behind a filter inductor. The control schemes discussed
here are related to the short-term voltage source controlling, i.e., how the voltage source is acting
immediately after an event at the point of common coupling (PCC). Additional control loops, e.g., for

Energies 2020, 13, 2589; doi:10.3390/en13102589 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 2589 2 of 21

resonance damping, or overlaid control loops, can be added and are detached from the specific
grid-forming control approach.
Firstly, a definition of the relevant terms inertia, grid-forming and grid-following inverters is
given. After that, the concepts for grid-forming voltage sources are presented. The dynamic behavior
of the provided voltage phasor, for both the voltage amplitude and the voltage angle are analyzed.
Starting with the dynamics of synchronous machines, grid-forming control approaches with their
voltage phasor dynamics are deduced. The output power or an equivalent quantity, such as current,
serves as an input for the deduced dynamical transfer function.

2. Terminology
Due to the partially misleading or contradicting use of different terms in literature, some relevant
terms are explained in the following.
Electrical inertia, EI, is a property of a power system classically determined by the mechanical
inertia of rotating machines within a synchronous area. The mechanical inertia of a generator results
electrically in the ability to smoothen frequency deviations because of the kinetic energy stored in
the rotor. From a technical point of view, EI refers to the ability to react to a change in the voltage
phase angle at the point of connection with an instantaneous power response, due to the retarded
reaction of the generator’s voltage phasor. Power-electronic devices with suitable control algorithms
(e.g. grid-forming control) can also provide EI. In general, conventionally current-controlled inverters
do not provide EI.
Grid-forming inverter, GFI, denotes an inverter having a control approach with the capability
to control the terminal voltage directly and to form the grid voltage purely by inverters under
consideration of necessary reserve and storage capacity. Such inverters can be able to provide
inherently EI. (Reference [3] was one of the first papers to introduce the term “grid-forming“, and it
has been meanwhile established in academia and industry. Accordingly, it is also used in this paper.
In the opinion of the authors, more suitable terms are “voltage-forming” or “grid-voltage-forming”,
since they state clearly that the grid voltage is the related physical quantity which is formed)
Current-controlled inverter, CCI, or grid-following inverter, in contrast to GFI, denotes an inverter
having a control approach that controls the current injection, e.g., based on terminal voltage
measurement, in order to meet a given power set point. Due to the power set point determination,
the inverter can operate as a grid-feeding inverter, which injects power independent of voltage or
frequency deviations at the terminal. Grid-supporting inverters can be applied to adjust reactive
and active power set points under voltage or frequency deviations. Conventionally, CCIs do not
provide EI, even though they could rapidly adjust their power response to frequency deviations or
even to frequency derivatives. Due to delays in active power set point determination after angle
or frequency changes (e.g., due to frequency measurement) their active power injection is generally
delayed, compared to the active power response of devices with EI capability.

3. Functional Principle of Synchronous Machines

The best-known voltage source responsible for the voltage forming and inertial behavior of today’s
ac power systems is the synchronous machine. The basic concept of a synchronous machine is that
a magnetized rotor induces a voltage at the three-phase stator windings due to the rotational speed.
The rotor can be constructed as permanent-excited or by means of an excitation winding (externally
excited). The latter is assumed here, since it allows a beneficial control action.
Mathematically, the description for the flux linkage between rotor and stator simplifies a lot, when
the variables of both rotor and stator are related to a coordinate system of the same speed as the rotor.
Otherwise, the equations contain inductances, which inconveniently alter with the position of the
rotor [4] (pp. 87–88).
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 3 of 21

This transformation of the coordinate system was first introduced by Park [5], where the x-axis
of the coordinate system was laid on the direct axis of the rotated excitation coil. In literature, it is
referred to as Park transformation or direct-quadrature-zero (dq0) transformation.
Moreover, several simplifications have been proposed, especially for small-signal stability analyses,
which are also applied here. References [6] (pp. 328–347) and [7] give a good overview of the different
models and their effect on the accuracy. Furthermore, detailed explanation concerning backgrounds
and advanced modeling of synchronous machines can be found in [4] (pp. 83–146), [8] (pp. 45–198)
and [9] (pp. 469–496).
Following the model reduction procedure in [10] (pp. 52–54), first the small resistive parts in the
armature are neglected. Besides, another reasonable simplification is achieved by neglecting the very
high-transient behavior of the damper windings. The purpose of the damper windings is to mitigate
rotor oscillations, since a deviation from the synchronous angle speed induces high currents in the
damper windings. As a result, a counter torque proportional to the frequency deviation from the grid
frequency occurs. This effect can be taken into account by adding a damping torque to the swing
equation in relation to the slip of the machine [11] (p. 456), [9] (p. 105). Furthermore, the induced
transformer voltage, which refers to current changing in the coils (e.g. dΨ/dt), is small in comparison to
the rotational electromotive force (emf) and decays quickly, so that this transient effect is neglected too.
On the whole, the mathematical description is reduced to the one-axis 3rd-order model [7].
It consists of three differential Equations (1)–(3). The first is related to the dynamic electromagnetic
linkage between the rotor and stator. The others describe the electromechanical effect in the form of
the swing equation:
1 (xd − xd ′ )
U= ′ Uf − Ir , (1)
Td0 s + 1 Td0 ′ s + 1
dω
Pm − Pe = Jω0 , (2)
dt
dϑ
ω= (3)
dt
U denotes the internal voltage source of the synchronous generator. It is composed of one part
related to the excitation voltage Uf and another part related to the reactive current Ir . Both effects
occur with a delay of the open-circuit time constant (Td0 ′ ). The first part reflects the reference transfer
behavior of the excitation voltage Uf to the synchronous generated voltage

1
G(s) = ′ , (4)
Td0 s + 1

whereas the second term belongs to the disturbance transfer function and contributes to the internal
reactance [12] (p. 6):
(xd − xd ′ )
xd ( s ) = + xd ′ . (5)
Td0 ′ s + 1
The interpretation is, that in the first moment after a current step, only the transient reactance
xd ′ is active. During the process, the reactance decays to the synchronous value xd . This transition is
illustrated in Figure 1.
The angle of the synchronously generated voltage U is determined by the swing
Equations (2) and (3). Together with the electromagnetic Equations (1), the block diagram of the
synchronous machine, shown in Figure 2, is established. In summary, it results in a voltage phasor
that retardedly follows the grid voltage phasor in relation to both the amplitude (according the coil
excitation time constant) and the phase angle (according to the mass inertia time constant of the rotor).
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 4 of 21

xd0′
xdx′d′

xd
Td ‘ t
xdxd
TT
d d‘ ‘ tt

Figure 1. Transient evolution of the impedance after a current step (derived from [13] (p. 244)).
U

I UU U
1
xd − xd ′
II + 1 + Td0 ′s UU
- 11
xdxd−−xdx′d ′
11++Td0 ′s′s
Td0

P
P xdPP ϑ
e 1
PP xdxd - Jω0 s + s ϑϑ
m + 11 +
- JωJω
00 ss ss t
tt

Figure 2. Block diagram of the synchronous machine (3rd-order model).

This block representation of the synchronous machine is taken as the basis for subsequent
forming inverters. Therein, ∆f represents the frequency deviation from the
comparisons to grid-forming inverters. Therein, ∆f represents the frequency deviation from the
and ϑ is the
nominal value f0 and forming
ϑforming inverters.
inverters.
is the rotation Therein,
Therein,
angle. ∆f∆frepresents
represents
The damping the
thefrequency
parameter frequency deviation
deviation
D represents from
fromthe
the mechanicalthe
damping according andtoϑfriction
and ϑisisthe
theand windage.
The equivalent circuit is depicted in Figure 3. The two circuits of the direct and quadrature axis are
condensed to one complex circuit, which also serves as basis for the following elaborations. It consists
of an adjusted voltage source U behind an internal inductance xi . For the whole paper, the generator
–
convention is adopted [14] (pp. 20–27) as commonly used for power sources.
––
xd(s) xq xi = xd I
Ir Ia
xix==xd

(xd − xd ′)
Uf ·G(s) U = G(s)Uf − Ir ∙ ejϑ
Td0 ′
( ( −− ′)′)
UU== G(s) −− U ∙ ∙ ϑϑ
′′

real equivalent circuits for direct complex equivalent circuit

and quadrature axis

Figure 3. Equivalent circuit of the synchronous machine.

Energies 2020, 13, 2589 5 of 21

4. Grid-Forming Inverter Control Methods

4.1. Droop-Based Grid-Forming Control Methods (e.g. Selfsync)

The idea of synchronizing parallel static inverters by means of power droops reaches back to [15]
(see [16]). Following the operational principle of conventional power plants, f(P)- and U(Q)-droops
with reversed relation were exploited (see Figure 4). Therein, quantities f0 and U0 denote the nominal
values. In a similar way, reference [17] deals with the stand-alone operation of static inverters and
suggests a method in which a voltage and frequency drop behavior in relation to the output reactive
and active power is imposed. The purpose is to achieve load sharing among power sources without
explicit communication. Likewise, in [18] droops are deployed in combination with a virtual flux
control. In the meantime, a multitude of droop-based approaches have been published [19].

U f

U = U0 − k q (Q − Q0 ) Q = 0 − k p (P − P0 ) P
U = U0 − k q (Q − Q0 ) = 0 − k p (P − P0 )

Figure 4. Droop characteristics.

Mostly, the output power is measured and low-pass filtered with the time constant (Te , Tm ),
in order to eliminate oscillations, due to harmonics, and to obtain a more-smooth reaction. Afterwards,
the value is fed back to generate the internal inverter voltage. A reasonable improvement compared to
the normal droop control can be gained by an angle feedforward proportional to the active power
flow, which was first introduced in [20] or [21] and is referenced as Selfsync. We concentrate on this
approach in the following elaboration.
The related block diagram is illustrated in Figure 5. In the next step, this structure is rearranged as
depicted in Figure 6. It becomes apparent that the functional principle is equivalent to that in Figure 2.

f0

P 1 - 2
kp
- Tm s + 1
2
s - ϑ
P0 +1 s ϑ
kp'

Q 1 -
kq
- Te s + 1 U
Q0 +1
U0
Figure 5. Block diagram of the Selfsync control algorithm.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 6 of 21

f0
P0

P - kp
- Tm s s - ϑ

1/kp kp'/kp

Q 1
kq Te s + 1
- U
kqQ0
U0
Figure 6. Rearranged block diagram of Selfsync control algorithm.

Likewise, a reactive power value is fed back to adjust the internal voltage (electro-magnetic force),
so that the droop parameter kq corresponds to (xd − xd ′ ). Consequently, the reactive power droop
− ’
can be interpreted as impedance evolution similar to that of the synchronous machine (see Figure 1):
In the first moment only the filter impedance of the inverter is active and due to the imposed droop,
the impedance in the reactive current path is adjusted to a higher stationary (synchronous) value.
The time constant Te is in accordance to the open-circuit time constant Td0 ′ of the synchronous machine.
’
It should be noted that the reactive power is used here. Strictly speaking, the relation between the
reactive current and the voltage amplitude is not precisely linear here, due to voltage variations.
Therefore, these conclusions are only valid around the nominal operating voltage. On the other hand,
it is possible to normalize the droop parameter by the output voltage. By doing so, the reactive power
droop changes to a reactive current droop.
Moreover, the active power loops also resemble each other, so that Tm /kp is equivalent to the inertia
time constant and 1/kp is equal to the mechanical feedback damping parameter D. As an extension to
the basic functionality, forward damping is achieved, due to the angle feedforward. This damping is
much more effective against oscillation, as it bypasses the integrator. Consequently, a better stability
and transient performance was observed when using such a technique. The damper windings have a
similar effect, since they inherently produce a counter torque according to the slip (deviation from the
synchronous rotation) of the machine.
It is noteworthy, that with synchronous machines, system parameters such as time constants
and reactance are subject to the mechanical construction. At best, the feedback damping parameter
D of the synchronous machine can be increased when the power system stabilizer (PSS) is designed
properly [8] (pp. 766–767). In contrast, in the case of grid-forming inverters, the system parameters
–
can be designed freely according to higher requirements.
Values typically chosen for the Selfsync control algorithm can be found in Table 1. Except for the
time constants, the values are given per unit with respect to inverter nominal power and voltage. Thus,
the control can easily be realized for different power ratings and voltage levels. The time constant Tm
is chosen according to the acceleration time of the grid (~10 s). Hence, it is a measure for the inertia
contribution in relation to the nominal power of the grid-forming unit. The time constant for the
voltage amplitude is chosen lower. The droop parameters kp and kq mean that, at nominal power,
the frequency or voltage drop is 5% and 10%, respectively. Additionally, an adequate feedforward
damping is achieved with a value around 5 pu.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 7 of 21

Table 1. Exemplary parameterization of the Selfsync control algorithm.

Parameter Value
Tm kp ·10 s
kp 0.05 pu
Te ’ 1s
kq 0.1 pu
kp ’ 5 pu

Although only one specific droop-based method is analyzed here, other known droop-based
approaches can be interpreted similarly, since the basic functional principle is the same. Nevertheless,
the damping or superior control features may differ, due to some additional control loops.
In [22], an often-referenced approach concerning droop control is described. One basic element
therein is the rotational matrix T. This was developed for operation in resistive grids in order to adapt
the control action to the specific transfer function of the system. It means that not the measured output
power values are applied to the droops but virtual values resulting from the rotations in the complex
plane according to the R/X ratio of the power line. As a result, an increase in the effectiveness of the
droops is achieved. However, this has a negative effect on the load sharing, since the droops control
only the virtual values not the real power values. Moreover, the consistency with the conventional
power system is lost, since the analogy to the synchronous machine is partially reversed. Therefore,
it is not recommendable for practical applications in the main grid.
Other authors supplement the droops by differentiators for the purpose of improved transient
dP
response [23,24] = 0 − k p (P − P0 ) − k p,d ,
dPdt
f = f0 − kp (P − P0 ) − kp,d , (6)
dt dQ
U = U0 − k q (Q − Q0 ) − k q,d
dQ ,
U = U0 − kq (Q − Q0 ) − kq,d dt, (7)
dt
When looking’ at Equation (6), it becomes clear that the effect of kp,d is similar to the angle
feedforward by kp ′ . The effect of kq,d is that the reactance of the reactive current path is virtually
further increased in relation to the rate of current change during a transient process. The consequence
is that the time development of the reactance is not so smooth and more dynamic.
Other approaches combine the droop control with virtual impedance loops to improve load
sharing or droop operation [25,26]. Therefore, the underlying impedance parameters may differ, due to
the fast-acting additional loops, but the essential control structure is retained.

4.2. Power Synchronization Loop

A further technique to realize a grid-forming control is the so-called power synchronization
control depicted in Figure 7 [27]. Additional insights can be found in [28]. Other authors improved
this approach by orienting closer towards the synchronization mechanism of the swing equation and
include a further transfer function in order to match the dynamic order with an appropriate damping
capability [29].

ω0t U0

KI ϑ KE U
pref uref
s - 1 + TE s
-

p |upcc |

Figure 7. Power synchronization control loop according to [27].

 ω
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 ω 8 of 21

With regard to the angle regulation, a strong similarity to the droop-based approaches becomes
obvious, because it also consists of a direct P/f-droop-characteristic. The power measurement filter and
an angle feedforward are not mentioned, so that the appropriate parameters are 𝑎 assumed to be zero.
The voltage amplitude regulation consists of a cascade of a proportional voltage controller and
optionally of a superior reactive power controller. Due to the proportional voltage controller there
𝑗𝑟
is also a “droop” characteristic [27], but in the opposite direction. The drooping action stems from
the fact that the amplitude at the PCC is almost a linear function of the reactive current. For a better
understanding, refer to the phasor diagram in Figure 8.

uref
-
upcc

KE
TE s + 1
Li I PCC
jωLi Ia
jωLi Ir

U
U
U Upcc
𝑎

𝑗𝑟
Figure 8. Schematic voltage control in the power synchronization control loop.

It can be seen that the voltage component on the horizontal r-axis only has a negligible impact on
the total amplitude. The main effect on the amplitude is brought about by the a-axis voltage drop,
which results from the reactive current. Consequently, the feedback loop for regulating the amplitude
corresponds to an impedance reduction, opposite to that of a Q/U-droop. The parameter KE defines the
negative gain for the impedance Li, so that in a steady state, the new value is (ωLi /(1+KE )) and TE is
responsible for the continuous time delaysowith
that which
in a steady state, the new
the impedance value isThis
is adapted. (ωLcan be deduced
from the transfer function from the resulting current flow to the provided voltage drop. The closed
voltage amplitude loop can therefore be restated (Figure 9) under the assumption that Ia has only a
very small influence on the voltage amplitude at the point of common coupling.

U0
Ir ωLi K E U
TE s + 1 + K E

Figure 9. Restated voltage–amplitude control loop.

–
4.3. Voltage Controlled Inverter (VCI)
This approach to control grid-forming inverters was published in [30]. The concept will be
explained with the resulting dynamics of the voltage angle and amplitude. For the frequency control
loop, the following control structure shown in Figure 10, was considered. The controller itself consists
of a PI-controller and can be optionally extended by a primary control loop as it is realized by frequency
droops. A transformation of the control algorithm can be found in Figure 11.

p f0
∆f 2𝜋 ϑ
𝑠
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 9 of 21

p ∆ f0 𝜋 ϑ
𝑠
- KI ∆fi 2𝜋 ϑ
pref + KP
-
s 𝑠

KPrim

Figure 10. Frequency controller of the voltage controlled inverter VCI according to [30].

p K P K prim p
f0 f0
∆fi ϑ ∆fi ϑ
pref p- - KI 2𝜋 pref p- KI 2𝜋
- s 𝑠 - (1 + K P K prim )s 𝑠
∆f 𝜋 ϑ KI ∆ 𝜋 ϑ
K𝑠p (1 + K K K𝑠p
KPrim Ki
KPrim Ki

Figure 11. Transformation of the VCI control structure.

This transformation yields the same structure for the frequency loop as in Figure 6. In addition to
the swing equation, it also includes the feedforward damping (realized by Kp /2πKi ) equally to that of
/2πK
the Selfsync approach. Here, KPrim equals the feedback damping factor D and (1+KP KPrim )/KI is the
inertia time constant. /2πK
The voltage–amplitude regulation loop is shown below. With the voltage control mode,
–
the dynamical regulation of the voltage amplitude again is deduced by following the procedure
–
revealed in the power synchronization control (see Figure 8).
Based on the assumption that only the reactive current component has a considerable effect on
xd′
the voltage amplitude, a transfer function from the reactive current to the voltage amplitude is set up
(Figure 12). The effect of xthe PI controller results in an impedance reduction according to the principle
d′
in Figure 13. Due to the integrator, the effect of the internal reactance in the reactive current path is
completely reduced to zero during the control action. In contrast to the synchronous machine (compare
Figure 1), it means that the inner impedance is not increased during the transient time, but eliminated.
xd
u xd Td ‘U0 t U0
ω
uref
- Td ‘ U Ir t U
TI ωLi (TI + sTP )
+ TP
qref s (TP + 1)s + TP
-
q

Figure 12. Voltage control loop of the VCI.

xd′
xd′
t
t appropriate time constant.
Figure 13. Elimination of the impedance by the integrator action with the

Basically, it can be stated that a voltage controller of the terminal voltage eliminates the internal
impedance within the time constant of the PI-controller, whereas a reactive power controller corresponds
to an increase of the reactance value in the reactive current path.

–
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 10 of 21

4.4. Virtual Synchronous Machine (VSM)

Directly emulating the synchronous machine is a straightforward approach to impart grid-forming
capabilities to inverters. Multiple control algorithms have been proposed [31–33], which carry this
approach in their name. They differ in the depth of emulation and amount of additional current and
voltage control, but they all include some form of the swing Equation (2). Reference [34] gives an
overview of some of the published approaches and proves the equivalence of VSM and droop control
with regards to small signal stability [35].
Starting with [36], the concept of a virtual synchronous machine called VISMA was applied.
In this early implementation, the inverter control imposes an exact current response according to a
synchronous machine model of seventh order. The output voltage is used to feed the machine model
and calculate the current response in real time. By means of a hysteresis comparator, a fast adjustment
of the current is achieved. In [37] the machine model was simplified for the purpose of robustness and
stability and the suitability of island operation was shown.
Another well-known virtual synchronous machine concept is referenced as synchronverter [33].
The idea is again to implement the synchronous machine behavior in inverters. The control law
implemented on the inverter is composed of the dynamic swing equation and algebraic equations
for coupling the virtual rotor and stator side. In this, the damping of the virtual mass inertia is solely
performed by feedback of the difference between VSM and reference frequency. Thus, it incorporates a
frequency-power droop in terms of frequency containment reserve (previously referred to as “primary
control reserve”) [38] and cannot be designed freely. In a further development [39], an additional loop
is exploited from the virtual flux to the active power in order to improve the damping and a defined
dynamic response.
Another detailed realization of a virtual synchronous machine can be found in [40]. Here, the swing
equation is supplemented by a frequency droop. In addition, a more appropriate damping is performed
by a feedback of the difference between the grid and the VSM frequency. Since the grid frequency is
provided by a phase locked loop (PLL), it suffers from a minor delay. For interested readers, several
subsidiary controls were added in that paper, e.g., current control or virtual impedance. However,
they are more related to high-transient electromagnetic effects or internal impedance correction, both of
which are not the focus of this paper.
Since all VSM concepts utilize the swing equation, the damping of the virtual mass inertia is an
important criterion. A compilation of different damping strategies for virtual synchronous machines is
given in [38].
As an illustrative example for VSM control methods, the VSM structure applied in [32] is derived
in this paragraph. Firstly, the swing Equation (2) is expanded by damping power

dδm D
PD = DM = ω, (8)
dt 2π
which accounts for mechanical loss due to friction and windage (as in [9] (pp. 125–129)). This gives:

D dω
Pm − Pe − PD = Pm − Pe − ω = Jω0 , (9)
2π dt
which is also shown in Figure 2. The damping coefficient D is a property of the physical construction
of the synchronous machine and thus fixed. In VSM control, this parameter can be chosen freely. As it
directly correlates active power P and frequency f, it is used to define the slope of the P(f)-characteristic
of the VSM. It is renamed Kpf in order to reflect that change.
In the next step, J, ω0 and 2π are condensed into a single time constant Ta = 2H and a forward
damping constant Kdf is introduced, which can be dimensioned to effectively dampen oscillations
between generators.
 J, ω and 2π are condensed into a single time constant T
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 11 of 21

In the Q-Branch, Ku is chosen as the slope of the Q(U)-characteristic and Tu as the excitation time
constant. The resulting diagram of the control scheme is shown in Figure 14. It is quite similar to the
rearranged Selfsync control shown in Figure 6.

p q U0
- 1
f ϑ - 1 U
pref qref Ku
- Ta s s 1 + Tu s
f0 -

K pf K df

Figure 14. Virtual synchronous machine control.

4.5. Virtual Oscillator Control (VOC)

The virtual oscillator control (VOC) differs from the previously mentioned approaches, as it is not
based on phasor representation. It is a sinusoidal time domain implementation that is related to the
synchronization principle of coupled oscillators in complex networks [41]. The method uses a Van der
Pol oscillator with a nonlinear differential equation to generate the virtual oscillator [42]. The principle
is illustrated in Figure 15.

+
αuc3 κi i
uc -1/σ L C uc

-
κi
κv κvε

U
[cos φ, -sin φ] PWM

Li1 Li2 I Ri

Ci

Figure 15. Illustration of the virtual oscillator circuit according to [43].

As a feedback parameter, only the output current is applied, which is used to feed the virtual
oscillator circuit.
oscillator circuit. The
The parameters
parameters κ κi and
and κ κv serve as scaling factors for the interface between the real
hardware and the virtual oscillator. The inductance and the capacitance of the oscillating circuit are
chosen in
chosen in such
such aa way
way that
that the
the resonant
resonant frequency
frequency matches
matches the
the nominal
nominal frequency
frequency ωω0 .
In [43] the dynamics of the VOC is transferred into phasor representation, which makes it
comparable to phasor-based approaches. The averaged dynamics of the VCO is captured by the
following equations:
.  
dU σ β 3 κ κv
= U = σ U − βU 3 − κii κv Q,
dU (10)
dt =U= ̇ 2C (U − U ) −
2 2CU Q,
dt C CU
dϑ . κ κv
= ϑ = ω = ω0 − i 2 P, (11)
dtdϑ κi κv
2CU
= ϑ̇ = ω = ω0 − P,
 −1 dt CU2
with β = 3α κ22v σ -1 and Φ = π/2. For this reason, a P/f- and Q/U-characteristic is achieved. Compared
β = 3α(κv σ) Φ = π/2
to the 3rd-order model of the synchronous machine (or Selfsync for example), the state variable, which is
related to the mass inertia, does not exist.

σ 3β 2 κi κv Q0 κi κv
∆U̇ = − U0 − 2 − 1 ∆U − CU ∆Q,
C CU0 0
K Z
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 12 of 21

For further analysis of the voltage amplitude loop, the model Formula (10) is linearized:
!
. σ 3β 2 κi κv Q0 κ κv
∆U = − U0 − − 1 ∆U − i ∆Q, (12)
2C 2 2CU0 2 2CU0
| {z } |{z}
K Z

with the nominal voltage U0 and the nominal reactive power Q0 . The block diagram of the VOC as the
averaged model is shown in Figure 16. The linearized Q/U-loop reduces to a PT1 element similar to
the electromagnetic behavior of the synchronous machine. In this way, 1/K corresponds to (xd − xd ′ )
and Z/K corresponds to the time constant Td0 ′ .
As already mentioned above, the state variable that correlates with the frequency is not included
in this method. Thus, the time constant is set to zero. The resulting P/f-control loop achieves a similar
effect as it is done by the angle feedforward (feedforward damping), which is known from Selfsync or
some virtual synchronous machine and voltage-controlled approaches.
In steady state, the accordance of droops (compare Figure 4) can be easily shown, which is:
κi κv
kp = , (13)
2CU0 2

2CU0 κi κv
kq = 4C − κ 2
, (14)
σ(3βU0 i κv Q0 − 2CU0 )

However, it is important to note that the inertia time constant equals zero. As a result,
an autonomous voltage phasor is formed, but it is not retarded, so it does not provide sufficient
inertial support.

f0 U0

𝜅𝑖 𝜅𝜐 ∆ϑ 𝑍/𝐾 - U
∆P
- 2𝜋 ∆Q
0 ∙ 𝑠 + 2𝐶𝑉0 𝑠 1/𝐾 ∙ 𝑠 + 1 ∆U
∆f
Figure 16. Block diagram of the VOC in averaged representation.

4.6. Matching Control

The core of matching control is the duality of the converter DC voltage and the generator angular
velocity [44,45]. A good explanation of this concept is given in [46], which is taken as the basis in the
following. A further, more analytical elaboration can be found in [47].
The idea of this concept is to treat the physical dc-link capacitor as storage in the same way as the
moment of inertia does. For this purpose, the dc-capacitor voltage is used to adjust the frequency of
the ac-converter bridge. The control law is given by [46]:
  
s + KT 2

ref 2
ω = ωg + s + KT ( UDC ) − U DC 2 , (15)
ω = ωg +KJ s + KD [(UDC )2 − (UDC ref
) ],
KJs + KD
where ω is the output frequency, ωg is the nominal or grid frequency and UDC is the dc-link voltage.
where ω is the
The control lawoutput frequency,
incorporates bothωthe dc-voltage regulation and the synchronization to the grid.
The overall functional principle is depicted in Figure 17. The control law in Equation (15) is
supplemented by (U)Q-droop, in order to regulate the amplitude.

1
I
ϑ
s

Ue ϑ

KQ
 KJs + KD
where ω is the output frequency, ω
where ω is the output frequency, ω

Energies 2020, 13, 2589 13 of 21

Pin Pout
ϑ Li I
UDC 1 PCC
Eqn. (15) ϑ
s
ϑ

DC-Link Ue jϑ
QE U0
Q0 - U
KQ

Figure 17. Functional principle of matching control according to [46].

Together with the power equation of the dc-capacitor, a relationship between power and voltage
phasor can be established (Figure 18). It describes the dynamics with which the voltage phasor is
adjusted. The parameter KJ is the inertia emulation coefficient, KT is responsible for the DC-link
voltage tracking and KD is the damping coefficient.

f0 U0
U0
ω0 (s + K T ) - 2 ∆ϑ U
∆Pout ∆Q KQ
ω C(DC s(K j s) + K D ) 2
s ∆ϑ ∆U U
∆ ∆Q
( ) s ∆
Figure 18. Voltage phasor dynamics of matching control.

4.7. PLL-Based Modified Current-Controlled Methods

There is an ongoing discussion in the scientific community regarding the need for a phase
locked loop (PLL) in grid-forming inverter types. Typically, grid-following inverters are associated
with a phase locked loop [48], whereas grid-forming control methods are assumed not to apply a
PLL [45], [49] or to apply it only for initial grid synchronization [27]. Another reference proposes
an improved grid-forming control approach by using frequency and angle measurements through a
PLL [50]. For parallel operation, all grid-forming units should incorporate some kind of synchronization
mechanism. The use of a PLL is therefore not necessarily a criterion against the grid-forming capability.
Even more, recent research showed that a power grid can be operated solely with an inverter using an
enhanced current-controlled control scheme [51]. Thus, we cannot say generally that grid-forming
units do not apply a PLL. This section will further analyze these aspects. It introduces the main concept
of using a PLL in order to provide an inherent inertial response with current-controlled inverters and
reports other approaches that make use of this concept.
The VSYNC project aimed to enable power system stability enhancement through inverters in
combination with short-term energy storage, providing an inertial-like active power response [3,52,53].
There, a grid-following control algorithm was equipped with a suitably parameterized PLL in order
to calculate an additional power set point for the inverter in analogy to a combination of the swing
Equation (2) in normalized notation and the transmission Equation (16). With Pe being the electrical
power between two voltage sources with amplitude U,E and angle ϑ1,2 over the inductive impedance Xi

U·E
Pe = sin(ϑ2 − ϑ1 ), (16)
Xi

the combination of both equations results in:

dω U·E
Jω0 = Pm − sin (ϑ2 − ϑ1 ). (17)
dt Xi | {z }
dϑ
 U∙E
Pe = sin(ϑ2 − ϑ1 ),
Xi

dω U∙E
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 Jω0 = Pm − sin (ϑ2 − ϑ1 ). 14 of 21
dt Xi
dϑ

With the PLL structure shown in Figure 19, while neglecting Kp and assuming the mechanical power
Pm in Equation (17) to be zero, the similarity of the PLL structure and Equation (17) becomes visible:

dωdω 11 U·E
U ∙ Esin(dϑ).
= −Ki KKd U1 sin(dϑ) = − (18)
dt dt = −K i d U1 sin(dϑ) = −Jω0 Xi
Jω X
sin(dϑ).
0 i

By choosing the PLL parameters Ki , Kd to

11 EE
Ki K=i = Jω; ; KdK=
d = , , (19)
Jω0 0 XiXi

the PLL describes the same transient behavior as the mechanical part of a synchronous machine,
which is connected to a transmission line. The derivative of the frequency as inherent output of the
PLL without explicit differentiation is used as an additional active power setpoint in order to provide
an inertial response [53].

−Pref

dϑ2
ω2 =
Uejϑ1 Phase- Ki dt 1 ϑ2
Kd
detector s s

−U sin(ϑ2 − ϑ1 )
Kp

Figure 19. Phase locked loop (PLL) structure for calculation of an additional active power setpoint for
inertial response of inverters according to [53].

The difference to other df/dt-based inertial response controllers is the calculation of the frequency
derivative. Here, the frequency derivative is automatically determined within a PLL. Other approaches
on the basis of current-controlled control algorithms [54,55], measure the frequency with a PLL,
filter this measurement value with a low-pass, and formulate the derivative as, e.g., a multiplication
with the Laplace operator s. The latter approach is therefore delayed, compared to the direct PLL-based
method. Hence, the relationship between frequency derivative and power injection of df/dt-based
inertial response controllers does not initially follow the swing equation.
In [56] a similar PLL-based method has been recently introduced. In contrast to [3,52,53], the loop
filter has been equipped with a proportional gain Kp for additional damping and to improve the
frequency detection speed, see Figure 19. However, the design of the PLL gain factors follows the
same approach.
Therefore, assuming fast adjustment of the given active power setpoint, the inner angle of
both introduced direct PLL-based methods corresponds to the swing equation, and they behave in
the same way as synchronous machines in their frequency/active power relation. As a conclusion,
an active power/frequency relation can be deduced (see Figure 20), similar to synchronous machines or
grid-forming inverters.
However, similar to the synchronization torque in synchronous machines, the synchronization
principle of the PLL with its inherent relationship between power and angle can be used in a more
suitable sense. Assuming the provided voltage phasor is generated using the information (especially
the angle) from the PLL in the form of a voltage feedforward, by tuning the parameters of the PLL,
the dynamics of the provided voltage phasor can be chosen. As a result, a retarded following voltage
phasor can be created according to the slowness of the PLL. In inductive coupled grids, the way the
PLL-parameters work, can be derived again from Figure 20.
This relationship is implicitly exploited in modified current-controlled approaches, e.g., [57–60].
There, the inner PI current control loop has been additionally reduced to a proportional control.
Otherwise, the integrator will eliminate the retarded adjustment of the provided voltage phasor.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 15 of 21

In general, the remaining proportional current controller acts as an additional resistive impedance
in series and is comparable to the concept of a virtual impedance. It introduces a further damping
against electro-magnetic resonances.
Furthermore, the amplitude of the voltage feedforward is delayed in [60]. The quadrature-
component of terminal voltage is omitted, because the provided voltage phasor is completely projected
to the direct axis, which in turn is adjusted smoothly according to the PLL. Hence, a relationship
between reactive current and voltage amplitude can be derived, which describes ω the impedance
ω ω
evolution in time as for example seen in the synchronous machine. The following considerations are in
close correspondence to Figure 8. ω
Under consideration of a small angle difference ϑ, the circuit equation yields for the (reactive)
current through the impedance Xi :
UPCC = U − Xi Ir , (20)
𝑎
assuming UPCC being the measured terminal voltage amplitude and U being the inverters 𝑎
voltage amplitude.
According to the delayed (PT1) feedforward of the measured voltage, the provided 𝑗𝑟 voltage
𝑗𝑟 by the
amplitude is a function of UPCC . In turn, the changes in the amplitude of UPCC are determined
reactive current flow, as seen in Figure 8.
As a result, the amplitude of the internal provided voltage of the inverter can be formulated in
relation to the reactive current flow:
1 Xi
∆U = 1 ∆UPCC = − X ∆Ir .
1 + Ts∆U
1
=−− T
X i i∙ s
∆U∆U== PCC=
∆UPCC ∆I∆I. . (21)
1+
1+ TsTs T∙sr r
T·s

In the Laplace domain, the initial state is not included, so that only the reaction after an impulse
is described. In addition, the initial voltage is taken into account here by U0 , which equals UPCC in
amplitude
idle mode oriscould
givenbeas adjusted
a functioninofterms
the reactive
of outercurrent
controldeviation ∆I
loops. Consequently, the provided voltage
amplitude is given as a function of the reactive current deviation ∆I
amplitude is given as a function of the reactive current Xi deviation ∆Ir from the nominal or initial value:
U = − X ∆Ir + U0 .
U=− T i∙ s∆I + U .
X
U = − iT∆I ∙ sr +r U0 . 0 (22)
T·s
The resulting block diagram (Figure 21) can be drawn from Equation (22). The interpretation is
that the impedance grows in time after an evoked reactive current step. The increase of the provided
voltage amplitude counteracts the cause for the current flow, so that in the closed loop, a negative
feedback is achieved. As a result, the inverter is led back to the operating point before the incident.
∆ ∆ω ∆ ϑ
∆Pout ω1 - ∆ω 1 ∆dϑ
Jω0 s s
-

Kp

Figure 20. Generalized transfer function between active power and voltage angle of PLL-based inertial
response methods.

U0

1 - U
∆Ir Xi U
T1∙ s
∆ Xi
T∙s
Figure 21. Generalized transfer function between reactive power and voltage amplitude of inverters
with modified grid current control.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 16 of 21

In combination with a PLL, which might be used according to the aforementioned relationship
(Figure 20), the modified current-controlled approaches in [57–60] can provide inertia and could also
control a grid without the existence of other grid-forming units. For substantial inertia contribution,
the PLL must be slowed down in order to cause a retarded response of the provided voltage phasor.
The reduction of the classical PI-control structure to a proportional control is a plausible adjustment
in order to soften the effect of the current control in favor of a slowly-following voltage feedforward.
The remaining proportional controller can be regarded as an increase in the available resistive
coupling impedance.
For further frequency support in [57–59] outer control loops have been implemented in order to
adjust active power set-points dependent on frequency deviation and frequency derivative. In such
case [51] demonstrates that even operating in stand-alone mode could be achieved. Therefore, inverters
with enhanced current-controlled approaches with PLL for frequency and angle detection are capable
of acting as grid-forming inverters. Further research on the performance is necessary.

4.8. Direct Power Control (DPC)

Another approach to be discussed is the so-called direct power control (DPC). It has in common
with many other approaches the fact that the output power flow is measured to adjust the internal
power-source voltage phasor. This idea of controlling the inverter’s output power directly, without a
dedicated current controller and PLL reaches back to [61]. In this approach, the switching pattern of the
three-phase bridge, producing the internal voltage phasor, is gained from the hysteresis comparators
and the position of the estimated output voltage. The optimal switching table can be found in [61].
The hysteresis controller leads to a variable switching frequency, which may cause challenges in
designing the output filter.
Although, a dedicated PLL is not used, the estimation of the output voltage gives the reference for
the phase angle. As a result, the standard DPC can be categorized as a grid-following method [62].
Based on this concept, [63] uses a virtual flux similar to [18] by integrating the voltage in order
to obtain the phase angle information. Due to the low-pass behavior of the integrator, a smooth and
retarded reaction to voltage disturbances is achieved [64]. This effect is comparable to that of a slowly
following PLL as described in Section 4.7. Moreover, in [64] this concept is developed further to DPC
with a rotating-frame PI controller and space vector modulation. By doing this, the drawback caused
by variable switching frequency is eliminated.
Recently, a grid-voltage modulated direct power control (GVM-DPC) was suggested [65,66].
In contrast to the approach in [64], the output voltage is directly used to apply a kind of inverse park
transform and gain the vector position [67]. Consequently, the tracking performance is improved,
since the delay of a PLL no longer prevails. However, the downside thereof is losing the beneficial
behavior of a well-designed PLL, e.g., filtering of harmonic perturbation or inertia provision as
discussed in Section 4.7. For weak grids, it was proposed to use a band-pass voltage filter for
harmonic stability improvement, which in turn produces again a delay for the vector positioning [68].
Furthermore, reference [65] demonstrates the performance of the GVM-DPC after a sudden frequency
variation. The result is that even transiently no power deviation occurred. Hence, the inverter perfectly
follows the grid voltage angle to attain its operation point. In other words, without any retarded
voltage vector positioning, this technique acts as a grid-following inverter.
Another approach that is referenced as direct power control can be found in [69]. The control
scheme is given in Figure 22. There are two loops, i.e., the reactive power loop to control the voltage
amplitude and the active power loop to control the angle. The voltage amplitude does not follow fast
variations. After a sudden change on the grid-side, it retains its value. According to the time constant
T of the integrator, the previous operating point is slowly adjusted.
It should be noted that the angle ϑc is the phase angle shift related to the PLL angle θpll . Hence,
a retarded adjustment of the controlled angle ϑc is undermined, when the PLL follows the grid voltage
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 17 of 21

too quickly. Thus, for analyzing the overall control performance, the dynamics of the PLL is of great
importance. A closer look into the PLL and its parameterization is not given in the Reference.
However, if the PLL is designed in the aforementioned manner (see Section 4.7), an inherent
reaction with active power injection is given, because of the retarded following of the grid angle.
With some time delay, the PI controller behind adjusts the former operating point, due to the integral part
of the controller. The proportional part serves as a type of feedforward control. With a well-designed
PLL for the purpose of a damped inertia contribution, the proportional part could be neglected.
The authors would like to emphasize that this method does not generally have a grid-forming
capability. However, with a well-designed PLL, damped inertia contribution and even a stand-alone
operation could be realized.

fpll
fref -

1 Li I PCC
Rd

Pref G θpll
+G
- Js ϑc ud
P q dq
U
ϑ uq U
U d αβ
Qref 1
- Ts
Q

Figure 22. Direct power control according to [69].

5. Conclusions and Outlook

Both, synchronous machines and suitably controlled static converters with sufficient energy
reserves can autonomously form the grid voltage and provide electrical inertia. Grid-forming inverters
which incorporate electrical inertia can be realized with different control methods. Several approaches
have been reviewed and the dynamic behavior of the provided voltage phasor was analyzed for both
voltage amplitude and voltage angle. In most cases, the dynamic behavior was described in the form
of a transfer block diagram from the active and reactive power (or current) to the provided voltage
angle and amplitude, respectively. In that way, an illustrative representation in terms of the dynamic
order or damping capability was given.
The retardedly following voltage angle is a key property of grid-forming inverters.
In predominately inductive grids, such inverters inherently provide electrical inertia. The contribution
to momentary reserve can be defined directly through the retarded reaction of the voltage phasor.
All mentioned methods could form a retardedly following voltage angle, except for the virtual oscillator
circuit and fast phase-locked-loops (PLL). Additionally, most of them leverage a feedforward damping
in any case, which is equally as effective as the damper windings in synchronous machines, but with
the notable difference that these parameters are not restricted to physical construction limits. Free from
these physical restrictions, electrical power systems could be more freely designed concerning their
time constants and damping performance.
The voltage amplitude branch is more difficult to deduce and analyze, since two opposite
operational modes have to be considered: the reactive control and the voltage amplitude control
at the point of common coupling. In case of the droop control, a reactive power value is used as
feedback. Thus, the derivation of a dynamic transfer function from the reactive power to the amplitude
of the voltage phasor is straightforward. In contrast, in approaches with a feedback of a voltage
value, an analogy is not obvious. This was solved using the assumption that in inductive networks,
the voltage amplitude deviation at the terminals is a function of the reactive current flow, so that
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 18 of 21

again a relation between reactive current or power and the provided voltage amplitude is established.
Voltage droop control has the aim of defining the reactance for the reactive current component in order
to increase the reactive power sharing. In case of weak grids or in case of electrically distant power
sources, the control of the voltage amplitude at the point of common coupling is reasonable, so that
both modes have their application. Depending on the grid situation, either one or the other mode is
preferable. In all cases, the control action can be interpreted as an impedance evolution in time after a
reactive current step, either in a positive or in a negative direction. This was illustrated here in the
form of a dynamic transfer function from reactive current to the amplitude of the internally provided
voltage phasor.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.U., M.N. and P.S.; methodology, P.U. and M.N.; formal analysis, P.U.,
M.N. and F.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.U., M.N. and F.W.; writing—review and editing, P.S., M.N.
and P.U.; visualization, P.U., M.U. and F.W.; supervision, P.S.; project administration, P.S.; funding acquisition, P.S.
All authors agree to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: We acknowledge the support of our work by the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
and the Projekträger Jülich within the project “Control and Stability in Inverter Dominated Interconnected
Systems-Grid Control 2.0” (FKZ 0350023A). Only the authors are responsible for the content of this publication.
This paper does not necessarily reflect the consolidated opinion of the project consortium “Netzregelung 2.0”.
The founding sponsor had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data;
in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.
Conflicts of Interest: The employer (non-profit research institute) of the authors is patent holder of one of the
listed grid-forming control approaches (Selfsync). The patent expires in August 2021.

References
1. Engler, A.; Hardt, C.; Strauss, P.; Vandenbergh, M. Parallel Operation of Generators for Stand-Alone
Single-Phase Hybrid Systems—First Implementation of a new control Technology. In Proceedings of the 17th
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, München, Germany, 22–26 October 2001; WIP-Renewable
Energies: Munich, Germany, 2001; pp. 2690–2693.
2. Visscher, K.; de Haan, S.W.H. Virtual synchronous machines (VSG’s) for frequency stabilisation in future
grids with a significant share of decentralized generation. In Proceedings of the CIRED Seminar 2008:
SmartGrids for Distribution, Frankfurt, Germany, 23–24 June 2008; pp. 334–337.
3. Engler, A.; Haas, O.; Kansteiner, B.; Raptis, F.; Sachau, J.; Zacharias, P. Control of Parallel Working Power
Units in Expandable Grids. In Proceedings of the 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference,
Barcelona, Spain, 30 June–4 July 1997; Ossenbrink, H.A., Helm, P., Ehmann, H., Eds.; H.S. Stephens &
Associates: Bedfort, UK, 1997; pp. 2029–2032.
4. Anderson, P.M.; Fouad, A.-A.A. Power System Control and Stability, 2nd ed.; IEEE Press, Wiley-Interscience:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2003; ISBN 9780471238621.
5. Park, R.H. Two-reaction theory of synchronous machines generalized method of analysis-part I. Trans. Am.
Inst. Electr. Eng. 1929, 48, 716–727. [CrossRef]
6. Milano, F. Power System Modelling and Scripting; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; ISBN 3642136680.
7. Weckesser, T.; Johannsson, H.; Ostergaard, J. Impact of model detail of synchronous machines on real-time
transient stability assessment. In Proceedings of the 2013 IREP Symposium Bulk Power System Dynamics
and Control—IX Optimization, Security and Control of Emerging Power Grid (IREP), Rethymnon, Crete,
Greece, 25–30 August 2013; Voumas, C., Ed.; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013.
8. Prabha, K. Power System Stability and Control, 1st ed.; McGraw-Hill: Hightstown, NJ, USA, 1994.
9. Machowski, J.; Lubosny, Z.; Bialek, J.W.; Bumby, J.R. Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control, 3rd ed.;
John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; ISBN 9781119526346.
10. Van Cutsem, T.; Bo̺νάς, K. Voltage Stability of Electric Power Systems, 1st ed.; Springer Science + Business
Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; ISBN 9780792381396.
11. Sauer, P.W.; Pai, M.A. Power System Dynamics and Stability, updated ed.; Stipes Publishing L.L.C: Champaign,
IL, USA, 2006; ISBN 9781588746733.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 19 of 21

12. Crastan, V.; Westermann, D. Elektrische Energieversorgung 3. Dynamik, Regelung und Stabilität, Versorgungsqualität,
Netzplanung, Betriebsplanung und -Führung, Leit- und Informationstechnik, FACTS, HGÜ, 3rd ed.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; ISBN 3642201008.
13. Crastan, V. Elektrische Energieversorgung 1. Netzelemente, Modellierung, Stationäres Verhalten, Bemessung, Schalt-
und Schutztechnik, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; ISBN 366245985X.
14. Oeding, D.; Oswald, B.R. Elektrische Kraftwerke und Netze, 7th ed.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2011;
ISBN 3642192459.
15. Alberto, A. Arrangement of Parallel Static AC Power Sources Proportions. U.S. Patent 3864620A, 11
September 1973.
16. Torres, L.A.B.; Hespanha, J.P.; Moehlis, J. Power supply synchronization without communication.
In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 22–26
July 2012.
17. Kawabata, T.; Higashino, S. Parallel operation of voltage source inverters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1988, 24,
281–287. [CrossRef]
18. Chandorkar, M.C.; Divan, D.M.; Adapa, R. Control of parallel connected inverters in standalone AC supply
systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1993, 29, 136–143. [CrossRef]
19. Tayab, U.B.; Roslan, M.A.B.; Hwai, L.J.; Kashif, M. A review of droop control techniques for microgrid.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 717–727. [CrossRef]
20. Engler, A. Device for Parallel Operation of Equal Range Single-Phase or Three-Phase Voltage Sources.
EP1286444B1, 21 August 2001.
21. Engler, A. Regelung von Batteriestromrichtern in Modularen und Erweiterbaren Inselnetzen. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universität Kassel, Kassel, Germany, 2002.
22. De Brabandere, K.; Bolsens, B.; van den Keybus, J.; Woyte, A.; Driesen, J.; Belmans, R. A voltage and frequency
droop control method for parallel inverters. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2007, 22, 1107–1115. [CrossRef]
23. Yajuan, G.; Weiyang, W.; Xiaoqiang, G.; Herong, G. An improved droop controller for grid-connected voltage
source inverter in microgrid. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Power Electronics
for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), Hefei, China, 16–18 June 2010; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010;
pp. 823–828.
24. Guerrero, J.M.; GarciadeVicuna, L.; Matas, J.; Castilla, M.; Miret, J. A wireless controller to enhance dynamic
performance of parallel inverters in distributed generation systems. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2004, 19,
1205–1213. [CrossRef]
25. Yao, W.; Chen, M.; Matas, J.; Guerrero, J.M.; Qian, Z.-M. Design and analysis of the droop control method
for parallel inverters considering the impact of the complex impedance on the power sharing. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 576–588. [CrossRef]
26. Wang, X.; Blaabjerg, F.; Chen, Z. An improved design of virtual output impedance loop for droop-controlled
parallel three-phase voltage source inverters. In Proceedings of the IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition (ECCE), Raleigh, NC, USA, 15–20 September 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 2466–2473.
27. Zhang, L.; Harnefors, L.; Nee, H.-P. Power-synchronization control of grid-connected voltage-source
converters. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2010, 25, 809–820. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, L. Modeling and Control of VSC-HVDC Links Connected to Weak AC Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.
29. Remon, D.; Cantarellas, A.M.; Rakhshani, E.; Candela, I.; Rodriguez, P. An active power synchronization
control loop for grid-connected converters. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting, National Harbor, MD, USA, 27–31 July 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014.
30. Laudahn, S.; Seidel, J.; Engel, B.; Bulo, T.; Premm, D. Substitution of synchronous generator based
instantaneous frequency control utilizing inverter-coupled DER. In Proceedings of the 7th International
Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), Vancouver, BC, Canada,
27–30 June 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016.
31. Hesse, R.; Turschner, D.; Beck, H.-P. Micro grid stabilization using the Virtual Synchronous Machine (VISMA).
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power, Valencia, Spain, 15–17
April 2009.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 20 of 21

32. Glockler, C.; Duckwitz, D.; Welck, F. Virtual synchronous machine control with virtual resistor for enhanced
short circuit capability. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference
Europe (ISGT-Europe), Torino, Italy, 26–29 September 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
33. Zhong, Q.-C.; Weiss, G. Synchronverters: Inverters That Mimic Synchronous Generators. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 1259–1267. [CrossRef]
34. D’Arco, S.; Suul, J.A. Virtual synchronous machines—Classification of implementations and analysis of
equivalence to droop controllers for microgrids. In Proceedings of the IEEE Grenoble PowerTech, Grenoble,
France, 16–20 June 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013.
35. D’Arco, S.; Suul, J.A. Equivalence of Virtual Synchronous Machines and Frequency-Droops for
Converter-Based MicroGrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 394–395. [CrossRef]
36. Beck, H.-P.; Hesse, R. Virtual synchronous machine. In Proceedings of the 2007 9th International Conference
on Electrical Power Quality and Utilisation, Barcelona, Spain, 9–11 October 2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2007; pp. 1–6.
37. Chen, Y.; Hesse, R.; Turschner, D.; Beck, H.-P. Investigation of the Virtual Synchronous Machine in the island
mode. In Proceedings of the 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe),
Berlin, Germany, 14–17 October 2012; IEEE, Ed.; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 1–6.
38. Ebrahimi, M.; Khajehoddin, S.A.; Karimi-Ghartemani, M. An Improved Damping Method for Virtual
Synchronous Machines. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2019, 10, 1491–1500. [CrossRef]
39. Dong, S.; Chen, Y.C. Adjusting Synchronverter Dynamic Response Speed via Damping Correction Loop.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017, 32, 608–619. [CrossRef]
40. D’Arco, S.; Suul, J.A.; Fosso, O.B. A Virtual Synchronous Machine implementation for distributed control of
power converters in SmartGrids. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2015, 122, 180–197. [CrossRef]
41. Sinha, M.; Dorfler, F.; Johnson, B.B.; Dhople, S.V. Uncovering droop control laws embedded within the
nonlinear dynamics of Van der Pol oscillators. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 2017, 4, 347–358. [CrossRef]
42. Johnson, B.B.; Sinha, M.; Ainsworth, N.G.; Dorfler, F.; Dhople, S.V. Synthesizing virtual oscillators to control
islanded inverters. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2016, 31, 6002–6015. [CrossRef]
43. Johnson, B.; Rodriguez, M.; Sinha, M.; Dhople, S. Comparison of virtual oscillator and droop control.
In Proceedings of the IEEE 18th Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL),
Stanford, CA, USA, 9–14 July 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
44. Cvetkovic, I.; Boroyevich, D.; Burgos, R.; Li, C.; Mattavelli, P. Modeling and control of grid-connected
voltage-source converters emulating isotropic and anisotropic synchronous machines. In Proceedings of the
IEEE 16th Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL), Vancouver, BC, Canada,
12–15 July 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
45. Milano, F.; Dorfler, F.; Hug, G.; Hill, D.J.; Verbic, G. Foundations and challenges of low-inertia systems
(Invited Paper). In Proceedings of the 2018 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Dublin, Ireland,
11–15 June 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
46. Huang, L.; Xin, H.; Wang, Z.; Wu, K.; Wang, H.; Hu, J.; Lu, C. A virtual synchronous control for voltage-source
converters utilizing dynamics of DC-Link capacitor to realize self-synchronization. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top.
Power Electron. 2017, 5, 1565–1577. [CrossRef]
47. Jouini, T.; Arghir, C.; Dörfler, F. Grid-friendly matching of synchronous machines by tapping into the DC
storage. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016, 49, 192–197. [CrossRef]
48. Lasseter, R.; Chen, Z.; Pattabiraman, D. Grid-Forming Inverters: A Critical Asset for the Power Grid. IEEE J.
Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2020, 8, 925–935. [CrossRef]
49. Mo, O.; D’Arco, S.; Suul, J.A. Evaluation of Virtual Synchronous Machines with Dynamic or Quasi-Stationary
Machine Models. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 5952–5962. [CrossRef]
50. Rokrok, E.; Qoria, T.; Bruyere, A.; Francois, B.; Guillaud, X. Effect of Using PLL-Based Grid-Forming Control
on Active Power Dynamics Under Various SCR. In Proceedings of the IECON 2019—45th Annual Conference
of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–17 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA,
2019; pp. 4799–4804.
51. Duckwitz, D. Power System Inertia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Kassel, Kassel, Germany, 2019.
52. Karapanos, V.; de Haan, S.; Zwetsloot, K. Real time simulation of a power system with VSG hardware in the
loop. In Proceedings of the IECON 2011—37th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
Melbourne, Vic, Australia, 7–10 November 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 3748–3754.
Energies 2020, 13, 2589 21 of 21

53. Van Wesenbeeck, M.P.N.; de Haan, S.W.H.; Varela, P.; Visscher, K. Grid tied converter with virtual kinetic
storage. In Proceedings of the IEEE Bucharest PowerTech (POWERTECH) 2009, Bucharest, Romania,
28 June–2 July 2009; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009.
54. Duckwitz, D. Performance of df/dt-based inertia control during emergency islanding. In Proceedings of the
15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna, Austria, 15–17 November 2016; Betancourt, U., Ackermann, T., Eds.;
Energynautics GmbH: Darmstadt, Germany, 2016.
55. Duckwitz, D.; Fischer, B. Modeling and design of df/dt -based inertia control for power converters. IEEE J.
Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2017, 5, 1553–1564. [CrossRef]
56. Laudahn, S. Dynamisches Verhalten von Wechselrichterbasierten Erzeugungsanlagen im Kontext Eines
Sicheren und Stabilen Netzbetriebs. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, 2017.
57. Erlich, I.; Korai, A. Study on the minimum share of conventional generation units required for stable
operation of future converter-dominated grids. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (PESGM), Portland, OR, USA, 5–10 August 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
58. Erlich, I.; Korai, A.; Neumann, T.; Koochack Zadeh, M.; Vogt, S.; Buchhagen, C.; Rauscher, C.; Menze, A.;
Jung, J. New control of wind turbines ensuring stable and secure operation following islanding of wind
farms. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017, 32, 1263–1271. [CrossRef]
59. Korai, A.W.; Erlich, I. Frequency dependent voltage control by DER units to improve power system frequency
stability. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Eindhoven PowerTech, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 29 June–2
July 2015; pp. 1–6.
60. Winter, P.; Wrede, H. Impact of power converter control on transient stability of power systems. In Proceedings
of the Conference on Sustainable Energy Supply and Energy Storage Systems, Hamburg, Germany, 20–21
September 2018; Schulz, D., Ed.; VDE Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
61. Noguchi, T.; Tomiki, H.; Kondo, S.; Takahashi, I. Direct power control of PWM converter without power-source
voltage sensors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1998, 34, 473–479. [CrossRef]
62. Wang, X.; Guerrero, J.M.; Blaabjerg, F.; Chen, Z. A Review of Power Electronics Based Microgrids.
J. Power Electron. 2012, 12, 181–192. [CrossRef]
63. Malinowski, M.; Kazmierkowski, M.P.; Hansen, S.; Blaabjerg, F.; Marques, G.D. Virtual-flux-based direct
power control of three-phase PWM rectifiers. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2001, 37, 1019–1027. [CrossRef]
64. Malinowski, M.; Jasinski, M.; Kazmierkowski, M.P. Simple Direct Power Control of Three-Phase PWM
Rectifier Using Space-Vector Modulation (DPC-SVM). IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2004, 51, 447–454. [CrossRef]
65. Gui, Y.; Kim, C.; Chung, C.C.; Guerrero, J.M.; Guan, Y.; Vasquez, J.C. Improved Direct Power Control for
Grid-Connected Voltage Source Converters. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 8041–8051. [CrossRef]
66. Gui, Y.; Wang, X.; Wu, H.; Blaabjerg, F. Voltage-Modulated Direct Power Control for a Weak Grid-Connected
Voltage Source Inverters. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2019, 34, 11383–11395. [CrossRef]
67. Gui, Y.; Wang, X.; Blaabjerg, F.; Pan, D. Control of Grid-Connected Voltage-Source Converters:
The Relationship Between Direct-Power Control and Vector-Current Control. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2019,
13, 31–40. [CrossRef]
68. Gui, Y.; Wang, X.; Blaabjerg, F. Vector Current Control Derived from Direct Power Control for Grid-Connected
Inverters. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2019, 34, 9224–9235. [CrossRef]
69. Ndreko, M.; Rüberg, S.; Winter, W. Grid forming control for stable power systems with up to 100% inverter
based generation: A paradigm scenario using the IEEE 118-Bus system. In Proceedings of the 17th Wind
Integration Workshop, Stockholm, Sweden, 17–19 October 2018; Betancourt, U., Ackermann, T., Eds.;
Energynautics GmbH: Darmstadt, Germany, 2018.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).