Comparison of Grid-Following and Grid-Forming Inverters Performance for Frequency Stability in Power Systems: A Dynamic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant growth of the share of inverterbased resources in transmission power grids has led to changes in the dynamic nature of the power network. One of these changes is the significant reduction of network inertia and its direct impact on the frequency stability of the network. Therefore, it is necessary to provide appropriate control systems for inverter-based resources to maintain frequency stability. Accordingly, this article aims to compare and study the performance of several controllers based on the concepts of, 1) grid following inverters, such as decoupled-PQ and WECC. 2) grid-forming inverters, such as Synchronverter, droop, and virtual synchronous machine. To compare the performance of these control methods, frequency stability indicators such as rate of change of frequency and Nadir frequency have been used. Also, the constraints of the protection system (frequency relays) have been considered to assess the performance of these controllers in the primary frequency control loop. The results of dynamic simulations performed in the IEEE 39-Bus test system show, based on the nadir frequency index and the limitations of the protection system in the primary control loop, that the grid-forming controllers have performed better than the grid-following controllers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".