Replacing Grid-Following VSCs with Grid-Forming VSCs: Tolerance Against Measurement Errors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the stability issues associated with grid-following converters, the trend of research in alternating current (AC)-DC (direct current) power systems has turned toward further utilization of grid-forming (GFM) converters instead of grid-following (GFL) converters. As a result, the parallel connection of GFL and GFM converters has been the topic of several research papers recently. Although it has been shown that the replacement of a GFL converter with a GFM converter improves stability; there are several other aspects that need to be further studied. One of these aspects corresponds to the impact of perturbed measurements in the control system of one of the converters on the adjacent converter’s operation, due to interactions between the GFL and GFM converter. In this paper, the scenario where the control system receives perturbed AC voltage and active power measurements is evaluated. The impact of measurement errors in the GFL(GFM) converter on the adjacent GFM(GFL) converter is separately studied. The analysis shows that receiving perturbed voltage measurements in the GFM converter significantly impacts the operation of the adjacent GFL converter. On the other hand, likely perturbations in the measurement of the GFL converter do not impede the operation of the GFM converter. Therefore, the voltage sensor/transmitter of the GFM converter must be carefully monitored and protected. The conclusions are confirmed using time-domain simulations in the EMT/SIMULINK environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".