Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems

Publicly accessible License 

This paper investigates the stability of low-inertia microgrid systems with two control strategies that have different percentages of grid-forming (GFM) inverters. The first control strategy has approximately 50% GFM inverters, and all the battery inverters are working in GFM control mode. Originally, the second control strategy has approximately 10% GFM inverters, with only two battery inverters working in GFM control mode and the rest working in grid-following (GFL) PQ control mode based on current control, which cannot stabilize the microgrid system. Then, the second control strategy is modified to change the GFM inverters from droop control to isochronous control and the GFL battery inverters from traditional current control to voltage control for power control. Both control strategies can maintain system stability; however, the first control strategy can better handle contingency events. The study indicates that 1) a microgrid system with a higher percentage of GFM inverters has better stability; and 2) a microgrid with a lower percentage of GFM inverters can have poor stability, but improved control strategies in inverters can improve system stability. This study improves the understanding of how different percentages of GFM inverters and inverter control strategies affect the system stability of low-inertia microgrids.

Citation Formats

TY - DATA AB - This paper investigates the stability of low-inertia microgrid systems with two control strategies that have different percentages of grid-forming (GFM) inverters. The first control strategy has approximately 50% GFM inverters, and all the battery inverters are working in GFM control mode. Originally, the second control strategy has approximately 10% GFM inverters, with only two battery inverters working in GFM control mode and the rest working in grid-following (GFL) PQ control mode based on current control, which cannot stabilize the microgrid system. Then, the second control strategy is modified to change the GFM inverters from droop control to isochronous control and the GFL battery inverters from traditional current control to voltage control for power control. Both control strategies can maintain system stability; however, the first control strategy can better handle contingency events. The study indicates that 1) a microgrid system with a higher percentage of GFM inverters has better stability; and 2) a microgrid with a lower percentage of GFM inverters can have poor stability, but improved control strategies in inverters can improve system stability. This study improves the understanding of how different percentages of GFM inverters and inverter control strategies affect the system stability of low-inertia microgrids. AU - Wang, Jing A2 - Saraswat, Govind DB - C-MIX - Community Microgrid Information Exchange DP - Open EI | National Laboratory of the Rockies DO - 10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525 KW - Power electronics and inverters KW - Power electronics KW - Inverters KW - Solar KW - Photovoltaics KW - PV KW - Diesel generators KW - Other liquid-fuel generators KW - Battery energy storage KW - Power plant controls KW - SCADA KW - Standards KW - Interconnection KW - Protection KW - Local energy resources (LER) LA - English DA - 2022/01/01 PY - 2022 PB - NLR T1 - Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems UR - https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525 ER -
Export Citation to RIS
Wang, Jing, and Govind Saraswat. Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems. NLR, 1 January, 2022, C-MIX - Community Microgrid Information Exchange. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525.
Wang, J., & Saraswat, G. (2022). Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems. [Data set]. C-MIX - Community Microgrid Information Exchange. NLR. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525
Wang, Jing and Govind Saraswat. Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems. NLR, January, 1, 2022. Distributed by C-MIX - Community Microgrid Information Exchange. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525
@misc{CMIX_Dataset_63, title = {Study of Inverter Control Strategies on the Stability of Low-Inertia Microgrid Systems}, author = {Wang, Jing and Saraswat, Govind}, abstractNote = { This paper investigates the stability of low-inertia microgrid systems with two control strategies that have different percentages of grid-forming (GFM) inverters. The first control strategy has approximately 50\% GFM inverters, and all the battery inverters are working in GFM control mode. Originally, the second control strategy has approximately 10\% GFM inverters, with only two battery inverters working in GFM control mode and the rest working in grid-following (GFL) PQ control mode based on current control, which cannot stabilize the microgrid system. Then, the second control strategy is modified to change the GFM inverters from droop control to isochronous control and the GFL battery inverters from traditional current control to voltage control for power control. Both control strategies can maintain system stability; however, the first control strategy can better handle contingency events. The study indicates that 1) a microgrid system with a higher percentage of GFM inverters has better stability; and 2) a microgrid with a lower percentage of GFM inverters can have poor stability, but improved control strategies in inverters can improve system stability. This study improves the understanding of how different percentages of GFM inverters and inverter control strategies affect the system stability of low-inertia microgrids.}, url = {https://cmix.openei.org/submissions/63}, year = {2022}, howpublished = {C-MIX - Community Microgrid Information Exchange, NLR, https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525}, note = {Accessed: 2026-06-13}, doi = {10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525} }
https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968525

Details

Data from Jan 1, 2022

Last updated Mar 30, 2026

Submitted Jun 2, 2026

Organization

NLR

Contact

Jing Wang

Authors

Jing Wang

NLR

Govind Saraswat

NLR
Submission Downloads