Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Designing grid-forming DC-link control around the primary energy source's real dynamics keeps converters online after power shocks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 12:41 UTC pith:UNZKT2NP

load-bearing objection Solid device-level GFM DC-link paper: dual PES/converter actuation with non-ideal PES in the design model, clean ablation, and EMT match—incremental vs [16] but usable and honest about scope. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28270 v1 pith:UNZKT2NP submitted 2026-07-30 eess.SY cs.SY

Grid-Forming Converter DC-link Control Considering the Primary Energy Source

Carlo de Paolis Robles , Andr\'es Tom\'as-Mart\'in , Ignacio Egido , Aurelio Garc\'ia-Cerrada This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.SY
keywords grid-formingDC-link voltage controlprimary energy sourcegenetic algorithmvirtual synchronous machineconverter disconnectioninertia emulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Most grid-forming converter designs treat the DC power source as ideal and instant. This paper shows that is unsafe: when the primary energy source is slow or limited, a sudden AC-side imbalance can drive the DC-link voltage outside safe bounds and trip the converter. The authors propose a supervisory layer that acts on both sides at once—a restoration loop that slowly corrects the energy source setpoint, and a transient-protection loop that quickly reduces the converter's output power reference—so the DC capacitor stays inside hard voltage limits while the unit still supplies inertial and primary-frequency support. Controller gains are found by a genetic algorithm on a reduced-order model that includes a first-order energy-source lag, then checked on a full electromagnetic-transient model. The practical claim is that explicit inclusion of source dynamics at design time measurably lowers disconnection risk after load steps.

Core claim

When primary-energy-source dynamics and power limits are included in DC-link controller design, a coordinated pair of loops—one restoring DC voltage through the energy source, one protecting the capacitor by temporarily cutting converter output power—keeps squared DC-link voltage inside the admissible band under sudden AC load imbalances and thereby reduces the chance that a grid-forming converter disconnects, whereas acting on only one side fails the same constraints.

What carries the argument

The dual-loop supervisory architecture (PI restoration on the primary-energy-source setpoint plus PD transient protection on the converter output-power reference), with gains obtained by a genetic algorithm that minimizes integral absolute errors on power tracking and DC voltage subject to hard saturation and voltage-limit penalties.

Load-bearing premise

That a first-order lag for the primary energy source and a first-order lag for the whole converter cascade are faithful enough that gains tuned on the simplified model still keep a real converter inside voltage limits under the disturbances that matter.

What would settle it

Run the same load-step tests (and more severe ones such as faults) on a laboratory grid-forming converter whose primary source has a measured, non-first-order response: if the dual-loop gains from the reduced model still keep DC voltage inside the 0.7–1.15 p.u. band while single-sided designs trip, the claim holds; otherwise it fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Grid-forming specifications and type tests should require explicit modeling of primary-source response time and power limits, not only AC-side inertia settings.
  • Operators can keep more converter-based resources online after imbalances by coordinating DC-side restoration with temporary AC power cutbacks rather than relying on capacitor energy alone.
  • Controller retuning is required when operating point, reserve, DC capacitance, or source time constant change materially; a single fixed gain set is not universal.
  • Larger credible imbalances force slower AC-side power recovery if source energy is limited, so connectivity-first tuning trades response speed for ride-through.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same dual-loop idea could be re-cast as a constrained model-predictive layer if online computation becomes cheap enough for the millisecond time scale.
  • Multi-machine grids with heterogeneous source time constants may need coordinated or hierarchical versions of this supervisor so that slow units do not force neighboring fast units into unnecessary power cutbacks.
  • If primary sources routinely cannot ramp inside roughly one second, grid codes may have to pair grid-forming mandates with minimum DC energy or storage requirements rather than treating inertia as a pure software setting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dual supervisory DC-link control for grid-forming VSCs that coordinates a PI restoration loop on the primary energy source (PES) setpoint with a PD transient-protection loop on the converter active-power setpoint, explicitly modeling PES dynamics as a first-order lag rather than an ideal source. Controller gains are obtained by a Genetic Algorithm that minimizes a weighted IAE objective with hard penalties on DC-link voltage and power limits, first on a reduced-order plant (first-order converter and PES lags, DC inertia from the capacitor energy balance) and then checked on a detailed EMT VSM model for a 0.1 p.u. load step. An ablation in §3.4.2 argues that PES-only or converter-only PID designs violate the same constraints, while nine operating-point/step cases on the simplified model keep the squared DC voltage inside the design window when gains are re-optimized per case.

Significance. The work addresses a genuine gap: most GFM DC-link studies assume an unconstrained or instantaneous PES, which can misrepresent available DC-side power in transients and the risk of DC undervoltage trips. The dual-loop role separation (integral restoration on the PES, non-integral PD protection on the AC setpoint), the constraint-aware GA formulation, the structural ablation showing both sides are needed, and the simplified-vs-EMT match for the base case are concrete contributions. A public EMT case repository is provided, which supports reproducibility. Within the stated simulation scope the result is useful for device-level GFM design; broader system-level impact (faults, SCR variation, multi-machine interaction) is left to future work and should be read as such.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4.3, Table 5, Eqs. (18)–(19)] §3.4.3 and Table 5 conflict with the formal limits in Eqs. (18)–(19) and §2.2. The optimization enforces (0.7)² < u²_dc < (1.15)², yet the text states that “u²_dc must be greater than or equal to 0.72 p.u.” and Table 5 reports minima of 0.6834, 0.6971 and 0.7090 while still claiming robustness. Either the table is u_dc (not u²_dc), the 0.72 threshold is a typo for 0.49, or some large-step cases violate the authors’ own narrative criterion. Please align notation, axis labels (Fig. 5), table header, and the pass/fail statement so constraint satisfaction is unambiguous.
  2. [§3.3, §3.4.3, Abstract] The nine-case study assigns a distinct (Kp,PES, Ki,PES, Kp,out, Kd,out) set to each (pload-ini, Δpload) pair rather than testing one gain set across conditions (§3.4.3; also §3.3: gains “must be re-optimized” if the operating point changes). The abstract and resilience wording can be read as claiming a controller that remains safe under sudden imbalances in general. Please either (i) demonstrate a single conservative tuning (e.g., largest credible step) on the milder steps and other initial setpoints, or (ii) explicitly reframe the contribution as per-operating-point GA design and qualify the resilience claim accordingly.
  3. [§4, Fig. 8; §3.4.2–3.4.3] EMT validation in §4 and Fig. 8 covers only the base 0.1 p.u. step at pload-ini = 0.5. The multi-point minima and settling times in Tables 5–6, and the PES-only / out-only failures in §3.4.2, are reported solely on the reduced model built under the three hypotheses of §2.1.2 and TPES ≈ 1 s. Given that the strongest claim is connectivity under power imbalances with a non-ideal PES, at least the more stressed simplified cases (e.g., Δpload = 0.2) and one single-sided failure case should be repeated on the EMT model, or the validation scope should be stated more narrowly in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 marks this article with GA under Design method and ticks PESd/PESc, but several comparison columns for prior work are blank or only footnoted; a short legend pass would make the claimed novelty versus [16] and the NMPC/backstepping line easier to audit.
  2. [§2.1.2] Hypotheses 1–3 in §2.1.2 justify Tc ≈ 100 ms from [29], but the reduced plant never reintroduces inner-loop or Q–V dynamics even as a sensitivity check. A brief remark on when the dominant-pole reduction would break (weak grids, aggressive voltage droop) would help readers bound applicability.
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (14)–(20)] Penalty weight 1000 and bounds in (20) are stated without tuning rationale; one sentence on how sensitive the GA solution is to the penalty coefficient would strengthen §3.2.
  4. [Figure 2, §2.2] Figure 2 is readable but the feedforward path and the sign inversion into PD-out are easy to miss; labeling Δu²_dc and the [−1,0] range of Δpout-sp on the diagram would match the text in §2.2.
  5. [§2] Minor wording/typos: “theinteractionsbetweenthePES” and similar spacing artifacts in §2; “casestudy” in the same section; ensure consistent u_dc vs u²_dc notation everywhere.
  6. [§1, §5] Future-work items (lab validation, short-circuit faults, SCR, multi-machine) are appropriate; consider citing them once in the introduction when scoping the present claim so readers do not over-interpret the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GA-tuned dual-loop DC-link control is ordinary constrained optimization plus independent EMT/ablation checks, not a by-construction prediction.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is: (i) reduce GFM cascade and PES to first-order lags under stated hypotheses (§2.1.2–2.1.3); (ii) coordinate PI-PES restoration with PD-out transient protection on Δu²dc (Fig. 2); (iii) tune four gains by minimizing IAE of pout and u²dc plus hard penalties on voltage/power bounds (Eqs. 13–22); (iv) show single-sided PID-out or PID-PES fail the same constraints (§3.4.2); (v) re-simulate the base gains on a full-order EMT VSM not used inside the GA (§4, Fig. 8). None of these steps equates a claimed prediction to its defining input. The fitness J is an explicit design objective, not a physical constant fitted then re-presented as discovery; success against penalties and the ablation are independent of renaming the objective. Self-citations ([29], [47], [48]) supply a previously lab-checked GFM plant model, a parameter repo, and a simulation tool—they do not import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the dual-loop result. Scope limits (TPES≈1 s, load-step-only tests) are assumptions about generality, not circular reductions. Score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central connectivity claim rests on standard power-electronics modeling choices (inductive power-angle law, VSM swing equation, capacitive DC energy balance), three reduction hypotheses that collapse GFM cascades to 1/(Tcs+1), a first-order PES, fixed trip bounds on u²dc, and a GA fitness with large penalty weights. Free parameters are the four tuned gains plus chosen Tc, TPES, C, weights, and load steps. No new physical entity is postulated; the ‘supervisory dual loop’ is a control architecture, not a new particle or force.

free parameters (6)
  • Kp,PES, Ki,PES, Kp,out, Kd,out = base: 3.15, 3.06, 0.57, 0.066 p.u.
    Four controller gains optimized by GA for each operating point; central transient performance depends on these fitted values (Table 3 base case and §3.4.3 retunes).
  • TPES = 1 s
    PES first-order time constant chosen conservatively (~1 s) rather than measured for a specific plant; shapes available DC power during the design transient.
  • Tc = 0.1 s
    GFM active-power equivalent lag taken from prior experiment (~100 ms); defines converter dynamics seen by the DC balance in the design model.
  • C (HDC / Cs) = 0.02 s
    DC-link inertia/capacitance in seconds set to 0.02 s for the case study; directly sets energy buffer size and voltage nadir.
  • w1, w2 and penalty coefficient 1000 = w1=w2=1.0; penalty add 1000×violation
    Fitness weights and penalty scale in (13)–(19) are designer choices that steer the GA toward limit satisfaction vs tracking.
  • u_dc trip window [0.7, 1.15] p.u. = [0.7, 1.15] p.u.
    Hard squared-voltage limits in the fitness and protection narrative; connectivity claim is defined relative to these chosen bounds.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Predominantly inductive grid (X≫R) yields P≈(V1V2/X)δ and P–θ / Q–V decoupling for active-power design.
    Invoked in §2.1.1–2.1.2 Hypothesis 1 to drop voltage-loop dynamics from the design plant.
  • domain assumption Inner current/voltage loops are fast enough that Gc(0)≈Gv(0)≈1 relative to the VSM outer loop (singular perturbation / time-scale separation).
    Hypothesis 2 in §2.1.2; enables collapsing the cascade before dominant-pole reduction.
  • domain assumption Critically/over-damped VSM power loop may be replaced by first-order lag 1/(Tcs+1) with Tc≈100 ms.
    Hypothesis 3 and experimental citation [29]; design model in Figure 2.
  • domain assumption PES power delivery is adequately represented by a first-order lag with time constant TPES for DC-link stability design.
    §2.1.3; authors note higher-order models are possible but not used in results.
  • standard math DC-link energy balance Estored=∫(PDC−PAC)dt=½C Vdc² and HDC=CF Vdc,nom²/(2 SN) characterize the buffer.
    §2.1.4 following [30],[31]; standard capacitor energy mapping.
  • domain assumption Load-generation mismatch at the grid appears to the converter as a step change in pload suitable as the design disturbance.
    §3.1 citing [45]; all GA cases use step Δpload.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding Ki,out and Kd,PES (set to 0) is required so AC-side droop/steady-state power tracking and PES limits are respected.
    §3.2 argument that nonzero Ki,out breaks intended steady-state pout=pload under frequency droop; structural choice of the proposed architecture.
invented entities (1)
  • Dual supervisory DC-link layer (PI-PES restoration + PD-out transient protection) with role/time-scale separation no independent evidence
    purpose: Coordinate PES setpoint and GFM power setpoint from the same u²dc error without steady-state AC interference while respecting PES slowness and DC trip limits.
    Architectural contribution of the paper (Figure 2, §2.2); not a new physical object, but a postulated control entity whose necessity is argued via ablation.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 23303 in / 4308 out tokens · 87720 ms · 2026-07-31T12:41:07.278381+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The gradual substitution of conventional synchronous generators by converter-interfaced renewable energy sources raises concerns about the reduction of conventional inertia in electric power systems and the ensuing threat to their stability. In this regard, grid-forming voltage source converters have been proposed as a key solution to address this challenge. Although a growing body of literature addresses DC-link voltage regulation in grid-forming converters, most existing approaches implicitly assume an ideal and unconstrained DC power source. As a result, the dynamic response and operational limits of the primary energy source, which can critically shape the available DC-side power during transients, are rarely modeled or explicitly accounted for in the design of the DC-link control. This paper demonstrates that incorporating these aspects at the design stage reduces the risk of converter disconnection from the power grid under sudden power imbalances, while enhancing system resilience. A systematic methodology based on a Genetic Algorithm is proposed to tune the control parameters. The performance of the proposed control is validated by simulation using a detailed electromagnetic transient model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28270 by Andr\'es Tom\'as-Mart\'in, Aurelio Garc\'ia-Cerrada, Carlo de Paolis Robles, Ignacio Egido.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Case study: GFM-VSC with DC-side constraints connected to an AC grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reduced-order control block diagram representing the supervisory layer and system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Flow diagram of the proposed GA-based control design methodology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of controller parameters during the GA optimization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Control response of u 2 dc, pout, ppes and ppes-sp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of control response of GA Base Case, PID-out only, and PID-PES only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case study of the detailed model system: two GFM-VSCs interconnected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Control response comparison between models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Frequencycontrolchallengesandpotentialcountermeasures in future low-inertia power systems: A review,

    M.N.H.Shazon, A.Jawadet al., “Frequencycontrolchallengesandpotentialcountermeasures in future low-inertia power systems: A review,”Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 6191–6219, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Impact of high penetration of renewable energy sources on grid frequency behaviour,

    S. Saha, M. Saleem, and T. Roy, “Impact of high penetration of renewable energy sources on grid frequency behaviour,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 145, p. 108701, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Control of low-inertia power systems,

    F. Dörfler and D. Groß, “Control of low-inertia power systems,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 415–445, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Project Inertia - Phase II: Updated Frequency Stability Analysis in Long Term Scenarios, Relevant Solutions and Mitigation Measures,

    ENTSO-E, “Project Inertia - Phase II: Updated Frequency Stability Analysis in Long Term Scenarios, Relevant Solutions and Mitigation Measures,” ENTSO-E, Rue de Spa, 8, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tech. Rep., 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Revisiting grid-forming and grid-following inverters: A duality theory,

    Y. Li, Y. Gu, and T. C. Green, “Revisiting grid-forming and grid-following inverters: A duality theory,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 4541–4554, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Grid forming converters in renewable energy sources dominated power grid: Control strategy, stability, application, and challenges,

    H. Zhang, W. Xiang, W. Lin, and J. Wen, “Grid forming converters in renewable energy sources dominated power grid: Control strategy, stability, application, and challenges,”Jour- nal of modern power systems and clean energy, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1239–1256, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Evaluating the equivalent inertia of grid- following and grid-forming inverter-based resources,

    Z. I. Mahmood, H. Cui, B. She, and F. F. Li, “Evaluating the equivalent inertia of grid- following and grid-forming inverter-based resources,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conver- sion, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Analytical design of contributions of grid-forming and grid-following inverters to frequency stability,

    E. A. Ducoin, Y. Gu, B. Chaudhuri, and T. C. Green, “Analytical design of contributions of grid-forming and grid-following inverters to frequency stability,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6345–6358, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Interactive power to frequency dynamics between grid-forming inverters and synchronous generators in power electronics-dominated power systems,

    R. W. Kenyon, A. Sajadi, M. Bossart, A. Hoke, and B.-M. Hodge, “Interactive power to frequency dynamics between grid-forming inverters and synchronous generators in power electronics-dominated power systems,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 3456–3467, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Stability analysis of grid-forming converters under dc- side current limitation in primary frequency response regime,

    S. Samanta and N. R. Chaudhuri, “Stability analysis of grid-forming converters under dc- side current limitation in primary frequency response regime,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3077–3091, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Frequency stability of synchronous machines and grid-forming power converters,

    A. Tayyebi, D. Groß, A. Anta, F. Kupzog, and F. Dörfler, “Frequency stability of synchronous machines and grid-forming power converters,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1004–1018, 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    Fast frequency support from grid-forming converters under dc-and ac-side current limits,

    S. Samanta, N. R. Chaudhuri, and C. M. Lagoa, “Fast frequency support from grid-forming converters under dc-and ac-side current limits,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3528–3542, 2022. 31

    2022

  13. [13]

    Nonlinear model predictive control for droop-based grid forming converters providing fast frequency support,

    S. Samanta, C. M. Lagoa, and N. R. Chaudhuri, “Nonlinear model predictive control for droop-based grid forming converters providing fast frequency support,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 790–800, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Nonlinear backstepping control of grid-forming converters in presence of grid-following converters and synchronous generators,

    L. Karunaratne, N. R. Chaudhuri, A. Yogarathnam, and M. Yue, “Nonlinear backstepping control of grid-forming converters in presence of grid-following converters and synchronous generators,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1948–1964, 2023

    1948

  15. [15]

    Transient stability analysis and design of vsgs with different dc-link voltage controllers,

    C. Shen, W. Gu, W. Sheng, and K. Liu, “Transient stability analysis and design of vsgs with different dc-link voltage controllers,”CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 593–604, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Resource-aware grid-forming synchronization control: Design, analysis and validation,

    J. Girona-Badia, V. A. Lacerda, D. W. Spier, E. Prieto-Araujo, and O. Gomis-Bellmunt, “Resource-aware grid-forming synchronization control: Design, analysis and validation,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Stabilityanalysisandcontroldesign of grid-forming converters with dc-link effect,

    C.Xu, Z.Zou, X.Liu, M.Huang, W.Chen, andZ.Wang, “Stabilityanalysisandcontroldesign of grid-forming converters with dc-link effect,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Design-oriented analysis of dc-link voltage control for transient stability of grid-forming inverters,

    C. Luo, T. Liu, X. Wang, and X. Ma, “Design-oriented analysis of dc-link voltage control for transient stability of grid-forming inverters,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 3698–3707, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Small-signal synchronization stability of grid-forming convert- ers with regulated dc-link dynamics,

    L. Zhao, Z. Jin, and X. Wang, “Small-signal synchronization stability of grid-forming convert- ers with regulated dc-link dynamics,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 12399–12409, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    A novel dc-link voltage syn- chronous control with enhanced inertial capability for full-scale power conversion wind turbine generators,

    Y. Qin, H. Wang, D. Zhou, Z. Deng, J. Zhang, and X. Cai, “A novel dc-link voltage syn- chronous control with enhanced inertial capability for full-scale power conversion wind turbine generators,”IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 690–705, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Two-stage pv grid-connected control strategy based on adaptive virtual inertia and damping control for dc-link capacitor dynamics self-synchronization,

    A. Tian, Y. Wu, Z. Hu, Z. Wang, T. Wu, J. Jiang, and Z. Peng, “Two-stage pv grid-connected control strategy based on adaptive virtual inertia and damping control for dc-link capacitor dynamics self-synchronization,”Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 72, p. 108659, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Transient stabilization control of electric synchronous machine for preventing the collapse of dc-link voltage,

    Y. Peng, Z. Shuai, C. Shen, X. Hou, and Z. J. Shen, “Transient stabilization control of electric synchronous machine for preventing the collapse of dc-link voltage,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 82–93, 2022

    2022

  23. [23]

    Energy management in converter-interfaced renewable energy sources through ultracapacitors for provision of an- cillary services,

    A. M. Gross, K.-N. Malamaki, M. Barragán-Villarejo, G. C. Kryonidis, F. J. Matas-Díaz, S. I. Gkavanoudis, J. M. Mauricio, J. M. Maza-Ortega, and C. S. Demoulias, “Energy management in converter-interfaced renewable energy sources through ultracapacitors for provision of an- cillary services,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, vol. 32, p. 100911, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Use of ultra- capacitor for provision of inertial response in virtual synchronous generator: Design and experimental validation,

    G. C. Kryonidis, J. M. Mauricio, K.-N. D. Malamaki, M. Barragán-Villarejo, F. de Paula García-López, F. J. Matas-Diaz, J. M. Maza-Ortega, and C. S. Demoulias, “Use of ultra- capacitor for provision of inertial response in virtual synchronous generator: Design and experimental validation,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 223, p. 109607, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Entso-e publishes phase ii technical report on grid forming requirements,

    ENTSO-E, “Entso-e publishes phase ii technical report on grid forming requirements,” ENTSO-E News, Nov. 2025, last ac- cessed: 2025-12-18. [Online]. Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/11/04/ entso-e-publishes-phase-ii-technical-report-on-grid-forming-requirements/

    2025

  26. [26]

    Immunity of grid-forming control without energy storage to transient changes of grid frequency and phase,

    N. R. Klaes and J. Fortmann, “Immunity of grid-forming control without energy storage to transient changes of grid frequency and phase,”IEEE Open Journal of the Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 6, pp. 265–276, 2025. 32

    2025

  27. [27]

    Impact on transient stability of self-synchronisation control strategies in grid-forming power converters,

    R. E. Ávila-Martínez, X. Guillaud, J. Renedo, L. Rouco, A. Garcia-Cerrada, and L. Sigrist, “Impact on transient stability of self-synchronisation control strategies in grid-forming power converters,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 174, p. 111540, 2026

    2026

  28. [28]

    Selective modal analysis,

    L. Rouco, F. Pagola, G. C. Verghese, and I. J. Pérez-Arriaga, “Selective modal analysis,” in Power system coherency and model reduction. Springer, 2013, pp. 199–258

    2013

  29. [29]

    Improvements of a multi-agent secondary controller for reconnecting a microgrid to the main grid,

    A. Tomás-Martín, J. Roldán-Pérez, N. Jankovic, S. Yagüe, L. Sigrist, and A. García-Cerrada, “Improvements of a multi-agent secondary controller for reconnecting a microgrid to the main grid,”International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 177, p. 111797, 2026

    2026

  30. [30]

    Internal energy based grid-forming control for mmc-hvdc systems with wind farm integration,

    R. Yang, G. Shi, C. Zhang, G. Li, and X. Cai, “Internal energy based grid-forming control for mmc-hvdc systems with wind farm integration,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 503–512, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    Dc voltage control with grid-forming capability for enhancing stability of hvdc system,

    G. Shafique, J. Boukhenfouf, F. Gruson, F. Colas, and X. Guillaud, “Dc voltage control with grid-forming capability for enhancing stability of hvdc system,”Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 66–78, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Outline for a logical theory of adaptive systems,

    J. H. Holland, “Outline for a logical theory of adaptive systems,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 297–314, 1962

    1962

  33. [33]

    Genetic Algorithm,

    “Genetic Algorithm,” https://www.mathworks.com/discovery/genetic-algorithm.html

  34. [34]

    Metaheuristic algorithms for pid controller parameters tuning: Review, approaches and open problems,

    S. B. Joseph, E. G. Dada, A. Abidemi, D. O. Oyewola, and B. M. Khammas, “Metaheuristic algorithms for pid controller parameters tuning: Review, approaches and open problems,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 5, 2022

    2022

  35. [35]

    Design and robustness analysis of fuzzy pid controller for au- tomatic voltage regulator system using genetic algorithm,

    T. Dogruer and M. S. Can, “Design and robustness analysis of fuzzy pid controller for au- tomatic voltage regulator system using genetic algorithm,”Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1862–1873, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    An improved genetic algorithm based fractional open circuit voltage mppt for solar pv systems,

    A. Hassan, O. Bass, and M. A. Masoum, “An improved genetic algorithm based fractional open circuit voltage mppt for solar pv systems,”Energy Reports, vol. 9, pp. 1535–1548, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Parameter tuning of pss and statcom controllers using genetic algorithm for improvement of small-signal and transient stability of power systems with wind power,

    J. Bhukya and V. Mahajan, “Parameter tuning of pss and statcom controllers using genetic algorithm for improvement of small-signal and transient stability of power systems with wind power,”International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 31, no. 7, p. e12912, 2021

    2021

  38. [38]

    How the Genetic Algorithm Works,

    The MathWorks, Inc., “How the Genetic Algorithm Works,” 2026, accessed: May 5, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://es.mathworks.com/help/gads/how-the-genetic-algorithm-works. html

    2026

  39. [39]

    Genetic algorithms: Theory, genetic operators, solutions, and applications,

    B. Alhijawi and A. Awajan, “Genetic algorithms: Theory, genetic operators, solutions, and applications,”Evolutionary Intelligence, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1245–1256, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Grid-forming control for solar pv systems with power reserves,

    B. Pawar, E. I. Batzelis, S. Chakrabarti, and B. C. Pal, “Grid-forming control for solar pv systems with power reserves,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1947–1959, 2021

    1947

  41. [41]

    M. Guan, “Scheduled power control and autonomous energy control of grid-connected energy storage system (ess) with virtual synchronous generator and primary frequency regulation capabilities,”IEEE transactions on power systems, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 942–954, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    Analysis of primary frequency reg- ulation characteristics of pv power plant considering communication delay,

    W. Zhou, C. Li, L. Yang, Z. Li, C. Zhang, and T. Zheng, “Analysis of primary frequency reg- ulation characteristics of pv power plant considering communication delay,”Energy Reports, vol. 9, pp. 1315–1325, 2023. 33

    2023

  43. [43]

    Coordinated frequency modulation control strategy of wind power and energy storage considering mechanical load optimization,

    C. Zhang, J. Li, S. Liu, P. Hu, J. Feng, H. Ren, R. Zhang, and J. Jia, “Coordinated frequency modulation control strategy of wind power and energy storage considering mechanical load optimization,”Energies, vol. 17, no. 13, p. 3198, 2024

    2024

  44. [44]

    Grid forming fast frequency response for pmsg-based wind turbines,

    X. Lyu and D. Groß, “Grid forming fast frequency response for pmsg-based wind turbines,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 23–38, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Iterative optimization method for frequency stability constraints in renewable energy-integrated power systems,

    R. Gao and H. Wang, “Iterative optimization method for frequency stability constraints in renewable energy-integrated power systems,”IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 19, no. 1, p. e70165, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Harmonic virtual impedancedesignforoptimalmanagementofpowerqualityinmicrogrids,

    F. Göthner, J. Roldán-Pérez, R. E. Torres-Olguin, and O.-M. Midtgård, “Harmonic virtual impedancedesignforoptimalmanagementofpowerqualityinmicrogrids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 10114–10126, 2021

    2021

  47. [47]

    Grid-Forming Voltage-Source Con- verter vFlexP Case with PES and DC-link Control,

    C. De Paolis Robles and A. Tomás-Martín, “Grid-Forming Voltage-Source Con- verter vFlexP Case with PES and DC-link Control,” https://github.com/carlodpr/ GFM-VSC-DC-link-control---PES.git, 2026, GitHub repository

    2026

  48. [48]

    A vector-based flexible-complexity tool for sim- ulation and small-signal analysis of hybrid ac/dc power systems,

    A. Tomás-Martín, C. D. Zuluaga-Ríos, J. Suárez-Porras, J. García-Aguilar, L. Sigrist, A. García-Cerrada, and B. Kazemtabrizi, “A vector-based flexible-complexity tool for sim- ulation and small-signal analysis of hybrid ac/dc power systems,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, p. 101817, 2025. 34

    2025