Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Toward Distributed Stability Analytics for Power Systems with Heterogeneous Bus Dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A per-bus passivity index can certify grid-wide stability.

desk verdict A plausible passivity-index stability certificate with a load-bearing proof gap: the main theorem's Lyapunov argument yields only semidefinite derivative, and the distributed condition depends on a global eigenvalue. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00752 v1 pith:5EQB53JE submitted 2019-08-02 eess.SY cs.SY

Peng Yang , Feng Liu , Zhaojian Wang , Chen Shen , Jun Yi , Weifang Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords powersystemstabilitypassivityindexoutputfeedbackheterogeneousbusdynamicsdistributedanalyticslosslessnetworkdroopcontrolsynchronousgenerator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to turn system-wide stability analysis of power grids from a centralized, model-specific computation into a local check on each connected device. It claims that in a lossless transmission network, an equilibrium is asymptotically stable whenever every bus's dynamics is output feedback passive with a passivity index larger than the network's own passivity shortage, measured by the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the network energy function's Hessian. Because the condition is stated in terms of input-output behavior rather than detailed equations, it applies to heterogeneous nonlinear bus models—synchronous generators and droop-controlled inverters included—and can be met by tuning existing local controllers. If right, this gives a scalable stability certificate for grids with many diverse power-electronic devices, and the paper's 3-bus eigenvalue study suggests the condition is close to necessary.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the passivity index of a dynamical system with respect to a specialized supply rate that includes derivatives of the output. A bus is OFP($\sigma$) when there is a storage function $S_i$ satisfying $\dot{S}_i \le -(P_i-P_i^*)\dot{\theta}_i - (Q_i/V_i - Q_i^*/V_i^*)\dot{V}_i - \sigma(y_i-y_i^*)^T\dot{y}_i$. The network's passivity index is $\lambda$, the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the Hessian of the network energy function $W_N(y) = \sum_i -\frac{1}{2}B_{ii}V_i^2 - \sum_{(i,j)} B_{ij}V_iV_j\cos\theta_{ij}$ at the equilibrium; the zero eigenvalue corresponds to rotational symmetry of phase angles. Theorem 2 works by combining each bus's storage function with a shifted network storage function into the Lyapunov candidate $W = \sum_i S_i + S_N + \frac{\sigma+\lambda-\varepsilon}{2}\|y-y^*\|^2$, whose decrease follows once every $\sigma$ exceeds $-\lambda$.

What would settle it

On the paper's 3-bus test system at a fixed loading, tune every bus to a passivity index exactly $-\lambda + \delta$ with $\delta > 0$ arbitrarily small, then compute the full Jacobian's eigenvalues; if any eigenvalue crosses into the right half-plane while all buses still satisfy $\sigma > -\lambda$, Theorem 2 is false. The same procedure with $\delta < 0$ should make the system unstable if the condition is genuinely tight.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: for any equilibrium of the interconnected system (4), if every bus dynamics is output feedback passive in the sense of Definition 4 with passivity index $\sigma > -\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the Hessian of the network energy function $W_N$ at the equilibrium, and each storage function has a strict local minimum at the equilibrium, then the equilibrium is asymptotically stable. The paper introduces a supply rate with differential at one port, $-(P_i-P_i^*)\dot{\theta}_i - (Q_i/V_i - Q_i^*/V_i^*)\dot{V}_i$, and proves the network itself is dissipative with passivity index $\lambda$. The stability proof assembles a Lyapunov function from the bus storage functions plus a shifted network storage function. The authors verify on a 3-bus system with three different device types that violating $\sigma > -\lambda$ marks the boundary of small-signal stability in the lossless case, and that lossy lines require a slightly larger index.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 1, that the transmission network is lossless (zero conductance); if line resistance is appreciable, the theorem's threshold $\sigma > -\lambda$ no longer applies, and the paper's own lossy simulations need a larger passivity index for stability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 2 is correct, engineers can certify stability of a heterogeneous grid bus by bus, using only each device's input-output passivity index and the network's smallest nonzero energy-Hessian eigenvalue.
  • The same condition doubles as a controller-tuning rule: the paper gives explicit PI gains for synchronous generators and droop-gain bounds for two inverter types that make the device satisfy C1.
  • Because the condition is nearly necessary in the lossless 3-bus study, the gap between sufficient and necessary conditions appears small; stability margins essentially coincide with the passivity index boundary.
  • A larger passivity index beyond the threshold also gives better transient performance, measured by longer critical clearing times in the simulations.
  • In lossy networks the theorem's bound no longer holds; the lossy simulations require a larger $\sigma$, indicating resistance acts as an additional passivity demand.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The input-output nature of C1 suggests the same certificate could be applied to devices whose internal models are unknown or proprietary, so long as their passivity index can be measured or estimated from terminal behavior.
  • The monotone relation between $\sigma$ and critical clearing time hints that passivity index could serve as a tunable robustness margin for transient stability, not just a yes/no stability certificate.
  • One could test whether the network's passivity shortage $\lambda$, computed from the energy Hessian, can be decomposed line by line, which would make the whole stability check fully distributed down to individual transmission lines rather than requiring knowledge of the full network.
  • Extending the supply-rate framework to resistive networks might be possible by treating conductance as an explicit sink of passivity, yielding a modified threshold that depends on the conductance matrix instead of the lossless $\lambda$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a local passivity-index condition for system-wide stability of lossless power networks with heterogeneous, nonlinear bus dynamics. It introduces a supply rate that depends on the derivative of the output, defines output-feedback passivity with a passivity index relative to an equilibrium, and identifies the network's passivity index λ as the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the Hessian of a network energy function. The central claim, Theorem 2, is that if every bus is output-feedback passive with index σ > −λ and has a storage function with a strict local minimum at the equilibrium, then the equilibrium is asymptotically stable. The paper gives controller designs for a synchronous generator and for two types of droop-controlled inverters that satisfy the condition, and it reports 3-bus simulations in lossless and lossy cases, including an eigenvalue-based tightness study and critical-clearing-time comparisons. The proof of Theorem 2 and all supporting propositions are omitted due to space limits, and the provided Lyapunov-function sketch appears to yield only a semidefinite derivative, so the main stability claim is not established in the submitted text.

Significance. If the main theorem can be fully proved and made correct, the approach is significant: it would give a scalable, model-agnostic sufficient condition for stability of heterogeneous power systems, with explicit controller-design guidance and a testable threshold σ > −λ. The paper's strengths are its falsifiable small-signal predictions, the parameter-sweep verification around the predicted threshold, and the absence of fitted constants. However, the central proof is incomplete, the network storage lemma appears to be internally inconsistent, and the advertised 'distributed' nature of the condition is weakened by the global dependence of λ. These issues are load-bearing; the contribution is conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Theorem 2] The proof sketch is insufficient for the claimed asymptotic stability. Combining Definition 4 (inequality (7)) and Lemma 1 (equation (10)) yields for W(x) = Σ_i S_i(x_i) + S_N(y) + ((σ+λ−ε)/2)||y−y*||² only the inequality Ẇ ≤ 0, not Ẇ < 0. Asymptotic stability therefore requires either a strict-decrease argument or a LaSalle invariance argument together with a detectability or invariant-set condition. Condition C1 contains no detectability assumption, and the paper does not characterize the largest invariant set inside {Ẇ = 0}. Because Theorem 2 is the central claim, this gap is load-bearing: please supply the complete proof or a corrected statement.
  2. [Section III-A, Lemma 1] Lemma 1's assertion that S_N(y) > 0 for all y ≠ y* in a neighborhood is inconsistent with the rotational symmetry of W_N. Along the curve y = y* + α col(1_n, 0_n), one has W_N(y) = W_N(y*) and (y−y*)^T ∇W_N(y*) = 0, so ilde W_N(y) = 0 and S_N(y) = −((λ−ε)/2) n α² < 0 for any α ≠ 0. Thus S_N is not positive definite in any neighborhood of y* unless the angle reference is fixed or the analysis is performed on the quotient space modulo global phase shifts. The manuscript does not state such a restriction, so Lemma 1 is false as written; this also affects the positive definiteness of the total Lyapunov function.
  3. [Section III-A/B and Abstract] The criterion is not distributed in the advertised sense. The threshold λ is the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of ∇² W_N(y*), which depends on the full network topology, line parameters, and the equilibrium voltage-angle profile. A single bus cannot evaluate σ > −λ from local information unless λ is broadcast as a network-wide parameter or bounded by locally computable quantities. Please either qualify the 'distributed' claim, provide a local bound on λ, or present a distributed estimation procedure.
  4. [Sections III and IV] The paper omits the proofs of Lemma 1, Theorem 2, and Propositions 3–5, all of which are central to the claimed results. The phrase 'omitted here due to space limit' is not acceptable for a journal submission; in particular, the storage-function calculations for Propositions 3–5 must be written out to verify that inequality (7) is satisfied with the stated gains, and the derivative computation for Lemma 1 must be shown explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-B] In the sentence 'for each scale factor s, we set σ = −λ + ρ where ρ rangers from −1 to 1', 'rangers' should be 'ranges'.
  2. [Section V-C] The word 'receptively' in Table III's caption should be 'respectively'.
  3. [Table I] The row 'Transmission Lines x r 0.12, 0.01' should be formatted as x = 0.12, r = 0.01 to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section II-A] The formula for the state space, 'X µ×R×R>0', appears corrupted; it should be written as a product of the auxiliary state space, R, and R_{>0}.
  5. [Section III-B, Remark 4] The phrase 'the excess of passivity of each bus dynamics percolates into the network' is informal; consider replacing it with a precise statement about the interconnection of storage functions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the local passivity-index condition is derived from the network energy Hessian and supplied bus passivity inequalities, not from the stability certificate itself.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained. Condition C1 is an assumption on bus dynamics: each bus is output feedback passive (Definition 4, inequality (7)) with index sigma > -lambda, where lambda is the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of the Hessian of WN at y* (Section III-A). The threshold lambda is computed from the lossless power-flow energy function WN, not fitted to the stability behavior being certified, and the bus storage functions in Propositions 3-5 are constructed independently from the controller parameters. The Lyapunov candidate W = sum_i S_i + S_N + ((sigma + lambda - epsilon)/2)||y - y*||^2 is assembled from these same objects; summing (7) and Lemma 1's derivative (10) cancels the [Delta P; Delta Q/v]^T ydot cross terms, leaving Wdot <= 0. That is a standard sufficient-condition passivity argument rather than a tautology: the condition constrains component input-output properties and does not assume the target stability. The only same-author citations ([1], [26]) are contextual remarks about decentralized energy resources and the Brayton-Moser relation, and they are not load-bearing. The omitted proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 2, stated as 'which is omitted here due to space limit', are a rigor gap rather than a circularity; in particular, the supplied Lyapunov sketch gives only negative semidefiniteness, so asymptotic stability is not fully demonstrated as written, but this does not make the condition equivalent to its inputs. The 3-bus eigenvalue study is an independent numerical check, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the controller gains are design choices, and lambda is derived from the network model rather than chosen ad hoc. The central claim rests on the lossless network assumption and on an unverified Lyapunov argument, both of which are listed above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The power network is lossless, G = 0.
    Assumption 1 in Section II-B; the stability theorem is proved only for this case, and the lossy simulation requires a larger sigma, so the assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The map from equilibrium state x* to (u*, y*) is one-to-one.
    Section II-C; used to define incremental variables and the equilibrium triplet.
  • domain assumption The Hessian of the network energy function W_N at y* has a smallest nonzero eigenvalue lambda, and W_N serves as a local storage function.
    Section III-A, Lemma 1; the proof is omitted, so the local expansion and the passivity index identification are assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The omitted Lyapunov proof of Theorem 2 is valid, meaning W = sum S_i + S_N + ((sigma+lambda-epsilon)/2)||y-y*||^2 has a negative definite derivative.
    The proof is omitted due to space limit; the theorem depends on this unverified inequality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Distributed Stability Analytics for Power Systems with Heterogeneous Bus Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EQB53JE

@misc{pith2026190800752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Distributed Stability Analytics for Power Systems with Heterogeneous Bus Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EQB53JE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00752}
}
read the original abstract

The stability issue emerges as a growing number of diverse power apparatus connecting to the power system. The stability analysis for such power systems is required to adapt to heterogeneity and scalability. This paper derives a local passivity index condition that guarantees the system-wide stability for lossless power systems with interconnected, nonlinear, heterogeneous bus dynamics. Our condition requires each bus dynamics to be output feedback passive with a large enough index w.r.t. a special supply rate. This condition fits for numerous existing models since it only constrains the input-output property rather than the detailed dynamics. Furthermore, for three typical examples of bus dynamics in power systems, we show that this condition can be reached via proper control designs. Simulations on a 3-bus heterogeneous power system verify our results in both lossless and lossy cases. The conservativeness of our condition is also demonstrated, as well as the impact on transient stability. It shows that our condition is quite tight and a larger index benefits transient stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Input-output relation of the bus dynamics and the power network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. OFP(σ) of H is equivalent to standard passive of H˜ . A. Passivity Index of the Power Network Consider the following function WN : R n × R n >0 → R WN (y) = X i∈V − 1 2 BiiV 2 i − X (i,j)∈E BijViVj cos θij (8) All eigenvalues of its Hessian matrix ∇2WN (y) are real since it is real and symmetric. ∇2WN (y) has one zero eigenvalue with eigenvector col(1n, 0n), which is caused by the rotational symmetry of phase angle … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The schematic of the 3-bus power system with different bus dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The passivity index λ varies with load profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Distributed Stability Conditions for Power Systems with Heterogeneous Nonlinear Bus Dynamics

    eess.SY 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A power grid's equilibrium is stable if every bus has enough output-differential passivity to offset the worst-case non-passivity of the network coupling, quantified by the smallest eigenvalue of the power-flow Hessian.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [26]

    Towards Distributed Stabil- ity Analytics of Dynamic Power Systems: A Phasor-Circuit Theory Perspective,

    P. Yang, F. Liu, Z. Wang, and S. Ma, “Towards Distributed Stabil- ity Analytics of Dynamic Power Systems: A Phasor-Circuit Theory Perspective,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.12054 , 2019

    arXiv 1907

  2. [1]

    Distributed Load-Side Control: Coping with Variation of Renewable Generations

    Z. Wang, S. Mei, F. Liu, S. H. Low, and P. Yang, “Distributed load- side control: Coping with variation of renewable generations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.04941, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Power system dynamic response calculations,

    B. Stott, “Power system dynamic response calculations,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 219–241, 1979

    1979

  4. [3]

    Hierarchical stability and alert state steering control of interconnected power systems,

    S. Sastry and P. Varaiya, “Hierarchical stability and alert state steering control of interconnected power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and systems , vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 1102–1112, 1980

    work page 1980

  5. [4]

    Direct stability analysis of electric power systems using energy functions: theory, applications, and perspective,

    H.-D. Chang, C.-C. Chu, and G. Cauley, “Direct stability analysis of electric power systems using energy functions: theory, applications, and perspective,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 1497– 1529, 1995

    1995

  6. [5]

    Distributed frequency control with operational constraints, part i: Per-node power balance,

    Z. Wang, F. Liu, S. H. Low, C. Zhao, and S. Mei, “Distributed frequency control with operational constraints, part i: Per-node power balance,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 40–52, Jan 2019

    2019

  7. [6]

    Distributed frequency control with operational constraints, part ii: Network power balance,

    Z. Wang, F. Liu, S. H. Low, C. Zhao, and S. Mei, “Distributed frequency control with operational constraints, part ii: Network power balance,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–64, Jan 2019

    2019

  8. [7]

    A distributed framework for stability evaluation and enhancement of inverter-based microgrids,

    Y . Song, D. J. Hill, T. Liu, and Y . Zheng, “A distributed framework for stability evaluation and enhancement of inverter-based microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3020–3034, 2017

    2017

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Online dynamic security assessment of mi- crogrid interconnections in smart distribution systems,

    Y . Zhang and L. Xie, “Online dynamic security assessment of mi- crogrid interconnections in smart distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3246–3254, 2015

    2015

  2. [9]

    Toward standards for model-based control of dynamic interactions in large electric power grids,

    M. D. Ili ´c and Q. Liu, “Toward standards for model-based control of dynamic interactions in large electric power grids,” in Proceedings of The 2012 Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–8

    2012

  3. [10]

    A transient stability assessment framework in power electronic-interfaced distribution systems,

    Y . Zhang and L. Xie, “A transient stability assessment framework in power electronic-interfaced distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 5106–5114, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    A sum-of-squares approach to the stability and control of interconnected systems using vector lyapunov func- tions,

    S. Kundu and M. Anghel, “A sum-of-squares approach to the stability and control of interconnected systems using vector lyapunov func- tions,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 5022–5028

    2015

  5. [12]

    Bao and P

    J. Bao and P. L. Lee, Process control: the passive systems approach . Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  6. [13]

    A. J. van der Schaft and A. Van Der Schaft, L2-gain and passivity techniques in nonlinear control . Springer, 2000, vol. 2

    2000

  7. [14]

    Port-hamiltonian systems: network modeling and control of nonlinear physical systems,

    A. Van der Schaft, “Port-hamiltonian systems: network modeling and control of nonlinear physical systems,” in Advanced dynamics and control of structures and machines . Springer, 2004, pp. 127–167

    2004

  8. [15]

    A port-hamiltonian approach to power network modeling and analysis,

    S. Fiaz, D. Zonetti, R. Ortega, J. M. Scherpen, and A. Van der Schaft, “A port-hamiltonian approach to power network modeling and analysis,” European Journal of Control , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 477–485, 2013

    2013

  9. [16]

    Compositional Transient Stability Analysis of Multimachine Power Networks,

    S. Y . Caliskan and P. Tabuada, “Compositional Transient Stability Analysis of Multimachine Power Networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Network Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–14

  10. [17]

    Distributed optimal frequency control considering a nonlinear network-preserving model,

    Z. Wang, F. Liu, J. Z. F. Pang, S. H. Low, and S. Mei, “Distributed optimal frequency control considering a nonlinear network-preserving model,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 76–86, Jan 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    A unifying energy- based approach to stability of power grids with market dynamics,

    T. Stegink, C. De Persis, and A. van der Schaft, “A unifying energy- based approach to stability of power grids with market dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 2612–2622, 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Sepulchre, M

    R. Sepulchre, M. Jankovic, and P. V . Kokotovic,Constructive nonlinear control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  13. [20]

    Consensus of heterogeneous multi-agent systems with diffusive couplings via passivity indices,

    M. Li, L. Su, and G. Chesi, “Consensus of heterogeneous multi-agent systems with diffusive couplings via passivity indices,” IEEE Control Syst. Lett., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 434–439, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    A survey on modeling of microgridsfrom fundamental physics to phasors and voltage sources,

    J. Schiffer, D. Zonetti, R. Ortega, A. M. Stankovi ´c, T. Sezi, and J. Raisch, “A survey on modeling of microgridsfrom fundamental physics to phasors and voltage sources,” Automatica, vol. 74, pp. 135– 150, 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    V oltage stabilization in microgrids via quadratic droop control,

    J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. D ¨orfler, and F. Bullo, “V oltage stabilization in microgrids via quadratic droop control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1239–1253, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Primary frequency regulation with load-side participationpart i: Stability and optimality,

    A. Kasis, E. Devane, C. Spanias, and I. Lestas, “Primary frequency regulation with load-side participationpart i: Stability and optimality,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3505–3518, 2017

    2017

  17. [24]

    Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids,

    F. D ¨orfler, M. Chertkov, and F. Bullo, “Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids,” PNAS, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 2005– 2010, 2013

    2005

  18. [25]

    Multidomain modeling of nonlinear networks and systems,

    D. Jeltsema and J. M. Scherpen, “Multidomain modeling of nonlinear networks and systems,” vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 28–59, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    Power shaping: A new paradigm for stabilization of nonlinear rlc circuits,

    R. Ortega, D. Jeltsema, and J. M. Scherpen, “Power shaping: A new paradigm for stabilization of nonlinear rlc circuits,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1762–1767, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    An energy-based method for location of power system oscillation source,

    L. Chen, Y . Min, and W. Hu, “An energy-based method for location of power system oscillation source,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 828–836, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Modeling, analysis and testing of autonomous operation of an inverter-based microgrid,

    N. Pogaku, M. Prodanovic, and T. C. Green, “Modeling, analysis and testing of autonomous operation of an inverter-based microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 613–625, 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.