Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Bifurcation Analysis of Sub-Synchronous Oscillations Related to Grid-Forming Converter Inner Controllers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A grid-forming converter's inner controllers can push strong-grid operation into sub-synchronous oscillations that rapidly grow past acceptable levels, via a supercritical Hopf bifurcation.

desk verdict Solid continuation study of GFM inner-controller SSOs; new codim-2 stability maps and a well-supported spurious-Hopf finding, but delay neglect tempers the quantitative boundaries. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18894 v1 pith:6DVXXDCL submitted 2026-07-21 eess.SY cs.SY

Luke Ian Benedetti , Robin Preece , Panagiotis N. Papadopoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords grid-formingconvertersub-synchronousoscillationHopfbifurcationlimitcyclecontinuationinnervoltagecontrollercurrentlimitersmoothapproximationstabilityboundary
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 establish that the strong-grid instability caused by the inner voltage and current controllers of a grid-forming converter is not a marginal linear effect but a nonlinear bifurcation: as grid strength or controller speeds cross a boundary, a stable limit cycle emerges and quickly grows to unacceptable voltage and current swings. Using continuation and normal-form analysis, the authors show the Hopf bifurcation is supercritical and trace the limit cycle's amplitude. They also map two-parameter stability boundaries showing that the inner voltage controller must be slow enough and the inner current controller fast enough. Finally, they show that smooth approximations of the circular current limiter can create spurious weak-grid Hopf bifurcations that disappear with the hard limiter, warning that such approximations can invalidate bifurcation studies.

What carries the argument

The carrying tool is Hopf normal-form theory combined with numerical continuation: the sign of the real part of the first Lyapunov coefficient b in the normal form z_dot = z(jω + a δp + b |z|^2) decides whether the Hopf bifurcation is supercritical (negative) or subcritical (positive), and continuation of the limit cycle with collocation methods tracks how large the oscillation grows. Two-parameter continuation follows the Hopf curve in grids of operational and controller parameters, while a smooth hyperbolic-tangent approximation of the circular current limiter is used to include the non-smooth saturation in the continuation; the spurious Hopf bifurcations arise from this approximation, not

What would settle it

Run the same continuation with a computational delay of one-and-a-half switching periods or a discrete-time current-control model, and check whether the strong-grid Hopf still occurs at the reported SCR values and whether the first Lyapunov coefficient remains negative at the nominal parameters of the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the strong grid Hopf point of the inner controller-related sub-synchronous oscillation is supercritical: the first Lyapunov coefficient is negative, a stable limit cycle appears around the now-unstable equilibrium, and continuation past the Hopf point shows the oscillation amplitude increasing rapidly with only a small increase in the continuation parameter, quickly reaching unacceptable levels. Codimension-2 continuation of the Hopf point in the inner controller time constants reveals that stability in strong grids requires the inner voltage controller time constant to be sufficiently large and the inner current controller time constant to be sufficiently small, and th

Load-bearing premise

The inner-controller pole-placement tuning assumes ideal time-scale separation and neglects pulse-width-modulation and control delay; because the sub-synchronous oscillation is created by those same inner loops, adding realistic delay or discrete sampling could move the computed Hopf boundaries and possibly change whether the strong-grid Hopf is supercritical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Crossing the strong-grid stability boundary is not a gentle loss of stability: after the supercritical Hopf point, sustained oscillations quickly become large enough to threaten converter protection and grid voltage quality.
  • Grid-forming converter designs using the standard cascaded inner controllers must maintain strong time-scale separation in strong grids; if the current loop is slowed by limited switching frequency, the voltage loop must be slowed accordingly, and beyond roughly 2.5 ms current-loop settling time at SCR = 5, no voltage tuning stabilises the system.
  • The strong-grid instability moves to higher SCR values as the grid X/R ratio decreases, meaning distribution-connected grid-forming converters can tolerate stronger grids than transmission-connected ones, with the SSO frequency falling as low as about 5.7 Hz at X/R = 0.1.
  • Bifurcation studies that replace hard current-limit saturation with smooth approximations should be validated against the hard-response model, since even ostensibly close approximations can produce false Hopf bifurcations and false criticality conclusions.
  • The limit-cycle continuation provides a concrete amplitude bound: the region where the equilibrium is locally stable but the limit cycle is already too large is effectively absent, so the local stability boundary can be used as an operational limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to repeat the continuation with a computational or pulse-width-modulation delay (or discrete-time sampling) in the inner current loop; because the instability lives in those loops, including delay could shift the Hopf boundaries in the SCR and time-constant maps and could change the supercritical classification.
  • The spurious-Hopf phenomenon likely generalises beyond this specific limiter: any smooth approximation of a non-smooth saturation element in a converter model may create artificial eigenvalue crossings in continuation analysis, so time-domain validation against the hard nonlinearity should accompany bifurcation results.
  • The rapid growth of the limit cycle implies that protection systems and the current limiter itself will engage almost immediately after instability onset; a hybrid model combining the hard limiter with limit-cycle continuation could expose interactions between the SSO limit cycle and the saturating current reference.
  • The analysis treats a single converter against an infinite bus; with multiple grid-forming converters, the effective grid strength seen by each converter changes dynamically, so the depicted Hopf boundary may shift or be replaced by coupled modes in a multi-unit continuation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a continuation-based bifurcation analysis of a grid-forming (GFM) converter with cascaded inner voltage and current controllers connected to a Thévenin grid. Using numerical continuation and normal-form analysis, it maps stability boundaries with respect to operational parameters (SCR, X/R, active-power set point) and inner-controller time constants τ_IVC and τ_ICC. The authors report that the strong-grid Hopf bifurcation of the inner-controller-related SSO is supercritical, with the emerging limit cycle growing rapidly to unacceptable amplitudes. They further show that smooth approximations of the circular current limiter can introduce spurious Hopf bifurcations in weak grids, which are absent when a hard limiter is used. The paper includes Julia scripts for modelling and continuation, supporting reproducibility.

Significance. If the results stand, the paper provides a useful nonlinear perspective on an important class of GFM stability problems. The codim-2 stability maps for the inner-loop time constants and the warning about smooth limiter approximations are of practical value, and the availability of reproducible code is a significant strength. The key qualitative findings — supercriticality of the strong-grid Hopf and the existence of spurious Hopf points due to smoothing — are internally consistent. However, the quantitative accuracy of the stability boundaries depends on the delay-free, ideal-timescale-separation assumption used to derive the inner-controller tuning, which is not justified for the frequency range of interest. The lack of direct time-domain validation of the limit-cycle and spurious-Hopf claims leaves some uncertainty, but these are addressable with additional simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-C, Eqs. (6)–(13); §IV-C; §IV-B] The inner-loop pole-placement tuning explicitly assumes ideal time-scale separation and neglect of PWM/control delay. This is load-bearing for the quantitative stability maps: with τ_ICC=1.5 ms, the current-loop natural frequency is ≈455 Hz (from Eq. (11)), so a realistic 0.5–1 ms delay introduces ~82°–164° of phase lag at that frequency. The SSO is at 25.6 Hz in Fig. 6, but the Hopf boundaries in Fig. 8 are expressed directly in τ_ICC/τ_IVC space and could shift substantially; the first Lyapunov coefficient b in §IV-B could even change sign. The manuscript states the assumption but provides no justification or sensitivity analysis. Please add a delay model (e.g., Padé approximation) or a sensitivity study quantifying the effect of a realistic delay on the Hopf loci and on b.
  2. [§IV-B, Fig. 7] The central claim that the strong-grid Hopf is supercritical with rapid onset of unacceptably large oscillations rests entirely on the normal-form coefficient and limit-cycle continuation. No time-domain simulation is shown to confirm that a disturbance near the predicted Hopf point actually produces the predicted limit cycle and amplitude. Given that the manuscript already includes time-domain validation for the smooth limiter (Appendix A), a similar check for the strong-grid limit cycle (e.g., at SCR just above the Hopf) would directly support the main conclusion and rule out numerical artifacts. Please add such a simulation.
  3. [§IV-D, Appendix B] The spurious-Hopf conclusion is based on the absence of Hopf points in the hard-limiter continuation and their presence in the smooth-approximation continuation. This is internally consistent, but the practical message — that smooth approximations can invalidate bifurcation studies — would be much stronger with a direct time-domain demonstration at a weak-grid operating point (e.g., SCR≈1.1, P*=1 pu) showing that the smooth model exhibits sustained oscillations while the hard-limiter model does not. The current time-domain validation in Appendix A is at SCR=2.5, away from the spurious-Hopf region. This validation is advisable before recommending 'extreme caution' in the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I and §III-D] T_s is listed as 47.12 ms in Table I, but the text states T_s = K_i,IVC. Please clarify the units and the exact relationship, as the anti-windup tracking time constant affects the limiter dynamics in Figs. 9–13.
  2. [§IV-A, paragraph around Fig. 4] The phrase 'for relatively small variations of |v_m| (Fig. 4b)' should likely refer to Fig. 4a; Fig. 4b shows δθ.
  3. [Abstract] Consider replacing 'wide-bandwidth stability issues' with 'wide-band stability issues' to match the terminology of reference [4].
  4. [§IV-D] The sequence of SCR values for the spurious Hopf and the return to stability is hard to follow; a small table or a more explicit sentence mapping δ to the two crossing points would improve readability.
  5. [Appendix B] The sentence 'The strong grid Hopf bifurcation remains supercritical only for very small values of δ with a Bautin bifurcation occurring when δ≈0.0011 and SCR≈4.944, after which (i.e., smaller SCR) the bifurcation is instead subcritical' is confusing because the direction of parameter change in δ and SCR is not clearly stated. Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central bifurcation results are computed from the stated model, not fitted to the target SSO; the only self-citation is contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Nominal system parameters (Table I) are stated a priori and SCR/X-R ratio/time constants are varied as continuation parameters; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the observed SSO. The supercritical Hopf classification is obtained by computing the first Lyapunov coefficient b = -0.00198 - j0.00096 from the model's normal form, and the limit-cycle growth in Fig. 7 follows from direct continuation. The strong-grid Hopf curve (Fig. 8) is produced from the same model equations, not from the cited SSO observations. The only self-citation, [11], is used in the introduction to report previously observed SSO frequencies around 15-17 Hz; the paper explicitly says the inner-controller character of these SSOs is 'confirmed in this work through participation factor analysis,' albeit not displayed. Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The analysis of smooth current-limiter approximations is an object of study, not an input; the paper identifies the resulting Hopf points as artefacts by comparing to the hard-limiter model. The acknowledged neglect of PWM/control delay in inner-controller tuning (Section III-C) is a modeling assumption relevant to correctness/robustness, not a circularity, because the claimed reductions do not encode the target result by construction. Therefore the central claims have independent computational content; score reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on standard bifurcation theory, a specific averaged GFM model with no PWM/control delay, a Thévenin infinite bus, and a tanh smooth approximation of the current limiter. No free parameters are fitted to a target result; δ is the only hand-chosen approximation parameter that directly affects the spurious-Hopf finding.

free parameters (1)
  • δ (smoothing parameter of tanh current-limiter approximation) = 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1
    Hand-chosen values in Eq. (17) controlling approximation sharpness; not fitted to data, but the spurious-Hopf and Bautin bifurcation results depend on δ.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Hopf bifurcation theory, center manifold reduction, and normal form (Eq. 3) apply to the GFM model.
    Invoked in Section II-A/C; standard theorems from [6] require a smooth vector field and non-hyperbolic eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption Averaged VSC with ideal DC voltage source; the primary source can supply any current drawn.
    Section III-A; PWM-level dynamics and DC-bus dynamics are neglected, which could affect SSO frequencies and damping.
  • domain assumption No PWM/control delay and ideal time-scale separation in tuning the inner controllers.
    Section III-C, Eqs. (6)-(13); the tuning relations (9)-(13) are derived after neglecting delay.
  • domain assumption The grid is represented as a Thévenin equivalent infinite bus.
    Section III-A; single-machine-infinite-bus simplification, so multi-converter interactions are out of scope.
  • domain assumption The circular current limiter is described by Eqs. (14)-(15) with back-calculation anti-windup.
    Section III-D; a specific limiter implementation from [30],[31] is adopted.
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh smooth approximation (16)-(17) is a valid stand-in for continuation analysis.
    Introduced to make vector field differentiable for continuation; the paper's spurious-Hopf finding is conditional on this approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bifurcation Analysis of Sub-Synchronous Oscillations Related to Grid-Forming Converter Inner Controllers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DVXXDCL

@misc{pith2026260718894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bifurcation Analysis of Sub-Synchronous Oscillations Related to Grid-Forming Converter Inner Controllers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DVXXDCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18894}
}
read the original abstract

To ensure power system stability and security, it is vital to understand the complex nonlinear power system dynamics related to converter-interfaced generators. For example, grid-forming (GFM) converters are expected to be a key asset for maintaining a strong and stable power system, but might cause wide-bandwidth stability issues with underlying mechanisms heretofore unseen or understudied, including sub-synchronous oscillations (SSOs). This paper details a continuation-based bifurcation analysis of a GFM converter, revealing stability bounds with respect to operational conditions in addition to the time constant of the cascaded inner voltage and current controllers. We focus our analysis on the strong grid instability caused by an inner controller-related SSO, including continuation of the limit cycle past the Hopf bifurcation point, revealing rapid onset of unacceptably large oscillations. Furthermore, we investigate the impact of the circular current limiter, revealing spurious Hopf bifurcations in weak grids associated with the aforementioned SSO when adopting smooth approximations; this suggests the need for careful implementation of such approximations for GFMs, at least in bifurcation studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18894 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single line circuit diagram of grid-forming converter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-loop, droop-based GFM controller. respectively. The current through the coupling filter and grid impedance are denoted by icv and ig, respectively. The VSC is the averaged model with θ and v ctrl cv denoting the virtual rotor angle of the GFM and the requested value of vcv in the controller reference frame, respectively. Furthermore, we consider that, on the timescales of interest, there is sufficient power av… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Input-output (unsaturated-saturated current reference in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bifurcations are found to occur in both weak grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bifurcation diagram for (a) |vm| and (b) δθ for varying SCR, with different values of P ∗ . A star shows the Hopf point and thin dotted line shows unstable points. and with Xg = 10Rg, Pmax occurs at δθ ≈ ∠vm − ∠vg = π/2 + tan−1 (Rg/Xg) rad = 1.6705 rad. In this case, a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectory of the real part of the rightmost eigenvalue, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bifurcation diagram showing the maximum and mini [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trajectory of the strong grid instability-inducing SSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Bifurcation diagram for simultaneous variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bifurcation diagram of |icv| against SCR with hard current limiter model. The red circle shows the limit-induced bifurcation point. We can continue the (spurious) weak grid Hopf point by varying the smoothing parameter δ along with the SCR as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Grid-forming inverters: Project demonstrations and pilots,

    B. Badrzadeh, C. Cardozo, M. Hishida, S. Shah, I. Huq, N. Modi, and A. Morton, “Grid-forming inverters: Project demonstrations and pilots,” IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 66–77, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Renewables 2024,

    International Energy Agency (IEA), “Renewables 2024,” Paris, October 2024, License: CC BY 4.0. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Power system stability issues, clas- sifications and research prospects in the context of high-penetration of renewables and power electronics,

    J. Shair, H. Li, J. Hu, and X. Xie, “Power system stability issues, clas- sifications and research prospects in the context of high-penetration of renewables and power electronics,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 145, p. 111111, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    S. H. Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, 2nd ed. 600 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300, Boca Raton FL, 33487-2742: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Y . A. Kuznetsov,Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory, 2nd ed., ser. Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1998, vol. 112

    1998

  7. [7]

    Datseris and U

    G. Datseris and U. Parlitz,Nonlinear Dynamics: A Concise Introduction Interlaced with Code, 1st ed., ser. Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Large- signal stability analysis of grid-forming inverters with equivalent-circuit models,

    N. Baeckeland, D. Pal, G.-S. Seo, B. Johnson, and S. Dhople, “Large- signal stability analysis of grid-forming inverters with equivalent-circuit models,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion (Early Access), pp. 1–13, 2025

    2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    A novel tuning method of grid-forming inverter voltage control,

    M. S. Javaid, B. Chaudhuri, F. Teng, and Z. Akhtar, “A novel tuning method of grid-forming inverter voltage control,” inIEEE PowerTech 2025, Kiel, Germany, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Impact of inner control in GFM-induced sub-synchronous oscil- lations,

    ——, “Impact of inner control in GFM-induced sub-synchronous oscil- lations,” in2025 IEEE PES General Meeting, Austin, TX, USA, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Exploring the variation of critical modal properties in power systems with converter- interfaced units,

    L. I. Benedetti, P. N. Papadopoulos, and R. Preece, “Exploring the variation of critical modal properties in power systems with converter- interfaced units,”Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks, vol. 43, p. 101841, 2025. 8 PowerUp Conference 2026

    2025

  4. [12]

    Origin of anomalous instability of grid-forming converters tied to stiff grid,

    Z. Hong, H. Xu, Z. Hou, and M. Zhan, “Origin of anomalous instability of grid-forming converters tied to stiff grid,”IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 2563–2574, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Analysis on instability mechanism of grid-connected VSG under strong grid condition,

    X. Li, X. Xiong, C. Li, and Z. Zhou, “Analysis on instability mechanism of grid-connected VSG under strong grid condition,” in2024 IEEE 10th International Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference (IPEMC2024-ECCE Asia), 2024, pp. 2118–2121

    2024

  6. [14]

    Multi-parameter practical stability region analysis of wind power system based on limit cycle amplitude tracing,

    X. Ma, Y . Wan, Y . Wang, X. Dong, S. Shi, J. Liang, Y . Zhao, and H. Mi, “Multi-parameter practical stability region analysis of wind power system based on limit cycle amplitude tracing,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2571–2583, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Limit cycle and large signal stability boundary induced by outer controller of grid- connected VSC,

    B. Zhao, Z. Huang, L. Chen, K. Hou, Y . Min, and S. Luo, “Limit cycle and large signal stability boundary induced by outer controller of grid- connected VSC,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics (Early Access), 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Lyapunov coefficients for Hopf bifurcations in systems with piecewise smooth nonlinearity,

    M. S. Zazo and J. D. M. Rademacher, “Lyapunov coefficients for Hopf bifurcations in systems with piecewise smooth nonlinearity,”SIAM J. on Appl. Dyn. Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2847–2886, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Defini- tion and classification of power system stability – revisited & extended,

    N. Hatziargyriou, J. Milanovic, C. Rahmann, V . Ajjarapu, C. Canizares, I. Erlich, D. Hill, I. Hiskens, I. Kamwa, B. Pal, P. Pourbeik, J. Sanchez- Gasca, A. Stankovic, T. Van Cutsem, V . Vittal, and C. V ournas, “Defini- tion and classification of power system stability – revi...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bifurcation analysis of active electrical distribution networks considering load tap changers and power converter capacity limits,

    D. Moutevelis, J. Rold ´an-P´erez, M. Prodanovic, and S. Sanchez- Acevedo, “Bifurcation analysis of active electrical distribution networks considering load tap changers and power converter capacity limits,” IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 7230–7246, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Modelingtoolkit: A composable graph transformation system for equation-based modeling,

    Y . Ma, S. Gowda, R. Anantharaman, C. Laughman, V . Shah, and C. Rackauckas, “Modelingtoolkit: A composable graph transformation system for equation-based modeling,”arXiv, 2021, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.05244

    2021 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    BifurcationKit.jl,

    R. Veltz, “BifurcationKit.jl,” Jul. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02902346

    2020

  13. [21]

    DifferentialEquations.jl–a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia,

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, “DifferentialEquations.jl–a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in Julia,”Jour- nal of Open Research Software, vol. 5, no. 1, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    H. B. Keller,Lectures on Numerical Methods in Bifurcation Problems - Tata Institute Lectures on Mathematics and Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1988

    1988

  15. [23]

    Identifying feasibility region boundaries in power systems with multiple VSCs,

    Y . Chen, R. Preece, and M. Barnes, “Identifying feasibility region boundaries in power systems with multiple VSCs,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1229–1241, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    P. S. Kundur,Power System Stability and Control, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    van Cutsem and C

    T. van Cutsem and C. V ournas,V oltage Stability of Electric Power Systems. New York, NY , USA: Springer, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Limit induced bifurcation of grid-connected VSC caused by current limit,

    G. Xing, Y . Min, L. Chen, and H. Mao, “Limit induced bifurcation of grid-connected VSC caused by current limit,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2717–2720, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Numerical continuation of branch points of equilibria and periodic orbits,

    E. J. Doedel, W. Govaerts, Y . A. Kuznetsov, and A. Dhooge, “Numerical continuation of branch points of equilibria and periodic orbits,”Interna- tional Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 15, no. 03, pp. 841–860, 2005, doi:10.1142/S0218127405012491

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    Modelling and dynamic analysis of a grid-forming converter in Julia,

    L. I. Benedetti, R. Preece, and P. N. Papadopoulos, “Modelling and dynamic analysis of a grid-forming converter in Julia,” Jun 2026, software, doi:10.48420/32802230

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Yazdani and R

    A. Yazdani and R. Iravani,V oltage-Sourced Converters in Power Sys- tems: Modeling, Control, and Applications. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Overcurrent limiting in grid-forming inverters: A comprehensive review and discussion,

    N. Baeckeland, D. Chatterjee, M. Lu, B. Johnson, and G.-S. Seo, “Overcurrent limiting in grid-forming inverters: A comprehensive review and discussion,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 14 493–14 517, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Visioli,Practical PID Control

    A. Visioli,Practical PID Control. London, UK: Springer London, 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Impedance estimation for transient stability enhancement of virtual synchronous machines,

    B. Pepper and D. Campos-Gaona, “Impedance estimation for transient stability enhancement of virtual synchronous machines,” in2024 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  25. [33]

    The continuation power flow: a tool for steady state voltage stability analysis,

    V . Ajjarapu and C. Christy, “The continuation power flow: a tool for steady state voltage stability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 416–423, 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.