Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Multivariable Current Controller for Enhancing Dynamic Response and Grid Synchronization Stability of IBRs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A MIMO current controller tuned by optimal control keeps weak-grid inverters synchronized at 1.66 p.u. of power, where the standard PI loop fails at 0.94 p.u.

desk verdict A clean LQR-based MIMO PI derivation with a practical structure, but the headline performance gains rest on an unfair SISO baseline and miscomputed percentages. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08201 v1 pith:7QNUCGZR submitted 2025-09-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Hassan Yazdani , Ali Maleki , Saeed Lotfifard , Ali Saberi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords currentcontrollerMIMO-PIoptimalcontroltheoryIBRweakgridsynchronizationstabilityLQRvector
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 argues that the standard way to control the current of an inverter-based resource — decoupling the d and q axes with measured feedforward terms, then running two independent PI controllers — is what makes grid-following inverters oscillate and lose synchronism in weak grids. The authors replace that scheme with a two-by-two PI controller whose gains are computed in one shot by solving a linear-quadratic (LQR) optimal control problem on the filter model, with the integral of the tracking error added as a state. Because the resulting controller has the same input-output structure as the conventional one, the claim is that it can be adopted with only minor changes to existing vector-control schemes. The payoff, if true, is operational: time-domain simulations and eigenvalue analysis show faster settling, better axis decoupling, and, at SCR = 1 with X/R = 1, a synchronization limit of 1.66 p.u. active power instead of 0.94 p.u. A careful reader would care because weak-grid synchronization is a live problem for solar and battery plants, and this is a drop-in fix rather than a new control architecture.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is an augmented state-space optimal-control design. The RL filter model (states iid, iiq; inputs vid, viq) is extended by the integral of the tracking error, z(t) = ∫(x − x*)dt, and the control input is the deviation eu = u − u* from the feedforward u* = −B−1Ax*. Solving an LQR cost on this augmented system gives a 2×4 gain K that splits into proportional (KP) and integral (KI) 2×2 blocks, yielding u = KP(x* − x) + KI∫(x* − x)dτ + u*. With the paper's penalties, KP is diagonal and KI has equal diagonal entries with opposite-sign off-diagonal entries, so the rotating-field, cross-axis action that conventional controllers try to create with measured feedforward terms come

What would settle it

Repeat the Section IV-D line-outage scenario (SCR 4 → 2, 0.66 p.u. active and reactive injection) in a detailed electromagnetic-transient simulation that includes the phase-locked loop, measurement filters, and the 0.3 ms PWM delay; if the MIMO-controlled inverter loses synchronism, or if a sweep of the active-power setpoint at SCR = 1 and X/R = 1 loses sync below 1.66 p.u., the central claim fails. A complementary check: compute the small-signal eigenvalues of the full system (PLL plus grid impedance included) with the paper's fixed gains; any right-half-plane crossing for SCR ≥ 1 at the clai

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: a MIMO current controller tuned as an optimal PI regulator beats the usual SISO-PI controller in speed and grid-synchronization stability. The design augments the filter model with the error integral, solves the Riccati equation, and splits the gain into proportional and integral blocks. The proportional block is diagonal and the integral block is cross-coupled, so integral action supplies the decoupling that feedforward terms cannot once PLL delay and weak-grid impedance act. Simulations, eigenvalue sweeps, and an SCR 4-to-2 outage confirm the advantage. At SCR = 1, X/R = 1, the claimed limit is 1.66 p.u. active and 0.66 p.u. reactive versus 0.94 and 0.49 p.u.

Load-bearing premise

The entire advantage rests on LQR gains computed from the bare RL filter model staying effective once the phase-locked loop, grid impedance, and control delay are added; if that robustness assumption fails, the synchronization improvements do not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A line outage that drops grid strength from SCR = 4 to SCR = 2 no longer costs synchronization: with the MIMO controller the inverter keeps running at its pre-fault setpoints, where the conventional SISO controller pulls out of synchronism.
  • Active-power capability before loss of synchronism at SCR = 1 and X/R = 1 rises from 0.94 p.u. to 1.66 p.u.; reactive capability rises from 0.49 p.u. to 0.66 p.u., with the same controller gains across all tested operating points, requiring no re-tuning as grid strength changes.
  • Because the proportional block stays diagonal and only the integral block carries cross-coupling, the controller keeps the conventional PI structure and needs no state observers or grid Thevenin-impedance estimates, so retrofitting existing vector-control schemes is a small change.
  • Eigenvalue sweeps indicate the stability margin degrades more slowly under filter-parameter variation (up to 2× resistance, down to 0.5× inductance) than for the conventional controller, supporting the robustness story.
  • LQR synthesis gives the controller the classical gain and phase margins of optimal control, so tuning is a systematic penalty selection rather than heuristic gain iteration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The antisymmetric off-diagonal entries of the integral gain matrix (KI12 = −4.571, KI21 = +4.571 with equal diagonals 7.008) are structurally a complex-vector, rotating-field integrator; an obvious test is whether the LQR penalty choices can be mapped onto the complex-vector gains of the earlier approaches the paper lists, which would unify the two design traditions.
  • Because the design model ignores PLL and grid impedance, the claimed robustness should degrade gracefully rather than suddenly; a concrete extension is to re-solve the LQR on an augmented model that includes the PLL angle as a state and check whether the diagonal-proportional/cross-coupled-integral structure survives, which would let the design extend to plants with explicitly modeled synchronizat
  • The quantitative results are for a 100 kW, 500 V system; before utility-scale deployment, the 1.66 p.u. limit should be re-checked with realistic measurement-filter and PWM delays, since those are exactly the unmodeled dynamics the gain robustness must absorb.
  • The construction is generic for any two-axis RL-type plant, so the same augmented-LQR procedure could be applied to other coupled dq loops such as voltage or power-synchronization control, where cross-axis coupling is also the limiting factor.
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. This manuscript proposes a multivariable PI current controller for grid-connected VSCs. The controller is obtained by applying LQR synthesis to the dq-frame RL filter model augmented with integral states. The resulting control law has a two-by-two PI structure with cross-coupling terms, so it resembles conventional SISO-PI vector control. The authors compare dynamic performance and grid-synchronization stability against a conventional SISO-PI controller using Simulink time-domain simulations and eigenvalue analysis, reporting faster tracking, smaller overshoot, better axis decoupling, and higher achievable power transfer in weak grids (e.g., 1.66 p.u. vs 0.94 p.u. active power at SCR=1 with X/R=1).

Significance. The LQR formulation is standard and correctly executed, and the controller structure is attractive because it preserves the conventional PI architecture while adding only two off-diagonal terms. The paper also includes a control delay in the simulation model and robustness checks against filter parameter variation. If the performance advantage survives a fair comparison, the proposed tuning method could be a useful systematic alternative to existing current-control tuning rules. However, the current evidence does not isolate the contribution of the multivariable structure because the SISO baseline is not bandwidth-matched, and some numerical claims are internally inconsistent.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.C, Table I] The comparison baseline is not controlled for loop bandwidth. With Lf=600 μH and Rf=20 mΩ, the conventional PI gains kp=0.13, ki=11.25 give a d-axis current-loop crossover of roughly 216 rad/s (zero at ki/kp≈86.5 rad/s), whereas the MIMO diagonal gains KP=0.269, KI,11=7.0076 give a crossover of roughly 448 rad/s (zero at ≈26 rad/s). The MIMO loop is therefore about twice as fast before considering the off-diagonal terms. Because faster current-loop bandwidth is itself known to improve weak-grid synchronization of grid-following converters, the reported improvements in Figs. 5-9 and the stability margins in Figs. 10-12 may reflect loop-speed difference rather than the multivariable structure. The central claim of the paper requires a matched-bandwidth comparison (e.g., tune the SISO PI to the same crossover frequency as the MIMO design, or sweep SISO bandwidth).
  2. [Section IV.C] The reported percentage improvements are inconsistent with the stated numerical limits. The active-power improvement is 1.66 p.u. vs 0.94 p.u., i.e., an increase of 0.72/0.94≈76.6%, not 36%. The reactive-power improvement is 0.66 p.u. vs 0.49 p.u., i.e., 0.17/0.49≈34.7%, not 24%. Please correct these values and state explicitly the base used for the percentage calculation; as written, the quantitative comparison appears not to have been carefully normalized.
  3. [Section IV.E] The eigenvalue comparison suffers from the same confound as the time-domain comparison. The SISO and MIMO systems have different current-loop bandwidths, so the observation that the MIMO eigenvalues remain in the left half-plane for lower SCR values does not by itself demonstrate a structural advantage of the multivariable controller. A matched-bandwidth eigenvalue study, or a sensitivity analysis over SISO PI gains, is needed before claiming enhanced synchronization stability.
  4. [Section IV.C] The methodology for determining the maximum injectable power before loss of synchronization is not described. The reader is not told what disturbance is applied, how the power setpoint is ramped or stepped, or what criterion is used to declare loss of synchronization. Without this information, the reported limits (0.94 p.u. and 1.66 p.u. active power, 0.49 p.u. and 0.66 p.u. reactive) are not reproducible, and the quantitative claim is difficult to verify.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I, Nomenclature] In the text after Eq. (1), 'vid and vid' should presumably be 'vid and viq'.; likewise check 'viq' usage in the controller schematic in Fig. 4, where 'k24+k24/s' appears to be a typo for 'k24+k24/s' or the intended k22+k24/s.
  2. [Table I] The control delay entry is garbled: 'td Control delay 32fsw' should read '3/(2 fsw)' as stated in the text. Please correct the table formatting.
  3. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that 'the LQR naturally selects only the integral action,' but the controller in Table I has a nonzero proportional gain matrix KP=diag(0.269,0.269). This statement is contradicted by the reported parameters and is not demonstrated in the body; please revise or clarify.
  4. [Figures 11 and 12] The eigenvalue plots have no labeled axes. Please label the real and imaginary axes and indicate the stability boundary so the reader can interpret the eigenvalue trajectories.
  5. [Introduction] The Introduction contains duplicated sentences (e.g., the text starting 'where the performance is enhanced by incorporating the PLL dynamics...' appears twice). This appears to be a text-merge artifact; it should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LQR synthesis is self-contained and performance claims are evaluated on a full simulation model that includes dynamics not used in the design.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The controller is synthesized from the RL filter model (1)-(2) via an augmented LQR problem (9)-(17), with Q and R as tuning weights. The resulting gains are then tested on a full Simulink model that includes PLL dynamics, grid impedance, switching delay, and weak-grid conditions, and via eigenvalue analysis using an external state-space model [29]. The design inputs Q and R are not fitted to the reported outcomes; the reported stability and power-transfer limits emerge from closed-loop simulations and eigenvalue sweeps that include dynamics not present in the design model. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the references for optimal PI control [21]-[23] and the small-signal model [29] are external. The claim of superior performance rests on a comparison with a particular SISO PI tuning (kp=0.13, ki=11.25), and one could question whether that baseline is fairly tuned or whether the improvement reflects loop bandwidth rather than the multivariable structure; however, this is a comparison-fairness or correctness concern, not a circularity in which a prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central design rests on two hand-picked weights (Q, R) and a simplified plant model. No new physical entities are introduced. The baseline comparison adds a fourth free parameter (the conventional PI tuning).

free parameters (4)
  • Q_weights = diag(0.0769, 0.0769, 70, 70)
    Chosen by hand to balance tracking error and integral action; no systematic selection method given; directly determines the controller gains.
  • R_weight = I_2x2
    Input penalty in the LQR cost; chosen as identity without justification.
  • conventional_PI_gains = kp=0.13, ki=11.25
    Baseline controller parameters; appear sluggish relative to the plant dynamics (zero at 86.5 rad/s vs plant pole at 33.3 rad/s), making the comparison potentially unfair.
  • PLL_gains = kp=48, ki=144
    Used in simulations; no tuning discussion; affects the weak-grid interaction results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dq-frame RL filter model (equations 1-2) represents the inverter current dynamics.
    Standard average model; ignores switching harmonics and the filter capacitor (Cf omitted).
  • domain assumption The augmented system (9)-(13) is controllable, so the LQR has a stabilizing solution.
    Claimed as 'straightforward to show' after equation (14), but no proof is given.
  • standard math The static power transfer limits (24)-(25) from [26] are used to interpret simulation results.
    Standard steady-state power flow equations.
  • domain assumption The small-signal model of the grid-tied VSC from [29] is correct and sufficient for eigenvalue analysis.
    The paper does not derive this model, only cites it; any error in [29] would invalidate the stability conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multivariable Current Controller for Enhancing Dynamic Response and Grid Synchronization Stability of IBRs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QNUCGZR

@misc{pith2026250908201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multivariable Current Controller for Enhancing Dynamic Response and Grid Synchronization Stability of IBRs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QNUCGZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08201}
}
read the original abstract

This paper develops a multivariable current control strategy for inverter-based resources (IBRs) based on optimal control theory to enhance their dynamic performance and grid synchronization stability. The structure of the implemented multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) controller closely resembles that of the commonly used conventional single-input, single-output (SISO) PI controllers for IBRs. As a result, it requires only minor adjustments to conventional vector current control schemes, thereby facilitating its straightforward adoption. Time-domain simulations and analytical analysis demonstrate the superior performance of the developed method under various conditions and use case scenarios, such as weak power systems and uncertain parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematics of a typical controller of VSC. 𝑖𝑑 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the MIMO controller in state space form. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Comparison of controllers’ transient responses (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of controllers’ transient responses (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of controllers’ transient responses (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the controllers’ responses to a sudden change to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of eigenvalues of the system with (a) SISO-PI (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the eigenvalues in (a) SISO-PI and (b) MIMO-PI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Coupling influence on thedqimpedance stability analysis for the three-phase grid-connected inverter,

    C. Liet al., “Coupling influence on thedqimpedance stability analysis for the three-phase grid-connected inverter,”Energies, vol. 12, no. 19, p. 3676, 2019. Hassan Yazdani(S’25) is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering at Washington State University, Pullman, W A, USA. His research in- terests include the dynamics, control, and stability an...

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Multipurpose FCS model predictive control of VSC- based microgrids for islanded and grid-connected operation modes,

    M. Ghiasiet al., “Multipurpose FCS model predictive control of VSC- based microgrids for islanded and grid-connected operation modes,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 2558–2569, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Provision of synthetic inertia support for converter-dominated weak grids,

    M. Saeedian, B. Pournazarian, S. Taheri, and E. Pouresmaeil, “Provision of synthetic inertia support for converter-dominated weak grids,”IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 2068–2077, Jun. 2022

    work page

  4. [3]

    Grid-forming VSC control in four-wire systems with unbalanced nonlinear loads,

    R. Lliuyacc, J. M. Mauricio, A. Gomez-Exposito, M. Savaghebi, and J. M. Guerrero, “Grid-forming VSC control in four-wire systems with unbalanced nonlinear loads,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 152, pp. 249–256, Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Impact of current limiters and fast voltage boosters in grid-forming VSC-based generators on transient stability,

    R. E. ´Avila Mart´ınez, J. Renedo, L. Rouco, A. Garcia-Cerrada, L. Sigrist, X. Guillaud, and T. Qoria, “Impact of current limiters and fast voltage boosters in grid-forming VSC-based generators on transient stability,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 235, p. 110753, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Mul- tivariable phase-locked loop free strategy for power control of grid- connected voltage source converters,

    C. Diaz-Sanahuja, I. Pe ˜narrocha-Al´os, and R. Vidal-Albalate, “Mul- tivariable phase-locked loop free strategy for power control of grid- connected voltage source converters,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 210, p. 108084, Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    A novel voltage-power coordinated control strategy for grid-connected inverters in low-voltage microgrids based on fast non-singular terminal sliding mode,

    W. Zhang, C. Sun, Y . Wang, and K. Song, “A novel voltage-power coordinated control strategy for grid-connected inverters in low-voltage microgrids based on fast non-singular terminal sliding mode,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 251, p. 112183, 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [7]

    Evaluation and enhance- ment of control strategies for VSC stations under weak grid strengths,

    S. Lu, Z. Xu, L. Xiao, W. Jiang, and X. Bie, “Evaluation and enhance- ment of control strategies for VSC stations under weak grid strengths,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1836–1847, Mar. 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Multivariable analysis and control of a vsc back-to-back converter interfacing two ac systems,

    I. D. N. de Souza, P. M. de Almeida, G. A. Fogli, and P. G. Barbosa, “Multivariable analysis and control of a vsc back-to-back converter interfacing two ac systems,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 218, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    The concept of complex transfer functions applied to the modeling of induction motors,

    M. L. de Aguiar and M. M. Cad, “The concept of complex transfer functions applied to the modeling of induction motors,” inProc. IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Jan. 2000, pp. 387–391

    2000

  3. [10]

    Dynamic analysis of current regulators for AC motors using complex vectors,

    F. B. del Blanco, M. W. Degner, and R. D. Lorenz, “Dynamic analysis of current regulators for AC motors using complex vectors,”IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1424–1432, Nov. 1999

    1999

  4. [11]

    Internal model-based current con- trol of the RL filter-based voltage-sourced converter,

    M. Yazdanian and A. Mehrizi-Sani, “Internal model-based current con- trol of the RL filter-based voltage-sourced converter,”IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 873–881, Dec. 2014

    2014

  5. [12]

    Multivariable-PI-based dqcurrent control of voltage source converters with superior axis decoupling capability,

    B. Bahrani, S. Kenzelmann, and A. Rufer, “Multivariable-PI-based dqcurrent control of voltage source converters with superior axis decoupling capability,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 3016–3026, Jul. 2011

    2011

  6. [13]

    A multivariable controller in synchronous frame integrating phase-locked loop to enhance performance of three-phase grid-connected inverters in weak grids,

    S. Silwal, M. Karimi-Ghartemani, H. Karimi, M. Davari, and S. M. H. Zadeh, “A multivariable controller in synchronous frame integrating phase-locked loop to enhance performance of three-phase grid-connected inverters in weak grids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. ...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Multivariable state-feedback controller design for PV inverter connected to a weak grid,

    M. Antoine, H. Li, X. Zheng, and Y . Yu, “Multivariable state-feedback controller design for PV inverter connected to a weak grid,”Energies, vol. 14, no. 15, p. 4441, 2021. 8

    2021

  8. [15]

    Nonlinear subsynchronous oscillation damping controller for direct- drive wind farms with VSC-HVDC systems,

    B. Shao, S. Zhao, Y . Yang, B. Gao, L. Wang, and F. Blaabjerg, “Nonlinear subsynchronous oscillation damping controller for direct- drive wind farms with VSC-HVDC systems,”IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2842–2858, Jun. 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    A lyapunov-based nonlinear power control algorithm for grid-connected VSCs,

    B. Fan and X. Wang, “A lyapunov-based nonlinear power control algorithm for grid-connected VSCs,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 2916–2926, Mar. 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    A nonlinear adaptive stabilizing control strategy to enhance dynamic stability of weak grid-tied VSC system,

    D. Pal and B. K. Panigrahi, “A nonlinear adaptive stabilizing control strategy to enhance dynamic stability of weak grid-tied VSC system,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 2182–2193, Jun. 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Tuning method of a grid-following converter for the extremely-weak-grid connection,

    C. Li, S. Wang, and J. Liang, “Tuning method of a grid-following converter for the extremely-weak-grid connection,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3169–3172, Jul. 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Impact of short-circuit ratio and phase-locked-loop parameters on the small-signal behavior of a VSC-HVDC converter,

    J. Z. Zhou, H. Ding, S. Fan, Y . Zhang, and A. M. Gole, “Impact of short-circuit ratio and phase-locked-loop parameters on the small-signal behavior of a VSC-HVDC converter,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2287–2296, Oct. 2014

    2014

  13. [20]

    Effect of control-loops interactions on power stability limits of VSC integrated to AC system,

    Y . Huang and D. Wang, “Effect of control-loops interactions on power stability limits of VSC integrated to AC system,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 301–310, Feb. 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Optimal proportional plus integral control for regulator and tracking problems,

    K. P. Wong and D. E. Seborg, “Optimal proportional plus integral control for regulator and tracking problems,”Optimal Control Applications and Methods, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 335–350, 1985

    1985

  15. [22]

    Proportional plus integral MIMO con- troller for regulation and tracking with anti-wind-up features,

    P. F. Puleston and R. J. Mantz, “Proportional plus integral MIMO con- troller for regulation and tracking with anti-wind-up features,”Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 2647–2652, 1993

    1993

  16. [23]

    Kwakernaak and R

    H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan,Linear Optimal Control Systems. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1972

    1972

  17. [24]

    Tuning of synchronous-frame PI current controllers in grid-connected converters operating at a low sampling rate by MIMO root locus,

    F. D. Freijedo, A. Vidal, A. G. Yepes, J. M. Guerrero, O. Lopez, J. Malvar, and J. Doval-Gandoy, “Tuning of synchronous-frame PI current controllers in grid-connected converters operating at a low sampling rate by MIMO root locus,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, v...

    2015

  18. [25]

    Analysis ofd–qsmall-signal impedance of grid-tied inverters,

    B. Wen, D. Boroyevich, R. Burgos, P. Mattavelli, and Z. Shen, “Analysis ofd–qsmall-signal impedance of grid-tied inverters,”IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 675–687, Jan. 2016

    2016

  19. [26]

    VSC transmission limitations imposed by AC system strength and AC impedance characteristics,

    J. Z. Zhou and A. M. Gole, “VSC transmission limitations imposed by AC system strength and AC impedance characteristics,” in10th IET International Conference on AC and DC Power Transmission (ACDC 2012), 2012, pp. P06–6

    2012

  20. [27]

    Dynamic performance evaluation of inverter feeding a weak grid con- sidering variable system parameters,

    S. Harasis, K. Mahmoud, S. Albatran, K. Alzaareer, and Q. Salem, “Dynamic performance evaluation of inverter feeding a weak grid con- sidering variable system parameters,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 126 104– 126 116, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Deploying utility-scale PV power plants in weak grids,

    M. Morjaria, “Deploying utility-scale PV power plants in weak grids,” inProc. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM), Chicago, IL, USA, Jul. 2017, presentation

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.