Abstract

Grid-forming inverter control is recently discussed for bulk power systems and is already in use for islanded microgrids. A common control type is the droop control. Numerous variants of the basic droop control have been proposed. However, there is lack of performance comparison of the droop variants in literature. Their superiority has only been demonstrated for some specific microgrid scenarios. This work composes benchmark scenarios to assess and compare the applicability of droop control variants and also their combination with virtual impedances under practical conditions. A number of microgrid topologies and the interaction with synchronous machines are considered to benchmark the performance. Static criteria, such as the steady-state power sharing, as well as dynamic stability criteria, are taken into account for modal analysis. To guarantee a meaningful comparison, a genetic algorithm tailored to the problem is used to optimise controller parameters for each controller type. Results indicate that the combination with virtual impedance has a more decisive effect on stability than the droop variant. The outcome is relevant for microgrid stability analysis in numerous contexts, such as optimal placement of inverters or topology optimisation, where the choice of the most suitable controller type with optimised parameter sets is key.

Highlights

  • The benefits of microgrids range from economic and technical to environmental and social benefits [1]

  • Three of the most popular droop variants are investigated in this work

  • It is pointed out that in the previous literature the superiority of the droop variants has only been demonstrated for very specific microgrid applications which are not generally representative

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

The benefits of microgrids range from economic and technical to environmental and social benefits [1]. It comprises a line and two nodes, each connecting one DER and one load. This means that after the transients of the load steps described in Section 3.1 have decayed, the difference between the active and reactive power of the DER must be below the mentioned values This is to ensure almost equal power sharing and to avoid overloading at steady‐state. This constraint is used when the area criterion is the objective and ensures that this stability margin is always maintained

| Objectives
| RESULTS
| CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call