IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO.

11, NOVEMBER 2024 14493

Overcurrent Limiting in Grid-Forming Inverters: A

Comprehensive Review and Discussion
Nathan Baeckeland, Member, IEEE, Debjyoti Chatterjee, Graduate Student Member, IEEE,
Minghui Lu , Member, IEEE, Brian Johnson , Senior Member, IEEE, and Gab-Su Seo , Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Grid-forming (GFM) inverters are increasingly rec- is increasing in modern power grids. Additional examples of
ognized as a solution to facilitate massive grid integration of grid-connected inverters include battery energy storage, STAT-
inverter-based resources and enable 100% power-electronics- COMs, and high-voltage dc. Today, most installed inverters act
based power systems. However, the overcurrent characteristics of
GFM inverters exhibit major differences from those of conven- as grid-following (GFL) units whose ac outputs mimic a current
tional synchronous machines. Accordingly, an in-depth character- source by following the measured grid voltage with the use of a
ization of GFM current-limiting strategies is needed to ascertain phase-locked loop (PLL) [1]. As the share of GFL inverter-based
their performance during off-nominal conditions. Although GFM resources (IBRs) grow and fossil-fuel generation is retired, so do
current-limiting controls are primarily necessary to protect the the concerns for power system integrity since grids were initially
inverter power stage, they determine the inverter behavior during
and after an off-nominal system disturbance. As a result, they can predicated on the use of synchronous generators (SGs) for
profoundly impact device-level stability, transient system stability, system stabilization. This has triggered increased interest from
power system protection, and fault recovery. This article offers the power system industry to incorporate grid-forming (GFM)
a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art current-limiting tech- capabilities in grid-connected inverters to provide grid services
niques for GFM inverters and outlines open challenges where in- that enhance reliability and stability [2]. In recent years, inverters
novative solutions are needed. One key contribution of this article is
the use of graphical methods that allow for intuitive understanding with GFM capabilities have been recognized as a pathway to
and visually aided comparisons of current-limiting methods. With facilitate the transition to a sustainable power grid. Many lead-
this approach, we evaluate various performance criteria for dif- ing research organizations, transmission system operators, and
ferent limiting methods, such as fault current contribution, voltage multinational consortia around the world are working towards
support, stability, and post-fault recovery. We also discuss the latest incorporating GFM capabilities into grid-connected inverters
standards and trends as they require inverter dynamics under off-
nominal conditions and outline pathways for future developments. and streamlining grid codes for GFM technologies [3], [4], [5],
[6], [7].
Index Terms—Current limiting, fault ride-through, grid- Despite significant interest in this area, many questions related
forming (GFM) inverters, stability.
to GFM inverter control remain unanswered [8]. Open questions
are particularly centered around the behavior of GFM control dy-
I. INTRODUCTION namics during off-nominal and contingency conditions [2], [3].
The physical origin of the problem is the inherent limits in the
HE presence of inverter-based renewable energy resources,
T such as wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, and fuel cells,
overcurrent capabilities of power semiconductor devices within
an inverter. Generally, converter size and thermal management
costs increase as the magnitude and duration that the converter
Manuscript received 10 January 2024; revised 6 April 2024 and 29 May 2024; must reliably tolerate increase. This tradeoff results in inverter
accepted 1 July 2024. Date of publication 18 July 2024; date of current version
11 September 2024. This work was authored in part by the National Renewable designs that can only tolerate overcurrents marginally exceeding
Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the the nominal value for inverter cost reduction. SGs, on the other
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. hand, can deliver 5–10× their rated current for a certain period
This material is based upon work supported by the Laboratory Directed Research
and Development Program at NREL and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of time without damage, and this property has been leveraged to
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Solar Energy enhance power system robustness during disturbances. The high
Technologies Office Award Number 38637. Recommended for publication by overcurrent capabilities and rotational inertia associated with
Associate Editor M. Saeedifard. (N. Baeckeland and D. Chatterjee contributed
equally to this work). (Corresponding author: Gab-Su Seo.) machines lie at the heart of existing power system reliability and
Nathan Baeckeland and Gab-Su Seo are with the Power Systems Engineer- protection schemes [9]. Given the aforementioned differences
ing Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401 USA between SGs and IBRs, it is clear that the transition to an
(e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]).
Debjyoti Chatterjee and Brian Johnson are with the Chandra Family Depart- inverter-based system will bring many challenges [10], [11]. On
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, the upside, inverters offer immense flexibility due to their use
Austin, TX 78712 USA (e-mail: [email protected]; b.johnson@ of programmable digital controls, which shape their dynamics,
utexas.edu).
Minghui Lu is with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Seattle, WA and high switching frequencies that far exceed the dynamics of
98109 USA (e-mail: [email protected]). interest in power systems and, therefore, provide fast actuation.
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at Accordingly, the GFM inverter behavior is primarily determined
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2024.3430316.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPEL.2024.3430316 by the inverter control software design giving flexibility [12].

© 2024 The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
14494 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

The subsystem that protects the inverter hardware from ther-

mal breakdown during excessive overcurrents is current limiting
within the inverter control loops. Once a disturbance occurs in
the grid (i.e., short-circuit faults, phase or frequency jumps,
overloading, inrush phenomena for motor start or cold load
pickup, or black start), the inverter may be forced into an
overcurrent condition, which triggers the limiter to curtail the
output currents. In that case, normal operation is overridden and Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the challenges facing current limiting in
the current limiter dominates inverter dynamics during the dis- GFM inverters both on device level and system level.
turbance and recovery process. Many different current-limiting
strategies have been proposed in the literature and each has
its own merits and drawbacks. However, no method has been current limiter should not only facilitate quick and accurate limit-
found to work accurately and reliably for all possible types of ing, but also restrain from causing any small-signal instability or
grid disturbances. Given that current limiter actions strongly inducing excessive harmonics in the inverter output voltage and
impact GFM inverter dynamics and power system operation, currents. The altered inverter dynamic behavior resulting from
careful consideration of the limiter design with respect to the current limiting can affect the system. For instance, the change in
entire power system is required. In this article, we investigate inverter output terminal behaviors can translate to network-wide
existing current-limiting approaches proposed in the literature attributes, such as power system protection, transient stability,
and shed light on the merits and drawbacks of each method with voltage support, and grid synchronization. With the increasing
respect to various performance attributes and under different grid responsibilities of GFM inverters to provide grid services and
conditions. With this approach, this article provides clarity on stabilize the grid, the actions of the limiter during disturbances
this critical topic and inspires new research ideas for the future. with respect to system attributes must be taken into account in
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section II, the GFM design process.
we introduce basic concepts for GFM inverter current limiting These device- and system-level challenges for GFM current
that will be used in the rest of the article. In Section III, we limiters are graphically summarized in Fig. 1. Unfortunately,
provide an overview of the existing current-limiting strate- designing a current limiter that performs optimally for all these
gies in the literature that are applicable to GFM inverters. aforementioned aspects, both on a device level and a system
Section IV briefly touches on GFM current limiting in single- level, is challenging and requires a deep understanding of the
phase inverters. In Section V, we discuss the impacts of various current-limiting mechanisms. Throughout this article, we re-
current-limiting methods on transient and small-signal stabil- view various current-limiting architectures and illustrate that
ity, inverter-level GFM dynamics, the post-fault recovery pro- every current-limiter design makes compromises and tradeoffs.
cess, and how these limiters handle unbalanced conditions. In In that way, this article provides a better understanding of
Section VI, we broaden our scope and discuss the importance the boundary condition in which we design current limiters
of grid codes. This section also gives a summary of efforts and aims to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of
by leading organizations toward GFM-tailored standards. In GFM current-limiting mechanisms. Also, note that this article
Section VII, we briefly discuss how the current limiting of GFM focuses on the output current limiting for generic three-phase
inverters affects the efficacy and reliability of power system and single-phase GFM inverters; it does not deal with any
protection based on pertinent literature. Finally, Section VIII specific power conversion topology. For instance, overcurrent
concludes this article. limiting and protection for modular converters, such as cascaded
H-bridge converters [13] and modular multilevel converters [14],
II. SETTING THE SCENE: CHALLENGES OF GFM [15], can differ and require additional efforts.
CURRENT LIMITING
III. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT-LIMITING METHODS
Before taking a deep dive into the peculiarities of GFM current
limiting, it is crucial to understand and appreciate the vast chal- In this section, we discuss the most common and recently
lenges associated with current limiting in GFM inverters. In this proposed methods to limit the output current of three-phase
section, we contemplate what the idealized GFM current limiter GFM inverters, which we classify as either direct or indirect
looks like, and initiate discussions that serve as the storyline for current-limiting methods. Direct current limiters aim to curtail
the remainder of this article. the inverter output current to the maximum designed level by
Current limiters in power electronics inverters are essential directly manipulating the current-reference control signals or
for a specific reason: the limiter must protect the device against semiconductor switch signals. Indirect current limiters curtail
thermal hardware damage caused by sourcing excessive output the output current by indirectly manipulating and diminishing
currents. This is the primary objective of current limiting. In the voltage-reference and/or power-reference signals in the in-
that spirit, ideally, overcurrents should be curtailed quickly and verter controls. Fig. 2 illustrates five direct and indirect current-
accurately; however, once the current limiter engages, the entire limiting methods that are discussed in this work (indicated in
control architecture of the inverter is altered, which leads to a red), integrated into a prototypical GFM control architecture. In
different dynamic output behavior of the inverter. As such, the the remainder of this work, we often refer to the conceptual GFM
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14495

Fig. 2. Overview of direct and indirect current-limiting methods for GFM inverters.

control architecture and signal notations in Fig. 2. To serve as a

baseline for our narrative, the conceptual GFM control topology,
illustrated in Fig. 2, is introduced.
The GFM inverter can be built out of cascaded control loops,
which comprise an inner-current, outer-voltage, and primary
control loops. The output LCL-filter currents and voltages are
sensed and fed as inputs to these various control loops. De-
pending on the reference frame that is leveraged in the controls,
the input measurements are first transformed using Clarke and
Fig. 3. Generic control structure of a current-reference saturation limiter (a)
Park transformations. Based on the output and reference power, with fixing the output current angle, φ, and (b) without fixing φ.
the primary controller generates the internal inverter reference
for the capacitor voltage magnitude, E  , and the frequency and
angle reference, ω  and θ, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2,
denotes the LCL-filter capacitor; Imax denotes the maximum
typical primary control methods include droop control [16], vir-
rated current of the inverter.
tual synchronous machine (VSM) control [17], and dispatchable
virtual oscillator control (dVOC) [18], [19], [20].
The reference voltage vector, e , is directed as an input to A. Direct Current-Limiting Methods
the outer-voltage loop, which in turn controls ii that serves as This section introduces and reviews state-of-the-art current-
the reference to the inner-current control loop. The output of the limiting methods that directly limit the GFM inverter current.
inner-current controller, m, called the modulation index, drives This includes methods that saturate the reference signal feeding
the pulsewidth modulation block that controls the semiconductor into the inner-current control loop (current-reference saturation
switches. Notice that, as indicated by the switch S1 in Fig. 2, limiting) or control the inverter switch signals to promptly limit
the cascaded voltage–current loops or the inner-current loop can the current (switch-level current limiting). These two methods
be bypassed, which transforms the GFM inverter into a single- feature superior dynamic current-magnitude limiting perfor-
loop controlled or current control-less inverter [18], [21]. All mance because they exploit the high control bandwidth of the
the current limiters that are discussed hereafter are conceptually inner-control loops or directly control the switch signals without
illustrated and highlighted in red. going through the slower outer cascaded loops (e.g., the voltage
Further, in Fig. 2, we use the following notations. We denote control loop and the primary control loop shown in Fig. 2).
the reference active and reactive power set points by P  and As such, direct limiting methods quickly and accurately curtail
Q , respectively; ii and ig denote the inverter- and grid-side the current. In what follows, we discuss the current-reference
LCL-filter currents, respectively, with the superscript indicating saturation limiter and the switch-level current limiter in more
which reference frame is leveraged; e and vg denote the LCL- detail and review the pertinent literature.
filter capacitor voltage and the terminal voltage, respectively, 1) Current-Reference Saturation Limiting: Fig. 3 illustrates
with the superscript indicating the reference frame; Li , Ri , Lg , a generic current-reference saturation limiting control structure
and Rg denote the inductive and resistive components of the where the current-reference signal, ii —which is generated by
inverter- and grid-side inductive parts of the LCL filter, and C an outer control loop, such as the voltage controller—is being
14496 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

saturated to limit the output current during disturbances. The sat-

uration gain, ρ, dynamically scales the current-reference signal,
ii , according to

1 if |ii | < Imax
ρ = Imax (1)
|i | if |ii | > Imax
i

where |ii | denotes the magnitude of the reference current and en-
tails a separate calculation [22]. In the literature, various types of
limiters are used to track and curtail the magnitude of the current,
Fig. 4. Generic control structure of a direct switch-level current limiter.
such as root mean square (RMS) limiters, circular limiters, and
elliptical limiters. Mahamedi et al. [23] used a magnitude calcu-
lator to individually monitor phase RMS currents and limit phase
currents. In [24], [25], a circular current limiter is proposed to switching command fed into the semiconductor switching
limit the peak of the sinusoidal signal without causing distortion bridge is blocked as soon as the instantaneous inverter output
in the output currents, which could be caused by an instantaneous currents exceed the maximum current threshold. Because this
hard current limiter, such as clipping the sinusoidal current. method directly affects the switching command signals, i.e.,
Moawwad et al. [26] proposed an elliptical current limiter, bypassing other control blocks in series, rapid and accurate
which represents the locus for the total instantaneous current current limitations can be achieved. Du et al. [38], [39] proposed
(i.e., positive and negative-sequence currents). The limits of a switch-level current-limiting control strategy that immediately
the direct and quadrature components of the converter current suppresses the currents during overloading using a hysteresis
are adaptively defined to fully use the overloading capability. loop. By directly controlling the switching command signals,
Baeckeland et al. [27] used a resonant integrator to track the this method can limit the overcurrent in a few switching cycles,
line-current amplitudes. In that work, the reference currents are which is significantly faster than any other limiting method
proportionally scaled, referring to the maximum phase current discussed in this work. Gurule et al. [40] and [41] demonstrated
if the limiter is activated. Computing the current magnitude can- this method through experimental results; however, bypassing
not be achieved instantaneously; therefore, this step can cause the entire GFM control structure and directly manipulating the
delays in detecting an overcurrent and thus affect the response switching command signals can cause controller instability and
time, likely causing a momentary overcurrent and affecting the severely degrade power quality due to waveform peak clipping,
stability margins of the inverter [27]. More explanation on this as illustrated in Fig. 4. More so, this can lead to integrator windup
is found in Sections V-A and V-B. in the hierarchical control loops. (More discussion on integrator
With the current-reference limiter in place, the limited refer- windup phenomena during current limiting in Section V-D.)
ence signal feeding into the inner-current control loop, ρ ii , can For those reasons, switch-level current-limiting methods are
never surpass the maximum allowable current, Imax , as shown rarely proposed in the literature as the primary current-limiting
in (1). Because of the high bandwidth of the inner-current control technique in inverters. In conjunction with a primary current-
loop, the output current closely tracks the reference, ρ ii , and limiting method, the switch-level current limiter can provide
with that, quick and accurate current limiting is acquired. Many quick backup protection to secure the inverter hardware against
works have described various implementations, depending on high and fast-rising transient currents.
the type of reference frame used in the controls [23], [25],
[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. (More discussion on reference B. Indirect Current-Limiting Methods
frames is found in Section V-E.) As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), the This section introduces and reviews methods that indirectly
current-reference saturation gain, ρ, rescales the magnitude of limit the inverter output current by 1) modulating the power set
ii without manipulating the current-phasor angle. This retains points that feed into the primary GFM controller; 2) incorporat-
the current-phasor angle demanded by the voltage controller. ing a virtual impedance (VI) in the voltage feedback loop; or 3)
This type of limiting is presented in [24], [25], [27]; however, as implementing a voltage limiter. Each category is discussed in
shown in Fig. 3(b), it is possible—after saturating the magnitude detail.
of the reference signal—to manipulate and prioritize the active 1) Power Set Point Modulation Current Limiting: This
or reactive current during the disturbance [23], [31], [33], [34], current-limiting method aims to curtail the output current by
[35], [36], [37]. Manipulating the current-phasor angle, φ, can adaptively reducing the power set points during overcurrent
provide a tightly controlled output current during disturbances; conditions. This method is studied in [42] and [43], where the
however, it is worth contemplating whether this method retains power set points, P  and Q , are dynamically rescaled as a
the voltage-source behavior of the GFM inverter during limiting function of the magnitude of the output voltage, E (see Fig. 5). In
as desired (more discussion is found in Section V-C). addition, by prioritizing reactive power during grid voltage drop
2) Switch-Level Current Limiting: Switch-level current- conditions, the GFM inverter can support the grid voltage and
limiting methods directly modulate the switching command straightforwardly comply with the grid codes requiring reactive
signals feeding into the semiconductor switching bridge to current provision, e.g., IEEE 1547 (more discussion is found in
curtail the output current, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The Section VI). As illustrated in Fig. 5, the power set points feeding
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14497

Fig. 5. Generic control structure of a power set point modulation current

limiter.


into the primary controller, Plim and Qlim , can be modified as Fig. 6. Generic control structure of a (a) static and (b) threshold VI current
limiter.
follows:
 
P if E > 0.9 pu
Plim = 

2
(2) increasing the inverter output impedance. By redirecting the
(E Sr ) −(Q )2 if E ≤ 0.9 pu
sensed output current through a VI and subtracting the VI voltage
⎧ 
⎨Q if E > 0.9 pu drop from the voltage-reference signal, current limiting can be
Qlim = k Sr (1−E) if 0.5 pu < E ≤ 0.9 pu (3) achieved [45], [46], [47], [48]. Note that, compared to direct
⎩
E Sr if E ≤ 0.5 pu current-limiting methods that modulate the current reference,
VI current-limiting methods modulate the voltage reference,
where E denotes the inverter output voltage in per unit, Sr thereby preventing the voltage controller from commanding an
denotes the rated apparent output power in per unit, and k excessive inverter output current. This concept is illustrated by
denotes the ratio of the voltage drop at which the reactive power the generic VI current-limiting control structure shown in Fig. 6.
is injected into the grid, as often defined in grid codes [42], [43]. With the switch S4 , one can choose to enable a static VI, as
It is not clear, however, how power set point modulation current shown in Fig. 6(a) [48], [49], or a threshold VI, illustrated in
limiters can retain the GFM properties during faults and ensure Fig. 6(b) [50], [51], [52], [53]. A static VI limiter activates a
effective, accurate, and quick current limiting. This method has constant VI in a fault with a short rise time [48]. Since it handles
the potential to improve transient stability by achieving equality overcurrents in an ON/OFF fashion, the static VI excessively
of the power injection with the power set point during prolonged limits the output current, even during light overloading con-
faults (more discussion is found in Section V-A); however, sig- ditions, yielding under-utilization of the inverter’s fault current
nificant overcurrent cannot be avoided during the initial few fun- capabilities. Because the fault current provision is an essential
damental cycles after fault inception due to the low-bandwidth metric for system protection and recovery, a static VI is often not
outer controls (e.g., up to 10 fundamental cycles in [43]), which a preferred limiting method [44]. Moreover, a static VI can lead
would require significant overcurrent headroom in the inverter to latch-up, in which the inverter stays in current limiting and
hardware design and thermal management to avoid potential cannot return to normal operation even after the fault clears [49].
reliability issues and damage to the inverter. Further, note that Several of these drawbacks can be circumvented. First, one can
power set point current-limiting methods are based on arbitrary multiply the current signal with a threshold function, as denoted
criteria that only partially relate to the current magnitude, e.g., by ψ in Fig. 6(b). This threshold function only enables the VI
a voltage drop of 10%, as shown in Fig. 5. Equations (2) and current limiter when the inverter output current exceeds a certain
(3) have no dependency on the maximum rated current, Imax . threshold, Ith , and it gradually increases the VI magnitude as
Therefore, current limiting within the inverter boundaries cannot a function of the output current. This technique resolves the
be ensured. In addition, it is questionable whether this method latch-up issue and limits the output currents closer to Imax . For
works effectively during unbalanced faults, frequency drops, the threshold VI limiter, the VI voltage drop, vvi , can be described
or phase jumps while retaining stability. These concerns make by
this method unsuitable as a stand-alone limiting method, and,
therefore, should be combined with another limiting approach. vvi = (sLvi + Rvi ) ii ψ (4)
2) VI Current Limiting: During normal conditions, a GFM where Lvi and Rvi denote the inductive and resistive parts of
inverter can be represented as a voltage source behind an the VI, respectively. As illustrated in Fig. 6(b), the threshold
impedance, which remains small for voltage regulation. During function, ψ, can be defined by [52]
overcurrent conditions, on the other hand, the inverter output 
impedance cannot remain the same. As the output current 0 if |ii | ≤ Ith
of the inverter is curtailed by a current limiter (independent ψ = |ii |−Ith (5)
Imax −Ith if |ii | > Ith .
of the limiter type) the equivalent output impedance of the
inverter modulates as a function of fault severity and other The function ψ can take various forms, ranging from a discon-
conditions [44]. A VI current limiter curtails the current by tinuous linear function of the inverter output current, such as
14498 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

in (5) [52], to a nonlinear discontinuous function [27]. Mak-

ing the function ψ exponential can increase the fault current
provisioning utilization of the inverter [27]. Also, a nonlinear
ψ can accommodate a smooth transition between activating
and deactivating the VI, which eliminates unwanted transient
phenomena [54]. A low-pass filter on the VI voltage can be opted
to alleviate the noise created by the derivative action of the virtual
inductance [43]. Notice that to avoid unwanted activation of the
limiter during normal conditions, the threshold current, Ith , must
be chosen equal to or greater than the nominal current. At the
same time, Ith must be smaller than the maximum rated current,
Imax , to avoid overcurrent [52]. In other words, the output current Fig. 7. Generic control structure of a voltage-based current limiter.
should never exceed the maximum rated current, Imax , even
in the worst-case scenario that is a bolted three-phase fault at
the inverter terminals, i.e., minimum load impedance [45]. The where φ is the desired output current angle with respect to
magnitude of the VI is, therefore, tuned such that the current the capacitor voltage, e. As illustrated in Fig. 7, this type
remains within its bounds during a bolted three-phase fault. One of current-limiting can limit the grid-side current of the in-
can define |Zvi | by verter to Imax with a phase angle of φ [56], [57]. Note that
  regulating the output current angle requires knowledge of the
 e0 
Imax ≥   ≈ E0 ⇒ |Zvi | ≥ E0 . (6) grid voltage, which can necessitate the use of a PLL to track
Zg + Zvi  |Zvi | Imax the grid voltage [58], [59]. Recently, the Western Electricity
In (6), the impedance of the grid-side output filter, Zg , can Coordinating Council approved a model of a GFM inverter
be neglected because during heavy limiting, the VI magnitude that uses a voltage-based current-limiting approach [60]. These
will be dominant [27]. Tuning the X Rvi is less straightforward.
vi models require detailed information of the line parameters and
According to [55], the X the voltage of the grid [60], [61].
Rvi ratio must be high enough to en-
vi

sure that the inverter output impedance, during current-limiting Notice that the GFM inverter becomes a controlled current
operation, is primarily reactive from a droop control perspec- source during current limiting, similar to a GFL inverter, which
tive [53]; however, some resistance in the VI is required for can have a destabilizing effect in weak grids [62], [63]. By-
damping and, as such, to retain small-signal stability [10], [45]. passing the primary controller for current limiting can lead
(More on the effect of current limiting on small-signal stability to frequency windup in the primary controller and complicate
in Section V-B.) Denis et al. [55] proposed a tradeoff where the fault recovery process. Complementing the voltage-based
Xvi Xvi current limiter with a power set point current limiter can alle-
Rvi = 5. In Section V-A, we delve into the effect of the Rvi on
large-signal stability. viate frequency windup to a certain extent; however, instability
Despite these advanced VI current-liming methods, some challenges due to frequency disturbances remain. The intricate
inherent disadvantages must be considered. Because this type interplay between voltage regulation and frequency stability
of current-limiting method uses the reference of the voltage underscores the need for comprehensive solutions that simul-
controller, its current-limiting bandwidth is smaller than a direct taneously address both aspects. Further, detecting overcurrent
current-limiting method that uses a faster, inner control loop; is a straightforward criterion to engage the limiter; however,
therefore, a VI current limiting can be too slow to limit the deactivating the limiter cannot be commanded based on cur-
fast-rising transient peak current during the initial stage of a fault. rent measurements because the current is being fixed to Imax .
Also, although making ψ an exponential function can help, it is Deactivating the limiter, therefore, requires an additional logic.
not possible to limit the overcurrent to Imax with VI impedance All these phenomena can make it challenging to implement a
limiting. The inverter’s fault current provisioning capabilities, voltage-based current limiter.
as a result, can remain underused by a few percentages [27]. 4) Others: Taking inspiration from the concept of VI current
3) Voltage-Based Current Limiting: The voltage-based cur- limiters, [64], [65], [66], [67] propose a nonlinear modified
rent limiter curtails the inverter output current by decreasing droop controller with current-limiting properties. The proposed
the voltage reference feeding into the voltage controller during controllers can limit the inverter current under normal or fault
overcurrent. Though this is similar to VI current limiting, the conditions without external limiters, additional switches, or
voltage curtailment is computed in a different manner. During monitoring devices. In [68], a fast symmetrical fault ride-through
overcurrent, the limiter computes the voltage curtailment, elim , method is proposed using a hysteresis control. During the fault,
such that the output current matches Imax . This concept is illus- new power references are calculated, and the synchro-converter
trated in Fig. 7. During normal operation, e , generated by the switches to the hysteresis control to restrain inrush fault current.
primary controller, feeds into the outer-voltage controller. Once In [69], the output current of the inverter is limited by control-
an overcurrent is detected, switch S2 is activated, and the limited ling the power angle. This approach ensures synchronization
reference voltage can be computed as follows: stability after a voltage sag or a frequency jump. In [70], [71],
a frequency feed-forward term is incorporated into the ac-
elim = vg + (Lg s + Rg )Imax ejφ (7) tive power-frequency droop controller; however, the technique
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14499

the saturation gain, ρ, at all times. The amount of current being

limited, denoted by ii (1 − ρ), is fed to the VI. The voltage drop
across that VI is subtracted from the voltage reference. Note
that with this concept, the inverter’s fault current provisioning
capabilities are fully used, which is a distinct disadvantage
of VI limiting. At the same time, this method allows precise
control over the output impedance angle, resulting in superior
voltage balance within the system. Another combination of VI
and current-reference saturation limiting is proposed in [75] and
[76]. This method entails the direct calculation of independent
single-phase currents from the instantaneous measurements of
Fig. 8. Generic control structure of two hybrid current limiters, described voltages at the point of common coupling alongside the virtual
in [44] (S5 in position “2”) and [74] (S5 in “1”). back-electromotive force voltages calculated in the outer loop.
Subsequently, each phase current is individually constrained
by dedicated saturation limiters, ensuring precise control and
suggested in [70] is applicable only to grid voltage sag scenarios,
management. Another hybrid method that combines a VI-
whereas the one in [71] is suitable only for grid frequency
based limiting with a fast sinusoidal current limiter is proposed
drop cases. Abrantes-Ferreira et al. [72] proposed a strategy to
in [77].
mitigate overcurrent in a weak grid by maintaining a constant
Apart from combining VI current limiting and current-
voltage and controlling the power angle with local measure-
reference saturation limiting, other hybrid limiting solutions
ments; however, this approach can be ineffective in cases of
have been proposed in the literature. A few works combine
overcurrent caused by significant voltage drops. Last, Groß and
concepts of direct current limiting with a power limiter. In [78],
Dörfler [73] presented a method to restrict the output currents
a circular current limiter is used to limit the fault current, and
by projecting the GFM reference dynamics onto a constraint on
at the fault clearance, a phase angle control loop is realized by
the output current. The authors illustrate that this method can
changing the active power set point to ensure smooth and rapid
outperform conventional approaches such as VI limiting.
post-fault recovery. Liu et al. [24] and Taul et al. [43] proposed
a hybrid current limiter that selects between droop control and
C. Hybrid Current-Limiting Method power-reference control based on grid code requirements, and a
Both direct and indirect current limiters have advantages circular limiter is used to limit the current reference. In addition,
and disadvantages. Direct current limiters excel at rapidly con- in [43], virtual resistance is also momentarily added during the
straining overcurrents, whereas indirect current limiters often fault recovery to provide additional system damping, i.e., it is
outperform their counterparts in retaining GFM characteristics only activated for post-fault stabilization. Some works combine
and transient stability (more discussion is found in Section V). a VI current limiter and a power limiter. For a single-loop GFM
The synergistic use of both types of current limiters exploits their inverter, Liu et al. [42] proposed a power-reference adjustment to
unique strengths, enhancing the overcurrent limitation capabil- limit the steady-state fault current of the inverter. In this method,
ities and affording greater control over the limited current. The a transient virtual resistor is used only during the inception
hybrid current limiters proposed in the literature hold promise for and clearance of the fault to limit the transient overcurrent.
enhancing the dynamic behavior of GFM inverters during faults, An investigation of transient stability using a phase portrait
significantly contributing to system protection and facilitating analysis reveals that the adjustment of the outer power reference
post-fault recovery through improved grid synchronization. effectively retains synchronization between the GFM converter
Fig. 8 illustrates two prominent, recently proposed, hybrid and the grid during grid faults. In [79], the current limitation is
current limiter methods. Qoria et al. [74] proposed to hybridize achieved by dynamically rescaling the reference voltage vector,
a VI current limiter and a current-reference saturation limiter, e , and active power reference, which combines concepts of
as conceptually illustrated in Fig. 8 (switch S5 to “1”). The voltage-based and power-based current limiting. The proposed
current reference that enters the current controller is curtailed strategy does not require any system knowledge and claims to re-
by the saturation gain, ρ, in (1), while at the same time, the tain the converter’s GFM properties with successful symmetrical
voltage reference is curtailed by the VI voltage drop, vvi in (4). and asymmetrical fault ride-through. Zeng et al. [80] proposed to
For a severe fault, during the first few cycles after the fault augment threshold VI with voltage information during current
inception, the current-reference limiter, known for its fast action, limiting to improve current-limiting performance, particularly
will dominate and constrain the fault current to Imax . Once the during phase jumps. The combination of two direct current-
initial stage of the fault has passed, the VI current limiter takes limiting techniques is also possible. Calculating the RMS, which
over because the threshold current for the VI current limiter is is required to determine the magnitude of the output current,
set lower than Imax in (5). On the other hand, Baeckeland and can take up to one full fundamental cycle, leading to a delayed
Seo [44] proposed the implementation of a VI embedded in fault response of the GFM inverter [23]; therefore, Sadeghkhani
the antiwindup path of the current-reference saturation limiting. et al. [25] combined a current-reference saturation limiter with
This hybrid limiting concept is illustrated in Fig. 8 with switch a switch-level current limiter, which clips the fast-rising peak
S5 set at “2,” In this case, the current reference is limited by currents that surpass Imax .
14500 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

TABLE I
OVERVIEW OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND HYBRID CURRENT-LIMITING METHODS

In summary, Table I provides a comprehensive overview

of direct, indirect, and hybrid current limiters—subcategorized
based on their reference frame used for implementation—along
with relevant references. (More discussion on the reference
frame and its effect on current-limiting performance is presented
in Section V-E.) In the next section, we briefly look at how
current-limiting concepts for three-phase GFM inverters can be Fig. 9. Conversion of a single-phase signal in natural reference frame to
leveraged for single-phase inverters. synchronous reference frame using an orthogonal signal generator and Park
transformation, where ωs denotes the system frequency.

IV. CURRENT LIMITING FOR SINGLE-PHASE INVERTERS

Single-phase GFM inverters are gaining prominence in mod- designed for three-phase GFM inverters to single-phase
ern power systems, notably for their applications in rooftop configurations can pose a challenge. To overcome the draw-
photovoltaic systems and single-phase solid-state transformers. backs of SOGI, improved orthogonal signal generation schemes
Extensively distributed single-phase inverter-based generation are proposed in [96] and [97]; therefore, their application for
can facilitate highly resilient systems capable of delivering single-phase GFM inverters under faults would be an interesting
uninterrupted power and bottom-up system restoration [89]. research topic.
Therefore, developing robust current-limiting techniques be- To reduce the reliance on filtering techniques, such as SOGI
comes imperative for the widespread adoption of single-phase or Hilbert transforms, direct control of inverter currents in the
GFM inverters. natural reference frame can be used, i.e., without converting sig-
Many current-limiting techniques designed for three-phase nals to the synchronous reference frame, for which proportional
GFM inverters can be engineered for use in single-phase GFM resonant (PR) controllers can be leveraged. In the single-phase
inverters. For example, in [90], current-reference saturation lim- natural reference frame, concepts of current-reference saturation
iting is used in the dq-frame; however, as conveyed in Fig. 9, or VI current limiting can be implemented [98]. In addition to the
the control of a single-phase inverter in the dq-frame requires more traditional limiting techniques, nonlinear current-limiting
the synthesis of orthogonal components. Common methods for controllers for single-phase grid-tied inverters are proposed
generating orthogonal signals include second-order generalized in [99] and [100] to improve closed-loop stability under both
integrators (SOGI) [91], [92], and Hilbert transformations [93], normal and fault conditions. This approach, based on nonlinear
[94], among others. These transformations may introduce delays input-state stability theory [101], facilitates inverter currents
and can potentially lead to stability issues during grid faults [95]. to remain below a specified threshold even during transients,
Therefore, adapting traditional current-limiting methods without the need for external limiters, additional switches, or
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14501

monitoring devices. However, a tradeoff exists—the controller dynamics are captured by

can only operate at unity power factor, meaning reactive power
control is unavailable. Building upon this concept, a more dθ
generic control structure presented in [64] achieves both cur- = ω  = ω0 + mp (P  − P )
dt
rent limiting and droop control while considering the system’s
nonlinear dynamics. This method offers greater flexibility com- E  = E0 + mq (Q − Q) (8)
pared to [99]. While these single-phase GFM current-limiting
techniques show promising features, further research is needed where θ, ω  , and E  denote the reference angle, frequency, and
to evaluate their efficacy across various operating conditions and voltage amplitude that feed into the cascaded inner controls,
system configurations for field deployment. respectively. The nominal frequency and voltage are denoted by
Conclusively, there are many ways to curtail the output current ω0 and E0 , respectively; mp and mq denote the droop gains;
of three-phase and single-phase GFM inverters, with each of and P , Q, P  , and Q denote the active and reactive output
them intended to obtain a reasonable compromise between the power and the set points for power, respectively. In normal
device and system-level GFM limiting requirements as listed operation, the output power of the GFM inverter drives the
in Fig. 1. Sections III and IV acknowledged the vast majority of inverter frequency to match the grid frequency, and therefore
three-phase and single-phase GFM limiting methods; however, the GFM inverter is stable and synchronized with the grid.
providing an exhaustive list of all the possible limiting methods When a fault occurs in the grid, on the other hand, it is likely
along with their performance attributes lies outside the scope of that the GFM inverter cannot drive its frequency to match the
this work. From here on, we continue the GFM current-limiting grid frequency due to the current limit. For example, upon a
discussion based on the most prevalent limiting methods de- severe grid voltage drop in the grid, the active output power,
scribed. P , drops according to (8), and therefore the GFM reference
frequency increases, potentially causing the GFM inverter to lose
synchronism with the grid in the event of a prolonged fault. From
V. IMPACTS OF CURRENT-LIMITING METHODS
a control theory perspective, this can be understood as a form of
Based on the discussion on the operating principles and funda- integrator windup. This phenomena of losing synchronization
mental characteristics of different current-limiting methods, we during faults is not unique to GFM inverters and also exists
now delve into their impact on the device-level and system-level with SGs (although with SGs, the driving force is of a physical
attributes during and after faults, including transient stability, nature rather than a control-induced phenomena); however, due
small-signal stability, voltage-source behavior, post-fault recov- to stringent current limits, GFM inverters are more prone to
ery, and the response to asymmetrical faults. transient instability than SGs in the way described above.
In the following, we explore how the different current-limiting
methods discussed in Section III affect the transient stability
A. Impact on Transient Stability
of GFM inverters using power-angle, P − δ, curves. For GFM
During severe disturbances, such as voltage drops, phase inverters, we define δ as the angle difference between the in-
jumps, and frequency jumps, caused by faults or large tran- verter output voltage, E, and the grid voltage, Vg (see Fig. 2).
sients in the network, an inverter can struggle to regain an During current limiting, the inverter output voltage and angle
equilibrium operating point or even lose synchronism with the cannot track the references generated by the primary controller.
connected grid. The conventional approach to transient stabil- Since the transient stability of the inverter is determined by the
ity assessment in traditional power systems is based on the dynamics of the internal angle, we use the virtual power angle,
rotor dynamics of SGs. Starting from the well-known swing δ  , instead of δ. The virtual power angle, δ  , is defined as the
equation of SGs, we can infer whether the rotor of an SG angle difference between θ (generated by the primary controller)
can retain synchronism with the grid during and after faults and the grid voltage phasor angle, ∠Vg , [106], [107]. In the
and disturbances [9]. Although GFM inverters do not have a following, we use the example of a voltage drop disturbance to
physical rotor, they have an internal reference angle that is explain the mechanisms of GFM transient instability. Notice,
governed by the primary controller (see Fig. 2). By deriving the however, that the behavior of GFM inverters under other fault
power-angle characteristics of a GFM inverter, we can leverage types, such as phase jumps, frequency jumps, or overloading, can
this classical approach to assess the transient stability of GFM be understood via the same P − δ  curves. Essentially, transient
inverters. instability occurs when the angle δ  falls outside the stable region
The primary controller of a GFM inverter generates a refer- where the IBR can settle to a stable equilibrium point. For voltage
ence voltage and angle based on the output power and its set drops and overloading, this can occur due to the discrepancy
point. A variety of methods can be leveraged for GFM primary between P  and P , whereas for frequency and phase jumps,
control [102], [103]. The most commonly described methods this can occur due to the shift in grid-voltage phasor angle that
in the literature are droop control [16], VSM control [17], directly affects δ  . Next, we discuss in detail the impact of the
and dVOC [104], [105] (see Fig. 2). Hereafter, we explain commonly used direct and indirect current limiters on transient
the effect of current limiting on the transient stability of GFM stability.
inverters based on the droop primary controller, but the concepts 1) Transient Stability Under Direct Current Limiting: In
are extendable to other primary controllers. The droop-control Section III-A, we discuss two approaches to directly curtail
14502 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

Fig. 10. Circuit equivalent of the considered GFM inverter during (a) normal
Fig. 11. Conceptual P − δ  curves for the current-reference saturation limiter
operation and (b) current-reference saturation limited operation with current-
and the angle trajectory during a generic voltage drop fault with (a) φ = 0 and
phasor angle priority.
(b) φ = π3 .

the output current of the GFM inverter: the switch-level cur-

rent limiter and the current-reference saturation limiter. For consider the angle φ to be set to zero [70], [107], [108], [109].
the latter, we distinguish between fixing the angle of the lim- A conceptual drawing of the P − δ  curves of this voltage-drop
ited current (or prioritizing the active or reactive current) and scenario is depicted in Fig. 11(a). Three P − δ  curves, as defined
preserving the current angle. We focus our discussion on the in (9), are projected. The unsaturated curve (solid grey) presents
transient stability of the current-reference saturation limiter the P − δ  characteristic when the limiter is inactive and the grid
with angle priority because this is a common method described is operating at nominal values. The dashed red curve represents
in the literature. Understanding the stability aspect of this the P − δ  characteristic for conditions when the current limiter
method serves as a foundation for other methods and thus is engaged and the grid is operating at nominal values. This
facilitates further development of improved limiting methods. occurs for δ  values beyond operating point a . Last, the solid
Fig. 3 shows that with current-reference saturation limiting, red curve represents the P − δ  relation for conditions when
the GFM inverter acts as a constant current source once the the current limiter is engaged and the grid is operating at an
inverter current reference, ii , exceeds Imax . Consequently, we undervoltage condition. Note that not all points on these three
can represent the GFM inverter during both normal and current- curves are feasible operating points for the GFM inverter. First,
limited operation as an equivalent circuit network, as depicted we assume that the inverter in prefault conditions is operating
in Fig. 10. Notice that the angle, φ, refers to the local reference at the equilibrium point “a” on the unsaturated curve and injects
frame, which is set by the primary controller angle, θ [70]. power matching P  , as visualized in Fig. 11(a). The current
Based on Fig. 10, the output power, P , of the inverter can be limiter is not engaged. At some point in time, a voltage drop
approximated by occurs at the inverter terminals, forcing the inverter into current
 EV limiting. With no grid frequency or phase jump assumed, the
g
sin(δ  ) = Pmax sin(δ  ) if |ii | < Imax output power immediately drops to point “b” in Fig. 11(a),
P = Xg
Vg Imax cos(δ −φ) = Pmax cos(δ −φ) if |ii | > Imax
  
and the P − δ  relation shifts from sinusoidal to cosinusoidal
(9) behavior, in accordance with (9). Due to the curtailed current

where Pmax and Pmax are the maximum power transfer capa- and the degraded voltage, the output power, Pb , is smaller than
bilities of the inverter with and without considering the current the reference, P  , which causes the inverter’s internal reference
limiter, respectively. The grid-side inductive filter reactance is angle to accelerate according to (8). Inferring from Fig. 11(a),
denoted by Xg , and φ is the current-reference angle, which is this situation will eventually lead to GFM inverter instability if
a tunable parameter in the case of current-reference saturation left unaddressed: the output power cannot match the reference,
limiting (see Fig. 3). Notice that we assume the output inductive and the inverter angle will continue to deviate, not settling, i.e.,
filter to be lossless for simplicity of analysis [70], [108]. How loss of synchronism with the grid. Stability will be retained only
filter resistance affects power transfer and transient stability if the fault clears before δ  reaches the critical clearing angle
has not been well addressed in the current literature. Also note (CCA), δcca . To illustrate this, Fig. 11(a) shows a fault clearing
that (9) describes the power transfer under one specific type of at point ‘c.” The grid voltage is restored; however, the inverter
current limiting. The limiter affects the output current angle and angle δ  has drifted beyond δcca . The inverter jumps to the un-
amplitude of the inverter and therefore yields a different P − δ  stable point ‘d’ and remains in current limitation. Consequently,
behavior. The P − δ  relationship may greatly differ depending Pd < P  , forcing the inverter angle to further accelerate and
on the type of current limiter and auxiliary dynamics [44], e.g., thus causing instability [see Fig. 11(a)]. The speed of the angle
antiwindup (discussed in Section III-C), impacting large-signal drift is determined by the inequality of the active power and
behavior. its respective set point, as well as the primary control gains, as
To explain the mechanisms driving the GFM inverter’s tran- defined in (8). To streamline the discussion, we did not con-
sient behavior, we consider the inertia-less droop primary con- sider any inertia emulation in the primary controller. Synthetic
troller from (8) that is subject to a grid voltage drop. First, we inertia in the GFM primary control can lead to angle overshoot
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14503

and oscillations during and after a disturbance, which, in turn,

reduces the transient stability margins of the inverter [108]. To
analyze the transient stability with inertia, one must consider the
equal-area method, which is well-described in classical power
systems theories [9]. Besides that, the P − δ  curves remain the
same.
In the aforementioned discussion, we considered the current-
phasor angle, φ, to be zero. By increasing the angle φ, better
transient performance can be obtained [33]. This is illustrated in
Fig. 11(b), where φ is set to 60◦ . When a voltage drop occurs,
the output power of the inverter drops from the equilibrium point Fig. 12. GFM circuit equivalent during (a) normal and (b) VI current-limited
“a” to point “b,” after which the inverter angle starts accelerating operation.
(Pb < P  ). We clear the fault when the inverter passes point
“c,” and therefore it jumps to point “d.” Note, with φ being
60◦ , the saturated P − δ  curves have shifted according to (9),
and as a result, the δcca has increased. At point “d,” the power
becomes Pd > P  such that angle deceleration ensues according
to (8), after which the inverter ultimately settles back to stable
equilibrium point “a.” With this approach, φ cannot be set too
high. If φ continues to increase, point “a ” will drop below the
prefault point “a.” If that happens, the inverter stays in current
limiting and thus cannot return to point “a,” even when the fault
successfully clears within the CCA boundary; the inverter is
confined to current limiting.
Leveraging power-angle characteristics to assess GFM tran-
sient stability is extendable to other types of faults and distur- Fig. 13. Conceptual P − δ  curves during a generic voltage drop fault for (a) a
purely resistive VI and (b) a purely inductive VI, as reported in [110] and [112].
bances, such as frequency jumps, phase jumps, and overloading.
Regarding phase jumps, the GFM inverter can withstand phase
jumps up to δcca . The larger δcca , the more robust the inverter is
against phase jumps [110]. Similarly, a frequency drop forces The VI current limiter curtails the output current by reduc-
δ  to gradually deviate from the grid, according to the droop. ing the voltage reference feeding into the voltage controller,
A higher δcca results in more tolerance against more severe thereby preserving the inherent voltage-source characteristics
and longer-lasting frequency jumps. In overloading, due to the of the GFM inverter, as shown in Fig. 12. Writing down the
current limiting, the GFM inverter cannot provide the load power-angle relation during normal and current-limited opera-
required, which can cause a voltage drop and an inverter angle tion yields
⎧  2
deviation from the grid, posing a risk of loss of synchronism. The ⎨ E Vg cos(ϕg −δ  )− Vg cos ϕg if |ii | < Ith
Zg Zg
larger δcca , the longer the GFM inverter can ride through severe P = E  Vg V 2

overloading. As such, the current-reference saturation-limited ⎩ ϕinv −δ  ) − g cos 

cos( ϕinv if |ii | > Ith
Z inv 
Z inv
GFM inverter in Fig. 11(b) can ride through more severe phase
jumps, frequency jumps, and overloading conditions, than the where Z inv ∠ vi ∠ϕvi + Zg ∠ϕg . The arrow denotes a
ϕinv = Z
one in Fig. 11(a). In a similar fashion as discussed above, we variable parameter: for threshold VI current limiting, Zvi is a
can assess transient stability for other direct current-limiting function of the output current and therefore not a constant [110].
methods such as current-reference saturation limiting with angle In [110] and [112], the authors present the P − δ  curves for a
preservation. Compiling the correct power-angle characteristics dynamic VI, both for purely inductive and resistive VIs. Because
is more challenging, but they can be found using numerical or the VI is dynamically adjusted as a function of the inverter output
simulation-based methods, as described in [111], [112]. Once current, Zvi becomes a variable, leading to unintuitive P − δ 
the P − δ  curves are established, the same stability concepts curves. Fig. 13 illustrates these P − δ  curves for a generic
can apply. voltage drop, as reported in [110] and [112], in a similar fashion
2) Transient Stability Under Indirect Current Limiting: In as discussed in Section V-A1. We consider a purely resistive VI
this section, we expand our discussion on transient stability of in Fig. 13(a) and a purely inductive VI in Fig. 13(b). The P − δ 
GFM inverters to indirect current-limiting methods. Among the trajectories are conceptually visualized for a generic voltage
indirect current-limiting strategies discussed in Section III-B, drop. Notice the significant impact of the VIs on the P − δ 
we focus on transient stability of GFM inverters with threshold relation and therefore how severely that impacts the transient
VI current limiting because this is the most prevalent indirect stability. As visualized in Fig. 13, having a purely resistive VI
limiting method described in the literature. The same insights can quickly lead to instability due to the small CCA; upon a
and framework can be used to understand the impacts of other voltage drop, the inverter follows the trajectory from point “a”
indirect limiting methods. to “d” after which it continues to drift into instability. On the
14504 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

other hand, implementing an inductive VI greatly increases the TABLE II

TRANSIENT-STABILITY ENHANCING METHODS FOR GFM INVERTERS
CCA and thus enhances the transient stability against a fault, as
shown in Fig. 13(b). The inverter with the inductive VI, after
the generic voltage drop, now follows the trajectory a-b-c-d-a -a
and retains stability after the fault clearing. This aligns with the
observation for direct current limiting, where the CCA of the
GFM inverter increases when increasing the current angle, φ.
In a similar fashion as outlined for direct limiting methods, the
P − δ  curves and the companion δcca can be leveraged to assess
transient stability for various fault types, including phase and
frequency jumps, and overloading.
Other works have also investigated the impact of VI-based
current-limiting methods on GFM inverter stability. In [74], a
range of VI magnitudes, spanning from zero to the maximum re-
quired impedance under worst-case conditions, are considered.
The studies in [74] and [108] include an analysis of the critical reference angle) is temporarily frozen to the pre-fault operating
clearing time under VI current limiting. The results confirm that point when the current limiter engages to avoid the loss of
the VI can improve transient stability for an extended period synchronism with the grid. Notice, however, that this strategy
of fault duration in the system compared to current-reference does not work well with phase- and frequency-jump-induced
saturation limiters. In [108] and [49], different adaptive transient overcurrents. Kkuni and Yang [110] proposed a method that adds
control strategies are proposed to enhance the transient stability virtual power to the primary controller to manipulate the output
margins. Zhang et al. [112] Shen et al. [113] highlighted the power perceived by the primary controller and improve transient
influence of the VI’s resistive or inductive properties in shaping stability. A similar approach is proposed in [70] and [118], where
the accelerating and decelerating regions during faults and the the authors add an additional term that is a function of δ  in
impact on transient stability. According to the equal-area crite- the primary controller to improve grid synchronization. Huang
rion, a larger decelerating region enhances the stability prospects et al. [119] proposed to limit the power angle such that grid
of GFM inverters [9]. Zeng et al. [80] illustrated that augmenting synchronization is enforced during any kind of disturbance that
threshold VI current limiting with voltage information increases pushes the inverter into an overcurrent; however, limiting the
transient stability robustness during phase jumps. power angle is achieved by following the grid-voltage phasor
In addition, various approaches have been proposed in the using a PLL, which basically renders the GFM unit into a GFL
literature to further improve the transient stability of GFM inverter as soon as current limitation is reached. Luo et al. [85]
inverters under current-constrained operation. One approach is proposed adding saturation blocks at three different positions
to dynamically lower the power set point as a function of the grid in the power control loop and demonstrate improved transient
voltage during a fault to increase the CCA and, as such, improve stability by either decreasing the acceleration area or increasing
the transient stability [69], [114]. This approach can work well the deceleration area in the P –δ  curve. Notice that many of the
for voltage drops, but it remains ineffective during frequency above-described methods are trying to counteract the integrator
jumps, phase jumps, or overloading, because the grid voltage windup in the primary control and, as such, act as antiwindup
may remain near the nominal value during such faults. In [115], measures. The effectiveness of the aforementioned methods to
the power set point is limited as a function of the frequency enhance transient stability of GFM inverters during overcurrent
which improves transient stability for frequency deviations but conditions for a voltage jump (Vg -jump), frequency jump (fg -
not for voltage drops or phase jumps. Awal et al. [116] proposed jump), and phase jump (θg -jump) is listed in Table II. It provides
a method to lower the power set point when the current limiter a general idea of how effective these methods are for the three
saturates using a PI compensator (i.e., while ρ < 1 in Fig. 3). different disturbance types without quantitative evaluation.
As such, this method allows for lowering the power set point All aforementioned references pertaining to transient stability
during any kind of disturbance that pushes the inverter into an assessment rely, explicitly or implicitly, on deriving and lever-
overcurrent. This method has drawbacks. During voltage drops, aging the relationship between P and δ  . Yet, this is not the only
simply reducing the P  cannot alleviate current limiting, which direct method; another approach to assess transient stability is
can result in a continuous decrease of P  , and with it, the internal based on Lyapunov’s theory and energy functions. Although
GFM frequency may still lose synchronism with the grid. There- some works have illustrated the potential of this method for
fore, long-standing faults or overloading will lead this method GFM inverter stability analysis [120], [121], [122], [123], more
to instability. Placing a lower bound on the P  could help, but research is needed to practically and systematically apply this
compromises the effectiveness for phase and frequency jumps. method for GFM inverters during current-limited operation.
Further validation for more fault scenarios is required to draw In summary, both current-reference saturation limiting and
clear conclusions for this method. A similar method leveraging VI-based current limiting offer distinct opportunities to im-
PI controllers is proposed in [39]. Another approach is to reshape prove transient stability. The current-reference saturation-
the P − δ  curve of the inverter through a separate control block. limited GFM inverters can improve transient stability by in-
In [117], the integrator in the primary control (generating the creasing the current-phasor angle, φ, whereas the VI-based ones
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14505

can improve transient stability by increasing the X Rvi ratio of the

vi current-limiting operation remains an open question; however, it
VI. Nevertheless, for both limiting types, the transient stability is a common understanding that maintaining the voltage-behind-
margins are decreased during current limiting. Employing addi- impedance nature of the inverters can improve grid stability and
tional control methods to prevent wind-up of the primary-control voltage support during faults, improve fault recovery, enable
reference frequency and angle can further enhance transient sta- overload-bearing black start, and more [126].
bility of GFM inverters. Even so, both direct and indirect current As illustrated throughout this work, some current-limiting
limiting methods introduce tradeoffs; setting the limiter purely methods, such as the current-reference saturation limiter with
inductive can lead to latch-up and issues in fault recovery for the a predefined current-phasor angle, render the GFM inverter into
current-reference saturation limiter or it can reduce small-signal a controlled current source during overcurrent, as shown in
stability margins for the VI-based current limiter (discussed Fig. 10. The outer voltage and primary controller are bypassed,
next). Careful consideration of both transient (i.e., large-signal) and the GFM inverter loses its ability to regulate the terminal
and small-signal stability margins is therefore important when voltage [127]. Indirect current-limiting methods, such as VI
designing GFM controls with current limiters. current limiting, on the other hand, do not saturate the reference
signal feeding into the current controller. As such, they retain
B. Impact on Small-Signal Stability the voltage-source behavior and control the terminal voltage (to
a certain extent) while limiting the output current, as illustrated
In the above discussion about the transient stability of GFM
in Fig. 12. This can improve voltage support during balanced
inverters under current limiting, we pointed out that a more
and unbalanced faults, enhance the synchronization of GFM
inductive GFM fault behavior during current limiting improves
inverters under an overloaded black start, and help existing
transient stability margins; however, there is an important trade-
power system protection systems, such as distance protection,
off. Increasing the inductive characteristic of the limiter can
remain effective and reliable in an inverter-heavy grid [12], [44],
reduce the small-signal stability margins of the GFM inverters,
[128], [129].
as reported in [10]. Other works that address the small-signal
Hybrid current limiters that combine direct and indirect
stability of GFM inverters during current-limited operation in-
current-limiting principles are, at first sight, difficult to un-
clude [45], [124], [125]. In [45], a comprehensive small-signal
ambiguously classify as either a voltage source or a current
analysis is presented to determine the optimal VI magnitude
source during current-limited operation. For hybrid limiters that
and X Xvi
Rvi ratio. The findings reveal that, while a high Rvi ratio
vi
combine current-reference saturation and VI limiting, however,
(highly inductive) can result in insufficient damping, only an ex-
the control over the terminal voltage can be retained, as shown
cessively low XRvi ratio (highly resistive) may induce small-signal
vi
in [74] and [130]. Other works, such as [43], [79], [127], explore
instability. Miranbeigi et al. [125] pointed out that the presence
and propose hybrid current-limiting methods with the specific
of PWM delays can impact small-signal stability, especially
objective of improving large-signal stability during faults. How
in scenarios with low X Rvi ratios. To address this challenge,
vi
these methods translate in circuit equivalences and whether they
a delay compensation method has been proposed in [125].
retain a voltage-source behavior is not clear, though many of the
In addition, Wu and Wang [124] introduced an adaptive VI
works mentioned show potential of improved performance in
tuning technique to ensure small-signal stability. Paquette and
various ways by combining a variety of limiting principles into
Divan [45] analyzed the impact of the X Rvi ratio in a system,
vi
a hybrid solution.
where a GFM inverter is connected in parallel with a SG.
Conclusively, the current-limiting method plays a crucial role
Nevertheless, the issue of small-signal stability in multi-inverter
in regulating the voltage-source behavior of GFM IBRs, while
systems remains insufficiently explored in the current literature.
respecting the inverters’ limitations. To fully benefit from the
Although small-signal stability analysis of GFM inverters under
GFM concept, further study is necessary. It is vital for all
normal operating conditions is well-established in the literature,
parties—such as inverter vendors, system operators, and reg-
only a few works include the impact of the current limiter.
ulatory bodies—to collaborate and identify robust solutions that
More research is needed to understand the tradeoff between
are practical and cost-effective.
large- and small-signal stability in GFM inverters under current
constraints.
D. Impact on Post-Fault Recovery and Synchronization
C. Impact on Retaining GFM Nature Under Faults
Enabling current-limiting controls during disturbances that
The precise definition of the GFM capabilities of IBRs re- push the inverter beyond its rated capabilities is a necessity
mains a topic of discussion within the community. Nevertheless, to avoid irreversible hardware damage; however, once the fault
certain fundamental capabilities and principles are increasingly clears, the GFM inverter should return to normal operation as
being articulated in new standards and grid codes. As described quickly as possible and stabilize the grid. Immediately recov-
in [4] by the Australian Energy Market Operator and North ering the GFM voltage-control capabilities after a fault without
American Electric Reliability Corporation, a GFM inverter adverse effects is not an obvious task, since the control parame-
should behave as a voltage source behind an impedance while ters may have shifted to states that fall outside a normal operating
in normal operation (within current capability limits). More range (e.g., control integrator states). As a result, GFM invert-
discussion on GFM grid requirements is found in Section VI. ers can experience stability issues during their fault-recovery
Whether and how this voltage-source behavior should extend to process, which can have device- and system-level impacts [35].
14506 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

can still remain in current limiting after the fault clearing due
to latch-up, resulting from the primary controller behavior (see
Section V-A), which prevents the inverter from a successful fault
recovery [131].
In contrast to current-reference saturation limiters, VI cur-
rent limiters have a fundamentally different post-fault behav-
Fig. 14. Integrator windup issue during faults. ior. Rather than manipulating the current reference, they are
designed to adjust the voltage reference as a function of the
output current. At the cost of responsiveness and limiting ac-
One typical issue is the windup of control integrators during curacy, reducing the voltage reference naturally limits the fault
current limiting. A common example is wind-up in the voltage current without winding up the inner control loops, allowing
controller; the current-reference saturation limiter curtails the the GFM inverter to retain control over the voltage and current
signal feeding into the inner-current controller due to which the independent of the limiting conditions [35], [45], [74]. Notice
inverter cannot inject the required current to build up the output that the primary controller, which governs the voltage and angle
voltage, e, to satisfy the reference, e (see Fig. 2). The integrator reference, can still be affected by integrator windup, which
of the inverter voltage controller continues to integrate the error can cause transient instability, as discussed in Section V-A.
due to the unregulated output voltage. If no countermeasures Moreover, the results in [111] reveal that a GFM inverter with
are taken, the integrator will accumulate a substantial error circular current limiters can also avoid these phenomena since
throughout the duration of the fault, as illustrated in Fig. 14. the inverter behaves similarly to those with virtual resistors.
Note that this phenomenon can occur in any instance of cascaded Hybrid current-limiting solutions can be sought to circumvent
control loops where reference signals in the inner loops are being the issue of outer-voltage integrator windup while alleviating the
curtailed. negative effects typically seen with VI current-limiting methods.
Once the fault clears and the grid returns to nominal opera- The hybrid limiter described in [44], for example, saturates the
tion, the voltage control loop of a GFM inverter must quickly reference current signal and implements a VI in the antiwindup
regain control over the terminal voltage; however, due to the feedback loop. This way, no windup of the outer-voltage loop
accumulated error in the integrator, the reference commands can occurs, the voltage-behind-impedance behavior is retained, and
take a significant amount of time to return to a value within the the current-reference saturation ensures quick and accurate cur-
normal range. Unless it immediately returns to normal operation, rent limiting. Moreover, the VI in the antiwindup feedback loop
the inverter can continue to inject its maximum rated current gives control over the internal inverter impedance, which can
into a healthy grid, which can lead to overvoltage at the termi- drastically improve grid synchronization in the face of faults,
nals. This can be followed by premature and aggressive control fault recovery, and overloaded black starts [129].
corrections, leading to excessive oscillations in the current and In addition, integrator windup in the outer-voltage loop di-
voltage outputs. All of which can compromise the stability of minishes the control over the output voltage and current-phasor
the system immediately after fault clearance. More discussion on angles, which can compromise postfault synchronization with
the post-fault instability caused by the windup is found in [131] the grid. With current-reference saturation limiting without an-
and [110]. tiwindup measures, the output voltage becomes uncontrolled,
Integrator windup can be prevented by using proper anti- which can aggravate a loss of synchronization. Adding anti-
windup techniques. They are designed to avoid integrator accu- windup measures can help regain control of the output voltage,
mulation that results from the discrepancy between the controller but the angle remains uncontrolled. In fact, [44] illustrates that
output and the actual control action realized, which can cause the internal impedance of the GFM inverter becomes purely
undesirable control behavior [52]. By reflecting the amount of resistive when employing a current-reference saturation limiter
unrealized control effort due to the limit in the preceding control with a conventional anti-windup feedback loop with a constant
signal (i.e., the amount of current exceeding the limit in the gain, without manipulating or prioritizing current-reference an-
GFM application), the states of the outer-loop control can stay gles. VI current-limiting methods and hybrid solutions can cir-
within a reasonable range to improve the post-fault control per- cumvent this issue. They retain control over the output voltage
formance [132]. Note that the implementation of an antiwindup and phasor angle, and as such, the internal impedance of the
varies and modulates the dynamic control behavior [31], [111], inverter. Nonetheless, integrator windup of the internal angle
[133], [134], [135], [136]. Pawar et al. [133] and Ghoshal and reference in the primary controller can still occur, which can lead
John [136] used conditional integration, and Ghoshal and John to a loss of synchronization and transient instability. (Measures
[136], Teodorescu et al. [134], and Richter and Doncker [135] to avoid primary-control integrator windup are further discussed
used tracking integration. In [137] a two-axis antiwindup PI in Section V-A.) Gu and Green [139] and Sepehr et al. [140] dis-
regulator is proposed to limit the current commands within a cir- cussed the synchronization principle after faults in light of angle
cular boundary. Even when antiwindup techniques are employed dynamics in an inverter-heavy power grid. In [33], a theoretical
to address this problem, they require knowledge of the system approach is proposed to explain the post-fault behavior of GFM
parameters to ensure closed-loop system stability, which may inverters with VIs.
not be available or may vary in practical situations [138]. Also Post-fault transients caused by inverter-current limiting
note that, equipped with an integrator antiwindup, the inverter can also cause system-wide issues [141], [142]. They can
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14507

compromise the recovery process and even activate protective

relays. This, in turn, can result in unnecessary disconnections
of inverters and potentially cause cascading events that can lead
to a system failure. To avoid this type of catastrophic event, the
current-limiting method should be carefully designed through
system-wide studies. To mitigate this issue, a series dynamic VI
model is proposed in [43], and a parallel VI model is proposed
in [143]. These VIs remain active exclusively during the fault
recovery phase of the GFM inverter and do not function as a
current limiter.

E. Impact on Asymmetrical Fault Ride-Through

Approximately 95% of faults occurring in power systems are
unbalanced single-line-to-ground and line-to-line(-to-ground)
faults, with only 5% being three-phase faults [144], [145].
Nevertheless, the literature on GFM current limiting lacks com-
prehensive coverage of strategies and fault ride-through methods
Fig. 15. Conceptual drawing of the effect of unbalance in different reference
specifically tailored for asymmetrical faults and unbalanced frames.
conditions [11]. Namely, during unbalanced overcurrent events,
the GFM inverter current must be limited such that all phases
individually do not exceed the maximum rated current. A current
limiter designed for only balanced conditions does not guarantee
correct current limiting in the individual phases, nor does it
guarantee stable control without oscillations or properly main-
taining the output voltage. Injecting balanced currents into an
unbalanced grid can even lead to overvoltage in the unaffected
phase(s) during the disturbance [82], [87], [146], [147]. As
such, careful design of the current limiter with unbalanced
conditions is imperative for a practical GFM inverter. Although
the high-level principles of direct and indirect limiting methods Fig. 16. Concept of sequence separation in the DDSRF using notch filters
still apply, some additional aspects must be considered. with the cutoff frequency, ωc , set to the double-line frequency, 2ωs .
During unbalanced disturbances or loading, positive-
sequence, negative-sequence, and potentially zero-sequence
currents will flow through the network. For the inverter to controllers are not designed to handle the double-line frequency
retain control over its output voltage during such unbalanced signals, the dq-frame controls do not work properly for the
conditions, it must control both positive- and negative-sequence negative-sequence components, requiring additional controls to
signals (and zero-sequence signals in the case of a four-wire address this. Consider an unbalanced set of abc signals that we
inverter). The inverter’s ability to do so heavily depends on transform into the dq-frame using Clarke and Park transforma-
which reference frame is used to implement the controls: the tions, the 2ωs oscillations are superimposed:
synchronous reference frame (dq-frame), the stationary refer- ⎡ ⎤
 ia 
ence frame (αβ-frame), or the natural reference frame (abc- id ⎢ ⎥ (IDC )d +Ad cos (2ωs t+θ)
frame) [148]. In each frame, unbalanced components appear in =[abc → dq] · ⎣ib ⎦ =
iq (IDC )q +Aq cos (2ωs t+θ)
different ways, as illustrated in Fig. 15. In the following, we ic
discuss the fundamentals of each frame and how they can be (10)
leveraged for GFM control and current limiting during unbal- where [abc → dq] represents the Clarke and Park transforma-
anced conditions. tions, ωs denotes the line frequency, and A denotes the concep-
1) Current Limiting in Synchronous Reference Frame: The tual amplitude of the ripple signal. It is clear that the dq-frame,
synchronous reference frame, or dq-frame, is a popular ref- although a convenient option for balanced conditions, is insuffi-
erence frame for inverter control systems, often preferred for cient for inverter control under imbalance. A solution to the issue
its simplicity. Namely, in the direct-quadrature (dq-) frame, is to separate the positive- and negative-sequence components
balanced three-phase sinusoidal signals translate into two sepa- and control each sequence in its own synchronous reference
rate dc signals (given some decoupling techniques), allowing frame. This concept is called a double-decoupled synchronous
straightforward control design and analysis [149] for which reference frame (DDSRF) [150]. Separating the positive- and
conventional PI controllers can be used; however, unbalanced negative-sequence signals can be achieved by, for example,
conditions superimpose a ripple at twice the line frequency, notch filters tuned at the double-line frequency, as conceptually
2ωs , on the dq signals, as illustrated in Fig. 15. Because the PI illustrated in Fig. 16 [23], [151]. Other methods, such as delayed
14508 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

transients [156]. As a result, this can have a negative effect on

system-wide stability during and after faults [27]. Further, [155]
notes that the relationship between converter phase currents and
symmetrical components is highly nonlinear, and therefore con-
trolling phase currents by managing symmetrical components
causes challenges in control design and analysis. To address
the limitations associated with the decomposition into symmet-
rical components, per-phase dq-control is proposed in [157],
[158], [159] for three-phase four-wire systems. This approach
involves individually controlling three single-phase quantities in
the dq-frame. Therefore, the discussion on the current limiting of
single-phase GFM inverters, as delineated in Section IV, remains
pertinent in these contexts.
2) Current Limiting in Stationary Reference Frame: Some
of the drawbacks of DDSRF, such as the sluggish response
caused by sequence separation, can be alleviated by building the
GFM controls in the stationary reference frame, or αβ-frame.
In the αβ-frame, three-phase sinusoidal signals are transformed
into two sinusoidal signals using the Clarke transformation,
as illustrated in Fig. 15. For balanced three-phase signals, the
transformation yields two sinusoidal signals with the same am-
plitude, one leading the other by 90◦ . Because of the sinusoidal
nature of the control signals, PR controllers need to be used
instead of PI [160]. In the αβ-frame, the degree of unbalance
affects the angle and amplitude of the sinusoidal signals, i.e.,
no double-line frequency component appears; therefore, the
PR controllers, tuned at the fundamental frequency, can han-
Fig. 17. Generic control structure of current-reference saturation limiters in dle the unbalanced conditions without additional techniques,
the (a) double-decoupled synchronous reference frame, (b) stationary reference such as sequence separation, and as such, avoid the resultant
frame, and (c) natural reference frame. filtering delays [12], [27]. To exploit these advantages, [27],
[77], [161] propose current limiters in the αβ-frame. Baeckeland
et al. [27] proposed an improved current-reference saturation
signal cancellation, can be used for the same purpose [152]. limiting method and a novel VI current limiter in the αβ-frame.
Avdiaj et al. [153] proposed multiple approaches to generate The work illustrates the ability to reliably limit and control
a negative-sequence current reference under unbalanced grid unbalanced conditions with high control bandwidths, which is
conditions based on flexible control objectives. challenging in the DDSRF. A combination of α-axis voltage
In the DDSRF, direct or indirect current-limiting methods control and β-axis current control is explained in [161]. This
discussed can be leveraged. Freytes et al. [154], Awal et al. method not only limits the output current of the faulty phase,
[155] proposed direct current limiters, and Li et al. [28] and, but also keeps the healthy phase voltage constant during faults.
Avdiaj et al. [153] proposed VI current limiters in the DDSRF. Zarei et al. [77] implemented a fast sinusoidal current limiter
In [155], an elliptical current limiter is used for asymmetrical and an adaptive VI-based voltage generator in the αβ-frame.
current-reference generation for positive and negative sequences Note that, despite the advantages of this frame, αβ-frame current
in a virtual oscillator control GFM inverter. Fig. 17(a) illustrates limiters cannot prioritize one sequence over the other because
a generic current-reference saturation limiting method in the unbalanced signals are not distilled into positive and negative
DDSRF. sequences. If separate sequence control is required (e.g., im-
In summary, GFM inverter control in the DDSRF allows posed by grid codes), this is a significant drawback. Fig. 17(b)
for control and current limiting in unbalanced conditions. By illustrates a generic current-reference saturation limiting method
using this frame, separate control over positive- and negative- in the αβ frame.
sequence signals is possible if required (e.g., for prioritizing 3) Current Limiting in Natural Reference Frame: The last
one sequence over the other); however, these benefits come at reference frame is the natural reference frame, or abc-frame.
a cost. Due to the need to separate sequence signals, filtering Because the physical three-phase signals are already in the
techniques, such as notch filters, must be implemented, i.e., abc-frame, no transformation is needed. Similar to the αβ-frame,
sequence components cannot be separated instantaneously. This PR controllers must be used to track the sinusoidal signals.
can create significant delays in the control system that reduce In that sense, this frame is similar to the stationary reference
the stability margins. To prevent small-signal instability from frame; however, it provides the possibility to fully control and
the reduced margin, the control bandwidth needs to be reduced, limit each phase separately and independently from each other.
which makes DDSRF-based GFM inverters sluggish during In [25], [75], [76], [81], the authors propose limiting the current
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14509

in each phase independently. In [75] and [76], a hybrid current capabilities under off-nominal grid conditions. In the revised
limiter is proposed where the inner control loop utilizes three codes, inverters must stay connected to and remain synchronized
separate Kalman filters to estimate the magnitude and phase to the grid over an extended range of off-nominal grid conditions,
of three single-phase currents, and then saturation blocks are such as voltage and frequency excursions, for longer periods of
used to limit each phase currents independently. The proposed time without tripping. This type of requirement directly relates
approach can also flexibly limit the negative-sequence current as to the current-limiting control discussed in this article [166],
a percentage of positive-sequence currents based on grid code re- [167]. In addition, proactive actions during those off-nominal
quirements. In [23], the current controllers work in the decoupled conditions should be implemented to benefit the entire system
synchronous reference frame, while the current limiter operates operation. They can include injecting short-circuit currents dur-
in the natural reference frame, therefore, limiting each phase cur- ing a voltage drop to support the grid voltage and to avoid a
rent independently under faults. By limiting each phase current total blackout by facilitating the fault detection and protection
separately, under an asymmetric fault, only the affected phase(s) mechanisms [167], [168]. In case of unbalanced faults, some
will be current limited, while the healthy phase(s) can continue grid codes require the injection of reactive current into positive
to operate normally, as illustrated in Fig. 17(c). This operation and negative sequences [147], [167], [168], [169]. The required
can be beneficial in, for example, grids with single-phase loads, amount of current injection is defined as a function of the amount
because it can provide continuous service in healthy phases. of positive-sequence voltage drop or negative-sequence voltage
Note that independently controlling and limiting each phase rise during a fault.
can induce the flow of zero-sequence currents [82], [146]. This As of today, most grid codes are primarily drafted within
type of individual phase control is, therefore, only truly possible the paradigm of GFL inverter controls, in which the inverter
for three-phase, four-wire inverters. The three-phase, four-wire behaves as a controlled current source during both normal and
topology may have an extra switch leg and a dedicated zero- abnormal conditions. Programming specific active or reactive
sequence controller to regulate the zero-sequence current [162]. current injection during off-nominal grid voltage or frequency
For three-phase, three-wire inverters, limiting the phase currents conditions in GFL inverters, as a result, can be straightforwardly
in the natural reference frame can cause overvoltage issues [82], implemented by modifying the current-reference saturation lim-
[87], [146]. References Pokharelet al. [163] and Roh [164] iter. Since this type of modification does not affect the cur-
suggested that four-wire inverters are more effective than three- rent source nature, the inverter can continue using a PLL to
wire topologies in terms of harmonic distortion, leakage current, maintain synchronism with the grid. In GFM inverters, on the
capacitor voltage fluctuation rate, and total loss, particularly other hand, mandating a specific amount of current injection or
during faults and unbalanced conditions. rendering the inverter control into a current source contradicts
Conclusively, considering asymmetrical fault ride-through is the GFM principle of retaining the voltage-source behavior. For
imperative for practical current limiter designs. Each reference example, specific reactive current injection requirements can
frame presents distinct advantages and limitations. The selection be programmed with the current-reference saturation limiter
depends on requirements and tradeoffs regarding control accu- with fixed current-phasor angle, as discussed in Section III-A
racy, computational burden, controller design complexity, stabil- and illustrated in Fig. 3; then, the inverter may not retain the
ity, and overall system performance during faults. Requirements voltage-source behavior that likely provides more benefits to the
imposed by grid codes, such as specific sequence injection, power system operation under contingencies and the post-fault
should also be considered in the reference frame selection and recovery, especially in weak grids. How to unlock and exploit
control design owing to the frame-specific merits and limits the GFM capabilities under fault conditions and how to drive
discussed. Further technological advancements in this area will and reflect them in grid codes, however, is not clear as of today.
help overcome the challenges. Significant study is necessary to obtain a better understanding of
GFM inverter operation under faults and to facilitate standard-
ization. To fill this gap, we review the latest grid codes related
VI. GRID CODES FOR IBR OPERATION UNDER CURRENT to the fault and current limiting of IBRs. Though some are not
LIMITING specific to GFM inverters, understanding the motivation of the
For reliable power system operation and to safeguard the needs and trends in code changes would illuminate the pathways.
stability and continuity of the power supply under various grid First, we discuss recently developed GFM inverter grid codes.
conditions, grid operators enforce rules and requirements on In 2022, National Grid issued GC0137 for Great Britain’s system
generator units operating in their grids. These requirements operation [7], [170]. This code is designed to address technical
are based on the characteristics of SGs and decades of op- issues in the grid with the increasing share of IBRs with GFM ca-
erational experience; however, with the proliferation of IBRs pabilities. Although not mandatory, this code would facilitate the
in the grid, the need for inverter-oriented fault ride-through integration of GFM IBRs by enhancing the understanding of the
and dynamic voltage-support requirements has become promi- new technology and encouraging stakeholders to integrate GFM
nent [12], [165]. Grid codes for IBR-heavy systems must evolve, functionalities into their products. Related to current limiting,
considering the distinct merits and limitations of IBRs. In recent GC0137 specifies GFM-IBR operation under large frequency
years, this has led to world-wide revisions and creations of excursions (2 Hz/s) and short-circuit current injection under
grid codes. One significant change in many grid codes re- terminal voltage drops (down to 0 pu), both of which are likely
lated to overcurrent limiting is the requirement for operation to drive a GFM inverter into current limiting. These require
14510 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

GFM inverters to ride through (i.e., maintain synchronism) and understanding of this underexplored topic and will be founda-
proactively react to faults in an extended operational range, tional in the development of widely accepted grid codes.
which is well beyond what is typically required for non-GFM
IBRs. The Universal Interoperability for Grid-Forming Inverters
(UNIFI) consortium issued “Specifications for Grid-forming VII. SYSTEM PROTECTION IN IBR-HEAVY GRIDS
Inverter-based Resources Version 1” in 2022 and Version 2 in Over decades of operating SG-driven power grids, tradi-
March 2024 [3]. Although it does not provide numeric perfor- tional power system protection methods have proven reliable
mance metrics by design, it specifies GFM-IBR capabilities in by leveraging the typical voltage-source-behind-impedance
abnormal conditions, including retaining GFM characteristics behavior of an SG. A few typical SG fault attributes used to
under faults, contributing to system-wide stability, and recovery that end include high fault currents supplied by the SG and a
after events, all of which depend on the current limiting design. near-constant internal SG impedance that tends to be highly
It reconfirms the importance of the current-limiting design. inductive. Overcurrent, distance, and directional protection are
In addition, the UNIFI specification discusses the response to some examples of protection methods that employ these SG
asymmetrical faults that requires a GFM inverter to regulate a characteristics; however, IBRs in the system—of any type—
balanced internal voltage by allowing unbalanced currents, i.e., complicate the reliable detection and clearing of faults. Inverters
negative-sequence current injection. In addition, the European cannot provide high overcurrents, and the internal impedance
Network of Transmission System Operators [5], the Australian angle is predominantly dictated by the controls and the design
Energy Market Operator [4], and the North American Electric of the current limiter. As such, many questions circulate in the
Reliability Corporation [2] are leading the way to draft require- community about the protection of inverter-dominated grids,
ments for GFM inverters. e.g., should inverter controls or hardware be modified to comply
We provide more specifics in the latest codes related to GFM with existing protection schemes, or should protection schemes
operation under abnormal conditions. National Grid GC0137 [7] be adapted for inverters [8]. In this section, we discuss common
introduces a fault current injection requirement mandating GFM protection schemes, focusing on how they are affected by in-
inverters to exhibit a fast current response compared to GFL verters and how GFM inverters with current limits can provide
inverters against faults. In this code, the GFM inverter is re- solutions.
quired to inject the reactive current into the grid within 5 ms The most common protection scheme, particularly in low-
following a grid voltage drop below 0.9 pu. Complying with voltage and medium-voltage grids, is overcurrent protection.
this short time frame can pose a challenge if the response is This type of protection, and by extension directional overcur-
not inherent to the GFM IBR, i.e., voltage-source nature. On rent protection as well, relies on the presence of significant
the other hand, the grid code also requires that the active power overcurrents to detect a fault in a power system dominated by
response must not be faster than 5 Hz to avoid system resonance. SGs [171]. In an inverter-heavy system, however, detecting a
To satisfy this requirement, the control dynamics during faults fault by scanning for overcurrent can become arduous due to the
should be carefully designed while respecting the inverter’s limited overcurrent capabilities of inverters whose short-circuit
hardware limits. Also, notable are the latest IEEE standards, currents barely exceed their rating [172]. Deploying GFM IBRs
IEEE 1547-2018 [166] and 2800-2022 [167], since they detail can potentially alleviate this issue because they can proactively
the advanced functionalities needed from IBRs. In both stan- respond to faults, i.e., by providing the maximum current avail-
dards, inverters should not trip but maintain synchronism with able to facilitate the protection mechanism rather than providing
the grid during grid faults for an extended period of time, unless reduced current or early tripping that may appear in GFL invert-
they are allowed or required to trip [166], [167]. Compared to ers. Because it originates from the inverter hardware limits, how-
GC0137, which requires power injection even during a total ever, this issue cannot be fully solved by simply implementing
voltage collapse (Vg = 0 pu), the inverters under IEEE 1547 GFM controls in the IBRs replacing SGs, especially in the areas
Category II, which is the most demanding category for abnormal of weak system strength. Oversizing the inverters is a straightfor-
operations, for example, are mandated to temporarily cease to ward solution and can enable extended GFM funtionalities [4],
energize under a voltage drop below 0.3 pu [166]. This can lead [7], but additional value streams for the overdesign should be
to under-utilization of the GFM inverter’s capability if applied clearly defined and implemented by system operators to justify
and can affect system stability in certain conditions. Future the additional costs [173]. In an attempt to address the issue of
standards should establish requirements for GFM inverters that detecting overcurrent, advanced adaptive overcurrent protection
are engineered to offer extended ride-through capabilities to schemes have been proposed [174], [175], [176], [177]; however,
fully benefit from inverter-heavy power systems. selectivity is a major challenge [178].
As discussed, new grid code developments are in progress, Another widely employed protection scheme is distance pro-
and revisions of current standards are ongoing; however, so tection, which is primarily used in medium- and high-voltage
far no standard has been established that clarifies GFM-IBR distribution and transmission grids. Based on local voltage and
performance under fault conditions, which would allow the full current measurements, distance protection schemes compute
utilization of the potential of GFM inverters. This is because the impedance between lines and estimate the relative distance
the fundamental understanding of GFM inverter behavior is still to a fault on that line [179]. Conceptually, distance protection
being established. Research, development, demonstration, and works well when the sources at both ends of the protected line
deployment activities are paramount to establishing a deeper have a similar fault behavior [179]; however, with a mix of
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14511

TABLE III
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT LIMITERS

IBRs and SGs, where the IBR current limiter can—intentionally In summary, the presence of IBRs can complicate the pro-
or unintentionally, as discussed in Section III—manipulate the tection of power systems due to known challenges, such as low
phase angle of the current, the distance protection can make a fault current levels, as well as unknown factors that arise from
wrong impedance-estimation decision [12]. Previous simulation the unpredictability of IBR behavior. Compared to GFL IBRs,
and hardware-in-the-loop studies have shown that distance pro- GFM IBRs can alleviate concerns and benefit system protection
tection is prone to failure in lines with (GFL) inverters, especially by proactively responding to faults with fault current provision,
during unbalanced line-to-line faults [180], [181], [182], [183], but their benefits could be limited due to the hardware limit,
[184], [185], [186], [187]. On the other hand, studies that inves- which motivates inverter oversizing [173]. The compatibility
tigate the interplay between GFM inverters and distance protec- of inverter controls and current limiter topologies with existing
tion remain sparse. Baeckeland [12] and Baeckeland et al. [128] protection schemes is often overlooked but deserves attention in
demonstrated through simulations and hardware validation that the inverter design process. On the other hand, advancements in
traditional distance protection can properly function with GFM protection technology, aided by novel communication methods
inverters equipped with certain control and current limiter design and developed information technologies, can enable a paradigm
considerations. The study illustrates that with a highly inductive shift in power system protection. Detailed electromagnetic tran-
VI current limiter, the GFM inverter behaves similarly to an SG sient modeling and simulation studies are essential to under-
(as illustrated in Fig. 12), which benefits distance protection, standing changes in protection system behavior under faults in
especially in a grid where IBRs and SGs coexist. inverter-heavy grids and to guide the energy mix transition while
Last, we discuss the effect of IBRs on line-differential pro- ensuring reliable system protection.
tection. Line-differential protection computes the sum of the
current flowing into and out of a line. According to Kirchoff’s
current law, this sum must always equal zero if there is no fault
VIII. CONCLUSION
on the line [188]. When there is a fault on the line, this criterion is
not met. This makes line-differential protection highly reliable. This article explored various aspects of the current-limiting
On the other hand, it requires reliable communication links to methods employed in GFM inverters. This final section consol-
exchange the measurement data from both ends of the line, and idates key points, provides a cohesive narrative, and offers our
it cannot provide remote backup protection. Unlike overcurrent perspective on the findings and existing research gaps presented
and distance protection, which rely on specific attributes of in the review.
SGs, the concept of line-differential protection is agnostic to The primary objective of current limiters is to curtail the
the source type (either SGs or IBRs) feeding the line. For the output current of the inverter, protecting the inverter hardware
same reason, line-differential protection is, conceptually, not from overloading and thermal damage. Although seemingly
affected by the control type of inverters, i.e., whether they are straightforward, the design intricacies of current limiters ripple
GFL or GFM. Though, some studies report that line-differential through the power network, impacting many aspects of the
protection, especially the alpha plane differential protection power system, including stability, grid support during distur-
scheme, can be affected by the altered fault current behavior bances, protection, post-fault recovery, and more. This paper
of inverters [189], [190]. Nevertheless, with some modifications highlighted the challenges of developing GFM current limiters
in the relay settings and high-bandwidth communication, line- and inverter controls that perform well on all these fronts. Al-
differential protection remains a reliable protection system for though no one-size-fits-all solution exists, the review identified
IBR-heavy grids [191], [192]. specific design aspects that confer distinct advantages. In the
14512 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

following, we highlight the most notable ones (a summary is of GFM inverters would require more effort within the
provided in Table III). community.
A well-established method to limit the inverter output currents 3) This article has shown that there are many different ways
is curtailing the reference signal feeding into the current con- to achieve effective current limiting in GFM inverters;
troller. Current-reference saturation limiting provides respon- however, we do not yet understand how well these different
sive and accurate limiting; however, if left untreated, it can GFM current limiting methods will interoperate with each
create integrator windups in the outer control loops and does other. While this study provides a fundamental basis,
not provide control over the current and voltage phasor angles. future power grids will feature thousands, if not millions,
The latter is particularly important for improving transient sta- of GFM inverters coexisting with other generation assets.
bility and grid synchronization, boosting the voltage during grid Understanding how these various GFM current-limiting
voltage sags and faults, and facilitating power system protection. and fault-behavior strategies interact with each other and
Adding antiwindup feedback loops and prioritizing reactive or other sources in terms of system stability and protection
active current in the limiter block can help alleviate some of is critical but mostly unknown.
these issues. 4) Arguably one of the most pressing gaps in the devel-
VI current-limiting methods, on the other hand, do not cre- opment and deployment of GFM technology is the lack
ate the windup of the outer-voltage loop control integrators of GFM inverter-tailored grid codes. In fact, many of
and can provide control over the current and voltage output the aforementioned GFM challenges could be overcome
phasors during faults and disturbances. For that reason, they with well-designed grid codes that clearly outline the re-
report better performance in terms of transient stability, voltage quired behavior of GFM inverters under off-nominal con-
support, and power system protection. On the downside, VI ditions. Novel GFM-tailored grid standards can streamline
current limiting curtails the voltage-reference input fed into the GFM developments, build clarity and common ground
outer-voltage loop, which, therefore, is inherently slower than among stakeholders, and facilitate field deployment of this
the current-reference saturation limiting methods, potentially promising technology.
causing momentary overcurrents and thus requiring an increased In summary, more efforts are necessary to understand GFM
design margin or use in combination with an additional method inverter behavior under current limiting and to illuminate the
for inverter protection and reliability. Also, VI current limiting pathway to well-defined and widely acceptable grid codes for
cannot fully use the overcurrent capability of the inverter. Careful GFM IBRs and IBR-heavy grids. Research, development, and
consideration of these tradeoffs is essential when using a VI demonstration activities are crucial to clearly defining how GFM
current limiter. inverters should behave under current-limiting and off-nominal
This review also discussed recent works that propose hy- conditions.
brid current-limiting solutions that combine the merits of two
methods. Although more research is needed, these papers show
promising results regarding reliable current limiting, angle con- REFERENCES
trol, stability, black start, and system protection. Although trade-
[1] B. Kroposki et al., “Achieving a 100% renewable grid: Operating electric
offs are unavoidable because of the hardware constraint of lim- power systems with extremely high levels of variable renewable energy,”
ited inverter currents, hybrid current-limiting methods elucidate IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 61–73, Mar./Apr. 2017.
a pathway for future developments. [2] NREC, “Grid forming functional specifications for BPS-connected
battery energy storage systems,” North American Electric Relia-
Last, throughout this work, several gaps in the current state bility Corporation (NERC), Atlanta, GA, USA, 2023. [Online].
of research became apparent. Hereafter, we list the most notable Available: https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC_Reliability_Guidelines/
points for further research and remaining challenges in the space White_Paper_GFM_Functional_Specification.pdf
[3] B. Kroposki et al., “UNIFI specifications for grid-forming inverter-based
of GFM inverters during current-limited operations: resources (V. 2),” Nat. Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO,
1) Although the effect of current limiting on the transient USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5D00-89269, 2024. [Online]. Available:
stability of GFM inverters during disturbances is covered https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/89269.pdf
[4] AEMO, “Voluntary specifications for grid-fomring inverters,” Australian
extensively in this article, very few references take small- Energy Market Operator (AEMO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia,
signal stability into consideration. Since engineering im- 2023. [Online]. Available: https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/initiatives/
proved current-limiting behavior in large-signal response primary-frequency-response/2023/gfm-voluntary-spec.pdf
[5] I. Theologitis et al., “High penetration of power electronic interfaced
can trigger small-signal stability issues, mapping out the power sources and the potential contribution of grid forming converters,”
sweet spot between optimizing for small- and large-signal ENTSO-E Tech. Group High Penetration Power Electron. Interfaced
stability in GFM inverters during current-limited opera- Power Sources, Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Online]. Available: https:
//euagenda.eu/upload/publications/untitled-292051-ea.pdf
tion is a point for further research. [6] EU, ”Migrate consortium,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.
2) In this article, we outlined a general picture of the chal- h2020-migrate.eu/
lenges associated with protecting GFM inverter-driven [7] National Grid ESO, “Workgroup consultation GC0137: Minimum spec-
ification required for provision of GB grid forming (GBGF) capabil-
grids (or IBR-driven grids, for that matter); however, ity (formerly virtual synchronous machine/VSM capability),” London,
solid and widespread solutions both from power-system U.K., Mar. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nationalgrideso.com/
and power-electronics perspectives are lacking in the document/189381/download
[8] Y. Lin et al., “Research roadmap on grid-forming inverters,” Nat. Renew-
current literature. Developing solutions for power sys- able Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5D00-73476,
tem protection incorporating the current-limiting behavior 2020.
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14513

[9] P. S. Kundur and O. P. Malik, Power System Stability and Control. New [32] D. Zmood and D. Holmes, “Stationary frame current regulation of PWM
York City, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Educ., 2022. inverters with zero steady state error,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
[10] Q. Taoufik, H. Wu, X. Wang, and I. Colak, “Variable virtual impedance- vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 814–822, May 2003.
based overcurrent protection for grid-forming inverters: Small-signal, [33] E. Rokrok, T. Qoria, A. Bruyere, B. Francois, and X. Guillaud, “Transient
large-signal analysis and improvement,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 14, stability assessment and enhancement of grid-forming converters em-
no. 5, pp. 3324–3336, Sep. 2023. bedding current reference saturation as current limiting strategy,” IEEE
[11] B. Fan, T. Liu, F. Zhao, H. Wu, and X. Wang, “A review of current-limiting Trans. Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1519–1531, Mar. 2022.
control of grid-forming inverters under symmetrical disturbances,” IEEE [34] A. Pal, D. Pal, and B. K. Panigrahi, “A current saturation strategy
Open J. Power Electron., vol. 3, pp. 955–969, 2022. for enhancing the low voltage ride-through capability of grid-forming
[12] N. Baeckeland, “Design and modeling of inverter control for fault behav- inverters,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II: Exp. Briefs, vol. 70, no. 3,
ior and power system protection analysis,” Ph.D. dissertation, Fac. Eng. pp. 1009–1013, Mar. 2023.
Technol., KU Leuven, Belgium, 2022. [35] B. Fan and X. Wang, “Fault recovery analysis of grid-forming inverters
[13] G. Liang, G. N. B. Yadav, E. Rodriguez, G. G. Farivar, and J. Pou, “Fault with priority-based current limiters,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38,
ride-through control of cascaded H-bridge converter-based battery energy no. 6, pp. 5102–5112, Nov. 2023.
storage systems with redundant submodules,” in Proc. IEEE Southern [36] L. Zhang, L. Harnefors, and H.-P. Nee, “Power-synchronization control
Power Electron. Conf., 2022, pp. 1–5. of grid-connected voltage-source converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
[14] C. Hirsching, M. Goertz, S. Wenig, A. Bisseling, M. Suriyah, and T. vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 809–820, May 2010.
Leibfried, “On fault-ride-through performance in MMC-HVDC applica- [37] L. Huang et al., “A virtual synchronous control for voltage-source
tions controlled as a virtual synchronous machine,” IEEE Trans. Energy converters utilizing dynamics of DC-link capacitor to realize self-
Convers., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2803–2812, Dec. 2022. synchronization,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 5,
[15] D. W. Spier, C. Collados-Rodriguez, E. Prieto-Araujo, and O. Gomis- no. 4, pp. 1565–1577, Dec. 2017.
Bellmunt, “Analysis of equilibrium points and optimal grid support of [38] W. Du, Q. Nguyen, Y. Liu, and S. M. Mohiuddin, “A current limiting
grid-forming modular multilevel converter for balanced and unbalanced control strategy for single-loop droop-controlled grid-forming inverters
faults,” Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 153, 2023, Art. no. 109281. under balanced and unbalanced faults,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers.
[16] M. C. Chandorkar, D. M. Divan, and R. Adapa, “Control of parallel Congr. Expo., 2022, pp. 1–7.
connected inverters in standalone ac supply systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. [39] W. Du and S. M. Mohiuddin, “A two-stage current limiting control
Appl., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 136–143, Jan./Feb. 1993. strategy for improved low-voltage ride-through capability of direct-
[17] H.-P. Beck and R. Hesse, “Virtual synchronous machine,” in Proc. Int. droop-controlled, grid-forming inverters,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers.
Conf. Elect. Power Qual. Utilisation, 2007, pp. 1–6. Congr. Expo., 2023, pp. 2886–2890.
[18] G.-S. Seo, M. Colombino, I. Subotic, B. Johnson, D. Groß, and F. Dör- [40] N. S. Gurule, J. Hernandez-Alvidrez, M. J. Reno, A. Summers, S.
fler, “Dispatchable virtual oscillator control for decentralized inverter- Gonzalez, and J. Flicker, “Grid-forming inverter experimental testing of
dominated power systems: Analysis and experiments,” in Proc. IEEE fault current contributions,” in Proc. IEEE Photovolt. Specialists Conf.,
Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2019, pp. 561–566. 2019, pp. 3150–3155.
[19] M. Lu, S. Dutta, V. Purba, S. Dhople, and B. Johnson, “A grid-compatible [41] N. S. Gurule, J. Hernandez-Alvidrez, R. Darbali-Zamora, M. J. Reno,
virtual oscillator controller: Analysis and design,” in Proc. IEEE Energy and J. D. Flicker, “Experimental evaluation of grid-forming inverters
Convers. Congr. Expo., 2019, pp. 2643–2649. under unbalanced and fault conditions,” in Proc. Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind.
[20] M. Lu, “Virtual oscillator grid-forming inverters: State of the art, mod- Electron. Soc., 2020, pp. 4057–4062.
eling, and stability,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 10, [42] T. Liu, X. Wang, F. Liu, K. Xin, and Y. Liu, “A current limiting method
pp. 11579–11591, Oct. 2022. for single-loop voltage-magnitude controlled grid-forming converters
[21] W. Du et al., “A comparative study of two widely used grid-forming during symmetrical faults,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 4,
droop controls on microgrid small-signal stability,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. pp. 4751–4763, Apr. 2022.
Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 963–975, Jun. 2020. [43] M. G. Taul, X. Wang, P. Davari, and F. Blaabjerg, “Current limiting
[22] M. Lu, R. Mallik, B. Johnson, and S. Dhople, “Dispatchable virtual- control with enhanced dynamics of grid-forming converters during fault
oscillator-controlled inverters with current-limiting and MPPT capabili- conditions,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 2,
ties,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2021, pp. 3316–3323. pp. 1062–1073, Jun. 2020.
[23] B. Mahamedi, M. Eskandari, J. E. Fletcher, and J. Zhu, “Sequence-based [44] N. Baeckeland and G.-S. Seo, “Novel hybrid current limiter for grid-
control strategy with current limiting for the fault ride-through of inverter- forming inverter control during unbalanced faults,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
interfaced distributed generators,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 11, Conf. Power Electron. ECCE Asia, 2023, pp. 1517–1522.
no. 1, pp. 165–174, Jan. 2020. [45] A. D. Paquette and D. M. Divan, “Virtual impedance current limiting for
[24] C. Liu, X. Cai, R. Li, and R. Yang, “Optimal short-circuit current control inverters in microgrids with synchronous generators,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
of the grid-forming converter during grid fault condition,” IET Renewable Appl., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1630–1638, Mar./Apr. 2015.
Power Gener., vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2185–2194, 2021. [46] X. Wang, Y. W. Li, F. Blaabjerg, and P. C. Loh, “Virtual-impedance-based
[25] I. Sadeghkhani, M. E. Hamedani Golshan, J. M. Guerrero, and A. control for voltage-source and current-source converters,” IEEE Trans.
Mehrizi-Sani, “A current limiting strategy to improve fault ride-through Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 7019–7037, Dec. 2015.
of inverter interfaced autonomous microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, [47] W. Zhang, J. Rocabert, J. I. Candela, and P. Rodriguez, “Synchronous
vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2138–2148, Sep. 2017. power control of grid-connected power converters under asymmetrical
[26] A. Moawwad, M. S. El Moursi, and W. Xiao, “A novel transient control grid fault,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 7, 2017, Art. no. 950.
strategy for VSC-HVDC connecting offshore wind power plant,” IEEE [48] X. Lu, J. Wang, J. M. Guerrero, and D. Zhao, “Virtual-impedance-based
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1056–1069, Oct. 2014. fault current limiters for inverter dominated AC microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
[27] N. Baeckeland, D. Venkatramanan, M. Kleemann, and S. Dhople, Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1599–1612, May 2018.
“Stationary-frame grid-forming inverter control architectures for unbal- [49] C. Luo, Y. Chen, Y. Xu, Z. Wang, and Q. Li, “Transient stability
anced fault-current limiting,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 37, no. 4, analysis and enhancement for VSG with virtual impedance based cur-
pp. 2813–2825, Dec. 2022. rent limitation,” in Proc. Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2022,
[28] Z. Li, K. W. Chan, J. Hu, and S. W. Or, “An adaptive fault ride-through pp. 1–6.
scheme for grid-forming inverters under asymmetrical grid faults,” IEEE [50] F. Salha, F. Colas, and X. Guillaud, “Virtual resistance principle for the
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 12912–12923, Dec. 2022. overcurrent protection of PWM voltage source inverter,” in Proc. IEEE
[29] M. Marwali and A. Keyhani, “Control of distributed generation systems- PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf. Europe, 2010, pp. 1–6.
Part I: Voltages and currents control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., [51] M. Zubiaga et al., “Enhanced TVI for grid forming vsc under unbalanced
vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1541–1550, Nov. 2004. faults,” Energies, vol. 14, pp. 1–19, 2021.
[30] C. Liu et al., “Grid-Forming converter overcurrent limiting strategy [52] A. Gkountaras, S. Dieckerhoff, and T. Sezi, “Evaluation of current lim-
based on additional current loop,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 5, 2023, iting methods for grid forming inverters in medium voltage microgrids,”
Art. no. 1112. in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2015, pp. 1223–1230.
[31] T. Erckrath, P. Unruh, and M. Jung, “Voltage phasor based current limiting [53] J. He and Y. W. Li, “Analysis, design, and implementation of virtual
for grid-forming converters,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. impedance for power electronics interfaced distributed generation,” IEEE
Expo., 2022, pp. 1–8. Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2525–2538, Nov./Dec. 2011.
14514 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

[54] A. Gkountaras, S. Dieckerhoff, and T. Sezi, “Evaluation of current lim- [76] R. Rosso, S. Engelken, and M. Liserre, “On the implementation of an FRT
iting methods for grid forming inverters in medium voltage microgrids,” strategy for grid-forming converters under symmetrical and asymmetrical
in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2015, pp. 1223–1230. grid faults,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 4385–4397,
[55] G. Denis, T. Prevost, M.-S. Debry, F. Xavier, X. Guillaud, and A. Menze, Sep./Oct. 2021.
“The migrate project: The challenges of operating a transmission grid [77] S. F. Zarei, H. Mokhtari, M. A. Ghasemi, and F. Blaabjerg, “Reinforcing
with only inverter-based generation. a grid-forming control improvement fault ride through capability of grid forming voltage source converters
with transient current-limiting control,” IET Renewable Power Gener., using an enhanced voltage control scheme,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 523–529, 2018. vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1827–1842, Oct. 2019.
[56] T. Erckrath, P. Unruh, and M. Jung, “Voltage phasor based current limiting [78] G. Lou, Q. Yang, W. Gu, and J. Zhang, “An improved control strategy of
for grid-forming converters,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. virtual synchronous generator under symmetrical grid voltage sag,” Int.
Expo., 2022, pp. 1–8. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 121, 2020, Art. no. 106093.
[57] J. Chen, F. Prystupczuk, and T. O’Donnell, “Use of voltage limits for [79] A. Narula, P. Imgart, M. Bongiorno, M. Beza, J. R. Svensson, and J.-
current limitations in grid-forming converters,” CSEE J. Power Energy P. Hasler, “Voltage-based current limitation strategy to preserve grid-
Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 259–269, 2020. forming properties under severe grid disturbances,” IEEE Open J. Power
[58] J. M. Bloemink and M. R. Iravani, “Control of a multiple source microgrid Electron., vol. 4, pp. 176–188, 2023.
with built-in islanding detection and current limiting,” IEEE Trans. Power [80] Z. Zeng, P. Bhagwat, M. Saeedifard, and D. Groß, “Hybrid threshold
Del., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2122–2132, Oct. 2012. virtual impedance for fault current limiting in grid-forming converters,”
[59] K. Shi, H. Ye, P. Xu, D. Zhao, and L. Jiao, “Low-voltage ride through in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2023, pp. 913–918.
control strategy of virtual synchronous generator based on the analysis [81] T. Kim et al., “Blackstart of unbalanced microgrids using grid-forming
of excitation state,” IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 9, inverter with voltage balancing capability,” in Proc. IEEE PES Transmiss.
pp. 2165–2172, 2018. Distrib. Conf. Expo., 2022, pp. 1–5.
[60] W. Du, Y. Liu, F. K. Tuffner, R. Huang, and Z. Huang, “Model specifica- [82] M. plet, T. C. Green, and J. D. McDonald, “Modelling and analysis of
tion of droop-controlled, grid-forming inverters (GFMDRP_A),” Pacific fault behaviour of inverter microgrids to aid future fault detection,” in
Northwest Nat. Lab., Richland, WA, USA, Tech. Rep., PNNL-32278, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Syst. Eng., 2007, pp. 1–6.
2021. [83] M. A. Zamani, A. Yazdani, and T. S. Sidhu, “A control strategy for
[61] W. Du, Y. Liu, R. Huang, F. K. Tuffner, J. Xie, and Z. Huang, “Positive- enhanced operation of inverter-based microgrids under transient distur-
sequence phasor modeling of droop-controlled, grid-forming inverters bances and network faults,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 4,
with fault current limiting function,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. pp. 1737–1747, Oct. 2012.
Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf., 2022, pp. 1–5. [84] K. G. Saffar, S. Driss, and F. B. Ajaei, “Impacts of current limiting on
[62] S. Jeong and G. Jang, “Stability analysis of a weak-grid-connected the transient stability of the virtual synchronous generator,” IEEE Trans.
voltage-sourced rectifier considering the phase-locked loop dynamics,” Power Electron., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1509–1521, Feb. 2023.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 436–446, Jan. 2023. [85] C. Luo, X. Ma, T. Liu, and X. Wang, “Controller-saturation-based
[63] H. Gong, X. Wang, and L. Harnefors, “Rethinking current controller transient stability enhancement for grid-forming inverters,” IEEE Trans.
design for PLL-synchronized VSCs in weak grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Power Electron., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 2646–2657, Feb. 2023.
Electron., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1369–1381, Feb. 2022. [86] J. Erdocia, A. Urtasun, and L. Marroyo, “Dual voltage–current control
[64] Q.-C. Zhong and G. C. Konstantopoulos, “Current-limiting droop control to provide grid-forming inverters with current limiting capability,” IEEE
of grid-connected inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 7, Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3950–3962,
pp. 5963–5973, Jul. 2017. Aug. 2022.
[65] S. Dedeoglu and G. C. Konstantopoulos, “PLL-less three-phase droop- [87] C. A. Plet and T. C. Green, “A method of voltage limiting and distortion
controlled inverter with inherent current-limiting property,” in Proc. avoidance for islanded inverter-fed networks under fault,” in Proc. Eur.
Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2019, pp. 4013–4018. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2011, pp. 1–8.
[66] A. G. Paspatis, G. C. Konstantopoulos, and J. M. Guerrero, “Enhanced [88] X. Lin, Z. Liang, Y. Zheng, Y. Lin, and Y. Kang, “A current limiting
current-limiting droop controller for grid-connected inverters to guaran- strategy with parallel virtual impedance for three-phase three-leg inverter
tee stability and maximize power injection under grid faults,” IEEE Trans. under asymmetrical short-circuit fault to improve the controllable capa-
Control Syst. Technol., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 841–849, Mar. 2021. bility of fault currents,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 8,
[67] A. G. Paspatis and G. C. Konstantopoulos, “SRF-based current-limiting pp. 8138–8149, Aug. 2019.
droop controller for three-phase grid-tied inverters,” in Proc. Annu. Conf. [89] G.-S. Seo, J. Sawant, and F. Ding, “Black start of unbalanced microgrids
IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2018, pp. 282–287. harmonizing single- and three-phase grid-forming inverters,” in Proc.
[68] Z. Shuai, W. Huang, C. Shen, J. Ge, and Z. J. Shen, “Characteristics and IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2023, pp. 1–6.
restraining method of fast transient inrush fault currents in synchronvert- [90] M. Karimi-Ghartemani, R. Sharma, A. Zakerian, and S. A. Khajehoddin,
ers,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7487–7497, Sep. 2017. “A single-phase enhanced grid-forming controller with converter current
[69] L. Huang, C. Wu, D. Zhou, and F. Blaabjerg, “A power-angle-based limiting,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2021, pp. 37–44.
adaptive overcurrent protection scheme for grid-forming inverter under [91] M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu, and F. Blaabjerg, “A new single-phase PLL
large grid disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 70, no. 6, structure based on second order generalized integrator,” in Proc. IEEE
pp. 5927–5936, Jun. 2023. Power Electron. Specialists Conf., 2006, pp. 1–6.
[70] L. Huang, H. Xin, Z. Wang, L. Zhang, K. Wu, and J. Hu, “Transient [92] F. Xiao, L. Dong, L. Li, and X. Liao, “A frequency-fixed SOGI-based
stability analysis and control design of droop-controlled voltage source PLL for single-phase grid-connected converters,” IEEE Trans. Power
converters considering current limitation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, Electron., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1713–1719, Mar. 2017.
vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 578–591, Jan. 2019. [93] M. Saitou and T. Shimizu, “Generalized theory of instantaneous active
[71] W. Du, R. H. Lasseter, and A. S. Khalsa, “Survivability of autonomous and reactive powers in single-phase circuits based on hilbert transform,”
microgrid during overload events,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, in Proc. Annu. IEEE Power Electron. Specialists Conf. Proc., 2002,
no. 4, pp. 3515–3524, Jul. 2019. pp. 1419–1424.
[72] A. J. G. Abrantes-Ferreira, A. C. Oliveira, and A. M. N. Lima, “Dispatch- [94] M. Saitou, N. Matsui, and T. Shimizu, “A control strategy of single-
able virtual oscillator inverter: Fault mitigation in weak grids,” in Proc. phase active filter using a novel D-Q transformation,” in Proc. IAS Annu.
IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2023, pp. 1059–1066. Meeting Conf. Rec. Ind. Appl. Conf., 2003, pp. 1222–1227.
[73] D. Groß and F. Dörfler, “Projected grid-forming control for current- [95] S. Gautam, W. Hassan, A. Bhatta, D. D.-C. Lu, and W. Xiao, “A compre-
limiting of power converters,” in Proc. Annu. Allerton Conf. Commun., hensive study of orthogonal signal generation schemes for single phase
Control, Comput., 2019, pp. 326–333. systems,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Electron. Energy, 2021, pp. 1–8.
[74] T. Qoria, F. Gruson, F. Colas, X. Kestelyn, and X. Guillaud, “Current lim- [96] Z. Xin, X. Wang, Z. Qin, M. Lu, P. C. Loh, and F. Blaabjerg, “An
iting algorithms and transient stability analysis of grid-forming VSCs,” improved second-order generalized integrator based quadrature signal
Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 189, 2020, Art. no. 106726. generator,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 8068–8073,
[75] R. Rosso, S. Engelken, and M. Liserre, “Current limitation strategy Dec. 2016.
for grid-forming converters under symmetrical and asymmetrical grid [97] M. S. Reza, M. Ciobotaru, and V. G. Agelidis, “Accurate estimation of
faults,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2020, pp. 3746– single-phase grid voltage parameters under distorted conditions,” IEEE
3753. Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1138–1146, Jun. 2014.
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14515

[98] Y. Wang, Y. Kuang, and Q. Xu, “A current-limiting scheme for [118] N. Baeckeland and G.-S. Seo, “Enhanced large-signal stability method for
voltage-controlled inverter using instantaneous current to generate virtual grid-forming inverters during current limiting,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop
impedance,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Circuits Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, Control Model. Power Electron., 2023, pp. 1–8.
pp. 524–535, Jun. 2023. [119] L. Huang, C. Wu, D. Zhou, and F. Blaabjerg, “A power angle limiting
[99] G. C. Konstantopoulos, Q.-C. Zhong, and W.-L. Ming, “PLL-less non- method for improving stability of grid-forming inverter under overcurrent
linear current-limiting controller for single-phase grid-tied inverters: condition,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2022, pp. 1–6.
Design, stability analysis, and operation under grid faults,” IEEE Trans. [120] P. Hart and B. Lesieutre, “Energy function for a grid-tied, droop-
Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 5582–5591, Sep. 2016. controlled inverter,” in Proc. North Amer. Power Symp., 2014, pp. 1–6.
[100] Q.-C. Zhong and G. C. Konstantopoulos, “Nonlinear current-limiting [121] M. Kabalan, P. Singh, and D. Niebur, “Nonlinear Lyapunov stability
control for grid-tied inverters,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., 2016, analysis of seven models of a DC/AC droop controlled inverter connected
pp. 7472–7477. to an infinite bus,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 772–781,
[101] G. C. Konstantopoulos, Q.-C. Zhong, B. Ren, and M. Krstic, “Bounded Jan. 2017.
integral control of input-to-state practically stable nonlinear systems to [122] I. Subotić, D. Groß, M. Colombino, and F. Dörfler, “A Lyapunov frame-
guarantee closed-loop stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 61, work for nested dynamical systems on multiple time scales with appli-
no. 12, pp. 4196–4202, Sep. 2016. cation to converter-based power systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
[102] P. Unruh, M. Nuschke, P. Strauß, and F. Welck, “Overview on grid- vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 5909–5924, Dec. 2020.
forming inverter control methods,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 10, 2020, [123] P. J. Hart, M. Gong, H. Liu, Z. Chen, Y. Zhang, and Y. Wang, “Provably-
Art. no. 2589. stable overload ride-through control for grid-forming inverters using
[103] O. Ajala, N. Baeckeland, B. Johnson, S. Dhople, and A. Domínguez- system-wide lyapunov function analysis,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
García, “Model reduction and dynamic aggregation of grid-forming in- vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 2761–2776, Apr. 2022.
verter networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5475–5490, [124] H. Wu and X. Wang, “Small-signal modeling and controller param-
Nov. 2023. eters tuning of grid-forming VSCs with adaptive virtual impedance-
[104] O. Ajala, M. Lu, B. Johnson, S. V. Dhople, and A. Domínguez-García, based current limitation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 37, no. 6,
“Model reduction for inverters with current limiting and dispatchable pp. 7185–7199, Jun. 2021.
virtual oscillator control,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 37, no. 4, [125] M. Miranbeigi, P. M. Gajare, J. Benzaquen, P. Kandula, and D. Divan,
pp. 2250–2259, Dec. 2021. “On the passivity of grid-forming converters – role of virtual impedance,”
[105] M. Lu, V. Purba, S. Dhople, and B. Johnson, “Comparison of droop con- in Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2022, pp. 650–656.
trol and virtual oscillator control realized by andronov-hopf dynamics,” [126] J. Sawant, G.-S. Seo, and F. Ding, “Resilient inverter-driven black start
in Proc. 46th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2020, pp. 4051–4056. with collective parallel grid-forming operation,” in Proc. IEEE Power
[106] L. Huang, L. Zhang, H. Xin, Z. Wang, and D. Gan, “Current limiting Energy Soc. Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf., 2023, pp. 1–5.
leads to virtual power angle synchronous instability of droop-controlled [127] M. A. Awal, M. R. K. Rachi, H. Yu, S. Schröder, J. Dannehl, and I.
converters,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2016, pp. 1– Husain, “Grid-forming nature retaining fault ride-through control,” in
5. Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2023, pp. 2753–2758.
[107] H. Xin, L. Huang, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, and J. Hu, “Synchronous in- [128] N. Baeckeland, D. Venkatramanan, S. Dhople, and M. Kleemann, “On the
stability mechanism of PF droop-controlled voltage source converter distance protection of power grids dominated by grid-forming inverters,”
caused by current saturation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 6, in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf. Europe, 2022, pp. 1–
pp. 5206–5207, Jun. 2016. 6.
[108] T. Qoria, F. Gruson, F. Colas, G. Denis, T. Prevost, and X. Guillaud, [129] N. Baeckeland and G.-S. Seo, “Large-signal stability improvement of
“Critical clearing time determination and enhancement of grid-forming parallel grid-forming inverter-driven black start,” in Proc. IEEE Power
converters embedding virtual impedance as current limitation algo- Energy Soc. Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf., 2024, pp. 1–5.
rithm,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 2, [130] N. Baeckeland and M. Kleemann, “Novel fault distance estimation
pp. 1050–1061, Feb. 2019. method for lines connected to converter-based generation,” in Proc. IEEE
[109] H. Zhang, W. Xiang, W. Lin, and J. Wen, “Grid forming converters PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Europe, 2021, pp. 01–06.
in renewable energy sources dominated power grid: Control strategy, [131] N. Bottrell and T. C. Green, “Comparison of current-limiting strate-
stability, application, and challenges,” J. Modern Power Syst. Clean gies during fault ride-through of inverters to prevent latch-up and
Energy, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1239–1256, 2021. wind-up,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 3786–3797,
[110] K. V. Kkuni and G. Yang, “Effects of current limit for grid forming Jul. 2014.
converters on transient stability: Analysis and solution,” Int. J. Electr. [132] S.-K. Sul, Control of Electric Machine Drive Systems. Hoboken, NJ,
Power Energy Syst., vol. 158, pp. 109919, 2024. USA: Wiley, 2011.
[111] B. Fan and X. Wang, “Equivalent circuit model of grid-forming converters [133] B. Pawar, E. I. Batzelis, S. Chakrabarti, and B. C. Pal, “Grid-forming
with circular current limiter for transient stability analysis,” IEEE Trans. control for solar PV systems with power reserves,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Power Syst., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3141–3144, Apr. 2022. Energy, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1947–1959, Apr. 2021.
[112] Y. Zhang, C. Zhang, R. Yang, M. Molinas, and X. Cai, “Current- [134] R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, U. Borup, and M. Liserre, “A new control
constrained power-angle characterization method for transient stability structure for grid-connected LCL PV inverters with zero steady-state
analysis of grid-forming voltage source converters,” IEEE Trans. Energy error and selective harmonic compensation,” in Proc. Annu. IEEE Appl.
Convers., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1338–1349, Jun. 2023. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2004, pp. 580–586 Vol.1.
[113] C. Shen, W. Gu, and E. Luo, “Transient performance comparison of [135] S. A. Richter and R. W. De Doncker, “Digital proportional-resonant (PR)
grid-forming converters with different FRT control strategies,” Front. control with anti-windup applied to a voltage-source inverter,” in Proc.
Energy, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 239–250, 2023. Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2011, pp. 1–10.
[114] T. Qoria, X. Wang, and R. Kadri, “Grid-forming control VSC-based [136] A. Ghoshal and V. John, “Anti-windup schemes for proportional integral
including current limitation and re-synchronization functions to deal with and proportional resonant controller.” 2010.
symmetrical and asymmetrical faults,” Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 223, [137] H. P. Dang and H. N. Villegas Pico, “Blackstart and fault ride-through
2023, Art. no. 109647. capability of DFIG-based wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
[115] C. Collados-Rodriguez, D. W. Spier, M. Cheah-Mane, E. Prieto-Araujo, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2060–2074, Mar. 2023.
and O. Gomis-Bellmunt, “Preventing loss of synchronism of droop- [138] S. Tarbouriech and M. Turner, “Anti-windup design: An overview of
based grid-forming converters during frequency excursions,” Int. J. Elect. some recent advances and open problems,” IET Control Theory Appl.,
Power Energy Syst., vol. 148, 2023, Art. no. 108989. vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2009.
[116] M. Awal, M. R. K. Rachi, H. Yu, S. Schröder, J. Dannehl, and I. Husain, [139] Y. Gu and T. C. Green, “Power system stability with a high penetration
“Grid-forming nature retaining fault ride-through control,” in Proc. IEEE of inverter-based resources,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 832–853,
Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2023, pp. 2753–2758. Jul. 2023.
[117] X. Zhao and D. Flynn, “Freezing grid-forming converter virtual angu- [140] A. Sepehr, O. Gomis-Bellmunt, and E. Pouresmaeil, “Employing ma-
lar speed to enhance transient stability under current reference limit- chine learning for enhancing transient stability of power synchronization
ing,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop Control Model. Power Electron., 2020, control during fault conditions in weak grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
pp. 1–7. vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 2121–2131, Mar. 2022.
14516 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 39, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2024

[141] Z. Zhang, C. Lehmal, P. Hackl, and R. Schuerhuber, “Transient stability [163] S. P. Pokharel, S. M. Brahma, and S. J. Ranade, “Modeling and simulation
analysis and post-fault restart strategy for current-limited grid-forming of three phase inverter for fault study of microgrids,” in Proc. North Amer.
converter,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 10, 2022, Art. no. 3552. Power Symp., 2012, pp. 1–6.
[142] M. Mahdi and V. I. Genc, “Post-fault prediction of transient instabilities [164] C. Roh, “Performance comparisons of three-phase/four-wire model pre-
using stacked sparse autoencoder,” Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 164, dictive control-based dc/ac inverters capable of asymmetric operation for
pp. 243–252, 2018. wave energy converters,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 8, 2022, Art. no. 2839.
[143] X. Lin, Y. Zheng, Z. Liang, and Y. Kang, “The suppression of volt- [165] M. Dietmannsberger and D. Schulz, “Impacts of low-voltage distribu-
age overshoot and oscillation during the fast recovery process from tion grid codes on ancillary services and anti-islanding detection of
load short-circuit fault for three-phase stand-alone inverter,” IEEE inverter-based generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 31, no. 4,
Trans. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 858–871, pp. 1287–1294, Apr. 2016.
Jan. 2020. [166] IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distrib. En-
[144] X. Wang, J. Gao, X. Wei, Z. Zeng, Y. Wei, and M. Kheshti, “Single ergy Resour. With Assoc. Electric Power Syst. Interfaces, IEEE Stan-
line to ground fault detection in a non-effectively grounded distribu- dard 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Standard 1547-2003), 2018.
tion network,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 3173–3186, [167] IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Inverter-
Jun. 2018. Based Resour. (IBRs) Interconnecting With Assoc. Transmiss. Electric
[145] N. Tleis, Power Systems Modelling and Fault Analysis: Theory and Power Syst., IEEE Standard 2800-2022, 2022.
Practice. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2007. [168] EirGrid, “Eirgrid grid code, version 8,” 2019. [Online]. Available: http:
[146] C. A. Plet, M. Brucoli, J. D. McDonald, and T. C. Green, “Fault models //www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/GridCodeVersion6.
of inverter-interfaced distributed generators: Experimental verification pdf
and application to fault analysis,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. [169] VDE, “Technical requirements for the connection and operation of cus-
Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–8. tomer installations to the high voltage network (VDE-Ar-N 4120),” 2018.
[147] ENTSO-E, “Fault current contribution from PPMs & HVDC,” [170] N. G. ESO, Great Britain Grid Forming Best Practice Guide. Boca Raton,
ENTSO-E, Brussels, Belgium, Mar. 2017. [Online]. Available: https: FL, USA:CRC Press, 2023.
//consultations.entsoe.eu/system-development/entso-e-connection- [171] S. H. Horowitz, A. G. Phadke, and C. F. Henville, Power System Relaying,
codes-implementation-guidance-d-3/user_uploads/igd-fault-current- 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2022.
contribution.pdf [172] N. Baeckeland, B. Herteleer, and M. Kleemann, “Impact of converter-
[148] D. B. Rathnayake et al., “Grid forming inverter modeling, control, and based distributed generation units on fault behaviour of distribution
applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 114781–114807, 2021. grids,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Develop. Power Syst. Protection, 2020, pp. 1–7.
[149] A. Yazdani and R. Iravani, Voltage-Sourced Converters in Power Systems: [173] S. Cherevatskiy et al., “Grid forming energy storage system addresses
Modeling, Control, and Applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2010. challenges of grids with high penetration of renewables (a case study),”
[150] P. Rodríguez, J. Pou, J. Bergas, J. I. Candela, R. P. Burgos, and D. in Proc. CIGRÉ Session, 2020, Art. no. 322.
Boroyevich, “Decoupled double synchronous reference frame PLL for [174] M. Amaratunge, D. Edirisuriya, A. Ambegoda, M. Costa, W. Peiris, and
power converters control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 22, no. 2, K. Hemapala, “Development of adaptive overcurrent relaying scheme for
pp. 584–592, Feb. 2007. iidg microgrids,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Elect. Eng., 2018, pp. 71–75.
[151] D. Chatterjee, N. G. Barry, T. Kim, W. Kim, and S. Santoso, “Voltage [175] P. Mishra, A. K. Pradhan, and P. Bajpai, “Adaptive voltage restrained
balancing of grid-forming inverters in unbalanced, islanded microgrids,” overcurrent relaying for protection of distribution system with PV plant,”
in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2023, pp. 1–5. in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Power Syst., 2021, pp. 1–5.
[152] J. Svensson, M. Bongiorno, and A. Sannino, “Practical implementation [176] H. Muda and P. Jena, “Real time simulation of new adaptive overcurrent
of delayed signal cancellation method for phase-sequence separation,” technique for microgrid protection,” in Proc. Nat. Power Syst. Conf.,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 18–26, Jan. 2006. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[153] E. Avdiaj, J. Are Suul, S. D’Arco, and L. Piegari, “A current controlled [177] A. Ghoor and S. Chowdhury, “Design of adaptive overcurrent protec-
virtual synchronous machine adapted for operation under unbalanced tion scheme for a grid-integrated solar PV microgrid,” in Proc. IEEE
conditions,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Renewable Energy Res. Appl., 2020, PES/IASPowerAfrica, 2020, pp. 1–5.
pp. 263–270. [178] J. Y. R. Wong et al., “Selectivity problem in adaptive overcurrent pro-
[154] J. Freytes, J. Li, G. de Préville, and M. Thouvenin, “Grid-forming tection for microgrid with inverter-based distributed generators (IBDG):
control with current limitation for MMC under unbalanced fault ride- Theoretical investigation and hil verification,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
through,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1914–1916, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 3313–3324, Apr. 2021.
Mar. 2021. [179] G. Ziegler, Numerical Distance Protection: Principles and Applications.
[155] M. Awal, M. R. K. Rachi, H. Yu, I. Husain, and S. Lukic, “Double Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011.
synchronous unified virtual oscillator control for asymmetrical fault [180] C. Brantl, P. Ruffing, and R. Puffer, “The application of line protection
ride-through in grid-forming voltage source converters,” IEEE Trans. relays in high voltage Ac transmission grids considering the capabilities
Power Electron., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 6759–6763, Jun. 2022. and limitations of connected MMCs,” 2020.
[156] R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and P. Rodriguez, Grid Converters for Pho- [181] A. Hooshyar, M. A. Azzouz, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Distance protection
tovoltaic and Wind Power Systems. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2011. of lines emanating from full-scale converter-interfaced renewable energy
[157] P. Bhagwat and D. Groß, “Three-phase grid-forming droop control for power plants–part i: Problem statement,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30,
unbalanced systems and fault ride through,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy no. 4, pp. 1770–1780, Apr. 2014.
Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2023, pp. 1–5. [182] R. Chowdhury and N. Fischer, “Transmission line protection for systems
[158] N. A. Ninad and L. A. C. Lopes, “Per-phase vector (dq) controlled three- with inverter-based resources–Part I: Problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
phase grid-forming inverter for stand-alone systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 2416–2425, Apr. 2020.
Symp. Ind. Electron., 2011, pp. 1626–1631. [183] A. Banaiemoqadam, A. Azizi, A. Hooshyar, M. Kanabar, and E. F.
[159] M. Shirazi, D. Gross, D. Light, J. VanderMeer, and T. Morgan, “Evalu- El-Saadany, “Impact of inverter-based resources on different implemen-
ation of current-limiting strategies for grid-forming inverters,” in Proc. tation methods for distance relays–Part I: Phase comparators,” IEEE
IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2023, pp. 1067–1074. Trans. Power Del., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 4090–4102, Dec. 2023.
[160] G. Zeng and T. W. Rasmussen, “Design of current-controller with PR- [184] E. Martinez, M. Villén, S. Borroy, D. López, M. Popov, and H. Grasset,
regulator for LCL-filter based grid-connected converter,” in Proc. Int. “Effects of type-4 wind turbine on present protection relaying algo-
Symp. Power Electron. Distrib. Gener. Syst., 2010, pp. 490–494. rithms,” in Proc. 9th Protection Automat. Control (PAC) World Conf.,
[161] J. He, P. Liu, B. Liu, and S. Duan, “An asymmetric short-circuit fault 2018, pp. 1–9.
ride-through strategy providing current limiting and continuous voltage [185] J. Jia, G. Yang, A. H. Nielsen, and P. Rønne-Hansen, “Impact of VSC
supply for three-phase three-wire stand-alone inverters,” IEEE Access, control strategies and incorporation of synchronous condensers on dis-
vol. 8, pp. 211063–211073, 2020. tance protection under unbalanced faults,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
[162] F. H. Md Rafi, M. J. Hossain, M. S. Rahman, and J. Lu, “Impact of vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 1108–1118, Feb. 2018.
controlling zero sequence current in a three-phase four-wire LV network [186] N. Baeckeland and M. Kleemann, “Influence of reactive current settings
with PV units,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, 2016, of converters on distance protection,” in Proc. Int. Colloq. Intell. Grid
pp. 1–5. Metrol., 2020, pp. 79–84.
BAECKELAND et al.: OVERCURRENT LIMITING IN GFM INVERTERS 14517

[187] M. Kleemann and N. Baeckeland, “Converter meets distance protection: Brian Johnson (Senior Member, IEEE) received the
A good match?,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 2021, pp. 1– M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer
10. engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
[188] G. Ziegler, Numerical Differential Protection: Principles and Applica- Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA, in 2010 and 2013,
tions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2012. respectively. He is currently an Assistant Professor
[189] A. Haddadi, E. Farantatos, I. Kocar, and U. Karaagac, “Impact of inverter and a Fellow of the Jack Kilby/Texas Instruments En-
based resources on system protection,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 4, 2021, dowed Faculty Fellowship in Computer Engineering
Art. no. 1050. in the Chandra Family Department of Electrical and
[190] N. George, O. Naidu, and A. K. Pradhan, “Differential protection for Computer Engineering, University of Texas at Austin,
lines connected to inverter-based resources: Problems and solution,” in Austin, TX, USA. Previously, he was the Washington
Proc. Nat. Power Syst. Conf., 2022, pp. 419–424. Research Foundation Innovation Assistant Professor
[191] R. Chowdhury, R. McDaniel, and N. Fischer, “Applying line current dif- within the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University
ferential protection in systems with inverter-based resources,” Schweitzer of Washington in Seattle. Prior to joining the University of Washington in
Eng. Lab., Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA, 2022. [Online]. Available: http: 2018, he was an Engineer with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
//dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4058823 . His research interests are in renewable energy systems, power electronics, and
[192] S.K. Al-sachit and N. K. Nair, “Transmission line protection algo- control systems.
rithm based on voltage sequence component under high penetration of Dr. Johnson work was recognized with a National Science Foundation CA-
inverter-based resources,” Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 201, 2021, REER Award in 2022 as well as prize paper awards from IEEE TRANSACTIONS
Art. no. 107504. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ ON ENERGY CONVERSION and IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS.
science/article/pii/S0378779621004855 He is currently co-leading the multi-institutional Universal Interoperability
for Grid-Forming Inverters (UNIFI) Consortium which is funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy.

Nathan Baeckeland (Member, IEEE) received the

B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer- Gab-Su Seo (Senior Member, IEEE) received the
ing from KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, in 2017, Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Seoul
2018, and 2022, respectively. National University, Seoul, South Korea, in 2015.
From 2020 to 2021, he was a Doctoral Fellow From 2016 to 2017, he was a Research Asso-
with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, ciate with the Colorado Power Electronics Center,
USA, supported by the Belgian American Educa- University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA. Since
tion Foundation (BAEF). He is currently a Director’s 2018, he has been with the Power Systems Engineer-
Post-Doctoral Fellow with the National Renewable ing Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Energy Laboratory (NREL), CO, USA, focusing on (NREL), Golden, CO, USA, where he is currently a
advancing grid-forming inverter control design for Senior Electrical Engineer and leads research projects
system-wide grid support and regulation during nonideal network conditions. focused on power electronics and power systems ap-
plications for electric grids with high integrations of inverter-based resources.
He has coauthored more than 80 IEEE journal and peer-reviewed conference
papers and won one IEEE Transactions Best Paper Award. He coauthored
the Research Roadmap on Grid-Forming Inverters (NREL, 2020). His current
research interests include power electronics for renewable energy systems and
Debjyoti Chatterjee (Graduate Student Member, microgrids and power systems engineering for grid modernization, including
IEEE) received the B.Tech. degree in electrical and grid-forming inverter control and inverter-driven power system black start for
electronics engineering from the National Institute low- or zero-inertia grids to improve grid resilience and stability.
of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India, in 2020, the Dr. Seo is an IEEE Roadmap Working Group Chair of the International
M.S. degree in electrical and computer engineering, in Technology Roadmap of Power Electronics for Distributed Energy Resources
2022, from the University of Texas at Austin„ Austin, (ITRD)-WG3 Integration and Control of DERs. He is an Associate Editor of
TX, USA, where he is currently working toward the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING
Ph.D. degree. AND SELECTED TOPICS IN POWER ELECTRONICS, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
His research interests include current-constrained INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, IEEE OPEN JOURNAL OF POWER ELECTRONICS, and
control of grid-forming inverters, transient stability the Journal of Power Electronics. He is currently the Secretary of the IEEE Power
of power electronics-dominated power systems, and Electronics Society Technical Committee on Sustainable Energy Systems (IEEE
modular multilevel converters for renewable energy integration. PELS TC5) and the Vice Chair of the IEEE PELS Denver Section.

Minghui Lu (Member, IEEE) received the B.E.

and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from
Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, and
Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China, in 2014 and 2011, respectively, and the
Ph.D. in power electronics from Aalborg University,
Aalborg, Denmark, in 2017.
He is currently a Research Engineer with Pa-
cific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). His
research expertise is focused on power electronics,
grid-forming inverters, and modeling and control of
power electronics.
Dr. Lu was a recipient of the 2022 IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
(Second Place) Prize Paper Award and was recognized with the 2020 IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion Outstanding Reviewer Award.