System Strength and Weak Grids:
Fundamentals, Challenges, and Mitigation Strategies
Mehdi Ghazavi Dozein, Student Member, IEEE
Pierluigi Mancarella, Senior Member, IEEE
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Australia
mghazavi@student.unimelb.edu.au ,
pierluigi.mancarella@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract — Converter-based renewable energy sources (RES) and
battery energy storage (BES) devices that are asynchronously
connected to the system are becoming more and more widespread.
A number of relevant stability issues, usually in areas with little
synchronous generation, are being experienced, particularly in
terms of voltage stability. In this context, the scope of this work is
to review the key aspects of the so-called “system strength” that is
associated with “weak grids” where such instabilities arise, its
definitions, assessment metrics, and adverse operational impacts
that may emerge. The paper is then discussing two main mitigation
strategies to improve short-term voltage stability in weak power
systems. The first is to provide voltage stability services by
converter-based technologies to support the system voltage in weak
areas. The second proposition is to employ FACTS devices to
increase system strength. Finally, limitations and challenges
regarding the operation of converter-based technologies and
FACTS devices in weak grids are presented and followed by key
recommendations.
Index Terms- System strength, Weak-grid area, Non-
synchronous technologies (NST), FACTS devices, Voltage
stability services
I. INTRODUTION
Renewable energy sources (RES) and battery energy
storage (BES) systems1, hereafter indicated as non-
synchronous technologies (NST) are becoming more
widespread in the system. It is generally accepted that going
towards a low carbon energy system raises a number of issues
and concerns threatening grid security. Although the advent of
new technologies, which mainly contain power electronic
converters, could bring numerous advantages for the system,
there are also several issues associated with system strength,
weak-grid areas and low-inertia conditions [1], [2]. Holding
73 percent renewable energy target in South Australia by 2020
up as a quintessential renewable energy penetration in a future
1 BES are associated here to RES within the general category of
NST as they are also able to inject active power in the system and
therefore can be assimilated to generating technologies.
Tapan Kumar Saha, Senior Member, IEEE
Ruifeng Yan, Member, IEEE
School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia
saha@itee.uq.edu.au , ruifeng@itee.uq.edu.au
Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) power grid, the
asynchronous generations must be able to collaborate into the
system stability services to compensate the lack of
synchronous ones [3].
Firstly, frequency control ancillary services (FCAS) have
generally been provided by conventional power plants, which
primarily feature synchronous generators. The synchronous
machine is blessed with a rotational mass and directly
connected to the system. If a contingency causes the frequency
to deviate from nominal, synchronous generators provide
various frequency support services, such as inertial response
or primary frequency response, for the system to avoid
frequency instability and angle instability issues [2], [4]. This
work will not focus on these aspects of system instabilities in
converter penetrated power systems.
Secondly, synchronous generators (SG) play an important
role to support the system voltage stability by contribution to
the short-circuit level. When a fault happens, synchronous
machines are able to maintain their terminal voltage by control
of excitation current. Also, SG are connected to the system
directly and in parallel, and their internal reactance affects the
equivalent impedance from the terminal to the point of the
fault on a network. While the number of SG decreases, the
equivalent impedance that can be seen from the fault location
increases, thus reducing the short-circuit level. According to
the short-circuit characteristic of SG, the terminal voltage of
SG is proportional to the short-circuit current [5].
Consequently, reduction of short-circuit level increases the
risk of voltage instability and voltage collapse in the system
[6]. Unfortunately, most NST are connected to the system
through an electronically-coupled interface, thereby providing
no substantial contribution to the short-circuit current. In fact,
the contribution of convert-based technologies into the short-
circuit current is restricted by technical limitations of
converters, such as the potential breakdown of the switches or
switch overheating which might happen following a fault
over-current [7]. Therefore, the low short-circuit current is a
serious consequence of NST penetration into power systems.
In other words, with NST prevailing in the system, there may
be more and more weak-grid areas with higher risk of voltage
instability [8]. It is worth saying that a system with sparse
extra high voltage transmission backbone or with a high
electrical distance from SG is also prone to voltage instability
[8]. Because these features increase the total system
impedance, then enhance the equivalent impedance value from
the point of fault, thus reducing the short-circuit level.
Motivated by the ongoing discussions about various types
of instability associated with large-scale penetration of NST,
the aim of this paper is to discuss the fundamentals and
technical challenges regarding the lack of sufficient system
strength and regarding system operation in weak areas of the
grid in a low-carbon power system context. From the
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)’s perspective,
system strength is defined as a “measure of the power system
stability under all reasonably possible operating conditions”
[9]. Power systems can thus be categorised into two groups: 1)
strong grid and 2) weak or non-stiff grid [10]. Voltages in a
strong grid maintain fairly constant under operating
conditions, which means that as power flows change slightly,
voltage variations corresponding to the active or reactive
power variation are small (i.e. dV/dP and dV/dQ are
negligible). Conversely, a weak grid is characterised by
noticeable dV/dP and dV/dQ sensitivity [8]. As previously
stated, a low short-circuit current increases the voltage
sensitivity following a fault, therefore it can be said that a part
of the system with less short-circuit level can be considered as
a weak area.
In weak-grid areas, it is mandatory to mitigate the adverse
impacts of low system strength on the voltage stability as well
as on the operation of existing conventional units and NST
adopting different available solutions. There may be several
solutions to reduce the adverse impacts of low system
strength, such as transmission reinforcement, synchronous
condensers, reactive power and voltage support delivered by
NST, and utilisation of flexible AC transmission systems
(FACTS) devices, especially static VAR compensator (SVC)
and static synchronous compensator (STATCOM) [8].
This paper discusses potential specification of responses
which must be delivered to the system by converter-based
technologies to improve system strength. In addition, the
required dynamic response of FACTS devices to system
contingencies is described considering the weak grid
operation. Given the great interest on weak areas in Australia,
there are substantial works being carried out by AEMO to
which we make reference in this paper. Furthermore, some
technical recommendations by AEMO for NST and FACTS
devices to support system stability are presented.
The main contributions of the paper can be expressed as
follows:
• Review of system strength fundamentals;
• Discussions of Australian grid-code requirements for
the operation of converter-based technologies;
• Specification of dynamic responses to be provided by
NTS;
• Specification of dynamic responses to be provided by
FACTS;
• General technical challenges and the corresponding
recommendations to improve system strength and deal
with voltage instability in weak areas.
In the rest of the paper, Section 2 provides a discussion
into system strength assessment and how to mitigate adverse
impacts in the weak grid area. The non-synchronous dynamic
response requirements for different conditions are described in
Section 3, including voltage control response, voltage-reactive
power droop characteristic, high-voltage ride-through (HVRT)
capability, and low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) capability.
Finally, technical challenges for integration of converter-based
technologies and FACTS devices into weak grids are
presented in Section 4 and suitable recommendations are
made.
II. SYSTEM STRENGTH FUNDAMENTALS
Previous studies mostly defined system strength as the
“available fault current at a specific location of the power
system”; consequently, higher fault currents also correspond
to higher system strength [11]. In “classical” power systems,
in most cases it was not essential to explicitly consider system
strength to guarantee power system security since there were
many SG connected to the grid which would contribute to
system strength inherently. The current trend towards RES
and NST and thereby loss of sufficient SG reduces the short-
circuit level contribution of generating units, thus driving the
system into the weak-grid area.
Usually, qualitative definitions of system strength have
been discussed by previous literature; however, it is
imperative to determine how far a network is from weak area
conditions in a quantitative way, especially in converter-based
power systems [8]. Traditionally, the short circuit ratio (SCR)
metric has been deployed to describe the grid strength or
stiffness, as it is directly related to the available short circuit
current.
When it comes to assess system strength in an area where
NST are connected, the SCR-based method calculates the
system strength in a twofold process: the initial stage is to
perform a classical three-phase short-circuit fault analysis at
the specific bus under study; then, the SCR metric is
computed as follows [8]:
𝑆𝐶𝑀𝑉𝐴𝑃𝑂𝐼
𝑆𝐶𝑅𝑃𝑂𝐼 = (1)
𝑀𝑊𝑁𝑆𝑇
where 𝑆𝐶𝑀𝑉𝐴𝑃𝑂𝐼 is the Short-Circuit MVA-level at the point
of interface (POI) without the current contribution of the NST,
and 𝑀𝑊𝑁𝑆𝑇 is the output power of the NST [4]. It can be
concluded that a low SCR value shows less amount of short-
circuit current in a system. Therefore, a low SCR value
indicates a high sensitivity of voltage magnitude to active and
reactive power change at the POI. The relation (1) does not
account for other converter-based technologies in the
neighboring areas. However, converter-coupled units are
electrically close to the POI in weak areas which host several
NST. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) has recently introduced a new index to achieve a
more accurate system strength assessment approach for weak
grid conditions. The Weighted Short Circuit Ratio (WSCR),
which can explicitly consider also nearby converter-based
technologies, is expressed by (2) [10]:
𝑖 schemes are based on the reactive power support of the system
∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑆𝐶𝑀𝑉𝐴𝑖 ×𝑀𝑊𝑁𝑆𝑇
𝑊𝑆𝐶𝑅𝑃𝑂𝐼 = 𝑖 (2)
∑𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑀𝑊𝑁𝑆𝑇
where 𝑆𝐶𝑀𝑉𝐴𝑖 is the Short-Circuit MVA at bus-i without
consideration of NST-i, while 𝑀𝑊𝑁𝑆𝑇 𝑖
is the real output power
of NST-i; N is the number of converter-based technologies
nearby the specific bus under study [10]. In this context,
nearby units can be identified by line characteristic impedance
(i.e. surge impedance) and setting requirement of protection
systems for generating units in under-study areas [12].
Insufficient system strength could have several adverse
impacts on the performance of other existing components and
it might cause inability for other system components and
devices to operate according to standards [13]. For example,
voltage step changes higher than expected could be observed
following the switching of a shunt device such as capacitor
banks. As another instance, the risk of generation voltage
instability increases in a weak area. Last but not least, the
sensitivity of power system protection may be reduced
because of fault current reduction in weak grid conditions
[14].
In light of the above, next we will discuss the impact of
low system strength on converter-based technologies and how
to mitigate the adverse impacts of weak grid condition by
means of NST and FACTS devices. More specifically, we will
analyse what kind of dynamic responses should be delivered
to the system by NST and FACTS devices in a weak-grid area.
III. REACTIVE POWER CAPABILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS
OF CONVERTER-BASED TECHNOLOGIES
As previously explained, in a weak-grid area with low
short-circuit current, the voltage might change drastically
following disturbances. Generally, one way to support the bus
voltage is to manage the amount of reactive power exchange
of the given bus [6]. Although differences of opinion still
exist, there appears to be some agreement that converter-based
technologies could support the system voltage by
manipulating its reactive power exchange with the system
[15], [16]. In this paper, the term “reactive power capability”
will be used in its broadest meaning to refer to dynamic
reactive power adjustment by a converter-based technology
during normal operating conditions or subsequent to
contingency events and system disturbances. The converter-
based technologies must be equipped with control strategies to
deliver their reactive power capabilities to the system in order
to alleviate the adverse impacts of low system strength.
Basically, most NTS (RES and BES) are composed of a set of
back-to-back converters. They could manage the amount of
reactive power injection/absorption to/from the system by
control of grid-side converter switching strategy [17].
A. Reactive power capability in normal operating conditions
(PQ Capability)
In normal operating conditions, various approaches have
been suggested to deliver reactive power to the system by
converters. Reactive power could be extracted from the
converter-coupled unit through dynamic power factor control
characteristics, active power dependent reactive power
characteristics, and PQ capability diagrams [18]. These
through power factor control of NST, while voltage is among
0.9 per unit and 1.1 per unit. The prevalent method to describe
a device’s reactive power capability characteristics in normal
operating conditions is the PQ capability diagram. The PQ
capability diagrams currently available are generally classified
into four types: 1) Triangular PQ capability diagram, 2)
Rectangular PQ capability diagram, 3) Semi-circular PQ
capability diagram, and 4) Circular PQ capability diagram.
BES systems are the only converter-based technologies that
can feature a circular PQ capability diagram, because these
units can also absorb/inject active power in addition to
reactive power. The PQ capability diagrams are shown in Fig.
1 for all types of converter-based technologies [18].
Figure 1. The PQ capability of non-synchronous generators for normal
operating conditions
While a variety of terminologies for the reactive power
capability in normal operating conditions have been
suggested, AEMO uses the “voltage control capability” term
when referring to the reactive power support of a generating
unit to control voltage during normal operations. It is worth
saying the national electricity rules (NER) generally place an
emphasis on the voltage control capability of converter-based
technologies which are going to be connected to the voltage
level of more than 100 kV [19]. Also, in the NEM power
system, the required range of reactive power
absorption/injection (i.e. ±𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 as shown in Fig. 1) for the
voltage control capability is a negotiated standard between the
generating unit owner and the system operator.
B. Reactive power capabilities under fault conditions
Given a fault condition, the reactive power capabilities can
best be categorized according to their: 1) reactive power-
voltage droop characteristic, 2) low-voltage ride-through
capability, and 3) high-voltage ride-through capability.
1) Voltage-reactive power droop characteristic
With the development of control theory and its
applications, the effectiveness of droops in power electronic
converters has been long demonstrated [20]. In terms of
system requirement in weak grids, NST must be able to handle
their terminal voltage through reactive power management
following an abnormal voltage situation. The amount of
reactive current that must be injected/absorbed by an inverter-
connected technology corresponding to a certain voltage
change should be identified by the grid-code requirement. For
example, AEMO has recently recommended technical
standards for the reactive power-voltage droop response which
must be provided by non-synchronous generators in South
Australia, as shown in Fig. 2 [21]. As it is shown, the normal
operating condition for NST is defined between ±10 %
deviation from the nominal voltage value, however this dead-
band equals to ±15 % for SG. It can be concluded that
AEMO recommends NST to participate into the voltage-
reactive power droop response prior to SG response [21].
Figure 2. AEMO’s recommendation for the voltage-reactive power droop
response provided by non-synchronous generators in SA [21]
Furthermore, the rise time of the NST response must be
greater than 1 millisecond and no greater than 30
milliseconds. Also, the response must be settled in a period
no greater than 60 milliseconds (i.e. a settling time should be
no greater than 60 ms) [21].
2) High-voltage ride-through (HVRT) capability
The term HVRT capability refers to the ability of a unit to
stay connected and consume reactive power during a drastic
high voltage situation, thus resisting the voltage rise.
However, some grid-codes usually limit the HVRT
requirement of inverter-connected technologies for a specific
time interval to avoid damaging of power electronic switches.
An example of HVRT requirement for non-synchronous
generators is carried out by AEMO for the SA power grid,
illustrated in Fig. 3 [21], showing the difference between
requirements in the future renewable-penetrated SA system
and the current grid regarding the HVRT requirement for
NST. It can be seen how converter-connected technologies
must stay connected during over-voltage situations, give the
full capacity to reactive power exchange, and absorb reactive
power, hereby delivering more HVRT response to the system
in comparison to the current system requirement. For
instance, NST must stay connected for 2 seconds while the
temporary overvoltage is 120-125 percent of the nominal
voltage in terms of proposed AEMO recommendations for
NST in SA, while it must stay connected less than 1 second in
the same situation in the previous system requirement.
Figure 3. The HVRT requirement for non-synchronous generators in current
and future SA electricity network [21]
3) Low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) capability
Previous studies mostly defined LVRT capability as the
ability of generating units to remain connected to the system
during low voltage situations [22]. The LVRT capability
provision by NST is a significant factor to avoid simultaneous
tripping of generating units that could end up with frequency
instability issues. An example of typical LVRT capability
requirement is illustrated in Fig. 4, indicating that a unit must
remain connected to the system if the point of common
coupling (PCC) voltage is above the selected LVRT standard
curve [22]. The curve should be adjusted based on the system
grid-code requirement. It means that the grid operator, often
using historical data, could decide on the values of
𝑉𝑟 , 𝑉𝑖𝑛𝑡 , 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 , 𝑇1 , 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑡 , and 𝑇2 . However, widespread use of
converter-based technologies and subsequent weak grid area
issues are leading to the introduction of new dynamic criteria
for the LVRT capability requirement of NST. For instance, in
[14] AEMO introduces two new criteria, “accumulated
disturbance duration” and the “sum of ∆𝑉 × ∆𝑡”, as the most
restrictive requirements for low SCR systems, whereby even
shallow but long duration voltage disturbances could have a
serious impact on the PCC voltage. For example, historical
data in SA and Queensland show multiple voltage dips
happened in a short duration following a contingency and
followed by generating unit trips. Thereby, AEMO has
proposed that converter-based technologies should support
the system voltage by being able to withstand a sufficient
number of voltage disturbances without disconnection and
inject reactive power, based on the new assessment criteria.
In other words, it would be better to use a multiple-fault-ride-
through access standard for converter-based technologies
operating in weak grid conditions. As stated in [14], the time
integral of the voltage difference between 90% of the normal
PCC voltage and the PCC voltage during the contingency,
when it is lower than 90%, is measured as a criterion for the
multiple LVRT capability requirement. If the (∆𝑉 × ∆𝑡)
criterion is less than 1 [p.u], NST must stay connected and
inject reactive in full capacity, otherwise NST are allowed to
get disconnected.
 NST can be delivered to the system. Also, some technical
challenges regarding the operation of FACTS devices in low
system strength situations will be presented.

A. Voltage instability following the frequency support of

Figure 4. Typical LVRT capability requirement [22]
C. Reactive power capability of Type III Wind Generators
Unlike PV, Type IV wind and BES generators, Type III
wind machines – Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG)
are connected to the grid with both stators and grid-side
converters (GSC). In practice, the GSC has to be reserved for
real power transfer, therefore, reactive power is delivered
through the stators via rotor-side converter (RSC) control. As
a result, reactive power limits of DFIG are determined by the
following factors [23], [24]:
(1) Capacitive reactive power generation is generally limited
by the rotor current;
(2) Inductive reactive power is restricted by the stator
current;
(3) In addition, rotor voltage, slip and P/Q priority modes
can also limit DFIG reactive power capability.
D. Reactive power capability of SVC and STATCOM
Static VAR Compensator (SVC) is based on thyristor
valve technology with shunt connected impedances (e.g.
inductance and capacitance) – Thyristor Controlled Reactor
(TCR) and Thyristor Switched Capacitor (TSC). Therefore, it
should be treated as a constant impedance component during
fault. Consequently, its reactive current contribution is very
limited.
Static Synchronous Compensator (STATCOM) is based
on voltage source converter (VSC) technology. Similar to PV
and Type IV wind generators, STATCOM fault current
contribution is limited by its transistor current rating and
control, therefore, it is normally regarded as a constant
current device under the fault condition. As a result, its
reactive current is almost fixed during fault [25], [26].
weak systems by NST
Several investigations have shown that converter-based
technologies could release a burst of active power into the
system as fast frequency response (FFR) to an active power
mismatch contingency [27]. However, in the presence of low
SCR the PCC voltage might become unstable and might
prevent the NST to meet its capability in frequency support.
Therefore, the frequency support might end up with voltage
instability at the point of connection [8]. Fig. 5 shows the
variation of SCR value and the PCC voltage while NST
deliver active power support in a weak area.
Figure 5. Schematic examples of SCR and voltage variations following FFR
provision by NST in a weak area [8]
B. Frequency support limitation for converter-based
technologies in low system strength conditions
As previously stated, the frequency support by converter-
based technology in a weak grid area might face terminal
voltage oscillations. To overcome this problem, it is
recommended in [18], [22] that convert-based technologies
should give the priority to reactive power injection while the
voltage is beyond the normal operating band. The control
strategy, shown in Fig. 6, indicates how a converter-based
technology should respond to a contingency in a weak
network. However, this strategy will inevitably limit the
NST’s capability to provide frequency support due to inverter
maximum current constraint.

IV. CHALLENGES AND DISCUSSIONS

Few technical challenges related to low system strength
have been highlighted in research thus far. What is still
lacking is the scientific foundation for the modelling and
control of the dynamic behaviour of converter-based
technologies and FACTS devices in a weak-grid area. The
aim of this part is to investigate the weak grid issues for the Figure 6. Active and reactive power reference construction for responsive
operation of converter-based technologies and FACTS converter-based technologies in a weak grid area
devices and to clarify how the voltage stability services by
 As shown in Fig. 6, while a power imbalance ∆𝑃 happens
in a weak network, the system frequency might deviate
remarkably. The less the system inertia, the more the
frequency variation would be. Further, because of low system
strength, the voltage variation following the power imbalance
might be considerable, going beyond the voltage normal
operating band. In order to stay connected to the grid, the
converter-based technology should give priority to the
reactive power exchange with the system. Therefore, being
part of the converter MVA capacity allocated to reactive
power, the active power capability of the NST to provide
frequency support might be restricted due to maximum
apparent power transfer constraint by converter (i.e. 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).
This limitation depends on the size of contingency as well as
how much weak the system is.
C. Converter-level control issues
In the control architecture of converter-based
technologies, various control loops work together to generate
the desired modulation signal for the switching process in
∗ ∗
order to track the reference signals (e.g. 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑄𝑜𝑢𝑡 in Fig. 6).
Recent studies [25], [26] provide evidence that NST are
connected to the system by DC/AC converter which purely
works on the nature of control mechanism which uses the
measurement of 3-phase voltages and currents of the output
terminal. In a strong gird, converters compensate the lack of
“inherent synchronism” by deployment of a “synchronisation
unit”, referred to as Phase-Lock Loop (PLL). Indeed, the PLL
takes the voltage measurement as an input and calculates the
frequency and voltage angle which are required for the
performance of control loops. Such converters are so-called
“grid-following”. Now, the issue is that the PLL-based
techniques might be inadequate to track the voltage angle and
system frequency in a weak power system. Because, weak
systems are prone to drastic voltage oscillations following
disturbances. In this case, the grid-following converter-based
technologies might not be able to maintain their stable
equilibrium point, let alone participation into the voltage
stability support [28]. This kind of instability is more likely to
be observed while the system is operated in an islanded-
mode. To cope with the problem, several researchers are
working on “grid-forming” converters which can work in
islanded-mode or in a non-stiff power grid. Grid-forming
converters do not use the PLL in their structure. They are
equipped with extra control loops for the frequency and angle
provision for the converter control loops [28]. In some
applications, grid-forming converters might cause more
complexity for the dynamic analysis, which is important to be
considered.
D. Challenges related to SVC and STATCOM
In general, the capacity of SVC and STATCOM is not
included in the total capacity of the WSCR calculation, thus
the WSCR value of the POI will increase when additional
SVC or STATCOM is installed with PV or wind farms. This
will ultimately improve the system strength in the local area.
However, the effectiveness of SVC or STATCOM integration
will be affected by PLL performance, P/Q control strategy,
and line X/R ratio. For example, low system strength (low
SCR) may require a fast PLL and a prolonged Q support
(deep P curtailment) for a stable voltage recovery after fault
[25], [26].
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the fundamentals and technical issues
expected for the operation of converter-based technologies
and FACTS devices in weak power grids, regarded as
equivalent to insufficient short-circuit level, are given. System
requirements and recommendations to cope with adverse
impacts of low “system strength” have then been discussed.
This paper has shown how the system requirements for NST
change while the system becomes weaker. It is discussed that
in weak grid area the voltage support by NST needs to be
noticed. NST could be able to deliver different types of
reactive power capabilities to the system, such as voltage
control response, voltage-reactive power droop characteristic,
low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) capability, and high-voltage
ride-through capability (HVRT) through which NST support
the system voltage by reactive power management and
mitigate adverse impacts of weak areas. To avoid voltage
instability during provision of frequency support, it is
explained how priority should be given to reactive power
exchange. However, this might prevent the technology to
provide its active power response. The grid-following
converter-based technologies are also prone to lose their
synchronism becuase of considerable voltage fluctuation in
weak-grid areas. Therefore, it might cause some changes on
the control architecture of NST. Finally, it has been discussed
that the SVC and STATCOM installation is another way to
improve the system strength as it increases the value of WSCR
metric.
REFERENCES
[1] K.C. Divya, Jacob Østergaard, “Battery energy storage technology for
power systems—An overview”, Electric Power Systems Research,
Volume 79, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 511-520.
[2] P. Mancarella, "Power system security assessment of the future national
electricity market," The independent review into the future security of
the national electricity market, Australia, June 2017.
[3] A Boston, A., Bongers, G., Byrom, S. and Staffell, I. (2017),
“Managing Flexibility Whilst Decarbonising Electricity - the Australian
NEM is changing”, Gamma Energy Technology P/L, Brisbane,
Australia.
[4] J. O'Sullivan, A. Rogers, D. Flynn, P. Smith, A. Mullane and M.
O'Malley, "Studying the Maximum Instantaneous Non-Synchronous
Generation in an Island System—Frequency Stability Challenges in
Ireland," in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, no. 6, pp.
2943-2951, Nov. 2014.
[5] P. Kundur, “Power system stability and control”, McGraw-Hill Inc,
1994, Pages 105-127.
[6] B.M. Weedy, B.J. Cory, N. Jenkins, J.B. Ekanayake, G. Strbac,
“Electric power systems”, Fifth edition, John Wiley & Sons
publication, Pages 83-94, 2012.
[7] J. Morren and S. W. H. D. Haan, "Impact of distributed generation
units with power electronic converters on distribution network
protection," 2008 IET 9th International Conference on Developments in
Power System Protection (DPSP 2008), Glasgow, 2008, pp. 664-669.
[8] North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), ‘Integrating
inverter-based resources into weak power systems, reliability
guideline’, United Stated of America, June 2017.
[9] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “System strength”,
 AEMO Information & Support Hub, Australia, August 2016. 26, No. 1, pp. 364-372, 2011.
[10] North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), “Short- [24] T. Lund, P. Sorensen and J. Eek, “Reactive Power Capability of a Wind
circuit modelling and system strength”, White Paper, United Stated of Turbine with Doubly Fed Induction Generator”, Wind Energy, Vol. 10,
America, February 2018. pp. 379-394, 2007.
[11] H. Urdal, R. Ierna, J. Zhu, C. Ivanov, A. Dahresobh and D. Rostom, [25] A. Tayyebi, F. Dorfler, F. Kupzog, W. Hribernik, “Grid-forming
"System strength considerations in a converter dominated power converters- inevitability, control strategies, and challenges in future
system", in IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 10-17, grid applications”, CIRED workshop, Ljubljana, June 2018.
1 2015. [26] X. Wang, J. M. Guerrero, F. Blaabjerg, and Z. Chen, “A Review of
[12] North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), “Review of Power Electronics Based Microgrids,” Journal of Power Electronics,
bulk electric system definition thresholds”, United Stated of America, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 181–192, Jan. 2012.
March 2013. [27] Mohammad Dreidy, H. Mokhlis, Saad Mekhilef, “Inertia response and
[13] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “Interim system strength frequency control techniques for renewable energy sources: A review”,
impact assessment guidelines”, AEMO Information & Support Hub, In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 69, 2017,
Australia, November 2017. Pages 144-155.
[14] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “Multiple voltage [28] F. Millano, F. Dorfler, G. Hug, D. Hill, G. Verbic, “Foundations and
disturbance ride-through capability, justification of AEMO’s proposal”, challenges of low-inertia systems”, invited paper, power systems
AEMO Information & Support Hub, Australia, March 2018. computation conference (PSCC) 2018, 2018.
[15] T. Wijnhoven, J. Tant, G. Deconinck, T. Neumann and I. Erlich,
"Influence of voltage support by converter based distributed generation
on the short-circuit power", 2015 IEEE Eindhoven PowerTech,
Eindhoven, 2015, pp. 1-6.
[16] M.T.L. Gayatri, Alivelu.M. Parimi, A.V. Pavan Kumar, A review of
reactive power compensation techniques in microgrids, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 81, Part 1, 2018, Pages 1030-
1036.
[17] Francisco Díaz-González, Andreas Sumper, Oriol Gomis-Bellmunt,
“Energy storage in power systems”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2016.
[18] G. Chaspierre, “Dynamic modelling of PV units in response to voltage
disturbances”, Master thesis, University of Liege, 2016.
[19] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “Electricity rule change
proposal, generator technical requirement”, AEMO Information &
Support Hub, Australia, August 2017.
[20] A. Engler and N. Soultanis, "Droop control in LV-grids," 2005
International Conference on Future Power Systems, Amsterdam, 2005,
pp. 6 pp.-6.
[21] Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), “Recommended
technical standard for generator licensing in South Australia”, AEMO
Information & Support Hub, Australia, March 2017.
[22] G. Chaspierre, P. Panciatici, T. Van Cutsem, “Aggregated dynamic
equivalent of a distribution system hosting inverter-based generators”,
20th power system computing conference (PSCC), 2018, in progress of
publication.
[23] S. Engelhardt, I. Erlich, C. Feltes, J. Kretschmann and F. Shewarega,
“Reactive Power Capability of Wind Turbines Based on Doubly Fed
Induction Generators”, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol.