The increasing penetration of converter-interfaced generation raises critical concerns for power system stability, especially during rapid transients and system split events that are not yet adequately addressed in current grid code compliance tests. This paper assesses the resilience of a Virtual Synchronous Machine (VSM) in comparison with a grid-following photovoltaic (PV) inverter through a combined framework of standardized benchmark tests and realistic system split scenarios. In benchmark testing, the VSM provided synthetic inertia by delivering a transient-power burst from a 0.30 p.u. setpoint to 0.545 p.u. (on a 20 MVA base, representing 54.5% of rated capacity) under a −0.4 Hz/s frequency ramp, corresponding to an equivalent inertia constant of approximately 15 s. With the limited frequency-sensitive mode–underfrequency (LFSM-U) function enabled, it sustained additional active power up to 0.61 p.u. once the frequency fell below 49.8 Hz. The PV inverter, by contrast, demonstrated compliance with conventional grid requirements: it curtailed power through LFSM-O during overfrequency conditions and injected 0.25 p.u. of reactive current during a fault ride-through (FRT) event at 1.129 p.u. voltage. In system split tests, the VSM absorbed surplus PV generation, stabilizing frequency after a transient rise to 52.8 Hz and containing voltage excursions beyond 1.2 p.u. During imbalance stress, it absorbed 1.266 MW against its 1.0 MW rating for approximately 2–3 s, corresponding to a 26.6% overload that falls within typical IGBT transient thermal capability but would require supervisory intervention (e.g., PV curtailment or load management) if sustained. These results demonstrate that while the PV inverter contributes valuable voltage support, only the grid-forming VSM maintains frequency stability and ensures secure islanded operation. The novelty of this study lies in integrating standardized compliance tests with system split scenarios, providing a comprehensive framework for evaluating grid-forming controls under both regulatory and resilience-oriented perspectives and informing the evolution of future grid codes.
Lawal et al. (Sun,) studied this question.