Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Fault ride-through control of grid-connected photovoltaic power plants: A T

review
Ali Q. Al-Shetwia,b, , Muhamad Zahim Sujoda, Frede Blaabjergc, Yongheng Yangc
⁎

a
Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
b
Department of Electronic Engineering and Automatic Control, University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen
c
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg DK-9220, Denmark

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Over the recent years, the photovoltaic (PV) system generation and integration with utility grid became the most
Fault ride-through (FRT) requirements widely used energy resource among other renewable energies worldwide. Thereon, the integration of PV power
Grid codes plants (PVPPs) to the power grid and their dynamics during grid faults had become a critical issue in the new
low voltage ride through (LVRT) grid codes requirements. In line with this, the fault ride through (FRT) capability control of grid-connected PV
Photovoltaic (PV) system
power plants (GCPPPs) became the most important issue related to grid codes. In order to fulfill the FRT re-
Solar energy
quirements imposed by grid codes, various approaches have been proposed in the last years. This paper presents
an overview and comparison of several FRT capability enhancement approaches during grid fault conditions. A
novel feature of this paper is to categorize FRT capability enhancement methods into two main groups de-
pending on the control type and connection configuration including external devices based methods and
modified controller based methods and then discuss their advantages and limitations in detail. A comparison
between these methods in terms of grid code compliance, controller complexity and economic feasibility are also
analyzed in this paper. According to the literature study, the FRT strategies based on external devices can be
more effective. However, some of these methods come with significant increased cost. On the other hand, the
modified controller-based FRT methods can achieve the FRT requirements at a minimal price. Among various
types of control approaches, the modified inverter controller (MIC) is the highly efficient FRT capability ap-
proach.

1. Introduction Globally, at least 98 GW of solar PV capacity was installed, increasing

The Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is currently significant in
many areas and its usage is expected to increase globally. The PV
technology is considered to be the most vital and promising renewable
energy resource (Obeidat, 2018). Recently, a continuous sharp growth
is observed in the PV renewable energy sector, whilst other renewable
sectors grew relatively slowly. The PV capacity installations had been
remarkable - almost twice the ones of wind energy (the second largest
renewable energy) - adding extra net capacity than natural gas, nuclear
power, and coal combined (Renewable Energy Policy Network, 2018;
Kabir et al., 2018). The year 2017 was a phenomenal year for PV power
generation as the PV plants generated more power than any other kind
of renewable energy technology. The PV system was the primary re-
newable energy provider, representing almost 55% of renewable power
capacity that was newly installed. The remaining capacity additions
were represented by wind (29%) and hydropower (11%) energy.
total capacity by nearly one-third, for a cumulative total of approxi-
mately 402 GW, as depicted in Fig. 1 (Renewable Energy Policy
Network, 2018). It is well known that the most frequent cause of the
instability in power system is the grid faults. In the literature, some
existing analyses and solutions of balanced and unbalanced grid faults
concerning the connection of hybrid renewable energy sources and
microgrids have been proposed (Ou, 2012, 2013; Almeida et al., 2016).
The studies proved that the grid fault is one of the important issues that
should be addressed, however the fault analysis regarding FRT cap-
ability has not been discussed in all the references mentioned above.
A great part of PV plants are connected to the power grid known as
the grid-connected photovoltaic power plants (GCPPPs) (Al-Shetwi and
Sujod, 2018). As the GCPPPs capacity increases, the need for these
plants to be more effective contributors to keep the stability, oper-
ability, reliability, and quality of the power grid increases. Therefore, it
is essential to require PV power plants to act as much as possible like

⁎
Corresponding author at: Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia.
E-mail address: alialshetwi@yahoo.com (A.Q. Al-Shetwi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.01.032
Received 1 November 2018; Received in revised form 28 December 2018; Accepted 9 January 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350

Nomenclature GC grid code

GCPPP grid-connected Photovoltaic power plant
ADL adaptive DC-link GW gigawatt
AC alternating current IGBT insulated-gate bipolar transistor
BESS battery energy storage system LVRT low voltage ride through
BCC brake chopper circuits MPPT maximum power point tracking
BDEW German Association of Energy and Water Industries MIC modified inverter controller
SCESS capacitor energy storage system PSO particle swarm optimization
DC direct current PV photovoltaic
DCL dynamic current limitation PVPP photovoltaic power plant
DVR dynamic voltage restorer PCC point of common coupling
ESS energy storage system RMS root-mean-square
FRT fault ride through SDBR series dynamic breaking resistor
FCL fault current limiter STATCOM static synchronous compensator
FLS feedback linearization strategy SSSC static synchronous series compensator
FACTS flexible alternating current transmission system SVC static VAR compensator
FLC fuzzy logic control TCSC thyristor controlled series compensator

Fig. 1. Photovoltaic (PV) total capacity and annual increment 2007–2017.

conventional power plants. For that reason, several new requirements
and rules regarding the operation of GCPPPs were imposed by some
nations, which are known as the modern grid codes (GCs) requirement.
In the past, GCs required PV systems to disconnect from the grid after a
fault occurrence. However, recently, with this remarkable increase in
the integration of solar PV plants into the power grid, the interruption
of these plants at the same time of grid disturbances may cause op-
erational and stability problems to the grid and customers, and may
lead to blackouts (Honrubia-Escribano et al., 2018). To solve this issue,
one of the most essential requirements is the low voltage ride through
(LVRT) or fault ride through (FRT) capability that should be met by
GCPPPs via the PV inverters (Rodrigues et al., 2014). Thus, it is im-
portant to analyze PV power's impacts on power grid and impacts of
grid disturbances such as grid faults on PV farm generators (Obi and
Bass, 2016). As a result, for PV system-grid integration, the FRT cap-
ability control becomes an important aspect regarding the control
system design and manufacturing technology (Lammert et al., 2017).
The FRT capability indicates that the PV inverter need to behave like
traditional synchronous generators to tolerate voltage sags resulting
from grid faults or disturbances, stay connected to the power grid, and
deliver the specified amount of reactive current at the time of grid
faults, respectively (Al-Shetwi et al., 2015). In the recent literature,
various studies have been documented in terms of FRT requirements in
modern grid code (Al-Shetwi et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015; Cabrera-
Tobar et al., 2016).
In order to achieve the FRT operation required by GCs for GCPPP,
the PV inverter should be properly controlled to deal with grid voltage
disturbances. Therefore, the PV system must manage the problems of
inverter disconnection and supply reactive currents to the power grid at
the time of disturbances (Al-Shetwi et al., 2018). Looking into the
growing share of the PV energy in power systems and the updated
technical necessities for grid connection and operation, variable
methods have become the point of interest in the GCPPPs studies. Once
the fault occurs, there are two main problems that should be addressed
and managed via the PV system in order to fulfill the FRT standard
requirements. The first is the overcurrent which may arise at the AC-
side of the inverter in addition to the overvoltage of the DC-link in the
DC-side. This issue occurs because of the inequality between the in-
coming energy from the PV side and the energy delivered into the
electric grid (Perpinias et al., 2015). The second problem is the injec-
tion of reactive currents, which is considered important for voltage
recovery as well as to assist the power system to overcome the fault
incidents (Jaalam et al., 2017).
It is well-known that the FRT capability was applied to wind energy
before the PV system due to the high integration of wind farms to the
utility grid (Mohseni and Islam, 2012). However, recently the FRT

341
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
Vgrid
Vnominal
90%
Area (A)
50%
Area (B)
0%
0.15 1.5 3 Time [s]
Fig. 2. Fault ride-through requirement in the German grid code.
applied for the PV system, as the PV generation almost doubled when
compared to that of the wind energy (Renewable Energy Policy
Network, 2018; Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018). Many literature studies
have reviewed the FRT control methods for different types of wind
energy systems (Howlader and Senjyu, 2016; Moghadasi et al., 2016;
Justo et al., 2015; Nasiri et al., 2015). Regarding PV system, although
most of the recent studies focus on the FRT requirements imposed by
different grid codes in many countries as discussed and summarized in
Al-Shetwi and Sujod (2018), Al-Shetwi et al. (2015), Perpinias et al.
(2015); Badrzadeh and Halley (2015); El Moursi et al. (2013). However,
no comprehensive review has yet been made for FRT control methods
applied to PV systems in order to fulfil these requirements. In the recent
literature, various approaches have been individually documented to
study and improve the FRT capability control of GCPPPs during faults,
which need to be properly reviewed and discussed. Therefore, the main
objective of this study is to introduce a comprehensive review on the
FRT strategies and controllers which have been already developed and
employed in the GCPPPs systems. In addition, a comparative study in
terms of dynamic performance, grid code compliance, controller com-
plexity, and cost evaluation of these LVRT methods is carried out.
Moreover, an in-depth and comprehensive review is needed to reflect
the most recent updates of FRT researches.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the FRT
requirements in modern grid codes concerning the penetration of PV
system to the power grid. Subsequently, Section 3 presents a brief re-
view of the inverter controller-based GCPPPs including the controller
designs. Next, an overview of the recently published FRT approaches
along with the fault detection methods are discussed in Section 4. The
two main approaches to realize FRT capability in PV systems are also
classified in this Section. Further, Section 5 reviews the FRT control
methods based-external devices and Section 6 presents the review of
FRT control strategies based-modified controller. Moreover, a com-
parative study in terms of dynamic performance, technical pros and
cons, controller complexity, and cost evaluation of these FRT methods
is carried out in Section 7. Finally, the conclusions and recommenda-
tions are summarized in Section 8.
2. FRT requirements in modern grid codes
In case of grid faults, the act of quickly disconnecting PV power
plants may effect on the power grid stability, especially with large-scale
PVPPs. Thus, FRT or LVRT requirements that are imposed by modern
grid codes require the PV system to remain connected when the grid
voltage sags occur and cause the grid voltage to decrease to a specific
percentage of the normal voltage for a specific period. This is required
to make sure there is no loss of power generated due to commonly
voltage sags. In some grid codes, the PVPP is expected to perform like
the conventional synchronous generators in which reactive currents
342
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
p.u
A
1
B
Iq/In
0.5
0.2
C
0 0.5 0.9 1 p.u
Vg/Vgn
Fig. 3. Reactive current support requirement in the German grid code.
must be fed into the power grid in order to maintain the power system
stability and to assist the voltage recovery (Obi and Bass, 2016;
Hasanien, 2016; Shah et al., 2015). Fig. 2 illustrates an example of the
FRT curve enforced by the German grid code (BDEW) for any PVPP
connected to the medium voltage of utility grid (Troester, 2009). Based
on this requirement, if the voltage at point of common coupling (PCC)
decreases to zero for a duration of less than 0.15 s, the PVPP must also
stay connected to the grid, referred to as zero voltage ride-through
operation.
PVPPs can disconnect from the power grid in case the voltage drops
into Area B. As an additional FRT requirement, certain grid codes re-
quire large-scale PVPPs to make contributions to the voltage recovery
in the power system via reactive currents injection (Troester, 2009;
BDEW, 2008). As part of the German grid code, Fig. 3 indicates the
amount of reactive currents injected when the voltage at PCC decreases.
As depicted in Fig. 3, according to the voltage sags’ depth, the ratio of
the active current to the rated current (Iqr) is represented by three re-
gions as follow: (a) Area C represents the normal grid operation con-
dition as long as the amplitude of the present grid voltage is higher than
the 0.9 p.u of the nominal value and therefore eliminating the need for
reactive current injection (Iqr); (b) Area B defines the amount of Iqr
when the voltage during grid fault is less than or equal to 0.9 p.u and
higher than 0.5 p.u; and (c) Area A is the most critical area since the
voltage drops under 0.5 p.u from its nominal value which requires the
amount of injected reactive current Iqr to be equal to the value of
nominal current (BDEW, 2008; Afshari et al., 2017; Neumann and
Erlich, 2012). In other words, when the grid voltage amplitude varies in
the range of 1.1 p.u and 0.9 p.u, the system should operate in normal
mode whereby only active current will be injected by the inverter (no
injection of reactive current is needed). Whereas, when the grid voltage
amplitude falls under 0.9 p.u, the inverter control should switch to FRT
control mode and consequently the required amount of injected re-
active current must follow the curve shown in Fig. 3. It is important
mentioning that, the Vg and Vgn are the amplitude values of the present
voltage during the fault and the normal grid voltage, respectively.
Fig. 4 explains the FRT requirement in various grid codes regarding
the PVPP penetration to the utility grid, which vary from country to
country and from one operator to another (Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018).
It is evident from Fig. 4 that the German, Italian, and Australian grid
codes are more stringent, which require the PVPPs to stay connected
even though the voltage drops to zero.
3. Inverter controller-based GCPPPs
GCPPPs mainly have two configurations, i.e., single-stage and two-
stage systems, depending on the inversion systems and power ratings
(Zhu et al., 2011), as seen in Fig. 5. The direct connection from PV
system array to the DC side of the inverter is called single stage con-
version. The two-stage conversion system consisting of DC-DC
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350

converter part as a first stage exists between the PV array and the in- (a)
verter, and then followed by the second stage, which is the inverter part Filter Grid
to invert the available DC power to AC power (Islam et al., 2014). In PV Array Transformer
R
both topologies, the inverter control plays an important role to achieve L +~
the control process of the input side and grid side. The primary mission + DC-AC R +
of the input controller is to obtain the maximum available power from C _Vdc inverter
L
~ N
the PV energy systems, while the grid side controller deals with the
R +
active and reactive power that is transferred from the PV system to the L
~
grid. Another responsibility of the grid-side controller is to ensure the
grid synchronization as well as the quality of the power delivered into
(b)
the network (Sinha et al., 2018; Hassaine et al., 2014; Al-Shetwi and
Filter Grid
Sujod, 2018). PV Array Transformer
Inverter control techniques can either be current-controlled or vol- R
tage-controlled. However, the current-controlled inverters are more DC-DC
L + ~
+ DC-AC
popular and utilized in grid-connected PV systems when compared to R +
voltage-controlled inverters, as depicted in Fig. 6. This is because the
convert
er C _ dc inverter
V
L
~ N

current control strategies can achieve a high power factor and mitigate R +
the harmonic current distortion (Hassaine et al., 2014; Hojabri and
L
~
Soheilirad, 2014; Parvez et al., 2016). A review on the inverter control Fig. 5. Configurations of typical GCPPPs: (a) single-stage and (b) two-stage.
techniques for GCPPPs is carried out in Hassaine et al. (2014), Parvez
et al. (2016). The inverter mainly affects GCPPP transient character-
istics, and the FRT capability of a GCPPP is dominated by the inverter
related control. A double-loop control mode having both outer and
inner loops is adopted in the previous studies to achieve the PV system
integration (Wang et al., 2011).

3.1. Inner loop control

To simplify the controller design, a feed-forward decoupling

strategy is adopted in the internal loop control model to decouple the
active (Id) and reactive currents (Iq). The time constant of the inner loop
control is normally small (less than a millisecond), and thus the inner
control model must be simplified to perform various simulation step
sizes. The inner loop takes the reference active current generated by the
outer loop control. Meanwhile, the reactive current reference is typi-
Fig. 6. Share of the current-controlled and voltage-controlled inverters in
cally set to zero to achieve unity power factor during the normal op-
GCPPPs (Hojabri and Soheilirad, 2014).
eration. However, during fault operation, the reactive current should be
injected based on the fault depth (Timbus et al., 2009). The simplifi-
cation technique of the inner loop control is provided in Fig. 7. regulation that provides active current reference for the inner loop
control and stabilize DC-link voltage (Vdc) to its rated value. The DC-
3.2. Control of the outer loop link voltage is regulated using a typical proportional-integral (PI)
controller. The schematic diagram of the outer loop is simplified as
The outer loop of the inverters is known as the DC-link voltage shown in Fig. 8. The Vnom-dc, Id-ref, Kp-vdc, and Ki-vdc are the nominal DC

Fig. 4. FRT requirements in several grid codes (Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018).

343
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
Fig. 7. Inner loop control model of the PV inverters.
voltage, active current reference of the inverter, proportional and in-
tegral gain of the PI controller in voltage loop, respectively.
3.3. Other control and protection models
An additional control and protection capabilities have to be added
to the inverter for both single and two-stage topologies to enhance the
PVPP overall performance concerning the following capabilities: multi-
peak maximum power point tracking control, flexible reactive power
support, islanding protection, integration requirements, and power
quality management (Eltawil and Zhao, 2010; Khadem et al., 2010;
Batarseh and Za'ter, 2018). In addition, the FRT control strategies
which are considered as the state-of-the-art regarding a high PV pene-
tration (Yang et al., 2015) will be discussed in detail in the next section.
It is important to mention that, the PVPP modelling especially with FRT
capability should be established totally based on the control and pro-
tection techniques presented (Tan et al., 2004).
4. Fault ride-through approaches for GCPPPs
4.1. Overview of FRT capability control
In order to fulfill the FRT requirements enforced by modern grid
codes concerning the penetration of large-scale PVPPs into power grid
mentioned above, once the voltage sag occurred, the control system
should have the ability to take the following measures: (a) fast and
precise fault detection to inform the system to switch from steady-state
operation mode to the faulty state; (b) protect the PV inverter and other
semiconductor devices from the overcurrent that occurs at AC side of
the inverter; (c) protect the capacitor of the DC-link and the inverter
from the DC-link overvoltage at DC side of the inverter; (d) inject the
desired quantity of reactive currents to assist the grid and voltage re-
covery based on the standard requirements according to the sag depth;
and (e) ensure that the PVPP stays connected to the power grid for a
stable operation of power systems. These measures may be classified
based on their strategies for improving the FRT capability of the
GCPPPs, e.g., by applying:
• Sag detection unit.
• Protection circuits/devices only during grid faults.
• Reactive current injecting controllers/devices during grid faults.
• Suitable control structures during both grid faults and steady state
operation.
4.2. Sag detection methods
To be able to achieve FRT requirements, the PV system needs to
have two modes of operations. The two modes are normal operation
344
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
mode during grid steady-state conditions and the transient-state of
operation with the FRT capability control once the voltage sag caused
by grid faults occurs (Yang and Blaabjerg, 2013; Lin and Ou, 2011).
Therefore, the sag detection technique has a significant effect on the
overall performance of GCPPPs under grid faults. Consequently, the
quick and precise detection method is an important feature for efficient
FRT control (Yang et al., 2014). In the literature, most fault detection
strategies are built up within the inverter in order to disconnect PVPPs
from the utility grid during disturbances or faults to prevent islanding
or activate the protection of the PV arrays from damage (Pigazo et al.,
2009; Chine et al., 2014; Silvestre et al., 2013). However, with the new
grid codes, the FRT requirement imposes the inverter to stay connected
throughout the grid faults. Therefore, many sag detection strategies
have been introduced, such as the positive sequence voltage method
(Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018), root mean square (RMS) technique (Al-
Shetwi and Sujod, 2018), peak value technique (Alepuz et al., 2009),
the missing voltage method (Yang and Blaabjerg, 2013), and the wa-
velet transform technique (Sadigh and Smedley, 2016). All these
methods have advantages and disadvantage in terms of efficiency,
complexity, and detection speed. However, the RMS detection method
is considered as the most used technique due to its simplicity.
4.3. Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) and FRT strategies
During the advancement of PV systems, the MPPT techniques are
used to extract maximum available power from the PV modules and
thus increases the system efficiency. Therefore, it is of great significance
in GCPPP systems for economic benefits. There are several MPPT
methods which are introduced, studied and compared in Ram et al.
(2017). During grid faults (FRT mode), mostly all FRT control based-
external devices require the MPPT to work regularly while, FRT based-
modified controllers require the PV array to switch to Non-MPPT op-
eration mode. However, as long as the overvoltage is addressed, the
MPPT should stay in operation mode and generate the appropriate
active power according to the fault depth to keep the power balance of
the system, as proposed in Al-Shetwi et al. (2018).
4.4. Different FRT enhancement strategies
The major strategies proposed in the literature that have addressed
the FRT capability of PVPPs connected to the power grid are illustrated
in Fig. 9. The two fundamental approaches of FRT capability control
can be divided into the FRT control using external devices and modified
controller approaches. Energy storage systems (ESSs) including battery
energy storage system (BESS) (Ota et al., 2016; Manikanta et al., 2017;
Saadat et al., 2015) and super capacitor energy storage system (SCESS)
(Worku and Abido, 2015), brake chopper circuits (BCC) (Al-Shetwi and
Sujod, 2018; Yang et al., 2017), flexible alternating current transmis-
sion system (FACTS) devices (Yang et al., 2016; Ayvaz and Özdemir,
2016), in addition to some other methods such as fault current limiters
(FCLs) (Sadeghkhani et al., 2017) and series dynamic breaking resistor
(SDBR) (Hossain and Ali, 2014), are the FRT capability control strate-
gies using external devices. The modified inverter controllers (MIC) (Al-
Shetwi et al., 2018; Huka et al., 2018; Merabet and Labib, 2017;
Mirhosseini et al., 2015; Oon et al., 2018) and Computational methods
(Saad et al., 2016; Prakash and Devaraju, 2017; Hossain and Ali, 2017)
are the improved controller strategies without additional devices.
Vdc* Ki Id-ref.
+ -1/Vnom-dc Kp Vdc
Vdc
- s
Vdc
Fig. 8. Outer loop control model of the PV inverters.
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
Fig. 9. Categorization of prior-art control methods to enhance the FRT performance for grid-connected PV systems.
5. FRT control based-external devices
5.1. Energy storage systems (ESSs)
The FRT capability improvement utilizing ESSs has been proposed
in the literature for GCPPPs, as shown in Fig. 10. Typically, the ESSs can
be connected to the DC-link through a buck-boost DC-DC converter
(Saadat et al., 2015). Once a grid fault occurs, the ESSs will absorb extra
energy from the DC-link at the inverter DC side to overcome the over-
voltage incident. During this period, the duty cycle of the DC-DC con-
verter is adjusted to reduce the output power of the PV battery in order
to restrain the DC side voltage. After the grid fault, the energy stored is
injected to the grid. The ESSs used in the FRT capability improvement is
currently limited to the BESS (Ota et al., 2016; Manikanta et al., 2017),
and the SCESS (Worku and Abido, 2015). As a result, the ESSs improve
the FRT capability by protecting the DC-link and inverter from a high
voltage during grid faults. However, the main disadvantages of ESSs
method are the high initial and maintenance cost of these devices. In
addition, it can cause fluctuation to DC parameters before and after the
fault. Although these strategies have been used the ESS devices to
suppress the excessive energy and thus protected the inverter and ride-
through the faults, the injection of reactive current has not been ad-
dressed.
5.2. Brake chopper protection
As mentioned previously, during grid faults, there is an imbalance
between the grid and the PV array. This will lead to an increase in the
DC-link voltage and may damage the power electronic devices. As a
solution, some papers suggested that a brake chopper could be installed
in parallel with the DC-link capacitor (Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018; Yang
et al., 2017). It comprises of a switch such as the insulated-gate bipolar
transistor (IGBT) with a series of high power resistor as shown in
Fig. 11.
This braking chopper is effective to protect the inverter against
PV Array Inverter RL Filter Grid
dc-link R L Transformer
+
DC-AC R L
inverter
∆ Y
Vdc _ R L
DC-DC ESS (Batteries
converter Supercapacitor)
Buck-Boost
Fig. 10. Fault ride-through improvement of grid-connected PV systems using
energy storages.
345
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
Fig. 11. Brake chopper protection in the case of the FRT operation (Al-Shetwi
and Sujod, 2018).
over-voltage that happens due to the increase in the DC-link voltage
during faults. It will be activated when the fault is detected, as dis-
cussed in Al-Shetwi and Sujod (2018). Therefore, the gate pulse of the
IGBT will be switched on, whereby the excess energy generated by PV
generators will be absorbed by the high-power resistor. The resistor in
this scheme is calculated as , where Pdc is the power generated by the
PV system. The results shown by studies introduced in Al-Shetwi and
Sujod (2018); Yang et al. (2017) demonstrate the effectiveness of the
braking chopper to solve the issue of over-voltage at the inverter DC-
side. However, to enhance the overall FRT performance, this technique
is combined with other techniques (Al-Shetwi et al., 2018; Yang et al.,
2014).
5.3. FACTS devices
FACTS devices are alternative solution to maintain PV systems to be
connected to the grid during the faults and to inject reactive power
upon demand. It has been used in the literature to enhance the FRT
capability for grid-connected wind turbines as a solution for improving
the voltage stability and injection of reactive currents. For instance,
static VAR compensator (SVC) has been used to enhance the FRT cap-
ability control as proposed in Döşoğlu et al. (2017). In Heydari-
Doostabad et al. (2016) the static synchronous compensator
(STATCOM) was used to improve FRT capability of fixed speed wind
turbines in presence of grid fault. Another FACTS device which called
static synchronous series compensator (SSSC) has been controlled for
enhancement of FRT capability and voltage stabilization as proposed in
Mahfouz and El-Sayed (2014). Dynamic voltage restorer (DVR), and
thyristor controlled series compensator (TCSC) which belong to the
FACTS family have also been developed to enhance the FRT of grid-
connected wind turbine (Azizi et al., 2017; Mohammadpour and Santi,
2015). However, for FRT-based GCPPPs, only the STATCOM and SVC
have been used to enhance the performance (Yang et al., 2016; Ayvaz
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
DC/AC
Vgrid
Rf Lf
c ~
STATCOM
Fig. 12. Typical configuration of the STATCOM to improve the FRT perfor-
mance for grid-connected PV system.
DC/AC
Vgrid
Rf Lf
c ~
SVC
Fig. 13. Typical structure of the SVC to enhance the FRT performance for grid-
connected PV systems.
and Özdemir, 2016), and are connected to the connection point be-
tween PV systems and the power grid as illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13,
respectively.
STATCOM and SVC have the ability to support the voltage and
supply reactive power of the hybrid power systems and therefore in-
crease the ability of reactive power control (Ou and Hong, 2014; Ou
et al., 2017). For this reason, these devices are used to inject reactive
currents to the grid in order to meet the FRT requirements. For instance,
in Yang et al. (2016), the coordination between the PV system and the
STATCOM to deal with the grid fault had been introduced. Although the
conventional STATCOM includes only one capacitor-based storage and
it has restricted energy storage ability, it supplies the anticipated re-
active currents to assist the voltage recovery during grid faults. The SVC
also has the ability to inject reactive power and consequently com-
pensate voltage sags as introduced in Ayvaz and Özdemir (2016). In
general, these devices are effective to inject reactive currents and to
enhance the FRT capability. However, it increases the complexity and
cost due to the addition of an external hardware to the system.
5.4. Other methods
Other techniques can also improve the FRT capability in GCPPPs
with the use of external devices. For instance, the use of a fault current
Fig. 14. Fault current limiter for the grid-connected PV systems during FRT
operation.
346
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
DC/AC
PCC
Grid
Rf Lf
c ∆ Y SDBR ~
Fig. 15. Dynamic breaking resistor protection for the FRT operation.
limiter (FCL) as well as a series dynamic breaking resistor (SDBR). In Al-
Shetwi and Sujod (2018), a current limiter was used during grid faults
to protect the inverter from over-current and therefore enhancing the
FRT during disturbances. The FCL reduces the increase in active (Id) and
reactive (Iq) current components of the inverter during the time of faults
using the FCL circuit shown in Fig. 14. The work presented in
Sadeghkhani et al. (2017) proposes a dynamic current limiting ap-
proach implemented in inverter-based islanded microgrids to enhance
fault FRT capability. The effectiveness of this strategy to limit both
inverter current and voltage using only a current limiter is explained.
The SDBR is a resistor connected in series between the PVPP and
PCC to improve the FRT capacity by protecting the system against the
excess voltage during the fault. SDBR protection scheme is depicted in
Fig. 15. In Hossain and Ali (2014), the SDBR was employed in GCPPPs
to contribute to the system balance as a part of the FRT control. During
grid faults, the voltage increases in the inverter DC side. Subsequently,
the energy is dissipated in the SDBR, preventing the DC-link voltage to
increase sharply and to overcome the overvoltage incident. As a con-
clusion, in order to enhance the FRT the FCL and SDBR address the
over-current and over-voltage, respectively.
6. FRT control based-modified controller
The previous section introduces the methods which require extra
devices in order to improve the FRT capability. It is evident that, the
additional equipment will increase the overall cost of the GCPPP
system. However, it is preferred to improve the FRT at the lowest
possible additional cost. Therefore, some studies resort to modifying the
inverter control itself to achieve the FRT without extra devices. Those
strategies are described in the following:
6.1. Modified inverter controllers (MIC)
A modified inverter controller is presented in Huka et al. (2018). In
this method, a comprehensive FRT strategy for GCPPPs contains the
calculation of power references to inject the desired reactive currents
during different faults as stated by modern grid codes. In addition, the
overvoltage and overcurrent are addressed by the active power reduc-
tion and peak current limiting strategies, respectively. Another study
proposed in Merabet and Labib (2017) used a dual current controller of
the inverter to control the negative- and positive-sequence components
under fault events. It allows the reactive current injection to the utility
grid based on the new requirements of grid codes during symmetrical
and unsymmetrical grid faults. The method also protects the inverter
during fault conditions, in which the current does not exceed the in-
verter rating current. Furthermore, according to Al-Shetwi et al. (2018),
a comprehensive control strategy of the inverter achieved the FRT re-
quirements based on the Malaysian grid code by operating the system in
two different modes. The two modes are the steady-state operation
mode and the FRT mode. In this strategy, once the fault is detected
using an efficient detection unit, the inverter will switch to the FRT
mode that is designed in such a way to address the issues of excess AC-
current and excess DC-voltage as well as the injection of reactive cur-
rent efficiently, as stated by the grid code. This method is tested under
all types of grid faults, either symmetrical or asymmetrical grid faults.
Moreover, in Mirhosseini et al. (2015), the FRT requirements con-
cerning single- and two-stage-inverters-based GCPPP were addressed in
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350

this study. A few changes were introduced for the inverter controller to
allow the PV system to properly ride-through any kind of faults con-
sistent with the GC requirements. These adjustments contain current
limiters and an anti-wind-up method controlling the DC-link voltage
and reactive current injection. Finally, the method proposed in Oon
et al. (2018) set up different possible fault current characteristics,
specifically focusing on the compliance of today's FRT requirements
with the injection of reactive current using five special kinds of reactive
current injection controls. As a conclusion, majority of these methods
meet the FRT requirements as stated by the modern grid codes effi-
ciently without additional hardware and at a lower cost.
6.2. Computational methods
One possible solution adopted to enhance the FRT capability in grid-
connected PV systems is the computational methods using the particle
swarm optimization (PSO) (Saad et al., 2016) and fuzzy logic control
(FLC) (Prakash and Devaraju, 2017; Hossain and Ali, 2017). The PSO
method presented in Saad et al. (2016) improved the FRT using a non-
linear control technique based on the PSO for the full bridge converter
and addressed the transient behavior using a chopper circuit. However,
the sag was mitigated without the reactive current injection, and an
oscillation and overshooting appeared in the results. The FLC-based
adaptive control strategy in order to improve the FRT capacity of
GCPPPs had been also introduced in Prakash and Devaraju (2017). In
this methodology, a vector control plot was utilized for the DC-link
voltage control and ride-through the fault safely. However, the injec-
tion of reactive current is not discussed by this study. In the same
manner, the study presented in Hossain and Ali (2017) improved the
FRT along with the injection of reactive current during grid faults to
fulfill the GC requirements using FLC. Although these strategies meet
some or all FRT requirements, the complexity of the system control is
increased.
6.3. Other methods
Other techniques can also be utilized in order to enhance the cap-
ability of FRT in GCPPPs without external devices. For instance, the
dynamic current limitation (DCL) strategy was adopted in Benz et al.
(2010) in order to limit the current in small-scale PVPPs and protect the
inverter and other devices from damage. A new control on the basis of
feedback linearization strategy (FLS) was proposed in Zhang et al.
(2011) to ensure that the inverter has the ability to ride-through the
fault by remaining current levels within the limits. However, the in-
jection of reactive currents and the DC overvoltage issues were not
addressed in the two techniques. A novel method using an adaptive DC-
link (ADL) voltage control strategy to reduce the excessive voltage
during faults was applied in Ding et al. (2016). Although this method
used a bidirectional DC-DC converter to change the voltage reference of
the DC-link by the MPPT control, there is a fluctuation in the DC-link
voltage during unsymmetrical faults. Additionally, this control does not
deal with the overcurrent issue in the AC-side as well as the injection of
reactive currents as imposed by certain GCs.
7. Technical, economic, and complexity comparison of FRT
enhancement methods
Table 1 summarizes the technical pros and cons of the all types of
the FRT improvement strategies mentioned previously. Although the
goal of this summary is not to prioritize the FRT improvement strategies

Table 1
A technical comparison of the FRT enhancement strategies for GCPPPs.
Methods Main advantages Main limitations Note(s)

BESS (Ota et al., 2016; Manikanta et al., 2017) - Excessive energy can be stored
in the BESS
- Reduce the amplitude of AC
current
SCESS (Worku and Abido, 2015) - Suppress the overvoltage
- Injection of reactive current is
possible
- Long cycle life
BCC (Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018; Yang et al., 2017) - Effective to protect the
inverter against over- voltage
STATCOM (Yang et al., 2016) - Control the reactive current
efficiently
- Fast response during
disturbances
- Reduce the voltage Negative-
sequence
DVR (Azizi et al., 2017) - Injection of reactive current
- Voltage stability especially in
weak system
- Constant voltage control
FCL (Al-Shetwi and Sujod, 2018; Sadeghkhani et al., - High ability to restrict the
2017) excessive AC- current
- Enhance the grid transient
stability
SDBR (Hossain and Ali, 2014) - Low maintenance and high
reliability
MIC (Al-Shetwi et al., 2018; Huka et al., 2018; - Efficient to meets the FRT
Merabet and Labib, 2017; Mirhosseini et al., requirements
2015; Oon et al., 2018) - No additional hardware
- Less cost
PSO (Saad et al., 2016) & FLC (Prakash and Devaraju, - Fast response during faults
2017; Hossain and Ali, 2017) - High efficiency in MPPT
- Simplicity and flexibility
- No overlapping or mutation
calculation
- DC parameters fluctuation
- Short life cycle
- Require regular inspection and
maintenance
- Relatively low specific energy
- Should mixed with other techniques
to enhance the overall FRT
performance
- Incapable to supply active power
- Occupied with coupling transformer
and include many switches
- Reactive control depend on the
voltage
- The fast response cause unstable
voltage oscillations
- Should mixed with other techniques
to enhance the overall FRT
performance
- Weak in reactive power control
- Incapable to voltage fluctuations
- loses some power during the grid
fault period
- Bring some oscillation and
overshooting
- A costly solution
- Has short term voltage stability
than batteries
- Simplest protection device
- Less disturbances and provide faster
response in comparison to SVC
- Effective in reactive power
injection
- Confined to the suppression of
excessive current
- Has less switches as compared with
FACTS
- Most efficient among all other
strategies
- Operate in a more intuitive way
complex dynamic systems

347
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al. Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350

Table 2
Economy & complexity comparison of FRT methods.
Techniques The Cost The Complexity Fulfillment of grid code requirements Extra devices

Overvoltage in DC-link AC Over-current Reactive current injection

BESS High Medium Yes No Low Yes

SCESS High Medium Yes No Low Yes
BCC Medium Medium Yes No No Yes
STATCOM High High Yes No Good Yes
DVR High High No Yes Good Yes
FCL Low Medium No Yes No Yes
SDBR Medium Medium Yes No No Yes
MIC Low Low Yes Yes Good No
PSO Low Medium Yes No No No
FLC Low Medium Yes No Low No
DCL Low Low No Yes No No
FLS Low Low No Yes No No
ADL Medium Low Yes No No No

depending on technical capabilities, it presents clear and simple eva-
luation for the most popular methods in the field that might be utilized
for decision-making purposes.
The comparison of different FRT strategies in terms of complexity,
economy, additional device, and addressing the two main issues in
order to fulfill the FRT requirements, are compared and summarized in
Table 2. The two main issues include the protection from overvoltage
and overcurrent during faults as well as the injection of reactive current
based on grid codes requirements. It is important to mention that some
FRT strategies are more expensive than others. In line with this, the cost
of these strategies is classified into high, medium, and low. FACTS
devices, either STATCOM or SVC usually require a coupling transformer
and include many switches, and therefore are considered as the most
expensive strategy. In addition, the difficulty in controlling their
switches will increase the complexity of these FRT techniques. Another
high-cost FRT strategy is the ESS such as the BESS and SCESS because it
is equipped with batteries and super capacitors, respectively, which are
expensive, require periodic inspection, and regular maintenance. Since
the BCC and SDBR strategies have less switches as compared to FACTS
and utilize high power resistors, they are the less expensive techniques
among the FRT control based on external devices. Finally, the modified
controller-based techniques are more economical FRT strategies, be-
cause they do not use additional devices in their structures. Regarding
the grid code compliance, the modified inverter controller method is
the most efficient among all other strategies.
8. Conclusion
This paper reviewed the state-of the-art FRT enhancement methods,
which are still an active research area for GCPPPs. Firstly, the FRT
requirements in modern grid codes concerning a high PV penetration
level and the inverter controller-based GCPPPs were discussed. Next, all
the reviewed strategies were categorized into two main groups using
external controller and modified devices-based strategies. The perfor-
mance, advantages, and limitations of various strategies are also dis-
cussed in this study. Finally, a comparison of these FRT strategies in
terms of economic feasibility, controller complexity, additional device
and fulfillment of FRT requirements was summarized. It can be con-
cluded that the overall cost and complexity of FACTS-based methods
are the highest among the others. The ESS-based methods are also ex-
pensive due to the high investment cost and short life cycle of these
units, but are of less complexity than FACTS devices. The BCC, SDBR,
and FCL strategies were relatively the simplest and cheapest control
structures among other FRT using external devices, but have less cap-
ability concerning the compliance with GC requirements. On the other
hands, all modified controller FRT methods have lower cost when
compared to external device-based FRT methods from the economic
point of view. With regards to grid code compliance, the MIC has
proven to be the best method, followed by the FACTS and ESS solutions.
According to the literature, the MIC method has the ability to keep the
inverter connected, to ensure the safety of the system equipment, to
ensure all values return to pre-fault values as soon as the fault is cleared
within almost zero second as compared to the other strategies such as
ESS which needs around 0.20 s, and to provide grid support through
active and reactive power control at different types of faults. In addi-
tion, it has a high response speed and produced smooth results without
under/overshoot. In general, the MIC FRT method is the best among all
other methods because it achieves all grid code requirements efficiently
at the lowest possible cost. The review also concludes that more in-
vestigations should be carried out to completely fulfill the grid codes'
requirements. In particular, reactive and active power requirements of
grid codes should be taken into account in more depth in the future FRT
solutions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Afshari, E., Farhangi, B., Yang, Y., Farhangi, S., 2017. A low-voltage ride-through control
strategy for three-phase grid-connected PV systems. In: 2017 IEEE Power and Energy
Conference at Illinois (PECI). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Alepuz, S., Busquets-Monge, S., Bordonau, J., Martínez-Velasco, J.A., Silva, C.A., Pontt, J.,
Rodríguez, J., 2009. Control strategies based on symmetrical components for grid-
connected converters under voltage dips. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 56, 2162–2173.
Almeida, P.M., Monteiro, K.M., Barbosa, P.G., Duarte, J.L., Ribeiro, P.F., 2016.
Improvement of PV grid-tied inverters operation under asymmetrical fault condi-
tions. Sol. Energy 133, 363–371.
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., Blaabjerg, F., 2018. Low voltage ride-through capability
control for single-stage inverter-based grid-connected photovoltaic power plant. Sol.
Energy 159, 665–681.
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., 2018. Modeling and design of photovoltaic power plant
connected to the MV side of Malaysian grid with TNB technical regulation compat-
ibility. Electr. Eng. 1–13.
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., Noor Lina, R., 2015. A review of the fault ride through
requirements in different grid codes concerning penetration of PV system to the
electric power network. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 10, 9906–9912.
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., 2018. Voltage sag detection in grid-connected photovoltaic
power plant for low voltage ride-through control. Rec. Adv. Electr. Electr. Eng.
12 (2).
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., 2018. Modeling and control of grid-connected photovoltaic
power plant with fault ride-through capability. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 140, 021001.
Al-Shetwi, A.Q., Sujod, M.Z., 2018. Grid-connected photovoltaic power plants: a review
of the recent integration requirements in modern grid codes. Int. J. Energy Res. 42,
1849–1865.
Ayvaz, A., Özdemir, M., 2016. A combined usage of SDBR and SVC to improve the
transient stability performance of a PV/wind generation system. In: 2016 National
Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Biomedical Engineering (ELECO). IEEE, pp.
76–80.
Azizi, K., Farsadi, M., Kangarlu, M.F., 2017. Efficient approach to LVRT capability of
DFIG-based wind turbines under symmetrical and asymmetrical voltage dips using

348
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
dynamic voltage restorer. Int. J. Power Electr. Drive Syst. (IJPEDS) 8, 945–956.
Badrzadeh, B., Halley, A., 2015. Challenges associated with assessment and testing of
fault ride-through compliance of variable power generation in Australian national
electricity market. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 6, 1160–1168.
Batarseh, M.G., Za'ter, M.E., 2018. Hybrid maximum power point tracking techniques: a
comparative survey, suggested classification and uninvestigated combinations. Sol.
Energy 169, 535–555.
Benz, C.H., Franke, W.-T., Fuchs, F.W., 2010. Low voltage ride through capability of a 5
kW grid-tied solar inverter. 2010 14th International Power Electronics and Motion
Control Conference (EPE/PEMC). IEEE pp. T12-13–T12-20.
Bundesverband der Energieund Wasserwirtschaft (BDEW), 2008. Technische Richtlinie
Erzeugungsanlagen am Mittelspannungsnetz – Richtlinie für Anschluss und
Parallelbetrieb von Erzeugungsanlagen am Mittelspannungsnetz. German Association
of Energy and Water Industries.
Cabrera-Tobar, A., Bullich-Massagué, E., Aragüés-Peñalba, M., Gomis-Bellmunt, O., 2016.
Review of advanced grid requirements for the integration of large scale photovoltaic
power plants in the transmission system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 971–987.
Chine, W., Mellit, A., Pavan, A.M., Kalogirou, S., 2014. Fault detection method for grid-
connected photovoltaic plants. Renew. Energy 66, 99–110.
Ding, G., Gao, F., Tian, H., Ma, C., Chen, M., He, G., Liu, Y., 2016. Adaptive DC-link
voltage control of two-stage photovoltaic inverter during low voltage ride-through
operation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 31, 4182–4194.
Döşoğlu, M.K., Güvenç, U., Sönmez, Y., Yılmaz, C., 2017. Enhancement of demagneti-
zation control for low-voltage ride-through capability in DFIG-based wind farm.
Electr. Eng. 1–8.
El Moursi, M.S., Xiao, W., Kirtley Jr, J.L., 2013. Fault ride through capability for grid
interfacing large scale PV power plants. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 7, 1027–1036.
Eltawil, M.A., Zhao, Z., 2010. Grid-connected photovoltaic power systems: technical and
potential problems—a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 112–129.
Hasanien, H.M., 2016. An adaptive control strategy for low voltage ride through cap-
ability enhancement of grid-connected photovoltaic power plants. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. 31, 3230–3237.
Hassaine, L., OLias, E., Quintero, J., Salas, V., 2014. Overview of power inverter topol-
ogies and control structures for grid connected photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 30, 796–807.
Heydari-Doostabad, H., Khalghani, M.R., Khooban, M.H., 2016. A novel control system
design to improve LVRT capability of fixed speed wind turbines using STATCOM in
presence of voltage fault. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 77, 280–286.
Hojabri, M., Soheilirad, M., 2014. Harmonic distortion in an off-grid renewable energy
system with different loads. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of
Engineers and Computer Scientists.
Honrubia-Escribano, A., Ramirez, F.J., Gómez-Lázaro, E., Garcia-Villaverde, P.M., Ruiz-
Ortega, M.J., Parra-Requena, G., 2018. Influence of solar technology in the economic
performance of PV power plants in Europe. A comprehensive analysis. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 488–501.
Hossain, M.K., Ali, M.H., 2014. Low voltage ride through capability enhancement of grid
connected PV system by SDBR. In: 2014 IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition.
IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Hossain, M.K., Ali, M.H., 2017. Fuzzy logic controlled power balancing for low voltage
ride-through capability enhancement of large-scale grid-connected PV plants. In:
IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Howlader, A.M., Senjyu, T., 2016. A comprehensive review of low voltage ride through
capability strategies for the wind energy conversion systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 56, 643–658.
Huka, G.B., Li, W., Chao, P., Peng, S., 2018. A comprehensive LVRT strategy of two-stage
photovoltaic systems under balanced and unbalanced faults. Int. J. Electr. Power
Energy Syst. 103, 288–301.
Islam, M.R., Guo, Y., Zhu, J., 2014. Power converters for small-to large-scale photovoltaic
power plants. In: Power Converters for Medium Voltage Networks. Springer, pp.
17–49.
Jaalam, N., Rahim, N., Bakar, A., Eid, B., 2017. Strategy to enhance the low-voltage ride-
through in photovoltaic system during multi-mode transition. Sol. Energy 153,
744–754.
Justo, J.J., Mwasilu, F., Jung, J.-W., 2015. Doubly-fed induction generator based wind
turbines: a comprehensive review of fault ride-through strategies. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 45, 447–467.
Kabir, E., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., Adelodun, A.A., Kim, K.-H., 2018. Solar energy: potential
and future prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 894–900.
Khadem, S.K., Basu, M., Conlon, M., 2010. Power Quality in Grid Connected Renewable
Energy Systems: Role of Custom Power Devices.
Lammert, G., Boemer, J.C., Premm, D., Glitza, O., Ospina, L.D.P., Fetzer, D., Braun, M.,
2017. Impact of fault ride-through and dynamic reactive power support of photo-
voltaic systems on short-term voltage stability. In: 2017 IEEE Manchester PowerTech.
IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Lin, W.-M., Ou, T.-C., 2011. Unbalanced distribution network fault analysis with hybrid
compensation. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 5, 92–100.
Mahfouz, M., El-Sayed, M.A., 2014. Static synchronous compensator sizing for en-
hancement of fault ride-through capability and voltage stabilisation of fixed speed
wind farms. IET Renew. Power Gener. 8, 1–9.
Manikanta, B., Kesavarao, G., Talati, S., 2017. LVRT of Grid Connected PV System with
Energy Storage, vol. 10, 75–86.
Merabet, A., Labib, L., 2017. Control system for dual-mode operation of grid-tied pho-
tovoltaic and wind energy conversion systems with active and reactive power in-
jection. Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp. 111.
Mirhosseini, M., Pou, J., Agelidis, V.G., 2015. Single-and two-stage inverter-based grid-
connected photovoltaic power plants with ride-through capability under grid faults.
349
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 6, 1150–1159.
Moghadasi, A., Sarwat, A., Guerrero, J.M., 2016. A comprehensive review of low-voltage-
ride-through methods for fixed-speed wind power generators. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 55, 823–839.
Mohammadpour, H.A., Santi, E., 2015. Modeling and control of gate-controlled series
capacitor interfaced with a DFIG-based wind farm. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62,
1022–1033.
Mohseni, M., Islam, S.M., 2012. Review of international grid codes for wind power in-
tegration: diversity, technology and a case for global standard. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16, 3876–3890.
Nasiri, M., Milimonfared, J., Fathi, S., 2015. A review of low-voltage ride-through en-
hancement methods for permanent magnet synchronous generator based wind tur-
bines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 399–415.
Neumann, T., Erlich, I., 2012. Modelling and control of photovoltaic inverter systems
with respect to German grid code requirements. In: 2012 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Obeidat, F., 2018. A comprehensive review of future photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy
163, 545–551.
Obi, M., Bass, R., 2016. Trends and challenges of grid-connected photovoltaic systems–a
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58, 1082–1094.
Oon, K.H., Tan, C., Bakar, A.H.A., Che, H.S., Mokhlis, H., Illias, H.A., 2018. Establishment
of fault current characteristics for solar photovoltaic generator considering low vol-
tage ride through and reactive current injection requirement. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 92, 478–488.
Ota, J.I.Y., Sato, T., Akagi, H., 2016. Enhancement of performance availability and
flexibility of a battery energy storage system based on a modular multilevel cascaded
converter (MMCC-SSBC). IEEE Trans. Power Electr. 31, 2791–2799.
Ou, T.-C., 2012. A novel unsymmetrical faults analysis for microgrid distribution systems.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 43, 1017–1024.
Ou, T.-C., 2013. Ground fault current analysis with a direct building algorithm for mi-
crogrid distribution. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 53, 867–875.
Ou, T.-C., Hong, C.-M., 2014. Dynamic operation and control of microgrid hybrid power
systems. Energy 66, 314–323.
Ou, T.-C., Lu, K.-H., Huang, C.-J., 2017. Improvement of transient stability in a hybrid
power multi-system using a designed NIDC (Novel Intelligent Damping Controller).
Energies 10, 488.
Parvez, M., Elias, M., Rahim, N., Osman, N., 2016. Current control techniques for three-
phase grid interconnection of renewable power generation systems: a review. Sol.
Energy 135, 29–42.
Perpinias, I., Papanikolaou, N., Tatakis, E., 2015. Fault ride through concept in low
voltage distributed photovoltaic generators for various dispersion and penetration
scenarios. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 12, 15–25.
Pigazo, A., Liserre, M., Mastromauro, R.A., Moreno, V.M., Dell'Aquila, A., 2009. Wavelet-
based islanding detection in grid-connected PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
56, 4445–4455.
Prakash, A.B., Devaraju, T., 2017. Fuzzy logic controller for low voltage ride through
capability improvement of grid connected photovoltaic power plants. i-Manager's J.
Instrum. Contr. Eng. 5, 8.
Ram, J.P., Babu, T.S., Rajasekar, N., 2017. A comprehensive review on solar PV maximum
power point tracking techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 826–847.
Renewable Energy Policy Network, 2018. Renewables 2018 Global Status Report. REN21.
Rodrigues, E., Bizuayehu, A., Catalao, J.P., 2014. Analysis of requirements in insular grid
codes for large-scale integration of renewable generation. In: 2014 IEEE PES T&D
Conference and Exposition. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Saad, N.H., El-Sattar, A.A., Mansour, A.E.-A.M., 2016. Improved particle swarm optimi-
zation for photovoltaic system connected to the grid with low voltage ride through
capability. Renew. Energy 85, 181–194.
Saadat, N., Choi, S.S., Vilathgamuwa, D.M., 2015. A statistical evaluation of the capability
of distributed renewable generator-energy-storage system in providing load low-
voltage ride-through. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 30, 1128–1136.
Sadeghkhani, I., Golshan, M.E.H., Guerrero, J.M., Mehrizi-Sani, A., 2017. A current
limiting strategy to improve fault ride-through of inverter interfaced autonomous
microgrids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 8, 2138–2148.
Sadigh, A.K., Smedley, K., 2016. Fast and precise voltage sag detection method for dy-
namic voltage restorer (DVR) application. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 130, 192–207.
Shah, R., Mithulananthan, N., Bansal, R.C., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., 2015. A review
of key power system stability challenges for large-scale PV integration. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 1423–1436.
Silvestre, S., Chouder, A., Karatepe, E., 2013. Automatic fault detection in grid connected
PV systems. Sol. Energy 94, 119–127.
Sinha, A., Jana, K.C., Das, M.K., 2018. An inclusive review on different multi-level in-
verter topologies, their modulation and control strategies for a grid connected photo-
voltaic system. Sol. Energy 170, 633–657.
Tan, Y.T., Kirschen, D.S., Jenkins, N., 2004. A model of PV generation suitable for sta-
bility analysis. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 19, 748–755.
Timbus, A., Liserre, M., Teodorescu, R., Rodriguez, P., Blaabjerg, F., 2009. Evaluation of
current controllers for distributed power generation systems. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 24, 654–664.
Troester, E., 2009. New German grid codes for connecting PV systems to the medium
voltage power grid. In: 2nd International Workshop on Concentrating Photovoltaic
Power Plants: Optical Design, Production, Grid Connection, pp. 9–10.
Wang, H., Tang, Y., Hou, J., Zou, J., Liang, S., Su, F., 2011. Composition modeling and
equivalence of an integrated power generation system of wind, photovoltaic and
energy storage unit. In: Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng Xuebao (Proceedings of the
Chinese Society of Electrical Engineering). Chinese Society for Electrical Engineering,
pp. 1–9.
A.Q. Al-Shetwi et al.
Worku, M.Y., Abido, M.A., 2015. Grid-connected PV array with supercapacitor energy
storage system for fault ride through. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Technology (ICIT). IEEE, pp. 2901–2906.
Yang, Y., Blaabjerg, F., 2013. Low-voltage ride-through capability of a single-stage single-
phase photovoltaic system connected to the low-voltage grid. Int. J. Photoenergy
2013.
Yang, Y., Enjeti, P., Blaabjerg, F., Wang, H., 2015. Wide-scale adoption of photovoltaic
energy: grid code modifications are explored in the distribution grid. IEEE Ind. Appl.
Mag. 21, 21–31.
Yang, L., Liu, W., Peng, G., Chen, Y.-G., Xu, Z., 2016. Coordinated-control strategy of
photovoltaic converters and static synchronous compensators for power system fault
ride-through. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 44, 1683–1692.
Yang, Y., Sangwongwanich, A., Liu, H., Blaabjerg, F., 2017. Low voltage ride-through of
350
Solar Energy 180 (2019) 340–350
two-stage grid-connected photovoltaic systems through the inherent linear power-
voltage characteristic. In: Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition
(APEC), Tampa, USA, pp. 26–30.
Yang, F., Yang, L., Ma, X., 2014. An advanced control strategy of PV system for low-
voltage ride-through capability enhancement. Sol. Energy 109, 24–35.
Zhang, Y., Ma, L., Zheng, T.Q., 2011. Application of feedback linearization strategy in
voltage fault ride-through for photovoltaic inverters. In: IECON 2011-37th Annual
Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, pp. 4666–4671.
Zhu, Y., Yao, J., Wu, D., 2011. Comparative study of two stages and single stage topol-
ogies for grid-tie photovoltaic generation by PSCAD/EMTDC. In: 2011 International
Conference on Advanced Power System Automation and Protection (APAP). IEEE, pp.
1304–1309.