Safe Control of Grid-Following Inverters using Control Lyapunov and Barrier Functions with Stability Guarantees

QR code linking to this page

Kajal Pokharel1*, Masoud Ataei1*, Jan L Diaz2, Vikas Dhiman1, Hepeng Li1, Fabio Andrade Rengifo2, Reinaldo Tonkoski3

1University of Maine  |  2University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez  |  3Technical University of Munich

*These authors contributed equally · IEEE PES General Meeting (PESGM), 2026, Accepted · Paper No: 26PESGM1495

Summary

Conventional current controllers for grid-following inverters, such as PI and LQR, can overshoot during voltage sags and transients, pushing inverter currents past their safe operating limits. This work embeds current-safety guarantees directly into the control law by combining a Control Lyapunov Function (CLF), built from the LQR Riccati solution, with two Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) that enforce the IEEE 1547 d- and q-axis current limits.

The CLF and CBF constraints are unified into a single quadratic program (QP) solved every switching cycle: the CLF term drives the current toward its reference, while the CBF constraints act as hard safety walls that are never violated, using a super-linear class-𝕂 function for smooth control away from the limit and aggressive correction near it.

In MATLAB/Simulink simulations of a 100 kVA grid-connected inverter under a 0.6 pu voltage sag, the CLF-CBF-QP controller kept the peak current at 219.5 A, within the 224.5 A safe limit, while PI and LQR controllers overshot to 237.8 A and 240.8 A respectively. The proposed controller also achieved the lowest total harmonic distortion (3.46% vs. 4.72% for PI and 5.63% for LQR), with QP solve times (271.5 μs) comparable to the PI and LQR baselines.

Grid-following inverter with LCL filter and CLF-CBF-QP control loop

Three-phase grid-following inverter with LCL filter; the CLF-CBF-QP controller computes safe voltage commands (v1d, v1q) every switching cycle.

Result

Controller Peak Current THD Safe (≤ 224.5 A)?
PI 237.8 A 4.72%
LQR 240.8 A 5.63%
CLF-CBF-QP 219.5 A 3.46%
d-axis current tracking comparison for PI, LQR, and CLF-CBF-QP controllers

d-axis current tracking. PI overshoots and recovers slowly. LQR recovers fast but breaches the limit. CLF-CBF-QP: fast recovery, limit never crossed.

  • PI – overshoots and recovers slowly
  • LQR – fast recovery, but breaches the limit
  • CLF-CBF-QP – fast recovery, limit never crossed

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under OIA-2316399, OIA-2218063, and OIA-2316401.

Cite This Work

@inproceedings{pokharel2026safe,
  title={Safe Control of Grid-Following Inverters using Control Lyapunov and Barrier Functions with Stability Guarantees},
  author={Pokharel, Kajal and Ataei, Masoud and Diaz, Jan L and Andrade Rengifo, Fabio and Tonkoski, Reinaldo and Dhiman, Vikas and Li, Hepeng},
  booktitle={2026 IEEE PES General Meeting (PESGM)},
  year={2026},
  organization={IEEE}
}