This paper compares two different grid-forming (GFM) control methods for inverter-based resources such as wind turbines, solar systems or battery storage systems. The GFM control methods are investigated based on characteristic test scenarios described in the German version of the VDE FNN guidelines "Technical requirements for grid-forming capabilities including provision of inertia", which was published in January 2026.

First, the control methods are presented, compared and important differences as well as equivalences are highlighted. The control methods under investigation are implemented in hardware on a 30 kVA laboratory scale converter test bench and are subjected to selected test scenarios from the aforementioned document. The experimental measurement data from these test scenarios enables a comparative analysis and verification of the GFM control methods based on the latest grid-forming requirements. Based on these results, a recommendation is derived with regard to the practical implementation on real converter hardware.

The first control method is an enhanced version of Matching Control (MC), which was originally presented by Taouba Jouini in 2016. This control method is fundamentally characterised by the fact that the physical properties of synchronous generators are transferred to, or "matched" with, those of voltage source converters. For instance, the converter's DC-link voltage corresponds to the rotational speed of conventional synchronous generators.The second control method is the enhanced Synchronverter, which was presented by Pascal Weber in 2023. This method is based on the self-synchronising Synchronverter (SV) presented by Qing-Chang Zhong in 2014. In both control methods, effective current limiting techniques are employed which are essential for grid-forming control methods to be applied in real power systems. The SV contains a swing equation which provides virtual inertia in a manner similar to that of real synchronous generators. The swing equation is implemented on control hardware to calculate a virtual rotor angular velocity. Unlike the SV, the MC algorithm uses the converter's physical DC-link to emulate the required inertia. The SV contains an integral reactive power controller that adjusts the excitation current, and thus the flux linkage, in a manner similar to real excitation systems. The flux linkage and rotor angular velocity determine the reference voltage magnitude of the SV. Therefore the active and reactive power controllers are coupled. However, MC shows decoupled active and reactive power controllers. Other differences will be presented in detail in the paper.

The studies are being carried out as part of a doctorate.