www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Renewable Power Generation
Received on 26th December 2011
Revised on 23rd October 2012
Accepted on 14th November 2012
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

ISSN 1752-1416

Analysis of the control limit for rotor-side converter

of doubly fed induction generator-based wind energy
conversion system under various voltage dips
Shuai Xiao1, Hua Geng1, Honglin Zhou2, Geng Yang1
1

Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

DEC Central Academy, Intelligent Equipments and Control Technology Institute, Chengdu, Peoples Republic of China
E-mail: xiaos09@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn

Abstract: For the grid-connected doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)-based wind energy conversion system (WECS), many
improved control algorithms have been developed for the rotor-side converter (RSC) to suppress the overcurrents in the rotor-side
under voltage dips. However, such objective can hardly be achieved under severe grid fault conditions because of the limitation of
RSCs output voltage. An analysis tool is proposed to estimate the the theoretical control limit of the RSC in suppressing the shortcircuit rotor currents during grid faults in this study. The tool is based on the optimisation theory and takes the practical constraints
of the RSC into account. To execute the analysis, a simplied DFIG model with decoupled stator and rotor uxes is presented, and
the low-voltage ride through (LVRT) problem can be formulated as an optimisation problem, which intends to suppress the rotor
winding currents with voltage constraints. The Pontryagins minimum principle is employed to solve the optimisation problem
and the results can identify the control limit of the RSC. A case study based on a typical 1.5 MW DFIG-based WECS under
various grid voltage dips is carried out to validate the analytical method. The proposed method is also further veried by
experimental tests on a scaled 3 KW DFIG system. The results are expected to help the manufacturers to assess and improve
their RSC controllers or LVRT measures.

Introduction

Owing to the rapid growth of wind power penetration, many

countries have revised their grid codes in order to ensure the
stable operation of the power system. In the new grid codes,
the wind energy conversion system (WECS) is required to
remain connected to the grid even with grid faults, which is
known as the so-called low-voltage ride through (LVRT)
capability [1].
The doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)-based WECS
is widely used in the world and its typical conguration is
shown in Fig. 1. In such concept, the stator is connected
to the grid directly while its rotor is integrated into the
grid via a back-to-back converter. When grid fault occurs,
the stator ux would contain dc and negative sequence
components, which can induce large electromotive force
(EMF) in the rotor circuit. Without proper protection
scheme, the generator rotor will suffer from overcurrents,
which may even destroy the rotor-side converter (RSC) [2].
To avoid such problem, the crowbar circuits were
commonly used to short circuit the rotor windings and
bypass the RSC during the grid faults [35]. This kind of
method can work well even under severe grid faults.
However, the DFIG will lose controllability and absorb
large amount of reactive power from the grid when the
crowbar is activated. Such property can even aggravate the
grid faults. At the same time, the electromagnetic torque of
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

the DFIG oscillates dramatically, which will pose great

press on the drive train [6, 7]. Therefore for less severe
faults, instead of activating the crowbar, it is preferred to
ride through the faults with advanced control of the RSC [8].
As analysed in [9], the short-circuit currents of the DFIG
can reach its peak value in 1/43/4 grid period after the
grid fault occurs. During this crucial period, the RSC must
be controlled properly, so that the rotor-side short-circuit
currents can be suppressed effectively. However, such
objective cannot always be achieved. Usually, the
commercial converter for the DFIG is voltage source based
and the output voltage of the RSC is restricted by the
dc-link voltage. If the voltage dips are severe, the EMF
induced in the rotor winding can be too large to be
counteracted by the output voltage of the RSC. In such
case, the overcurrent cannot be limited with the control of
RSC. Therefore there is a theoretical control limit for the
RSC under voltage dips.
As presented in [818], several improved RSC control
methods have been proposed for the LVRT of DFIG-based
WECS. However, the control limit of RSC is not clear and
has not been explored completely. This paper proposes a
method to nd out the control limit of RSC under voltage
dips. First, the control limit calculation is formulated to be
an optimisation problem with practical constraints. Then,
such optimisation problem is solved with Pontryagins
minimum principle (PMP) and the control limit can be
71

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

www.ietdl.org
dened as

sm = Rs Lm / Ls Lr L2m
v

v

rm = Rr Lm / Ls Lr L2m

(4)

The inductance matrix L is given by

Fig. 1 Conguration of DFIG-based WECS

obtained. The analysis results of the control limit can serve as

a guideline to assess the performance of different LVRT
methods, optimise the capacity of the RSC or determine the
activation time of the crowbar for the turbine manufacturers
etc.
This paper is organised as follows. First, a simplied ux
model of DFIG is derived for the subsequent transient
analysis. Based on the model, the analysis of the control
limit of RSC under voltage dips is then formulated as an
optimisation problem with constraints. Afterwards, the
procedure to solve the optimisation problem utilising PMP
is discussed. Then, a simulation case study of the typical
1.5 WM DFIG-based WECS is presented to evaluate the
control limits for different types of grid faults. Finally,
experimental tests are carried out to further verify the
proposed analysis.

2 Simplified flux model of DFIG for transient

study
Selecting the stator and rotor uxes as state variables, and
following the generation convention, the ux model of
DFIG in synchronous dq-reference frame can be expressed as

dc/dt = Ac + u
i = L1 c

(1)

where c = [csd , csq , crd , crq ]T , u = [usd , usq , urd , urq ]T ,

i = [isd , isq , ird , irq ]T are the ux, voltage and current of
DFIG, respectively. The superscript T denotes transpose.
The primed variables represent the quantity referred to the
stator-side throughout this paper. The matrix A is given by

vs
vs
A=
v

rm
0

vs


vs
0
v

rm

v

sm
0


vr
vsr

0
v

sm

vsr


vr

(2)

where s and sr are the stator and the slip angular frequency.

s and v
v

r reect the damping speed of the dc component of
the stator and rotor uxes, respectively, and they are dened
as

s = Rs Lr / Ls Lr L2m
v

v

r = Rr Ls / Ls Lr L2m

(3)

where Rs , Rr , Ls , Lr , Lm are the stator resistance, rotor

resistance, stator inductance, rotor inductance and mutual
inductance, respectively. v

sm and v

rm reect the coupling
strength between rotor ux and stator ux, and they are
72

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

Ls
0
L=
Lm
0

0
Ls
0
Lm

L1

Lr
0
1

2
Ls Lr Lm Lm
0

Lm
0
Lr
0

0
Lm

0
Lr

0
Lr
0
Lm

Lm
0
Ls
0

(5)

0
Lm

0
Ls

(6)

The mechanical equation is ignored since the speed of the

rotor of DFIG changes little during LVRT because of the
large inertia of the mechanical system [3].
Since Rs and Rr are very small, the couplings between
stator and rotor ux, v

sm and v

rm are very weak [19],
which will be ignored in the analysis. Therefore matrix A
can be approximately expressed as

vs
vs
A
0
0

vs


vs
0
0

0
0
vr


vsr

0

0
= As
vsr
0


vr

0
A r


(7)

The poles of the system, that is, the eigenvalues of A are given
by ps1,2 =

vs + jvs and pr1,2 =

vr + jvsr , whose real
parts reect the damping speed of the dc component of the
uxes, and the imagine parts reect the angular frequency
of the uxes. Note that the matrix with block diagonal
implies that the ux responses of the stator and rotor are
decoupled, that is, similar to that of two independent
second-order systems. Therefore the state-variable model
(1) can be simplied as

dc /dt = As cs + us

s
dc r /dt = A r c r + u r
i = kr cs + km c r

s
i r = km cs ks c r

(8)

where cs , c r , us , u r , is , i r are the stator ux, rotor ux,

stator voltage, rotor voltage, stator current and rotor current,
respectively. The parameters ks , km , kr are dened as
ks = Ls /(Ls Lr L2m )
km = Lm /(Ls Lr L2m )

(9)

kr = Lr /(Ls Lr L2m )
The block diagram of the simplied model is illustrated in
Fig. 2, where the dashed lines indicate that the couplings
between the stator and rotor uxes are removed. The
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

www.ietdl.org
problem. From (8), the stator ux equation of DFIG is
rewritten as
dcs /dt = As cs + us

Fig. 2 Block diagram of the simplied model of DFIG

simplied model is of high precision during the rst

fundament circle after the faults [19, 20].

3 Control limit analysis of RSC under voltage

dips
3.1 Optimisation problem formulation
of the control limit analysis
To realise LVRT for DFIG-based WECS, it is critical to
reduce the short-circuit rotor current during the rst few
cycles after voltage dips. To achieve such objective, the
output voltage of RSC has to be properly adjusted to
counteract the large EMF induced in the rotor circuit.
However, since the dc-link voltage of RSC is kept almost
constant during the process of LVRT [4, 21], the rotor
voltage is restricted because of the buck inherence of
converter. The maximum amplitude of rotor voltage can be
expressed as Urmax = kmax
Udc, where kmax = 1/2 for SPWM
modulation, and kmax = 3/3 for SVPWM (kmax is slightly
larger if overmodulation is considered). If the grid fault
is so severe that the induced EMF is too large to be
counteracted by the RSC, overcurrent will occur regardless
of which the specic RSC control method is used.
Therefore it is understandable that there exists a control
limit for RSC in suppressing the short-circuit rotor current
under voltage dips.
Intuitively, the analysis of the control limit is an
optimisation problem in fact, that is, how to minimise the
rotor current with the restricted rotor voltage during grid
faults. Therefore the analysis of the control limit is then
formulated as a rotor current suppression optimisation
problem with rotor voltage constraints, as
 
min J u r =
u r Ulim

tf

 2
i  dt
r

(10)

where J[] is the cost function with rotor voltage as variables,

|||| is the Euclidean norm of a vector, Ulim is the constraint
of the amplitude of rotor voltage and [0, tf ] is the interested
time interval. The optimisation problem means that, during
the interested time interval, the rotor voltage is optimally
explored within the constraint range to minimise the
amplitude of the short-circuit rotor current.
3.2 Mathematic expression of the optimisation
problem
The expression of stator ux has to be derived rst in order
to obtain the mathematic expression of the optimisation
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

(11)

It shows that the stator ux is decided by stator voltage. When

voltage dips occur, regardless of the types of voltage dips, the
stator terminal voltage can be decomposed into
positive-sequence, negative-sequence and zero-sequence
components according to the symmetrical components
theory [22]. Assuming that a fault happens at t = 0, the
stator voltage space vector oriented on positive-sequence
stator voltage can be given in the form of the sum of
symmetrical components as


 
1
cos(2vs t + wu0 )
us (t) =
U s2
U s1 +
sin(2vs t + wu0 )
0

(12)

where t is the time, us(t) is the stator voltage space vector of

DFIG, Us1 is the amplitude of positive-sequence vector and
Us2 is the amplitude of negative-sequence vector, which is
zero for symmetrical faults. ju0 represents the initial space
angle between positive- and negative-sequence voltage
vectors, and its value is variable in the range of [0, 2)
depending on the fault occurrence time.
The positive- and negative-sequence stator voltages create
positive- and negative-sequence stator ux vectors,
respectively, and zero-sequence stator voltage creates no
ux vector. For asymmetrical faults, different values of ju0
lead to different values of j0, which is the initial apace
angle between positive- and negative-sequence stator ux
vectors. Neglecting the stator resistance, the positive- and
negative-sequence stator ux vectors s1, s2 in the
steady-state condition can be expressed as

us1

cs1 = jv
s
u

cs2 = s2
jvs

(13)

where us1, us2 are the positive- and negative-sequence stator

voltage vectors. So, the relation between ju0 and j0 can
be obtained

wc0 = wu0 + p

(14)

With regard to a certain type of asymmetrical grid faults, if the

depths of voltage dips are the same, the amplitudes of the
induced positive- and negative-sequence stator ux vector
will keep constant. However, the dc component of stator
ux vector is variable because of the difference of j0. No
dc component is induced if j0 = 0, whereas the dc
component is of largest amplitude if j0 = [2, 23].
Substituting (12) into (11), the expression of stator ux can
be obtained as

cs (t) = T 1 (t)cs (0) + T 2 (t)U s1 (0 + ) + T 3 (t)U s2 (0 + ) (15)

and
T 1 (t) = e

vs t

cos(vs t) sin(vs t)
sin(vs t) cos(vs t)

73

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

www.ietdl.org



v

s
1


vs t
(1

e
cos(
v
t))
s
v2s + v

2s
v s


vs
+ e
vs t sin(vs t)


vs

constrained controls, xed terminal time and free terminal

state is adopted [25].
The optimal solutions of u(t) and cr (t) are denoted by the
optimal variable u (t) and the optimal state trajectory c
r (t)
(t will be omitted in the following part for simplicity).
According to (31), the Hamiltonian for this optimisation
problem can be expressed as

T 2 (t) =




1 
sin(2vs t + wu0 )
A2
1
T 3 (t) = 1 + s2
4vs
2vs
cos(2vs t + wu0 )




vs t sin(vs t + wu0 )
e
cos(vs t + wu0 )


cos(2vs t + wu0 )
As
+ 2
4vs
sin(2vs t + wu0 )


cos(vs t + wu0 )


vs t
+e
sin(vs t + wu0 )

T
T
H = ks2 c r c r 2ks km cTs c r + km2 c s c s + lT A r c r + u r
(17)
where is a covariate. According to the minimum condition
(33), ur satises

where s(0) is the pre-fault value of the stator ux,

Us1(0+), Us2(0+) are the amplitudes of positive- and
negative-sequence stator voltage vector, respectively.
It can be seen that the expression of stator ux vector
consists of three parts: the rst part T1(t)s(0) represents
the zero-input response, and it is related to the pre-fault
value of stator ux s(0); the second part T2(t)Us1(0+)
represents the zero-state response of the positive-sequence
stator voltage, and it depends on the amplitude of positivesequence stator voltage; the third part T3(t)Us2(0+)
represents the zero-state response of the negative-sequence
stator voltage, and it is not only decided by the amplitude
of negative-sequence stator voltage, but also by the initial
space angle ju0. For symmetrical faults, the third part is zero.
During the transient analysis for LVRT, the following
assumptions are made:
1. No extra protection (e.g. crowbar) is activated.
2. The dc-link voltage of RSC is well controlled by the
coordination of grid-side converter (GSC) and the dc-link
chopper during faults [4, 21].
3. The peak value appears in the rst fundament circle after
the instant of faults occurrence [3, 19]; so tf = 2/s.
Substitute (8) and (15) into (10), the mathematic expression
of the optimisation problem can be nally expressed as
min J [u r ] =
u r Ulim

H(t, c r , u r , l ) =

t f 

T
ks2 c r c r 2ks km cTs c r + km2 cTs cs dt




min H(t, c r , u r , l )
 Ulim
ur

(18)

Note that this optimisation problem is with only one optimal

variable. Substituting (17) into (18), it can be found that
solving (18) is equal to the solution of the following
convex optimisation problem
arg min lT u r
ur

 
s.t. u r  Ulim

(19)

Applying the CauchySchwartz inequality and incorporating

the constraints condition, it can be obtained that
 T    
 
l u  l u  U l 
lim
r
r

(20)

Then, we can obtain

 
lT u r Ulim l 

(21)

This equality is satised if and only if u r points to the

opposite direction of * and ||ur|| = Ulim. Therefore the
solution of (19) can be given by

Ulim l
u r = 
lT l

(16)

(22)

s.t.

cs (t) = T 1 (t)cs (0) + T 2 (t)U s1 (0+ ) + T 3 (t)U s2 (0+ )

dc r /dt = A r c r + u r
c r (0+ ) = c r (0)
tf = 2p/vs

3.3

Solution of the optimisation problem

PMP [24] is a very effective tool to cope with optimisation

problem with constraints. With respect to the optimisation
problem (16), a form of PMP that intends to solve the
non-autonomous optimisation problem with integral cost,
74

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

Substituting this equation into (17) to eliminate u r , the

Hamiltonian can be further expressed as
H = ks2 cT r c r 2ks km cTs c r + km2 cTs cs + lT A r c r

Ulim lT l
(23)

Using the canonical equation (30), there is



dl/dt = A r l + 2ks (km cs ks c r )


dc r /dt = A r c r Ulim l/ lT l
T

(24)

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 4 Optimal value of rotor voltage

Fig. 3 Flowchart of the control limit analysis

with the boundary conditions as

l(2p/vs ) = 0
c r (0) = c r (0)

(25)

By solving the differential equations (24) with the boundary

conditions (25), the optimal state trajectory c r and the

optimal covariate * can be gained. Then substitute the

value of * into (22), the optimal variable u r can be

achieved. The minimised rotor current i r can be obtained

by substituting the value of c r and s into (8). Then the

control limit of RSC can be analysed based on the obtained
results. So far, the theoretical derivation of the proposed
analytical method is completed, and the owchart is
illustrated in Fig. 3. In the next section, a case study of a
typical 1.5 MW DFIG-based wind turbine is carried out.

Case study

In this section, a case study of a typical 1.5 MW DFIG-based

WECS is carried out in MATLAB based on the proposed
analytical method using optimisation theory. The
parameters of the system are listed in the Appendix. The
control limits under various voltage dips, including both
symmetrical and asymmetrical voltage dips, are evaluated,
and further the safe operation regions are depicted. Finally,
a brief comparison of the situations under various voltage
dips is shown.
4.1

Control limit analysis for symmetrical faults

Initially, the rotor speed of the turbine r is 1.2 pu, and the
mechanical power produced by the turbine is 0.67 pu,
whereas the reactive power output of the stator of DFIG is
0. Assuming that a three-phase symmetrical voltage dip
with 60% depth happens at t = 0.1 s. Applying the proposed
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

Fig. 5 Calculated amplitude of the corresponding rotor current

analytical method, the calculated optimal variable u

r is
shown in Fig. 4, and the amplitude of the corresponding

rotor current irm is shown in Fig. 5. Note that u

rd , urq

are the optimal values of urd , urq , and urm is the amplitude
of the optimal rotor voltage. To validate the analysed
results, the three-phase rotor current response of the
full-order DFIG system under the optimal rotor voltage u
r
is shown in Fig. 6.
Fig. 4 shows that the amplitude of rotor voltage is always
kept at its constraint during the interested time interval,
which implies that the rotor voltage constraint is optimally
used to suppress the rotor current. As a result, the rotor
current is well suppressed as shown in Fig. 5, and the
amplitude of peak value is a little < 2 pu. If the threshold,
namely the maximum current allowed by RSC is 2 pu, it
means that the fault is possible to be ride through with
the proper control of RSC. Otherwise, some additional
protection circuits, such as crowbar, have to be activated.
From Fig. 6, it can be seen that the time-domain response
of the full-order DFIG system coincides well with the
calculated result as shown in Fig. 5, which validates the
analysed results.
The pre-fault states, including the input mechanical power
from the turbine PWT and the output reactive power of stator
Qs, affect the dynamical response of DFIG during faults.
Usually, when the grid is normal, the DFIG is under MPPT
75

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 8 Control limits for three-phase faults

Fig. 6 Rotor current response of the full-order DFIG system under
the optimal rotor voltage

control, and the reactive power is controlled to regulate

the grid voltage or the power factor [26]. In the case study,
the MPPT curve of the system is shown in Fig. 7, and the
reactive power output is assumed to vary between 0.2 and
0.2 pu. Once the pre-fault states are known, the unique
operating point can be determined. Then applying the
proposed optimisation method, the rotor current under
certain depth of voltage dip can be calculated. In each case,
the amplitude of the maximum rotor current irm max can be
extracted. Finally, the control limit of the RSC is
represented by a collection of maximum rotor current
surfaces as shown in Fig. 8, in which a surface corresponds
to a certain depth of voltage dip. The percentage labelled in
this gure is the depth of the voltage dip. The gures
indicate that the control limit tends to be larger with
increased initial active and reactive power output, which
means that it becomes more difcult for the RSC to
ride-through the fault. This is because that increased active
power output corresponds to higher speed with MPPT
control, and the induced EMF during faults becomes larger
at higher speed. Moreover, increased active and reactive
power output mean larger pre-fault rotor current, which
makes overcurrent more prone to appearing in the presence
of grid faults.
Further, with the control limits achieved, the safe operation
regions by the control of RSC can be depicted. If the
threshold is 2 pu, the safe operation regions are shown in

Fig. 7 MPPT curve of the DFIG

76

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

Fig. 9. The white coloured regions depict situations when

the DFIG may successfully ride through the grid faults with
the proper control of RSC, and the grey coloured regions
mean that LVRT cannot be realised with the control of
RSC. For the latter cases, some other protection measures,
for example, triggering the crowbar circuit, have to be
taken. If the capacity of RSC is improved to 1.5 times, as
Fig. 10 shows, the safe operation regions become larger
signicantly, which means that the RSC are able to
cope with more severe faults. With this information,
manufactures can make a good compromise between the
LVRT performances and the cost according to local grid
codes.
4.2

Control limit analysis for asymmetrical faults

In this section, three types of asymmetrical faults are

analysed, including single-phase-to-ground faults, phase-tophase faults and two-phase-to-ground faults. Different from
symmetrical faults, the stator ux would contain not only
dc component, but also negative-sequence component
during asymmetrical faults. First single-phase faults are
considered. When single-phase faults occur, voltage dips
will appear in one phase, and phase A is taken for example.

Fig. 9 Safe operation regions of three-phase faults (2 pu

threshold)
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 11 Dynamical response of DFIG under single-phase faults

with different j0
Fig. 10 Safe operation regions of three-phase faults (3 pu
threshold)

Assuming that positive- and negative-sequence networks

have the same impedance, the voltages of phases B and C
remain unchanged. Then the phase voltage of phases AC
are given by

optimisation method, the calculated optimal variable u

r is
shown in Fig. 12, and the corresponding irm is shown in
Fig. 13. Similar to the symmetrical faults, the amplitude of
rotor voltage is kept at its constraint to minimise the rotor
current. The time-domain response of the full-order DFIG
system under the optimal rotor voltage is shown in Fig. 14,
which also agrees well with the analysed result.

U a = U (1 p)
U b = Ua2

(26)

U c = Ua
where U is the amplitude of pre-fault phase voltage, p is
the depth of voltage dips, a = 1120 = ej(2/3). Then the
positive-, negative- and zero-sequence components of stator
voltage are expressed as

U 1
1 a
1
U = 1 a2
2
3
U 0
1 1

U (1 p)
1 p/3
a2
2
= U p/3
a Ua
Ua
p/3
1
(27)

By virtue of (11), the stator voltage space vector under

single-phase faults can be expressed in dq synchronous
reference frame as
us (t) =

Fig. 12 Optimal value of rotor voltage



 
1
cos(2vs t + wu0 )
U (p/3)
Us (1 p/3) +
sin(2vs t + wu0 ) s
0
(28)

As mentioned in Section 2, for asymmetrical faults, the

dynamical response of DFIG is related to j0. To compare
the dynamical response of DFIG with different j0, a
group of simulations is done, as shown in Fig. 11. In this
simulation, the rotor voltage is kept unchanged during the
faults. The results show that if j0 = , the rotor overcurrent
is largest, whereas if j0 = 0, the rotor overcurrent is
smallest. This is well consistent with the theoretical analysis.
To ensure that LVRT is feasible for cases with different
j0, only the worst situation j0 = is considered
throughout the remainder of the analysis. For a single-phase
voltage dip with a 60% depth, using the proposed
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

Fig. 13 Calculated amplitude of the corresponding rotor current

77

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

www.ietdl.org
The obtained control limits for single-phase faults are
shown in Fig. 15, and the safe operation regions with
threshold 2 pu are shown in Fig. 16. The meanings of the
gures are identical with the symmetrical case, and are
omitted here for brevity. The similar conclusions to the
symmetrical case can be derived, which are not repeated here.
Using the similar method, the cases of phasephase and
two-phase faults can also be analysed. The detailed process
is not presented here for brevity. The control limits for
phasephase faults and two-phase-to-ground faults are
shown in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively.
4.3

Comparison of different grid faults

In this section, a brief comparison of the four different types

of faults is carried out. Applying the proposed optimisation
method, the amplitudes of the minimised rotor current
under different types of voltage dips with 60% depth are
shown in Fig. 19. Also, only the worst situation j0 = is
considered for asymmetrical faults. It can be seen that, the
peak value of short-circuit rotor current is largest under
three-phase faults, the second is phasephase faults, the
third is two-phase faults and the last one is single-phase
faults. It implies that for the typical 1.5 MW DFIG-based
WECS, the three-phase faults are the most difcult for the

Fig 16 Safe operation regions of single-phase faults

Fig. 17 Control limits for phasephase faults

RSC to ride through, whereas the single-phase faults are

the easiest. This conclusion can also be derived by a
comparison of the calculated control limits under different
faults obtained before in this section.
Fig. 14 Rotor current response of the full-order DFIG system
under the optimal rotor voltage

Fig. 15 Control limits for single-phase faults

From the analysis in Section 3, it is known that, since the

control limit calculated by the proposed analytical method
is obtained using optimisation method, it should be the best
result that can be achieved for the specic cost function
with the rotor voltage constraint. In this section, to further
verify the proposed analytical method, the calculated
control limits is compared with the experiment results of
the ux linkage tracking control strategy as presented in
[17] on a scaled 3 KW DFIG system. The ux linkage
tracking control strategy has been proven to be effective to
suppress the rotor current under various voltage dips by
controlling the RSC [17]. The experiment system has been
introduced in detail in [17], and it is not repeated here for
brevity.
Initially, the DFIG is under the VC control, with 0.2 pu
active power output and 0 pu reactive power output. When
grid faults occur, the control strategy switches to the ux
linkage tracking method immediately on detecting the

78

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

Experiment verification

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 18 Control limits for two-phase faults

Fig. 20 Experiment results of the ux linkage tracking control

strategy and the calculated control limits
a 90% symmetrical fault
b 90% single-phase fault

performance of the ux linkage tracking method is

pretty good.
Fig. 19 Amplitudes of the minimised rotor currents under different
types of voltage dips

faults. The slip of the DFIG is assumed constant and xed at

0.2 by the prime mover controller during the faults. Both
symmetrical and asymmetrical faults are examined and only
single-phase faults are studied here representatively for
asymmetrical faults.
The experimental results for a symmetrical fault and a
single-phase fault both with a dip depth of 90% are shown
in Fig. 20. It is shown that the short-circuit rotor current
can be reduced effectively with the ux linkage tracking
control strategy. The control limits of the 3 KW DFIG
system calculated by the proposed method are also
indicated in Fig. 20. The calculated control limit for the
symmetrical fault is 1.23 pu, and for single-phase fault is
1.40 pu. It can be seen that, although the ux linkage
tracking control strategy is effective to suppress the
short-circuit rotor current, the maximum amplitude of the
rotor current response can still not be smaller than the
calculated control limit. This result supports the proposed
analytical theory, since the calculated control limit is the
optimised result. It is also partly because of the delay
existing in the real control system, which may degrade the
control performance slightly. On the other hand, the control
limit can be used to evaluate the performance of the control
strategy. In Fig. 20, it is also shown that the maximum
amplitude of the rotor current response is very close to the
control limit, and it can be derived that the control
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

Conclusions

For DFIG-based WECS, there is a theoretical control limit for

the RSC in suppressing the short-circuit rotor current because
of the limitation of dc-link voltage. To analyse the control
limit, the rotor current suppression problem is formulated as
an optimisation problem with rotor voltage constraint. PMP
is successfully applied to solve the optimisation problem.
A case study of a typical 1.5 MW DFIG-based WECS is
carried out to validate the analytical method quantitatively.
Applying the proposed method, the control limit of RSC
under various voltage dips can be evaluated and nally
represented by a collection of maximum short-circuit
current surfaces over the operation area. With the result, the
safe operation regions can be readily worked out, thus
allowing different LVRT strategies to be designed
predictably. Experimental tests are also carried out to
further verify the proposed analytical method. The proposed
method can be used to evaluate the performance of existing
control systems, and is also useful to optimise the design of
RSC capability and LVRT controllers.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support from the National

Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers
60974130 and 61273045) and the Power Electronics
Science and Education Development Programme of Delta
Environmental and Educational Foundation.
79

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

www.ietdl.org
8

References

1 Tsili, M., Papathanassiou, S.: A review of grid code technical

requirements for wind farms, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2008, 3, (3),
pp. 308332
2 Lopez, J., Sanchis, P., Roboam, X., Marroyo, L.: Dynamic behavior of
the doubly fed induction generator during three-phase voltage dips,
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2007, 22, (3), pp. 709717
3 Morren, J., Haan, S.W.: Ride through of wind turbines with doubly-fed
induction generator during a voltage dip, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
2005, 20, (2), pp. 435441
4 Erlich, I., Kretschmann, J., Fortmann, J., Mueller-Engelhardt, S., Wrede,
H.: Modeling of wind turbines based on doubly-fed induction
generators for power system stability studies, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2007, 22, (3), pp. 909919
5 Kayikci, M., Milanovic, J.V.: Assessing transient response of
DFIG-based wind plants the inuence of model simplications and
parameters, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2008, 23, (2), pp. 545554
6 Yao, J., Liao, Y.: Analysis on the operations of an AC excited wind
energy conversion system with crowbar protection, Autom. Electr.
Power Syst., 2007, 31, (23), pp. 7983 (in Chinese)
7 Jiang, X., Zhao, F.: Crowbar control strategy for doubly fed induction
generator of wind farm during power grid voltage dips, Power Syst.
Technol., 2008, 32, (12), pp. 8489 (in Chinese)
8 Xiang, D., Ran, L., Tavner, P., Yang, S.: Control of a doubly fed
induction generator in a wind turbine during grid fault ride-through,
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2006, 21, (3), pp. 652662
9 Morren, J., Haan, S.W.: Short circuit current of wind turbines with
doubly fed induction generator, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2007,
22, (1), pp. 174180
10 He, Y., Hu, J., Zhao, R.: Modeling and control of wind-turbine used
DFIG under network fault conditions. Proc. Eighth Int. Conf.
Electrical Machines and Systems, 2005, pp. 986991
11 Gomis-Bellmunt, O., Junyent-Ferre, A., Sumper, A., Bergas-Jane, J.:
Ride-through control of a doubly-fed induction generator under
unbalanced voltage sags, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2008, 23,
(4), pp. 10361045
12 Peng, L., Colas, F., Francois, B., Li, Y.: A modied vector control
strategy for DFIG based wind turbines to ride-through voltage dips.
Proc. 13th European Conf. Power Electronics and Applications, 2009
13 Zhou, Y., Bauer, P., Ferreira, A., Pierik, J.: Operation of grid-connected
DFIG under unbalanced grid voltage condition, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., 2009, 24, (1), pp. 240246
14 Santos-Martin, D., Rodriguez-Amenedo, J.L., Arnaltes, S.: Providing
ride-through capability to a doubly fed induction generator under
unbalanced voltage dips, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2009, 24, (7),
pp. 17471775
15 Flannery, P.S., Venkataramanan, G.: Unbalanced voltage sag ride
through of a doubly fed induction generator wind turbine with
series grid side converter, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2009, 45, (5),
pp. 18791887
16 Lima, F.K.A., Luna, A., Rodriguez, P., Watanabe, E.H., Blaabjerg, F.:
Rotor voltage dynamic in the doubly fed induction generator during
grid faults, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 118130
17 Xiao, S., Yang, G., Zhou, H., Geng, H.: A LVRT control strategy based
on ux linkage tracking for DFIG-based WECS, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. accepted
18 Hu, S., Lin, X., Kang, Y., Zou, X.: An improved low-voltage
ride-through control strategy of doubly fed induction generator
during grid faults, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2011, 26, (12),
pp. 36533665
19 Zhou, H., Yang, G.: Short circuit current analysis of DFIG wind
turbines with crowbar protection. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Electrical
Machines and Systems, 2009, pp. 16
20 Zhou, H., Yang, G., Geng, H.: Evaluation of the control limit of
rotor-side converters in DFIG-based wind energy conversion systems
under symmetrical voltage dips. Asia-Pacic Power and Energy
Engineering Conf., 2011
21 Yao, J., Li, H., Liao, Y., Chen, Z.: An improved control strategy of
limiting the dc-link voltage uctuation for a doubly fed induction
wind generator, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2008, 23, (3),
pp. 12051213
22 Wagnes, C.F., Evans, R. D.: Symmetrical components as applied to the
analysis of unbalanced electrical circuits (McGraw Hill, 1933)
23 Lopez, J., Gubia, E., Sanchis, P., Roboam, X., Marroyo, L.: Wind
turbines based on doubly fed induction generator under asymmetrical
voltage dips, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2008, 23, (1),
pp. 321330
24 Gamkrelidze, R.V.: Principle of optimal control theory (Translated by
K. Makowski) (Plenum Press, 1978)
80

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013

25 Hu, S., Wang, Z., Hu, W.: Optimal control theory and system (Science
Press, 2005) (in Chinese)
26 Grid Code High and Extra High Voltage. Technical Report, E.ON Netz
GmbGBayreuth, 2006. Available at http://www.eon-netz.com

Appendix

9.1

Pontryagins minimum principle

For the following problem

min J[u] =

tf

u(t)[V

L(t, x(t), u(t)) dt

t0

s.t. dx(t)/dt = f (x(t), u(t))x(t0 ) = x0

t [ [0, tf ], with fixed tf

(29)

where x Rn is the state variable, u Rm is the control variable,

, Rm is the class of admissible controls, assume that
1. f(x, u) is continuous with respect to x, u.
2. f(x, u) has a continuous derivative with respect to x and
locally Lipschitz in u.
If u*(t) is the optimal variable, then there exists a non-zero,
absolutely continuous co-state function *(t) such that for
almost all t [0, tf ], the optimal variable u*(t), the optimal
state trajectory x*(t) and *(t) satises the following conditions:
1. Canonical equation

dl(t)
H(t, x(t), u(t), l(t))

dt
x(t)
dx(t)
H(t,
x(t),
u(t), l(t))

=
dt
l(t)

(30)

where the Hamiltonian H(t, x(t), u(t), (t)) is dened as

H(t, x(t), u(t), l(t)) = L(t, x(t), u(t)) + lT (t)f (x(t), u(t))
(31)
2. Boundary conditions

l(tf ) = 0
x(t0 ) = x0

(32)

3. Pontryagin minimum condition



H(t, x (t), u (t), l (t)) = min H(t, x (t), u(t), l (t))
u(t)[V

(33)
4. The Hamiltonian is constant over the optimal trajectory
H(t, x (t), u (t), l (t)) = H(t, x (tf ), u (tf ), l (tf ))
= const
9.2

(34)

System parameters

System frequency: 50 Hz;

Nominal capacity of DFIG: 1.67 MVA;
Rated stator voltage: 690 V;
Pairs of poles: 2;
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

www.ietdl.org
Turn ratio: 1: 3;
Stator resistance:
Lls = 0.171 pu;
Rotor resistance:
Lls = 0.156 pu;

Rs = 0.007 pu,

linkage

inductance:

Rs = 0.007 pu,

linkage

inductance

IET Renew. Power Gener., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 1, pp. 7181

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2011.0348

Excitation inductance: Lm = 2.9;

Rotational inertia: H = 4.5s;
Stator-rated current (base value): 1105 A;
Rotor-rated current (base value): 476 A;
dc-link rated voltage: 1200 V.

81

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013