Quantitative Control Approach for Wind Turbine
Generators to Provide Fast Frequency Response
with Guarantee of Rotor Security
Siqi Wang, Kevin Tomsovic

arXiv:1712.06190v1 [] 17 Dec 2017

Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
Email: swang31@utk.edu
Abstract—Wind generation is expected to reach substantially
higher levels of penetration in the near future. With the converter
interface, the rotor inertia of doubly-fed induction generator
(DFIG) based wind turbine generator is effectively decoupled
from the system, causing a reduction in inertial response. This can
be compensated by enabling the DFIG to provide fast frequency
response. This paper proposes a quantitative control approach
for DFIG to deliver fast frequency response in the inertial
response time scale. A supplementary power surge function
is added to the active power reference of DFIG. The exact
amount of power surge that is available from DFIG-based wind
turbine is quantified based on estimation of maximum extractable
energy. Moreover, the operational constraints such as rotor limits
and converter over-load limit are considered at the same time.
Thus, the proposed approach not only provides adequate inertial
response but also ensures the rotor speed is kept within a specified
operating range. Rotor safety is guaranteed without the need for
an additional rotor speed protection scheme.
Index Terms—Active power control, DFIG, high wind penetration, inertial response, kinetic energy

I. I NTRODUCTION
In recent years, the installed capacity of wind power has
grown significantly. One major concern of a high penetration
of wind generation is the reduced inertia, which results in
deterioration of inertial response. According to [1] and [2],
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Western
Interconnect (WECC) have both reported deficiency in inertial
response due to an increase of converter interfaced wind
resources. Conventionally, synchronous generators serve as
the major contributor to provide inertial response. With more
synchronous generators forced offline, the burden could be
shifted to the wind turbine generators as well. In fact, the
speed change of synchronous generators is usually limited to
between 1.0 p.u to 0.95 p.u and only 9.75% of the kinetic
energy can be drawn, but asynchronously coupled DFIG can
allow its speed to drop from 1.0 p.u to 0.7 p.u., so the potential
kinetic energy drawn from DFIG could be much greater than
that from conventional generators [3].
To release the potential kinetic energy from DFIG, a general
approach is to introduce a support function as a supplementary
control loop, adding to the active power reference. The existing
approach for DFIG to provide inertial response can be roughly
divided into three categories characterized by the shape of

the support function: df /dt response; ∆f response; and fixed
trajectory response [4]. The work reported in [5] introduced
an additional supplementary controller proportional to the
derivative of system frequency to emulate the natural inertial
response (df /dt response). Similarly, the work in [6] modifies
the supplementary control signal to be proportional to the
frequency deviation to achieve a greater contribution from the
wind turbines (∆f response). However, both df /dt and ∆f
response are scenario-based, the response shape depends on
the system frequency measurement f and the control gains.
Moreover, df /dt is sensitive to measurement error and noise
[6]. The shape of the fixed trajectory is not determined by the
frequency disturbance but is based on a power surge function.
The power surge function can be various types, such as the
kinetic discharge function shown in [3] and the temporary
frequency control function (TFCF) shown in [7].
However, the following two questions remain open regarding the fixed trajectory response approach:
1) How to quantitatively design the power surge function to
maximize a DFIG’s contribution without stalling the rotor?
2) How to coordinate multiple DFIGs under different operating conditions to provide fast and adequate system response?
This paper investigates these two questions and proposes a
possible solution - a quantitative control approach for DFIG to
provide fast frequency response with guaranteed rotor security.
First, the maximum power injection for a given DFIG is
identified based on wind turbine maximum extractable energy
and the minimum allowable rotor speed. Then a coordination
scheme is presented for DFIGs with different wind speed to
deliver an adequate response.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section
II introduces the DFIG modeling approach and the control
system. Section III presents the proposed control approach.
Case studies are demonstrated on a 181-WECC system with
50% wind penetration in Section IV. Conclusions are given in
Section V.
II. DFIG M ODEL AND C ONTROL S YSTEM
The objective of this paper is to study the large-scale power
system frequency response, so the positive sequence type3 DFIG machine model is adopted here. The generator is

modeled as a controlled current source, while the decoupled
active current Ip and excitation current Iq determine the
required active and reactive power injection to the grid [8]. The
basic DFIG-based wind turbine generator model are shown in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. DFIG-based wind turbine generator model

Two first-order low-pass filters with a time constant of
Tg = 20 ms will represent the converter control systems [9].
This model has been validated and widely used in large-scale
system wind integration studies in previous studies, such as,
[6] and [10]. It is assumed that DFIGs within the same wind
farm has the same wind speed and can be aggregated into
a single unit with the same MVA rating as the summation of
each DFIG’s MVA rating [6]. The wind speed spatial variation
across regions is not the focus of this work, and thus, is
neglected. A similar assumption can be found in [6] and [11].
The regular operation mode for DFIG is based on the widely
used maximum power point tracking (MPPT) strategy. The
active power reference of DFIG for a measured rotor speed
ωr is:
(
kopt ωr3 , if ωr < ωrmax
mppt
(1)
Pref =
Pmax , if ωr ≥ ωrmax
with

1
R3
ρA 3 Cp (λopt,β=0 , 0)
(2)
2
λ
where ρ is the air density, A is the wind turbine swept area,
R is the wind turbine radius, Cp is the power coefficient, β
is the pitch angle, λ is the tip speed ratio and Vw is the wind
speed [12].
The mechanical power Pm extracted from a wind turbine
can be expressed as :
kopt =

1
ρACp (λ, β)Vw3
(3)
2
The one-mass drive train model with wind turbine inertia Ht
is:
1
dωr
=
(Pm − Pe )
(4)
dt
2Ht
III. FAST F REQUENCY R ESPONSE FROM DFIG WITH
C ONSIDERATION OF ROTOR L IMITS
Pm =

During normal operation, DFIG still follows the power
reference of MPPT as shown in (1). During frequency disturbances, the MPPT mode is bypassed, the support mode

is activated to inject excess active power ∆P from wind
turbine and the ∆P is added to the initial power reference
mppt
Pref
. Due to fast response of converter control action, the
mppt
electrical power output will quickly increase to Pref
+ ∆P ,
but turbine aerodynamic power will remain near Pm . The
mismatch will force rotor speed to decelerate and the stored
kinetic energy will be released. With no reserve allocated, the
DFIG on support mode is expected to only provide temporary
frequency support, the active power output will finally return
to maximum power point, and thus, the overall response should
include a short over-production period and a recovery period
to allow for rotor speed restoration as shown in Figure 2. In
this work, we propose to calculate the exact amount of power
injection ∆Pmax based on estimated maximum deliverable
energy ∆Edel , maximum rotor speed deviation ∆ωrmax and
maximum converter overload limit Plim .
A. Estimation of Maximum Power Injection ∆Pmax
From the energy point of view, the energy balance of DFIG
in support mode can be expressed as follows [13]:
∆Eaero − ∆Ee − ∆Eloss − ∆Ekic = 0

(5)

where ∆Eaero is the aerodynamic energy variation, ∆Ee is the
electric energy variation, ∆Eloss is the energy losses, ∆Ekic
is the kinetic energy variation, Tdel is the total delivery time.
Assuming wind speed is constant during a temporary power
injection period:
Z Tdel
Z Tdel
3
∆Eaero =
∆Pm dt = KV
∆Cp dt
(6)
0

0

Approximating ∆Cp as the first two terms of Taylor’s series
yields [13]:
∂ 2 Cp
t2
∂Cp
|t=0 t +
|
(7)
t=0
∂t
∂t2
2
Further assuming the rate of rotor speed deviation is constant,
while dωr /dt is constant, the partial derivative of the power
coefficient in (7) can be approximated as:
∆Cp =

∂Cp ∂λ ∂ω
R ∂Cp ∂ω
∂Cp
|t=0 =
|t=0 =
|t=0
∂t
∂λ ∂ω ∂t
V ∂λ ∂t
(8)
2
2
∂ Cp
R ∂Cp ∂ 2 ω
R 2 ∂ Cp ∂ω 2
)
)
|
+
|
=
(
(
|
t=0
t=0
t=0
∂t2
V
∂λ2 ∂t
V ∂λ ∂t2
Integrating (6), (7) and (8) over time Tdel yields:
1
∂Cp
KRV 2
|t=0 Tdel ∆ωr
2
∂λ
(9)
1
∂ 2 Cp
2
+ KR2 V
|
T
∆ω
t=0 del
r
6
∂λ2
The kinetic energy variation during the support period is:
∆Eaero =

1
2
2
J(ωr2
− ωr1
)
2
and the electric energy variation is:
Z Tdel
∆Ee =
∆Pdel dt = ∆Edel
∆Ekic =

0

(10)

(11)

The energy loss variation can be approximated by mechanical
losses as:
∆Eloss = (1 − η)∆Eaero
(12)
where η is the energy efficient. Thus, combining (5), (9),
(10), (11) and (12), the overall energy delivered during power
injection period can be expressed as follows:
∂Cp
ωr (0)
η
|t=0 − J 2 Tdel )∆ωr
∆Edel = ( KVw2
12
∂λ
ωs

B. Sensitivity Measure of Frequency Nadir to Active Power
Change
The second step is to obtain the sensitivity measure of
frequency nadir variation to active power injection change.
Consider, the first order frequency response model shown in
Figure 4, the frequency nadir of this system is given by [15]:
fmin = fb (1 −

2

η
∂Cp
η
∂ 2 Cp
KVw2
|t=0 +
KVw
|t=0 (13)
36
∂λ
216
∂λ
J
Tdel )∆ωr2
−
2ωs2
This expression reveals the relationship between the delivered
energy ∆Edel , the rotor speed deviation ∆ωr and the delivery
time Tdel . By specifying Tdel and allowable maximum rotor
speed deviation ∆ωrmax , the maximum extracted energy and
the corresponding power injection ∆Pdel can be calculated.
Note when applying the calculated maximum power injection, the actual energy released by DFIG is smaller than
calculated. As shown in Figure 2, the supplementary power
reference is represented by the black curve, but the true response curve is shown in blue. The response reduces the rotor
speed (the kopt ωr3 term in (1)), and thus, reduces the power
reference and tapers off the ideal response [14]. A similar
observation is obtained in Ref [14]. While the calculation
is conservative, this can guarantee the rotor speed of DFIG
always remains higher than the minimum allowable limit, and
no additional rotor speed protection scheme is required.
A DFIG response example with Vw = 9.44 m/s and
minimum allowable rotor speed ωrmin = 0.7 p.u is shown
in Figure 3 to illustrate the conservative nature of the result.
+(

R
[1 + αe−ξωn tn sin(ωt tn +φ) ]∆P )
Km + DR
(15)

with
DR + Km
2HRTR
2HR + (DR + FH )TR
ξ=
ωn
2(DR + Km )
s
1 − 2TR ξωn + TR2 ωn2
α=
1 − ξ2
p
ωr = ωn 1 − ξ 2

ωn2 =

−1

φ = tan

ωr TR
(
+ tan−1 (
1 − ξωn TR

(16)

p

1 − ξ2
))
ξ

where fb is the base frequency, Km is the mechanical power
gain factor, R is the droop gain, D is the damping coefficient.
TR is the reheat time constant and FH is the fraction of total
power generated by the HP turbine. The detailed explanation
of (15) and (16) with the notations can be found in [16] which
is not discussed in detail in this paper.
Equation (15) shows that the overall injected active power
∆Pmax to the system has a near linear relationship with the
system frequency nadir fmin . A similar conclusion is reached
in Ref [17], and is further verified by a detailed transient
simulation result of a nonlinear power system in this paper
as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 2. Illustrative example of
conservatives
Figure 4. LFR model.
Figure 3. DFIG response example

Another constraint that must be taken into consideration
when calculating the maximum active power injection is the
converter limit (here assumed to be Plim = 1.2 p.u). Finally,
the maximum power injection of a DFIG on support mode at
a given wind speed Vw can be expressed as:
∆Pmax (Vw ) = min(∆Pdel , Plim − P0 (Vw ))

(14)

where P0 (Vw ) is the initial operating point of DFIG with wind
speed Vw . The Pmax (Vw ) can be saved as a look-up table and
used as criteria for on-line selection of DFIGs for delivery of
fast frequency response.

Figure 5. fmin varies with ∆P .

The above analysis indicates the sensitivity measure of
frequency nadir to a real power change can be assessed by
the matrix S = ∂∆fmin /∂∆Pmax for all participating DFIGs
with different wind speed using offline simulations. With the
∆Pmax (Vw ) and the matrix S, the minimum commitment of
DFIGs to avoid excessive frequency excursions from fmin
to fmin + ∆fmin can be computed for each possible underfrequency event offline. During online operation, when detecting the under-frequency event, the scheduled minimum
number of DFIGs on support mode will be initiated to ensure
the frequency nadir will be above the specified threshold.

C. Summary of the approach
The flow chart of the proposed approach is shown in Figure
6. It is assumed that the short term wind speed prediction

Figure 7. Frequency response comparison.

Figure 6. Flowchart of proposed control approach.

is available every 5 minutes. The sensitivity matrix S and
maximum power injection ∆Pmax (Vw ) can be obtained and
stored in a database. The minimum number of DFIGs on
support mode that need to provide fast frequency response
is scheduled at the beginning of each 5-minute interval. Once
detecting a frequency deviation out of the specified dead-band,
the on-line process activates the scheduled DFIGs. The power
reference deviation is then calculated and added to the MPPT
reference.
IV. C ASE S TUDIES AND S IMULATION R ESULTS
A DFIG based wind farm model is developed as a userdefined model in OpenModelica, and compiled as a functional
mock-up unit (FMU) then linked to ePHASORsim, which is
a real-time power system dynamic simulation software [18].
The proposed control approach is implemented on the 181bus WECC system presented in [19] and modified to have
50% wind penetration. The wind locations are chosen based
on NREL wind integration database which is available in [20].
The other synchronous units in the system were modeled with
a round rotor machine (GENROU), AC exciter (IEEEX1),
turbine governor (IEEEG1) and a power system stabilizer
(IEE2ST). To represent the equivalent frequency of the system,
a center of inertia (COI) reference frequency is used as the
monitoring frequency for comparison of different scenarios
[21].
In the first case study, the largest generator trip event
(2160 MW) is evaluated for the studied system. As shown in
Figure 7, the blue curve is the response of the studied system
without wind penetration under this event, the purple curve
is the frequency response to the same event with 50% wind
penetration while all DFIGs are on MPPT with no contribution
to frequency disturbance. Referring to (15) in the previous
section, the replacement of the synchronous generators reduces
the overall equivalent inertia constant, leads to a higher ROCOF, and causes the frequency nadir to decrease to 59.66

Hz from 59.81 Hz which is close to the under frequency
load shedding limit (59.65 Hz). At the same time, the less
effective governor response deteriorates the primary regulation
capability, reducing the settling frequency from 59.94 Hz to
59.86 Hz.
Next, five DFIG units with wind speed ranging from 7 m/s
to 12 m/s are scheduled to provide frequency support with the
same system condition as previous. The matrix S and ∆Pmax
for each wind speed are available in the database and are given
in Table I.
TABLE I
∂∆fmin /∂∆Pmax , ∆Pmax UNDER VARIOUS Vw
Unit Number
DFIG unit 1
DFIG unit 2
DFIG unit 3
DFIG unit 4
DFIG unit 5

Vw (m/s)
10.35
9.83
7.90
11.00
8.50

∆Pmax (p.u)
0.3347
0.2652
0.0754
0.4339
0.1221

∂∆fmin /∂∆Pmax (Hz/pu)
0.1526
0.2089
0.1259
0.0686
0.2530

To ensure a 0.1 Hz security margin from the UFLS
threshold, the frequency nadir threshold is set to be 59.75
Hz. Considering the same worst-case generator trip event as
previous case study, when the DFIG nearby bus frequency is
beyond the dead-band, the minimum number of DFIG units
on support mode are switched in. The frequency response is
shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Frequency response comparison under MPPT and support mode

In this particular case, two units (DFIG unit 1 and DFIG
unit 2 in Table I) are required to meet the 0.1 Hz frequency

nadir improvement. Compared to the no control case (the black
curve in Figure 8), the initial ROCOF is smaller and the initial
frequency nadir is above the specified 59.75 Hz. It is also
noticeable that there is a second frequency dip associated with
the fact that the rotor speed of the DFIG needs to recover back
to pre-disturbance speed. This can only be avoided if the DFIG
is on reserve mode or compensated by other resources. Still,
it can be improved by adjusting recovery time. Figure 8 also
shows the frequency response with different recovery time.
It can be seen that when increasing the recovery time, the
frequency dip is reduced but the recovery time is prolonged.
System planners must ensure that the manner in which energy
is delivered and recovered is optimal for the specific system
[4].
Figure 9 shows the active power contribution of each DFIG
unit, which indicates the maximum power injection of each
DFIG unit follows the schedule. The rotor speed response for
each DFIG unit is shown in Figure 10, and verifies that the
rotor speed remains above the minimum allowable limit.

Figure 9. Active power of scheduled DFIGs under support mode.

Figure 10. Rotor speed of DFIGs under support mode.

V. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents a quantitative control approach for
DFIG to provide fast frequency response by incorporating a
supplementary power surge function to the existing MPPT
reference. The supplementary power surge amount is carefully designed considering maximum active power injection
capability of each DFIG and the converter overload limits. As
demonstrated by the simulation results, the proposed approach

not only improves the overall frequency response but also
ensures the rotor speed is kept within a safe range. Rotor limits
can be maintained without additional actuator for rotor speed
protection.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Conto. Grid challenges on high penetration levels of wind power. In
Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting (PES GM), pages 1–3,
July 2012.
[2] S. H. Huang, D. Maggio, K. McIntyre, V. Betanabhatla, J. Dumas, and
J. Adams. Impact of wind generation on system operations in the
deregulated environment: ERCOT experience. In Proc. IEEE Power
Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting (PES GM), pages 1–8, July 2009.
[3] P. K. Keung, P. Li, H. Banakar, and B. T. Ooi. Kinetic energy of windturbine generators for system frequency support. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 24(1):279–287, 2009.
[4] L. Ruttledge and D. Flynn. Emulated inertial response from wind
turbines: gain scheduling and resource coordination. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 31(5):3747–3755, Sept 2016.
[5] J. Ekanayake and N. Jenkins. Comparison of the response of doubly fed
and fixed-speed induction generator wind turbines to changes in network
frequency. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 19(4):800–802, Dec 2004.
[6] D. Gautam, L. Goel, R. Ayyanar, V. Vittal, and T. Harbour. Control
strategy to mitigate the impact of reduced inertia due to doubly fed
induction generators on large power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
26(1):214–224, Feb 2011.
[7] N. R. Ullah, T. Thiringer, and D. Karlsson. Temporary primary
frequency control support by variable speed wind turbines - potential
and applications. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 23(2):601–612, May 2008.
[8] I. A. Hiskens. Dynamics of type-3 wind turbine generator models. IEEE
Trans. on Power Syst., 27(1):465–474, Feb 2012.
[9] L. R. Chang-Chien, C. C. Sun, and Y. J. Yeh. Modeling of wind farm
participation in AGC. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 29(3):1204–1211, May
2014.
[10] M. H. Variani, S. Wang, and K. Tomsovic. Study of flatness-based
automatic generation control approach on an NPCC system model. In
Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting (PES GM), pages 1–5,
July 2015.
[11] F. Wilches-Bernal, J. H. Chow, and J. J. Sanchez-Gasca. A fundamental
study of applying wind turbines for power system frequency control.
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 31(2):1496–1505, Mar 2016.
[12] H. Pulgar-Painemal. Wind Farm Model for Power System Stability
Analysis. Phd dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
2010.
[13] G. C. Tarnowski. Coordinated Frequency Control of Wind Turbines in
Power Systems with High Wind Power Penetration. PhD thesis, Technical
University of Denmark, 2012.
[14] L. Wu and D. G. Infield. Towards an assessment of power system frequency support from wind plant - modeling aggregate inertial response.
IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., 28(3):2283–2291, Aug 2013.
[15] Q. Shi, H. Cui, F. Li, Y. Liu, W. Ju, and Y. Sun. A hybrid dynamic
demand control strategy for power system frequency regulation. CSEE
J.Power Energy Syst., 3(2):176–185, June 2017.
[16] P. M. Anderson and M. Mirheydar. A low-order system frequency
response model. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 5(3):720–729, Aug 1990.
[17] R. Bhana and T. J. Overbye. The commitment of interruptible load to
ensure adequate system primary frequency response. IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 31(3):2055–2063, 2016.
[18] V. Jalili-Marandi, F. J. Ayres, E. Ghahremani, J. Bélanger, and V. Lapointe. A real-time dynamic simulation tool for transmission and
distribution power systems. In Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen.
Meeting (PES GM), pages 1–5, July 2013.
[19] S. Maslennikov, B. Wang, Q. Zhang, a. Ma, a. Luo, a. Sun, and
E. Litvinov. A test cases library for methods locating the sources of
sustained oscillations. In Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting
(PES GM), pages 1–5, July 2016.
[20] C. Draxl, A. Clifton, B.-M. Hodge, and J. McCaa. The wind integration
national dataset (wind) toolkit. Applied Energy, 151:355 – 366, 2015.
[21] H. Pulgar-Painemal, Y. Wang, and H. Silva-Saravia. On inertia distribution, inter-area oscillations and location of electronically-interfaced
resources. IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., PP(99):1–1, 2017.

