See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/42581922

Frequency Response From Wind Turbines

Article  in  Wind Engineering · December 2008

DOI: 10.1260/030952408787548811 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

43 993

3 authors:

Janaka Ekanayake Nick Jenkins

University of Peradeniya Cardiff University
151 PUBLICATIONS   4,445 CITATIONS    304 PUBLICATIONS   13,417 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

G. Strbac
Imperial College London
451 PUBLICATIONS   10,454 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Low Carbon London View project

Low Carbon London LCNF project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Janaka Ekanayake on 03 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Frequency Response From Wind Turbines
by

J.B. Ekanayake, N. Jenkins, G. Strbac

R EPRINTED FROM

WIND ENGINEERING
VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008

M ULTI -S CIENCE P UBLISHING C OMPANY

5 WATES WAY • B RENTWOOD • E SSEX CM15 9TB • UK
T EL : +44(0)1277 224632 • FAX : +44(0)1277 223453
E-MAIL: mscience@globalnet.co.uk • WEB SITE: www.multi-science.co.uk
W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 PP 573–586 573

Frequency Response From Wind Turbines

J.B. Ekanayake1, N. Jenkins1, G. Strbac2
1. Centre of Integrated Renewable Energy Generation and Supply, Cardiff University, UK
2. Control and Power Group, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, UK

ABSTRACT
The frequency response that can be provided by Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG)
and Full Power Converters (FPC) based wind turbines during the first 30 sec after a
frequency event was investigated. A simplified model, which can be used for frequency
studies on a single bus equivalent of the power system, was developed. Studies were carried
out on the present and projected 2020 Great Britain power systems. The frequency deviation
of the GB system with and without the frequency response of the wind turbines was
simulated. It was shown that variable speed wind turbines with suitable controls can make
an important contribution to frequency response.

NOMENCLATURE
Te Electromagnetic torque
vds, vqs, vdr, vqr d,q-axis stator voltages and d,q-axis rotor voltages
ids, iqs d,q-axis stator currents
RS, Rr Stator and rotor resistance
LS, Lr, Lm Stator, rotor leakage inductance and magnetizing inductance
LSS, Lrr Stator, rotor self inductance
Heq Equivalent inertia constant of the power system
D Damping coefficient of the power system
Ssys System MVA rating
f System frequency

INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, electricity generation from renewable energy is increasing rapidly with some 100
GW of wind energy generation capacity now installed. Renewable power sources contribute
to reducing emissions of green-house gases and to minimising a country’s dependence on
imported fossil fuel. Hence a number of countries have taken specific policy initiatives to
encourage renewable power generation. For example, in the UK, 15% of all energy is to be
supplied by renewable energy by 2020. This translates into 30 - 40% of electrical energy being
generated from renewable sources with wind power playing a dominant role, (perhaps up to
40 GW of wind turbine generation on a Great Britain (GB) system with a total of around 100
GW of generating plant). However due to the rather unusual architecture of wind turbine
generators, particularly the use of electronic converters, and the control philosophies
adopted, a number of concerns have been expressed over operation of the power system with
a very high penetration of wind power, in particular the provision of frequency response [1-3].
574 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

Hence, simplified models that can be used to represent wind turbine generators using
Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG) and Full Power Converters (FPC) in frequency
studies were derived. Electronically connected wind turbines, such as DFIG and FPC, with
their present control systems will not contribute to the inertia of the power system. This was
recognised and studies were carried out to assess the impact of a large penetration of wind
turbines on the frequency of the GB power system and to investigate how their control
systems could be modified to provide frequency response.

Frequency control in the UK electricity network

The Security and Quality of Supply Standard states that the system frequency of the GB
network under normal operating conditions should be maintained at 50 Hz within operational
limits of ± 0.5 Hz [4]. The National Grid (the TSO) imposes its own limits of ± 0.2 Hz. This is
achieved by operating some generators on a governor droop, normally 4% or less, and
classified as continuous service. In an abnormal event (instantaneous loss of 1320 MW of
generation) the maximum allowed system frequency deviation is - 0.8 Hz.
In the event of a sudden failure in generation or connection of a large load, the system
frequency starts dropping (region 0X of Figure 1) at a rate mainly determined by the total
angular momentum of the system (summation of the angular momentum of all generators
and spinning loads). For occasions that the frequency drops greater than -0.2 Hz, some
generating plants are contracted to provide frequency response. The response is classified as
an occasional service and has two parts; primary response and secondary response. Primary
and secondary response are defined as the additional active power that can be delivered from
a generating unit that is available at 10 seconds and 30 seconds respectively after an event and
that can be sustained for a further 20 seconds and 30 minutes respectively [6]. This definition
is based on the response of synchronous generator based power plants, where frequency
response within first 30 sec is provided by two mechanisms:
a) Inertia response: As the frequency drops (region 0X of Figure 1), the speed of the
synchronous generators also reduces and some of the kinetic energy stored in the
rotating mass is released as electrical energy. This is a fast response and
proportional to the rate of change of frequency.
b) Governor action: The automatic droop control loop of the governor acts on the
change in frequency and opens the governor valve to increase the turbine’s output.
This is a slower response and depends on the dead band of the governor and time
lag of the prime mover.

Figure 1: Frequency control in England and Wales [6]

W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 575

Power electronically controlled and/or power electronically connected generators such

as DFIG and FPC wind turbines do not naturally provide inertia response. However inertia
response can be emulated by adding a supplementary control signal proportional to the rate
of change of frequency [7-11]. A component proportional to the change of frequency can also
be added to the supplementary control signal to enhance the inertia response.
Power plants in the future GB network can broadly be categorised as synchronous
generator (SG) based power plants and electronically controlled and/or connected (EC)
power plants. It is recognised that most of the wind power plants will fall into the category of
EC. By considering that the share of SG and EC power plants in the future GB network will be
comparable, the frequency response within the first 30 sec may be categorised as fast primary
response (the inertia response of SC plants and the emulated inertia response of EC plants)
and slower primary response (governor action).

Simplified wind turbine models for frequency studies

Detailed models of wind turbine generators, based on both DFIG and FPC, can be found in the
literature [13-17]. References [8] and [11] demonstrated how a supplementary control loop as
shown in Figure 2 can be incorporated into the detailed models of DFIG and FRC wind turbines
respectively. However these detailed models are not very suitable for frequency response
studies, due to their complexity and the difficulty of using them in large power system models.
Simplified models to represent DFIG and FPC based on induction machines were developed
and are given in Appendix A. They are summarised in Figure 2 and Table 1.

Figure 2: Simplified model for the DFIG and FPC wind turbines with supplementary control loops for
fast primary response
576 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

Table 1: Parameters for Figure 2 for different types of wind turbines

Turbine type

DFIG

FPC (IG based)

For both models, it was assumed that the converter losses are 5% and the generator output
power is delivered to the system via the converters without any time delay. It may be seen
from Table 1, that the dynamics of DFIG and FPC wind turbines for a frequency event are
similar as LSS ≈ Lrr and RS ≈ Rr (see Appendix B).
The responses of the simplified FPC and DFIG models with the supplementary control
loop parameters of k1 = 3, k2 = 1, and Tw = 1 to a system frequency change were validated against
that obtained from the detailed models (defined by equations (A.1) to (A.9) [15] and with the
same supplementary control loop parameters shown in Figure 2) and are shown in Figure 3.
The responses shown in the figure were achieved with a 0.06 pu change in rotational speed,
thus showing minimum impact on the wind turbine drive train. Substantial agreement
between the two sets of results (full and simplified models) was obtained. The discrepancies
between these results were mainly due to errors caused by assumptions made to derive the
simplified model.

(a) Power system frequency deviation (f)/Hz

W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 577

(b) Fast Primary response from FPC wind turbines

(c) Fast Primary response from DFIG wind turbines

Figure 3: Results obtained from the simplified and detail models of FPC and DFIG wind turbines

Figure 4 shows the different responses obtained by varying the values of k2 and Tw while fixing
k1 = 3. From simulations it was found that k1 sets the initial response and k2 and Tw set the
response after 2 - 3 seconds. The emulated primary response was obtained by forcing the
generator to drop its speed below the optimum speed, and taking out stored kinetic energy
from the rotating mass. As the wind turbine is rotating off its optimum speed after the first
peak, its power output reduces. In order to minimise the impact on frequency recovery after
the frequency event, the values of k2 and Tw were selected to obtain the following conditions:
a) As high as possible positive peak power and energy from the wind turbine.
b) As small as possible negative peak power after the initial peak.
c) As long as possible delay from the time of the frequency event and the time at which
the negative power peak occurs.
From the different responses obtained (Figure 4) it is clear that k2 = 1 and Tw = 1 give the best
performance.
Output Power [p.u]

*
*
*

Time [s]

For the frequency deviation shown in Figure 3(a) where the frequency deviation is 0.25 Hz
and the time constant of the power system frequency decay is 11 sec
578 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

p y q y y

*
Output Power [p.u]

*
*
*
Time [s]
(b) For a frequency deviation of 0.5 Hz where the time constant of the power system frequency decay is
5.75 sec
Figure 4: Primary response obtained with k1 = 3 and for the different values of k2 and Tw

Fast primary response

In order to investigate fast primary response under different combinations of SG and EC
plants, a simple model representing the inertia and damping of the GB system without the
contribution due to governor action of synchronous generation was used (Figure 5). An
aggregated wind turbine model was used to represent all the wind farms.

Figure 5: The model used to investigate fast primary response

It was assumed that the present peak load on the GB system is 70 GW and it drops to 63.5 GW
in 2020 due to energy saving measures. Four scenarios, one for the present case and three
future scenarios for 2020 were assumed based on the capacity values presented in reference
[3]. The operating capacities of conventional power plants were estimated including reserve
requirements. For wind power generation the operating capacity was assumed to be 40% of
the installed capacity and for other renewable energy sources, the operating capacity was
assumed to be 60% of the installed capacity. The estimated operating capacity for each type of
power plant is given in Table 2.
Based on the operating capacity of each power plant and assuming the equivalent inertia
constant for coal, gas and nuclear power plants as 4.5, 6.0 and 3.0 respectively, the equivalent
inertia constant, Heq, on the system base was calculated using the following equation:
W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 579

Si
H eq = ∑ Hi *
Ssys
i = coal , gas ,.....

where Hi and Si are the inertia constant and MVA rating of the different types of power plant.
The equivalent inertia constant for each operational case is given in Table 3. The system
damping was assumed as 1 [18].
For each case given in Table 3, i.e. 2008, Low Wind - 2020, Medium Wind - 2020 and High
Wind - 2020, the fast primary response offered by SC and EC plants were simulated using the
model shown in Figure 5. In these simulations, it was assumed that the wind turbines are 2 MW
FPC designs and the turbines were aggregated to obtain the total operating capacity. The
parameters of the generators of the wind turbines are given in Appendix B. For each wind
turbine, the values of k1, k2 and Tw (of Figure 2) were selected as 3, 1 and 1 respectively.
Frequency deviation for a sudden connection of a load of 1320 MW (the present “loss-of-
power” design limit for GB [4]) was simulated with and without the fast primary response of
the wind power plants and shown in Figure 6.

For 2008 system For 2020 system on low wind scenario

For 2020 system on medium wind scenario For 2020 system on high wind scenario

Figure 6: Frequency drop of the GB system with different wind generation capacities, (no governor
action from synchronous generation)
 Table 2: Plant margins and operating capacities

2008 Low Wind – 2020 Medium Wind - 2020 High Wind - 2020
580

Generator type Installed Plant Operating Installed Plant Operating Installed Plant Operating Installed Plant Operating
Capacity margin Capacity Capacity margin Capacity Capacity margin Capacity Capacity margin Capacity
(GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW) (GW)
New Coal 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 1.11 2.59 3.70 1.11 2.59 3.70 1.30 2.41
Coal 29.40 5.88 23.52 18.30 6.41 11.90 18.20 7.28 10.92 16.90 7.61 9.30
Gas 29.40 5.88 23.52 29.30 10.26 19.05 27.80 11.12 16.68 27.30 12.29 15.02
Nuclear 10.60 0.00 10.60 6.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00
Interconnector 2.00 0.00 2.00 3.30 0.00 3.30 3.30 0.00 3.30 3.30 0.00 3.30
Other 9.60 1.92 7.68 6.80 2.04 4.76 6.80 1.36 5.44 6.80 2.04 4.76

Onshore wind 3.50 1.40 11.50 4.60 12.90 5.16 14.30 5.72
Offshore wind 0.20 0.08 21.60 8.64 25.70 10.28 34.20 13.68
Other 2.40 1.44 4.50 2.70 5.20 3.12 5.60 3.36
Total Capacity 87.10 70.24 105.00 63.53 109.60 63.49 118.10 63.54

Table 3: Heq on the system base (70 MVA for 2008 and 63.5 MVA for 2020)

2008 Low - 2020 Medium - 2020 High - 2020

Generator type Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
GW GW GW GW
New Coal 0.00 4.50 0.00 2.59 4.50 0.18 2.59 4.50 0.18 2.41 4.50 0.17
Coal 23.52 4.50 1.51 11.90 4.50 0.84 10.92 4.50 0.77 9.30 4.50 0.66
Gas 23.52 6.00 2.01 19.05 6.00 1.80 16.68 6.00 1.58 15.02 6.00 1.42
Nuclear 10.60 3.00 0.45 6.00 3.00 0.28 6.00 3.00 0.28 6.00 3.00 0.28
Interconnector 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00 3.30 0.00 0.00
Other 7.68 4.50 0.49 4.76 4.50 0.34 5.44 4.50 0.39 4.76 4.50 0.34
Onshore wind 1.40 0.00 0.00 4.60 0.00 0.00 5.16 0.00 0.00 5.72 0.00 0.00
Offshore wind 0.08 0.00 0.00 8.64 0.00 0.00 10.28 0.00 0.00 13.68 0.00 0.00
Other 1.44 4.50 0.09 2.70 4.50 0.19 3.12 4.50 0.22 3.36 4.50 0.24
Total 70.24 4.55 63.53 3.64 63.49 3.42 63.54 3.11
F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES
W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 581

From Figure 6, it may be seen that even though wind turbines do not contribute to the
equivalent system inertia, the fast primary response offered by them limits the rate of drop of
frequency over the first 30 sec after a frequency event.

Fast and slow primary response

The model shown in Figure 7 was then used to demonstrate the combined fast and slow
primary responses of plants connected to the power system. The wind turbines were
modelled as shown in Figure 2 where the values of k1, k2 and Tw were again selected as 3, 1 and
1 respectively. The governor and turbine of the SG power plants were modelled using
simplified models presented in [19]. The frequency deviation for a sudden connection of an
additional load of 1320 MW was simulated with and without the primary frequency response
of the wind power plants and shown in Figure 8.

1/Droop
Demand/
Generation
change
∆ω = ∆ f
Governor Turbine
+
+ D + 2Heqs

Wind turbine model

shown in Figure 2

Figure 7: Model to investigate the slow primary response

Figure 8: Frequency drop of the GB system under different generating capacities (Table 2)
582 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

From Figure 8, it can be clearly seen that with the response from the wind turbines, a
substantial reduction in the frequency deviation after a frequency event was observed.
In addition to the four cases detailed in Table 2, a light load (total demand of 35 GW), high
wind scenario was also considered for 2020. Here it was assumed that the operating capacity
of wind and other renewables is as specified for High Wind - 2020 scenario. The demand of 35
GW was supplied by 5.4 GW of coal, 6.9 GW of gas, 19.4 GW of wind and 3.4 GW of other
renewables. The frequency deviations for a sudden connection of an additional load of 1320
MW with and without the primary frequency response of the wind power plants are shown in
Figure 9.

Figure 9: Frequency drop of the GB system under light load, high wind scenario

Conclusions
Primary frequency support that can be provided by wind turbine generators was
demonstrated. In order to model the wind turbines for frequency deviations, simplified models
of DFIG and FPC based wind turbines were developed. The models were used with that of the
GB network under five different scenarios, one for 2008 with the peak demand, three for 2020
with the peak demand and one for light load high wind case, to demonstrate the primary
response that the wind turbines can provide during the first 30 sec after a frequency event.
The simulation results confirmed that even though the electronically controlled or connected
wind turbines do not naturally contribute to the inertia of the system, their fast primary
frequency support provides significant performance enhancement during the first 30 sec
after a frequency event. However, the performance deteriorates after the period of fast
primary response as wind turbines then operate off optimal speed thus providing less active
power support.
From the dynamic equations derived for the DFIG and FPC based wind turbines, it was
shown that their dynamic responses to a frequency event are very similar thus confirming the
validity of the results obtained in the paper for any mix of DFIG and FPC based wind turbines.
Even though the primary response of a single wind turbine is mainly determined by the
supplementary control loop used, the response provided by a wind farm may be shaped by
varying the responses of individual wind turbines.
W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 583

APPENDIX A

a) Simplified model for the FPC wind turbine based on an induction generator
Table A1 shows the dynamic equations of an induction generator.

Table A1: Voltage and flux equations of induction generator

Voltage equations Flux equations
1 d
vds = Rs ids − ψ qs + ψ (A.1) ψ ds = Lss ids + Lmidr
ω dt ds
s
(A.5)

1 d
vqs = Rs iqs + ψ ds + ψ (A.2) ψ qs = Lss iqs + Lmiqr
ω dt qs
s
(A.6)

1 d
vdr = Rr idr − sψ qr + ψ (A.3)
ψ dr = Lrr idr + Lmids
ω s dt dr (A.7)

1 d
vqr = Rr iqr + sψ dr + ψ (A.4) ψ qr = Lrr iqr + Lmiqs
ω s dt qr (A.8)

Where LSS = LS + Lm and Lrr = Lr + Lm

Torque equations
Te = ψ ds × iqs − ψ qs × ids = ψ dr × iqr − ψ qr × idr (A.9)

Manipulating equations (A.1) to (A.8), the following equations can be derived:

d ω R ω ω L L di
ids = − s s × ids + ω s × iqs + s × vds + s m × iqr − m dr (A.10)
dt Lss Lss Lss Lss dt

d ω R ω ω L L diqr
iqs = − s s × iqs − ω s × ids + s × vqs − s m × idr − m (A.11)
dt Lss Lss Lss Lss dt

For vector control of the FPC, the d-axis was chosen such that it coincides with the maximum
of the rotor flux, therefore ψdr = 1pu and ψdr = 0. In equation vdr = 0, ψdr = 0 , and dψdr/dt,
therefore idr = 0.
When a frequency event occurs, the supplementary loop acts on iqs and changes vqs.
ref
Therefore it was assumed that when FPC provides primary response there is no change in ids.
As the primary response is provided through the stator via two back-to-back converters, it
was also assumed that there is no change in the rotor currents (idr and iqr), thus diqr/dt. =0

Equation (A.10) can now be simplified and converted to the s domain as:

ω s Rs ω
siqs = − × iqs + s × vqs
Lss Lss
1 1 (A.12)
iqs = × v
Rs 1 + sT2  qs
584 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

where
Lss
T2 =
ω s Rs

Substituting ψdr = 1 pu and ψdr = 0 in equation (A.9) and then using equation (A.8), the
following equation can be obtained for the electromagnetic torque:

Lm
Te = iqr = − i (A.13)
Lrr qs

b) Simplified model for the DFIG wind turbine

Manipulating equations (A.1) to (A.8), the following equations can be derived:

didr ω R ω L L di
= − s r idr + s × ω s × iqr + s × vdr + s × ω s × m × iqs − m × ds (A.14)
dt Lrr Lrr Lrr Lrr dt

diqr ω s Rr ω L L diqs
=− iqr − s × ω s × idr + s × vqr − s × ω s × m × ids − m × (A.15)
dt Lrr Lrr Lrr Lrr dt

As shown in Figure 2, the inertia response of the DFIG was obtained by adding a
supplementary control loop to the torque control loop of the DFIG wind turbine [2]. When a
frequency event occurs, the supplementary loop acts on iqs and changes vqr. Therefore it was
ref
assumed that when a DFIG provides primary response there is no change in idr or ids.
The d-axis was chosen such that it coincides with the maximum of the stator flux, therefore
ψds = 1 pu and ψqs = 0. Substituting in equation (A.6), the following equation can be obtained:

Lm
iqs = − i (A.16)
Lss qr

Equation (A.15) can now be simplified and converted to s domain as:

 L2m  ω s Rr ω
s 1 −  iqr = − iqr + s × vqr (A.17)
 Lss Lrr  Lrr Lrr

 L2m 
Defining : L0 =  Lrr − 
 Lss 

1 1
iqr = × v (A.18)
Rr 1 + sT1  qr

where
L0
T1 =
ω s Rr
W IND E NGINEERING VOLUME 32, N O . 6, 2008 585

Substituting ψds = 1 pu and ψqs = 0 in equation (A9) and then using equation (A.16), the
following equation can be obtained for the electromagnetic torque:

Lm
Te = iqs = − i (A.19)
Lss qr

APPENDIX B
2 MW induction wind turbine model parameters:
Stator resistance (Rs): 0.00491 pu,
Stator reactance (Xls): 0.09273 pu,
Magnetising reactance (Xm): 3.96545 pu,
Rotor resistance (Rr): 0.00552 pu
Rotor reactance (Xlr): 0.1 pu
Lumped inertia constant (H): 4.5 s

Control model parameters:

kp = 0.5 and k1 = 0.5

Blocks used in the GB System model shown in Figure 7 [18]:

Equivalent droop of the GB system = 11

Governor =
1
0.2s + 1
 2s + 1   1 
Turbine =   
 12s + 1   0.3s + 1 

REFERENCES
1. Strbac, G., Shakoor, A., Black, M., Pudjianto, D., Boppc, T., “Impact of wind generation on
the operation and development of the UK electricity systems”, Electric Power Systems
Research Vol. 77, 2007, pp. 1214-1227.
2. Pearmine, R., Song, Y.H., Chebbo, A., “Influence of wind turbine behaviour on the
primary frequency control”, IET Renewable Power Generation, 2007, Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp.
142-150.
3. Growth scenarios for UK renewables generation and implications for future
developments and operation of electricity networks, SKM - BERR Publication URN
08/1021, June 2008.
Access on 24/08/08: http://renewableconsultation.berr.gov.uk/related_documents.
4. GB Security and Quality of Supply Standard, Version 1.0, September 22, 2004; Access on
29/08/2008:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/DocLibrary/
5. Real time operational data of the National Grid Company PLC.
Access on 24/08/08: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/
6. Erinmez, I.A., Bickers, D.O., Wood, G.F., Hung, W.W., “NGC Experience with frequency
control in England and Wales - Provision of frequency response by generator”, IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, 31 January - 4 February 1999, New York, USA.
7. Ekanayake, J.B., Holdsworth, L., Jenkins, N., “Control of doubly fed induction generator
(DFIG) wind turbine”, IEE Power Engineering, Vol. 17, Issue 1, February 2003, pp. 28 - 32.
 586 F REQUENCY R ESPONSE F ROM W IND T URBINES

8. Ramtharan, G.; Ekanayake, J.B.; Jenkins, N., “Frequency support from doubly fed
induction generator wind turbines”, IET Renewable Power Generation, Vol. 1, Issue 1,
March 2007, pp. 3-9.
9. Ekanayake, J.; Jenkins, N., “Comparison of the response of doubly fed and fixed-speed
induction generator wind turbines to changes in network frequency”, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, Volume 19, Issue 4, Dec. 2004 Page(s):800 - 802.
10. Morren, J., De Haan, S.W.H., Kling, W.L. and Ferreira, J.A., “Wind Turbines Emulating
Inertia and Supporting Primary Frequency Control”, IEEE Transactions On Power
Systems, Vol. 21, No. 1, February 2006, pp 433-434.
11. Ramtharan, G., Jenkins, N., Anaya-Lara, O., “Modelling and Control of Synchronous
Generators for Wide-range Variable-speed Wind Turbines”, Wind Energy, Vol. 10, 2007,
pp. 231-246
12. De Almeida, R.G. and Peças Lopes, J.A. , “Participation of Doubly Fed Induction Wind
Generators in System Frequency Regulation, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Vol. 22, Issue 3, Aug. 2007, pp. 944-950.
13. Slootweg, J.G., Polinder, H., Kling, W.L., “Dynamic modelling of a wind turbine with
doubly fed induction generator”, IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting,
15th - 19th July 2001, Vancouver, Canada.
14. Muller, S., Deicke, M., de Doncker, R.W., ‘Doubly fed induction generator systems for
wind turbines’, IEEE Industry Applications magazine, May/June 2002, pp. 26-33.
15. Holdsworth, L., Wu, X.G., Ekanayake, J.B., Jenkins, N., “Comparison of Fixed Speed and
Doubly Fed Induction Wind Turbines during Power System Disturbance.” IEE Proc,
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 150, No 3, 13 May 2003, pp. 343-52.
16. Ramtharan, G., Jenkins, N., Anaya-Lara, O., “Modelling and Control of Synchronous
Generators for Wide-range Variable-speed Wind Turbines”, Wind Energy, Vol. 10, 2007,
pp. 231-246
17. Akhmatov, V., Nielsen, A. H., Pedersen, J. K, Nymann, O.: “Variable-speed wind turbines
with multi-pole synchronous permanent magnet generators. Part 1: Modelling in
dynamic simulation tools”, Wind Engineering, Vol. 27, 2003, pp. 531-548.
18. Kundur, P., “Power System Stability and Control”, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional,
1994.
19. Bopp, T.A., “Technical and commercial integration of distributed and renewable energy
sources into existing electricity networks”, PhD Thesis, The University of Manchester,
2006.

View publication stats