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

net/publication/360507577

Blackstart Capability and Survivability of Wind Turbines With Fully Rated

Converters

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · December 2022

DOI: 10.1109/TEC.2022.3173903

CITATIONS READS
2 23

2 authors, including:

Hugo N. Villegas Pico

Iowa State University
15 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hugo N. Villegas Pico on 12 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Blackstart Capability and Survivability of Wind
Turbines with Fully Rated Converters
Hugo N. Villegas Pico, Member, IEEE and Vahan Gevorgian, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—The blackstart capability of wind turbines is critical
for the recovery of wind-dominant power systems from blackouts.
If wind power plants are not able to restore a power system,
the incorporation of wind resources into electric grids could
be limited by blackstart capability. This paper tackles this
problem by setting forth a grid-forming controller for Type 4
wind turbines, which employ fully rated power converters. To
this end, we engineer two-axis anti-windup proportional-integral
regulators that serve to ride through restoration disturbances. We
also design an active protection system to prevent wind turbines
from stalling during recovery from blackouts. We demonstrate in
a high-fidelity simulation environment that Type 4 wind turbines
with the developed controllers and protection subsystem can:
(i) re-energize a notional wind-dominant grid; (ii) ride through
asymmetrical faults; and (iii) survive low-wind-speed events.
Index Terms—Power system restoration, wind energy integra-
tion, wind power generation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE number of power plants with blackstart capability
has been decreasing over time in the United States [1, p.
13]. The reasons are [1]–[3]: (i) the retirement of conventional
generation assets with this capability and (ii) the significant
penetration of renewable energy resources. Blackstart is the
ability of a power plant to self energize to restore a power
system from a blackout [4], [5]; hence, this ability is critical
for the resilience of electric grids to electric blackouts [6]–[8].
Today’s blackstart capability in the United States resides in
conventional power plants, which have synchronous machines
driven by hydro or gas turbines [2], [3]. These resources are
attractive for restoration because they have firm energy supply
and can withstand restoration transients [2], [9]; however, the
reliance on conventional generation for blackstart contrasts the
massive penetration of converter-based assets, which do not
have this capability [3, p. 8]. In the State of Iowa, for example,
its 11,160-MW wind turbine fleet produced 58% of the energy
that was consumed by the state in 2020 [10].
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of En-
ergy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Award Number
DE-SC0021410 to Iowa State University. This work was also authored in part
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), operated by Alliance
for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. The views expressed in the article do
not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government.
The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for
publication, acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive,
paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes.
H. N. Villegas Pico is with Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011,
USA (e-mail: hvillega@iastate.edu). V. Gevorgian is with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80011, USA (e-mail: va-
han.gevorgian@nrel.gov).
1
Typically, blackouts are the result of [3]: (i) transformer
damage, (ii) criminal attacks, (iii) tree growth, (iv) electric
faults, (v) severe weather, and (vi) cyberattacks, to name a few.
For instance, the devastating August 2020 Midwest derecho
caused a widespread blackout in the State of Iowa [11].
Additionally, unprecedented low temperatures caused rolling
blackouts in Texas [12]. Notably, South Australia and the
United Kingdom, which have substantial penetrations of wind
turbines, have also faced deleterious blackouts [13], [14].
At present, converter-based generation (e.g., solar photo-
voltaic and wind resources) does not participate in the restora-
tion of power grids in the United States [1, p. 12]. In particular,
renewable generation resources depend on conventional power
plants to operate. The hope to purpose renewable assets for
restoration resides on grid-forming controls [15]–[23]; hence,
achieving ultrahigh penetrations of converter-based resources
could be possible [24]. Nonetheless, grid-forming technology
is still under scrutiny for bulk power system applications [25].
In the Type 4 wind turbine space, there are patented meth-
ods for blackstart, e.g., [26]–[28]; however, there are several
problems that limit the present blackstart and grid-forming
approaches for grid restoration [23], [25], [29]. In particular,
there are no control strategies that can do all the following:
(i) successfully re-energize transmission lines and cold start
motor loads; (ii) sustain the energization of unbalanced loads
and nonlinear loads; (iii) reliably ride through symmetrical
and asymmetrical faults; (iv) maintain synchronism among
turbines within a wind power plant during severe transients;
and (v) survive low-wind-speed scenarios to prevent a second
blackout. Remarkably, an ambitious research roadmap has
been proposed to tackle a subset of these problems [29].
To materialize the reliable blackstart capability of Type 4
turbines, we report the following contributions: (i) Two-axis or
bivariate anti-windup proportional-integral (PI) regulators for
control signals that are bounded in a circle, q.v. Section III-B.
These regulators along with the controls in [30] are used to
leverage a grid-forming strategy that can ride through restora-
tion transients and asymmetrical faults, q.v. Section IV-C. The
proposed anti-windup approach advances available one-axis
or univariate anti-windup PI regulators found in [31, p. 91]
and [32, p. 358], which bound control signals in intervals.
The grid-forming strategy also incorporates volts-per-hertz
protection to prevent electric devices from over-fluxing if low-
frequency events occur, q.v. Section IV-D. (ii) A frequency
controller for power plants with grid-forming wind turbines,
q.v. Section IV-B. A frequency control loop is necessary
because we leverage the classical speed-droop strategy [15]
for grid-forming operation; hence, frequency can drop when
 2

restoring the demand. (iii) An upstream wind speed estimator TABLE I

to determine the available aerodynamic power to prevent wind D ESCRIPTION OF P HYSICAL VARIABLES
turbine stalling, q.v. Section V-A. The estimator resorts to Variables Description
information of electromagnetic torque, turbine angular speed, ias , ibs , ics three-phase PMSG stator currents
turbine blade pitch angle, and a wind turbine model. And iaf , ibf , icf three-phase GSC inductor filter currents
iag , ibg , icg three-phase grid or transformer currents
(iv) an active protection system that prevents wind turbines vabf , vcbf line-to-line ac capacitor filter voltages
from stalling, q.v. Section V-B. A wind turbine can decelerate vabS , vcbS line-to-line PCC or cable sending-end voltages
and stall if grid-forming converters transfer more electric vabR , vcbR line-to-line cable receiving-end voltages
PM active power withdrawn by the motor load
power than the available aerodynamic one. The protection PZ active power withdrawn by the unbalanced load
interfaces with an innovative version of the classical speed- PE active power withdrawn by the electronic load
droop strategy [15], q.v. Section IV-A. Pe , Q e wind turbine active and reactive power
vdc dc-link capacitor voltage
These contributions are demonstrated in a high-fidelity sim- Lf , rf , Cf ac filter inductance, resistance, capacitance
ulation environment, viz., PLECS [33]. This paper is signifi- ω m , θm PMSG angular speed and rotor position
Tm , Te PMSG mechanical and electromagnetic torques
cant to address the third grand challenge in the science of wind β, vw blade pitch angle and upstream wind speed
energy [34] and to engineer reliable wind-dominant grids that Tw , ωw aerodynamic torque and wind turbine speed
are resilient to blackouts [8]. It is also instrumental to satisfy G turbine gearbox ratio
Jm , Jw PMSG and wind turbine inertia constants
the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) TG IGBT junction temperature
standards for recovery from blackouts [4] and reliability to
faults [35]. It also serves to satisfy the recent standard IEEE
TABLE II
2800 for the interconnection and interoperability of inverter- D ESCRIPTION OF C ONTROL S ET P OINTS
based resources [36].
Symbol Description
The remaining exposition is organized as follows. Section II ⋆
ωm PMSG angular speed set point
explains challenges in restoration when using wind turbines. ⋆
vdc dc-link capacitor voltage set point
Section III engineers a two-axis anti-windup PI regulator Pe⋆ turbine active power set point
to bound signals within a circle for Type 4 subsystems. ωe⋆ cycling frequency set point for vabf and vcbf
Vf⋆ rms magnitude set point for vabf and vcbf
Section IV hosts implementation details of the grid-forming β⋆ blade pitch angle set point
and frequency controllers for blackstart and restoration pur- fe⋆ PCC frequency set point
⋆ , v⋆ , v⋆
vas three-phase MSC voltage set points
poses. Section V elucidates the attributes of the wind speed bs cs
⋆ , v⋆ , v⋆
vag cg three-phase GSC voltage set points
estimation and anti-stalling protection subsystems. Section VI bg
Pe anti-stalling protection set point
presents an illustrative case study to cement our contributions. Tbe estimated PMSG electromagnetic torque
Section VII concludes.

II. B LACKSTART AND R ESTORATION
The topology of a Type 4 turbine in Fig. 1, which uses a per-
manent magnet synchronous generator (PMSG), is explained
in [37], [38]. Power is transferred from the turbine to the
grid via a step-up transformer (XFMR). The variables and set
points appearing in Figs. 1–3 are defined in Tables I and II. A
problem of typical wind turbine controls is that they resort to
phase-locked loops (PLLs) [37], [38] which cannot function
during a blackout [29]. For typical wind turbines to operate,
electric grids have to be energized first by gas or hydro-
turbines [2], [3]; hence, the wind-dominant grid in Fig. 2
cannot be restored using typical controls [37], [38].
In typical control of Type 4 turbines [37], [38], the machine-
side converter (MSC) is used for maximum aerodynamic
power extraction, whereas the grid-side converter (GSC) is
used for dc-link voltage regulation. The blade pitch angle, β,
is used to limit the amount of captured aerodynamic power. A
braking resistor is typically required to ride through faults [38].
⋆ ⋆
The MSC and GSC, respectively, synthesize vabcs and vabcg
using extended sine-triangle modulation (ESTM) [39].
In grid-forming operation for blackstart, the MSC serves for
dc-link voltage regulation and the GSC for ac voltage control
to restore the grid. Here, the classical PLL is substituted
with a speed-droop strategy to synthesize a local synchronous
reference frame for GSC control [15]. A dc-link breaking
resistor [38] is not necessary to ride through faults because
the MSC actively steers the power transferred from the PMSG
to the dc-link. Notably, the blade pitch angle, β, is used to
regulate the PSMG speed; hence, it plays a central role.
A. Blackstart of Type 4 Wind Turbines
A blackstart resource must [4], [40]: (i) start up without
grid support, (ii) energize grid’s assets, and (iii) meet the
transmission operators’s restoration needs, e.g., frequency and
voltage control. The leveraged grid-forming controller for the
restoration of wind-dominant grids using Type 4 turbines is
conceptualized in Fig. 3. We explain the blackstart process
of the Type 4 wind turbine in Fig. 1 using the MSC, GSC,
and turbine speed controllers in Fig. 3. Their implementation
details are reported in Sections IV and V. Consider that: (i)
the turbine is in standstill, (ii) the MSC and GSC controllers
are turned off, (iii) the electrical system is de-energized, and
(iv) the turbine is electrically isolated. The turbines are isolated
when the circuit breakers C1, C2, and C3 in Fig. 2 are open.
⋆
To blackstart, the speed controller in Fig. 3 drives ωm to ωm
⋆
by generating β to drive β using a servo-system; the rotor
brake must be disengaged [37]. The power to energize the
speed control functionalities is from a battery bank; its power
capacity may range from 0.5% to 2% of the turbine rating [3].
Energy to preheat the gearbox oil could be needed in cold
 3

TG iaf iag 1 : N iaS

MSC idcs idcg GSC vaS
ias Lf , r f
PMSG Cf
M1 M3 M5 G1 G3 G5 vabf
+
S ibs ibf ibg ibS
Tm Jm vdc C vbS
β ωm N Lf , r f
ics − Cf
G M2 M4 M6 G2 G4 G6 vcbf
Jw icf icg icS
Tw M1–M6 G1–G6 vcS
vw
ωw Lf , r f
vdc vdc Cf
β Pe
β⋆ ⋆ ⋆ Qe
vabcs vabcg
β XFMR
ESTM ESTM
⋆
Fig. 1. Type 4 wind energy conversion subsystem. The seven control inputs, vabcs ⋆
, vabcg , β ⋆ , are driven by the controller in Fig. 3. A wye-wye transformer
is considered to not use a grounding transformer; transformer zero-sequence components are not problematic for turbine control.

frequency controller fe⋆ quency, we use an innovative version of the classical droop
172 Ω 20 mH unbalanced
Pe⋆ a load
control law [15] as interacting with the anti-stalling protec-
⊗ ⊗ ⊗
43 Ω 20 mH
tion in Section V-B. Anti-stalling protection is considered to
vw,1 vw,2 vw,3 line-to-line
fault inform the GSC controller about aerodynamic power limita-
b
PZ
WT1 WT2 WT3
43 Ω 20 mH
c
E tions, which is done using P e in Fig. 3; details are given
c
b
a
in Sections IV-A and V-B. For fault ride-through capability,
Pe,1 Pe,2 Pe,3 motor loads
///

///

///

we engineer in Section III-B two-axis anti-windup PI regula-

T1 T2 T3 M1 M2
iabcF tors that are integrated into the voltage control strategy for
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 PM C6 C7 current-regulated converters [30]. Turbine overspeed is not
vabR
vabS vcbR an issue during faults because β is accordingly positioned to
vcbS 13.2 kV 20 km 13.2 kV
PCC C8 PE regulate the rotor speed of the PMSG. After building up the
C9 C10 90 mH dc and ac voltages of several wind turbines in a power plant,
they can restore a power grid.
476 Ω

C11 C12
open circuit breaker
electronic load
closed circuit breaker
B. Restoration of Wind-Dominant Grids
Fig. 2. One-line diagram of a notional wind-dominant grid with three Type
4 blackstart wind turbines, transformers, transmission cables, and loads. NERC standards EOP-005-3 and EOP-006-3 ensure plans,
⋆ facilities, and personnel for grid restoration from blackstart
vdc ⋆
Pe⋆ Vf ωc⋆ resources [4], [5]. To satisfy these codes, grid operators
ias , ibs must specify the resources and the energization plan for
⋆ iaf , ibf
vabcs
iag , ibg
restoration [1]. The objective is to energize cranking paths or
vdc
MSC GSC ⋆ transmission corridors to power auxiliary systems of next-start
controller vabf , vcbf vabcg
θm controller generation stations and consumer loads [1], [4]; this involves
Tbe vdc
ωm
Pe
closing a set of circuit breakers in an established sequence.
Next-start generating units, which are non-blackstart assets, are
critical to strengthen the generation capacity of the grid. For
ωm anti-stalling vabS
Pe the reliability of a restoration process, power companies assess
protection & vcbS power plant
Tbe turbine speed frequency Pe⋆ the ability of blackstart resources to ride through faults [1, p.
β⋆
⋆
ωm controller fe⋆ controller 30]; hence, NERC standard PRC-024-3 applies [35]. A real
restoration sequence is reported in [13, p. 183].
Fig. 3. Block diagram of grid-forming regulators and frequency controller. In this paper, we illustrate the restoration of the notional
wind-dominant grid in Fig. 2 by commanding twelve circuit
breakers, viz., C1–C12. Technicalities about the selection
climates. When the turbine spins, vdc in Fig. 1 naturally builds of the restoration sequence are outside the scope of this
up because: (i) the rotating magnets of the PMSG induce ac paper. The wind power plant in Fig. 2 has three Type 4
voltages and (ii) the freewheeling diodes of the MSC operate turbines as shown in Fig. 1, which are driven by controllers
as a three-phase rectifier, q.v. Fig. 1. Then, the MSC controller as displayed in Fig. 3. In Fig. 2, a transmission corridor is
⋆
of Fig. 3 is turned on to drive vdc toward vdc with the control represented by two 20-km cables. The auxiliary systems of
⋆ ⋆
signal vabcs . Once vdc at vdc , the GSC controller in Fig. 3 is a next-start unit are modeled with two direct-drive motor
turned on to autonomously regulate ac voltages vabf and vcbf loads. The unbalanced and power electronic loads in Fig. 2
⋆
via vabcg so that their root-mean-square (rms) magnitude and can be representative of consumer loads. The power plant
cycling frequency are Vf⋆ and ωc⋆ , respectively. frequency controller in Figs. 2 and 3 serves to maintain the
For autonomous regulation of the ac voltage cycling fre- grid frequency, fe , at the rated value, fe⋆ ; fe is observed at the

point of common coupling (PCC). This controller generates a
common command, Pe⋆ , that is passed to the GSC controller
of each wind turbine, q.v. Figs. 2 and 3.
The sequential restoration actions for Fig. 2 are:
1) independently blackstart the three wind turbines
2) synchronize the wind turbines by closing C1–C3
3) energize one transmission cable by closing C9
4) energize the distribution substation by closing C10
5) power the motor loads by closing C4 and C5
6) insert the other cable by closing C11 and C12
7) power the other loads by closing C6 and C8
8) attempt to energize a faulted feeder by closing C7 .
These simple restoration actions challenge the wind turbines
to [1]: (i) Withstand the energization of transmission branches,
which are of capacitive nature and can cause over-voltages.
(ii) Supply inrush currents to energize direct-drive motor
loads, which challenge voltage and frequency regulation. (iii)
Energize unbalanced loads, which cause unbalanced voltages
and currents at the terminals of the wind turbines. (iv) Energize
power electronic loads, which introduce nonlinear distortions
in voltage and current waveforms. And (v) ride through severe
disturbances when switching onto faults, which are typically
of asymmetrical nature.
Switching onto faults during restoration, q.v. Fig. 2, can
occur, for example, when a downed tree is short circuiting
a distribution feeder [11]. We monitor the insulated-gate
bipolar transistor (IGBT) junction temperature, TG , of the GSC
in Fig. 1 to ascertain semiconductor damage during faults.
During restoration, it might be the case that the wind speed
suddenly drops as being variable, q.v. vw in Fig. 1. If wind
turbines are not be able to supply the demand, they can
stall and can cause a second blackout. Hence, an anti-stalling
protection control system is critical to survive low-wind-speed
events which is proposed in Section V. Gas and hydro turbines
easily face these challenges because they are robust to severe
transients and their energy supply is not variable [2], [9].
C. Reference Frame Transformations
Within the MSC and GSC controllers of Fig. 3, the abc
variables in Fig. 1 are transformed into qd quantities and vice
versa. In this paper, we consider [39, p. 112]:
 
2 cos(θν − π/6) sin(θν )
Ki (θν ) = √ (1)
3 sin(θν − π/6) − cos(θν )
to transform the line currents, iax and ibx , into qd variables:
d ν ν ⊤ 1

[iqx , idx ] = −[iνqx , iνdx ]⊤ + Ki (θν )[iax , ibx ]⊤ .
dt τiν
Here, x ∈ {s, f , g, S} can represent the: stator, ac filter, grid,
and PCC-related quantities, q.v. Fig. 1. The dynamic form
of (2) with time constant τiν is used to filter current ripples.
Similarly, we use the following transformation:
 
2 cos(θν ) cos(θν + 2π/3)
Kv (θν ) =
3 sin(θν ) sin(θν + 2π/3)
to map line-to-line voltages, vabx and vcbx , into qd-axis ones:
d ν ν ⊤ 1 ν ν ⊤
[vqx , vdx ] = −[vqx , vdx ] + Kv (θν )[vabx , vcbx ]⊤ .
dt τvν
4
The indicator ν ∈ {r, c, e} in (2) and (3) serves to, re-
spectively, represent reference frames that are associated with
either the: (i) angular rotor position, θr , for MSC control, (ii)
converter angle, θc , for GSC regulation, and (iii) grid voltage
angle, θe , of vabS and vcbS in Fig. 2 for frequency control.
The three versions of ων and θν are used in Section IV. Any
θν starts at θν (0) = 0 and spins at dθν /dt = ων for t ∈ [0, T ]
with T the simulation time.
⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⊤
In this paper, the set points, vabcχ = [vaχ , vbχ , vcχ ] (χ ∈
{s, g}), to steer the MSC or the GSC in Fig. 1 arise from:
 ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⊤  ⋆ ⋆ ⊤
vaχ , vbχ , vcχ = T ⊤ (θν ) vqχ , vdχ (5)
 
cos(θν ) cos(θν − 2π/3) cos(θν + 2π/3)
T (θν ) = (6)
sin(θν ) sin(θν − 2π/3) sin(θν + 2π/3)
⋆
with vqχ ⋆
and vdχ commands in the MSC and GSC controllers.
To simplify mathematical notation when needed, we define:
ν ν ν ⊤ ν ν ν ⊤
fqdx := [fqx , fdx ] and fdqx := [fdx , −fqx ] (7)
with f ∈ {v, i} representing voltage or current.
For control and assessment purposes, we also define:
q

Fx := ν 2 + (f ν )2 and F̆ := F /F
fqx (8)
dx x x bx
ν
with F ∈ {V , I} the instantaneous magnitude of fqdx and F̆x
the per-unit version of Fx with respect to a given base, Fbx .
III. A NTI -W INDUP PI R EGULATORS
We discuss general one- and two-axis PI regulators with
anti-windup capability, which are extensively used for black-
start control in Sections IV and V. We first explain the series
implementation of a one-axis or univariate anti-windup PI
regulator found in [31, p. 91]. This controller bounds univariate
control effort within an interval and has been used for the
speed regulation of gas turbines [41, p. 3-7]. Univariate anti-
windup regulators are also used in the control of excitation
systems, which involves bounding the excitation voltage within
an interval [32]. Other one-axis implementations use back-
calculation and clamping techniques [31].
For application in the control of power converters, we
expand the one-axis anti-windup series implementation in [31]
to a two-axis class that bounds bivariate PI integrator states
and control commands in a circle. The features of the devel-
oped two-axis PI regulator are: (i) it is relatively simple to
implement, (ii) it seamlessly integrates into well-known two-
axis controls for power converters [30], and (iii) it can accept
feedforward terms that are used to mitigate disturbances for the
control of electric devices. Existing univariate or one-axis anti-
(2) windup implementations do not consider feedforward terms
and cannot bound control signals in a circle [31], [32].
A. One-Axis Anti-Windup PI Regulator
Figure 4 illustrates a one-axis anti-windup PI controller
steering a process with one control input, u⋆ , and one output,
(3)
w. The controller of Fig. 4 is defined by [31, p. 91]:
u∗ = kpi (w⋆ − w) + z , u⋆ = L (u∗ , umn , umx ) (9)


d 1
z= (−z + u⋆ ) , z(0) ∈ [umn , umx ] (10)
(4) dt τpi
 5

w⋆ + e + u∗ u⋆ dynamic w over-approx. ud
kpi L (·, umn , umx )
− + process u∗qda
R 1 + Q
z τpi
u∗qdb u⋆qda
PI −
control u⋆qdb
Fig. 4. Direct-acting PI controller with anti-windup that steers a dynamic ∂U uq
process with one input, u⋆ ∈ R, and one output, w ∈ R.
Umx U
u†qd PI
⋆ ∗ control Fig. 6. Working principle of C . The set U is the gray circle, and its boundary,
wqd + eqd + + uqd u⋆qd wqd
kpi
qd dyn. ∂U , is the circumference. A full circle is not shown to economize space. The
C (·, Umx )
− + process square Q is the space bounded by two independent anti-windup regulators.
+
u†qd −
R 1 + not been devised in the literature and should not be confused
zqd τpi ⋆ C (·, Umx )
− zqd with the available univariate or one-axis anti-windup types that
bound signals in intervals [31], [32].
Fig. 5. Direct-acting two-axis anti-windup PI regulator steering an abstract The general form of the proposed two-axis anti-windup PI
qd dynamic process with two inputs, u⋆qd ∈ R2 , and two outputs, wqd ∈ R2 . controller is depicted in Fig. 5, which: (i) drives a qd process
with qd inputs, u⋆qd ∈ R2 , and qd outputs, wqd ∈ R2 ; (ii)
considers that the admissible inputs u⋆qd ∈ R2 belong to an
In Fig. 4, w⋆ , w, e = w⋆ −w ∈ R are, respectively, the process origin-centered circle that has radius Umx ; and (iii) accounts
set point, the controlled output, and the control error. In a for the feedforward inputs, u†qd ∈ R2 , which are classically
reverse-acting PI controller, e = w − w⋆ , which is also used used for disturbance rejection [39, Ch. 12–14]. We emphasize
in this paper. The parameters kpi > 0 and τpi > 0 are the that feedforward inputs are not considered in typical univariate
proportional gain and integration time constant, respectively. anti-windup strategies [31], [32], [41], q.v. Fig. 4.
The integrator state z in (10) does not wind up because in (9) Specifically, the PI regulator in Fig. 5 is defined with:
u⋆ ∈ [umn , umx ] ⊂ R (umn < umx ) saturates u∗ via the
saturation function L : R × P × P 7→ [umn , umx ]: ⋆
u∗qd = kpi (wqd − wqd ) + zqd + u†qd (12)

 u⋆qd = C (u∗qd , Umx ) (13)
umx if u > umx
L (u, umn , umx ) = umn if u < umn (11) d 1 ⋆


 zqd = −zqd + zqd (14)
 dt τpi
u otherwise .
⋆
zqd = C (u⋆qd − u†qd , Umx ) (15)
We note here that L serves to bound signals in an interval.
Here, we introduced the saturation function C : R2 × P 7→ U:
B. Two-Axis Anti-Windup PI Regulator (
Umx ∗
GSC and MSC voltage and current commands in a two-axis ∗
C (uqd , Umx ) = U uqd if U > Umx 6= 0
(16)
or qd-coordinate system are required to remain bounded in a u∗qd otherwise
q
circle to not violate their ratings [36]. At present, two one-axis U = u∗2 ∗2
q + ud (17)
anti-windup PI regulators are typically used to, respectively,
bound q- and d-axis commands in two similar intervals [42, to bound u∗qd of (12) in a circle U ⊂ R2 . In (15), u†qd is
Fig. 3]. However, this approach bounds qd commands in a subtracted to not impact integration in (14) when saturation
square, Q ⊂ R2 , in lieu of a circle, U ⊂ R2 , q.v. Fig. 6. does not occur.
Another approach to saturate two-axis commands in wind In Fig. 6, we show a circle, U ⊂ R2 ; its radius; Umx > 0;
turbine controls is based on active- or reactive-current prefer- and its boundary, ∂U. We also show the principle of C in (16).
ences [43], which is also part of the IEEE P2800 standard [36, In Fig. 6, u∗qdy , u⋆qdy ∈ R2 with y ∈ {a, b} are qd points. If
p. 12–21]. Although this strategy guarantees that qd commands / U, u⋆qda = C (u∗qda , Umx ) is at the intersection between
u∗qda ∈
will remain bounded in a circle, it is impractical for grid- ∂U and a line joining the origin with u∗qda . If u∗qdb ∈ U,
forming applications: active and reactive currents are not pref- then u⋆qdb = u∗qdb . If two independent one-axis anti-windup PI
erences by the GSCs but by the energized loads. Preferences regulators had been used [32], [42], u∗qda in Fig. 6 would have
are valid for turbines connected to stiff grids [37], [38], [43] not been restricted as in Q. However, that can violate current
To address the aforementioned problems, we engineer or voltage magnitude ratings modeled by U [36, p. 12–21].
a two-axis anti-windup PI controller that can bound the We note that (12)–(17) yield the typical textbook qd PI
PI integrator states and the control commands in a circle. regulators [37], [38], but the reverse is not true.
In Theorem 1 of this subsection, we rigorously prove that the Lemma 1: Consider u∗qd ∈ U and u⋆qd −u†qd ∈ U; hence (13)–
qd integrator states of the devised two-axis PI regulator will (17) yield the typical two-axis PI regulators [37], [38]:
not wind up. These controllers are applied in Section IV for
MSC and GSC grid-forming control to ride through severe ⋆
u∗qd = kpi (wqd − wqd ) + zqd + u†qd (18)
restoration disturbances. A class of two-axis or bivariate anti- d kpi ⋆
windup PI regulators that bound control signals in a circle have zqd = (w − wqd ) . (19)
dt τpi qd
 6

Proof: Because u∗qd ∈ U and u⋆qd − u†qd ∈ U, u∗qd = u⋆qd The reference frame speed, ωc in (24), for GSC control is:
⋆ ⋆
in (13). This implies that zqd = kpi (wqd − wqd ) + zqd in (15), ωb
which substituted in (14) leads to (19). ωc = ωc∗ + kω (Pe∗ − Pee ) − ωa ωb (25)
Pe,mx
Notably, the definition of C in (16) for the saturation of
the qd variables does not impact the directionality of u∗qd . If where ωa innovates the classical speed droop control law [15].
the directionality of u∗qd changes, that can severely impact the Notably, ωa prevents the GSC from injecting electric power
synchronism of abc variables that are controlled during faults, into the grid that is greater than the available aerodynamic
for example, see (5). In Theorem 2 within Section IV-C, we power, q.v. Section V. In (25), kω is a droop constant, ωb is
prove that C in (16) does not impact synchronism. Indeed, the speed base, and Pe,mx is the turbine rated electric power.
C in (16) does not allow the integrator states, zqd , in (14) to The innovation term, ωa , in (25) satisfies:
(
wind up when u∗qd saturates and is proved next. d 0 if P e ≥ Pee and ωa ≤ 0
⋆ 2Ha ωa = Pee −P e (26)
Theorem 1: Let zqd (0) ∈ U (U of Fig. 6) and zqd (τ ) ∈ U
dt Pe,mx otherwise
with τ ∈ [0, t] satisfying (14). The state zqd (t) ∈ U for all
t ∈ (0, T ], i.e., the qd integrator states do not wind up. with Ha a virtual inertia constant. Here, P e is from (62)—
Proof: From reachability analysis [44]. Consider a reach- the anti-stalling protection—to inform the maximum electric
able set Z(t) that contains all zqd (t) as a result of all possible power the GSC can transfer, which is a novelty of this paper.
⋆
zqd (0) ∈ U and zqd (τ ) ∈ U with τ ∈ [0, t]. Because (14) is In (25) and (26), Pee is a filtered version of the electric power,
linear and U is convex, Z(t) is also convex, q.v. Lemma 1 Pe , in Fig. 1, which is obtained with:
in [44]; hence, a boundary point ζqd (t) ∈ ∂Z(t) satisfies:
d e 1  e  3 c c c c


λ⊤ ζqd (t) = max λ⊤ zqd (t) . (20) Pe = −Pe + Pe with Pe = vqf iqg + vdf idg .
⋆ ([0,t])∈U
zqd (0), zqd
dt τe 2
(27)
⊤
Here, λ = [cos(α), sin(α)] with α ∈ [0, 2π) is the normal Recall from Fig. 1 and Section II-C that [icqg , icdg ]⊤ is from (2)
vector of an arbitrary supporting hyperplane of Z(t) and: c
and [vqf c ⊤
, vdf ] is from (4). The set points in (25) satisfy:
Z
e−t/τpi t τ /τpi ⋆ d ∗ 1
zqd (t) = e−t/τpi zqd (0) + e zqd (τ ) dτ (21) ω = (−ωc∗ + ωc⋆ ) (28)
τpi 0 dt c τr
is a general solution to (14). From (20) and (21): d ∗ 1

P = −Pe∗ + min{P e , Pe⋆ } (29)
Z t dt e τr
⊤
|λ ζqd (t)| ≤ e −t/τpi
Umx + e −t/τpi
eτ /τpi Umx dτ (22) which are filtered versions of externally generated commands,
0
e.g., ωc⋆ = 120π rad/s and Pe⋆ is from a frequency control
= e−t/τpi Umx + (1 − e −t/τpi
)Umx = Umx (23)
loop as depicted in Figs. 2–3.
⋆
because |λ⊤ zqd (0)| ≤ Umx and |λ⊤ zqd (τ )| ≤ Umx . Equa- The control strategy in (26) is inspired from the dynamic
tion (23) implies that ζqd (t) ∈ U; hence, zqd (t) ∈ U ∀t. behavior of classical synchronous generating sets. When over-
Theorem 1 confirms the two-axis anti-windup capability loaded, for example, the speed of both a gas turbine and its
of (12)–(17) while bounding signals in a circle of radius Umx . generator naturally declines because they share a common
shaft [9]. On the other hand, if the GSC transfers more
IV. G RID -F ORMING S TRATEGY electric power that the available aerodynamic one, the wind
turbine will begin decelerating until stalling, q.v. Section V-B.
We define a grid-forming control strategy for the MSC However, the GSC will not be sensitive to this without ωa
and GSC in Fig. 1 and a frequency controller for the wind in (25) because the GSC and the turbine do not share a shaft.
power plant in Fig. 2. The novelty is that we leverage the two- The operational principle of (26) is explained as follows.
axis anti-windup PI regulator from Section III to materialize If P e < Pee , ωa of (26) would increase. Hence, ωc of (25)
a grid-forming strategy to ride through severe disturbances. would decrease, which, in turn, would reduce Pe in (27). This
We consider volts-per-hertz protection in voltage regulation to is analogous to regulating the generated power via the speed
not damage electric devices during low-frequency excursions. governor in conventional generators [32, Ch. 9].
We also innovate the classical droop control law [15] by
coupling it with the active anti-stalling protection in Section V
to survive low-wind-speed events. B. Wind Power Plant Frequency Controller
During restoration, ωc in (25) droops as Pe of (27) in-
A. GSC Reference Frame creases to satisfy the demand that has been energized. To
maintain ωc of several wind turbines at rated, it is necessary
The angle of the GSC reference frame, θc , to generate, ac
to add a frequency or secondary speed-control loop, as shown
voltage waveforms is digitally synthesized and satisfies:
( in Figs. 2–3. This controller is a highlight in this paper because
d θc (t) if 0 ≤ θc (t) < 2π it enables frequency regulation by power plants with several
+
θc = ωc with θc (t ) = (24) grid-forming wind turbines during restoration. If using a large
dt 0 if θc (t) = 2π
blackstart gas turbine, its governor is set in isochronous mode
to prevent numerical overflow in a digital controller. (i.e., without droop); hence, frequency is almost constant [9].
 7

Specifically, control to maintain the frequency, fe , at fe⋆ , The commands i⋆qdf in (36) are from the two-axis anti-
e.g., fe⋆ = 60 Hz, is achieved with the following PI controller: windup PI voltage controller:
Pe∗ = kpie (fe⋆ − fe ) + ze (30) i⋆qdf = C (i∗qdf , Imx ) (39)
Pe⋆ = L (Pe∗ , 0, Pe,mx ) (31) i∗qdf = ∗
kpif (vqdf
− vqdf ) + zqdf + i†qdf (40)
d 1 d 1

ze = (−ze + Pe⋆ ) . (32) zqdf = ⋆
−zqdf + zqdf (41)
dt τpie dt τpif
The command, Pe⋆ , is broadcast to (29) of each GSC within a i†qdf = 3Cf ωb vdqf
c
+ icqdg (42)
Type 4 wind power plant, q.v. Fig. 2. Although Pe⋆ is common, ⋆
zqdf = C (i⋆qdf − i†qdf , Imx ) (43)
each wind turbine limits this command in (29) using P e
from (62). The one-axis anti-windup controller in (30)–(32) which derive from Section III-B; hence, innovate [30]. These
c
is used to not violate the rating Pe,mx ; L is in (11). are used to regulate the qd-axis capacitor voltages, vqdf ,
The frequency, fe , in (30) is estimated with: calculated from vabf and vcbf , q.v. (4) and Fig. 1. This
strategy incorporates the feedforward terms i†qdf in (42). In
d 1  ωe 
fe = −fe + (33) particular, i†qdf mitigates the impacts from the qd capacitor
dt τf 2π c
speed currents, 3Cf ωb vdqf , and qd grid-side currents, icqdg ;
which filters relatively fast transients of: the latter can be relatively high during grid faults. Notably, the
d kpiS voltage controller in (39)–(43) outputs the commands i⋆qdf that
ωe = ωb + kpiS vdS + ze with ze = vdS (34) are bounded in a circle of radius Imx while avoiding integrator
dt τpiS ∗
windup. The set points vqdf for (40) are discussed next.
which implements a classical PLL. The voltage vdS is from:
e ⊤ d D. Volts-Per-Hertz Protection
vqdS = Kv (θe ) [vabS , vcbS ] and θe = ω e (35)
dt A significative reduction of ωc in (25) because of (26) can
where ωe is from (34) and Kv (·) is from (3). In Fig. 2, vabS cause a high volts-per-hertz ratio if the voltage magnitudes
and vcbS are line-to-line voltages of the PCC. remain at rated [45]. Hence, electromechanical and electro-
magnetic machinery in a grid can over-flux and damage [45].
∗
To prevent this, the voltage set points vqdf for the GSC in (40)
C. GSC Current and Voltage Controllers are made dependent on ωc of (25). Volts-per-hertz protection
Our grid-forming strategy serves to autonomously regulate has not been considered in grid-forming controls [15]–[23]; it
line-to-line voltage magnitudes of the ac capacitors in Fig. 1. is common in variable-frequency drives [39, Ch. 12].
∗ ∗ ∗ ⊤
The novelty is that we innovate the voltage control strategy Here, the voltage commands vqdf = [vqf , vdf ] for (40) are:
for current-regulated converters [30] by incorporating the two- p
axis anti-windup PI regulators in Section III-B. This grid-
∗
vqf = 2/3 vω vV Vf⋆ and vdf ∗
=0 (44)
forming controller is instrumental to ride through restoration with Vf⋆ a line-to-line rms voltage set point. The variables:
disturbances without losing synchronism and without violating  
rated GSC current and voltage commands. ωc idg
vω = min 1, kV/Hz and vV = 1 − kV (45)
We first define the current regulator which outputs vqdg ⋆
to ωb Imx
⋆ ⋆
obtain vabcg via (5). In particular, vqdg are from the following are the considered volts/hertz protection in addition to the
two-axis anti-windup PI control loops: classical voltage droop, respectively. In particular, vω serves
to not violate a given per-unit volts-per-hertz limit kV/Hz .
∗
vqdg = kpig (i⋆qdf − icqdf ) + zqdg (36)
√ In (45), ωc is from (25) and ωb is the rated angular frequency.
⋆ ∗
vqdg = C (vqdg , vdc / 3) (37) Typically, ωb = 120π rad/s and kV/Hz = 1.05 p.u. in North
d 1 ⋆ America [45]. On the other hand, the variable, vV , serves to
zqdg = (−zqdg + vqd,c ). (38) prevent interchange of reactive power among GSCs that are
dt τpig
operating in parallel. It depends on a per-unit droop constant,
that were discussed in Section III-B. The currents, icqdf , in (36) kV , and the normalized d-axis current, icdg , [from icqdg in (42)]
are from iaf and ibf in Fig. 1 using (2) with θc from (24). with respect to Imx , which is the GSC rated peak current.
We note that (37) prevents GSC over-modulation without
⋆
impacting synchronism because vqdg belongs to the circle of
√ E. MSC Controller
radius vdc / 3 [39, p. 487]. ⋆ ⋆
∗
Theorem 2: The saturation of vqdg in (36) via (37) does not We calculate vqds to obtain vabcs via (5) for MSC control
impact the synchronism of the GSC terminal voltages. using the following two-axis anti-windup PI controller:
Proof: The definition of C in (16), which is used in (37), ∗
vqds = kpis (i⋆qds − irqds ) + zqds (46)
⋆ ∗
implies that ∃µ ∈ [0, 1] such that vqdg = µvqdg . Consequently, d 1 ⋆
⋆ ⊤ ⋆ ⊤ ∗
vabcg = T (θc )vqdg = µT (θc )vqdg from (5). This shows zqds = (−zqds + vqds ) (47)
dt τpis
the impact on the voltage magnitude, but not on the control ⋆ ∗
√
directionality, hence, synchronism remains intact. vqds = C (vqds , vdc / 3) (48)
 8

which ressemble Fig. 5 without feedforward components. The filters relatively fast transients from ωm in (83) of the Ap-
qd-axis currents, irqds , are calculated using (2) from ias , ibs pendix. The estimated aerodynamic power, Pbw , in (54) is from:
in Fig. 1 and θr of (84) in the Appendix. d b 1
The commands i⋆qs and i⋆ds for (46) are: Pw = (−Pbw + Tbw ω
bw ) (56)

dt τw
i⋆qs = L i∗qs , −Imx , Imx , i⋆ds = 0, (49) which is driven by estimated versions of the turbine torque,
∗
⋆ 2i vdc Tbw , and turbine angular speed, ω bw . They are estimated with:
i∗dcs = κpid (vdc − vdc ) + zdc , i∗qs = − dcs (50)
3λ′m ωr  
1 2 ∗ Gb v3 ω
em
d 1 3i⋆qs λ′m ωr Tbw = ρπRw pw w + kpiw −ω b w + zw (57)
zdc = (−zdc + i⋆dcs ) , i⋆dcs = − (51) 2 ω
em G
dt τpid 2vdc  
d kpiw ω em
where Imx is the rated peak current of the MSC; λ′m and zw = −ωbw (58)
dt τpiw G
ωr appear in the Appendix. The objective of (49)–(51) is to d 1 b
⋆
regulate vdc so that it tracks vdc [39, Ch. 14]. ω
bw = (Tw + GTee − D bwω bw ) (59)
dt b
Jwm
V. A NTI -S TALLING AND OVERSPEED P ROTECTION d e 1  e 
Te = −Te + Tbe . (60)
A common assumption in the grid-forming space is that the dt τe
dc-link voltage that powers the GSC is constant [15]–[22]. The parameter Jbwm is the estimated inertia of the turbine
This implies a turbine can supply rated power at any time and the PMSG rotor. In (60), the estimated electromechanical
which is not true because wind speed is variable. In fact, a torque, Tbe , is calculated within the MSC controller (q.v. Fig. 3)
wind turbine can stall if the GSC transfers more electric power using irqds from Section IV-E and (85) from the Appendix. To
than the available aerodynamic power. This detrimental event the authors’ understanding, the proposed estimator does not
can happen during restoration if wind speed suddenly drops. exist in the literature.
We contribute with an active anti-stalling protection subsystem
which depends on the estimated upstream wind speed. We also
leverage an overspeed protection if wind speed suddenly ramps B. Active Anti-Stalling Protection
up. Here, estimated variables are denoted with hats. The GSC in Fig. 1 shall not transfer electric power that is
greater than the maximum aerodynamic power, i.e.:
A. Upstream Wind Speed Estimator
1 2 ⋆ 3
We frame this problem as a dynamic system whose equi- Pw,mx (b
vw ) = ρπRw pw vbw (61)
2
librium relates to the estimated upstream wind speed. This
nor violate Pe,mx which is the rated electric power. Here, vbw is
is necessary because the upstream wind speed cannot be
from (53) and p⋆w is the optimal power coefficient. If the GSC
measured with an anemometer as done in a nacelle [37]. Here,
transfers more electric power than the available aerodynamic
we estimate the upstream wind speed using information of the
one, a wind turbine will decelerate and stall.
PMSG electromagnetic torque, blade pitch angle, and PMSG
rotor speed, as well as a wind turbine model: To prevent this, the anti-stalling protection limits the power
that is injected into the grid by the GSC with:
1 2 3
Pw = πρRw P(λ, β)vw with λ = (Rw ωw )/vw (52) ωm Ta⋆
2 vw ), Pe,mx } − Pa⋆ with Pa⋆ =
P e = min{ηPw,mx (b
e.g., from a turbine manufacturer. In (52), ρ, Rw , λ, β, ωw , G
(62)
and vw , respectively, are the air density, area-swept radius which is informed to the GSC controller via (26) and (29),
by the turbine, tip-speed ratio, blade pitch angle position, q.v. Fig. 3. The anti-stalling torque, Ta⋆ , in (62) is from:
turbine angular speed, and upstream wind speed. The power
coefficient, P(λ, β), of (52) is defined in the Appendix. Ta∗ = kpia (ωw
⋄
−ω
em /G) + za (63)
Specifically, the estimated wind speed, vbw , satisfies: d 1
  za = (−za + Ta⋆ ) (64)
d 1 dt τpia
vbw = L pw − p∗w ) , −v̇mx , v̇mx
(b (53)
dt τvb Ta⋆ = L (Ta∗ , 0, Ta,mx ) (65)
 
2Pbw ∗ Rw ω em Ta,mx =
G
min{ηPw,mx (b vw ), Pe,mx } (66)
with pbw = 2v 3
and pw = P ,β (54) ωm
ρπRw bw Gbvw
⋄
where v̇mx limits the rate of change of vbw ; L from (11). The where L is defined in (11). The set point, ωw , for (63) is:
chief principle of (53) and (54) is the steering of vbw via p∗w   ⋆ 
d ⋄ 1 ⋄ λ vbw
until pbw = p∗w , which is an equilibrium of (53). In (54), pbw ω = −ωw + L , 0, ωw . (67)
dt w τω R
and p∗w are, respectively, estimated and calculated values of
P(λ, β), which is given in the Appendix. In (67), ωw⋄
follows the optimal speed, λ⋆ vbw /R, that would
In (54), ωem /G is an approximation of the wind turbine lead to harvesting the maximum wind power; λ⋆ is the optimal
angular speed, ωw , in (52) and: tip-speed ratio. This command, of course, is constrained by the
d 1 maximum permissible wind turbine speed, ωw . Recall that vbw
ω
em = (−e
ωm + ωm ) (55) is the estimated wind speed from (53).
dt τe
 9

′
Pw , Pw TABLE III
PARAMETERS OF A 2-MW/0.69- K V T YPE 4 W IND T URBINE
(D)
Pe (A) Par. Val. Unit Par. Val. Unit Par. Val. Unit
Jm 10.58 kg·m2 Dm 0.5 Nm/(rad/s) rs 3.8 mΩ
Pe′ Pw λ′m 0.6 V·s Lq 0.12 mH Ld 0.12 mH
(C) Jw 4.2 Mkg·m2 Kwm 13.9 GNm/rad Dwm 2.84 MNm/(rad/s)
G 113.2 - Rw 55 m Dw 8.1 kNm/(rad/s)
(B) ′
Pw βmn 0 Deg βmx 30 Deg β̇mx 10 Deg/s
ωw τβ 0.2 s ω w 1.62 rad/s P 12 -
⋄′ ω ⋄
ωw ⋆ /G
ωm Cf 0.9 mF Lf 0.152 mH rf 6 mΩ
w
′ (solid) vs. wind
C 64.3 mF
Fig. 7. Wind turbine power curves Pw (dashed) and Pw
turbine speed to illustrate a stalling event. Pe,mx = 2.0 MW, Imx = 3 kA, vdc,mx = 1.7 kV

We explain the operation of the anti-stalling protection

The command β ⋆ serves to position β of (52) via the servo-
using Fig. 7. There, let Pw and Pw′ be wind turbine power ⋆
system modeled in the Appendix so that ωm → ωm . Note that
curves versus turbine angular speed for β = 0 as well as two
′ ′ the controller (68)–(71) uses a one-axis anti-windup PI control
values of wind speed, vw and vw (vw > vw ), respectively. The
′ ⋄ from Section III-A.
maxima of Pw and Pw , respectively, occur when ωw = ωw
⋄′ The novelty of this subsection is the command βP∗ in (69)
and ωw = ωw . Assume that initially the turbine observes vw
and the selector in (71) for fast blade pitch angle response
and is operating in point (A) of Fig. 7, where Pw (ωw ) matches
to prevent rotor overspeed. If Pbw in (69) [Pbw from (56)] is
Pe into the grid, q.v. Fig. 1. Also assume the PMSG speed is
⋆ significantly higher than the power rating Pe,mx , βP∗ is selected
ωm = Gωw = ωm because of speed control, q.v. Section V-C.
for the fast reduction of wind power; γ > 1, e.g., γ = 1.2.
Now, consider that the wind speed instantaneously drops to
′ In (71), switching between βω∗ and βP∗ is bumpless. The
vw ; thus, the aerodynamic power changes from (A) to (B)
proposed fast blade pitch angle response is analogous to the
where Pw′ (ωw ) < Pe . Then, ωw begins dropping because
classical fast-valving control method in steam turbines [46].
the GSC remains supplying Pe as not being cognizant that
Pw′ (ωw ) < Pe . When ω em /G < ωw ⋄′
ωm /G ≈ ωw ], the
in (67) [e
⋆ VI. C ASE S TUDY
anti-stalling protection torque, Ta , rises in (63) which causes:
(i) the gradual reduction of P e in (62), (ii) the reduction of ωc A detailed waveform-level model of Fig. 2 was imple-
in (25) via (26), and (iii) the reduction of Pe in (27) toward mented in PLECS [33]. The simulation comprises of four do-
Pe′ of Fig. 7. The overall objective is to steer ωc in (25) mains: mechanical, electrical, power electronics, and thermal.
to not let ωw < ωw ⋄′
, where stalling takes place, e.g., see The considered simulation time is T = 120 s, which demanded
point (C). If wind speed rises to vw : (i) turbine aerodynamic 4.5 hours ca. of CPU time in a server with 1 TB of RAM
power changes from (C) to (D), (ii) the rotor re-accelerates and two AMD EPYC 7742 CPUs running at 3.25 GHz. The
⋆ ⋆
because Pw (ωw ) > Pe′ , and (iii) the protection automatically GSC and MSC voltage commands, vabcg and vabcs , in Fig. 1
deactivates when ωw > ωw ⋄
. originate from the controllers explained in Section IV, which
Here, we also highlight the advantages of the combined use the anti-windup PI controllers explained in Section III. We
functionalities of ωa in (25) and vω in (45) during low-wind- incorporate the strategy to prevent rotor stalling and overspeed
speed events. If anti-stalling protections of several turbines of wind turbines in Section V. We also consider the wind
activate because the demand cannot be met, that can lead to power plant frequency controller in Section IV-B.
progressive reduction of system frequency and voltage. This, Tables III and IV detail the wind turbine and control pa-
in turn, will cause the reduction in electric power consumed rameters for the numerical study. The considered power co-
by frequency- and voltage-sensitive loads until the power efficient, servo-system, and drivetrain models reported in the
withdrawn by the demand matches the available wind power. Appendix. The considered IGBTs and diodes correspond to
We demonstrate this via simulation in Section VI-E and VI-F. the ABB HiPak IGBT Module 5SNA 3600E170300 [47].
The maximum collector current, collector-emitter voltage, and
C. Wind Turbine Speed Control and Protection junction temperature are 3.6 kA, 1.7 kV, and 150◦C, respec-
tively. In the simulation, the switching frequency is 3 kHz and
If wind speed suddenly rises after a low-wind-speed event,
the converter peak rated current Imx = 3.0 kA because of the
aerodynamic power can suddenly increase—q.v. (C)→(D)
converter cooling rating.
in Fig. 7—and cause PMSG rotor overspeed. To mitigate this
In Fig. 1, the 2.5-MVA 0.69/13.2-kV step-up transformer
problem, we set forth a control strategy for the fast reduction
has 5% impedance. The parameters of the 13.2-kV transmis-
of aerodynamic wind power via the turbine speed controller.
sion branches are taken from [48] and the ones for the two
Here, PMSG speed in Fig. 1 is regulated with:
500-kW electric motors are adapted from [39, p. 244]. Each
⋆
βω∗ = kpiβω (ωm − ωm ) + zβ (68) motor in Fig. 2 drives a pump with load torque:
∗ b
βP = kpiβP (Pw − γPe,mx ) + zβ (69) 2
TL,q = kq,m ωM,q (72)
d 1
zβ = (−zβ + β ⋆ ) (70) with q ∈ {1, 2}, ωM,q the motor speed, and kq,m = 0.0525.
dt τpiβ
The parameters of the 2.2-MW unbalanced and 500-kW elec-
β ⋆ = L (β ∗ , βmn , βmx ) and β ∗ = max{βω∗ , βP∗ } . (71) tronic loads are shown in Fig. 2.
 10

TABLE IV unrealistic, serve to challenge the wind speed estimator and

PARAMETERS OF T YPE 4 T URBINE C ONTROLS the anti-stalling protection in Section V.
Par. Val. Unit Par. Val. Unit Par. Val. Unit The results of the simulated restoration process are shown
kpis 0.24 V/A kpid 12.9 A/V kpiβω 1.33 Deg/(rad/s) in Figs. 8–12. In each figure, the depicted variables are spec-
τpis 2 ms τpid 20 ms kpiβP 25 Deg/MW ified on the left, whereas their units are reported on the right.
τvb 5 ms v̇mx 10 m/s2 τpiβ 5.0 s
τe 5 ms τw 0.1 s γ 1.2 -
In Fig. 8, (i) V̆f ,k is from vabf ,k and vcbf ,k by using (4) and (8)
kpiw 434 MNm/(rad/s) τpiw 40 ms b w 14.5 kNm/(rad/s)
D and (ii) I˘g,k is from iag,k and ibg,k by using (2) and (8). Recall
Jbwm 4.34 Mkgm2 η 1.0 - τr 40 ms that we use the subindex k to differenciate the three wind
kpia 10.8 MNm/(rad/s) τpia 1.6 s τω 2 s turbines in Fig. 2. In Figs. 11 and 12, (i) V̆R is from vabR
Ha 0.5 s kpig 0.30 V/A τpig 2 ms
ωb 120π rad/s kpif 0.54 A/V τpif 20 ms
and vcbR , q.v. Fig. 2, and (iii) V̆S is from vabS and vcbS . The
kω 0.05 p.u. kV 0.02 p.u. kV/Hz 1.05 p.u. normalization constants are the rated voltages and currents of
kpiS 2.23 (rad/s)/V τpiS 3.2 ms τf 0.8 s the turbines and transmission lines.
kpie 0.42 MW/Hz τpie 0.32 s τvr 25 µs
τir 25 µs τvc 42 µs τic 80 µs
Vf⋆ 0.69 kV ωc⋆ 120π rad/s ωm⋆ 192 rad/s C. Blackstart and Restoration Process
⋆
vdc 1.5 kV fb 60 Hz λ⋆ 8.1 -
We first report the dynamic response of the wind turbines
TABLE V in Fig. 2 during blackstart and restoration. We learn from the
T IMED C IRCUIT B REAKER E VENTS alphabet labels in Fig. 8 that: (A) Each MSC controller drives
breaker C1 C2 C3 C9 C10 C4 C5 C11 C12 C6 C8 C7 vdc,k by t = 2.0 s from 1.2 ca. to 1.5 kV; a 1.56-kV overshoot
tc (s) 5.0 5.1 5.2 6.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 15 17.5 20.0 occurs during the voltage buildup which is minor. (B) Each
to (s) - - - - - - - - - - - 20.5 GSC controller steers the voltage magnitude, V̆f ,k , from 0.0
to 1.0 p.u. after t = 2.5 s; a 1.08-p.u. overshoot occurs during
A. Simulation Initial Conditions the ac voltage buildup which is not problematic. By t = 5.0 s,
The initial conditions of the simulation are: (i) All circuit the turbines successfully synchronize among each other by
breakers C1–C12 of Fig. 2 are open and the MSC and GSC closing C1–C3, which energizes the PCC, q.v. Fig. 2. (C)
are off. (ii) All transformers, transmission lines, and loads V̆f ,k can be as low as 0.63 p.u. and as high as 1.18 p.u. for
are de-energized. (iii) The rotor speed of each k-th turbine less than 5 ms. This happens when energizing a transmission
ωm,k = ωm,k⋆
= 192 rad/s (k = 1, 2, 3), i.e., they are spinning. branch by closing C9 at t = 6.5 s. (D) The reactive power
(iv) The ac side of the GSC is de-energized and vdc,k ≈ 1.2 supplied by each turbine, Qe,k , reached 1.94 Mvar by t = 7.5 s
kV because the MSC in off state rectifies PMSG voltages, because the two motor loads started up after closing C10 as
q.v. Section II-A. We consider the subindex k = 1, 2, 3 to well as C4 and C5. (E) V̆f ,k fluctuates between 0.63 and
differentiate the variables that correspond to each turbine 1.19 p.u. for less than 5 ms after closing C11 at t = 8.0 s
in Fig. 2. The MSC and GSC controllers of the wind turbines to energize the second transmission branch. This cable is
are turned on at t = 2.0 s to regulate, dc and ac voltages, fully inserted into the system when closing C12 at t = 8.5 s,
q.v. Section II-A. q.v. Fig. 2. (F) A 0.6-MW turbine electric power overshoot,
Pe,k , occurs by t = 10 s because the rotors of the motor loads
are reaching rated speed; Qe,k declines by that instant of time.
B. Simulation Disturbances (G) Pe,k oscillates between 1.04 and 1.65 MW at 120 Hz ca.
The wind turbines in Fig. 2 are challenged to energize two after closing C6 at t = 15 s because the unbalanced load is
20-km/13.2-kV transmission branches, a 2.3-MW unbalanced energized. (H) V̆f ,k oscillates between 0.96 and 1.03 p.u. as a
load, two direct-drive 500-kW motor loads, and a 500-kW result of the unbalanced load, which is not problematic for
electronic load. These disturbances are applied to the system the operation of the GSC. (I) The oscillations of Pe,k are
by commanding the circuit breakers in Fig. 2 in the sequence slightly distorted because the electronic load is energized by
explained in Section II-B. The times when the breakers C1– closing C8 at t = 17.5 s. The three wind turbines withstood
C12 are commanded to close, tc , or open, to , during restoration the restoration transients and successfully re-energized the
are specified in Table V. wind-dominant power system, which is expected by NERC
standards EOP-005-3 and EOP-006-3 [4], [5].
Also, the turbines are challenged to withstand a line-to-
line fault between phases ‘a’ and ‘b’ as illustrated in Fig. 2,
which is active for t ∈ [20, 20.5] s . We consider a line-to-line D. Line-to-Line Fault Event
fault because this class of disturbance caused the tripping of Now, we study the performance of the wind turbines during
1,200 MW ca. of converter-based generation in California in the asymmetrical fault for t ∈ [20, 20.5] s. We infer from Fig. 8
2016 [49, p. 3]. that: (J) V̆f ,k significantly drops and oscillates because the
The upstream wind speed profiles impacting each k-th asymmetrical fault is active after closing C7 at t = 20 s. (K)
wind turbine are depicted on the top of Fig. 10. These are The current magnitude, I˘g,k , observed at the low-voltage side
modifications of actual 80-m observations at the National of the step-up transformers can be as high as 2.06 p.u. by
Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Flatirons Campus. The mod- t = 20 s. (L) The junction temperature of the GSC IGBTs can
ification consists on setting vw,1 (t) = 7, vw,2 (t) = 6, and be as high as 107◦ C; it is below the 150◦ C limit. (M) Pe,k by
vw,3 (t) = 5 m/s for t ∈ [40, 80] s. These modifications, albeit each wind turbine significantly reduces during the fault. (N)
 11

k=1 k=2 k=3

1.8
(N)

(kV)
vdc,k

1.5
(P)
1.2 (A)
(E)
(O)
1.0

(p.u.)
V̆f,k

0.5 (C)
(H) (J)
0 (B)
1.5 (K)

(p.u.)
1.0
I˘g,k

0.5
0
(L)
120

(◦ C)
TG,k

70

20
2.0 (I)

(MW)
1.0
Pe,k

(M)
0 (F)
-1 (G)
3 (D)

(Mvar)
1.5 (Q)
Qe,k

0
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 t (s)
Fig. 8. Voltage and current magnitudes, GSC temperature, as well as active and reactive power of each k-th turbine.

vdc,k can reach 1.57 kV when the fault is applied, which is not (D) (I)
problematic. (O) V̆f ,k can be as high as 1.2 p.u. after the fault 1.5
vdc,1
is cleared at t = 20.5 s. (P) vdc,k can be as low as 1.43 kV by vdc,2 − 0.15

(kV)
vdc,k

1.35
vdc,3 − 0.30
t = 20.5 s because power is again transferred to the loads. (Q) 1.2
(H)
Qe,k can momentarily rise after t = 20.5 s because the rotors
1.0
of the motor loads re-accelerate. (C)
vabcf,1

(kV)
0
Now, we study select voltage and current waveforms before,
-1.0
during, and after the asymmetrical fault. We learn from Fig. 9 (A)
that: (A) The pre-fault currents at the terminals of the GSCs 3.0
iabcf,1

(kA)
are unbalanced and slightly distorted because of the im- 0
pact of the unbalanced and electronic loads. (B) The peak -3.0
(B)
current observed by the GSCs can be as high as 3.6 kA; 3.0
iabcf,2

nonetheless, they are quickly steered toward the 3.0-kA rating.

(kA)
0
This confirms the capability of the GSC voltage regulator -3.0
in Section IV-C using the proposed two-axis anti-windup PI (K)
3.0
regulators from Section III-B. (C) The line-to-line voltage
iabcf,3

(kA)

0
waveforms sag because the GSC control limits the magnitude
-3.0
of the qd current commands at 3.0 kA. (D) The dc-link voltage
of the three turbines slightly increases to 1.57 kV and is 10.0 (E) (J)
vabcR

(kV)

quickly driven to the rated value by the MSC controller.1 0

The minor dc-link voltage oscillations prior to the fault are -10.0
1.0 (F)
from the unbalanced load. (E) The line-to-neutral voltages
observed at the receiving end of the transmission cable sagged.
iabcF

(kA)

0
Only two waveforms appear during t ∈ [20, 20.5] s because
-1.0 (G)
of the line-to-line fault between phases a and b. (F) The
20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 t (s)
peak current into the fault can be as high as 0.82 kA, which
is relatively low in the 13.2-kV side. This is because of Fig. 9. Select voltage and current waveforms during a line-to-line fault. The
dotted lines represent the rated peak values of the waveforms.
the limiting action of the two-axis anti-windup regulators;

1 The three dc-link voltage levels are depicted with offsets in a common synchronous machines would have developed higher stator
axis to save space. currents because they are not limited by control systems.

(G) The peak of the fault current settles around 0.51 kA,
the current waveforms are not sinusoidal because of GSC
control saturation, the asymmetrical nature of the fault, and
the response of the loads. (H) The line-to-line ac voltages
recover by t = 20.5 s because the fault is removed by opening
C7; there is a 1.2-kV over-voltage, then, pre-fault voltages
are reached. (I) The dc-link voltage drops to 1.43 kV because
the fault is removed and the loads suddenly withdraw power.
(J) The line-to-neutral voltages observed at the receiving end
of the cable recover to rated values, e.g., 10.8-kV peak. (K)
The post-fault currents of the GSCs are higher than the pre-
fault values because the rotor of the motors are re-accelerating
after t = 20.5 s, q.v. Section VI-F. Overall, the turbines did
not have to disconnect because their variables remained within
ratings; hence, they satisfy NERC standard PRC-024-003 [35]
and IEEE 2800 [36].
E. Low-Wind-Speed Scenario
Now, we demonstrate via Fig. 10 the ability of wind tur-
bines to survive and to recover from low-wind-speed scenarios.
Recall that we set vw,1 (t) = 7, vw,2 (t) = 6, and vw,3 (t) = 5
m/s for t ∈ [40, 80]. We determine from Fig. 10 that: (A)
The estimated wind speed, vbw,3 , from the estimator designed
in Section V-A follows the variations and step changes of
the upstream wind speed relatively well. The estimated wind
speed, vbw,3 (dotted trace), has a 1-m/s offset to differentiate
from the actual wind speed, vbw,3 (solid trace). (B) Extracted
wind power, Pw,2 , is as low as −1.74 MW because of the
abrupt change in vw,2 by t = 40 s, q.v. (A)→(B) in Fig. 7.
(C) The PMSG rotor speed, ωm,1 , begins dropping because
the electric power transferred by the GSC is greater than
the available wind power. (D) The anti-stalling protection
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ PM + PZ + PE = 0.36 + 1.13 + 0.25 = 1.74 MW
set point ωm,3 = Gωw,3 [dashed line, ωw,3 is from (67)]
drops to 84.61 rad/s, q.v. Section V-B. This prevents the wind
turbine from stalling while extracting the maximum amount
of aerodynamic power, e.g., Pw,3 = 0.34 MW. (E) The tip-
speed ratio, λ2 , is converging to λ⋆2 = 8.1 because the anti-
⋄
stalling protection limits ωw,2 at ωw,2 . The tip-speed ratio, λ2 ,
has a spike at t = 40 s because of the sudden drop in wind
speed. (F) Each blade pitch angle, βk , is driven to zero in
an attempt to regulate the rotor speed, q.v. Section V-C. (G)
The active anti-stalling protection term, P e,3 [dotted lines],
limits the amount of power into the grid, q.v. (26) and (62).
The impact of each P e,k from (62) on each ωc,k from (25)
is discussed in Section VI-G. Notably, during the low-wind-
speed event, the three wind turbines can produce only:
3
X grid in Fig. 2. We determine from Fig. 12 that: (A) The PCC
Pw,k = 0.96 + 0.6 + 0.34 = 1.8 MW. (73)
k=1
(H) When the wind speed steps up, Pw,k can be as high
as 4.61 MW, which causes a sudden acceleration of the
PMSG rotor. (I) The pitch angle command, βk⋆ (dotted line),
from (71) quickly rises because of the overspeed protection,
q.v. Section V-C. In particular, βP∗ of (69) is selected in (71)
to reduce Pw,k relatively fast. (J) After the wind speed rises
at t = 80 s, ωm,k can be as high as 206.95 rad/s. When
overspeed protection was not considered in Section V-C, the
12
wind turbine reached up to 250 rad/s ca., which would have led
to its disconnection. After surviving the low-wind-speed event,
the wind-dominant grid of Fig. 2 regained normal operation,
q.v. Fig. 10 for t > 80 s.
F. Dynamic Performance of Loads
Now, we study the dynamic performance of the loads during
restoration, the asymmetrical fault, and the low-wind-speed
event. In Fig. 11, we learn that: (A) The rotor speed of each
motor, ωM,q (q = 1, 2), reaches 183.67 rad/s by t = 10 s after
C4 and C5 are closed at t = 7.5 s. (B) Each ωM,q is as low
as 105.48 rad/s by t = 20.5 s as a result of the fault. (C) Each
ωM,q drops to 123.25 rad/s during the low-wind-speed event
because each ωc,k of (25) drops as driven by the anti-stalling
protection in Section V-B. (D) The power absorbed by the
motors, PM , is as high as 1.7 MW when reaching the rated
speed. (E) PM oscillates between 0.87 and 1.20 MW at 120 Hz
ca. when the unbalanced load is energized. (F) PM withdraws
0.36 MW on average from the grid during the low-wind-speed
event. (G) The power by the constant-impedance load, PZ ,
oscillates between 2.10 and 2.39 MW at 120 Hz ca. because of
its unbalanced nature. (H) PZ consumes 1.13 MW on average
during the low-wind-speed event because the volts-per-hertz
protection reduces the voltage magnitudes, q.v. Section IV-D.
(I) The power withdrawn by the electronic load, PE , can be
as low as zero when the fault is active. (J) PE withdraws
0.25 MW on average during the low-wind-speed event. (K)
The average of V̆R is 0.93 p.u. prior to the event. (L) V̆R is
0.65 p.u. on average during the low-wind-speed event.
It is necessary to point out that the average power absorbed
by the loads during the low-wind-speed event is:
(74)
which is contrasted against the power supplied by the
three wind turbines in (73), i.e., 1.8 MW. This automatic
matching was possible because of the volts-per-hertz func-
tionality in Section IV-D and the anti-stalling protection
in Section V-B. In Fig. 11, the power withdrawn by the loads
after t = 80 s returns to normal values because there is suffi-
cient wind power to supply the demand. The aforementioned
operational flexibility is instrumental to preventing a second
blackout. This is not possible to achieve with gas or hydro
turbines because mechanical stress can develop.
G. Performance of Wind-Dominant Grid
We finally assess the overall restoration performance of the
voltage magnitude, V̆S , suddenly rises at t = 5 s because
the ac voltages of WT1 are at rated and the circuit breaker
C1 closes to energize the PCC. (B) V̆S suddenly drops at
t = 20 s because of the line-to-line fault. (C) V̆S gradually
drops to 0.69 p.u. during the low-wind-speed event because
of the volts-per-hertz protection in Section IV-D. (D) The
system frequency momentarily rises to about 1.02 p.u. of
60 Hz during the fault because the wind turbines reject load.
(E) The frequency of the system drops to 0.66 p.u. during the
low-wind-speed event because of the anti-stalling protection
 13

k=1 k=2 k=3

22
v
bw,k + 1
(A)

(m/s)
vw,k

13
7.00 6.00
4 5.00
17.0
12.0 (E)
λk

8.1
4.5 (J)
200

(rad/s)
ωm,k

150 (C)
116.55 99.76
100 ⋄
ωm,k (D)
84.61

30 βk⋆ (I)

(deg)
15 (F)
βk

0
(H) (G)
4 P e,k
0.96 0.60 0.34

(MW)
2
Pw,k

0
(B)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 t (s)
Fig. 10. Wind speed, tip speed ratio, PMSG rotor speed, pitch angle, and wind power of each k-th turbine.

(A)
(C)
180 1

(p.u.)
(rad/s)

V̆S
ωM,q

ωM,1 0.5
90 (B)
(B)
(C) ωM,2 + 10 0.0 (A)
0
(D) 1.0 (E)

(p.u.)
fe /fb

2.0 (D) 1.02

(F)
(MW)

0.7
PM

0.98
1.0
2.0 18 20 22
0.0 (E)

(MW)
3.0 (H) (H)
Pe⋆

1.0 (I)
(G) (J)
2.0
(MW)

(F)
PZ

0.0
1.0 (K) ωc,1
(G) 1.0
ωc,2 − 0.2
ωc,k /ωb

0.0 0.8

(p.u.)
ωc,3 − 0.4
(J) 0.6
0.4
0.5
(MW)

×10−3
PE

(L) ∆ω c,1
0
∆ω c,k /ωb

(I)
(p.u.)
0.0 −2 (M) ∆ω c,2 − 2 × 10−3
(L) ∆ω c,3 − 4 × 10−3
1 −4
(p.u.)
V̆R

0.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 t (s)

(K)
0.0
0 20 40 60 80
Fig. 11. Response of motor, constant impedance, and electronic loads.
action in Section V-B, which manipulates (26). One can infer
from (C) and (E) in Fig. 12 that the volts-per-hertz ratio
is 0.69/0.66 ≈ 1.05 during the low-wind-speed event. (F)
The frequency controller command, Pe⋆ , rises because the
frequency drops when the motor loads are energized. (G)
Pe⋆ responds to the energization of the unbalanced load. (H)
Pe⋆ increases because the electronic load is connected. (I) Pe⋆
decreases during the fault because the frequency increases. (J)
Fig. 12. PCC voltage magnitude, system frequency, frequency-controller set-
point, GSC reference-frame speed, and relative speed.
100 t (s)
During the low-wind-speed event, Pe⋆ commands the turbines
to output rated power, but that is not possible, q.v. (29).
(K) The anti-stalling protection of Section V-B causes the
reduction of each ωc,k via (26); each ωc,k is as low as 0.66 p.u.
of ωb = 120π rad/s. (L) Each relative speed:
1X
∆ωc,k = ωc,k − ωc,j (75)
3 j
briefly deviates and then converge to zero during the fault
which is indicative there are no synchronization problems.
 14

(M) There is a short-lived deviation of ∆ωc,k from zero A PPENDIX

because the anti-stalling protection is acting on (26). Nev- A. Wind Turbine Power Coefficient
ertheless, there are no synchronization problems during
In (52), P : R+ × B 7→ C is [50]:
the low-wind-speed event. The aforementioned findings are
system-level indications that the wind-dominant power system P(λ, β) = c1 (c2 γ − c3 β − c4 ) e−c5 γ + c6 λ (76)
in Fig. 2 performed well during the restoration process, the 1 c8
line-to-line fault, and the low-wind-speed event. γ= − 3 (77)
λ + c7 β β +1
VII. C ONCLUSION where c1 –c8 are abstract parameters. Their values are: c1 =
0.52, c2 = 116, c3 = 0.4, c4 = 5.0, c5 = 21, c6 = 0.0068,
This paper has set forth a class of two-axis anti- c7 = 0.08, c8 = 0.035. The sets B = [βmn , βmx ] and C =
windup PI regulators that bound control signals in a circle, (−∞, p⋆w ]. Here, p⋆w = P(λ = λ⋆ , β = 0) and λ⋆ = 8.1 is
q.v. Section III-B. This class of regulators was seamlessly the optimal tip-speed ratio; hence, p⋆w = 0.48.
incorporated into the GSC and MSC controllers to ride through
faults, which was demonstrated in Section VI-D. Notably, the B. Servo-System Dynamics
GSC grid-forming controller considers volts-per-hertz protec-
tion to not over-flux electric machines, q.v. Section IV-D. The servo-system dynamics to control β in (77) are:

∗
A frequency control loop was developed in Section IV-B to 
β̇ if β̇ ∗ ∈ (−β̇mx , β̇mx )
maintain the grid frequency at rated during load pickup. Of d
β = β̇mx if β̇ ∗ ≥ β̇mx (78)
course, frequency control is only possible if there is sufficient dt 
 ∗
−β̇mx if β̇ ≤ −β̇mx
aerodynamic power. In Section V, we engineered an active
anti-stalling protection subsystem to survive low-wind-speed 1
β̇ ∗ = (−β + β ⋆ ) (79)
events; the protection resorts to a wind speed estimator. τβ
In Section VI, we demonstrated the positive performance of with β̇mx a limit on the rate of change of β. Although there
the aforementioned contributions in a high-fidelity simulation are three blades, we consider a common blade pitch angle.
model of a notional wind-dominant power system. There, three
Type 4 turbines were able to energize transmission branches, C. Wind Turbine Drive Train System
motor loads, an unbalanced load, and an electronic load.
The rotational dynamics of the wind turbine in Fig. 1 are:
They were also able to ride through an asymmetrical fault
and to survive a low-wind-speed event. Our contributions are d 1 ′
ωw = (Tw − Tm − Dw ωw ) (80)
significant to satisfy restoration, reliability, and interoperability dt Jw
standards [4], [35], [36]. They are also important to not: where ωw is the angular speed; Dw is a damping constant;
jeopardize restoration processes, cause economical loses, and Tw = Pw /ωw [Pw from (52)] is the turbine torque; and Jw is
endanger lives, for example, if electricity is critical for heating the inertia constant of the turbine hub, blades, and low-speed
in cold weather [6]. The reported developments can be also shaft. The transmitted torque via a low-speed shaft is:
applied to wind turbines with doubly-fed induction generators,  ωm 
′
battery energy storage, and solar photovoltaics. Megawatt scale Tm = Kwm δwm − Dwm ωw − (81)
G
experimentation is an important next step for field deployment. where ωm is the PMSG angular speed, G is a gearbox ratio,
A critical problem found in Section VI-D is that the currents and δwm is the shaft twist angle that satisfies:
flowing into the fault are deemed low and might not be suffi-
cient to stimulate the operation of protective relays, which have d ωm
δwm = ωw − . (82)
not been modeled here. Potential methods to resolve this issue dt G
may leverage synchronous condensers, GSC over-rating, and Here, Kwm and Dwm are the stiffness and damping constants
artificial intelligence, along with optical fiber communications. of the low-speed shaft, respectively.
Another problem from Section VI-E pertains to the operation The PMSG rotor dynamics are:
of grids at low-frequency and low-voltage levels which can d 1 P
ωm = (Tm + Te − Dm ωm ) , ωr = ωm (83)
trigger classical feeder under-voltage and under-frequency dt Jm 2
relays. Nonetheless, operating at low-frequency/low-voltage d P
conditions is not deemed problematic for Type 4 wind turbines θm = ωm , and θr = θm (84)
dt 2
nor loads if an appropriate volts-per-hertz ratio is maintained where Jm and Dm are, respectively, PMSG inertia and rotor
which defies classical operational constraints of conventional damping constants. The parameter P models the number of
generation. Consequently, future work consists of studying magnetic poles. The PMSG mechanical torque Tm = Tm ′
/G,
the role of protective devices during the restoration of wind- from (81), because the high-speed shaft is considered rigid.
dominant power systems to not interrupt the electric power The induced electromagnetic torque [39, Ch. 4]:
that serve our communities.   
3 P r r r


Te = λ′r
m iqs + (Ld − Lq )iqs ids . (85)
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 2
We thank the anonymous Reviewers for their assertive The qd currents irqs and irds as well as the parameters λ′m , Lq
comments, which helped improve this paper. and Ld are defined in [39, p. 126].

R EFERENCES
[1] “FERC-NERC-regional entity joint review of restoration and recovery
plans: Blackstart resources availability,” FERC and NERC, Tech. Rep.,
May 2018.
[2] J. R. Gracia et al., “Hydropower plants as black start resources,” Oak
Ridge National Laboratory,, Tech. Rep. ORNL/SPR-2018/1077, May
2019.
[3] J. G. O’Brien et al., “Electric grid blackstart: Trends, challenges,
and opportunities,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Tech. Rep.
PNNL-29118, Oct. 2020.
[4] System Restoration from Blackstart Resources, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation Std. EOP-005-3, Jan. 2018.
[5] System Restoration Coordination, North American Electric Reliability
Corporation Std. EOP-006-3, Jan. 2019.
[6] Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters,
Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, ser. Emergency Prepared-
ness/Disaster Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academies
Press, Dec. 2012.
[7] North American Electric Reliability Corporation, “NERC blackout and
disturbance response procedures,” NERC, Tech. Rep., Jul. 2014.
[8] “North American energy resilience model,” U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington DC, Tech. Rep., Jul. 2019.
[9] W. I. Rowen, “Operating characteristics of heavy–duty gas turbines in
utility service,” Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineers, vol. 5, pp. 1–13, Jun. 1988.
[10] “The United States installed more wind turbine capacity in 2020 than
in any other year.” eia.gov. (accessed Sep. 18, 2021).
[11] K. Reynolds, “Request for Presidential disaster declaration,” Aug. 2020.
[12] B. Magness, “Review of February 2021 extreme cold weather
event - ERCOT presentation,” Feb. 2021. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ercot.com/news/february2021
[13] AEMO, “Black system south Australia: 28 September 2016,” Australian
Energy Market Operator Ltd., Australia, Tech. Rep., Mar. 2017.
[14] “Technical report on the events of 9 August 2019,” National Grid ESO,
Warwick, UK, Tech. Rep., Sep. 2019.
[15] M. C. Chandorkar, D. M. Divan, and R. Adapa, “Control of parallel
connected inverters in standalone AC supply systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 136–143, Jan. 1993.
[16] N. Pogaku, M. Prodanovic, and T. C. Green, “Modeling, analysis and
testing of autonomous operation of an inverter-based microgrid,” IEEE
Power Electron. Mag., vol. 22, pp. 613–625, Mar. 2007.
[17] F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “Synchronization and transient stability in
power networks and nonuniform Kuramoto oscillators,” SIAM J. Control.
Optim., vol. 50, pp. 1616–1642, Jun. 2012.
[18] B. B. Johnson, M. Sinha, N. G. Ainsworth, F. Dörfler, and S. V. Dhople,
“Synthesizing virtual oscillators to control islanded inverters,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 6002–6015, Aug. 2016.
[19] B. K. Polla, D. Groß, and F. Dörfler, “Placement and implementation
of grid-forming and grid-following virtual inertia and fast frequency
response,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 3035–3046, Jul.
2019.
[20] D. Groß, M. Colombino, J.-S. Brouillon, and F. Dörfler, “The effect
of transmission-line dynamics on grid-forming dispatchable virtual os-
cillator control,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp.
1148–1160, sep 2019.
[21] H. Wu et al., “Small-signal modeling and parameters design for virtual
synchronous generators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 63, pp. 4292–
4303, Mar. 2019.
[22] M. Colombino et al., “Global phase and magnitude synchronization of
coupled oscillators with application to the control of grid-forming power
inverters,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 64, pp. 4496–4511, Nov.
2019.
[23] A. Peña Asensio, S. Arnaltes Gómez, J. L. Rodriguez-Amenedo, and
M. A. Cardiel-Álvarez, “Decentralized frequency control for black start
of full-converter wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 36,
no. 1, pp. 480–487, Mar. 2021.
[24] B. Kroposki et al., “Achieving a 100% renewable grid: operating electric
power systems with extremely high levels of variable renewable energy,”
IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 61–73, Mar. 2017.
[25] J. Matevosyan et al., “Grid-forming inverters: Are they the key for high
renewable penetration?” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 17, pp. 89–98,
Oct. 2019.
[26] R. Teichmann, L. Li, C. Wang, and W. Yang, “Method, apparatus
and computer program product for wind turbine start-up and operation
without grid power,” U.S. Patent 7 394 166 B2, Jul. 1, 2008.
[27] T. Edenfeld, “Use of pitch battery power to start wind turbine during
grid loss/black start capability,” U.S. Patent 8 344 533 B2, Jan. 1, 2013.
15
[28] P. Achenbach and W. Janssen, “Method of operating a wind turbine
without grid connection and wind turbine,” European Patent 3 051 124
A1, Jun. 27, 2018.
[29] Y. Lin et al., “Research roadmap on grid-forming inverters,” National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-
5D00-73476, 2020.
[30] O. Wasynczuk, S. D. Sudhoff, T. D. Tran, D. H. Clayton, and H. J. Heg-
ner, “A voltage control strategy for current-regulated PWM inverters,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–15, Jan. 1996.
[31] K. Aström and T. Hagglünd, PID controllers, theory, design, and
tunning, 2nd ed. The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation
Society, 1994.
[32] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, ser. The EPRI Power
System Engineering, N. J. Balu and M. G. Lauby, Eds. Palo Alto, CA:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
[33] PLECS: The simulation platform for power electronic systems v4.5,
Plexim, Zurich, Switzerland, 2021.
[34] P. Veers et al., “Grand challenges in the science of wind energy,” Sci.,
vol. 336, no. 6464, pp. 1–9, Oct. 2019.
[35] Frequency and Voltage Protection Settings for Generating Resources,
NERC PRC-024-3, Jul. 2020.
[36] Draft Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Inverter-
Based Resources Interconnecting with Associated Transmission Systems,
IEEE Std. P2800TM .
[37] B. Wu, Y. Lang, N. Zargari, and S. Kouro, Power conversion and control
of wind energy systems. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-IEEE Press, 2011.
[38] A. D. Hansen, Wind Power in Power Systems: Generators and Power
Electronics for Wind Turbines, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, 2012, ch. 4, pp. 53–77.
[39] P. C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, S. D. Sudhoff, and S. Pekarek, Analysis
of Electric Machinery and Drive Systems, 3rd ed. New York: IEEE
Press, Wiley-Interscience, 2013.
[40] “Glossary of terms used in NERC reliability standards,” Jun. 2021.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary of terms.pdf
[41] Task Force on Turbine Governor Modeling, “Dynamic models for
turbine-governors in power system studies,” IEEE Power and Energy
Society (IEEE-PES), Piscataway, NJ, USA, Tech. Rep. PES-TR1, Jan.
2013.
[42] W. Du et al., “A comparative study of two widely used grid-forming
droop controls on microgrid small-signal stability,” IEEE Trans. Emerg.
Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 963–975, 2019.
[43] J. Fortmann et al., “New generic model of DFG-based wind turbines
for RMS-type simulation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 110–118, Mar. 2014.
[44] H. N. Villegas Pico and D. C. Aliprantis, “Reachability analysis of linear
dynamic systems with constant, arbitrary, and Lipschitz continuous
inputs,” Automatica, vol. 95, pp. 293–305, Sep. 2018.
[45] IEEE Guide for AC Generator Protection, IEEE Std. C37.102-2006,
Rev. C37.102-1995, Feb. 2007.
[46] L. Edwards, J. D. Gregory, D. L. Osborn, J. H. Doudna, B. M.
Pasternack, and W. G. Thompson, “Turbine fast valving to aid system
stability: Benefits and other considerations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 143–153, Feb. 1986.
[47] Hitachi ABB, “Insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) and diode
modules,” hitachiabb-powergrids.com. www.hitachiabb-powergrids.com
(accessed May 24, 2021).
[48] “Double fed induction generator wind turbine,” Plexim GmbH, Zurich,
Switzerland, PLECS DEMO MODEL, 2020.
[49] NERC & WECC staff report, “1,200 MW fault induced solar pho-
tovoltaic resource interruption disturbance report,” North American
Electric Reliability Corporation, Atlanta, GA, USA, Tech. Rep., Jun.
2017.
[50] S. Heier, Grid Integration of Wind Energy, 3rd ed. United Kingdom:
Wiley, 2014.

Hugo N. Villegas Pico (M’17) earned the degree of
Ingeniero en electrónica, automatización y control
from Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas - ESPE,
Sangolquı́, Ecuador, in 2008, the M.S. degree in
electrical engineering from Iowa State University,
Ames, IA, USA, in 2011, and the Ph.D. degree
in electrical and computer engineering from Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, USA, in 2016. He
was a Fulbright scholar for 2009–2011.
Hugo was a Post-Doctoral Researcher of Power
Engineering at the National Renewable Energy Lab-
oratory, Golden, CO, USA for 2017–2019 and a Post-Doctoral Research
Assistant at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA for 2016–2017.
Hugo was also a Supervisor of electrical maintenance for CELEC EP
Termopichincha, Ecuador, for 2007–2009.
At present, Hugo is a Harpole-Pentair Assistant Professor in the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University. He also
serves as an Associate Editor of IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution.
Hugo’s research interests lie at the intersection of renewable energy conver-
sion, power system dynamics, power restoration processes, control systems,
and computational analysis of dynamical systems.
View publication stats
16
Vahan Gevorgian (Senior Member, IEEE) received
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the
State Engineering University of Armenia, Yerevan,
Armenia, in 1993. In October 1994, he joined the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and
has served many roles over the years.
He is currently with Power Systems Engineer-
ing Center, focused on renewable energy impacts
on transmission and interconnection issues and dy-
namic modeling of variable generation systems. He
is involved in many different areas, including the
dynamometer and field testing of large and small wind turbines, dynamometer
testing of wind turbine drivetrain components, development of advanced data
acquisition systems, and wind turbine power quality. He provides technical
support to NREL industry partners and main U.S. wind turbine manufacturers.