27th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2019)
Voltage sag Assessment Considering Low Voltage
Ride-Through Requirement for Wind Turbines
Based on SARFI Index
Sina Shakeri
Department of Electrical Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Kerman, Iran
s.shakeri@eng.uk.ac.ir
Abstract—This paper defines a system average root mean
square variation frequency (SARFI) index based on the area of
vulnerability (AOV) and proposes a systematic method for
determining accurate AOVs for fault induced voltage sags. The
SARFI index specifies the number of voltage sags experiencing
at a given area or in a given system per year more severe than
the curve limits. The SARFI index is helpful in establishing
efficient planning for mitigation of voltage sags. This paper also
assesses voltage sags considering low voltage ride-through
(LVRT) requirements for wind turbines. The determination of
AOVs is very important for assessing voltage sags
performance, since voltage sags can be caused by faults
occurring in different parts of a power system. In this paper,
the procedure of determining AOVs for balanced faults are
considered. The proposed methodology is applied on the IEEE
30-bus test system integrated with eight wind turbines.
Keywords— Area of vulnerability (AOV), Low voltage ride-
through (LVRT) requirement, System average root mean square
variation frequency (SARFI) index, Voltage sag
I. INTRODUCTION
Power quality disturbances such as over voltages, voltage
sags, etc. can affect the quality of electrical power delivered
to consumers. Nowadays, the equipment, especially in
industrial sector, are so sensitive that power delivery with
poor quality can lead to malfunction of the equipment or
even cause them to trip. Therefore, in addition to
continuously monitoring of power quality [1], it is also
necessary to analyze the system performance against
disturbances in an offline or online manner [2], [3].
Voltage sag is defined as the decrease in RMS voltage to
values between 0.9 p.u and 0.1 p.u for durations ranging from
0.5 cycles of power system frequency to 1 minute [4]. The
main cause of voltage sag is faults occurring in a power
system. In some cases, voltage sags can cause tripping of
wind turbines and in turn overloading the generators in the
rest of system. This situation may lead to cascading generator
failures and instability of the whole system. Therefore, the
connection of wind turbines to power grids has been
becoming an important challenge to ensure stable power
system operation.
Many countries have established grid codes to ensure
stable power system operation. The low voltage ride-through
(LVRT) requirement is also included in grid codes. The main
LVRT requirement for wind turbines is to stay connected to
the grid over specified range of voltage sags [5]. Therefore,
there is strong need for an effective method to assess voltage
sag performance considering different LVRT requirements
978-1-7281-1508-5/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 05:39:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Saeid Esmaeili Mohammad Hossein Rezaeian Koochi
Department of Electrical Engineering
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
Kerman, Iran Kerman, Iran
s_esmaeili@uk.ac.ir mh_rezaeian@eng.uk.ac.ir
for wind turbines. Among the large number of methods
proposed in literature the most well-known ones are critical
distance and fault position methods. The critical distance
cannot be applied on meshed networks [6], [7]. The fault
position method, which has been widely used in many
studies, can be applied to both meshed and radial networks
[8]–[10]. However, this method heavily depends on the
choice of fault positions and the number of simulated faults
and is inefficient for large power systems [11], [12]. Another
method for assessing voltage sags performance is an
analytical method, which is based on an analytical
formulation of system faults [13], [14]. The shortcoming of
this method is that in some cases it can’t determine the area
of vulnerability (AOV) accurately.
In this paper, the voltage sag assessment is performed
considering the low voltage ride-through requirement for
wind turbines based on system average root mean square
variation frequency (SARFI) index. To obtain the AOVs
without applying any fault to the system, the method
presented in [15] has been adopted in which the quadratic
interpolation and secant method are used for finding accurate
roots of equations. However, in case where the maximum
magnitude of voltage sag is far from a maximum magnitude
of interpolation, the method fails to find the accurate root.
Therefore, the golden section search method is used in this
paper. After finding the AOVs, the expected sag frequencies
(ESFs) are calculated and then the proposed SARFI index is
utilized to assess the voltage sags.
II. VOLTAGE SAG ASSESSMENT
A. Determining the area of vulnerability
The area of vulnerability is the region of the system
which includes buses and lines that experience post-fault
voltages lower than a voltage threshold in the case of fault
occurrence [13]. To calculate AOV, fault voltage equations
are required. Then, AOV for a given voltage threshold is
determined using the voltage equations solved by numerical
methods. An effective method for calculating accurate AOV
is proposed in [15]. This method can determine AOV for
three-phase faults without requiring short-circuit calculation
at different fault positions. To do that, first, pre-fault voltages
are calculated using load flow analysis. Furthermore, the
positive system impedance matrix is also obtained by
inversing the positive system admittance matrix. Then, the
residual voltage equation corresponding to the three-phase
fault is formulated.
470
 27th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2019)

B. Expected sag frequency calculation B. Voltage sag assessment based on SARFI index
After obtaining the AOV, the ESF can be calculated A widely used approach for computing the number of
considering the fault rates which are determined from the voltage sags is the system average rms frequency index
historical performance of the system. The ESF for the (SARFI), which was originally proposed in [20]. There are
balanced fault is calculated as follows [13]. two types of SARFI indices:   and   . The
m n
  index is the number of voltage sags at a given area or
ESF = ¦ BFR + ¦ I L × LFR (1) in a given system per year with a magnitude less than X
B =1 L =1 percent. The   index gives annual number of
where m and n are the number of buses and lines inside events below the predefined curve [21]. For example,
the AOV, respectively. BFR and LFR are bus and line fault   gives the number of events more severe than the
rates and  is the length of the line inside the AOV. After SEMI curve [22].
calculating ESF, the cumulative ESF for magnitude range ˆ Ǧ
– is obtained as follows [14].
Voltage

ESFV f −V t = ESFV t − ESFV f (2)

V2
In (2),  – and  ˜ˆ are the cumulative ESFs for DNAZ2
voltage thresholds – and ˆ , respectively. Then, the DNAZ1
cumulative probability  for duration range šˆ Ǧš– at voltage
V1
level L is calculated as follows [16], [17].
xt
1 x1 x2
³σ
2
/ 2σ L2 ) Time
PL = e − (( x − m L ) dx (3)
xf L 2π Fig. 1. LVRT requirement curve with diagonal (DNAZ1) and rectangular
where ݉௅ , ³ and ³ʹ are average duration, standard (DNAZ2) zones
deviation and variance at voltage level L, respectively.
III. ESTIMATION OF ESF CONSIDERING LVRT REQUIREMENT V2
DNAZ2
BASED ON SARFI INDEX
A B
A. Calculation of ESF reflecting LVRT requirement
The LVRT curve involves various ranges of sag Vm
magnitude and duration. Also LVRT curve consists of
diagonal and rectangular parts as shown as Fig. 1. Therefore,
C D
an effective method for estimation of ESF reflecting LVRT
requirement is required [14], [18], [19]. To estimate
cumulative ESFs for rectangular and diagonal zones, the V1
method proposed in [14] is adopted here. ESF for the X1 Xm X2
rectangular zone can be estimated as follows [14]. Fig. 2. Sub-zones for DNAZ2
ESFDNAZ 1 = ESFV 1 −V 2 × PL ,0 − X 1 (4) The SARFI index is recommended by standard-setting
organizations in [21] and [23]. It is a power quality index that
where  ͳǦʹ and ǤͲǦͳ are cumulative ESF for provides a measure for rate of voltage sags. The   is
voltage range ͳ Ǧʹ and cumulative probability for duration useful for assessing voltage sags at wind turbine connection
range ͲǦͳ , respectively. In this paper, to calculate the ESF points and can identify more severe voltage sags causing
for the diagonal zone, first, the rectangular zone is divided wind turbine disconnections. The   can be
into four sub-zones as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, the ESF calculated as in (9).
for the diagonal zone can be calculated as follows [14].
SARFI LVRT = ¦ ª¬ ESF L ,V 2 − ESFL , DNAZ 2 º¼ (9)
ESFDNAZ 2 = ESFDNAZ 2' + ESFDNAZ 2" (5) L ∈SL

ESFDNAZ 2 ' = ESFV m −V 2 × PL , X 1 − X m (6) In (9), SL is the set of all voltage levels in a power
system, while  Ǥʹ and  Ǥʹ are the cumulative ESF
1 for voltage threshold ʹ at voltage level L and cumulative
ESFDNAZ 2" = (ESFV1 −V m × PL , X 1 −X m + ESFV m −V 2 × PL , X m − X 2 ) (7)
2 ESF for DNAZ2 zone at voltage level L, respectively.
(V +V 2 ) (X 1 + X 2 ) The overall flowchart of voltage sag assessment using
Vm = 1 ,X m = (8)
2 2 proposed index for considering low voltage ride-through
requirement of wind turbines is shown in Fig. 3. In the first
where  and  are median values of the voltage step, load flow analysis is performed to obtain the pre-fault
magnitude and duration ranges.  ʹ̵ is the cumulative voltage values needed for calculating AOV for a wind
ESF of zone A, while  ʹ̵̵ is the cumulative ESF for turbine connection point. Then, AOV for the three phase
combination of zones B and C. faults is calculated without any need to apply faults using the

Authorized licensed use limited to: King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 05:39:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
471
 27th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2019)

method presented in [15]. The expected sag frequencies at TABLE I. HISTORICAL DATA OF PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND FAULT
RATES
voltage levels defined by the LVRT curve and the cumulative
ESFs associated with the LVRT curve are calculated in the Voltage
Mean Standard Line fault rate
Bus fault rate
next step. Finally, the SARFI index is calculated for the wind duration deviation (event/100
level (kV) (event/year)
turbine connection point using (9). (ms) (ms) km/year)
33 100 200 0.225 0.005
IV. CASE STUDIES

The IEEE 30-bus test system shown in Fig. 4 and two

LVRT curves for three-phase faults shown in Fig. 5 [24] are 30 29 26
used in this paper. Furthermore, eight wind turbines are 132 kV 25
assumed to be installed at buses 3, 6, 7, 14, 18, 21, 26 and 29. 33 kV 18 19 27
23
24
28
15 16
Start G 14 20 21 22
1 13
G 17
12 9
Perform load flow analysis 10
G
4 6 11
G 3
2
Determine AOV for a wind 8
turbine connection point G
7
5
G

Calculate ESFs
Fig. 4. Single-line diagram of IEEE 30-bus test system

Calculate cumulative ESFs for a

predefined LVRT curve V [p.u]
LVRT I
LVRT II
Compute the SARFI index for each wind
turbine connection point
0.80
0.75

End
0.20
Fig. 3. Procedure for calculating SARFI index 0.15

The historical data related to the operation of protection 0 120 150 750 900 Time [ms]
systems, as well as line and bus fault rates are listed in Tables
I [14].
Fig. 5. LVRT requirement curves
To illustrate the proposed method, the calculation of
SARFILVRT at bus 21 is explained here. The SARFI In the next step, the cumulative ESFs for DNAZ1 and
calculations for other selected buses follows the same
procedure. For calculating SARFILVRT at bus 21, first AOVs
for voltage threshold values 0.2 and 0.75 for LVRT curve I,
and 0.15 and 0.8 for LVRT curve II are calculated. Figs. 6-9
show the AOVs obtained for LVRT curves and different
voltage thresholds. After determining AOVs for bus 21, the
ESFs for three-phase faults is calculated. Then the
cumulative ESFs for LVRT curves I and II are obtained as
follows.
ESF0.75− 0.2 = ESF0.75 − ESF0.2 = 7.6478 − 1.0588 = 6.5890
ESF0.8 − 0.15 = ESF0.8 − ESF0.15 = 8.6751 − 1.0073 = 7.6678
Authorized licensed use limited to: King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 05:39:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
472
  corresponding to LVRT curves I and II at voltage
level 33 kV are calculated as follows.
ESFDANZ 1 = ESF0.75 − 0.2 × P33,0 −120 = 6.5890 × 0.006848=0.0451
ESFDANZ 1 = ESF0.8 − 0.15 × P33,0 −150 = 7.6678 × 0.01087 = 0.0833
ESFDA NZ 2 ' = ESF0.75− 0.475 × P33,120 − 510 = 5.1457 × 0.3182=1.6374
ESFDANZ 2 ' = ESF0.8− 0.475 × P33,150 − 450 = 6.1730 × 0.2144 = 1.3235
1
ESFDA NZ 2 '' = ( ESF0.475 − 0.2 × P33,120 − 510 + ESF0.75 − 0.475 × P33,510 −900 )
2
1
= (1.4433 × 0.3182 + 5.1457 × 0.6068) = 1.6995
2
 27th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2019)

1
ESFDA NZ 2 '' = ( ESF0.475 − 0.15 × P33,150 − 450 + ES F0.475 − 0.8 × P33,450 − 750 )
2 30 29 26
1
= (1.4948 × 0.2144 + 6.1730 × 0.5467) = 1.7750 AOV 25
2 18 19 27
23
24
28
15 16
G 14 20 21 22
30 29 26 1 13
G 17
AOV 25
18 19 27 12 9
10
23
24 G
4 6 11
28 G 3
15 16
G 14 20 21 2
22 8
1 13 G
7
G 17 5
12 9 G
10
G
4 6 11 Fig. 8. AOV obtained for voltage threshold 0.2 p.u
G 3
2
8
G
7 30 29 26
5
G AOV 25
18 19 27
23
Fig. 6. AOV obtained for voltage threshold 0.8 p.u 24
28
15 16
G 14 20 21 22
30 29 26 1 13
G 17
AOV 25
18 27 12 9
19 10
23 G
24
4 6 11
28 G 3
15 16
G 14 20 21 2
22 8
1 13 G
7
G 17 5
12 9 G
10
G
G 4 6 11 Fig. 9. AOV obtained for voltage threshold 0.15 p.u
3
2
8
G
7
5
G

Fig. 7. AOV obtained for voltage threshold 0.75 p.u

ESFDNAZ 2,curve I = ESF + ESF = 3.3369

DNAZ 2' DNAZ 2"

ESFDNAZ 2,curve II = ESF + ESF = 3.0985

DNAZ 2' DNAZ 2"

SARFI curve I = ESF0.75 − ESFDNAZ = 4.2658

SARFI curve II = ESF0.8 − ESFDNAZ = 5.4933

Fig. 10. The results of SARFIcurve for LVRT curve I
The results of proposed SARFI index are compared with
the method presented in [14] and are shown in Figs. 10 and
11. Fig. 10 shows the SARFI values for LVRT curve I. It can
be seen that the lowest value relates to bus 7 in both methods,
while bus 26 and bus 29 have the highest voltage sag index
values for proposed method and the method in [14],
respectively. Fig. 11 shows the SARFI values obtained for
LVRT curve II. From Fig. 11 it can be seen that, bus 3 is the
bus with lowest voltage sag index value for the proposed
method, while for the method [14] the lowest value
corresponds to bus 7. Furthermore, bus 26 is the bus with the
highest SARFI value for both methods.

Authorized licensed use limited to: King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 05:39:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
473
 27th Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE2019)
Fig. 11. The results of SARFIcurve for LVRT curve II
I. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed a systematic method to determine
AOVs for three-phase faults and assessed voltage sag
performance considering low voltage ride-through
requirement for wind turbines based on SARFI index.
Voltage sag assessment heavily depends on determining
accurate AOVs. To exactly identify AOVs the golden section
search was used for finding maximum sag magnitude and its
point. The SARFI index is effective to assess the annual
number of voltage sags considering allowable zones of wind
turbine disconnection on a LVRT curve. The proposed
method could determine the buses which have the high and
the low voltage sag values.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Kamyabi, S. Esmaeili and M. H. Rezaeian Koochi, “Power quality
monitor placement in power systems considering channel limits and
estimation error at unobservable buses using a bi-level approach,” Int.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 102, pp. 302–311, Nov. 2018.
[2] M. H. R. Koochi, S. Esmaeili, and P. Dehghanian, “Coherency
detection and network partitioning supported by wide area
measurement system,” in 2018 IEEE Texas Power and Energy
Conference (TPEC), 2018, pp. 1–6.
[3] M. H. Rezaeian, S. Esmaeili and R. Fadaeinedjad, “Generator
coherency and network partitioning for dynamic equivalencing using
subtractive clustering algorithm,” IEEE Syst. J., no. 99, pp. 1–11,
2017.
[4] IEEE and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, “IEEE Std
1159 - IEEE Recommended Practice for Monitoring Electric Power
Quality.,” 2009.
[5] M. Mohseni and S. M. Islam, “Comparing technical connection
requirements for large wind power plants,” in 2011 IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–8.
[6] M. H. J. Bollen, “Method of critical distances for stochastic
assessment of voltage sags,” IEE Proc. - Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol.
145, no. 1, p. 70, 1998.
Authorized licensed use limited to: King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 05:39:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
474
[7] A. K. Goswami, C. P. Gupta and G. K. Singh, “Voltage Sag
Assessment in a Large Chemical Industry,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1739–1746, Sep. 2012.
[8] L. Conrad, K. Little and C. Grigg, “Predicting and preventing
problems associated with remote fault-clearing voltage dips,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 167–172, 1991.
[9] G. Carpinelli, P. Caramia, C. Di Perna, P. Varilone and P. Verde,
“Complete matrix formulation of fault-position method for voltage-
dip characterisation,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 56,
2007.
[10] I. B. N. C. Cruz, A. P. Lavega and J. R. C. Orillaza, “Overview of
voltage sag profile estimation,” in TENCON 2015 - 2015 IEEE
Region 10 Conference, 2015, vol. 2016–Janua, pp. 1–6.
[11] C. Ceja-Espinosa, A. Ramos-Paz, and E. Espinosa-Juarez,
“Parallelization of the Fault Positions Method for stocastic assessment
of voltage sags,” in 2013 IEEE International Autumn Meeting on
Power Electronics and Computing (ROPEC), 2013, pp. 1–5.
[12] C. H. Park, G. Jang and R. J. Thomas, “The Influence of Generator
Scheduling and Time-Varying Fault Rates on Voltage Sag
Prediction,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1243–1250,
Apr. 2008.
[13] C.-H. Park and G. Jang, “Stochastic Estimation of Voltage Sags in a
Large Meshed Network,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 22, no. 3,
pp. 1655–1664, Jul. 2007.
[14] C.-H. Park and G. Jang, “Voltage quality assessment considering low
voltage ride-through requirement for wind turbines,” IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., vol. 10, no. 16, pp. 4205–4212, Dec. 2016.
[15] C.-H. Park and G. Jang, “Systematic Method to Identify an Area of
Vulnerability to Voltage Sags,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 32,
no. 3, pp. 1583–1591, Jun. 2017.
[16] Wenyuan Li and P. Choudhury, “Probabilistic planning of
transmission systems: Why, how and an actual example,” in 2008
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting - Conversion and
Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, 2008, pp. 1–8.
[17] J. Momoh, Adaptive Stochastic Optimization Techniques with
Applications. CRC Press, 2015.
[18] S. R. Naidu, G. V. de Andrade and E. G. da Costa, “Voltage Sag
Performance of a Distribution System and Its Improvement,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 218–224, Jan. 2012.
[19] J. W. Sagre, J. E. Candelo and J. H. Montaña Chaparro, “Voltage sag
assessment using an extended fault positions method and Monte Carlo
simulation,” DYNA, vol. 83, no. 195, pp. 180–188, Feb. 2016.
[20] D. L. Brooks, R. C. Dugan, M. Waclawiak, and A. Sundaram,
“Indices for assessing utility distribution system RMS variation
performance,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 254–259,
1998.
[21] D. D. Sabin and M. H. J. Bollen, “Overview of IEEE Std 1564-2014
Guide for Voltage Sag Indices,” in 2014 16th International
Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power (ICHQP), 2014, pp.
497–501.
[22] “Materials International (SEMI), Specification for semiconductor
processing equipment voltage sag immunity,” 2006.
[23] G. Beaulieu and G. Borloo, “Power quality indices and objectives,” in
18th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity
Distribution (CIRED 2005), 2005, vol. 2005, pp. v2-79-v2-79.
[24] Https://labs.ece.uw.edu/pstca/pf30/pg_tca30bus.htm, “ieee30cdf.” .