Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury

Doc: {IEE}RPG/Articles/Pagination/RPG57167.3d

www.ietdl.org

Published in IET Renewable Power Generation

Received on 31st July 2008
Revised on 21st March 2009
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

ISSN 1752-1416

Review of grid code technical requirements

for wind farms
M. Tsili S. Papathanassiou
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), 9 Iroon Polytechniou str.,
Athens 15773, Greece
UNIT-V
E-mail: st@power.ece.ntua.gr

windNetwork
farms to the electricIntegration Issues:examined areOverview
generally compiled by of
Abstract: This study provides an overview of grid code technical requirements regarding the connection of large
power systems. The grid codes transmission
system operators (TSOs) of countries or regions with high wind penetration and therefore incorporate the
grid
accumulated code
experience technical
after requirements,
several years of system Fault
operation at significant wind penetration levels. The
paper focuses on the most important technical requirements for wind farms, included in most grid codes,
ride-through for wind farms - real and
such as active and reactive power regulation, voltage and frequency operating limits and wind farm behaviour
during grid disturbances. The paper also includes a review of modern wind turbine technologies, regarding

windreactive
turbine technology power regulation,
their capability of satisfying the requirements set by the codes, demonstrating that recent developments in
provide wind farms with stability and regulation capabilities directly
those of conventional generating plants.
frequency operating limits
1 Introduction
Increasing wind power penetration levels to the power
systems of many regions and countries has led to the
elaboration of specific technical requirements for the
connection of large wind farms, usually as a part of the grid
codes issued by the transmission system operators (TSOs).
These requirements typically refer to large wind farms,
connected to the transmission system, rather than smaller
stations connected to the distribution network. The new
grid codes stipulate that wind farms should contribute to
power system control (frequency and also voltage), much as
the conventional power stations, and emphasise wind farm
behaviour in case of abnormal operating conditions of the
network (such as in case of voltage dips due to network
faults).
Grid code requirements have been a major driver for the
development of WT technology recently and several relevant
publications are already available. In [1], a technical analysis
of the main issues associated with the connection of wind
farms to the grid is provided, along with an overview of wind
turbine technologies. A presentation of the requirements
imposed by the former and more recent version of the
voltage andcomparable to
German grid code by E.ON Netz is realised in [2, 3],
whereas the respective requirements of the Spanish, Irish and
Canadian grid codes are commented in [4–7], respectively.
The development of national US and regional grid codes
concerning the integration of wind power is described in [8,
9]. British grid code requirements are given in [10], along
with their comparison to the requirements of the German
and Irish grid code, as well as in [11]. Further overview
of grid codes involves comparative presentation and analysis
of wind farm interconnection regulations: the codes of
Denmark, Germany, Scotland, Ireland, UK and Canadian
TSO AESO are compared in [12]. The codes of Denmark,
Germany, Scotland, Ireland and Sweden are compared in
[13, 14]. Reference [15] includes the codes of Denmark,
Ireland, Germany, UK, Spain and Italy. Finally [16] includes
a presentation of selected features from the grid codes of
Denmark, Ireland, Germany, UK, Spain and USA, whereas
[17] focuses on the fault ride through (FRT) requirements of
the grid codes of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, UK, Spain,
Italy, USA and Canada. Reference [18] compares the
requirements appearing in the grid codes of Germany,
Denmark, Spain, Great Britain, Canada and USA.
Critical examination and interpretation of wind turbine
connection requirements concerning the UK and the Danish

IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25 1

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
transmission system are included in [19, 20], respectively. It
must, however, be noted that different criteria are applied
when settling grid access in every country [21] and the
national regulatory frameworks are subject to continuous
changes and revisions, raising some difficulties in their direct
comparison and the extraction of global conclusions.
The present paper extents the overview to several countries,
providing a presentation and comparison of the most recent
available editions of their grid codes. More specifically, the
following codes have been considered:
† The German code from E.ON Netz [22] that applies to
networks with voltage levels 380, 220 and 110 kV. Its
requirements are often used as a reference for other codes.
E.ON Netz has also issued supplementary requirements for
offshore wind farms [23]. A nominal voltage level of
155 kV is specified for the offshore grid connection point,
that is the offshore cable sealing end of the grid
interconnection system that also represents the ownership
boundary between the connectee’s facility and that of the
TSO. Germany is the only country that has issued separate
offshore grid code.
† The Great Britain code [24], where the requirements for
wind farms are presented in combination with requirements
for other power production units. It applies to networks with
voltage levels 400, 275 and 132 kV (32 kV for Scotland).
Notably, an offshore grid code is under development in the
UK, aspects of which are included in the paper.
† The Irish code published by ESB National Grid [25]
(Section WPFS1, Wind Farm Power Station Grid Code
Provisions) that applies to networks with voltage levels 400,
220 and 110 kV.
† The Nordic grid code from Nordel [26] that applies to all
wind farms connecting to the Nordic grid (the interconnected
system of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland).
† The codes of Denmark [27, 28], referring to wind turbines
connected to grids with voltages below and above 100 kV,
respectively. Denmark is the only country belonging to the
Nordic power system that has issued separate requirements
for wind turbines connected to grids with voltages
below 100 kV and above 100 kV, which are still active.
Requirements issued by Sweden and Norway TSOs, in
2002 and 2001, respectively, also appear in the relevant
bibliography [14]; however, no additional information on
their applicability after the release of the Nordic grid code
is available.
† The grid code of Belgium [29] issued by the Belgian TSO,
Elia, applying to networks with voltage levels 30– 70 and
150– 380 kV.
† The grid codes of two Canadian TSOs, Hydro-Quebec
[30, 31], applying to networks with voltages above 44 kV
2 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
and Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) [32] that
applies to wind farms with rated capacity above 5 MW
connected to networks with voltage 69– 240 kV.
† USA rule for the interconnection of wind generators
published by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) in June 2005 [33] that applies to wind farms with
rated capacity above 20 MW.
† Codes from other countries like Spain [34], Italy [35]
Sweden [36] and New Zealand [37].
The article focuses on the technical regulations regarding
the connection of large wind farms to the high-voltage
transmission system, including active and reactive power
regulation, voltage and frequency operating limits and wind
farm behaviour during grid disturbances. Requirements for
smaller stations, connected to the distribution network, are
not included in the paper, since they concentrate on power
quality, fault level contribution and anti-islanding
protection, which are not key issues for large wind power
stations connected to the transmission system.
Several solutions have been proposed and implemented by
wind turbine manufacturers, in order to achieve grid code
compliance. In the second part of the article, a brief
presentation is made of available technologies of modern,
commercially available wind turbines, in terms of their
electrical system configuration, as far as their response to
grid disturbances and compliance to grid code requirements
is concerned.
2 Brief overview of common grid
code requirements
Based on the experience from the operation of power systems
with large wind penetration levels, modification of the
existing grid codes for connection and operation of wind
power plants in the high-voltage grid have proven necessary
[38]. The objective of these provisions is to improve and
stabilise wind turbine behaviour, decrease the amounts of
wind power to be lost following system disturbances and
provide the wind power stations with operational
characteristics similar to those of the conventional power
plants. The most common requirements include fault ride-
through capability, extended system voltage and frequency
variation limits, active power regulation and frequency
control, as well as reactive power/power factor and voltage
regulation capabilities. The nature of these requirements are
already discussed in the literature [1– 3, 10– 17, 21]. Here
a brief review is included for the sake of completeness of
the presentation.
The occurrence of a fault (short-circuit) at some point of
the network inevitably results in voltage dips in one or
more phases (possibly also to a voltage rise in healthy
phases), depending on the type and location of the fault,
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
 www.ietdl.org

which may be propagated to fairly remote locations of the Wind power plants can actively take part in grid operation
network, especially in the case of weak grids. The duration and control by regulation of their output power. All grid
of the dips is dependent on the protection system response codes currently impose requirements on the regulation
time and may vary between 0.1 s and several seconds, the capabilities of the active power of wind farms, taking the
most usual duration being in the range of a few tenths of a form of several different modes of control, illustrated in
second. In the event of such dips, generating stations may Fig. 2. Within the constraint of the primarily available active
encounter stability problems, depending on the type, power (i.e. the prevailing wind conditions), output power
magnitude and duration of the dip, as well as on the type can be regulated to a specific value (Fig. 2a) or to bear a
and technology of the power station. fixed relationship to the available power, such as maintaining
a specified reserve, either in MW or as a percentage of the
The large increase in the installed wind capacity in available power (Fig. 2b). Additional requirements include
transmission systems necessitates that wind generation
remains in operation in the event of network disturbances
[39, 40]. For this reason, grid codes issued in the current
decade invariably demand that large wind farms (especially
Q1 those connected to HV grids) must withstand voltage dips
down to a certain percentage of the nominal voltage (0% in
some cases) and for a specified duration. Such requirements
are known as FRT or low voltage ride through (LVRT)
requirements and they are described by a voltage against
time characteristic, denoting the minimum required
immunity of the wind power station to dips of the system
voltage. Fig. 1 depicts a typical FRT limit curve. In case of
dips above the limit line of Fig. 1, wind turbines must
remain in operation, whereas they can disconnect in the
event of dips below this limit. The voltage prescribed in
Fig. 1 generally corresponds to the voltage at the grid
connection point and the voltage dip may either be
symmetric or correspond to the maximum of the phase
voltages at this point, depending on the particular code
requirements. FRT curves are similar to Fig. 1, although
their quantitative characteristics vary among different systems.

FRT requirements also include fast active and reactive

output power restoration to the pre-fault values, after the
system voltage returns to normal operation. Certain codes
impose increased reactive current generation by the wind
turbines during the disturbance, in order to support the
system voltage, in much the same way as a conventional
synchronous generators increases its excitation during faults
Q2 via AVR action.

Figure 2 Typical active power constraints [14, 28]

a Absolute power constraint
b Delta production constraint (active power reserve)
Figure 1 Typical limit curve for FRT requirements c Power gradient constraint

IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25 3

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

the limitation of the rate of change of the output power

(Fig. 2c). Ramp rates are possible for power increases, but
operation with a power reserve is necessary to become
effective when the output power decreases.

A direct consequence of the active power control

possibilities is the provision of ancillary services from the
wind farm, such as the participation in frequency control or
the provision of spinning reserve, as already mentioned. As
shown in Fig. 3, frequency response may be requested in the
over-frequency region (reduction of active power in relation
to the positive frequency deviation), but also for under
frequency. In the latter case, the wind farm must operate Figure 4 Typical requirements for power factor variation
with a power reserve when the frequency is in the normal range in relation to the voltage
operating range, which inevitably has economic implications.
In addition to the response, regulation and control
Reactive power regulation capabilities are requested by many
capabilities briefly outlined, grid codes demand also that
grid codes. This is effected either by externally providing a
wind power stations operate over an extended range of
specific reactive power value or by a specific power factor.
system voltage and frequency deviations from the nominal
Further, the reactive power regulation capability may be
values. When the deviations are large, a reduction of the
exploited for voltage control at the wind farm connection
output power may be allowed, or operation for a limited
point to the system, or at a more distant node. Figs. 4 and 5
period may be foreseen.
show typical requirements for the power factor regulation
range, depending on the terminal voltage and the active
output power of the wind farm, respectively.
3 Presentation of grid code
technical requirements
The present section presents the requirements encountered in the
majority of grid codes concerning wind farm interconnection.

3.1 FRT requirements

3.1.1 Germany: According to the E.ON grid code [22],
the FRT requirements are given in Fig. 6 for symmetrical
network faults. The code defines the following:

† Three-phase short circuits or fault-related symmetrical

voltage dips must not lead to instability above limit line 1
Figure 3 Typical power– frequency response curve or to disconnection of the wind farm. After fault clearance,

Figure 5 Typical requirements for power factor variation range in relation to the active power

4 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
 www.ietdl.org

Figure 6 Limit curve for FRT requirements of the E.ON grid code [22]

the active power in-feed must increase with a rate of 20% of

the rated power per second.

† Voltage drops within the area between limit line 1 and

limit line 2 should not lead to disconnection, but in case of
wind turbine instability, short-time disconnection is
allowed. The resynchronisation must take place within up
to 2 s and active power in-feed must increase with a rate of
10% of the rated power/s after fault clearance.

† Below limit line 2 disconnection of the wind turbines is

allowed.
According to Fig. 6, wind farms must withstand voltage
drops down to 0% of the nominal voltage at the connection
point, for durations up to 150 ms (7.5 cycles). This
requirement differs from the FRT curve of the previous
version of E.ON code (2003) which defined that wind
farms must withstand voltage drop down to 15% for
approximately 600 ms (30 cycles), whereas the maximum
voltage dip duration extended to 3 s (150 cycles) [2]. The
respective characteristic is illustrated in Fig. 7 and has been
adopted by the current versions of the Irish, AESO
(Canada) and FERC (USA) grid codes.
Figure 7 Limit curve for FRT requirements adopted by the
Irish, AESO (Canada) and FERC (USA) grid codes [25, 32, 33]
must disconnect from the grid in four groups, after 1.5 s,
1.8 s, 2.1 s and 2.4 s, respectively. If the voltage on the
low voltage side of each generator transformer rises and
remains above 120% of the upper value of the voltage
band (e.g. 690 V  1.05  1.2 ¼ 870 V), the generator
affected must disconnect itself from the grid with a time delay
of 100 ms.

The automatic protection system mentioned in Fig. 6
operates in the following situations. If the voltage at the
connection point falls and remains below 85% of the nominal
voltage, with a simultaneous reactive power absorption, the
wind farm must disconnect with a time delay of 0.5 s. If the
voltage on the low voltage side of each generator transformer
falls and remains below 80% of the lower value of the voltage
band (e.g. 690 V  0.95  0.8 ¼ 525 V) the generators
3.1.2 UK: Great Britain’s LVRT requirements apply to
networks with a voltage level above 200 kV. The grid code
divides voltage dips in two categories (Fig. 8):
† Those lasting less than or equal to 140 ms (seven cycles),
caused by symmetrical or unsymmetrical network faults. In
this case, the wind farm must stay connected for voltage
drops down to 0%.

IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25 5

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
 www.ietdl.org

Besides the specifications concerning the active power

restoration rate (ramp rate) during and after fault clearance,
the Irish code describes general guidelines for this rate for
all kinds of operating conditions (start up, shut down and
normal operation). According to these guidelines, two
ramp rate settings are prescribed, the first one applying to
the MW ramp rate average over 1 min and the second one
applying to the MW per minute ramp rate average over
10 min. Both settings may vary independently between 1
and 30 MW/min and are agreed with the TSO.

3.1.4 Nordel: The Nordic grid code from Nordel [26]

applies to all wind farms connecting to the Nordic grid
(the interconnected system of Denmark, Sweden, Norway
Figure 8 LVRT requirements of the British grid code [24]
and Finland). The first edition of the Nordic grid code to
issue specific requirements on wind turbine connection was
released in 2006, followed by the most recent edition of
† Those lasting more than 140 ms (seven cycles), caused by
2007. As stated in [26], the code outlines the minimum
symmetrical faults. In this case, disconnection is not allowed
technical requirements that new wind turbines together
above the curve shown in Fig. 8.
with their supplemental installations have to fulfil at the
connection point to the transmission network, in order to
After restoration of the voltage, the active power must be
provide for adequate safe operation and reliability of the
restored to at least 90% of the level available before the dip,
interconnected Nordic power system. The Nordic TSOs
within 1 s.
may publish connection codes for the electricity system
within their responsibility having additional requirements.
The UK grid code, unlike other codes, defines that the
profile of Fig. 8 is not an rms voltage– time response
The Nordic grid code defines the LVRT requirement of
envelope that would be obtained by plotting the transient
Fig. 9. Wind farms must withstand voltage drops at the
voltage response at a point on the transmission system
connection point down to 0% of the nominal voltage for
against time. Rather, it is clarified that each point on the
250 ms (12.5 cycles), followed by an increase to 95%
characteristic represents a combination of voltage level and
within the next 0.5 s (25 cycles). No further specifications
associated time duration, which the connected wind power
for active power production during or after the fault are
station must ride through.
provided.
As mentioned in the Section 1, an offshore grid code is
currently being drafted in the UK [41]. The FRT 3.1.5 Denmark: As mentioned in Section 1, Denmark is
provisions, as well as other technical requirements, resemble the only country belonging to the Nordic system that has
in principle those applicable to onshore stations, using as issued requirements for wind farms, other than those in the
grid connection point the interface point to the onshore Nordic grid code. The Danish requirements [27, 28] apply
Q3 transmission system. Hence, HVDC interconnection of to grids with voltages below 100 kV and above 100 kV and
offshore wind farms is directly catered for. It is interesting concern both parts of the Danish system, belonging to
to note that such a rationale is not explicitly present in the UCTE and Nordel. Fig. 10 illustrates the LVRT
EO.N offshore code [23], where system voltage and
frequency are measured at the grid connection point,
defined as the offshore end of the interconnecting
submarine cables, formally belonging to the TSO.

3.1.3 Ireland: The LVRT curve specified by the Irish grid

code is illustrated in Fig. 7, corresponding to voltage dips in
one or more phases at the point of connection of the wind
farm to the system (high-voltage side of the connection
transformer). It is required that the wind farm provides
active power during the disturbance in proportion to the
voltage level. It is also defined that after the restoration of
voltage to normal operation levels, the active power must
be restored to at least 90% of the level available before
the dip within 1 s at the latest, as in the case of the UK
grid code. Figure 9 LVRT requirements of the Nordic grid code [26]

6 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

Figure 10 LVRT requirements of the Danish grid code for
wind turbines connected to grids below 100 kV (Eltra and
Elkraft) [27]
requirements for wind farms connected to voltage levels
below 100 kV according to the Eltra and Elkraft grid
codes. For voltages below 100 kV, apart from the LVRT
requirement of Fig. 10, wind farms should disconnect if
the voltage increases above 1.2 p.u.
Additional requirements for voltages below 100 kV define
that a wind turbine must remain connected after the faults or
sequence of faults in the distribution system listed below.
† Three-phase short circuit lasting 100 ms (five cycles)
† Two-phase short circuit with/without earth lasting
100 ms (five cycles), followed by a new fault 300 – 500 ms
later (15 – 25 cycles), lasting also 100 ms (five cycles)
† At least two two-phase short circuits within 2 min
† At least two three-phase short circuits within 2 min
† At least six two-phase short circuits at 5-min intervals
† At least six two-phase short circuits at 5-min intervals.
For system voltages above 100 kV, the grid code defines
that a wind turbine must remain connected after the faults
or sequence of faults in the transmission system listed below:
† Three-phase short circuit lasting 100 ms (five cycles)
† Two-phase short circuit with/without earth lasting
100 ms (five cycles), followed by a new fault 300 – 500 ms
later (15 – 25 cycles), lasting also 100 ms (five cycles)
† One-phase short-circuit for up to 100 ms (five cycles)
followed after 300– 500 ms (15 – 25 cycles) by a new short
circuit, lasting also 100 ms (five cycles)
† At least two one-phase short-circuits within 2-min
interval
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
† At least two two-phase short-circuits within 2-min interval
† At least two three-phase short-circuit within 2-min
interval
Additionally, sufficient energy reserves (emergency power,
hydraulics and pneumatics) are demanded for the following
three independent sequences:
† At least six one-phase earth faults with 5-min intervals
† At least six two-phase short circuits with 5-min intervals
† At least six three-phase short circuits with 5-min intervals.
3.1.6 Belgium: The grid code of Belgium distinguishes
between two kinds of voltage disturbances, namely voltage
dips of ‘limited’ and ‘important’ magnitude, as shown in
Fig. 11 (the respective LVRT curves refer to the voltage at
the wind farm connection point). During each kind of
disturbance, the wind farms must remain connected and be
able to operate at their full operating range, as long as the
voltage at the connection point remains in the shaded area of
the LVRT diagrams. The distinction between limited and
important magnitude of voltage dips is applicable only if the
curves of Fig. 11 are considered as envelopes of the voltage
time variation and not as a voltage–time response curves. No
further specifications for active power production during or
after the fault are provided.
3.1.7 Canada: In Canada, several interconnection
requirements have been developed [42] by different TSOs
(e.g. BC Hydro, AESO, SaskPower, Manitoba Hydro,
Hydro One and Hydro-Québec). Alberta and Quebec have
drafted wind-specific interconnection standards, following
proposals made by the Canadian Wind Energy Association
(CanWEA) [31], with the Quebec document being a
supplement to its general transmission level interconnection
requirements.
Fig. 12 provides a comparison of the LVRT limit curves
specified by Hydro Quebec and AESO. Hydro Quebec
Figure 11 LVRT requirements of the Belgian grid code [29]
7
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
Figure 12 LVRT requirements set by the Hydro Quebec and
AESO codes [30, 32]
prescribes LVRT requirements for three-phase and
unsymmetrical faults that occur on the transmission system
(including the high-voltage side of the grid connection
transformer). It also sets out requirements for remote
symmetrical and unsymmetrical faults with larger clearance
times. Moreover, in case of overvoltages up to 1.4 p.u. it
specifies a minimum interval within which the wind farms
must not trip. The curve of Fig. 12 corresponds to ‘the
positive sequence voltage on the high-voltage side of the
switchyard’. AESO grid code requires the wind farms to
withstand voltage drop down to 15% for 0.625 s (37.5
cycles) (following the requirements of the old version of the
E.ON code, Fig. 7) and mentions that in case of voltage
rise above 1.1 p.u. wind turbines must trip.
3.1.8 USA: According to the current FERC rule, issued in
June 2005, the wind power plants ‘shall be able to remain
online during voltage disturbances up to the time periods
and associated voltage levels’ shown in Fig. 7 (former
E.ON requirement). Also, the ‘wind generating plant must
be able to operate continuously at 90% of the rated line
voltage, measured at the high-voltage side of the wind
plant substation transformer’.
3.1.9 Other countries: According to the Spanish
regulation, the wind turbines must remain connected during
faults for a voltage profile as shown in Fig. 13. The
Figure 13 LVRT requirements of the Spanish grid code [17]
8 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
respective requirement by the Italian grid code, addressing
wind power installations with a rated power over 25 MW, is
depicted in Fig. 14. The Swedish code issued by the
Swedish TSO Svk distinguishes the LVRT requirements for
wind farms of rated power less or above 100 MW, as
depicted in Fig. 15, with stiffer requirement for the latter
ones, since their disconnection affects significantly power
system stability.
According to the Spanish grid code, during balanced
three-phase faults, and later, in the voltage recovery period
after clearance of the fault, the wind farms will not absorb
reactive power. However, reactive power absorptions can be
admitted during a period of 150 ms (7.5 cycles) after the
beginning of the fault, and a period of 150 ms (7.5 cycles)
after fault clearance (provided that it does not exceed 60%
of rated power). In terms of active power, during the fault
and in the voltage recovery period after the clearance, the
wind farm will not absorb active power, at the point of
interconnection with the transmission system. However,
active power absorption can be admitted during a period of
150 ms (7.5 cycles) after the beginning of the fault, and a
period of 150 ms after fault clearance. Additionally, during
three-phase faults, active power consumption is admitted
with a maximum value of 10% of the installation rated
power [43].
Figure 14 LVRT requirements of the Italian grid code [17]
Figure 15 LVRT requirements of the Swedish grid code [13]
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

The specifications of New Zealand (referring to connections
at 110 kV) link the LVRT curve with the voltage profile
corresponding to three-phase faults that may occur at several
points of the network (faults at the medium voltage feeders
are also considered). These profiles are used for the extraction
of a ‘combined voltage profile’ for all faults, corresponding to
the ‘maximum actual range’ of Fig. 16. However, the
specified LVRT curve corresponds to a more relaxed
requirement, described by the ‘minimum design target’ of
Fig. 16.
3.1.10 Comparison of FRT requirements: Fig. 17
presents in the same graph all LVRT requirements cited in
Figure 16 LVRT requirements of the New Zealand grid
code [37]
Figure 17 LVRT requirements of various grid codes
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
Section 3.1. Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of
the curves of Fig. 17. The requirements depend on the
specific characteristics of each power system and the
protection employed and they deviate significantly from
each other.
More demanding appear to be the requirements of the
German, UK, Nordic, Danish, Belgian, Hydro-Quebec,
Swedish and New Zealand grid codes, which stipulate that
wind farms must remain connected during voltage dips down
to 0%. However, it must be noted that these requirements
apply for the connection point to the network, generally at
HV level. Taking into account the typical impedance values
for the step-up transformers and interconnecting lines, a
relatively simple calculation indicates that the corresponding
voltage dip at lower voltage levels, near the WT terminals, are
likely to be somewhat above 15% [10], facilitating compliance
to the LVRT requirements. Specifications may vary according
to the voltage level or the wind farm power, for example wind
farms connected to the Danish grid at voltages below 100 kV
are required to withstand less severe voltage dips than the
ones connected at higher voltages, in terms of voltage dip
magnitude and duration. Similar differences can be observed
in the regulation governing the connection of wind farms
below and above 100 MW in the Swedish transmission
system. Apart from the FRT curve, the codes of Denmark
and Hydro-Quebec define specific kinds of faults
(or sequences of faults, in the Danish code) that the
wind farm must withstand (including remote faults in
the case of the Hydro-Quebec code, cleared by slow
9
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Characteristics of fault ride-through curves in various grid codes

Grid code Fault duration Fault duration Min voltage level (% of Voltage restoration
(ms) (cycles) Vnom) (s)
Germany (Eon) 150 7.5 0 1.5
UK 140 7 0 1.2
Ireland 625 31.25 15 3
Nordel 250 12.5 0 0.75
Denmark (,100 kV) 140 7 25 0.75
Denmark (.100 kV) 100 5 0 10
Belgium (large voltage 200 10 0 0.7
dips)
Belgium (small voltage 1500 75 70 1.5
dips)
Canada (AESO) 625 37. 5 15 3
Canada (Hydro-Quebec) 150 9 0 1
USA 625 37.5 15 3
Spain 500 25 20 1
Italy 500 25 20 0.8
Sweden (,100 MW) 250 12.5 25 0.25
Sweden (.100 MW) 250 12.5 0 0.8
New Zealand 200 10 0 1

protective devices). These more detailed requirements could be Fig. 18, as well as via increased reactive power consumption
attributed to the isolation of the Hydro-Québec transmission in the event of a voltage swell. The voltage control must
system, which has no synchronous link to neighbouring take place within 20 ms (one cycle) after fault recognition
systems [7]. by providing additional reactive current on the low-voltage
side of the wind turbine transformer, amounting to at least
Another important difference lies in the active power 2% of the rated current for each percent of the voltage dip.
restoration rates specified by the German and British/Irish A reactive power output of at least 100% of the rated
grid codes, whereas the British code requires immediate current must be possible if necessary. The above applies
restoration (at 90% in 0.5 s after voltage recovery), E.ON
Netz requires restoration with a rate at least equal to 20%
of the nominal output power (reaching 100% in 5 s after
voltage recovery). The less severe requirement of the
German code may be attributed to the physical location of
the German grid and its strong interconnection to the
UCTE system, as opposed to the weakly interconnected
British system, where the need for active power restoration
to the pre-fault values is more crucial for system stability.

3.1.11 Requirements for reactive current supply

during voltage dips: Some grid codes prescribe that
wind farms should support the grid by generating reactive
power during a network fault, to support and restore fast
the grid voltage. Figure 18 Reactive output current during voltage
disturbances according to the E.ON grid code [22]
E.ON requires that wind farms support grid voltage with Note: In case of offshore installations, the +10% dead band is
additional reactive current during a voltage dip, as shown in reduced to +5% [23]

10 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

outside a +10% dead band around nominal voltage. In the
case of offshore wind farms the dead band is reduced to
+5%. The characteristic refers to the voltage at the grid
connection point, that is at the wind farm side of the
submarine interconnection.
According to the Spanish grid code, the wind power plants
are required to stop drawing reactive power within 100 ms
(five cycles) of a drop voltage and to be able to inject
reactive power within 150 ms (7.5 cycles) of grid recovery
as shown in Fig. 19.
Finally, Great Britain and Ireland specify in their grid
codes that wind farms must produce their maximum
reactive current during a voltage dip caused by a network
fault.
3.2 Active power and frequency control
These requirements refer to the ability of wind farms to
regulate (usually, but not exclusively, reduce) their power
output to a defined level (active power curtailment), either
by disconnecting wind turbines or by pitch control action.
In addition, it is required from wind farms to provide
frequency response that is to regulate their active output
power according to the frequency deviations.
The grid codes of the following countries demand the
wind farms to have the ability of active power curtailment:
† Germany, with a ramp rate 10% of grid connection
capacity per minute
† Ireland, with a ramp rate 1 – 30 MW/min
† Nordic grid code, with a ramp rate 10% of rated power per
minute
† Denmark, with a ramp rate 10– 100% of rated power per
minute.
According to the German code when frequency exceeds
the value 50.2 Hz wind farms must reduce their active
Figure 19 Reactive output current during voltage
disturbances according to the Spanish grid code [17]
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
power with a gradient of 40% of the available power of the
wind turbines per Hz. In case of offshore wind farms,
active power must be reduced with a gradient of 98% per
Hz and at a rate of 25% per second, based on the active
power available at the moment. The knee point for
providing frequency response is 50.1 Hz, instead of 50.2 Hz.
The British code requires from wind farms to have a
frequency control device that can supply primary and
secondary frequency control as well as over-frequency
control. It is remarkable that it also prescribes tests, which
validate that wind farms indeed have the capability of the
demanded frequency response. The UK offshore grid code
working group stipulates real-time communication of the
system frequency measurement to the wind farm, to
address the case of HVDC interconnections, where the
wind farm and onshore system sides of the HVDC link
may operate at different frequencies (a requirement not
explicitly stated in the EO.N offshore code).
The Irish code demands a frequency response system,
which will control active power according to response curve
shown in Fig. 20. Under ‘normal’ frequency operation, the
wind farm shall operate with an active power output as set
by line ‘B’ – ’C’ in Fig. 20. If the frequency falls below point
‘B’, then the frequency response system shall act to ramp
up the wind farm active power output, in accordance with
the droop characteristic defined by line ‘B’ – ‘A’. Once the
frequency rises to a level above the point ‘C’, the frequency
response system shall act to ramp down the wind farm’s
active power output in accordance with the frequency-active
power characteristic defined by line ‘C’ – ‘D’ – ‘E’. At
frequencies greater than or equal to ‘D’ – ’E’, there shall be
no active power output from the wind farm.
The Danish grid codes also require the active power to
be controlled according to frequency, as shown in Fig. 21.
According to the Hydro-Quebec grid code, wind farms
with rated power greater than 10 MW must have a
frequency control system that helps reduce large (.0.5 Hz)
and short-term (,10 s) frequency deviations in the power
system. As a general remark, it is clear that most grid codes
Figure 20 Example power – frequency response curve
according to the Irish grid code [25]
11
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
Figure 21 Power – frequency response according to the
Danish grid code [27]
require wind farms (especially those of high capacity) to
provide frequency response, that is to contribute to the
regulation of system frequency. It should be emphasised
that the active power ramp rates must comply with the
respective rates applicable to conventional power units.
3.3 Voltage and frequency operating
range
Wind farms must be capable of operating continuously within
the voltage and frequency variation limits encountered during
Figure 22 Comparison of operating frequency limits imposed by various grid codes
12
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
normal operation of the system where they connect to.
Further, they should remain in operation even in case of
voltage and frequency excursions outside the normal
operation limits, albeit for a limited time and in some cases
at reduced output power capability.
Fig. 22 provides a comparison of operating frequency limits
(the scale is only indicative of the duration that wind power
plants are required to remain in operation) in countries with
50 Hz power systems (therefore Canada and USA limits are
not included, as well as those of New Zealand, where the
requirements are different in the north and southern part of
the country). Where possible, voltage limits in relation to
frequency limits appear, as well (they are not included in the
case of Germany, although they are available, because
different % values are specified for the three transmission
system nominal voltage levels). Spain and Italy are also not
included in Fig. 22, due to lack of relevant information. It is
also noted that, in the case of Germany, the E.ON offshore
code [23] prescribes an extended frequency range for
offshore wind farms, stipulating limited time operation up to
10 s for frequency excursions in the ranges 51.5–53.5 Hz or
47.5–46.5 Hz, as depicted in Fig. 22. Upon reaching a
frequency at the grid connection point of less than 46.5 Hz
or greater than 53.5 Hz, offshore wind farms must
disconnect from the grid with a time delay of 300 ms.
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
 www.ietdl.org

Table 2 Frequency and active power ranges for Fig. 20 [25] Q4

Frequency (Hz) Active power (% of the available active power)

MEC . 10 MW 5 MW , MEC  10 MW
FA 47.0 – 51.0 PA 50 – 100 100
FB 49.5 – 51.0 PB 50 – 100 100
FC 49.5 – 51.0 PC
FD 50.5 – 52.0 PD 20 – 100 20– 100
FE PE 0 0
MEC ¼ maximum export capacity

Table 3 Values applying to Fig. 21 [27]

Setting range Default
value
lower frequency limit for the control range during under frequency ( fn) 50.00. . .47.00 Hz 48.70 Hz
upper frequency range for the control range during over frequency ( fu) 50.00. . .52.00 Hz 51.30 Hz
lower frequency limit for the deadband during under-frequency ( fd2) 50.00. . .52.00 Hz 50.15 Hz
upper frequency limit for the deadband during over-frequency ( fdþ) 50.00. . .52.00 Hz 50.15 Hz
control factor for the production applying to frequencies in the range Over frequency:
fn . . .fd2 and fdþ . . .fu  
f  fdþ
1
fu  fdþ

(Control factor ¼ 1 corresponds to max. possible production – or to power set point, Under frequency:
if specified)  
f  fd
1
fn  fd

regulating speed calculated from exceeding a limit value to completed control action 10% of the rated power per
second

It is obvious that the most extreme frequency limits are
46.5 and 54 Hz. In countries like Ireland, characterised by
an isolated power system with weak interconnections,
frequency limits are expectedly wider. It is remarkable that
New Zealand’s grid code prescribes a frequency range of
45– 55 Hz. The strictest continuous operation frequency
limits appear in the British code (47.5 –52 Hz), whereas
the strictest continuous operation voltage limits appear in
the Danish code (90 – 105% nominal voltage).
In Table 4, the frequency limits of Hydro-Quebec and
AESO grid codes are shown in more detail.
3.4 Reactive power control and voltage
regulation
Voltage regulation in power systems is directly related to the
control of reactive power. The recent grid codes demand
from wind farms to provide reactive power control
capabilities, often in response to the power system voltage,
much as conventional power plants. The reactive power
control requirements are related to the characteristics of each
network, since the influence of the reactive power injection
to the voltage level is dependent on the network short-
circuit capacity and impedance [44]. Some codes prescribe
that the TSO may define a set-point value for voltage or
power factor or reactive power at the wind farm’s connection
point. Reactive power control is an important issue for wind
farms, because not all wind turbine technologies have the
same capabilities, whereas wind farms are often installed
in remote areas and therefore reactive power has to be
transported over long distances resulting in power losses.
Fig. 23 compares the permissible wind farms power factor
range (based on rated power) in relation to grid voltage,
according to the German (grey line) and British (light grey

IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25 13

doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

Table 4 Frequency limits according to Hydro-Quebec and AESO grid codes [30, 32]

Hydro-Quebec AESO
Frequency (Hz) Minimum time without tripping Frequency (Hz) Minimum time without tripping
f , 55.5 disconnection f , 57 disconnection
55.5  f , 56.5 0.35 s 57  f , 57.3 0.75 s
56.5  f , 57.0 2s 57.3  f , 57.8 7.5 s
57.0  f , 57.5 10 s 57.8  f  58.4 30 s
57.5  f  58.5 1.5 min 58.4 , f  59.4 3 min
58.5 , f  59.4 11 min 59.4 < f  60.6 continuous operation Q5
59.4 < f  60.6 continuous operation 60.6 , f  61.6 3 min
60.6 , f  61.5 11 min 61.6 , f  61.7 30 s
61.5 , f  61.7 1.5 min f . 61.7 disconnection
f . 61.7 disconnection

Figure 23 Requirements for power factor variation range in relation to the voltage, according to the German and British grid
codes [10]

line) grid codes. The nominal voltages are 380, 220, 110 kV
for onshore wind farms and 155 kV for offshore wind farms
in Germany and 400, 275 kV for Great Britain. The British
code refers to wind farms with rated power above 50 MW.
The German code specifies that wind farms may function
in lagging or leading power factor in case of overvoltages.
According to the British code, power plants must be able
to provide their full reactive power at voltages +5% around
the nominal, for voltage levels 400 and 275 kV.

According to the German code, the operating point for the

steady-state reactive power can be defined in terms of power
factor or reactive power level (Q in Mvar) or voltage level (U
in kV). Fig. 24 describes additional specifications imposed by
the E.ON offshore grid code concerning the reactive power
of generating units, within a voltage range of +5% around
nominal (at the terminals of the generating unit). The
Figure 24 EO.N offshore requirement [23]: minimum
useable P/Q-operating range of a generation unit, within
a +5% range around the nominal voltage (at the
generation unit)

14 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

operating points are defined either by agreement of a value or
of a schedule, or by online (remote) set-point determination.
The British code requires the high-capacity wind farms to
have an automatic system, which regulates the voltage at
the connection point (or the grid interface point, in the
case of offshore plants). The Irish code further stipulates a
voltage regulation system, which will accept a set-point
(reference) value for the voltage at the connection point.
The reactive power variation capability according to the
British and the Irish codes is shown in Fig. 25, where
i. Point A is equivalent (in Mvar) to: 0.95 leading power
factor at rated MW output
ii. Point B is equivalent (in Mvar) to: 0.95 lagging power
factor at rated MW output
iii. Point C is equivalent (in Mvar) to: 25% of rated MW
output
iv. Point D is equivalent (in Mvar) to: þ5% of rated MW
output
v. Point E is equivalent (in Mvar) to: 212% of rated MW
output
The above points apply to the British code. The Irish code
requires a power factor equal to 0.835 lagging or leading, at
active power output levels below 50% of the rated.
The methodology used in the UK offshore grid code draft
[41] proposes that the reactive power range is expressed in
terms of power factor, in order to represent more effectively
the active power exchange between the offshore and
onshore TSO.
The Nordic grid code demands that wind farms are able to
control their reactive output power, in order to regulate the
Figure 25 Reactive power in relation to active power according to the British and Irish codes [10]
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
voltage at the connection point. According to the Danish
code, the reactive power must be limited within the band
shown in Fig. 26 (where Prated corresponds to the total
rated power of the wind farm). The red line is equivalent to
0.995 power factor. Reactive power control can be carried
out by each turbine individually, or centrally at wind farm
level. The Belgian code mentions that wind farms with a
rated power above 25 MW must be able to produce or
absorb reactive power from 210% to 45% of their rated
capacity. For slow voltage variations the following factor aeq
is defined, which must have a value between 18 and 25
DQnet =(0:45xP)
aeq ¼  (1)
DUnet =Unorm, exp
where Qnet is the reactive power measured in the high-voltage
side of the grid connection transformer, P is the wind farm
rated power, Unet is the voltage measured at the high-
voltage side of the grid connection transformer and
Unorm.exp is the nominal grid voltage.
Hydro-Quebec requires (especially for wind farms with a
rated power above 10 MW) the existence of an automatic
voltage regulation system that operates within power factor
limits of at least 0.95 (based on the available rated power)
leading or lagging. It is emphasised that wind farms have
to contribute to voltage regulation in normal but also in
abnormal and dynamic operating conditions. AESO
prescribes that voltage regulation and reactive power
performance of a wind farm will be assessed at the low-
voltage side of the grid connection transformer. Fig. 27
illustrates the reactive power requirements, which are
divided in continuous reactive capability and dynamic
reactive capability. The minimum range for the former is
0.9 cap. to 0.95 ind. power factor, whereas for the latter it
is 0.95 cap. to 0.985 ind. power factor, based on the MW
output.
15
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

Figure 26 Reactive power requirements against active output power, according to the Danish code [27]

Figure 27 Reactive power requirements of the Canadian AESO grid code. Area 1 defines the anticipated continuous reactive
capability and area 2 the anticipated dynamic reactive capability [32]

In addition, the AESO code demands that wind farms
must have a continuously acting voltage regulation system,
which will operate only in the voltage set-point control
mode. The system shall be calibrated such that a change in
reactive power will achieve 95% of its final value no sooner
than 0.1 s and no later than 1 s following a step change in
voltage. FERC rule mentions that wind farms must be able
to operate with power factor 0.95 lagging to 0.95 leading if
the TSO judges that this is necessary for the transmission
system operation.
A comparison of the above reactive power requirements is
shown in Fig. 28 which includes all available active power-
reactive power curves imposed by national grid codes.
3.5 Other requirements
The Eltra and Elkraft grid codes [27, 28] prescribe a virtual
‘type test’ that verifies the behaviour of the wind turbines
during voltage dips. It consists in the simulation of a three-
phase short circuit, with the wind turbine operating at rated

16 IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

Figure 28 Comparison of reactive power requirements imposed by national or regional grid codes
power, nominal rotor speed and with full compensation. The
calculation is conducted with the use of the equivalent circuit
of Fig. 29a. The system is represented by a Thevenin
equivalent with a 0.1 þ j1.0 V impedance (at the 10 kV
level). The RMS value of the Thevenin internal voltage
must vary as shown in Fig. 29b. The result is successful if
the wind turbine reaches its rated power 10 s at most after
the voltage recovers and withstands two three-phase short
circuits (with an interval of 2 min between them). No
further details for the wind turbine model are specified,
Figure 29 Specifications for the simulation of the wind
turbine behaviour during a three-phase short circuit,
according to the Danish grid code [27]
a Thevenin equivalent
b Voltage profile for the voltage source in (a)
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
apart from the requirement to submit the software used for
the calculation.
In addition, the Danish grid code for system voltages above
100 kV demands additional simulations, proving that the
wind farm is able to withstand the impacts from the
following asymmetric faults in the grid, without requiring
disconnection of wind turbines in the wind farm:
† Two-phase fault on a line in the transmission grid with
unsuccessful reclosure.
† Single-phase fault on a line in the transmission grid with
unsuccessful reclosure.
It is also defined that, if the connection point is on the
secondary side of a transformer belonging to the transmission
grid, the vector group and phase shift in the transformer
(typically YNd11) will be taken into consideration at the
examination of asymmetric faults.
Most grid codes prescribe data exchange between wind farms
and system operators, that is signals that the wind farm must
supply through a telecommunication or SCADA system to Q6
the TSO. Usually these include data concerning voltage,
current, active and reactive power output, set-point values, as
well as wind speed and operating status signals for the main
switchgear and protection systems.
4 Wind turbine technologies and
grid requirements
In this section, a brief review is presented of wind turbine
technology aspects, associated with grid code compliance.
A basic categorisation of wind turbines, related to the
electrical schemes used and their behaviour in case of grid
disturbances, is in constant and variable speed machines.
17
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
Constant-speed wind turbines are equipped with squirrel
cage induction generators directly connected to the grid
(Fig. 30a). The rotational speed of the rotor is practically
fixed, since they operate at a slip around 1%. Since the
induction machine absorbs reactive power from the grid,
connection of compensating capacitor banks at the wind
turbine (or wind farm) terminals is necessary. Their
aerodynamic control is based on stall, active stall or pitch
control.
A variation of this scheme utilises a wound rotor induction
generator and electronically controlled external resistors to
the rotor terminals [45]. This configuration permits a very
limited variation of speed (typically up to 10% above the
synchronous), basically for stress alleviation and power
quality improvement.
In variable speed wind turbines the rotor speed varies
considerably, depending on the prevailing wind conditions.
Two basic configurations for this type of machines are
available, as illustrated in Figs. 30b and c. The first utilises a
doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) and a rotor converter
cascade of reduced rating, whereas the second employs a
synchronous or induction generator, the stator of which is
interfaced to the grid via a full converter cascade. The
Figure 30 Basic wind turbine technologies
a Constant speed wind turbine with squirrel cage induction generator
b Wind turbine with DFIG
c Wind turbine with full power converter
18
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
aerodynamic control of variable speed machine is based on
blade pitch control (although stall operation is in principle
possible, but not preferred in practice).
In case of DFIGs, the generator’s stator is directly connected
to the grid whereas the rotor is connected through a cascade of
two voltage source converters (VSCs) (rectifier-inverter,
connected back-to-back, as in Fig. 31). The rotor-side
converter excites the generator rotor winding at variable
frequency, thus permitting variation of its rotational speed. At
the same time, the converter regulates the torque and reactive
power developed by the generator. The grid-side converter
operates in synchronism to the grid, transferring active and
possibly reactive power. In this scheme, the power handled by
the rotor circuits and converters varies in direct proportion to
the operating slip. Hence, for a slip variation typically of the
order of +30%, the converter is dimensioned at
approximately 30% of the rated wind turbine power.
Wind turbines with full converter, as in Fig. 30c, use either
a synchronous or an asynchronous generator, whose stator is
connected to the grid via an AC/DC/AC converter cascade.
In this case, however, the converter handles the total
generator power to the grid and therefore no size
economies are possible. On the other hand, this scheme
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

Figure 31 Configuration of the electrical part of a DFIG wind turbine
permits full variation of the generator speed and therefore a
wider speed control range. The most common alternative is
the application of a wound-field synchronous generator (in
which case the generator-side converter is considerably
simplified) but permanent magnet excitation is also possible
and gains momentum lately. If an asynchronous generator
is employed, then a squirrel cage machine is used, much as
in the case of industrial motor drives.
As described in the previous sections, the grid codes require
that wind farms must remain connected during and after severe
grid disturbances, ensure fast restoration of active power to the
pre-fault levels, as soon as the fault is cleared, and in certain cases
produce reactive current in order to support grid voltage during
disturbances. Depending on their type and technology, wind
turbines can fulfil these requirements to different degrees, as
explained in the following.
Starting with constant speed wind turbines, their low-
voltage behaviour is dominated by the presence of the grid-
connected induction generator. In the event of a voltage dip,
the generator torque and power reduces considerably (by the
square of its terminal voltage) resulting in the acceleration of
the rotor, which may in turn result in rotor instability, unless
the voltage is restored fast or the accelerating mechanical
torque is rapidly reduced below the levels of the available
electromagnetic torque of the generator. Further, operation
of the machine at increased slip values results in increased
reactive power absorption, particularly after fault clearance
and partial restoration of the system voltage. This effectively
prevents fast voltage recovery and may affect other
neighbouring generators, whose terminal voltage remains
depressed. Since the dynamic behaviour of the induction
generator itself cannot be improved, possible measures to
enhance the fault ride-through capabilities of constant speed
wind turbines are the following:
† Improvement in the response of the wind turbine
aerodynamic control system, in order to perform fast
limitation of the accelerating mechanical torque, to prevent
rotor over speed. Physical limitations of the blades and the
pitch regulation mechanism impose a limit on the
effectiveness of such an approach.
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
† Supply of reactive power through static compensation
devices at the wind turbine or wind farm terminals, such as
SVCs or STATCOMs. Such a device would provide high
amounts of reactive power during faults, to effectively
support the terminal voltage and therefore limit the
magnitude of the voltage dip experienced by the wind
turbines. Nevertheless, FACTS are complicated and costly
devices, whereas there is an obvious limitation to the
voltage correction they can achieve, particularly in the event
of nearby system faults. Further, this is a solution to be
examined on a per case basis and tailored to the
characteristics of each specific installation [46 – 49].
Other grid code requirements, such as active power
regulation and frequency response, are possible to be met
via the aerodynamic control systems of the wind turbines.
More challenging are the reactive power regulation tasks
that require the installation of suitably size FACTS devices.
Variable speed wind turbines, on the other hand, present
the distinct advantages of direct generator torque and
reactive current control and the possibility to endure large
rotor speed variations without any stability consequences.
For this reason, grid disturbances affect much less their
operation and, generally speaking, they are capable of
meeting the most stringent grid code requirements.
In case of voltage disturbances, rotor over speed becomes
an issue of much smaller significance, since a limited
increase of speed is possible (e.g. 10– 15%) without any
consequences, the rotor inertia acting as an energy buffer
for the surplus accelerating power, until the pitch regulation
becomes effective. In case of severe voltage dips, an energy
surplus may occur within the electrical part of the machine,
with the potential to cause a dc capacitor over voltage. This
is dealt with via proper redesign of the converter
controllers, increase of the local energy storage capacity
(e.g. capacitor size) or even by providing a local power
dissipation means (typically a dc chopper and breaking
resistor, connected in parallel to the dc capacitors).
However, even with variable speed wind turbines there still
exist LVRT issues affecting their response. In the case of
19
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
DFIG wind turbines, the direct connection of the generator
stator to the grid inevitably results in severe transients in case
of large grid disturbances. Hence, the stator contributes a
high initial short circuit current, whereas large currents and
voltages are also induced in the rotor windings, as a
consequence of the fundamental flux linkage dynamics of
the generator. Furthermore, the depressed terminal voltage
reduces accordingly the power output of the grid side
converter in the rotor circuits, leading to an increase of the
dc bus capacitor, possibly to dangerous levels.
To protect the power converters from over voltages and
over currents, DFIGs are always equipped with a device
known as the crowbar, which short circuits the rotor
terminals as soon as such situations are detected. Once the
crowbar is activated, the rotor-side converter is deactivated
and the DFIG behaves like a conventional induction
machine, that is control is lost over the generator. Notably,
crowbar activation may occur not only at the instant of a
voltage dip, but also in case of abrupt voltage recovery, after
clearance of a fault. Conceptually, two crowbar options are
available:
† The passive crowbar, utilising a diode rectifier or a pair of
antiparallel thyristors to shorten the rotor terminals. The
disadvantage of this option is the lack of control on the
deactivation of the crowbar, leading to sustained operation
with short-circuited rotor, much as a squirrel cage
induction machine.
† The active crowbar that uses IGBT switches to short the
rotor. This enhances considerably the operation of the
device, with a faster elimination of the rotor transients
(typically within 100 ms) and therefore faster regain of
control. After deactivation of the crowbar, full
controllability over the wind turbine behaviour is resumed.
Hence, although voltage dips inevitably cause torque and
power transients in the DFIG wind turbine, which excite
the rotor crowbar protection for a limited time, the various
implementations of the active crowbar can improve the
stability of the wind turbine and its response to sudden
voltage changes [50].
Another important improvement can be achieved by the
addition of a stator switch, as shown in Fig. 31 [3]. The
stator is disconnected for a short period (short-term
interruption – STI) through the stator switch and the rotor
is demagnetised. After that, the generator side inverter is
restarted, the stator is reconnected and the operation is
resumed. During the stator disconnection, the grid side
converter stays active and feeds reactive power to the grid.
This implementation results in the limitation of transients,
both in magnitude and duration, and permits to keep full
control over the generator during the greatest part of the
disturbance interval. Moreover, with proper control
strategies of the rotor and grid-side converters, the DFIG
can satisfy requirements for reactive power injection during
20
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
faults, as the ones imposed by the Spanish grid code [51].
Improved control algorithms of DFIG turbines can
significantly reduce the mechanical stresses, especially in
the case of the predominantly asymmetrical grid faults [52].
The inclusion of energy storage at the dc bus significantly
enhances the fault ride-through capability of the WT,
whereas several other improvements to the generator
configuration and control during the fault and recovery
periods are proposed (e.g. [53 – 55]).
Variable speed wind turbines with full power converters,
Fig. 30c, presents the distinct advantage that the converter
totally decouples the generator from the grid. Hence, grid
disturbances have no direct effect on the generator, whose
current and torque variations during voltage dips are much
lower compared with the DFIG and the respective
transients fade out faster [56]. The converters, on the other
hand, are almost (but not entirely) immune to grid
transients, due to the high bandwidth of the PWM current
controllers. The only essential issue that still remains is the
imbalance between the generator power, injected to the dc
side, and the output power to the grid, which may be
drastically reduced, leading to overcharging of the dc bus
capacitor. This can be resolved with fast pitch control and
limited rotor over speed, to reduce the generator power, as
well as via increased storage and possibly power dissipation
means at the dc link. From the point of view of the reactive
output power, the grid side converter has the ability to
produce reactive current during the voltage dip, up to its
rated current capacity, exhibiting a behaviour superior to
that of the DFIG wind turbines, particularly when dealing
with stringent reactive power support requirements during
faults, such as those of the E.ON grid code. It is noted
that this wind turbine type may exhibit better voltage
control capabilities than conventional synchronous
generators [57, 58]. Hence, they can provide grid support
(improvement of the voltage level and faster voltage
recovery), with a positive impact on nearby connected stall
wind turbines, reducing the probability of tripping for
those turbines [59]. Moreover, oversizing of the grid side
converter provides enhanced active and reactive power
infeed capability, as shown in [60]. Another notable
advantage compared with the DFIG-based wind turbines is
related with the behaviour of the latter in case of
unbalanced disturbances. In such situations, the low
negative sequence impedance of the induction generator
may give rise to large rotor currents, whose frequency lies
outside the controllers’ bandwidth, resulting in the
activation of the crowbar (or the disconnection of the
stator) until the disturbance is cleared.
Wind turbines can control their active power output by
pitch control, whereas variable speed wind turbines have
the additional capability for such control via variation of
their rotor speed. Hence, power curtailment, ramp rate
limitations and contribution to frequency regulation is
possible, even for constant speed machines. In the latter
case, however, the grid frequency is directly related to the
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

generator slip and hence a change in frequency will
transiently affect the active power produced by the wind
turbine. In the case of variable speed machines, on the
other hand, the generator torque and power is regulated by
the converters and therefore their primary frequency
response is entirely adjustable via proper design of the
control systems. For instance, in [61], the wind farm
capability of providing short-term active power reserve
utilising the kinetic energy of the turbine rotors, is
quantified on a multi-megawatt commercial variable speed
wind turbine. Reference [62] examines the frequency
response of constant speed and variable speed wind
turbines equipped with synchronous generators or DFIGs
and concludes that the best frequency response
characteristics are achieved by synchronous generator-based
machines (full-power converter scheme), then by constant
speed wind turbines and last from DFIG wind turbines.
Up to now, wind turbine compatibility to the various grid
code requirements is established only through specific tests or
simulations that are performed by the manufacturers or other
independent laboratories, upon demand of system operators.
Standardised-type tests have not been developed yet, due to
the diversity of requirements appearing in grid codes and
the relatively limited time they have been in force.
Moreover, testing the actual behaviour of wind turbines
during system faults presents significant difficulties, since
on site tests on installed machines are necessary, which
would involve variation of power system variables, such as
voltage and frequency. A first reference to such type tests
appears in the draft of the IEC 61400-21, 2nd Ed. [63],
which is under development. According to this standard,
the response of the wind turbine to the temporary voltage
dips specified in Table 5 is to be measured. The stated
response includes time series of active power, reactive power
and voltage at wind turbine terminals for the time shortly
prior to the voltage dip and until the effect of the voltage
dip has abated. The test should be carried out for the wind
turbine operating at 20% and 100% of rated power. The
Table 5 Specification of voltage dips according to [63]. The specified magnitudes, durations and shapes apply for voltage dips
occurring when the wind turbine under test is not connected
Case Magnitude of phase to phase voltage
(fraction of voltage before the dip)
symmetrical three phase 0.90 + 0.05
voltage dip 1
symmetrical three phase 0.50 + 0.05
voltage dip 2
symmetrical three phase 0.20 + 0.05
voltage dip 3
two phase voltage dip 1 0.90 + 0.05
two phase voltage dip 2 0.50 + 0.05
two phase voltage dip 3 0.20 + 0.05
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
test can be carried out using the set-ups outlined in
Fig. 32. Notably, the test is basically for providing a basis
for wind turbine numerical simulation model validation,
although optional tests may be carried out for assessing
compliance with specific grid code requirements. In the
draft standard [63] it is recommended that the test is
carried out on the complete wind turbine rather than on its
drive train only, since other reasons for cut-out may exist,
besides the electrical drive train.
In the case of offshore wind farms, the configuration of the
interconnection to the transmission system is also an issue of
interest in terms of grid code compliance. Interconnection
can be realised either with HV AC submarine cables,
typically including dynamic VAR compensation, or with
HVDC schemes, based on VSC [14]. The VSC-based
HVDC interconnection demonstrates superior dynamic
performance, providing fault ride-through capabilities even
to wind farms utilising simple asynchronous generator-
based wind turbines [64].
The installation of properly sized centralised FACTS
devices, with the capability to provide wind turbine power
factor control and voltage regulation and enhanced LVRT
capability may provide grid-code compliance even for wind
farms comprising turbines which are partly compliant to
code requirements [65]. In general, the requirements on
reactive power compensation/regulation for large wind
farms may exceed the reactive power capabilities of the wind
turbines themselves, in which case external reactive
Figure 32 Short circuit emulator for testing wind turbine
response to temporary voltage dips [63]
Magnitude of voltage Duration Shape
(positive sequence) (s)
0.90 0.5 + 0.05
0.50 0.5 + 0.05
0.20 0.2 + 0.05
0.95 0.5 + 0.05
0.75 0.5 + 0.05
0.60 0.2 + 0.05
21
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
compensation systems are employed, consisting of FACTS
devices (SVCs or inverter-based dynamic compensators) and
possibly also multiple-switched capacitor banks to meet the
overall reactive power requirements for large wind farms [66].
5 Critical view on grid code
development
The grid code overview provided in Section 3 reveals that the
requirements imposed on wind farms differ considerably
from one country to another, which inevitably opens the
discussion on the need for harmonisation of the grid-code
provisions. To a certain extent, differences are reasonable
and inevitable, since the requirements are directly related to
the particular technical and operational characteristics of
the systems, as already discussed in Section 3. For instance,
it is reasonable that primary frequency response
requirements will be increased in a weakly interconnected
system, such as Ireland, compared to a large and strongly
interconnected system belonging to UCTE.
On the other hand, the diversity of the existing requirements
poses a disproportionate burden on WT manufacturers, which
are constantly challenged to adapt the design of their turbines to
the latest requirements of the network operators and strive to
develop wind turbines suited for specific markets, rather than
‘universal’ products. Manufacturer difficulties start with
interpreting the underlying meaning of the various code
documents, managing the differences in grid code formats
(terminology and definitions, designation, parameterisation
etc.), understanding the particularities of each power system
and then move to the development of hardware and software
solutions for the specific requirements of each code [67–69].
Besides the harmonisation issue, another point of dispute
between system operators and the wind industry is the
extent and the strictness of the requirements. The wind
industry argues that the requirements imposed on wind
turbines in some cases exceed those for conventional power
stations, while the time granted for meeting them has been
minimal. Further, there is also a view that the demand for
provision of ancillary services from wind farms lies beyond
the actual needs of today’s systems. TSOs, on the other
hand, claim that wind power penetration levels in several
systems are high enough to warrant a treatment of wind
farms similar to that of conventional stations. Further, even
if certain grid-code provisions are indeed ahead of their
time, retrofitting installed wind farms for their satisfaction
may not be possible in the future and thus they need to be
in place from today.
In this context, a discussion has already started on the issue
of further development and harmonisation of wind farm-
related grid code requirements. For example, EWEA has
proposed the development of a ‘Generic European Wind
Grid Code’, built on a technical basis elaborated jointly
from TSOs and the wind power industry. If such a
22
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
proposal could be introduced at European level, it would
set a strong precedent for the rest of the world [68]. It
would also enhance the European internal electricity
market, where national networks are interlinked and must
be operated as part of an integrated European grid to
enable the necessary cross-border exchanges. However, it
must be stressed that a complete European technical
harmonisation is not practical in the short term and could
only lead to the implementation of the most stringent
requirements from each nation. Currently, it is realistic to
expect a harmonisation on the major categories of
capabilities and the circumstances in a power system that
these may become necessary. Exact values for parameters,
limits, set-points etc. needed not be standardised, since
they depend on system characteristics (for instance, a faster
frequency response will be necessary for systems with a low
inertia).
In any case, there exist certain issues and principles to be
taken into account in the future grid code development.
Codes should be comprehensive, transparent and explicit to
avoid misinterpretation. Clear and commonly shared
terminology and definitions are necessary in all aspects, wind
farm or power system related. The requirements imposed
should reflect an optimum balance between cost and technical
performance. A reasonable amount of development time is
also needed, by planning grid code requirements in advance.
Specific areas that require additional consideration include the
large offshore installations and their extended HVDC
networks, already starting to be addressed in certain countries
(Germany, UK). Proper consideration should also be given to
regional networks belonging to larger interconnected systems,
such as the UCTE network. In such cases, major events (e.g.
faults) may be experienced by several neighbouring TSOs and
therefore the grid code provisions should ensure a coordinated
overall system response. Obviously, the collaboration among
TSOs and UCTE is necessary to this end [70]. Finally, grid-
code compliance verification remains a major open issue for
wind turbines and wind farms. This concerns specific wind
power plant capabilities and will require the development of
standards for testing, from the level of the component up to
the entire wind power plant.
6 Conclusions
InFinally
this paper,
here the grid code technical requirements were
Here
presented for the connection of wind farms to the power
systems, basically at the HV level. A comparative overview
and analysis of the main requirements was conducted,
comprising several national and regional codes from many
countries where high wind penetration levels have been
achieved or are expected in the future. The objective of these
requirements is to provide wind farms with the control and
regulation capabilities encountered in conventional power
plants and necessary for the safe, reliable and economic
operation of the system. Current wind turbine technology,
and particularly its development over the last 5 –10 years,
has been heavily influenced by these requirements. Modern
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

wind turbines are indeed capable of meeting all requirements
set, with the exception of the constant speed machines, which
are practically not produced anymore.
7 Acknowledgment
This work has been financially supported by the Regulatory
Authority for Energy (RAE) of Greece.
87 References
[1] MARTINEZ DE ALEGRÍA I., ANDREU J., MARTÍN J.L., IBAÑEZ P., VILLATE
J.L., CAMBLONG H.:
‘Connection requirements for wind farms:
a survey on technical requirements and regulation’,
Renew. Sust. Energy Rev., 2007, 11, (8), pp. 1858 – 1872
[2] ERLICH I., BACHMANN U.: ‘Grid code requirements
concerning connection and operation of wind turbines in
Germany’. Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, San Francisco, 2005
[3] ERLICH I., WINTER W., DITTRICH A.: ‘Advanced grid
requirements for the integration of wind turbines into
the German transmission system’. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, Montreal, 2006
[4] MORALES A. , ROBE X. , RODRIGUEZ-AMENEDO J.L. , ARNALTE S. ,
ZUBIAUR R., TORBADO Z.: ‘Advanced grid requirements for the
integration of wind farms into the spanish transmission
system’, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2007, 2, (1), pp. 47 – 59
[5] FAGAN E., GRIMES S., MCARDLE J., SMITH P., STRONGE M.: ‘Grid code
provisions for wind generators in Ireland’. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, San Francisco, 2005
[6] DUDURYCH I.M., HOLLY M., POWER M.: ‘Integration of wind
power generation in the Irish grid’. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, Montreal, 2006
[7] BERNARD S., BEAULIEU D., TRUDEL G.: ‘Hydro-Québec grid
code for wind farm interconnection’. Proc. IEEE Power
Engineering Society General Meeting, San Francisco, 2005
[8] ZAVADIL R.M., CHARLES SMITH J.: ‘Status of wind-related US
national and regional grid code activities’. Proc. IEEE
Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
San Francisco, 2005
[9] ZAVADIL R. , MILLER N. , ELLIS A., MULJADI E.: ‘Making
connections: wind generation challenges and progress’,
IEEE Power Energy, 2005, 3, (6), pp. 26– 37
[10] ‘New generation technologies and GB grid codes’.
Report on Change Proposals to the Grid Codes in England &
Q7 Wales and in Scotland, Sinclair Knight Merz, 2004
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
[11] CHONDROGIANNIS S. , BARNES M. , ATEN M., CARTWRIGHT P. :
‘Modelling and GB grid code compliance studies of
offshore wind farms with doubly-fed induction
generators’. Proc. Third IET Int. Conf. Power Electronics,
Machines and Drives, Dublin, 2006
[12] CHRISTIANSEN W., JOHNSEN D.T.: ‘Analysis of requirements in
selected grid codes’. Technical Report, Section of Electric
Power Engineering, Technical University of Denmark
(DTU), 2006
[13] MATEVOSYAN J., ACKERMANN T., BOLIK S., SÖDER L.: ‘Comparison
of international regulations for connection of wind turbines
to the network’. Proc. Nordic Wind Power Conf. (NPWC),
Gothenburg, Sweden, 2004
[14] THOMAS A. (ED.) : ‘Wind power in power systems’ (John
Wiley & Sons, 2005)
[15] IOV F. , HANSEN A., CUTULULIS N., SOERENSEN P. : ‘A survey
of interconnection requirements for wind power’.
Proc. Nordic Wind Power Conf. (NWPC), Roskilde,
Denmark, 2007
[16] PORTER K., YEN-NAKAFUJI D., MORGENSTERN B.: ‘A review of the
international experience with integrating wind energy
generation’, Electr. J., 2007, 20, (8), pp. 48– 59
[17] IOV F., HANSEN A., SOERENSEN P., CUTULULIS N.: ‘Mapping of
grid faults and grid codes’, Technical report of the
research project ‘Grid fault and design basis for wind
turbine’, Risoe National Laboratory, Denmark, 2007
[18] SCHLABBACH J.: ‘Low voltage fault ride through
criteria for grid connection of wind turbine generators’.
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. European Electricity Market, Lisbon,
2008
[19] STRBAC G., SHAKOOR A. , BLACK M., PUDJIANTO D., BOPPC T. :
‘Impact of wind generation on the operation and
development of the UK electricity systems’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2007, 77, pp. 1214 – 1227
[20] AKHMATOV V., KNUDSEN H.: ‘Large penetration of wind and
dispersed generation into Danish power grid’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2007, 77, pp. 1228 – 1238
[21] PEREZ P.S., VAN HERTEM D., DRIESEN J., BELMANS R.: ‘Wind power
in the European Union: grid connection and regulatory
issues’. Proc. IEEE PES Power Systems Conf. Exposition
(PSCE), Texas, 2006
[22] ‘Grid code – high and extra high voltage’ (E.ON Netz
GmbH, Bayreuth, Germany, April 2006)
[23] ‘Requirements for offshore grid connections in the
E.ON Netz Network’ (E.ON Netz GmbH, Bayreuth,
Germany, April 2008)
23
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org
[24] ‘The grid code, issue 3, rev. 24’ (National Grid
Electricity Transmission plc, UK, October 2008)
[25] ‘Grid code – version 3.0’ (ESB National Grid, Ireland,
September 2007)
[26] ‘Nordic grid code’ (Nordel, January 2007)
[27] ‘Grid connection of wind turbines to networks with
voltages below 100 kV, Regulation TF 3.2.6’ (Energinet,
Denmark, May 2004)
[28] ‘Grid connection of wind turbines to networks with
voltages above 100 kV, Regulation TF 3.2.5’ (Energinet,
Denmark, December 2004)
[29] ‘Grid code for the local transmission system operator
(Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon relatif à la révision du
règlement technique pour la gestion du réseau de transport
local d’électricité en Région wallonne et l’accès à celui-ci)’.
Walloon Energy Commission (Commission Wallone pour l’
Energie-CWaPE), Wallonia, Belgium, May 2007
[30] ‘Transmission provider technical requirements for the
connection of power plants to the Hydro-Quebec
transmission system’ (Hydro Quebec Transenergie, 2006)
[31] ‘CanWEA – Canadian grid code for wind development
review and recommendations’. Document No. 11163/OR/
01 B, Garrad Hassan Canada Inc., 2005
[32] ‘Wind power facility technical requirements. Revision
0’. Alberta Electric System Operator, Canada, November 2004
[33] ‘Interconnection for wind energy, final rule’ (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, USA, June 2005)
[34] ‘Requisitos de respuesta frente a huecos de tension de
las instalaciones de produccion de regimen especial, PO
12.3’. REE, Spain, November 2005
[35] CEI 11/32, Appendice N.6 – Normativa impianti di
produzione eolica, February 2006 (draft)
[36] ‘Affärsverket svenska kraftnäts föreskrifter om
driftsäkerhetsteknisk utformning av produktionsanläggningar’
(Svenska Kraftnät, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002)
[37] ‘Connection and dispatch guide’ (Transpower New
Zealand Limited, 2004)
[38] ‘Design and operation of power systems with large
amounts of wind power: state-of-the-art report’ (VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2007)
[39] ERLICH I., SHEWAREGA F.: ‘Interaction of large wind power
generation plants with the power system’. Proc. IEEE Int.
Power and Energy Conf., Kuala Lumpur, 2006
24
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
[40] PEARMINE R., SONG Y.H. , CHEBBO A.: ‘Influence of wind
turbine behaviour on the primary frequency control of
the British transmission grid’, IET Renew. Power Energy,
2007, 1, (2), pp. 142 – 150
[41] ‘Working group report’ (System operator –
Transmission Owner Code (STC) Working Group on
Offshore Electricity Transmission – February 2008)
[42] JOOS G.: ‘Review of grid codes’. Proc. 1st Int. Conf.
Integration of RE and DER, Brussels, Belgium, 2004
[43] GOMEZ E., ALVARO FUENTES J., MOLINA A., RUZ F., JIMENEZ F.:
‘Results using different reactive power definitions for
wind turbines submitted to voltage dips: application to
the Spanish Grid Code’. Proc. IEEE PES Power Systems
Conf. Exposition (PSCE), Texas, 2006
[44] DI MARZIO G., EEK J., TANDE J., FOSSO O.: ‘Implication of grid
code requirements on reactive power contribution and
voltage control strategies for wind power integration’.
Proc. Int. Conf. Clean Electrical Power, Capri, Italy, 2007
[45] HEIER S.: ‘Grid integration of wind energy conversion
systems’ (Wiley, 2006, 2nd edn.)
[46] EL-HELW H.M., TENNAKOON S.B.: ‘Evaluation of the suitability
of a fixed speed wind turbine for large scale wind farms
considering the new UK grid code’, Renew. Energy, 2007,
33, pp. 1 – 12
[47] MOLINAS M., SUUL J.A., UNDELAND T.: ‘A simple method for
analytical evaluation of LVRT in wind energy for induction
generators with STATCOM or SVC’. Proc. European Conf.
Power Electronics and Applications, Aalborg, Denmark, 2007
[48] MOLINAS M., SUUL J.A., UNDELAND T.: ‘Low voltage ride through
of wind farms with cage generators: STATCOM versus SVC’,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2008, 23, (3), pp. 1104–1117
[49] POURBEIK P. , KOESSLER R.J., DICKMANDER D.L. , WONG W. :
‘Integration of large wind farms into utility grids (part 2 –
performance issues)’. Proc. IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, Toronto, 2003
[50] DITTRICH A., STOEV A.: ‘Comparison of fault ride-through
strategies for wind turbines with DFIM generators’. Proc.
European Conf. Power Electronics and Applications,
Dresden, 2005
[51] ARBI J., SLAMA-BELKHODJA I., ARNALTES GOMEZ S.: ‘Control of a
DFIG-based wind system in presence of large grid faults:
analysis of voltage ride through capability’. Proc.
Ninth Int. Conf. Electrical Power Quality and Utilisation,
Barcelona, 2007
[52] GENIUSZ A., ENGELHARDT S.: ‘Optimised fault ride through
performance for wind energy systems with doubly fed
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070

induction generator’. Proc. European Wind Energy Conf.
(EWEC), Brussels, 2008
[53] JOOS G. : ‘Wind turbine generator low voltage ride
through requirements and solutions’. Proc. IEEE Power
and Energy Society General Meeting – Conversion and
Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century,
Pittsburgh, 2008
[54] KASEM A.H., EL-SAADANY E.F., EL-TAMALY H.H., WAHAB M.A.A.: ‘An
improved fault ride-through strategy for doubly fed
induction generator-based wind turbines’, IET Renew.
Power Gener., 2008, 2, (4), pp. 201 – 214
[55] FOSTER S. , LIE XU. , FOX B.: ‘Coordinated control and
operation of DFIG and FSIG based wind farms’. Proc. IEEE
Power Tech., Lausanne, 2007
[56] NIIRANEN J.: ‘Experiences on voltage dip ride through
factory testing of synchronous and doubly fed generator
drives’. European Conf. Power Electronics and
Applications, Dresden, 2005
[57] BOERRE ERIKSEN P., ACKERMANN T., ABILDGAARD H., SMITH P., WINTER
W. , RODRIGUEZ GARCIA J. : ‘System operation with high wind
penetration’, IEEE Power Energy, 2005, 3, (6), pp. 65– 74
[58] RAHMAT ULLAH N., SVENSSON J., KARLSSON A.: ‘Comparing the
fault response between a wind farm complying with the
E.ON Netz code and that of classical generators’. Proc.
Nordic Wind Power Conf. (NWPC), Roskilde, Denmark, 2007
[59] MICHALKE G., HANSEN A., HARTKOPF T.: ‘Variable speed wind
turbines – modelling, control and impact on power
systems’. Proc. European Wind Energy Conference
(EWEC), Brussels, 2008
[60] RAHMAT ULLAH N., THIRINGER T., KARLSSON D.: ‘Voltage and
transient stability support by wind farms complying with
the E.ON Netz grid code’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2007,
22, (4), pp. 1647– 1656
[61] ULLAH N.R., THIRINGER T., KARLSSON D.: ‘Temporary primary
frequency control support by variable speed wind
turbines – potential and applications’, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., 2008, 23, (2), pp. 601– 612
IET Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1 – 25
doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2008.0070
www.ietdl.org
[62] LALLOR G., MULLANE A., O’MALLEY M.: ‘Frequency control and
wind turbine technologies’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2005,
20, (4), pp. 1905– 1913
[63] IEC 61400-21 ED. 2.0 ‘Wind turbine generator systems –
Part 21: measurement and assessment of power quality
characteristics of grid connected wind turbines’.
Committee Draft (CD), July 2007
[64] REIDY A., WATSON A.: ‘Comparison of VSC based HVDC and
HVAC interconnections to a large offshore wind farm’. Proc.
IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
San Francisco, 2005
[65] DE LEON J.A.D., KEHRLI B., ZALAV A.: ‘How the Lake Bonney
wind farm met ESCOSA’s, NEMMCO’s, and ElectraNet’s
rigorous interconnecting requirements’. Proc. IEEE/PES
Transmission and Distribution Conf. Exposition, Chicago,
2008
[66] CAMM E., EDWARDS C.: ‘Reactive compensation systems
for large wind farms’. Proc. IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution Conf. Exposition, Chicago, 2008
[67] BUBLAT T., GEHLHAAR T.: ‘Comparison of high technical
demands on grid connected wind turbines defined in
international grid codes’. Proc. European Wind Energy
Conf. (EWEC), Brussels, 2008
[68] ‘European grid code requirements for wind power
generation’. EWEA Working Group on Grid Code
Requirements – Position Paper, Brussels, February 2008
[69] ‘Strategic research agenda/market deployment
strategy: annex b’ (European Wind Energy Technology
Platform, July 2008)
[70] ‘Wind power in the UCTE interconnected system’
(UCTE NetWork of experts on Wind Power, November
2004)
[71] ‘Petitions for Rulemaking or, in the alternative,
request for clarification of order 2003-A, and Request for
Technical Conference of the American Wind Energy
Association’ (American Wind Energy Association, USA,
May 2005) Q8
25
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009
www.ietdl.org

RPG57167
Author Queries
M. Tsili, S. Papathanassiou

Q1 Please provide the full form of “HV”.

Q2 Please provide full form of “AVR”.
Q3 Please provide full form of “HVDC”.
Q4 Tables 2 and 3 are not cited in text. Please check.
Q5 Please provide significance of bold characters in table 4.
Q6 Please provide full form of “SCADA”.
Q7 Please provide author names for reference [10, 22– 38, 41, 68– 71].
Q8 Reference [71] is not cited in text. Please check.
Dr. Stavros Papathanassiou
Electrical & Computer Engineering
NTUA
9, Iroon Polytechniou st.
Zografou
Athens
Greece

Reference: Item Number 0070U Ref. Id: RPG-2008-0070

A review of grid code technical requirements for wind farms

IET– PROOFS

Please check the enclosed proofs carefully. The ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of
the information contained within the paper lies with the author.

However, only essential corrections should be made at this stage and the proofs should
not be seen as an opportunity to revise the paper.

Please return all corrections to this office by the date on the proof. Late corrections may
not be included.