Symmetrical and Unsymmetrical

Fault Currents of a Wind Power

Plant
Preprint
V. Gevorgian, M. Singh, and E. Muljadi
To be presented at the IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting
San Diego, California
July 22-26, 2012

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Conference Paper
NREL/CP-5500-53463
December 2011
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

NOTICE
The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US
Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email: mailto:[email protected]
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email: [email protected]
online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

Symmetrical and Unsymmetrical Fault Currents of a Wind Power Plant

V. Gevorgian

Member IEEE
[email protected]

M. Singh

Member IEEE
[email protected]

E. Muljadi

Fellow, IEEE
[email protected]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401, USA
oped by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council
(WECC) Wind Generator Modeling and Validation Work
Group (WGMG) [3]. The WGMG recommends the use of a
single-machine equivalent representation of multiple wind
turbines operating in a single WPP. Based on industry experience, this representation is also considered adequate for positive-sequence transient-stability simulations. The WECC
single-machine equivalent representation of a WPP is shown
in Figure 1. The interconnection transmission lines, transformers, and reactive power compensation are present in this
representation.

Abstract The size of wind power plants (WPPs) keeps getting

bigger and bigger. The number of wind plants in the U.S. has
increased very rapidly in the past 10 years. It is projected that
in the U.S., the total wind power generation will reach 330 GW
by 2030. As the importance of WPPs increases, planning engineers must perform impact studies used to evaluate short-circuit
current (SCC) contribution of the plant into the transmission
network under different fault conditions. This information is
needed to size the circuit breakers, to establish the proper system protection, and to choose the transient suppressor in the
circuits within the WPP. This task can be challenging to protection engineers due to the topology differences between different
types of wind turbine generators (WTGs) and the conventional
generating units.
This paper investigates the short-circuit behavior of a WPP
for different types of wind turbines. Both symmetrical faults
and unsymmetrical faults are investigated. Three different software packages are utilized to develop this paper. Time domain
simulations and steady-state calculations are used to perform the
analysis.
Index Terms Fault contribution, induction generator, protection, short circuit, wind power plant, and wind turbine.

I. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1: A single-machine equivalent representation of a WPP

nergy and environmental issues have become one of the

biggest challenges facing the world. In response to energy
needs and environmental concerns, renewable energy technologies are considered the future technologies of choice [1],
[2]. Renewable energy is harvested from nature, and it is
clean and free. However, it is widely accepted that renewable
energy is not a panacea that comes without challenges. With
the federal governments aggressive goal of achieving 20%
wind energy penetration by 2030, it is necessary to understand the challenges that must be overcome when using renewable energy.
In the years to come, there will be more and more wind
power plants (WPPs) connected to the grid. With the goal of
20% wind penetration by 2030, the WPPs operation should
be well planned. The power system switchgear and power
system protection for WPPs should be carefully designed to
be compatible with the operation of conventional synchronous generators connected to the same grid. This paper attempts to illustrate the behavior of short-circuit current (SCC)
contributions for different types of WTGs.
The power system model used for WPP short-circuit behavior simulation was adopted from a modeling guide devel-

Organization of the Paper

The organization of this paper is as follows; in section II,
the SCC characteristics of different WTG types will be presented for a symmetrical fault. In section III, the characteristics of SCC for unsymmetrical faults will be discussed. Finally, in section V, the conclusion will summarize the papers
findings. Detailed dynamic modeling of four different types
of WTGs is simulated in PSCADTM.
II. SHORT-CIRCUIT BEHAVIOR UNDER SYMMETRICAL FAULTS
A utility-sized wind turbine is larger than non-grid wind
turbine applications. In the early days, the turbines were
sized from 10 kW to 100 kW. Nowadays, wind turbines are
sized above 1000 kW (1 MW).
A. SCC from a Type 1 WTG
The first generation of utility-sized WTGs were fixedspeed turbines with a squirrel-cage induction generator
(SCIG) and is called a Type I generator in wind-related applications. The SCIG generates electricity when it is driven
above synchronous speed. Normal operating slips for an in-

duction generator are between 0% and -1%. The simplified

single-phase equivalent circuit of a squirrel-cage induction
machine is shown in Figure 2 [4].
The circuit in Figure 2 is referred to the stator side where
RS and Rr are stator and rotor resistances, Ls and Lr are stator and rotor leakage inductances, Lm is magnetizing reactance, and s is rotor slip. The example single-line connection
diagram of a Type I generator is shown in Figure 3. In the
case of a fault, the inertia of the wind rotor drives the generator after the voltage drops at the generator terminals, the pitch
controller must be deployed to avoid a run-away problem.
The rotor flux may not change instantaneously right after the
voltage drop due to a fault. Therefore, voltage is produced at
the generator terminals causing fault current flow into the
fault until the rotor flux decays to zero. This process takes a
few electrical cycles. The fault current produced by an induction generator must be considered when selecting the rating
for circuit breakers and fuses. The fault current is limited by
generator impedance (and can be calculated from parameters
in Figure 2) and impedance of the system from the short circuit to the generator terminals.

2
3

As shown in Figure 4, the fault current is driven by the decaying flux trapped in the rotor winding as represented by the
right portion of equation (1). The larger the leakage inductances (), the smaller is the fault current amplitude. The fault
current dies out after the flux driving the fault current depleted to zero. Note that the DC and AC transient components of
the SCC flowing out of the stator windings induce fault currents in the rotor winding and vice versa until the magnetic
flux is depleted.
Min Isc-peak
Max Isc-peak

Figure 4: SCC from a Type I WTG

Figure 2: Equivalent circuit of a Type 1 generator

The current calculated from equation (4) is shown in Figure

4 using parameters for a typical 2-MW induction generator
when and pre-fault voltage of 0.7 p.u. The current reaches the
maximum value at (first half a period). Therefore, it may be
a good approximation to calculate the maximum (peak) current by substituting
/2 into (1). The resulting equation
for peak current will be:

It was demonstrated experimentally in [6] that equation (6)

gives satisfactory accuracy for peak current assessment.

Figure 3: Connection diagram for a Type 1 WTG

The initial value of fault current fed in by the induction

generator is close to the locked rotor-inrush current. Assuming a three-phase symmetrical fault, an analytical solution can
be found to estimate the current contribution of the generator.
The SCC of an induction generator can be calculated as [5]:
2
sin
1
sin
1

C. SCC from a Type 2 WTG

The variable slip generator is essentially a wound-rotor induction generator with a variable resistor connected in series
to the rotor winding (for Type 2 WTGs, refer to Figure 5 and
Figure 6).

Where is the voltage phase angle for a given phase, is

the leakage factor,

is stator transient reac
tance, and
and are stator and rotor time constants representing the damping of the DC component in stator and rotor
windings. The transient stator and rotor inductances
and
can be determined from the equation (2).

from damaging the power converter. Additional dynamic

braking on the DC bus is also used to limit the DC bus voltage.
E. Type 4 WTGs
A typical connection diagram for a Type 4 WTG is shown
in Figure 8. The SCC contribution for a three-phase fault is
limited to its rated current or a little above its rated current. It
is common to design a power converter for a Type 4 wind
turbine with an overload capability of 10% above rated. Note
that in any fault condition, the generator stays connected to
the power converter and is buffered from the faulted lines on
the grid.

Figure 5: Equivalent circuit for a Type 2 generator

The modified rotor time constant can be calculated by adding

the effect of the external resistor Rext, where Rext is the value
of external resistance that happens to be in the circuit at the
time of the fault. So, adding the external resistors increases
the overall rotor resistance.

Figure 8: PMSG direct-drive WTG diagram

Figure 6: Connection diagram for a Type 2 WTG

F. SCC Comparison for Symmetrical Faults

The SCC for different types of wind turbines are not the
same. For each turbine type, the peak value of the magnitude
of the SCC is affected by the transient reactance, the pre-fault
voltage, the effective rotor resistances, and other circumstances at the instant the fault occurs.
As shown in Figure 9, the Type 1 WTG has the largest SCC
and the shortest settling time. The Type 2 WTG has an additional rotor resistance that is activated above rated wind speed
to limit the output power of the generator. Below rated wind
speed, the SCC behavior of the Type 2 WTG is similar to the
Type 1 WTG. Above rated wind speed, the SCC behavior of
Type 2 WTG is affected by the external rotor resistance. The
settling time of the SCC of Type 2 WTG is lower than the
settling time of the SCC of Type 1 WTG.
The SCC behavior of the Type 3 WTG is affected by the
crowbar and the dynamic braking actions. For a very near
fault, the crowbar may be fully deployed and thus, short circuiting the rotor winding, and the SCC behavior resembles
the Type 1 WTG; however, if the crowbar and the dynamic
braking can maintain the operation of the rotor side power
converter, the SCC behavior is very close to a Type 4 WTG.
For almost all of the SCC for Type 3 WTGs, only a small
amount of SCC current is passed through the power converter
because of the current limit of the power semiconductors.
The Type 4 WTG has a full power converter between the
generator and the grid, thus, the SCC is very well regulated
with SCC maintained at 1.1 p.u. rated current.

D. SCC from a Type 3 WTG

A Type 3 WTG is implemented by a doubly-fed induction
generator (DFIG). It is a variable speed WTG where the rotor
speed is allowed to vary within a slip range of +30%. Thus,
the power converter can be sized to about 30% of rated power. The DFIG equivalent circuit is similar to one for a regular induction generator except for additional rotor voltage,
representing voltage produced by a power converter. Under
normal operation, this voltage is actually from a currentcontrolled power converter with the ability to control the real
and reactive power output instantaneously and independently.

Figure 7: Connection diagram for a Type 3 WTG

The typical connection diagram for a DFIG (Type 3) WTG

is shown in Figure 7. In an ideal situation, the power converter connected to the rotor winding should be able to withstand the currents induced by the DC and AC components
flowing in the stator winding. However, the components of
the power converter (IGBT, diode, and capacitor, etc) are
designed to handle only normal currents and normal DC bus
voltage. A crowbar system is usually used for protecting the
power electronics converter from overvoltage and thermal
breakdown during short-circuit faults. A crowbar is usually
implemented to allow the insertion of additional resistance
into the rotor winding to divert the SCC in the rotor winding

G. Summary of the Symmetrical Fault SCC

To summarize, the SCC for a symmetrical faults can be approximated by the values listed in Table I [7]. Both the maximum and the minimum values are shown.

III. UNSYMMETRICAL FAULTS

TABLE I

The nature of the fault produces a different response for

different wind turbine types. In this section, the observation
of the short-circuit behavior for unsymmetrical faults on different types of WTGs will be presented.
Note that operating an induction generator under an unbalanced condition creates torque pulsation and unbalanced currents. If this condition persists for a long period of time, it
may excite other parts of the wind turbine, and the unbalanced currents may create unequal heating in the three-phase
windings, thus, shorten the life of the winding insulation.
Unlike in a symmetrical three-phase fault, the positivesequence voltage source continues to drive the fault current during the fault. As shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12, the remaining un-faulted (normal) phases continue to maintain the air-gap
flux. The initial conditions of the fault currents are different for
each phase. The three line currents usually show a different DC
offset, which eventually settles out over time.

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM POSSIBLE VALUE OF THE SCC

WTG
Max
ISC_PEAK
Min
ISC_PEAK

Type 1
2

Type 2

2V s
X

'
S

2V s
X

'
S

2V s

2Vs

X S'

' 2
S

+ (9 Rr' ) 2

Type 3
2

2Vs
X S'

1.1
IRATED

Type 4
1.1
IRATED

For a Type 1 WTG, the maximum SCC is based on the assumption that the DC offset is at the worst condition, and the
minimum SCC is calculated by assuming that the DC offset is
zero. For a Type 2 WTG, the maximum value is computed when
= 0 . The minimum value is computed when the slip
reaches 10% above synchronous speed. And for a Type 3 WTG,
the maximum value is computed when the crowbar shorts the
rotor winding and the minimum value is computed when the
power converter can follow the commanded current (i.e., in case
the fault occurs far away from the point of interconnection (POI),
the remaining terminal voltage is sufficiently high enough to let
the power converter operate normally and supply the commanded currents). Note that for a symmetrical fault, the actual fault
current for each phase is different from the other phases due to
the fact that the time of the fault occurs at a different phase angle
for different phases, thus affecting the DC offset. For a Type 4
WTG, the stator current can always be controlled because of the
nature of power converter, which is based on a current-controlled
voltage source converter.
A time domain simulation is performed in PSCAD, and the
steady-state calculations are performed using Mathcad and
Cyme software for a symmetrical fault. The results are tabulated in Table II. The calculated results from different software platforms are very close to the approximation listed in
Table I. Note, that only Type 1 and Type 4 are listed. The
Type 2 and Type 3 WTGs will respond differently because of
the existence of the external rotor resistance in a Type 2 WTG
and the activation of the crowbar circuit in a Type 3 WTG,
which will respond non-linearly to the fault. The SCC for a
Type 2 and Type 3 WTG, as indicated in Table I, will have
the size difference between the SCC of the Type 1 and Type 4
WTGs.

A. Single Line-to-Ground (SLG) Faults

The single line-to-ground fault is the most likely to occur in

a)

Type 1 WTG.

b)

Type 2 WTG.

c)

Type 3 WTG.

d)

Type 4 WTG.

TABLE II
ISC_PEAK COMPARISON FOR DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PLATFORMS

WTG

Table I

PSCAD

Cyme

Mathcad

Type

Min

Max

3.4 p.u.

6.3
p.u.

5 p.u.

5.5 p.u.

3.8 p.u.

0 p.u.

1.1
p.u.

1.1 p.u.

1.1 p.u.

1.1 p.u.

Figure 9: SCC of a symmetrical fault for four types of WTGs

a power system. The magnetic flux in the air gap, although

smaller than normal and unbalanced, is maintained by the
remaining un-faulted lines. Thus, the short circuit in SLG
faults will continue to flow until the circuit breaker removes
the fault from the circuit.
Figure 10 shows the sequence circuits of the WPP shown in
Figure 1. The sequence circuits are arranged to compute the
SLG fault currents. Although present in the actual simulation, the cable capacitance and the capacitor compensation
shown in Figure 1 are not drawn in Figure 12 to avoid clutter
and to simplify the drawing. We represent the transformer
winding connections in the zero sequence equivalent circuit
as an on-off switch indicating the availability of the zero sequence current path. Since the low side of the pad-mounted
transformer is connected in delta, there is no sequence current
flowing out of the WTG.
We also placed a switch at the negative sequence equivalent circuit for the WTG to indicate that there is no negative
sequence current contribution from a Type 4 WTG because it
is controlled to provide symmetrical currents regardless of the
terminal voltage.

In Figure 13, the SCC for a Type 1 WTG is shown both for
the three-phase currents and the corresponding sequence
components. The changes in positive sequence and the sudden appearance of the negative sequence are also shown. The
absence of the zero sequence current is a consequence of
winding connections.

Figure 13: SCC for a single line-to-ground in a Type 1 WPP

Main : Graphs
1.80
1.60

Type 4

I2-

I2o

I6+

I6-

I6o

1.40
1.20
1.00

Other
Types

Figure 11: SCC for SLG for a Type 3 WTG

CURRENT (kA)

I2+

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

20

1.20

10

1.00

I3a

0.80

-10

I3b

0.60

-20

I3c

0.40

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

0.20

TIME (sec)

0.00
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

Figure 14: SCC for a single line-to-ground in a Type 4 WPP

a) At the point of interconnection
b) At the wind generator terminals

Figure 12: SCC for LLG fault of a Type 2 WTG

In Figure 14, the SCC for a Type 4 WTG shows the fault
currents in its sequence current components. At the POI
(Figure 14a), there exist both the zero sequence and the negative sequence currents because of the substation transformer
winding connection (YgYg) and collector system capacitances
respectively. As shown in Figure 14b, at the generator terminals however, there is a pad-mounted transformer (Yg)
that will block the zero sequence component, and the Type 4
WTG produces a positive sequence component (refer to neg.
sequence switch in the equivalent circuit shown Figure 12).
In Table III, the SCC at the POI is computed for a SLG
fault using different software platform. It is shown that the

Figure 10: The equivalent circuit for an SLG fault

SCC results match for all software for Type 1 WTG. A small
mismatch between the MathCAD and PSCAD results can be
seen in Table 3. This discrepancy exists because in
MathCAD, we remove the capacitances from the circuit.

zero and negative sequence currents can be observed at the

generator terminals.
A snapshot of the computer output from Cyme is presented
in Figure 15, where the line currents and the sequence currents are presented on the same output panel.

TABLE III
COMPUTED SCC AT THE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION OF THE WPP
IN SEQUENCE COMPONENTS IN PER UNIT
FOR AN SLG FAULT WITH DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PLATFORMS

WTG

Type 1

Type 4

I_Seq

PSCAD

Cyme

Math-cad

1.42

1.58

1.67

0.58

0.57

0.55

0.63

0.57

0.65

1.4

1.44

1.35

1.0

0.95

1.0

0.25

0.0

0.0

B. Line-to-Line (LL) and Line-to-Line-to-Ground (LLG)

Faults
The line-to-line fault and the line-to-line-to-ground fault also maintained the air-gap flux during the fault. The SCC will
continue to flow until the circuit breaker removes the fault
from the circuit.
In Table V the SCC at the POI is presented for a LL fault.
It is shown that we have a very good match between PSCAD,
Cyme, and MathCAD calculations. The absence of the zero
sequence current can be expected because the fault does not
involve the ground.
TABLE V
COMPUTED SCC AT THE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION OF THE WPP
IN SEQUENCE COMPONENTS IN PER UNIT
FOR AN LL FAULT WITH DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PLATFORMS

TABLE IV
COMPUTED SCC AT THE GENERATOR TERMINALS
IN SEQUENCE COMPONENTS IN PER UNIT
FOR AN SLG FAULT WITH DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PLATFORMS

WTG

Type 1

Type 4

WTG

I_Seq

PSCAD

Cyme

Mathcad

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.95

0.86

0.95

I_Seq

PSCAD

Cyme

MathCAD

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.8

0.86

1.05

0.58

0.56

0.55

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.62

0.59

0.65

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Type 1

Type 4

In Table VI, the SCC at the POI is presented for LLG fault.
It is shown that we have a very good match between PSCAD,
Cyme, and MathCAD calculations. In comparison to Table
V, we can see the presence of the zero sequence current in
LLG fault as expected in Table VI.

In Table IV, the SCC at the generator terminal is computed

for an SLG fault for Type 4 WTG. It is shown that the SCC
results match for all software for a Type 4 WTG. Because of
the mismatch between the MathCAD and the PSCAD results,
we remove the capacitances in the circuit.

TABLE VI
COMPUTED SCC AT THE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION OF THE WPP
IN SEQUENCE COMPONENTS IN PER UNIT
FOR AN LLG FAULT WITH DIFFERENT SOFTWARE PLATFORMS

WTG

Type 1

Figure 15: An example of typical output panel for SCC calculation with
Cyme.

Type 4

Comparing Table IV to Table III for a Type 4 turbine, it is

shown that the zero sequence and negative sequence components do not exist. As shown in Figure 14, the absence of

I_Seq

PSCAD

Cyme

Mathcad

1.55

1.63

1.48

1.17

1.11

1.1

0.55

0.62

0.8

1.4

1.49

1.7

0.9

0.25

0.0

As an illustration, the currents at the POI for LL faults and

LLG faults for Type 1 WTGs are presented in Figure 16, and

the corresponding sequence components are presented in Figure 17. As shown in Figure 16, it is difficult to discern the
type of faults that occur in the line. In comparison, from Figure 17, it is obvious there is a distinction between the fault
currents for the LL fault and the LLG fault.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the SCC contributions of different WTGs for
faults at the terminal of the generator were simulated using
time domain simulations and steady-state calculations. Two
power system commercial software platforms were used
(PSCADTM, and CymeTM), and a multipurpose mathematical
computer program (MathCADTM) is also used to compute the
SCC.
A simplified method to compute the SCC for a symmetrical fault is presented and it is tabulated in Table I. The SCC
results were tabulated in Table II, comparing the size of the
SCC at the POI for three different methods. Note that only
Type 1 and Type 4 WTGs are used because they represent the
maximum and minimum SCC contribution. The calculations
for Type 2 and Type 3 WTGs are affected by time-of-fault
occurrence and the action of the external rotor resistance control and the crowbar action, thus, the SCC contribution is usually lower than the Type 1 WTG, but it is higher than the
Type 4 WTG.
The unsymmetrical faults were simulated and tabulated.
As shown in the Table III through Table V, the unsymmetrical fault calculations from three different software packages
shows a good agreement for unsymmetrical fault calculations.
Each WPP is unique. Therefore, recommended practice
from local reliability organizations, manufacturers, transmission planners, wind plant developers, and local utilities should
be followed very closely when performing studies of WPP.

Main : Graphs
1.25

I SCC POI

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
sec

1.00

1.20

a)

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

1.80

2.00

LL fault currents at POI

Main : Graphs

1.25

I SCC POI

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
sec

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

b) LLG fault abc currents at POI

Figure 16: Phase currents at the POI for a) LL fault and b) LLG fault

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Main : Graphs
0.300

I2+

I2-

I2o

This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The authors wish to acknowledge the technical support from
Cyme and PSCAD during the development of this paper.

0.250
0.200
0.150

VI. REFERENCES

0.100

[1]

0.050
0.000
x

1.00

1.20

a)

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

[2]

LL fault currents at POI

Main : Graphs

0.450

I2+

I2-

[3]

I2o

0.400
0.350
0.300

[4]

0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100

[5]

0.050
0.000
x

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

[6]

b) LLG fault abc currents at POI

Figure 17: Sequence currents at the POI for a) LL fault and b) LLG
fault

[7]

U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 20% Wind Energy by 2030 Increasing Wind Energys Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply, May, 2008.
J. Charles Smith, Michael R. Milligan, Edgar A. DeMeo and Brian
Parsons, "Utility wind Integration and operating impact state of the art,"
IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 22, pp. 900-908, Aug. 2007.
IEEE PES Wind Plant Collector System Design Working Group, Wind
Power Plant Grounding, Overvoltage Protection, and Insulation Coordination, Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting.
Nader Samaan, Robert Zavadil, J. Charles Smith and Jose Conto,
Modeling of Wind Power Plants for Short Circuit Analysis in the
Transmission Network, in Proc. of IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference, Chicago, USA, April 2008.
J. Moren, S.W.H. de Haan, Short-Circuit Current of Wind Turbines
with Doubly Fed Induction Generator, IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, Vol. 22, No. 1, March 2007.
Sulawa, Zabara, et al. Short circuit current of induction generators.
IEEE ISCAS 2007 proceedings.
E. Muljadi, V. Gevorgian, Short Circuit Modeling of a Wind Power
Plant, in Proc. 2011 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Vahan Gevorgian (M97) graduated from the Yerevan Polytechnic Institute (Armenia) in 1986. During
his studies he concentrated on electrical machines. His
thesis research dealt with doubly-fed induction generators for stand-alone power Systems. He obtained his
Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering Dept. from the
State Engineering University of Armenia in 1993. His
dissertation was devoted to a modeling of electrical
transients in large wind turbine generators.
Dr. Gevorgian is currently working at the National
Wind Technology Center (NWTC) of National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, USA, as a research engineer. His current
interests include modeling and testing of various applications of small wind
turbine based power systems.
Mohit Singh (M2011) received his M.S. and Ph.D.
in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas,
Austin in 2007 and 2011 respectively. His research is
focused on dynamic modeling of wind turbine generators.
Dr. Singh is currently working at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, USA, as a post-doctoral researcher in transmission and grid integration of renewable energy. His
current interests include modeling and testing of various applications of wind
turbine generators and other renewable energy resources. He is a member of
the IEEE. He is involved in the activities of the IEEE Power and Energy
Society (PES).
Eduard Muljadi (M82-SM94-F10) received
his Ph. D. (in Electrical Engineering) from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. From 1988 to 1992,
he taught at California State University, Fresno, CA.
In June 1992, he joined the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. His current
research interests are in the fields of electric machines, power electronics, and power systems in
general with emphasis on renewable energy applications. He is member of
Eta Kappa Nu, Sigma Xi and a Fellow of the IEEE. He is involved in the
activities of the IEEE Industry Application Society (IAS), Power Electronics
Society, and Power and Energy Society (PES).
He is currently a member of various committees of the IAS, and a member
of Working Group on Renewable Technologies and Dynamic Performance
Wind Generation Task Force of the PES. He holds two patents in power
conversion for renewable energy.