Negative Sequence Quantities-Based Protection Under

Inverter-Based Resources ─ Challenges and Impact of

the German Grid Code
Aboutaleb Haddadi Ulas Karaagac Evangelos Farantatos
Ilhan Kocar Department of Electrical Engineering Electric Power Research Institute
Jean Mahseredjian Hong Kong Polytechnic University Palo Alto, CA
Montreal Polytechnique Hong Kong U.S.
Montreal, Canada [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Abstract—Inverter-based Resources (IBRs), including Wind case more complex, fault current signatures compared to
Turbine Generators (WTGs), exhibit different negative- conventional synchronous generators (SGs) [4]. Thus, legacy
sequence fault current characteristics compared to conventional protection elements designed based on the assumption of a
synchronous generators (SGs). Depending on the type and SG-dominated power system may not function properly under
control of IBR, their negative-sequence current contribution can operating conditions with a high share of power coming from
be substantially lower in amplitude and different in phase. IBRs [5]-[9]. Such protective relay misoperation problems
Therefore, large-scale integration of IBRs is expected to have a have been reported, in the context of wind generation, for
significant impact on negative sequence quantities-based transmission line ground fault protection [5], power swing
protection elements including Instantaneous Negative Sequence
protection [6], and distance protection [7]-[9]. It is important
Overcurrent (50Q), Negative Sequence Time Overcurrent (51Q),
Directional Negative Sequence Overcurrent (67Q), and fault-
to identify potential protective relay misoperation problems
identification FID scheme. This paper demonstrates and develop solutions to ensure the proper operation of
misoperation of these functions in a practical multi wind park protection system under high share of IBRs.
system. The misoperation problems are due to the wind parks The focus of this paper is on protection functions based on
with full scale converter (FSC) WTGs operating under negative sequence components. IBRs, especially the ones
traditional coupled sequence control (CSC). As illustrated in this using full-scale converters (FSC), exhibit different negative-
paper, such misoperation problems can be eliminated effectively
sequence fault current characteristics compared to SGs.
by utilizing a decoupled sequence control (DSC) scheme in FSC
WTGs based on the recent VDE-AR-N 4120 Technical
Specifically, the amplitude can be substantially lower, and the
Connection Rules. phase angle can be significantly different. Therefore,
protection elements which rely on negative-sequence
Index Terms—Inverter-based resources, Full-scale converter, quantities may not function properly under high levels of
Wind generation, Short-circuit analysis, Power system IBRs. This paper studies such protection elements as
protection, Negative-sequence protection, Negative-sequence Instantaneous Negative Sequence Overcurrent (50Q),
current injection. Negative Sequence Time Overcurrent (51Q), and Directional
Negative Sequence Overcurrent (67Q), and fault-identification
I. INTRODUCTION FID scheme. The paper presents case studies illustrating the
misoperation of these protection schemes due to FSC based
Recent technology advancements and continuously IBRs. Although this paper limits the study to FSC WTGs, the
decreasing cost of Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) and finding and solutions are applicable to all FSC based IBRs.
solar plants have led to a worldwide increase in the share of
renewable energy sources in the generation fleet of power To eliminate the misoperation problems, FSC WTG
grids [1]. Most commonly, these resources are interfaced to control is modified considering the recent VDE-AR-N 4120
the electrical grid through a power electronic interface and Technical Connection Rules [10] in which the IBRs are
hence in this document are referred to as Inverter-Based required to inject a negative-sequence reactive current during
Resources (IBRs). unbalanced faults. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of
this solution in addressing potential protection misoperation
With the increasing share of IBRs, there is an anticipated issues caused by large-scale integration of FSC WTG. The
impact on power system protection [2],[3]. The power performance of this solution has been studied under various
electronic interface of IBRs produces different, and in some characteristic gains using simulation tests on a model of a

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
transmission system including wind generation within the Figure 1(c) plots the amplitude of V2 and I2 under FSC
EMTP software environment [11]. WTG, and Figure 1(d) shows the corresponding phasor
representation. As shown, the amplitude of I2 under FSC
Reference [12] has presented an implementation of the WTG is about 0.1 pu which is substantially lower than that
German grid code. The contributions of this paper with respect under SG. Further, the phase angle of I2 with respect to V2 is
to [12] are: i) identifying potential protection misoperation about 172° under FSC WTG which is different than 92° under
issues in the absence of negative-sequence current injection SG.
control; ii) studying the effectiveness of the German grid code
in addressing these potential protection misoperation issues; This angular relation as well as the amplitude of negative-
and iii) studying the impact of various factors including sequence quantities are of particular importance for negative
proportional gain k and inverter current limits on the negative- sequence-based protection elements. Traditionally, these
sequence behavior of an IBR adopting the German grid code. protection schemes have been designed assuming that the
negative sequence quantities are present in significant levels
II. FAULT BEHAVIOUR OF INVERTER-BASED RESOURCES and have an angular relation comparable to the case of SG
VS. SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR during unbalanced fault conditions. Given the impact of FSC
The negative-sequence fault current response of a SG is IBRs on the amplitude and phase angle, protective relays set
characterized by its negative-sequence impedance. Typically, under the assumption of a conventional SG-dominated power
this impedance is small and predominately inductive. As a system are likely to mis-operate under operating conditions
result, a non-symmetrical power system fault causes a large with a high penetration of IBRs. References [14],[15] have
reactive negative-sequence current to flow through the SG. shown such a misoperation for 50Q, 51Q, 67Q, and FID
scheme. To reduce the likelihood of such protection
Unlike SGs, the negative sequence fault current misoperation problems, a solution is to inject negative-
contribution from IBRs depends highly on their type and sequence current through the control of IBRs. The next section
control system. The unbalanced fault behavior of doubly-fed studies this potential solution.
induction generator (DFIG) WTs operating under
conventional coupled sequence control (CSC) is similar to
SGs due to the low impedance path to negative sequence
currents provided by the induction generator rotor circuits. On
the other hand, the FSC IBR have a very large negative
sequence impedance while operating under traditional CSC.
Moreover, this apparent impedance can be resistive, inductive
or capacitive. It should be noted that negative-sequence fault
current response of the DFIG WTs changes significantly when
they use decoupled sequence control (DSC) for mitigating
torque pulsations. The research presented in this paper is
limited to FSC IBR.
To illustrate the difference between FSC IBR and SG
unbalanced fault behaviors, a phase-A-to-B fault denoted by
AB1 has been simulated in the test system of Figure 10
(Appendix), and the negative-sequence voltage and current
produced by the generator on bus (5), i.e., V2 and I2, have Figure 1. Negative-sequence voltage and current – SG and FSC scenario.
been obtained. Two scenarios have been considered, the first
where this generator is a SG, and the second with an FSC
WTG plant (WP3 in Figure 10). III. NEGATIVE-SEQUENCE CURRENT INJECTION BASED ON
VDE-AR-N 4120
Figure 1(a) is a plot in the time domain of the amplitude of
V2 and I2 under SG, and Figure 1(b) illustrates the The recent VDE-AR-N 4120 Technical Connection Rules
corresponding phasor representation for fault AB1. As shown is an example grid code establishing the requirements for
in Figure 1(a), prior to the fault the V2 and I2 are zero since in negative-sequence current injection of an IBR. Figure 2 shows
the simulation the grid is considered balanced and operating the characteristic curve. Under this scheme, the IBR control
normally. Following the inception of the fault, the amplitude injects a negative sequence reactive current whose amplitude
of V2 increases to approximately 0.33 per-unit (pu). Due to is proportional to the negative-sequence voltage by a factor
the low negative sequence impedance path provided by the “k” defined as the characteristic proportional gain varying
SG, this V2 causes a I2 of about 1.22 pu to circulate through between 2 and 6. This characteristic basically emulates the
the generator. Figure 1(b) shows that for the phase-A-to-B negative-sequence behavior of a SG with 1/k pu negative-
fault, I2 leads V2 by 92°. This is due to the predominantly sequence reactance (k being the slope of the characteristics)
inductive nature of the negative-sequence impedance of the with current rating limitation.
SG.

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
 component, “lv” and “mv” signify the low-voltage and high-
voltage side of the Wind Turbine (WT) transformer, and
“des” and “ref” represent the desired and reference set points
of a signal, respectively.
The objective is to produce a negative-sequence reactive
current component I2q whose amplitude is proportional to the
amplitude of the negative-sequence voltage V2,lv. To that end,
first V2,lv is multiplied by the proportional gain k to calculate
the desired amplitude of negative-sequence reactive current
signified by I2q,des. This current is split into a d- and q-axis
component denoted by I2d,ref1 and I2q,ref1 in proportion to the
corresponding q- and d-axis component of negative-sequence
voltage at the medium voltage side of the WT transformer
represented by V2q,mv and V2d,mv. Next, the calculated signals
Figure 2. Characteristic curve for negative-sequence current injection of I2d,ref1 and I2q,ref1 together with their positive sequence
IBRs based on VDE-AR-N 4120 Technical Connection Rules [10]. counterparts I1d,ref1 and I1q,ref1, supplied by the positive-
sequence fault ride-through (FRT) scheme, are sent to a
limiter block. This limiter has a logic which operates based on
active/reactive current control priority and allocates the total
converter current limit to the four input current signals; when
operating based on VDE-AR-N 4120, the logic gives the
highest priority equally to I2q,ref and I1q,ref. This ensures that the
control scheme injects a negative-sequence reactive current to
comply with VDE-AR-N 4120 and a positive-sequence
reactive current to comply with positive-sequence FRT
requirements. The next highest priority is given to I2d,ref which
produces a negative-sequence real current component. The
lowest priority is given to I1d,ref which corresponds to the
positive sequence real current.
Figure 3. Integration of VDE-AR-N 4120 with the GSC current control
scheme of an FSC IBR. To illustrate the negative-sequence fault response under
VDE-AR-N 4120, fault AB1 of the previous section has been
repeated for the FSC WTG scenario assuming k=6. Figure
4(a) and (b) show the results. As shown, the amplitude of V2
and I2 become 0.35 pu and 0.71 pu, respectively, and the
phase angle of I2 with respect to V2 becomes close to 90°
(leading) emulating the behavior of a SG. The results illustrate
that the control has successfully increased the amplitude of the
negative-sequence fault current contribution of the WTG and
produced an inductive phase angle. Note that although the
proportional gain is set at k=6, the effective gain achieved by
the controller is smaller due to current limits of the controller.
The amplitude and phase angle of I2 under VDE-AR-N
4120 depend on such factors as the value of k, IBR
active/reactive current control priority, and the IBR converter
current limit. For proper operation of the protection system, it
may be necessary to adjust these parameters to achieve a
Figure 4. Negative-sequence voltage and current – FSC incorporating VDE-
desired level and phase angle of I2. The next sections study
AR-N 4120 (k=6).
the impact of these factors.
Figure 3 shows an implementation of the negative-
A. Impact of Proportional Gain k
sequence current control based on VDE-AR-N 4120. This
scheme is integrated with the current control scheme of the Gain k determines the amplitude of the injected negative-
Grid-Side Converter (GSC) and basically calculates current sequence current, subject to current limits. For smaller values
setpoint to achieve a required negative-sequence current of k, the injected negative-sequence current is linearly
characteristic. Reference [16] has presented full details of the proportional to k, and the characteristic basically emulates the
rest of control schemes for an FSC WTG. In the figure, the negative-sequence behavior of a SG with 1/k pu negative-
subscripts “1” and “2” denote positive- and negative-sequence sequence reactance. For large values of k, the injected
component, “d” and “q” represent the d- and q-axis negative-sequence current approaches the converter control

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
limit. In this case, the converter may not be able to supply the
desired level of negative-sequence current, and the amplitude
of the injected negative-sequence current is no longer linearly
related to k.
Figure 5 repeats the simulation of fault AB1 under
different values of k and illustrates the negative-sequence fault
current and voltage of WP3 in response to fault AB1 as a
function of proportional gain k, and TABLE 1 presents the
corresponding GSC current set points. Note that k=0
corresponds to FSC with no negative-sequence current
injection. The total converter current limit has been set at
Ilim=1.1 pu, and the total active and reactive current limits have
been set at Iqlim= 1 pu and Idlim=1 pu, respectively.
As shown, fault AB1 imposes a non-zero V2,lv at the GSC
terminal. When k=0, the GSC control fully suppresses the
negative-sequence current by setting I2q,des, and hence I2d,ref
and I2q,ref, to zero. On the other hand, the positive-sequence
FRT supplies I1q,ref1=0.87 pu and I1d,ref1=-0.67 pu. The limiter
does not change these set points since the corresponding
amplitude of the positive-sequence current does not exceed the
converter current limit of 1.1 pu.
Figure 5. WTG negative-sequence fault current contribution as a function of
For k=2, V2,l=0.29 pu causes I2q,des=0.58 pu which is split
proportional gain k: fault AB1.
into I2q,ref1=-0.41 pu and I2d,ref1=-0.44 pu. The positive-
sequence FRT also provides I1d,ref1=-1.00 pu and
k=0 k=2 k=6
I1q,ref1=0.94pu. These four values are processed by the limiter.
The highest priority is given to I2q and I1q; however, since their V2,lv (pu) 0.45 0.29 0.24
total amplitude of 1.35 pu exceeds the reactive current limit of I2q,des (pu) 0 0.58 1.44
1 pu, they are trimmed to I2q,ref=-0.30 pu and I1q,ref=0.70 pu. I2q,ref (pu) 0.00 -0.30 -0.49
I1q,ref (pu) 0.87 0.70 0.51
The remaining current capacity of 1.12 12 =0.46 pu is I2d,ref (pu) 0.00 -0.44 -0.46
allocated to the active current components, first to I2d and then I1d,ref (pu) -0.67 -0.02 -0.00
to I1d. Thus, I2d,ref is set at -0.44 pu which leaves I1d with a very angle(I2-V2) (°) -144.8 85.0 100.6
small share of -0.02 pu. These set points produce a negative-
sequence current with an amplitude of 0.53 pu and a phase TABLE 1. GSC CURRENT SET POINTS FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF
PROPORTIONAL GAIN K: FAULT AB1 SCENARIO.
angle of 85.0° leading the negative-sequence voltage. While
the negative-sequence proportional gain is 2, the effective gain Gain k can be designed to increase the level of negative-
becomes 1.8 due to current limits. sequence fault current for proper operation of protection
functions such as 50Q and 51Q; however, as the above case
For k=6, V2,l=0.24 pu causes I2q,des=1.44 pu which is split studies have shown, the negative-sequence fault current
into I2q,ref1=-0.97 pu and I2d,ref1=-1.08 pu. The positive- contribution of an FSC IBR cannot be arbitrarily increased by
sequence FRT also provides I1d,ref1=-1.00 pu and increasing k due to inverter current limits.
I1q,ref1=1.00pu. The total amplitude of reactive current is
2.44pu, and hence the reactive current components get limited B. Impact of Inverter Current Limits
to I2q,ref=-0.49 pu and I1q,ref=0.51 pu. The remaining current
capacity is allocated to the active current components; I2d,ref is The inverter current limits also impact the amplitude and
set at -0.46 pu, and I1d is set at almost 0 pu. These set points phase angle of the injected negative-sequence current under
produce a negative-sequence current with an amplitude of the German grid code. To illustrate this, two current limit
0.67 pu and a phase angle of 100.6° leading the negative- scenarios have been considered in this section where: (a) the
sequence voltage. Although the negative-sequence total GSC current limit is set at Ilim=1.1 pu, and the d- and q-
proportional gain is 6, the effective gain becomes 2.8 due to axis currents have individual limits of Idlim=1 pu and Iqlim=1
current limits. pu; and (b) the total current limit is set at Ilim=1.1 pu with no
individual limits on Id or Iq. In both cases, the proportional
gain has been set at k=4, and fault AB1 has been repeated.
Figure 6 illustrates the positive and negative sequence
voltage and current phasors under the two scenarios. As
shown, V2 has both d- and q-axis components, and to inject a
reactive I2, the controller should produce both I2d and I2q. For
the scenario with Ilim, Idlim, and Iqlim (Figure 6 (a)), the

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
controller successfully produces I2d and I2q, and I2 leads V2 by fails to pick up due to the low level of negative-sequence
103.9° which is predominantly inductive. However, in the current. Reference [15] has presented more details about this
scenario with Ilim only (Figure 6 (b)), the controller only misoperation and its cause. The misoperation is resolved
produces I2q due to the priority of Iq and no individual limit on under VDE-AR-N 4120 due to the increased level of negative-
Iq. With no I2d, the phase angle between I2 and V2 becomes sequence current. Comparison of Figure 7 and Figure 9
154.1° which is no longer predominantly inductive. This reveals that the operation of the 50Q element may have a time
suggests that in the absence of individual limits on Id and Iq, delay under the German grid code-controlled IBR compared to
the injected I2 may not be predominantly inductive. It should that under SG. The reason is the longer rise time of the IBR-
be mentioned that in both scenarios I1 is predominantly injected negative-sequence current due to current controller
inductive since V1 only has a d-axis component due to the rise time. Figure 4 illustrates the rise time of I2; the larger this
operation of phase-locked loop (PLL). rise time, the longer would be the delay of 50Q.

90 90
120 1 60 120 1 60
150 30 150 30

180 0 180 0

210 330 210 330

240 300 240 300
270 270 Figure 7. Relay response to fault AG1 ̶ SG scenario.

Figure 6. Unbalanced fault behavior of an IBR adopting the German grid

code under two inverter current limit scenarios: (a) Ilim=1.1 pu, Iqlim=Idlim=1
pu; (b) Ilim=1.1 pu with no individual limits on Id or Iq.

As shown, negative-sequence current control under VDE-

AR-N 4120 can increase the level of negative sequence
current with desired angular relation of negative-sequence
voltages and currents, thereby reducing the likelihood of
protection misoperation. The next section studies the
performance of various protection elements under this control.

IV. PERFORMANCE OF NEGATIVE SEQUENCE QUANTITIES- Figure 8. Relay response to fault AG1 ̶ FSC WTG scenario.
BASED PROTECTION
The case studies of this section evaluate the performance
of 50Q, 51Q, 67Q, and FID scheme. Figure 10 shows the test
system and the protective relays used for the tests, and
TABLE 2 presents the parameters and relay settings. The
performance of protection system has been studied under three
scenarios a) where the generators connected to buses (3), (4),
(5), and (9) are SG, b) FSC WTGs, or c) FSC WTG
incorporating VDE-AR-N 4120 with proportional gains of
k={6, 6, 6, 2} for WP1, WP2, WP3, and WP4, respectively.

A. Instantaneous Negative Sequence Overcurrent 50Q

A permanent single phase-A-to-ground denoted by AG1 Figure 9. Relay response to fault AG1 ̶ FSC WTG with VDE-AR-N 4120
scenario.
has been placed on the line connecting bus (6) to bus (7). An
overcurrent relay R50 on bus (6) containing a 50Q element is
used to protect the line. The successful operation requires that B. Directional Negative Sequence Overcurrent 67Q
50Q asserts instantaneously. Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 also show the response of
the 67Q element of relay R50 under SG, FSC, and VDE-AR-
Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 show the response of the
N 4120 scenarios. The element uses the phase angle between
50Q element under SG, FSC, and VDE-AR-N 4120 scenarios.
negative-sequence current and voltage to identify fault
As shown, the element asserts successfully under SG since the
direction [17]. The fault is forward to the relay, thus
amplitude of the negative-sequence current is larger than 50Q
successful 67Q operation requires 67_QF (forward direction)
pick up threshold. However, under FSC WTG the element

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
to assert, which is the case under SG. Nevertheless, under FSC consume 30 MW at unity power factor. TABLE 2 presents the
67_QF asserts only transiently, and 67_QR (reverse direction) parameters of the test system.
mistakenly asserts. The cause of this misoperation is the
changed phase angle relation of negative-sequence current and
voltage which causes the relay to see the fault as reverse.
Reference [15] has presented more details about this
misoperation. This misoperation is fixed under VDE-AR-N
4120 due to the imposed angular relation between negative-
sequence voltage and current of the WTGs.

C. Fault Identification
Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 also show the response of
the FID scheme a distance relay denoted by 21R1 on bus (6)
looking towards the line. The FID uses the angular relation
between the negative- and zero-sequence current to identify
the faulted phase [18]. Under SG, the FID successfully detects
the faulted phase and issues FIDS_AG. However, due to the
changed phase angle of the negative-sequence current under Figure 10. Test system.
FSC WTG, FID incorrectly classifies the fault as phase-C-to-
WP parameters
ground and issues FIDS_CG. Reference [15] has presented Installed # of units Active power at
more details about this misoperation. This incorrect fault WP Type
capacity in service
Wind speed
the POI
identification is fixed under VDE-AR-N 4120 due to the WP1 III 200 x 1.5 MW 100 0.6 pu 32.6 MW
imposed angular relation between negative-sequence voltage WP2 IV 150 x 1.5 MW 150 1.0 pu 219.8 MW
and current of the WTGs. WP3 IV 200 x 1.5 MW 200 1.0 pu 293.0 MW
WP4 IV 133 x 1.5 MW 133 1.0 pu 194.9 MW
V. CONCLUSION WP5 III 200 x 1.5 MW 200 0.6 pu 65.2 MW
Settings of relay R50
This paper has shown that FSC IBRs may have a Setting Value
detrimental impact on the performance of protection schemes 50Q element
based on negative-sequence quantities. This is due to the Nominal current 1000 A
lower amplitude of the negative-sequence current contribution Negative-sequence pickup current I2pkp 0.2 pu
of the FSC IBR and the changed angular relation of negative- 67Q element
Rated current 1000 A
sequence quantities compared to a conventional SG. The
Maximum Torque Angle (MTA) 85°
paper has shown the misoperation of 50Q, 67Q, and FID Forward limit angle 80°
scheme due to FSC WTGs. In the case of 50Q, the cause of Reverse limit angle 80°
misoperation was the low level of negative-sequence current IpkpForward 0.25 pu
contributed by FSC WTGs. For 67Q and FID, the cause was IpkpReverse 0.15 pu
the changed angular relation. The paper has further shown that
FSC WTG negative-sequence current injection can reduce the TABLE 2. PARAMETERS OF THE TEST SYSTEM OF FIGURE 10.
likelihood of such protection misoperation problems. As an
example, the paper has shown the effectiveness of negative- REFERENCES
sequence current injection based on VDE-AR-N 4120 in
[1] U.S. Department of Energy, “2018 wind technologies market report,”
resolving the misoperation of 50Q, 67Q, and FID scheme. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE/GO-102019-
proportional gain of the VDE-AR-N 4120 characteristics (k, 5191, Aug. 2019, Available online:
with a typical variation range of 2 to 6) is the main factor https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2018-wind-technologies-
influencing the negative-sequence fault current behavior of an market-report
FSC WTG and hence, can be used as a design parameter to [2] IEEE/NERC PES-TR68, “Impact of inverter-based generation on bulk
power system dynamics and short-circuit performance”, the
reduce the protection misoperation problems. IEEE/NERC Task Force on Short-Circuit and System Performance
Impact of Inverter Based Generation, Jul. 2018.
APPENDIX: TEST SYSTEM [3] WSPPID/WSPI/WSPI-P─Wind and Solar Plant Interconnection
Performance Working Group (WSPI-P), “P2800─Standard for
Figure 10 shows the test system consisting of 15 buses interconnection and interoperability of inverter-based resources
marked by (1)-(15) at three voltage levels of {315, 230, 120} interconnecting with associated transmission electric power systems,”
kV incorporating 5 Wind Parks (WPs) marked by WP1-WP5. PAR approval, Sep. 2018.
[4] IEEE PES Joint Working Group, “Fault current contributions from
There are two connection points to the rest of the grid wind plants,” Technical report, Oct. 2013.
represented by Sys1 (at 315 kV level) and Sys4 (at 120 kV [5] M. Nagpal and C. Henville, “Impact of power-electronic sources on
level). Minimum loading condition has been considered, and transmission line ground fault protection,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
all loads connected to the 25-kV side of the transformers vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 62–70, Feb. 2018

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020
[6] A. Haddadi, I. Kocar, U. Karaagac, H. Gras, and E. Farantatos, “Impact [12] I. Erlich, T. Neumann, F. Shewarega, P. Schegner, and J. Meyer,
of wind generation on power swing protection,” IEEE Trans. Power “Wind turbine negative sequence current control and its effect on
Del., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1118 ̶ 1128, Jun. 2019. power system protection,” IEEE Power & Energy Society General
[7] A. Hooshyar, M. A. Azzouz, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Distance Meeting, Vancouver, BC, pp. 1–5, 2013.
protection of lines connected to induction generator-based windfarms [13] A. Haddadi, I. Kocar, T. Kauffmann, U. Karaagac, E. Farantatos, and J.
during balance faults,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. Mahseredjian, “Field validation of generic wind park models using
1193–1203, Oct. 2014. fault records,” Journal of Modern Power System and Clean Energy,
[8] A. Hooshyar, M. A. Azzouz, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Distance vol. 7, no. 4, pp 826–836, Jul. 2019.
protection of lines emanating from full-scale converter-interfaced [14] Protection Guidelines for Systems with High Levels of Inverter Based
renewable energy power plants–Part I: Problem statement,” IEEE Resources, EPRI, Palo Alto CA: 2018. 3002013635.
Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1770–1780, Aug. 2015. [15] Impact of Inverter-Based Resources on Protection Schemes Based on
[9] A. Hooshyar, M. A. Azzouz, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Distance Negative Sequence Components, EPRI, Palo Alto CA: 2019.
protection of lines emanating from full-scale converter-interfaced 3002016197.
renewable energy power plants – Part II: Solution description and [16] U. Karaagac et al., “A generic EMT-type model for wind parks with
evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1781–1791, permanent magnet synchronous generator full size converter wind
Aug. 2015. turbines,” IEEE Power and Energy Technology Systems Journal, vol. 6,
[10] Technische Regeln für den Anschluss von Kundenanlagen an das no. 3, pp. 131–141, Sep. 2019.
Hochspannungsnetz und deren Betrieb (TAR Hochspannung), VDE- [17] J. Horak, “Directional overcurrent relaying (67) concepts”, in proc. 59th
ARN 4120 Anwendungsregel: 2018-11. IEEE Conf. Protective Relay Eng., 2006.
[11] J. Mahseredjian, S. Dennetière, L. Dubé, B. Khodabakhchian, and L. [18] D. Costello and K. Zimmerman, “Determining the faulted phase,” the
Gérin-Lajoie, “On a new approach for the simulation of transients in 63rd Annu. Conf. Protect. Relay Eng., College Station, TX, U.S., Mar.
power systems,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 1514– 2010.
1520, Sep. 2007.

21st Power Systems Computation Conference Porto, Portugal — June 29 – July 3, 2020
PSCC 2020