2804 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO.
4, JULY/AUGUST 2015
Impacts of Grounding Configurations on Responses
of Ground Protective Relays for DFIG-Based
WECSs—Part I: Solid Ground Faults
S. A. Saleh, Senior Member, IEEE, A. S. Aljankawey, Student Member, IEEE, Ryan Meng,
J. Meng, Senior Member, IEEE, L. Chang, Senior Member, IEEE, and C. P. Diduch, Member, IEEE
Abstract—One of the requirements for safe, stable, sustain-
able, and profitable operation of doubly fed induction generators
(DFIGs)-based wind energy conversion systems (WECSs) is the ac-
curate and reliable protection against electrical faults, in particu-
lar, ground faults. The performance of protective devices employed
to achieve this requirement is highly dependent on the grounding
configuration of the DFIG-based WECS. This paper investigates
impacts of the grounding configuration on the performance of
protective devices used to protect DFIGs-based WECSs from
electrical ground faults. Investigated grounding configurations
include solid grounding, low-resistance grounding, high-resistance
grounding, and no grounding. This paper also investigates the use
of a capacitor in parallel with a low resistance, as a grounding
configuration, to limit ground potentials, reduce ground currents,
and minimize impacts on responses of ground protective relays.
The impacts of the grounding configurations on protective devices
are observed through their ability to identify faults, as well as their
speed to respond to identified faults. Simulation and experimental
results reveal that adequately designed low-resistance grounding
offers the minimum impacts on protective devices used for ground
protection of DFIG-based WECSs.
Index Terms—Doubly fed induction generators (DFIGs),
power system grounding, power system protection, wind energy
conversion.
I. I NTRODUCTION
D URING the past few years, significant progress has
been made to utilize various types of renewable energy
sources. Among these renewable energy sources, wind energy
has been leading the dynamically growing levels of economic
and sustainable electric energy production. These growing
levels of wind energy production are supported by different
technologies that are centered by the doubly fed induction
generators (DFIGs). DFIG-based wind energy conversion sys-
tems (WECSs) can offer several advantages, including variable
Manuscript received February 25, 2014; revised August 22, 2014,
September 3, 2014, and October 30, 2014; accepted December 22, 2014.
Date of publication January 5, 2015; date of current version July 15, 2015.
Paper 2014-PSPC-0042.R3, presented at the 2014 IEEE/IAS Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA,
May 20–23, and approved for publication in the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON
I NDUSTRY A PPLICATIONS by the Power Systems Protection Committee of
the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
(e-mail: asaleh@unb.ca; aaljankawey@unb.ca; m971b@unb.ca; jmeng@
unb.ca; lchang@unb.ca; diduch@unb.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2014.2387479
0093-9994 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
speed operation, controlled capturing of wind power, reduced
mechanical stresses on the turbine and blades, independent
control of active and reactive powers, and partially rated power
electronic converters (PECs) [1]–[8]. The increasing utilization
of electric energy generated by DFIG-based WECSs have
mandated setting conditions for connecting these distributed
generating units to power systems. A new set of grid codes
has been established to address the requirements for integrating
DFIG-based WECSs into power systems (see [9] for details).
One of the requirements of the new grid codes is the mandatory
participation of DFIG-based WECSs in voltage and frequency
control activities of their host power systems [7]–[11].
For purposes of complying with the new grid codes, a DFIG-
based WECS has to remain connected to its host power systems
during steady-state and transient conditions. Such a require-
ment creates demands for accurate and reliable protection, and
control of DFIG-based WECSs. Several incidents have been
reported for equipment damage in the DFIG and/or its power
electronic converters (see [7]–[9] and references therein) due
to misidentified electrical ground faults. Damage analyses for
some of these incidents have indicated that improper grounding
configurations have contributed significantly to the malopera-
tion of ground protective devices. As a consequence, the new
grid codes specify installing adequate groundings for DFIG-
based WECSs. In general, grounding any component in a power
system can be configured as solid grounding, low-resistance
grounding, high-resistance grounding, or no grounding [7]–
[10]. The grounding of any generating unit (including DFIG-
based WECSs) in a power system should be able to reduce
ground currents and limit ground potentials, which appear
across the grounding impedance due to ground currents. It
should be noted that each wind turbine tower is equipped with
a separate grounding that is responsible for a safe discharge
of lightning strikes. This separate grounding is constructed
by a direct connection of the tower reinforcements to ground
electrodes [7]–[14].
Significant research has been devoted to the development
of fast, effective, and reliable protective devices, including
ground protective devices, for DFIG-based WECSs. This area
of research has also incorporated the well-established power
system wide-area protection methods in coordinating responses
of the developed protective devices [14]–[18]. Despite this ef-
fort, specifications of the grounding configuration have not been
fully addressed for DFIG-based WECSs. The grounding of
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs
DFIG-based WECSs may employ fundamentals and practices
of power system grounding; however, special requirements for
the operation and control of DFIG-based WECSs have to be
considered [19], [20]. This paper investigates the impacts of
grounding configurations on ground protective devices used in
DFIG-based WECSs and addresses the following concerns:
• the ability to identify electrical ground faults;
• the speed of response to isolate the faulty component(s);
• the ability to limit ground potentials and reduce ground
currents with a minimum influence on the responses of
ground protective devices.
These concerns arise from the critical demands imposed on
limiting ground potentials, while eliminating any impact on
the function of ground protective devices used in DFIG-based
WECSs.
II. G ROUNDING C ONFIGURATIONS IN
DFIG-BASED WECS S
A. Overview of Grounding Configurations
Different grounding configurations allow the limitation of
ground fault currents, as well as the reduction of ground poten-
tials experienced by various components in any power system.
This becomes critical when considering the role of grounding
in the stability, reliability, and operation of DFIG-based WECSs
due to [6]–[11].
• The employment of PECs in rotors of DFIGs. These
PECs generate current harmonic components that flow to
the ground, and may disrupt the function of any ground
protective device.
• The use of cables to connect the DFIG (located at the top
of the wind turbine tower) to the collecting transformer.
The significant equivalent capacitances of these cables
can initiate transient overvoltages during asymmetrical
electrical faults. Such transient overvoltages may lead to
subsequent failures in DFIG-based WECSs.
Standardized practices for grounding power systems compo-
nents identify four basic configurations [19]–[23]:
I- Solid Grounding: this grounding configuration is estab-
lished by eliminating any intentional impedance between
the neutral and ground points. The main advantage of
the solid grounding is its ability to eliminate ground
potentials. However, this grounding configuration does
not offer any reduction of ground currents. Such a dis-
advantage raises concerns about its applications in DFIG-
based WECSs, where ground faults in the rotor PECs can
initiate higher currents than those initiated by 3φ faults,
and may result in severe equipment damage.
II- Low-Resistance Grounding: industrial practices con-
sider a low-resistance grounding as a resistance connect-
ing the neutral and ground points, and is capable of
maintaining the ground current IG as [22]–[24]:
• IG ≤ 100 A: low-voltage (Vsys ≤ 1 kV);
• IG ≤ 400 A: medium voltage (1 < Vsys ≤ 35 kV).
It is to be noted that low and medium voltages are
considered since they represent typical rated voltages
of DFIG-based WECSs. The low-resistance grounding
2805
configuration offers several advantages, including reduced
arcing currents and limited arc-flash hazards leading to
ground faults, reduced mechanical and thermal damages
in the transformer and/or DFIG, and reduced ground
potentials. However, this grounding configuration does
not support fault location features.
III- High-Resistance Grounding: this grounding configura-
tion is defined as a resistance connecting the neutral and
ground points, and is capable of reducing ground currents
to less than 25 A (in low and medium voltage systems).
The high-resistance grounding offers some advantages
that include facilitating the process of locating faults
and minimizing the use of the ground. Nonetheless, this
grounding configuration may complicate the functions of
ground protective devices due to the significant reductions
of ground currents, along with high ground potentials.
IV- No Grounding: the no-grounding configuration is estab-
lished by an open circuit between the neutral and ground
points. During any ground fault, the no-grounding con-
figuration allows the line-to-neutral voltage VP to change
such that for faulty phase(s) VP = 0, and for healthy
phase(s) VP = VL ; where VL is the system line-to-line
voltage. The change in VP may disrupt the responses of
protective devices, as well as the operation of rotor PECs
[16]–[21].
B. Grounding DFIG-Based WECSs
Fig. 1 shows a conventional schematic for a DFIG-based
WECS, along with its grounding location. The rotor windings
of an induction generator that is used in a DFIG-based WECS,
are directly connected to the rotor-side 3φ PEC. The rotor-side
PEC can be operated as a 3φ ac–dc PEC, 3φ dc–ac PEC, or
bidirectional 3φ PEC. Furthermore, the rotor-side PEC is con-
nected via a dc link capacitor to the grid-side PEC, which can
be operated as a 3φ ac–dc PEC, 3φ dc–ac PEC, or bidirectional
3φ PEC. The switching actions of the rotor-side PEC generate
successive voltage impulses with significant magnitudes. Such
voltage impulses create overvoltage stresses between individual
rotor windings and the ground, and can inflect damages on the
rotor circuit under conditions of high ground potentials [7], [8],
[19]. As a consequence, extra weight is placed on the adequacy
of the grounding configuration for a DFIG-based WECS.
To avoid damages caused by overvoltage stresses in the rotor
windings, ground potentials have to be kept at low values. A
low-resistance-grounding configuration can be employed due
to its ability to limit ground potentials, which may become
significant as a result of current harmonic components produced
by the rotor PECs. In this regard, high ground potentials may
cause [22]–[25]:
i) nuisance operation of ground protective devices;
ii) inaccurate specification of grounding resistances;
iii) amplified voltage stresses across the rotor 3φ windings.
The aforementioned concerns suggest that a low-resistance
grounding can limit ground potentials induced by current har-
monic components produced by the rotor PECs [23]–[25].
2806 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015

Fig. 1. Conventional topology of a DFIG-based WECS with the grounding location. The notation CB denotes circuit breaker, FCL denotes a fault current limiter,
CT denotes a current transformer, ZG denotes a grounding impedance, PCC denotes a point of common coupling, and PEC denotes a power electronic converter.

C. Ground Protective Devices

The vast majority of electrical faults experienced by power
system components, including DFIG-based WECSs, are ground
faults. A ground fault is initialized by an unintentional con-
nection between one and more of the energized phases to the
ground point. Among the common causes of ground faults are
insulation breakdown, improper connections, broken bus-bars,
and failure of system component(s). Different power system
components are generally protected against ground faults by
employing ground protective devices. Ground protective de-
vices are employed to detect either the current flowing to the
ground and/or voltage (commonly called the ground potential)
across grounding resistances or impedances. In the case of
ground current or potential exceeding the pick-up value and
time setting, ground protective devices initiate their response
[trip one or more circuit breakers (CBs)] [21]–[25]. There are
several designs of ground protective devices including overcur-
rent (inverse, inverse definite, etc.) and digital (harmonic based,
pattern recognition, etc.) relays.
III. D ESIGNING L OW-R ESISTANCE G ROUNDING FOR
DFIG-BASED WECSs
The employment of PECs in the rotor of a DFIG causes
current harmonic components to flow to the ground. If a low-
resistance grounding, with a resistance RG , is used for a DFIG-
based WECS, the current harmonic components flowing to the
ground will create a ground potential across RG . The design of
a low-resistance grounding for a DFIG-based WECS is mainly
constrained by the system nominal line-to-neutral voltage VP
and the desired maximum value of the ground current IG . The
ohmic value of RG for low- and high-resistance groundings can
be determined as [23]
VP
RG = . (1)
IG
The power rating of RG can be specified as:
PRG = (IG )2 RG . (2)
The ground potential across RG can be limited by modifying
the low resistance grounding to include a frequency selection
Fig. 2. Frequency selective circuit for the low-resistance grounding of a
DFIG-based WECS and its ground potential VG characteristics.
feature. This frequency selection feature can be realized by
including a capacitance CG in parallel with the low-resistance
grounding RG , as shown in Fig. 2 [23].
The modified circuit for the low-resistance grounding will
block high-frequency currents from flowing through RG , as
CG offers a low-impedance path for these currents. This design
of the low-resistance grounding will function as a filter that
attenuates high frequency ground potentials across RG [23].
For design purposes, the dominant harmonic component in the
ground current IG is assumed to be the third harmonic. In order
to select CG , the value of RG is set to be five times higher than
the impedance of CG . This can be expressed as
5
RG = (3)
2π × 3 × fs × CG
where fs is the system frequency.
IV. S IMULATION T ESTS
Several simulation tests were carried out to investigate im-
pacts of grounding configurations on the responses of ground
protective relays used in DFIG-based WECSs. Two DFIG-
based WECSs were used in these simulation tests; one was
rated at 15 kW, and the other was rated at 2 kW. The model and
test results for 15-kW DFIG-based WECSs are presented here,
and the model of the 2-kW DFIG-based WECS, along with its
test results, are provided in Appendix I.
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THE S IMULATED 15-kW DFIG-BASED WECS
A. Modeling the 15-kW DFIG-Based WECS
For purposes of investigating possible impacts of the ground-
ing configurations, including the modified low-resistance
grounding (as shown in Fig. 2), a DFIG-based WECS was
implemented using a MATLAB/SIMULINK model, where the
DFIG was constructed using the detailed model [26]. The
specifications of the induction generator, rotor PECs, and main
transformer in the implemented model are provided in Table I.
The implemented SIMULINK model utilized two vector
controllers for generating reference signals, which were em-
ployed for producing pulsewidth modulated (PWM) switch-
ing pulses for the rotor PECs. These vector controllers were
designed as detailed in [8], and with PWM switching signals
were produced at a switching frequency of 8 kHz. Simulation
tests were performed with a time step of Ts = 50 μs. The
tests for investigating impacts of grounding configurations were
conducted on two different protective devices:
• An inverse definite minimum time overcurrent (IDMTOC)
relay, with 20 A pick-up current and 0.3-s time dial [27].1
• A discrete Fourier transform (DFT)-based digital relay.
The ground current IG was used as the input for both protec-
tive relays. The data in Table I was employed for specifying
values for the resistances used in low- and high-resistance
grounding configurations. These resistance values were spec-
ified as:
• Low resistance: the maximum ground current was set 30
A, which was selected to meet standards for ground cur-
rents in low-voltage systems (IG ≤ 100 A). Equation
√ (1)
was used to calculate (RG )LRG for VP = (430/ 3) and
IG = 30 A. The ohmic value of (RG )LRG was calculated
as (RG )LRG = 8.275 Ω. The power rating for (RG )LRG
was specified using (2), for IG = 30 A, as (PR )LRG =
7.45 kW.
1 The IEC 60255 standard specifies the characteristics of IDMTOC relays as:
C × TM S
Tres =  α
I
I
−1
d
Tres : response time, C = 0.14, Id : current set point, I: relay input current,
α = 0.02 for inverse-time overcurrent relay, and TM S = 0.5: time multiplier
setting for tripping time [27].
2807
• High resistance: the maximum ground current was
set 8 A to meet the standards for the ground cur-
rent in high-resistance grounding (IG ≤ 25 A). The
ohmic value√of (RG )HRG was determined using (1) for
VP = (430/ 3) V and IG = 8 A, and was found as
(RG )HRG = 31.033 Ω. The power rating for (RG )HRG
was specified using (2), for IG = 8 A, as (PR )HRG =
2.5 kW.
The capacitance CG , used to modify the low-resistance
grounding was determined as CG = 535 μF (using (3)). More-
over, the voltage rating of CG was selected as the nominal line-
to-line voltage of the DFIG-based WECS. The specified values
for (RG )LRG , (RG )HRG , and CG were used in simulation
tests.
B. Simulation Results for the 15-kW DFIG-Based WECS
The SIMULINK model of the 15-kW DFIG-based WECS
was tested for several fault and nonfault conditions to investi-
gate possible impacts of each grounding configuration on the
responses of ground protective devices.
Case 1—Nonfault Conditions: In this test, the DFIG-based
WECS was operated to deliver its rated power for a variable
wind speed vw that was initiated at 8 m/s, decreased to 7.5 m/s
at t = 2.5 s, increased to 8.5 m/s at t = 3.5 s, and increased
to 10 m/s at t = 4.2 s. A sudden reduction of 15% in the
terminal voltage of the DFIG-based WECS was created during
t = 2.5–4 s. This voltage reduction was created to emulate a
low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) condition. It should be noted
that the response of each relay (the trip signal) was initialized
at a high state (TRIP = 1), which was changed to a low state
(TRIP = 0) in case of an identified fault. The ground potential,
ground current, and trip signals generated by the IDMTOC and
DFT relays for the basic grounding configurations are shown in
Fig. 3.
Simulation results in Fig. 3 show that each grounding con-
figuration affected the ground potential VG and current IG in
different degrees. The solid grounding resulted in VG = 0 and
(IG )peak = 1.24 A. Moreover, the low-resistance grounding
limited VG to (VG )peak = 6.72 V and produced (IG )peak =
0.81 A. The high-resistance grounding yielded (IG )peak =
0.37 A and (VG )peak = 14.48 V. Finally, the no grounding re-
sulted in IG = 0 and (VG )peak = 40.47 V. The results in Fig. 3
demonstrated that the low-resistance grounding configuration
produced acceptable values for VG and IG . The same nonfault
test was conducted in order to test the performance of the
modified low-resistance grounding (RG in parallel with CG ).
The ground potential, ground current, and trip signals of both
relays, for the nonfault condition, are shown in Fig. 4. One can
see from Fig. 4 that the ground potential VG showed a further
reduction than that obtained by using the conventional low-
resistance grounding. This reduction in VG was accomplished
due to the inclusion of CG , which provided a low impedance
path for the current harmonic components, and caused an
increase in the ground current compared with the low-resistance
grounding.
Case 2—Phase A-to-Ground Fault: This test was conducted
as the DFIG-based WECS was set to deliver 50% of its rated
2808 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015
Fig. 3. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices used
in DFIG-based WECS for nonfault conditions with variable wind speed oper-
ation and LVRT condition. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and
trip signals generated by the IDMTOC and DFT. (a) Solid-grounding (RG =
0), (b) low-resistance grounding with RG = 8.275 Ω, (c) high-resistance
grounding with RG = 31.033 Ω, and (d) no-grounding (RG = ∞).
power at a fixed wind speed of vw = 8.5 m/s. At t = 3 s, phase
A, on the output of the rotor 3φ dc–ac converter, was connected
to the ground to create a line-to-ground fault. Fig. 5 shows the
ground potential, ground current, and trip signals of the tested
relays for basic grounding configurations.
The simulation results in Fig. 5 for the phase A-to-ground
fault in the rotor show that each grounding configuration had
an impact on the responses of both relays. This was noticed as
the trip signals of the IDMTOC and DFT relays were generated
Fig. 4. Impacts of grounding configurations on responses of ground protective
devices used in DFIG-based WECS under nonfault conditions with variable
wind speed operation and LVRT condition for the modified low-resistance
grounding: (a) the ground potential VG , (b) the ground current IG , (c) the
trip signal generated by the IDMTOC protective relay, and (d) the trip signal
generated by the DFT protective relay.
at a different time for each grounding configuration. The solid-
grounding configuration allowed IG to reach a peak value of
136.4 A. The low-resistance grounding reduced IG to have a
peak value of 41.5 A, whereas the high-resistance grounding
reduced the peak value of IG to 10.7 A. No grounding resulted
in a ground fault current of 0 A. A summary for the simulation
results is provided in Table II. For purposes of investigating the
impacts of the modified low-resistance grounding, the same test
was conducted, and the results are shown in Fig. 6.
It is shown from Fig. 6 that the ground current was de-
creased when the DFIG was grounded using the modified low-
resistance grounding. The high ground current during the fault
conditions facilitated the generation of both trip signals in
shorter times than those observed in Fig. 5(b). The frequency
selection feature of the modified low-resistance grounding al-
lowed both relays to detect the ground fault and generate their
trip signals in less than 4 cycles after the fault started. Other
ground faults in the rotor and stator of the DFIG were tested,
and their results are summarized in Table II.
The data in Table II shows that each grounding configura-
tion impacted the responses of protective devices for different
ground faults. In addition, Table II shows that the modified low-
resistance grounding (RG in parallel with CG ) offered limiting
ground potentials and reducing ground currents (compared with
those produced by solid grounding). As a result, trip signals
of the IDMTOC and DFT relays were generated faster than
those generated when ground potentials had nonzero values. In
summary, the simulation results and data in Table II provide
support for the implementation of the modified low-resistance
grounding configuration for DFIG-based WECSs to facilitate
proper responses of ground protective relays.
V. E XPERIMENTAL T EST R ESULTS
A. Experimental Setup
For purposes of investigating the impact of grounding con-
figurations on ground protective devices, an experimental setup
was constructed for a 2-kW DFIG-based WECS. A 3φ, 208 V,
4-pole, 60 Hz, Δ-connected wound-rotor induction machine
was used as the DFIG, whereas a 2.4-kW, 150-V, 2400-r/min,
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs
Fig. 5. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in DFIG-based WECS for phase A-to-ground fault on the output of
the rotor dc–ac converter. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and
trip signals generated by the IDMTOC and DFT protective relays. (a) Solid-
grounding (RG = 0), (b) low-resistance grounding with RG = 8.275 Ω,
(c) high-resistance grounding with RG = 31.033 Ω, and (d) no-grounding
(RG = ∞).
separately excited dc motor was used as the wind turbine.
The armature of the dc motor was supplied through a con-
trolled rectifier to emulate a variable wind speed operation. The
rotor windings of the 2-kW DFIG were fed directly from a
1-kW, 3φ, voltage source (VS), six-pulse dc–ac converter,
which was supplied from a 1 kW, 3φ, voltage source (VS), six-
pulse ac–dc converter. A dc link with a capacitor of 820 μF
was connected at the input terminals of the dc–ac converter.
2809
TABLE II
S IMULATION R ESULTS FOR THE I MPACT OF G ROUNDING
C ONFIGURATIONS ON R ESPONSES OF G ROUND P ROTECTIVE D EVICES
Fig. 6. Impacts of grounding configurations on responses of ground protective
devices used in DFIG-based WECS for phase A-to-ground fault on the output
of the rotor dc–ac converter, when using the modified low-resistance grounding:
(a) the ground potential VG , (b) the ground current IG , (c) the trip signal
generated by the IDMTOC protective relay, and (d) the trip signal generated
by the DFT protective relay.
The ac–dc converter and the stator windings were connected to
the secondary side of a 3-kVA, 3φ, 60 Hz, Δ − Y transformer.
The neutral point of the secondary side (Y -connected) was
connected to the ground through the tested grounding configu-
rations. Fig. 7 shows a photograph of the experimental setup for
the laboratory 2-kW DFIG-based WECS. The switching signals
for the ac–dc and dc–ac converters were generated as PWM
at a switching frequency of 8 kHz. The reference signals used
2810 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015
Fig. 7. Photograph of the experimental setup for the 2-kW DFIG-based
WECS.
to generate the PWM switching signals were produced by two
vector controllers. The vector controllers and the generation of
PWM switching signals were realized using a Turbo-C code,
which was executed by a DSP board. The PWM switching
signals were applied to the rotor converters via two six-channel
optocoupler driver circuits. The developed Turbo-C code also
included realizing two protective relays that were the following.
• An inverse definite minimum time overcurrent (IDMTOC)
relay, with 8 A pick-up current and 0.5-s time dial.
• A DFT-based digital relay, which was implemented by FIR
filters.
The currents and voltages required as inputs to the vector
controllers were collected using current and voltage sensors,
and fed to the analog-to-digital converter (ADC) ports of the
DSP board. Moreover, the ground current was collected and fed
to an ADC port of the DSP board as an input to both relays.
The trip signal of each relay was initiated at 10 V, and was fed
to a three-channel optocoupler circuit that activated 3 TRIAC
switches used to realize a 3φ CB. In the case of an identified
ground fault, each tested relay would change its trip signal
from 10 V to 0 V in order to deactivate the 3φ CB, and isolate
the DFIG, rotor converters, and transformer from the grid. The
back-up protection was established by a thermal overload relay,
which was installed on the primary side of the transformer. The
resistances for the low- and high-resistance groundings were
selected as 6.5 Ω and 26 Ω, respectively. These values were
selected to ensure a ground current below 20 A, which
was selected based on:
• design practices that specify a ground current less than
100 A for a system voltage less than 1 kV;
• the pick-up current for the main protection of the feeder in
which the grounding is connected;
• the maximum allowed ground current.
It should be noted that in the case DFIG-based WECSs,
nonfault ground currents are mostly dominated by the harmonic
components generated by the rotor PECs. Finally, the capacitor
CG was determined using (3) for RG = 6.5 Ω, and was found
as CG = 680 μF.
B. Experimental Test Results
Several experimental tests were conducted for fault and
nonfault conditions in the rotor and stator of the 2-kW DFIG-
based WECS. However, due to page limitations, results for the
following tests are presented in this paper:
1) variable speed and LVRT;
2) phase B-to-ground fault at inputs of the ac–dc converter;
3) phase A-to-phase C-to-ground fault in the stator
windings;
4) 3φ-to-ground fault in the rotor windings.
Test 1—Variable Wind Speed and LVRT Condition: In this
experimental test, the DFIG-based WECS was operated to
deliver its rated power to the grid under variable wind speed
condition. The wind speed vw was initiated at vw = 10 m/s,
then increased to vw = 12 m/s, then decreased to vw = 10 m/s,
and finally decreased to vw = 8 m/s. A series 3φ resistive bank
of 20 Ω/phase was suddenly connected between the 3φ supply
and the primary side of the transformer to create a voltage dip of
12%, which was considered as a LVRT condition. Fig. 8 shows
the ground potential, ground current, and trip signals of the
IDMTOC and DFT relays for all grounding configurations. The
results in Fig. 8 agree with those observed in the simulation test,
where each grounding configuration yielded different values
for VG and IG . In addition, these results demonstrated that
the LVRT condition was successfully identified as a nonfault
condition and both trip signals did not change their status
for all tested grounding configurations. The responses of both
relays indicate that grounding configurations did not impact the
ground protective devices during a nonfault condition.
Test 2—Phase B-to-Ground Fault: This test was conducted
with the DFIG-based WECS set to deliver 75% of its rated
power to the grid at a constant wind speed of vw = 10 m/s.
A solid-state switch was activated to connect phase B, on the
input terminals of the ac–dc converter, to the ground. This
experimental test was performed for each relay for all ground-
ing configurations. The ground potential, ground current, and
trip signal for the IDMTOC relay, when testing all grounding
configurations, are shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 10 shows the ground potential, ground current, and trip
signal generated by the DFT relay in response to the tested line-
to-ground fault in the rotor for all grounding configurations.
The responses of the IMDTOC and DFT relays for the phase
B-to-ground fault demonstrated that trip signals were generated
at different times depending on the ground configuration. The
fastest trip signals of both relays were observed for the solid
grounding, which also had the highest ground currents, as
shown in Figs. 9(a) and 10(a). The modified low-resistance
grounding limited VG and reduced IG (relative to that observed
for solid grounding), where both trip signals were generated
faster than those generated with the low-resistance grounding,
as shown in Figs. 9(c) and 10(c). The significant reductions in
IG , observed when using the high-resistance grounding and no
grounding, caused both relays to maloperate, where the fault
was not detected and both trip signals remained high, as shown
in Fig. 9(d) and (e), as well as Fig. 10(d) and (e). The results
in Figs. 9 and 10 supported using the modified low-resistance
grounding due to its minimum impact on both relays.
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs 2811

Fig. 8. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices

used in a DFIG-based WECS for variable wind speed and VRT conditions.
The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signals generated by the
IDMTOC and DFT relays. (a) Solid-grounding (RG = 0), (b) low-resistance
grounding with RG = 6.5 Ω, (c) modified low resistance (RG in parallel with
CG ), (d) high-resistance grounding with RG = 26 Ω, and (e) no-grounding
(RG = ∞). IG scale: 0.1 A/div, VG scale: 3 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div,
and time scale: 200 ms/div.
Fig. 9. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a line-to-ground fault in the rotor. The
ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the IDMTOC relay.
(a) Solid grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low resistance
(RG in parallel with CG ), (d) high-resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding.
IG scale: 10 A/div, VG scale: 30 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time
scale: 20 ms/div.
2812 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015
Fig. 10. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a line-to-ground fault in the rotor. The ground
potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the DFT relay. (a) Solid
grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low resistance, (d) high-
resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding. IG scale: 10 A/div, VG scale:
30 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time scale: 20 ms/div.
Test 3—Phase A-to-Phase C-to-Ground Fault: The 2-kW
DFIG-based WECS was operated to deliver 90% of its rated
power at a constant wind speed of vw = 11 m/s. Two solid-state
switches were suddenly activated to connect phase A to phase
C, of the stator windings, to the ground through a resistance of
10 Ω. This test was carried out investigate the possible impacts
of the grounding configuration on protective devices for a high-
impedance ground fault. Fig. 11 shows the ground potential,
ground current, and trip signals generated by the IDMTOC
relay for all grounding configurations. The ground potential,
ground current, and trip signals generated by the DFT relay
in this test case for all grounding configurations are shown in
Fig. 12 shows.
One can see from Figs. 11 and 12 the generation of both
trip signals at different times, as the grounding configuration
was changed. The solid grounding caused VG to have a zero
value, and allowed IG to have a high value resulting in the
fastest trip signals of the IDMTOC and DFT relays, as shown
in Figs. 11(a) and 12(a). For the low-resistance grounding, as
shown in Figs. 11(b) and 12(b), the fault was identified and
both trip signals were generated for longer times than those
observed for the solid grounding. The modified low-resistance
grounding produced a nonzero value of VG , which was lower
than that produced by the low-resistance grounding. In addition,
the modified low-resistance grounding produced a value for
IG that was lower than IG produced by solid grounding, and
trip signals were generated faster than those with the low-
resistance grounding, as shown in Figs. 11(c) and 12(c). The
trip signals generated by the tested IDMTOC and DFT relays
did not change when the high-resistance grounding and no-
grounding configurations were used, as shown in Fig. 11(d)
and (e), along with Fig. 12(d) and (e), where very low and
zero values of IG were produced. The experimental results of
the tested line-to-line-to-ground fault revealed clear impacts on
the responses of both relays, where times of generating trip
signals and the ability to identify the fault were directly affected
by the grounding configuration. Finally, the results of this test
showed that the modified low-resistance grounding resulted in
minimum impacts on response times, while limiting the value
of VG .
Test 4—3φ-to-Ground Fault: The DFIG-based WECS in this
test was operated to deliver 75% of its rated power at a variable
wind speed. The wind speed vw was initiated at vw = 10 m/s,
then increased to vw = 12 m/s, and finally decreased to vw =
10 m/s. Three soild-state switches were activated to connect the
three phases on the output terminals of the rotor dc–ac converter
to the ground. The ground potential, ground current, and trip
signals generated by the IDMTOC relay for all grounding
configurations are shown in Fig. 13. Fig. 14 shows the ground
potential, ground current, and trip signal generated by the DFT
relay in response to the 3φ-to-ground fault in the rotor for all
grounding configurations.
The results in Figs. 13 and 14 confirmed the previous ob-
servations, where the responses of the IDMTOC and DFT
relays were influenced by the used grounding configuration.
Figs. 13(a) and 14(a) show that the shortest trip time was
observed for both relays when the DFIG was solidly grounded,
which resulted in high values of IG . Figs. 13(c) and 14(c) show
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs 2813

Fig. 11. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a line-to-line-to-ground fault in the stator. The
ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the IDMTOC relay.
(a) Solid grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low resistance,
(d) high-resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding. IG scale: 10 A/div, VG
scale: 30 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time scale: 20 ms/div.
Fig. 12. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a line-to-line-to-ground fault in the stator.
The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the DFT relay.
(a) Solid grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low-resistance,
(d) high-resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding. IG scale: 10 A/div, VG
scale: 30 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time scale: 20 ms/div.
2814 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015

Fig. 13. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a 3φ-to-ground fault in the rotor. The ground
potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the IDMTOC relay.
(a) Solid grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low resistance,
(d) high-resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding. IG scale: 10 A/div, VG
scale: 30 V/div, rip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time scale: 20 ms/div.
Fig. 14. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in a DFIG-based WECS for a 3φ-to-ground fault in the rotor. The ground
potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal for the DFT relay. (a) Solid
grounding, (b) low-resistance grounding, (c) modified low resistance, (d) high-
resistance grounding, and (e) no grounding. IG scale: 10 A/div, VG scale:
30 V/div, trip signal scale: 10 V/div, and time scale: 20 ms/div.
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs
TABLE III
VARIATIONS IN G ROUND P OTENTIALS , G ROUND C URRENTS AND T RIP
T IMES OF IDMTOC AND DFT R ELAYS FOR A LL G ROUND
C ONFIGURATIONS O BTAINED F ROM E XPERIMENTAL T ESTS
that the modified low-resistance grounding managed to reduce
VG and IG , and caused the trip signals to be successfully gen-
erated. High-resistance grounding and no grounding were able
to significantly reduce IG , but these reductions in IG caused
both relays to fail to clear the fault, as shown in Fig. 13(d)
and (e), along with Fig. 14(d) and (e). Experimental results
for the 3φ-to-ground fault in the rotor were consistent with
other simulation and experimental results, which indicated that
the modified low-resistance grounding could offer a minimal
impact on ground protective devices used for DFIG-based
WECSs.
The experimental results in Figs. 8–14 demonstrated the
impacts of grounding configurations on responses of protective
devices used as ground relays for DFIG-based WECSs. The
resulting impacts could be observed in the response time of
each relay to the same fault for different ground configurations.
Furthermore, the ability of each relay to accurately respond
to ground faults, as the grounding configuration was changed,
depended on the value of RG . These impacts were directly
related to the ability of each grounding configuration to change
the ground potentials and currents. The presence of harmonic
components in ground currents, due to the rotor PECs, added
the need for a frequency selection feature of the ground-
ing configuration. This need was met by the modified low-
resistance grounding, which was able to limit ground potentials
and reduce ground currents, and thus facilitated accurate and
reliable operation of ground protective devices. The variations
in ground potentials VG , ground currents IG , and trip times
tTRIP of both relays, are summarized in Table III. The values of
(VG )Peak , (IG )Peak , and tTRIP , in Table III, were obtained as
average values for measurements taken through all experimen-
tal tests.
It should be noted that as ground currents were lower than the
pick-up current of the IDMTOC-based relay, it failed to detect
any fault (tTRIP = ∞) when the grounding was configured as
high resistance and no grounding. Moreover, as ground currents
were low, their harmonic contents were lower than threshold
values of the DFT-based relay, which failed to identify any
of the tested faults (tTRIP = ∞) when the high-resistance
grounding and no grounding were used. The data in Table III
also showed consistency with results obtained from simulation
tests (see Table II), where the modified low-resistance ground-
2815
ing was able to limit ground potentials and reduce ground
currents (compared with those observed for solid grounding)
with minor impacts on responses of the tested relays.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper has investigated the impacts of various grounding
configurations, including solid, low resistance, high resistance,
and no grounding, on the functionality and performance of
ground protective devices used in DFIG-based WECSs. Inves-
tigated impacts have included the ability of protective devices
to identify ground faults, along with the time required to
respond to an identified fault. Test results have demonstrated
that each grounding configuration changes ground potentials
and currents. On one hand, critical needs for decreasing ground
potentials arise from the fact that steady-state current harmonic
components flow to the ground, where large ground potentials
may complicate the operation of the rotor PECs. On the other
hand, very low ground currents, as in the case of high-resistance
grounding, may result in maloperations of ground protective
devices, which use ground currents to identify faults. A mod-
ified low-resistance grounding, which is composed of a low
resistance in parallel with a capacitance, has been tested for
applications in grounding DFIG-based WECSs. This grounding
configuration has been found able to limit ground potentials
and reduce ground currents, while imposing minor impacts on
responses of ground protective relays. Simulation and experi-
mental tests have been conducted to establish in-depth obser-
vations under conditions of different wind speeds and levels
of power generation. Results from these tests support the use
of the modified low-resistance grounding to ensure minimized
impacts on the ground protective devices used for DFIG-based
WECSs.
A PPENDIX I
S IMULATION T ESTS FOR THE 2 kW DFIG-BASED WECS
Simulation tests for the 2-kW DFIG-based WECS were
performed for purposes of investigating possible impacts of
grounding configurations on small DFIG-based WECSs. These
simulation tests were also performed to establish comparisons
with the results obtained from previous simulation and experi-
mental tests.
A. Modeling the 2-kW DFIG-Based WECS
These simulation tests were performed using a MATLAB/
SIMULINK model for a 2-kW DFIG-based WECS, which
was constructed using similar components to those used in the
model of the 15-kW DFIG-based WECS. Table IV provides the
parameters for the model of the 2-kW DFIG-based WECS.
The maximum ground current was set at 20 A to match
the maximum ground current used in the experimental tests.
In addition, the values of (RG )LRG , (RG )HRG , and CG were
selected identical to those in the experimental tests, that are
(RG )LRG = 6.5 Ω, (RG )HRG = 26 Ω, and CG = 680 μF.
Several simulation tests were conducted for the 2-kW DFIG-
based WECS for different wind speeds and power generation
levels. A sample test case is presented, and a summary of the
simulation results is provided in Table V.
2816 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015

TABLE IV
PARAMETERS OF THE S IMULATED 2-kW DFIG-BASED WECS

TABLE V
VARIATIONS IN G ROUND P OTENTIALS , G ROUND C URRENTS AND T RIP
T IMES OF IDMTOC AND DFT R ELAYS FOR A LL G ROUND
C ONFIGURATIONS O BTAINED F ROM S IMULATION T ESTS

Test Case—Phase C-to-Ground Fault: In this test, the 2-kw

DFIG-based WECS was set to deliver 80% of its rated power
at a fixed wind speed of vw = 10 m/s. At t = 3 s, phase C,
on the input terminals of the rotor 3φ ac–dc converter, was
connected to the ground to create a line-to-ground fault. The
ground potential, ground current, and trip signals of the tested
relays for basic grounding configurations are shown in Fig. 15.
It is shown from Fig. 15 that VG and IG were affected dif-
ferently by each grounding configuration. The solid grounding
produced the highest IG ((IG )peak = 64.7 A) with VG = 0,
whereas the low-resistance grounding produced (VG )peak =
70.3 with (IG )peak = 11.8 A. The high-resistance grounding Fig. 15. Impacts of grounding configurations on ground protective devices
used in DFIG-based WECS for phase C-to-ground fault on the output of
yielded (IG )peak = 4.8 A and (VG )peak = 124.9 V. Finally, the rotor dc–ac converter. The ground potential VG , ground current IG ,
the no grounding resulted in IG = 0 and (VG )peak = 161.7 V. and trip signals generated by the IDMTOC and DFT protective relays.
The results in Fig. 15 confirmed the impacts of grounding (a) Solid-grounding (RG = 0), (b) low-resistance grounding with RG =
6.5 Ω, (c) high-resistance grounding with RG = 26 Ω, and (d) no-grounding
configurations on IG and VG , which was noticed as the trip (RG = ∞).
signals of the IDMTOC and DFT based relays were generated
at a different time for each grounding configuration. The same tal 2-kW DFIG-based WECSs. Table V provides a summary for
fault was tested for the modified low-resistance grounding (RG the variations in VG , IG , and trip times tTRIP of both relays.
in parallel with CG ). The ground potential, ground current, and Values of (VG )Peak , (IG )Peak , and tTRIP were calculated as
trip signals of both relays are shown in Fig. 16. average values from values collected through simulation tests.
The simulation results in Fig. 16 show that the ground poten- The data in Table V shows a close compatibility with data
tial VG was lower than the one produced by the low-resistance obtained for the experimental 2-kW DFIG-based WECS that
grounding, as well as IG was lower than that produced by the is provided in Table III. This compatibility between simulation
solid grounding. These observations were consistent with the and experimental results for different power rated DFIG-based
test results obtained from the simulated 15 kW and experimen- WECSs indicates additional support for using the modified
SALEH et al.: IMPACTS OF CONFIGURATIONS ON RESPONSES OF GROUND PROTECTIVE RELAYS FOR WECSs
Fig. 16. Impacts of grounding configurations on responses of ground protec-
tive devices used in DFIG-based WECS for phase C-to-ground fault on the
output of the rotor dc–ac converter for the modified low-resistance grounding:
(a) the ground potential VG , (b) the ground current IG , (c) the trip signal
generated by the IDMTOC protective relay, and (d) the trip signal generated
by the DFT protective relay.
Fig. 17. Ground current obtained from the 20-kW DFIG-based WECS during
normal (nonfault) condition: (a) the ground current IG and (b) the magnitude
spectrum of the ground current |IG (f )|.
low-resistance grounding configuration (the parallel combina-
tion of RG and CG ) for DFIG-based WECSs. This grounding
configuration has shown its abilities to limit ground potentials
and reduce ground currents during ground faults, while offering
a minimized influence on the response of ground protective
relays.
A PPENDIX II
S PECTRA OF G ROUND C URRENTS IN THE 20 kW
DFIG-BASED WECS
The ground currents for the simulated 20-kW DFIG-based
WECS were collected for purposes of determining their har-
monic contents using MATLAB/SIMULINK built-in FFT func-
tion [26]. These ground currents were collected when the
grounding was configured as solid grounding. One ground cur-
rent was collected during normal (nonfault condition), and its
harmonic contents were determined. Fig. 17 shows the ground
current and its magnitude spectrum for a normal operating
condition.
One can see from Fig. 17 that the ground current IG con-
tained significant harmonic contents, which were produced due
to the grid-side 3φ ac–dc converter. Despite its low magnitude,
IG would flow through the ground path at all times. The second
ground current was collected during the stator phase A-to-
2817
Fig. 18. Ground current obtained from the 20-kW DFIG-based WECS during
the stator phase A-to-ground fault: (a) the ground current IG and (b) the
magnitude spectrum of the ground current |IG (f )|.
ground fault. The ground current and its magnitude spectrum
for the stator line-to-ground fault are shown in Fig. 18.
The waveforms in Fig. 18 reveal that the ground current
during a ground fault had very low harmonic contents (com-
pared with the nonfault one), and was mostly dominated by
the fundamental frequency component. Unlike the nonfault
condition, the ground fault produced a large ground current
when the grounding was configured as solid grounding.
The spectra of ground current during nonfault and fault
condition demonstrate that employing a capacitor CG , in par-
allel with a low resistance RG , can offer a low impedance
path for the ground current during nonfault condition. In such
conditions, significant harmonic contents are present (causes
XCG  RG ). However, during ground faults, the fundamental
frequency component dominates the ground current (causes
RG  XCG ) and the low resistance can help reducing its
magnitude.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. Yamamoto, S. Yanagawa, K. Yamabuki, S. Sekioka, and S. Yokoyama,
“Analytical surveys of transient and frequency-dependent grounding char-
acteristics of a wind turbine generator system on the basis of field tests,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 3035–3043, Oct. 2010.
[2] P. Mahat, Z. Chen, B. Bak-Jensen, and C. L. Bak, “A simple adaptive over-
current protection of distribution systems with distributed generation,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 428–437, Sep. 2011.
[3] H. Sheng, L. Xinchun, K. Yong, and Z. Xudong, “An improved low-
voltage ride-through control strategy of doubly fed induction genera-
tor during grid faults,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 12,
pp. 3653–3665, Dec. 2011.
[4] A. Mullane, G. Lightbody, and R. Yacamini, “Wind-turbine fault ride-
through enhancement,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1929–
1937, Nov. 2005.
[5] H. Geng, C. Liu, and G. Yang, “LVRT capability of DFIG-Based WECS
under asymmetrical grid fault condition,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 2495–2509, Jun. 2013.
[6] C. M. Mohseni, S. Islam, and M. A. S. Masoum, “Impacts of symmetrical
and asymmetrical voltage sags on DFIG-based wind turbines considering
phase-angle jump, voltage recovery, and sag parameters,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1587–1598, May 2011.
[7] S. Panetta, “Grounding of wind systems and wind power generators,” IAEI
News, no. May/Jun., pp. 1–5, 2010.
[8] M. Chen et al., “Investigation on the faulty state of DFIG in a microgrid,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1913–1919, Jul. 2011.
[9] M. Tsili and S. Papathanassiou, “A review of grid code technical require-
ments for wind farms,” IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 308–
332, Sep. 2009.
[10] F. K. A. Lima, A. Luna, P. Rodriguez, E. H. Watanabe, and F. Blaabjerg,
“Rotor voltage dynamics in the doubly fed induction generator during
grid faults,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 118–130,
Jan. 2010.
2818 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 51, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 2015
[11] J. Morren and S. W. H. de Haan, “Short-circuit current of wind tur-
bines with doubly-fed induction generator,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 174–180, Mar. 2007.
[12] J. Yang, J. E. Fletcher, and J. O’Reilly, “A series-dynamic-resistor-based
converter protection scheme for doubly-fed induction generator during
various fault conditions,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 422–432, Jun. 2010.
[13] C. Zhe, J. M. Guerrero, and F. Blaabjerg, “A review of the state of the
art of power electronics for wind turbines,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1859–1875, Aug. 2009.
[14] L. Grcev and F. Dawalibi, “An electromagnetic model for transients in
grounding system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1773–1781,
Oct. 1990.
[15] S. H. Li, S. S. Sun, and S. F. Li, “Operation characteristics of zone 3
impedance relays in wind power systems with fixed-speed induction gen-
erators,” in Proc. Asia-Pacific Power Energy Eng. Conf., Wuhan, China,
Mar. 2011, pp. 1–6.
[16] H. J. Laaksonen, “Protection principles for future microgrids,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 2910–2918, Dec. 2010.
[17] J. Flórez, V. Núñez, and G. Caicedo, “Fault location in power distribution
systems using a learning algorithm for multivariable data analysis,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1715–1721, Jul. 2007.
[18] S. A. Saleh, R. Ahshan, M. A. Rahman, M. S. Abu-Khaizaran, and
B. Alsayed, “Implementing and testing d– q WPT-based digital protection
for micro-grid systems,” in Conf. Rec. 46th IEEE IAS Annu. Meeting,
Orlando, FL, USA, Oct. 2011, pp. 1–8.
[19] B. Breitkreutz and A. Frere, “Core balance ground fault protection of
motors on a low-resistance grounded, medium-voltage system,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1398–1401, Nov./Dec. 1995.
[20] J. C. Das and R. H. Osman, “Grounding of AC and DC low-voltage and
medium-voltage drive system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 34, no. 1,
pp. 205–216, Jan./Feb. 1998.
[21] T. H. Chen and W. C. Yang, “Analysis of multi-grounded four-wire dis-
tribution systems considering the neutral grounding,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 710–717, Oct. 2001.
[22] IEEE Standard Requirements, Terminology, and Test Procedure for Neu-
tral Grounding Devices, IEEE Std. 32-1972, 1972.
[23] J. P. Nelson and P. K. Sen, “High-resistance grounding of low-voltage
systems: A standard for the petroleum and chemical industry,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 941–948, Jul./Aug. 1999.
[24] J. P. Nelson, “System grounding and ground-fault protection in the petro-
chemical industry: A need for a better understanding,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1633–1640, Nov./Dec. 2002.
[25] D. G. Lee, S. H. Kang, and S. R. Nam, “Modified dynamic phasor esti-
mation algorithm for the transient signals of distributed generators,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 419–424, Mar. 2013.
[26] Power System Toolbox User Guide, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA,
USA, 2011.
[27] M. S. Almas, R. Leelaruji, and L. Vanfretti, “Over-current relay model
implementation for real time simulation and Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL)
validation,” in Proc. 38th Annu. IEEE IECON, Montreal, QC, Canada,
Oct. 2012, pp. 4789–4796.
S. A. Saleh (S’03–M’06–SM’12) received the B.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from Birziet Univer-
sity, West Bank, Palestine, in 1996, and the M.Eng.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s,
NL, Canada, in 2003 and 2007, respectively, with a
scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
He was with the Palestinian Technical College,
West Bank, as an Electrical Engineer for two years
and an Instructor and a Program Coordinator for
three years. In 2007, he joined the Marine Institute, Memorial University of
Newfoundland, as a faculty member and a Researcher until 2011. Currently,
he is an Assistant Professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada. His
research interests include wavelet analysis, power system protection, microgrid,
power electronics, modulation techniques, renewable energy systems, digital
signal processing, and applications in power systems and power electronic
converters. His research work is supported by the NSERC and New Brunswick
Innovation Foundation-Strategic Projects.
Dr. Saleh is a Registered Professional Engineer of the Professional Engineers
and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador (PEGNL) and the Association
of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick (APEGNB).
A. S. Aljankawey (S’08) was born in AL Homes,
Libya. In 2007, he received the M.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, where he is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering.
His research interests include FACTS, power qual-
ity, renewable energy systems, and applications of
signal processing in energy systems.
Mr. Aljankawey is a Member of the Sustainable
Power Research Group at the University of New
Brunswick.
Ryan Meng is an undergraduate student with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB,
Canada.
Mr. Meng is a recipient of the 2011–2012
Ward Chipman Founder’s and 2013–2014 Stanley
B. Cassidy Memorial Engineering Undergraduate
Scholarships.
J. Meng (M’90–SM’12) received the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering from Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON, Canada, in 1993.
He is currently the Chair of the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada. His re-
search interests include adaptive signal estimation,
nonlinear signal processing, renewable energy, and
intelligent systems.
Dr. Meng is a Registered Professional Engineer
of the Association of Professional Engineers and
Geoscientists of New Brunswick (APEGNB).
L. Chang (S’87–M’92–SM’99) received the B.S.
degree in electrical engineering from Northern
Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, in 1982, the
M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the
China Academy of Railway Sciences, Beijing, in
1984, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, in
1991.
Since 1992, he has been a Professor with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB,
Canada. He has published more than 200 papers and two books. His research
interests include distributed generation, renewable energy conversion, power
electronic converters, and analysis and design of electrical machines.
Dr. Chang is a recipient of the CanWEA R. J. Templin Award for his research
achievements in wind energy technologies. He is a Registered Professional En-
gineer of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New
Brunswick (APEGNB) and a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering.
C. P. Diduch (M’79) received the Ph.D. degree from
the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB,
Canada, in 1987.
He is currently a Professor with the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of New Brunswick. Since 2013, he has
been the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Engineer-
ing, University of New Brunswick. His research in-
terests include feedback systems, computer control,
estimation techniques, detection methods in energy
systems, and load control approaches.
Dr. Diduch is a Registered Professional Engineer of the Association of
Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick (APEGNB).