1
Wind Turbine Generator Low Voltage Ride
through Requirements and Solutions
G. Joós, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract--Utilities have responded to the significant increase in
the number of installed and proposed wind farms by developing
specific grid codes derived from those used for conventional
generators. The presentation summarizes the main grid code
requirements, related to reactive power and voltage control, low
voltage ride through (LVRT), and other issues such as control of
real power. It provides a technical overview of the LVRT
requirements in different jurisdictions. It reviews some of the
LVRT solutions available for wind turbines based on doubly fed
induction generators (DFIG). The impact of these solutions on
the DFIG response is evaluated under different fault and
operating conditions. The investigation is carried out on a
representative power system benchmark. Solutions are compared
from the machine performance and grid voltage response
viewpoints. The parameters affecting the performance of the
solutions are presented.
Index Terms--Wind power generation. Doubly-fed induction
generators. Grid code. Low voltage ride through. Power system
benchmark. Short circuits.
I. INTRODUCTION
A S wind farms are installed in larger numbers and the
penetration level increases, utilities are looking at means
to ensure that these new types of power plants behave as
much as possible as conventional power generating stations.
However, to accommodate the specific operating
characteristics of wind farms, utilities have generally
established specific grid codes for wind farms.
Grid codes cover among others, issues related to frequency
operating ranges, reactive power capability, and voltage
operating ranges under steady state and transient conditions.
One requirement is that the turbine remain connected to the
grid within a certain voltage range and for a given time
duration, a requirement expressed in the form of the Low
Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) curve [1]. Combined with the
high voltage withstand requirement, it gives the complete
voltage operating range of the turbine, Fig. 1.
Low voltage occurrences are usually associated with grid
disturbances, mostly in the form of short circuits occurring on
the lines connecting the wind farm to the main grid or at
remote locations within the grid. In such situations, the power
This work was supported in part by the National Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.
G. Joós is with McGill University, Montreal, Canada (e-mail:
geza.joos@mcgill.ca).
©2008 IEEE.
flow from the wind farm to the grid is partly or in the worst
case, totally interrupted and the power produced by the wind
farm has to be curtailed, dissipated or controlled by the wind
turbine controllers. The control options depend on the type of
wind turbine generator used.
The more common wind turbine implementations are
based on induction generators, with or without slip energy
control, full converter based generators and the doubly fed
induction generator (DFIG), the latter being a common
implementation. This paper deals with methods of managing
the power produced by DFIGs during the low voltage ride
through periods. This is done using among other the following
methods: (i) the active crowbar [3, 4, 5]; (ii) an energy
management system connected to the intermediate dc bus
(energy storage or dump load) [6, 7]; (iii) a rotor flux control
technique [8].
This paper presents and compares the results obtained
using the three different technologies designed to handle the
LVRT requirement. The following issues are examined, with
reference to the requirements of the grid code: (i) the
operation of the DFIG as seen from the grid, namely the
voltage recovery following the clearing of the fault; (ii) the
evolution of the generator variables, namely speed and of the
converter dc bus voltages. It points out the strengths and
weaknesses of the methods and suggests solutions. It
examines the behaviour of these methods under different
conditions including: (i) the type of short circuit; (ii) the depth
of the voltage drop, which depends upon the position of the
short circuit in the system.
In order to create a wide range of operating conditions, the
DFIGs are operated in a benchmark electric power system,
originally developed for testing FACTS devices and later used
for analyzing the behaviour of wind farms in a power system.
II. GRID CODES
Grid codes vary in scope and specific details from one
jurisdiction to another. The main requirements of typical grid
codes are summarized below:
(i) Continuous voltage operating range - The wind turbines
are expected to operate within typical grid voltage variations.
In most Canadian utilities, the continuous voltage range is
from 0.9 to 1.1 pu.
(ii) Frequency operating range - The wind turbines are
expected to operate within typical grid frequency variations.
In Canada, each utility can define its own frequency range

where the turbines should normally operate. In Manitoba, the
range is broadest with normal operation required while the
system frequency varies from 59.0 to 61.5 Hz.
(iii) Reactive power capability - The wind farms are
required to control their reactive power output. Specifically, in
Canada, the power factor range is typically between 0.9 (lag)
to 0.9 (lead), and may depend upon the province. The turbines
can be required to regulate their terminal voltage.
(iv) Power control - A certain control over the real power
output of the wind farm is also required. Maximum ramp rates
are imposed on the wind turbine. In Canada, Hydro-Quebec
requires ramping up or down capability from 0 to Pmax, or
from Pmax to 0, in an adjustable 15 to 60 minutes interval. In
Manitoba, the ramp rate is 20 MW/min with the capacity to
reduce output to 0 MW in 5 minutes. Also turbines are
required to not exceed the maximum output power specified
by the system operator.
(v) High voltage operation - In the event the voltage goes
above 1.1 pu, the turbines should be capable of to staying on
line for a given length of time. The exact ranges are utility
specific. As an example, Hydro-Quebec specifies a voltage to
1.4 pu for 30 ms, Fig. 2. The time increases as the voltage
decreases until the voltage is in the continuous operating
region.
(vi) Low voltage operation or Low Voltage Ride Through
(LVRT) - In the event of a voltage drop, the turbines are
required to remain connected for a specific amount of time
before being allowed to disconnect. This requirement is to
ensure that there is no loss of generation for normally cleared
faults. Disconnecting a wind generator too quickly could have
a negative impact on the grid, particularly with large wind
farms. In addition, some utilities require that the wind
turbines help support the grid during faults. In Germany, the
E.on grid code (2006) specifies that the wind turbines should
supply 1.0 pu of reactive current when the voltage is below
0.5 pu. In Canada, Alberta, BC, and Quebec, among others,
have specific requirements concerning low voltage operation.
Other generation controls, typically required from
conventional generators, are usually not, at this time, required
from wind turbine generators, including frequency regulation,
power system stabilizers and automatic generation control.
III. LVRT REQUIREMENTS
One of the first formulations of the LVRT requirement was
originally proposed in Europe in 2003 by E.On. This
requirement has evolved and a later version is shown in Fig. 1.
Since then, many jurisdictions have proposed their own
version of the LVRT curve, the one applying to Quebec is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The formulation of the requirement is
often based on the specific characteristics and configurations
of the electric power system into which the wind farm is
connected. In particular, long radial connections of a farm to
the grid require that the farm remain connected even if the
voltage at the farm terminal drops to 0 during a three phase
short circuit, as shown in Fig. 2.
2
1.2
100 ms
1.1
1
No trip
V (pu)
Wind
generator
may trip
0.150 1.5 1800 (30 min)
time (s)
Fig. 1. Typical low voltage ride through requirement - Europe
Fig. 2. Typical low voltage ride through requirement - Canada
Initially, the minimum voltage for the curve in Fig. 1 was
0.15 pu, but was subsequently lowered to 0 pu, which has
been adopted by most codes. The typical duration is 0.15 s,
but some codes have different values and specify the time in
cycles (Manitoba, 6 cycles, 0.10 s).
In general, the specific characteristics of the LVRT are
adapted from the requirements for conventional generators,
complemented with studies of the behavior of the power
system in a specific jurisdiction. Grid codes are posted on the
web site of the transmission system operator in a given
geographic jurisdiction.
Finally, some grid codes specify an additional lower
voltage no trip zone for individual wind turbine under
transient conditions. However reduced power output is
permissible in this region (Manitoba), with a return to full
power, with application of the allowed power gradient limits.
The LVRT requirement demands that the turbine remain
connected to the grid while the voltage is within the LVRT
curve. Disconnection is allowed outside this range. It is
therefore important to verify that the turbine operating limits
are not violated while the PCC voltage is inside the LVRT
curve. As well, it is important to determine which factors
impact these turbine variables the most. The purpose of this
work is to test three candidate LVRT solutions for DFIG
based wind turbine. The solutions are evaluated based on the
following criteria:
(i) Grid variables - Voltage during fault, voltage overshoot
at recovery, response time.
(ii) Turbine variables - Rotor speed, rotor current, dc bus
voltage.

IV. DFIG LVRT TECHNOLOGIES
The DFIG is a commonly used variable speed generator in
wind turbine applications. It consists of an induction machine
with back-to-back voltage source converters linking the rotor
to the grid, Fig. 3. The rotor-side converter is used to control
the machine speed and the reactive power supplied through
the machine stator, while the grid-side converter is used to
maintain the dc bus voltage constant. The reactive power of
this converter can be controlled, and one strategy is to
maintain the power factor of this converter at unity. This
minimizes the current flowing in the grid side converter.
During a fault, the transient currents on the stator are
reflected on the rotor windings. The resulting rotor currents
may exceed the rotor converter current rating. The transients
can also result in a rise in the dc bus voltage during the fault,
due to the power being generated. Voltage variations also
occur during the voltage recovery period. The rotor-side
converter must be designed to either withstand these
conditions, or protection circuits must be used on the dc bus.
The following three solutions are compared and analyzed:
(i) the active crowbar rotor circuit [3, 4, 5], Fig. 3; (ii) the dc
bus energy storage circuit [6, 7], Fig. 4; (iii) the rotor current
control through control of the machine flux [8]. Details of the
operation of the three solutions are beyond the scope of this
paper. However, the performance of each solution with
reference to the LVRT requirements will be presented and
discussed.
Fig. 3. DFIG equipped with DC converter and energy storage system
Fig. 4. DFIG equipped with dc bus converter and energy storage system
3
V. WIND FARM MODELING
The wind turbine generators are modeled using detailed
three phase models of all components, including the induction
generator transients and the power electronic converters. The
models represent accurately the performance of the actual
system in steady state and under disturbances and
perturbations, such as single and three phase short circuits.
Detailed modeling appears to be the preferred approach for
the study of wind farm integration with some utilities.
It is argued that the transient modeling approach does not
accurately reflect the details of the operation of the power
electronics converters and their control systems [9, 10]. In
particular, the controller can be represented without requiring
approximation, including all the non-linearities. In addition,
asymmetrical faults are better studied in a three phase detailed
representation rather than sequence components (including
the positive sequence). Detailed modeling could result in
significant execution times. A solution to this problem is to
use more powerful real time simulators. These also offer the
possibility of replacing some of the controllers with real
prototype or production controllers.
The system was implemented in the Matlab/Simulink/
SimPowerSystem environment. The benchmark system was
subjected to a variety of low voltage events in order to
compare the performance of the different LVRT solutions.
Both balanced and unbalanced faults were considered, at
various distances from the wind farm terminals. Since voltage
events of less than 700 ms are considered, which is typical of
short circuits, the wind speed is assumed constant throughout
the duration of the event. Different wind speeds were
considered, as they change the DFIG operating conditions.
VI. BENCHMARK POWER SYSTEM
The benchmark power system is the IEEE 12 bus FACTS
benchmark, Fig. 5, developed for investigating the
performance of FACTS devices and adapted to study the
impact of wind farms on power systems. It consists of two
345 kV buses, four 230 kV buses, and four low voltage buses
connected to the generators (G1 to G4) [11]. The system is
divided into three areas. Area 1 is a generation area with
hydro generator (G2) and a small load. Area 1 also contains
infinite bus, represented by generator G1. Area 3, located
between area 1 and 2 is equipped with a hydro generator
whose capacity is not sufficient to meet its own demand.
Area 2 consists mainly of loads with a thermal generator.
Areas 2 and 3 have shunt capacitors to support the voltage.
The parameters of the system are given in [11].
The wind farm replaces the hydro generator connected at
bus 12 in Fig. 5. At rated wind speed, the wind farm can
supply the same amount of power as the conventional unit it
replaces. The wind farm is represented by five equivalent
turbines, each using a DFIG. The reactive power capability of
the DFIG is used to regulate the wind farm terminal voltage.

Fig. 5. Benchmark power system - Single line diagram – Wind farm at Bus 12
VII. WIND FARM LVRT RESPONSE
A. General Considerations
The purpose of the parametric study is to determine
compliance with the LVRT requirements and the variations of
the variables of the wind farms and verify that: (i) the wind
farm meets the LVRT requirements for a number of operating
conditions; (ii) the variables within the wind farm remain
within acceptable values. The following operating
characteristics are verified:
(i) Overall response – Verification that the turbine stays
connected and variables are within acceptable limits.
(ii) Operation during the fault and during recovery –
System external parameters include voltage (low and high
voltage) at the PCC, current flowing into the Electric Power
System (EPS), and power injected into the EPS, reactive
power injected into the EPS. Internal turbine generator
parameters include dc bus voltage and rotor speed.
Fig. 6. Response of wind farm variables to a 150 ms, three phase fault, at the
PCC. PCC voltage, line current, power flowing into the system, reactive power
injected into the system, dc bus voltage, rotor speed. High wind conditions.
4
Power system operators may require that results from the
modeling and simulation tests be verified by field tests, either
during commissioning or in special field tests.
The wind farm performance for the three LVRT solutions
is simulated for different types of short circuit, namely three
phase short circuit at the point of common connection (PCC)
of the wind farm to the grid (the worst case in terms of power
flow interruption), as well as other types of faults (double
line, single phase to ground), and with faults occurring at
different distances from the farm, resulting in various low
voltage levels at the PCC. The power output, dependent on
the wind speed in the farm, is also varied. The duration of the
low voltage event (short circuit) is varied from 150 ms (9
cycles), Fig. 6, to 667 ms (40 cycles, extreme case), Fig. 7, to
evaluate the response of the different solutions.
B. Wind Turbine Operation
The following summarizes the findings:
(i) Generator control - The change of operating conditions
associated with the use of crowbar or flux method resulted in
a loss of real and reactive power (P-Q) control over the
machine during the fault. Hence, at recovery, these two
solutions could draw from the grid the reactive power
required to magnetize the generator. In the ESS method the
control over the machine was retained. However this control
occasionally led to overvoltages upon return to normal
operation as the controller adjusted its operation to the new
conditions.
(ii) Energy management - Different technologies to ride
through the fault handle the energy from the turbine in
different ways. The energy distribution was considered over
the period covering the fault and voltage recovery. In the ESS
method, the generator energy is stored in the energy storage,
and subsequently returned to the grid. The flux method had its
energy stored in the rotor inertia, in the dc link voltage, and
subsequently sent to the grid. The crowbar method had its
energy stored in the rotor inertia, dissipated in the rotor
resistance (through the crowbar), in the dc link capacitor,
subsequently sent to the grid. The dc link capacitor was only
affected when the crowbar was not active, that is during
resumption of normal operation. For the three methods, the
major part of the energy was stored in the rotor inertia (for a
400 ms three phase short circuit at PCC: 70 %, 82 %, 84 %
for crowbar, ESS, and flux respectively). Rotor speed during a
fault should be monitored to avoid overspeed. The energy
distribution was dependent on the nature of the fault: the ESS
method was able to maintain rotor speed more easily for
remote faults, where as the flux and crowbar experienced
greater acceleration.
(iii) Rotor current - Both the ESS and the flux method
experienced large rotor current. The maximum current
observed varied from 2 pu (crowbar) to 4 pu (ESS). The
maximum current observed for longer faults were within the
same range. As can be expected, the large currents were
mostly observed for faults located close to the wind farm.
Activation of the crowbar limited the rotor current rapidly.

Fig. 7. Response of wind farm variables to a 667 ms, double line to ground
fault, at a remote bus (Bus 1). PCC voltage, line current, power flowing into the
system, reactive power injected into the system, dc bus voltage, rotor speed, rotor
angle. High wind conditions
(iv) DC bus voltage variations and control - Both the
crowbar and ESS methods had an alternative path for the rotor
current, effectively preventing them from affecting the dc link
capacitor voltage significantly. The dc voltage experienced
less voltage variations during the fault. The crowbar operation
did result in dc voltage drops as attempts were made to
resume normal operating conditions, but these drops were
successfully corrected by the grid-side converter. In the ESS
method had any changes in the dc link capacitor were
corrected by the dc storage side converter, as long as the
energy storage was within its limits. The flux method had no
other path for the current, resulting in the charging of the dc
link capacitor if the current could not be limited. For faults
close to the PCC, the dc link voltage increased significantly
(up to 2.0 pu) during the fault. The larger variation in the dc
voltage was observed for faults located close to the wind
farm.
(v) Crowbar control and response - The crowbar method
had a fairly consistent fault response, both in term of wind
farm output power and terminal voltage. When the crowbar is
in operation, the DFIG behaves as a squirrel-cage induction
machine. Hence the operating conditions may vary
significantly. However, the rotor current is well managed. The
dc bus voltage exhibited some oscillations, mostly due to the
crowbar being removed before the fault was cleared. The loss
of PQ control also resulted in reactive power consumption,
hence a slower return of the terminal voltage to nominal
5
value. Both the voltage and power generation recovery were
dependent on the protection removal. In some cases the
crowbar was reactivated at recovery, increasing the recovery
time. When using this method, it may be required to oversize
the rotor-side converter.
(vi) ESS operation and response - The ESS method had the
advantage of retaining control over the machine during the
fault. Hence there is a possibility of supporting the grid
voltage, through the rotor-side converter, as well as the grid-
side converter. The continued control over the machine
resulted in fast recovery after the fault was cleared.
However, some overvoltage (within the allowed range) was
observed. Under severe faults resulting in low terminal
voltage at the PCC, the DFIG could not export much power to
the grid. Hence the ability to control the machine real power
output had no advantage in this case. For less severe fault
however, the DFIG was able to export some of its real power
to the grid. In some case, the DFIG continued normal
operation, minimally affected by the fault. Hence, for those
less severe faults, this method has an advantage over the other
two. It was found that this method is affected more by the
fault severity than the type of fault. The method requires the
addition of a dc converter and an energy storage system as
well as appropriate sizing of the rotor-side converter.
(vii) Flux control and response - The flux method had the
advantage of not requiring any additional equipment to meet
the LVRT requirement. This method was usually activated
quickly to allow the rotor-side converter enough time to
oppose the fault related current components induced by the
stator flux. During the fault, the DFIG response was smooth,
with little oscillation in the output power and terminal voltage.
The recovery was similar to that of the crowbar method in
most cases. As P-Q control over the machine is lost during the
fault, the DFIG consumed reactive power at grid recovery.
The voltage recovery was slower than with the ESS; however
this method did not exhibit grid overvoltages. The power
generation was also resumed faster than for the crowbar, but
more slowly than for the ESS. It was found that this method is
more affected by the fault severity than the type of fault
C. Impact of External Factors
The responses observed were also influenced by external
factors, in some cases outlining differences in the methods.
(i) Fault duration - Longer faults causing different types of
voltage drops were also considered, namely to 400 ms and up
to 1000 ms. It was found that the ESS method had a good
response in the different regions of the LVRT curve, giving
results well inside the curve. The crowbar method had a good
response, similar to the ESS method for the severe faults
outside the LVRT curve. However, for the less severe faults
within LVRT curve, the crowbar protection was activated and
attempts to resume normal operation occasionally failed. As
such its performance was not as good as the ESS method
during longer fault within the LVRT curve. The flux method
had good response for long faults within the LVRT curve. Its
protection was activated quickly, resulting in a decrease in

generation. For severe and very unlikely fault (three phase) of
1000 ms, the recovery was difficult, leading to large
oscillations.
(ii) Wind speed and turbine output power - It was observed
that all three protection methods were needed more often
when the wind farm was operated at full power, which is for
high wind conditions. Under low wind conditions the
machines are operated farther away from their limits and
handling faults resulted in smaller variations of turbine and
system variables. In particular, it took more time for the
monitored variables to reach their limits. In many cases the
limits were not reached, and the protections were not
activated. Under low wind speed, the protections were mainly
activated for faults closer to the wind farm.
VIII. DISCUSSION
The analysis of the simulation results, such as shown in
Fig. 6, allow the following conclusions to be drawn:
(i) The three methods can meet typical LRVT requirements
(Figs. 1 and 2). The wind farm can remain connected to the
grid in all cases examined.
(ii) The voltage during the recovery period remains within
the acceptable range specified by Fig. 1, for under voltages as
well as for overvoltages. Overvoltages are an important issue
in the design of the turbine generator LVRT equipment and
associated control and should be managed appropriately.
Overvoltages generated by the turbine can affect not only the
turbine but other equipment connected to the grid at the PCC.
(iii) The generator rotor speed remains under control, that
is the overspeed, if it occurs, is within acceptable limits.
(iv) The wind farm internal variables generally remain
within converter and machine ratings.
In general terms, the three methods differ in the evolution
of the external variables (voltage response, real and reactive
power injection) and internal variables (converter and
machine currents, dc bus voltage) during low voltage events.
Some of the variables, namely the dc bus voltage, may
need to be limited. This can be done by using a dc bus
crowbar, consisting of switched resistors, which is activated
when the voltage exceed a predetermined value (typically 1.2
pu). This is pertinent in the case, for example, of the flux
control method.
Based on the observations of the simulation results, the
following general comments can be made on the impact of a
particular method on system and component performance:
(i) Energy Storage System (ESS) - There is an advantage in
using an energy storage component (battery or
supercapacitor) instead of a simple dump resistor to store, as
the energy produced by the turbine during faults can be stored
and later released. A combination of storage and dump
resistance can be used. In addition to dissipating turbine
power, the dump resistance can be used to control the dc bus
overvoltages. The energy stored in the ESS can be released
when the grid recovers to accelerate the return to normal
operation. The ESS can also be used under steady state
6
conditions to attenuate electric power fluctuation on the grid,
due to wind variations [6]. The use of ESS however requires
that practical issues be considered (cost, size, and life cycle).
The rotor-side converter needs to be sized accordingly.
(ii) Crowbar – The control of the operation of the crowbar,
and the impact of the setting of the point at which it is
operated should be considered. The possibility of multiple
crowbar operations should be managed.
(iii) Flux – Overvoltages can be present on the dc bus.
These can be handled using a dc bus dump load (dc bus
crowbar) or an energy storage system (ESS).
(iv) Reactive power management – Reactive power can be
supplied by both the machine stator and the grid side
converter. Additional reactive power, particularly on a short
term basis, can be injected into the grid from the grid-side
converter to help voltage recovery after fault clearing
(dynamic VARs).
IX. CONCLUSIONS
This paper compares the performance of three LVRT
solutions for DFIG based wind generators operating within a
wind farm connected to a transmission grid. The electric
power network is subjected to a variety of faults, both
balanced on unbalanced. The wind farm is operated under
different wind conditions.
The results show that all three methods meet the LVRT
requirement and allow the wind farm to remain connected to
the grid for low voltage events up to 1000 ms, depending on
the type of fault. Generator acceleration is controlled and the
speed remains within limits.
The three methods however differ in the manner in which
the external and internal wind turbine variables evolve over
time. There may also be a need to add supplemental
equipment and controls to limit the variations of some of the
system variables to acceptable values, among others the dc
bus voltage.
Overall, the ESS offers a better performance for the wind
turbine, allowing a tighter control of real and reactive power
and controlled recovery of voltage after fault clearing.
Oscillations in the farm output power and voltage may need to
be damped by proper design of the control loops.
The crowbar method is the easiest to manage and offers
the more consistent operation, predictably limiting the rotor
current. Issues to be considered include reactive power
consumption after fault clearing and the possibility of
repeated unwanted crowbar operations.
The flux method was successful in most cases in limiting
the rotor currents. Control of turbine variables for operation
in the case of faults close to the PCC may be problematic,
including possible oscillations in the terminal voltage and
output power, and dc bus overvoltages.
X. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of J.
Morneau, S. Nowak and C. Abbey, from the McGill
 7

University Electric Energy Systems Research Laboratory, to

this work.

XI. REFERENCES
[1] I. Erlich, W. Winter, and A. Dittrich, “Advanced grid requirements for the
integration of wind turbines into the German transmission system,” in 2006
IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 7 pp., June 2006.
[2] I. Erlich, H. Wrede and C. Feltes, “Dynamic Behavior of DFIG-Based
Wind Turbines during Grid Faults,” in 2007 Power Conversion
Conference PCC'07, pp. 1195-1200, Nagoya, April 2007.
[3] J. Niiranen, “Voltage Dip Ride Through of a Doubly-fed Generator
Equipped with an Active Crowbar,” in Nordic Wind Power Conf.,
Chalmers University of Technology, Mar. 2004
[4] J. Morren and S. W. H. de Hann, “Ride Through of Wind Turbines with
Doubly-fed Induction Generator during a Voltage Dip,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Conversion, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 435–441, June 2005.
[5] B. Xie, B. Fox, and D. Flynn, “Study of fault ride-through for DFIG based
wind turbines,” in IEEE DRPT Conf., Hong Kong, Apr. 2004.
[6] C. Abbey, W. Li, and G. Joos, “Power Electronic Converter Control
Technique for Improved Low Voltage Ride through Performance in Wind
Turbine Generators,” in IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf. PESC'
2006, June 2006.
[7] C. Abbey and G. Joos, “Effect of low voltage ride through (LVRT)
characteristic on voltage stability,” in IEEE Power Electronics Specialist
Conference PESC'2005, San Francisco, June 2005.
[8] D. Xiang, L. Ran, P. J. Tavner, and S. Yang, “Control of a Doubly fed
Induction Generator in a Wind Turbine During Grid Fault Ride-through,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 652–662, Sept. 2006.
[9] I. Erlich, and F. Shewarega, “Modeling of Wind Turbines Equipped with
Doubly-Fed Induction Machines for Power System Stability Studies,” in
2006 Power Systems Conference and Exposition PSCE '06, pp. 978 –
985, Oct.-Nov. 2006.
[10] C. Abbey, J. Morneau, J. Mahseredjian, and G. Joos, “Modeling
Requirements for Transient Stability Studies for Wind Parks,” in IEEE
2006 Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 6 pp, 18-22 June
2006.
[11] S. Jiang, U. D. Annakkage, and A. M. Gole, “A platform for validation of
FACTS models,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 484–
491, Jan. 2006.

XII. BIOGRAPHY
Geza Joos (M’82, SM’89, F’06) graduated from
McGill University, Montreal, Canada, with M.Eng.
and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering.
He has been a Professor with McGill University
since 2001, and holds a Canada Research Chair in
Power Electronics applied to Power Systems (2004).
He is involved in fundamental and applied research
related to the application of high-power electronics to
power conversion, including distributed generation and
wind energy, and to power systems. His previous
employment includes ABB, the Ecole de technologie supérieure and Concordia
University. He has been involved in consulting activities in Power Electronics
and Power Systems, and with CEA Technologies as Technology Coordinator of
the Power Systems Planning and Operations Interest Group.
He is active in a number of IEEE Industry Applications Society committees,
including Chair of the Industrial Power Converter Committee and in IEEE Power
Engineering Society working groups. He is a Fellow of the Canadian Academy
of Engineering and of the Engineering Institute of Canada.