Received: 25 March 2018 Revised: 6 August 2018 Accepted: 5 December 2018

DOI: 10.1002/2050-7038.2824

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Lagrange interpolating polynomial–based deloading control

scheme for variable speed wind turbines

Manoj Kumar Senapati1 | Chittaranjan Pradhan2 | Paresh Kumar Nayak1 |

2
Subhransu Ranjan Samantaray

1
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM)
Summary
Dhanbad, Dhanbad, India In this paper, an adaptive deloading scheme is proposed for enhancing the out-
2
School of Electrical Sciences, Indian put power from the deloaded variable speed wind turbine generator (VSWTG).
Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar,
The deloading operation of a wind turbine generator (WTG) creates a reserve
Bhubaneswar, India
power margin at its maximum power point operation that can be utilized for
Correspondence stabilizing the frequency deviations of the power system during system contin-
Chittaranjan Pradhan, School of Electrical
gencies. The output power of the deloaded WTG is regulated dynamically dur-
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India. ing the system events for improving the primary frequency response. The
Email: [email protected] nonlinear power characteristic curve of the wind turbine is treated with a
Lagrange interpolating polynomial (LIP) technique for increasing the output
power of the deloaded WTG. Moreover, LIP‐based deloading of WTG contrib-
utes a better frequency dynamic performance during different power system
scenarios such as the fluctuations in wind speed and change in load than the
traditional control scheme. Due to the smoothing in frequency response with
a faster settling time, the proposed LIP‐based deloading scheme can comply
with the necessities of the grid codes of the wind‐integrated power system.
The real‐time hardware‐in‐the‐loop (HIL) simulation results are exhibited to
validate the proposed deloading methodology in support of the theory. The
HIL platform is realized by using the real‐time simulator manufactured by
OPAL‐RT Technologies.

KEYWORDS
deloading operation, frequency regulation, hardware‐in‐the‐loop, Lagrange interpolating polynomial,
variable speed wind turbines

1 | INTRODUCTION

In recent times, the significant increase in wind power has been emerged for the purpose of releasing the pressure of
global energy shortage and low‐carbon power supply. However, the highly oscillating and intermittent characteristics
of wind power bring new economic and technical challenges to the planning and operation of power systems.
The variability and unpredictable nature of the wind power leads the frequency regulation issue more critical.
Traditionally, variable speed wind turbine generators (VSWTGs) do not participate in the system inertia control, which
is due to the partial or full decoupled of the rotor from the grid.1-3 With the increasing penetration of wind generation
into the modern power systems, frequency control and stability issues should be re‐examined for a stable power system

Int Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2019;29:e2824. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/etep © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 17
https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.2824
2 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

operation.3-5 The integration of variable wind power generation into the conventional power system leads to declination
in the frequency dynamic response during system events such as addition/removal of loads, variations in the generation,
fluctuations of wind speed, and change in system parameters. Therefore, it is essential that the wind turbine generators
(WTGs) must participate in frequency regulation in the changing power system scenario.2-5 After the occurrence of the
aforementioned system events, the system frequency fluctuates from its nominal value. Hence, the inertia and droop
controls are emulated in wind farms by implementing the frequency‐sensitive supplementary control loops to support
the frequency regulation in the renewed grid code requirements.4-6 The initial response of generating units for partici-
pating in system frequency is called as a primary frequency response.5-8 In practice, the primary frequency control action
establishes to balance the power between the load and active power generation by employing the frequency‐dependent
proportional control action, which is recognized as a droop control and inertia of rotating masses of WTG.7-12
It is well known that the initial rate of change of frequency (IROCF) deviation of the power system relies on the total
inertia of the rotating masses. The lower the rotating inertia, the higher is the IROCF deviation and vice versa.5,10-13 In the
past literature, it was mentioned that whenever both droop control and inertia control are implemented simultaneously,
the frequency regulation is faster and contributes a superior frequency response on the power system.3-5 In litera-
ture,4,5,14,15 the authors have suggested variable droop control strategies instead of a fixed droop parameter for improving
the primary frequency performance of WTGs. In general, the droop and inertia controllers are employed as the frequency‐
emulated supplementary control loops for mitigating the short‐term frequency transients.1-5 However, to take part in
long‐term frequency regulation, WTGs must have adequate reserve power capacity. To fulfill such as this, VSWTGs are
required to operate at a declined power level instead of maximum power point (MPP), which is entitled as the deloaded
operation.4,5 The reserved power for the loading operation of WTG can be utilized for power balance and mitigates system
frequency transients instead of the requirement of the costly energy storages, such as the battery and fuel cell.4,5
The WTG can be operated in deloading condition by varying either its pitch angle or rotor speed.1-5,15-19 In other
studies,12,15-17 the authors have implemented the pitch angle–based deloading for all operating ranges of wind speeds
(ie, at low, medium, and high wind speeds). As per Equation 1, the output power extracted from WTG is higher for
lower values of pitch angle (β) and vice versa.2-4 However, the operation of pitch angle for all wind speed scenarios dete-
riorates the pitch dynamics of WTG that may influence the pitch controller life span (ie, pitch angle mechanical system)
as well as require more maintenance cost.2-4 Frequent variations of the pitch angle for a wide range wind speed scenario
may intensify more wear‐tear on the gear system. Therefore, to lower the mechanical dynamics of the pitch angle, it is
necessary that pitch angle control should operate at high wind speed, but not at low and medium speed ranges. Typi-
cally, the pitch angle control is activated in the higher wind speed scenarios to limit the rotor speed/power for a safe
operation and protect the WTG from mechanical damage.1-4 Hence, in this work, the revised pitch angle controller is
applied to lower the pitch dynamic and improve the life of pitch angle controller for frequency regulation.
In support of rotor speed–based deloading operation, WTGs operate on the right side (ie, overspeeding) or left side
(ie, underspeeding) of MPP on the power versus rotor speed (P‐ω) characteristic curve as shown in Figure 1. In practice,
the deloading operation of WTGs mostly executes on the right of the MPP to enhance the small signal stability perfor-
mance.1,2,5 When the WTGs operate on the right side of MPP, the reference rotor speed changes towards optimal value
(ωmax) due to the controller action that causes more active power generation during under‐frequency events. This leads

FIGURE 1 A, Wind turbine power characteristic curve. B, Diagram of deloaded and maximum power curve. MPPT, maximum power
point tracking
SENAPATI ET AL. 3 of 17

to improve the frequency stability performance of the power system by utilizing the deloading power. It is true that the
deloading operation contributes a better‐quality primary frequency performance, but it minimizes the net output power
extracted from deloaded WTG. In practice, the selection of the maximum deloading percentage of WTG lies between
10% and 20%, which is based on the allowable safe operating rotor speed limits, the rating of the converter, and the
available wind speed.3-5,19
In previous studies,7-10 the authors have proposed a fixed percentage of deloading. However, the net output power
extracted from WTGs will lower for functioning on a constant deloading point as compared with MPP. For example,
with 10% deloading (ie, WTG is operating at 90% of its MPP), the wind farm capacity factor (CF) reduces by 10%. Hence,
if the deloading point is adjusted continuously based on the system events, the net output power extracted from
deloaded WTG can be improved, which increases the CF of the wind farm. In previous works,5,9-11 the authors have
investigated a linear equation between the power margin and rotor speed to calculate the deloading power (Pref) as
shown in Figure 2. Figure 1 depicts the characteristic curve between MPP and deloading power point with respect to
rotor speed, which is nonlinear in nature. However, due to the consideration of a linear function (ie, straight line)
between MPP and deloading power point with respect to rotor speed for participation in frequency regulation, the
extracted output power from deloaded WTG may reduce (ie, less accurate to calculate the percentage deloading) during
system events.2,3,5,18 Moreover, proper methodologies were not highlighted in the past literature to estimate the percent-
age deloading dynamically. Hence, to extract more output power from WTG and for restoring the frequency perfor-
mance during system events, it is possible to consider the nonlinear function between MPP and deloading power
point with respect to rotor speed instead of a linear function.
Furthermore, in previous literature,4,10 the fuzzy logic–based deloading is employed in the wind power system for
improving the primary frequency response. It is well known that fuzzy logic–based controller can be able to handle
uncertainties and inaccuracies of the nonlinear control problems rather than the classic control approach due to flexi-
bility in nature. The fuzzy logic–based controller is very simple and reliable and does not require the mathematical
model of the system.4,10 However, the knowledge of the experts is playing a very important role to decide the fuzzy
membership functions and tuning of fuzzy parameters for getting a superior system performance as per its application.
In contrast, the real‐world power industry is too conservative to open the well‐known fuzzy control and replace by a
new control methodology. With a view to overcoming the above‐mentioned challenges, Lagrange interpolating polyno-
mial (LIP) method is implemented to calculate the operating power point (ie, the nonlinear operating point between
MPP and deloading power point) of WTG. By incorporating this LIP‐based technique, the output power of the deloaded
WTG can be increased with a better primary frequency regulation, which is very simple for evaluation and easy to
implement in real time.
Meanwhile, in wind power generation, electricity is harvested by striking the wind to the blades of the wind turbine.
After striking the wind blades, the downstream wind speed decreases because of the aerodynamic principle. In WTG,
the speed of the upstream wind is higher than downstream wind speed, which is known as wake effect.20-23 The wake
effect reduces the output power and affects the inertial response of wind farms.21-23 Hence, in this work, wake effect is
considered by considering the doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)–based wind farm for the evaluation of primary
frequency regulation. The schematic diagram of the DFIG‐based VSWTGs is provided in Figure 3.

FIGURE 2 Curve between deloading power point and maximum power point
4 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

FIGURE 3 Configuration of doubly fed

induction generator (DFIG)–based
variable speed wind turbine generator.
PWM, pulse width modulation

The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:

1. LIP‐based deloading is proposed to improve the dynamic operation of the system frequency.
2. To validate the proposed control strategy, hardware‐in‐the‐loop (HIL) simulation is demonstrated with an aim to
build up almost a realistic control strategy that can be realized upfront by the industries.
3. Introducing the wake effect, which is the inherent nature in practical wind farms, in this work, four WTGs are
taken by considering wake effects to validate the proposed dynamic deloading operation of WTG.

2 | L O N G‐ T E R M F R E Q U E N C Y CO N T R O L S T R A T E G Y I N D E L O A D E D W T G s

2.1 | Linear equation–based deloading operation of WTGs

The aerodynamic mechanical power (Pm) extracted from WTG with respect to speed of wind and rotor is expressed as
follows4,5:

1 ωR
Pm ¼ ρ A Cp ðλ; βÞ ν3 and λ ¼ ; (1)
2 v

where ρ is the air density in kg/m3, ω is the rotor speed in rpm, v is the wind speed in m/s, A is the swept area by blades
in m2, R is the radius of the wind turbine blades in meter, β is the pitch angle in degree, λ is the tip‐speed ratio, and Cp is
the coefficient of performance of the wind turbine.
The power vs rotor speed (ie, P‐ω) characteristic curve (Equation 1) of WTG is nonlinear in nature as shown in
Figure 1. From Figure 1, it is observed that at a particular rotor speed, wind turbines exhibit maximum power for dif-
ferent wind speed, which is known as MPP. To extract the maximum power from WTGs, different maximum power
point tracking (MPPT) techniques are employed. Mostly, conventional WTGs are operated at MPP to extract more
power from wind, which results in that no reserve power is saved for participation in frequency regulation. In order
to participate in the primary frequency regulation, the WTGs can be operated at a reduced deloading power point
instead of MPP as shown in Figure 1.4,5 In this study, rotor overspeeding control technique (ie, operate at point “B”
instead of MPP “A”) is implemented for the deloading operation of WTG as shown in Figure 1A. Joining all the MPPs
and deloading power points corresponding to various wind speeds gives the MPPT curve and deloading power point
curve, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
In previous studies,2,3,5,18 a linear function is considered between the MPP (Pmax) and the maximum deloading
power (Pdel) assigned by the system for evaluating the reference power, which is shown in Figure 1B. The reference
SENAPATI ET AL. 5 of 17

deloading power (Pref) of the WTG with respect to rotor speed and power margin (Pmargin) for a specific wind speed dur-
ing system events is calculated as3-5  
ωdel − ωmeas
pref ¼ Pdel þ Pmargin ; (2)
ωdel − ωmax

Pmargin ¼ Pmax − Pdel and Pdel ¼ K Pmax ; (3)

where Pmax is the power at MPP, Pdel is the maximum deloaded power, which is decided by the system operator, ωmax is
the rotor speed, ωdel is the rotor speed at Pdel, ωmeas is the measured rotor speed (pu), and K is the percentage of
deloading.
Equation 2 represents that the reference operating power (Pref) varies linearly between MMP and the deloading
power point with respect to the variation of rotor speed for compensating the instantaneous power difference between
generation and load, during system contingencies.

2.2 | Deloading operation of WTGs using LIP

In previous literature,2,3,5,18 it is found that for evaluating the reference dynamic deloading power (Pref), a linear
equation is assigned with respect to the power margin (Pmargin) and rotor speed as shown in Figure 1. However, the arch
between MPP and deloading power points on power vs rotor speed (P‐ω) characteristic curve is nonlinear in nature with
respect to rotor speed as shown in Figures 1A and 2. Hence, the LIP method is proposed to evaluate the nonlinear
deloading parameter dynamically during system events.From Figure 2, it is found that for a specific rotor speed (ɷmeas),
the estimated reference operating power is more for the actual nonlinear curve as compared with the consideration of a
linear curve (ie, p*ref > pref ). Moreover, it can be observed that for a specific change in rotor speed with
increases/decreases of demand or/and wind speed, p*ref will be more as compared with Pref. Due to the extraction of more
power from the deloaded WTG, the power difference between generation and load is lower in LIP‐based nonlinear
methodology as compared with the existing linear scheme, during both under‐frequency and over‐frequency scenar-
ios. Hence, in order to supervise the uncertainties in the wind power and nonlinear power characteristic curve of
 
WTG, fourth‐order LIP is implemented to calculate the nonlinear reference power p*ref . The LIP (ie, p*n ðωmeas Þ)
is the polynomial of degree ⩽(n − 1) with a set of data points: (ɷ1, p1), (ɷn, pn). To calculate the reference power
(ie, p*ref ¼ p*n ðωmeas Þ) by the LIP method, the following expression is computed as24

n
P*ref ¼ P*nðmeasÞ ¼ ∑ LiðmeasÞ Pi ðωi Þ; (4)
i¼0

n ωmeas − ωj
Li ðωmeas Þ ¼ ∏ ; (5)
j ¼ 0 ωi − ωj
j≠i

where Li(ɷmeas) is a weighting function that comprises a product of n − 1 terms excluding j = i. Here, n = 5, p1 = Pdel,
p5 = Pmax, ɷ1 = ɷdel, and ɷ5 = ɷmax.
The reference deloading power (P*ref) adjusts dynamically between MMP (Pmax) and the maximum deloading power
(Pdel) during system events for participating in frequency regulation. In this paper, a fourth‐order LIP‐based control is
implemented for evaluating the nonlinear p*ref to extract more output power from the deloaded WTG and improve
the primary frequency regulation performance. We can go for a higher‐order LIP‐based control to evaluate p*ref , but it
increases the computation time and requires more information about the WTG's maximum power curve.
In order to compute the maximum power (Pmax), the maximum deloading power (Pdel), and their corresponding
rotor speed data, power signal feedback (PSF) technique is used in this paper. The PSF technique needs the knowledge
of the WTG's maximum power curve with respect to different rotor speeds and wind speeds. In practice, the control
mechanism to track the maximum power curve in PSF technique is very simple and easy to implement in WTG.2-4
The PSF method is implemented by using the lookup table, which is abstracted from the wind turbine aerodynamic
Equation 1. Here, the measured speed of wind speed (v) and rotor (ωmeas) are chosen as the input elements into the
6 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

lookup tables to estimate Pmax and Pdel as shown in Figure 4, and the corresponding reference deloading power (p*ref ) of
WTG is evaluated by using the nonlinear Equation 4.
In this study, voltage source inverter (VSI)–based control technique is employed for controlling the power/speed of
DFIG. In general, the rotor of the DFIG is fed through a back‐to‐back pulse width modulation (PWM) converter as
shown in Figure 3.4,25-27 The detailed modeling of DFIG is described in Djilali et al25 and Shihabudheen et al.26 The pro-
posed control approach of the generator/rotor‐side and grid/load‐side converters for the active and reactive power con-
trol loops is shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. During frequency events, the net output power (P*wind ) extracted
from WTG is the combination of the dynamic deloading power ( p*ref ) and power contribution (ΔPsp) by the
frequency‐emulated inertia and droop control, which is shown in Figure 4. The wind power (P*wind ) and reactive power
(Q*ref ) are chosen as the reference power signals of the rotor‐side converter for regulating the active power and reactive
power, respectively. The control techniques for active and reactive power is controlled through quadrature‐axis
(ie, q‐axis) rotor voltage (vqr) and direct‐axis (ie, d‐axis) rotor voltage (vdr) elements as shown in Figure 4.4,26,27
Similarly, the control approaches for real and reactive power control loops of the grid/load‐side converter are shown
in Figure 5. The brief discussion of the DFIG control strategy can be found in Pradhan and Bhende4 and Pradhan et al.11
Infinite time square error (ITSE) method is used for determining the values of the proportional plus integral (PI) con-
troller gains for the rotor‐side and load‐side converters.4,11
Meanwhile, for a reliable and stable power system operation, the maximum deloading of WTG lies between 10% and
20%, which is decided by the system operator on the basis of the available wind speed, safe operating rotor speed limits,
etc.4,5,11 As far as DFIG is concerned, the rotor speed (ω) should be lying between 0.67 and 1.334 pu.4,5,11 Hence, for
higher wind speed scenarios when ω goes above its upper limit (ie, 1.334 pu), the pitch angle controller will be active
to regulate the power/speed of the WTG. Moreover, the protection strategy will be triggered to save the WTG from
mechanical damage.11,28,29 Similarly, for lower wind speed scenarios whenever the rotor speed goes under its lower limit
(ie, 0.67 pu, at which the WTG will begin to produce electricity), the protection system will be initiated to stop the WTG
for working.11,28,29 In this article, the cut‐in and cut‐off wind speed limits of each WTGs are taken as 4 and 20 m/s,

FIGURE 4 Rotor‐side converter control of doubly fed induction generator (DFIG)–based wind turbine for primary frequency control.
PWM, pulse width modulation
SENAPATI ET AL. 7 of 17

FIGURE 5 Control approach for grid/

load‐side converter. PI, proportional plus
integral; PWM, pulse width modulation

respectively. Furthermore, in Figure 1, it can be observed that for a specific deloading, the output power extracted from
WTG is higher for higher values of wind speed (v) and the corresponding reserve power is more as compared with lower
wind speed. Hence, since the power extracted is less at low wind speed, the percentage of deloading cannot be more. For
power system stability viewpoint to keep the power in reserve during low wind speed scenario (ie, when the wind speed
is less than 8 m/s), we have considered the first‐order LIP equation to evaluate p*ref , which is the same as the linear
equation–based deloading (ie, Equation 2). Moreover, a “Deloading ON” button is incorporated to alter the switching
operation between MPPT and deloaded mode as per the requirement of the system operator as shown in Figure 4.
Correspondingly, from frequency stability viewpoint, the frequency deviation (Δ f ) must be lower than its maximum
allowable limits (ie, Δ f = ±2% of the nominal value) on the experience of a large power system contingency.27,28 How-
ever, in wind‐integrated system, the maximum acceptable safe operating limit of Δ f is decided by the system operator
on the basis of the configuration of the power system, the percentage of wind penetration level, etc.28,29 In the case of
severe disturbances, whenever the Δ f goes beyond a specified threshold limit, the protection system or load shedding
control strategies will be activated for a stable and reliable operation of the power system.11,28,29

2.3 | Modified pitch angle control

In practice, the pitch angle controller regulates the wind turbine blade pitch angle during high wind speeds and
deloading operation. For higher wind speed scenarios, the pitch angle controller restricted the rotor speed and power
within a safe operating range. In two studies,5,18 the reference rotor speed (ωref) for pitch angle (β) controller is deter-
mined from the reference wind power (p*ref ) as represented in Figure 4. In this control, β changes frequently with the
change in p*ref and ωref during every system event. This will increase the pitch angle dynamics of the turbine blade,
which will increase wear and tear with more maintenance cost. In order to minimize the blade angle dynamics, a mod-
ified pitch angle control is suggested as established in Figure 4.30 Whenever the actual rotor speed (ωmeas) is less than
the maximum speed limit of the rotor (ωlimit), the pitch angle control will be inactive by limiting β = 00. However, when
ωmeas is equal to or more than ωlimit = 1.334 pu, the controller of the pitch angle is triggered by adjusting ωref = ωlimit to
control the power/speed and protect the WTG from mechanical damage.The proposed β control is incorporated by con-
sidering that for low and medium wind speed scenarios, pitch angle control is not required to operate (ie, β = 00) and it
should be operated during higher wind speed to protect the wind turbine from mechanical damage and restricting the
rotor speed of WTG.30

3 | S I M U L A TI O N R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S IO N S

In this study, the microgrid under simulation analysis composes of four numbers of WTGs and two numbers of diesel‐
driven generators (DGs) as illustrated in Figure 6. The capacity of each WTG and the synchronous machine is 1.5 MW
and 2 MVA, respectively. The modeling data of the DGs are taken from Pradhan and Bhende4 and Pradhan et al,11 with
8 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

FIGURE 6 Microgrid system for

frequency response studies configuration

the droop setting (Rd) of 6%. All the WTGs in the wind farm are to be situated in a single row for realizing the wake effects.
The details about wake effects and their parameters are provided in Pradhan and Bhende4 and Pradhan et al.11 In the sim-
ulation, the wind direction is taken as 50, and the maximum percentage of deloading of each WTG is 20%. The brief discus-
sion about the control approach of the DFIG is introduced in Section 2.2. The detailed modeling data of the DFIG‐based
microgrid system are taken from Pradhan and Bhende4 and Pradhan et al,11 which is given in Appendix A.
In order to set up the HIL, OPAL‐RT–manufactured real‐time simulator (RTS) is used for validating the proposed
methodology.11,31 The detailed real‐time setup of the OPAL‐RT Technologies can be found in Pradhan et al11 and Qiao
et al.31 The RTS laboratory setup in OPAL‐RT platform is shown in Figure 7, to obtain the real‐time results. The plant
units are shown in Figures 3 and 6, while the control units of RTS are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The following case
studies are conducted for testing the performance of the proposed deloading scheme.

3.1 | Case 1: performance of the modified pitch angle (β) control

To verify the effectiveness of the modified β control, the following change in load and wind speed pattern of WTGs is
taken as shown in Figure 8A and 8B, respectively. From the total simulation time (t = 450 s), it is considered that
the load increases from 4.5 to 5.175 MW (ie, 15%) at t = 250 seconds, 20% load increases (ie, from 5.175 to 6.21 MW)
at t = 350 seconds, and load is decreased by 10% (ie, from 6.21 to 5.589 MW) at t = 400 seconds as shown in

FIGURE 7 Hardware‐in‐the‐loop (HIL) laboratory setup with OPAL‐RT platform

SENAPATI ET AL. 9 of 17

FIGURE 8 A, Changes in load. B,

Variations in wind speed. WTG, wind
turbine generator

Figure 8A. The available wind speed of WTG1 is assumed as the reference one, and the wind speeds of WTG2 to WTG4
are calculated with their respective wake effects as shown in Figure 8B. For the above‐mentioned system consequence,
the comparative analysis of the modified β control and the β control as mentioned in previous studies5,12 is illustrated in
Figure 9.
The combined output power graph of all the WTGs with the LIP‐based deloading is plotted in Figure 9A. It can be
stated that for the same power of the WTGs, the dynamic responses of the pitch angle and rotor speed of WTG4 for the
modified β control and existing β control5,18 are displayed in Figure 9B and 9C, respectively. In this scenario, as the
actual rotor speed (ωmeas) is less than the maximum rotor speed limit (ωlimit), according to modified β control, β = 00
as demonstrated in Figure 9B. Since β is equal to zero, DFIG has acquired overspeeding as compared with the existing
pitch angle controller for the same power as presented in Equation 15,12 and shown in Figure 9C. However, the
overspeeding of WTG is within its safe operating limits (ie, 0.67‐1.33 pu). The similar observation is found for other
WTGs. Hence, it can be concluded that for constant output power extracted from the deloaded WTG, the value pitch
angle is zero (for ωmeas < ωlimit) with the proposed β control. Therefore, by incorporating the proposed β control, the
blade (pitch) dynamics can be minimized.

3.2 | Case 2: performance of LIP‐based deloading

In this illustration, the comparative simulation results between the proposed LIP‐based deloading and the previously
suggested linear equation–based deloading5,18 are shown in Figures 10 and 11. The same variations in load and wind
speed are considered, which is presented in case 1 (Section 3.1). The dynamic power responses of WTGs and DGs are
plotted in Figure 10A and 10B, respectively. Figure 10A shows that with the proposed LIP‐based deloading, the WTGs
net power (ie, p*ref plus power contribution by frequency‐sensitive inertia and droop control) is more. However, the out-
put power of WTGs is relatively low in the case of the linear equation–based deloading due to the consideration of the
linear function.5,18 Hence, the LIP‐based dynamic deloading contributes more power. As a result, it upgrades the CF of
the wind farm. As power sharing by WTG is improved, the power shared by the DG is less for a specific load condition,
which is observed in Figure 10B. This confirms less diesel consumption when DGs are controlled with wind turbines in
the proposed LIP strategy.
10 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

FIGURE 9 A, Wind turbine generators

(WTGs) output power. B, Rotor speed of
WTG4. C, Pitch angle of WTG4

Similarly, the corresponding dynamics of the system frequency response is displayed in Figure 11. It is clear from the
figure that the system frequency response is smoother (ie, depressions/peaks are smaller) in the proposed LIP‐based
deloading method as compared with the linear equation–based deloading during every system event. Due to lower
dips/rises in frequency response, the proposed LIP‐based deloading enhances the frequency dynamics of the power sys-
tem during system contingencies.
To depict the behavior of the frequency dynamics for a severe disturbance (ie, loss of generation), at t = 80 seconds,
one DG shuts down and switched ON again at t = 200 seconds as illustrated in Figure 12. The zoomed area of events {3}
and {4} are shown in Figure 12B and 12C, respectively. From Figure 12B and 12C, it can be depicted that the LIP‐based
deloading contributes a smoother dynamic frequency response (ie, low values of frequency dips/rise at events {3} and
{4}). The exact values of frequency deviations for these two events are mentioned in Table 1. Moreover, in Figure 12,
it can be seen that the LIP‐based deloading has a faster settling time of frequency rather than the existing linear
equation–based deloading.5,18 From these data, it can be concluded that the proposed LIP‐based deloading produces bet-
ter results and enhances the overall dynamic frequency behavior of the wind power system during system disturbances
such as sudden loss of generation, sudden increases/decreases of load, and the variations in wind speed.
In this case, the effect of changing the order of the LIP equation on the frequency response is presented. The com-
parative dynamic frequency response for fourth‐order and sixth‐order LIP‐based deloading is displayed in Figure 13.
From Figure 13, it can be depicted that dips/peaks in frequency excursion are relatively less in the case of higher‐order
LIP‐based deloading as compared with lower‐order LIP‐based deloading, which is discussed in Section 2.2.
SENAPATI ET AL. 11 of 17

FIGURE 10 A, Wind turbine

generators (WTGs) output power. B,
Diesel generators (DGs) output power.
LIP, Lagrange interpolating polynomial

FIGURE 11 Dynamic system frequency

response. LIP, Lagrange interpolating
polynomial

3.3 | Case 3: variable wind speed time series model according to autoregressive–
moving‐average

In the consideration of a more realistic presentation of the LIP‐based deloading, the autoregressive–moving‐average
(ARMA) time series of wind speed model for WTG is considered.5 The available wind speed profile for WTG1 is
displayed in Figure 14A, and speeds of the wind of WTG2 to WTG4 are computed by considering wake effects.21 The
corresponding wind speed of WTG2 with wake effect is shown in Figure 14B. In this case study, the same load change
is taken as shown in Figure 8A.
For accessing the efficacy of the proposed LIP‐based deloading for primary frequency control, the output power of
the wind farm is presented in Figure 15. From Figure 15, it can be asserted that the output power of the wind farm is
more for the proposed LIP‐based deloading. It is well known that no power plant works at 100% CF.32 The CF of a
power plant is represented as the ratio of the actual energy supplied in a given time period, to the permissible power,
which can be produced. Typically, the annual CF remains 20% to 40% of wind farm–based power system.33,34 Since
deloading is varied continuously in nonlinear in nature with system events, the generated wind power will be more
in the LIP‐based deloading. Therefore, the annual CF factor will certainly increase by this proposed LIP‐based
deloading. Let us calculate the energy produced by WTGs for 450 seconds from Figure 15. The area under the curve
12 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

FIGURE 12 System frequency response

with loss of generation of one diesel
generator. LIP, Lagrange interpolating
polynomial

TABLE 1 Comparative frequency deviation between the proposed Lagrange interpolating polynomial (LIP)–based and existing linear
deloading5,18

Frequency Deviation: Δ f , Hz
Events in Figure 12 LIP‐based deloading Linear deloading5,18

{3}—Loss of generation 0.404 0.77

{4}—Addition of generation −0.798 −1.32

FIGURE 13 Dynamic system frequency

response. LIP, Lagrange interpolating
polynomial

(power vs time) is 270.13 for LIP‐based deloading strategy and 238.28 for the existing linear equation–based deloading
strategy.5,18 These two values show that the proposed LIP‐based deloading extracted more wind energy as compared
with the existing linear equation–based deloading operation. Hence, it is concluded that the CF of the WTG increases
by the proposed LIP‐based deloading.
Due to the extraction of higher CFs in the deloaded WTG, the proposed LIP‐based loading increases the revenue of
the WTG and recovers the system frequency effectively. Hence, the efficacy of this deloading control scheme can abide
by the necessities of grid codes of the wind‐integrated power system.
SENAPATI ET AL. 13 of 17

FIGURE 14 Wind speed variation

using autoregressive–moving‐average
(ARMA) time series model for A, WTG1
and B, WTG2. WTG, wind turbine
generator

FIGURE 15 Dynamic response of the

net output power extracted from wind
turbine generators (WTGs). LIP, Lagrange
interpolating polynomial

4 | CONCLUSIONS
In this study, deloading‐based active power control of variable speed DFIG wind turbines is presented for primary fre-
quency regulation. In order to handle the nonlinear power characteristic curve of WTG in a proper way, LIP is pro-
posed, which is very simple to evaluate and easy to implement in the real‐time applications. The deloading operation
of WTG has adjusted adaptively in a nonlinear manner so that the power extracted from the deloaded WTG increases.
From the simulation studies reported in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Using the proposed LIP‐based deloading scheme, the overall CF of the wind farm can be improved, and also, the fuel
consumption of DG reduces for the same power demand.
• An increase in the CF of WTG will positively raise the revenue of wind power generation, and also, the reductions in
diesel consumption lessen the fuel emission.
• Using the proposed method, the frequency stability during different system operating conditions such as sudden
increase/decrease of load demand, change in power generation, and variations in wind speed can be improved.
• The LIP‐based deloading produces better results, and the frequency dynamics is smoother with a faster settling time
as compared with the existing scheme.
• In order to get the practical response in wind farms on frequency regulation, the results are reported by the consid-
eration of wake effects in the wind farm. Nevertheless, the method that we have presented is highly effective and
helpful to WTG operators for obtaining a typical power system application.
14 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

L I S T O F S Y M B O LS A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Symbols

A swept area by wind turbine blades

K percentage of deloading
R radius of the wind turbine blades
v wind speed
Cp coefficient of performance of the wind turbine
Rw droop constant of the WTG
Pdel deloading power
Pmargin power margin or reserve power due to deloading
Pmax maximum or optimum wind power
i*dr, ref reference direct‐axis (q‐axis) rotor‐side current
i*dr, measured measured direct‐axis (q‐axis) rotor‐side current
i*qr, ref reference quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) rotor‐side current
i*qr, measured measured quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) rotor‐side current
i*dg, ref reference direct‐axis (q‐axis) grid/load‐side current
i*dg, measured measured direct‐axis (q‐axis) grid/load‐side current
i*qg, ref reference quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) grid/load‐side current
i*qg, measured measured quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) grid/load‐side current
P*ref reference deloading power
P*wind net wind power
Q*ref reference reactive power of the rotor‐side converter
u*rabc PWM pulses to the rotor‐side converter
u*gabc PWM pulses to the grid/load‐side converter
V*dc nominal DC‐link voltage
V*ac(rms) nominal root mean square (RMS) voltage
vdg direct‐axis (d‐axis) grid/load‐side voltage
vqg quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) grid/load‐side voltage
vdr direct‐axis (d‐axis) rotor‐side voltage
vqr quadrature‐axis (q‐axis) rotor‐side voltage
ω rotor speed
ωlimi maximum rotor speed limit
ωmax rotor speed at maximum power point
ωmeas actual or measured rotor speed
ωref reference rotor speed
β pitch angle
ρ air density
λ tip‐speed ratio
Δf frequency deviation
ΔPk power contribution by inertia control
ΔPr power contribution by droop control
ΔPsp power contribution by frequency‐sensitive supplementary control

Abbreviations

ARMA autoregressive–moving‐average
CF capacity factor
DFIG doubly fed induction generator
DG diesel generator
HIL hardware‐in‐the‐loop
SENAPATI ET AL. 15 of 17

LIP Lagrange interpolating polynomial

ITSE infinite time square error
MPP maximum power point
MPPT maximum power point tracking
PI proportional plus integral
PSF power signal feedback
PWM pulse width modulation
RTS real‐time simulator
VSWTG variable speed wind turbine generator
WTG wind turbine generator

ORCID
Chittaranjan Pradhan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-5784
Paresh Kumar Nayak https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6853-3266

R EF E RE N C E S
1. Muljadi E, Gevorgian V, Singh M, “Understanding inertial and frequency response of wind power plants,” IEEE Symposium on Power
Electronics and Machines in Wind Applications, Denver, Colorado, 2012: 1‐8. https://doi.org/10.1109/PEMWA.2012.6316361
2. Fu Y, Zhang X, Hei Y, Wang H. Active participation of variable speed wind turbine in inertial and primary frequency regulations. Electr
Pow Syst Res. 2017;147:174‐184.
3. Dreidy M, Mokhlis H, Mekhilef S. Inertia response and frequency control techniques for renewable energy sources: a review. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev. 2017;69:144‐155.
4. Pradhan C, Bhende CN. Enhancement in primary frequency regulation of wind generator using fuzzy‐based control. Electr Power
Compon Syst. 2016;44(15):1669‐1682.
5. Vidyanandan KV, Senroy N. Primary frequency regulation by deloaded wind turbines using variable droop. IEEE Trans Power Syst.
2013;28(2):837‐846.
6. Wang D, Ma N, Gao Y, Hu Y, Zhang C. Participation in primary frequency regulation of wind turbines using hybrid control method. Int
Trans Electr Energy Sys. 2018;28(5):1‐13.
7. Ramtharan G, Ekanayake JB, Jenkins N. Frequency support from doubly‐fed induction generator wind turbines. IET Renew Power Gener.
2007;1(1):3‐9.
8. Morren J, Pierik J, de Haan SWH. Inertial response of variable wind turbines. Electr Pow Syst Res. 2006;76(11):980‐987.
9. Wang Yi MJ, Zhang X, Lie X. Control of PMSG‐based wind turbines for system inertial response and power oscillation damping. IEEE
Trans Sustain Energy. 2015;6(2):565‐574.
10. Mokadem EM, Courtecuisse V, Saudemont C, Robyons B, Deuse J. Fuzzy logic supervisor‐based primary frequency control experiments
of a variable‐speed wind generator. IEEE Trans Power Sys. 2009;24(1):407‐417.
11. Pradhan C, Bhende CN, Samanta AK. Adaptive virtual inertia‐based frequency regulation in wind power systems. Renew Energy.
2018;115:558‐574.
12. Zertek A, Verbic G, Pantos M. A novel strategy for variable‐speed wind turbines participation in primary frequency control. IEEE Trans
Sustain Energy. 2012;3(4):17‐23.
13. Ataee S, Bevrani H. Improvement of primary frequency control by inertial response coordination between wind and conventional power
plants. Int Trans Electr Energy Sys. 2017;27(8):1‐12.
14. Chang‐Chien LR, Lin WT, Yin YC. Enhancing frequency response control by DFIGs in the high wind penetrated power systems. IEEE
Trans Power Sys. 2011;26(2):710‐718.
15. Chang‐Chien LR, Lin WT, Yin YC. Dynamic reserve allocation for system contingency by DFIG wind farms. IEEE Trans Power Sys.
2008;23(2):729‐736.
16. Moutis P, Papathanassiou SA, Hatziargyriou ND. Improved load‐frequency control contribution of variable speed variable pitch wind gen-
erators. Renew Energy. 2012;48:514‐523.
17. Janssens NA, Lambin G, Bragard N, “Active power control strategies of DFIG wind turbines,” IEEE Intern Conf Power Tech, Lausanne,
2007; 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1109/PCT.2007.4538370
16 of 17 SENAPATI ET AL.

18. De Almeida RG, Lopes J. Participation of doubly‐fed induction wind generators in system frequency regulation. IEEE Trans on Power Sys.
2007;22(3):944‐950.
19. Ma HT, Chowdhury BH. Working towards frequency regulation with wind plants: combined control approaches. IET Renew Power Gen.
2010;4(4):308‐316.
20. Gonzalez‐Longatt F, Wall P, Terzija V. Wake effect in wind farm performance: steady‐state and dynamic behavior. Renew Energy.
2012;39(1):329‐338.
21. Pradhan C, Bhende CN. Adaptive deloading of stand‐alone wind farm for primary frequency control. Energy Systems. 2015;6(1):109‐127.
22. Kuenzel S, Kunjumuhammed LP, Pal BC, Erlich I. Impact of wakes on wind farm inertial response. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy.
2014;5(1):237‐245.
23. Lee J, Muljadi E, Sørensen P, Kang YC. Releasable kinetic energy‐based inertial control of a DFIG wind power plant. IEEE Trans Sustain
Energy. 2016;7(1):279‐288.
24. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LagrangeInterpolatingPolynomial.html.
25. Djilali L, Sanchez EN, Belkheiri M. Real‐time implementation of sliding‐mode field‐oriented control for a DFIG‐based wind turbine.
International Trans Electr Energy Sys. 2018;28(5):1‐16.
26. Shihabudheen KV, Raju SK, Pillai GN. Control for grid‐connected DFIG‐based wind energy system using adaptive neuro‐fuzzy technique.
International Trans Electr Energy Sys. 2018;28(5):1‐16.
27. Margaris ID, Papathanassiou SA, Hatziargyriou ND, Hansen AD, Sørensen P. Frequency control in autonomous power systems with high
wind power penetration. IEEE Trans on Sustain Energy. 2012;3(2):189‐199.
28. Blaabjerg F, Yang Y, Yang D, Wang X. Distributed power‐generation systems and protection. Proc IEEE. 2017;105(7):1311‐1331.
29. Muyeen SM, Takahashi R, Murata T, Tamura J. A variable speed wind turbine control strategy to meet wind farm grid code requirements.
IEEE Trans Power Sys. 2010;25(1):331‐340.
30. Pradhan C, Bhende CN. Enhancement in primary frequency contribution using dynamic deloading of wind turbines. 9th IFAC Sympo-
sium on Control of Power and Energy Systems (CPES). 2015;48(30):13‐18.
31. Qiao W, Venayagamoorthy GK, Harley RG. Real‐time implementation of a STATCOM on a wind farm equipped with doubly fed induc-
tion generators. IEEE Trans Ind Appl. 2009;45(1):98‐107.
32. http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind‐turbine‐net‐capacity‐factor‐50‐the‐new‐normal/
33. http://docs.wind‐watch.org/Boccard‐Capacity‐Factor‐Of‐Wind.pdf.
34. Wang P, Billinton R. Reliability benefit analysis of adding WTG to a distribution system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers. 2001;16(2):134‐139.

How to cite this article: Senapati MK, Pradhan C, Nayak PK, Samantaray SR. Lagrange interpolating
polynomial–based deloading control scheme for variable speed wind turbines. Int Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2019;29:
e2824. https://doi.org/10.1002/2050‐7038.2824

A P P EN D I X A
P A R A M ET ER S O F TH E WI N D – D IE SE L P O WER S Y S TE M
Modeling data of each wind farm and diesel‐driven power system

Systems/Parameters Symbols Values

4
Doubly fed induction generator
Power rating of each DFIG PW 1.5 MW
Line to line voltage Vn (rms) 0.757 kV
Stator resistance Rs 0.023 pu
Stator reactance Xs 0.18 pu
Rotor resistance Rr 0.16 pu
Rotor reactance Xr 2.9 pu
Number of poles Pp 4
SENAPATI ET AL. 17 of 17

(Continued)

Systems/Parameters Symbols Values

Rated generator slip s 2%
DC‐link voltage Vdc 1.150 kV
DC‐link capacitor Cdc 680 mF
L‐C filter Lf, Cf 158 mH, 96.27 μF
Rotor‐side and grid‐side switching frequency f r, f g 4.86, 1.62 kHz
4,11
Wind turbine
Number of blades Nb 3
Wind turbine blade radius R 11 m
Air density ρ 1.225 kg/m3
Rated wind speed vrated 12 m/s
Cut‐in wind speed vlow 4 m/s
Cut‐off wind speed vmax 20 m/s
4,11
Diesel‐driven synchronous generator
Power rating of each DG PD 1.5 MW
Direct‐axis reactance Xd 1.56 pu
Direct‐axis transient reactance Xd′ 0.296 pu
Direct‐axis subtransient reactance Xd″ 0.177 pu
Quadrature‐axis reactance Xq 1.06 pu
Quadrature‐axis transient reactance Xq′ 0.177 pu
Quadrature‐axis subtransient reactance Xq″ 0.052 pu
Stator resistance Rs 0.0036 pu