IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO.
4, OCTOBER 2020
On the Dynamic Modeling of Marine VSC-HVDC
Power Grids Including Offshore Wind Farms
Luis M. Castro
Abstract—This article presents a new and comprehensive model-
ing framework to carry out system-wide dynamic studies of DFIG-
based wind farms embedded in multi-terminal VSC-HVDC power
grids. Contrary to existing, well-developed simulation frameworks
for similar studies, using electromagnetic transient (EMT) solu-
tions, this is an RMS-type formulation which maintains a high-
degree of fidelity while enabling much faster steady-state and
dynamic simulations than what it is possible to achieve with EMT
simulators. The new RMS modeling framework includes AC/DC
power grids of an arbitrary size, topology and number of offshore
VSC-connected wind farms. A simulation tool with such a high
degree of modeling versatility and numerical efficiency does not
currently exist elsewhere. This has required the development, using
first principles, of the RMS model of a DFIG with explicit repre-
sentation of all the dynamic effects relevant for dynamic problems
of the electromechanical type as opposed to the study of very fast
EMT phenomena. All the control functions and parameters of the
rotor-side converter, the grid-side converter and the DC link, are
accounted for in the new DFIG model. The prowess of the new
formulation is demonstrated using a six-terminal VSC-HVDC link
with two VSC-connected 200-MW wind farms. The impact of the
wind farms’ operation on both the DC grid and the AC grids is
assessed. The fidelity of the output results of the new simulation
tool is compared against those of the EMT-type model implemented
in Simscape Electrical of Simulink. The article shows that they
favorably compare with each other, with differences inferior to
3%. The computational efficiency of the new dynamic modeling
framework for HVDC-connected wind farms is unassailable.
Index Terms—AC/DC networks, DFIG, power system dynamic
simulations, VSC-HVDC grids, offshore wind farms.
I. INTRODUCTION
IND power today represents a sound commercial activ-
W ity, showing a spiral growth. At the end of 2017, there
were 539.123 GW of installed wind power capacity worldwide
[1]. In this electrical power industry sector, China leads the
way with 188.392 GW, followed by USA with 89.077 GW
and Germany with 56.132 GW. In Europe as a whole, the
Manuscript received May 25, 2019; revised November 4, 2019 and February
8, 2020; accepted March 10, 2020. Date of publication March 16, 2020; date of
current version September 18, 2020. This work was supported by the National
Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) under program UNAM-DGAPA-
PAPIIT-Project IA103919 (Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e
Innovación Tecnológica). Paper no. TSTE-00578-2019. (Corresponding author:
Luis M. Castro).
Luis M. Castro is with the Department of Electrical Energy, National Au-
tonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad de México 06320, Mexico (e-mail:
luismcastro@fi-b.unam.mx).
Enrique Acha is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tampere
University 33520, Tampere, Finland (e-mail: enrique.achadaza@tuni.fi).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSTE.2020.2980970
1949-3029 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2889
and Enrique Acha
premier onshore wind resource sites have already been used,
after more than 30 years of sustained wind farm construction and
commissioning, and the current push is for offshore wind farms.
This is particularly the case of countries with access to the North
Sea, the Irish Sea and the Baltic Sea. The forecast is that the
current estimated wind power production in the North Sea would
increase between 7 to 15-fold by 2040 [2]. The UK alone has five
wind farm developments in the North Sea, namely, Dogger Bank,
Hornsea, Norfolk, Firth of Forth and Moray Firth, with a total
combined capacity of 18 GW. For instance, the Dogger Bank,
the largest wind farm development, will have 1800 5-MW wind
turbines [3]. The wind turbine technology selected for this site
is the so-called doubly fed induction generator (DFIG). These
generators have continued to evolve rapidly, almost doubling the
5 MW capacity; the largest commercial DFIG wind turbine has
reached the 9.5 MW capacity [4].
Existing and planned wind farms in the North Sea have
shown that for installations laying more than 70 km away
from the shore; their connection to the mainland grid is more
advantageous using VSC-based DC transmission links than
AC transmission. As the number and ratings of wind farms
in the North Sea increases, it would make sense to develop
a fully-fledged multi-terminal VSC-HVDC grid. One that will
serve not only the energy evacuation of the wind industry but
also the supply requirements of the oil and gas rigs installations.
Indeed, the same arguments apply to other world regions with
similar conditions as the North Sea, such as the Gulf of Mexico
or the North Pacific Ocean. The development of this technology
is progressing well; by 2020 there will be two multi-terminal
VSC-HVDC links in existence, both in China: the Nan’ao-3T
±160 kV and the Zhangbei-4T ±500 kV. Nonetheless, very
much engineering and technology development is still required
before the multi-terminal VSC-HVDC becomes a worldwide
reality.
Today, the DFIG technology is the most popular in both
onshore and offshore wind farm installations. Over the past
decade, various technical problems arising from their massive
integration into power grids have been identified and resolved.
However, there are still several outstanding issues that are yet
to be dealt with satisfactorily, such as the reliable integration
of offshore wind farms that lie in deep waters, far away from
the shore [5]–[8]. Not surprisingly, great many research efforts
have been made toward developing advanced DFIG-based wind
farm models to study their inherent electrical oscillations by
modal analysis [9], the mitigation of subsynchronous interac-
tions in DFIG-based wind farms [10], and the operation of
2890
DC-connected offshore wind farms to reduce output voltage
variations [11]. The same applies to the VSC-based HVDC
technology where effective formulations have been developed
to study transient and small signal stability issues [12]–[15].
However, when it comes to assessing practical power grids,
RMS-type models are predominantly used by transmission sys-
tems analysts to execute the copious amounts of dynamic simu-
lations that the power grid requires at the planning and operation
stages. In such application areas, the use of variable-speed wind
generator models featured by very detailed switching-based
converter models, [9]–[11], [16], [17], are not popular since their
long execution times in utility-level power grids would tax un-
necessarily the analysts’ day-to-day job. It is in this tenor that this
paper aims to contribute, by introducing an efficient and versatile
framework to carry out comprehensive assessments of future
power grids which will contain many both onshore and offshore
DFIG-based wind farms, with the latter requiring VSC-HVDC
transmission technology for power evacuation. The modeling
framework put forward in this paper is a natural progression of
a recently published model of multi-terminal VSC-HVDC links
for system-wide RMS-type dynamic simulations [18].
A. Scope and Contribution
This paper introduces several new modeling features and
control principles in the area of variable-speed wind turbines
in connection with submarine wind farms. The new model-
ing framework enables efficient steady-state and dynamic as-
sessments of generic multi-terminal AC/DC grids with VSC-
connected DFIG-based wind farms. Concerning the control
strategy of the VSC-HVDC grid, the formulation considers three
different types of VSC models, namely, converters exerting DC
voltage regulation, converters fixing a power transfer and con-
verters supplying power to passive grids. The three VSC models
seamlessly combine with those of the proposed VSC-connected
DFIG-based wind farms.
The derivation of the control features employed by VSC-
connected wind farms is emphasized in the paper, such as the
frequency-balancing capabilities that ensures that the wind farm
frequency is always maintained close to its nominal value. This
is carried out by ensuring a continuous balance of the wind
farm output power and the power injected into the DC grid. To
conform to the actual operation of VSC, the developed dynamic
model contains two control degrees, a DC current controller and
a modulation ratio controller aiming at frequency regulation
and AC voltage control, respectively. A key contribution of
this paper is the new RMS-type DFIG model whose stator
and rotor circuits have been designed to seamlessly combine
with those of the back-to-back DC link, thus giving rise to a
new and elegant model, following the modular principles of
a VSC-connected wind farm. The PWM-driven converters are
described in terms of basic electric circuit elements, such as
an ideal tap-changing transformer, resistors, inductors and a
shunt equivalent susceptance to account for the reactive power
behavior of the rotor-side converter and the grid-side converter.
The new multi-offshore wind farm model is described in detail,
emphasizing the numerical implementation that enables a reli-
able solution of the highly non-linear set of algebraic-differential
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020
Fig. 1. VSC unit with ancillary components.
equations representing the steady-state and dynamic behaviors
of the marine HVDC grids, including VSC-connected wind
farms, in a unified frame-of-reference.
II. MODELING OF MULTI-TERMINAL VSC-HVDC LINKS FOR
DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS
System-wide dynamic analyses of AC networks may be an ar-
duous task because repetitive simulations are needed to properly
assess the impact of prospective contingencies on the dynamic
operation of the whole network. This is even more demanding for
VSC-based transmission systems due to the increased size of the
resulting grid model which encompass the otherwise decoupled
AC networks, the VSC stations and controls, and the DC power
grid. Fig. 1 shows the main ancillary elements of a VSC unit
[18], [19].
Applying a nodal power injection formulation to the VSC
terminals, the nodal active and reactive power equations of
the VSC and on-load tap changing (OLTC) transformer are
computed as (1a)–(1b), respectively, where ma stands for the
RMS modulating variables, E is the DC bus voltage, Gsw
accounts for the converter switching losses and Beq enables
the converter reactive power injection, with Vac = ma · E · ejφ
and γ = θv − φ. The VSC injected powers at their AC and DC
nodes, k and j, defining θkm = θk − θm and Vac = |Vac |, are
as follows:

Pkcal = Vk2 Gkk + Vk Vm [Gkm cos θkm + Bkm sin θkm ],
m∈k

Pjcal = Ej2 Gjj + Ej En Gjn .
n∈j
Pv = Vv2 Gph − Vac Vv [Gph cos γ + Bph sin γ]
Qv = −Vv2 Bph − Vac Vv [Gph sin γ − Bph cos γ]
Pdcv = Vac
2
Gph − Vac Vv [Gph cos γ − Bph sin γ]
(1a)
+ (Vac / m a )2 Gsw
Qdcv = −Vac2
Bph − Vac Vv [−Gph sin γ − Bph cos γ]
−Vac2
Beq
Pvl = Vv2 Gltc − T Vv Vk [Gltc cos (θv − θk )
+ Bltc sin (θv − θk )]
Qvl = −Vv2 Bltc − T Vv Vk [Gltc sin (θv − θk )
−Bltc cos (θv − θk )]
(1b)
Pkl = Tv2 Vk2 Gltc − T Vk Vv [Gltc cos (θv − θk )
+Bltc sin (θv − θk )]
Qkl = −Tv2 Vk2 Bltc − T Vk Vv [Gltc sin (θv − θk )
−Bltc cos (θv − θk )]
CASTRO AND ACHA: ON THE DYNAMIC MODELING OF MARINE VSC-HVDC POWER GRIDS INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS 2891

TABLE I grids, these are taken to represent two-level, three-phase con-

TYPES OF VSC AND THEIR INVOLVED VARIABLES
These equations are appropriately used to formulate the
VSC-based AC/DC grid model, one featured by three types of
converters and whose involved variables are shown in Table I:
(i) VSCSlack – converters controlling their DC bus voltage,
Ej = Enom ; (ii) VSCP sch – converters regulating their power
flow, Pdcv = Psch ; (iii) VSCP ass – power converters feeding
into passive grids with no generation of their own.
Following a generalized modeling approach, an arbitrary DC
network formed by a multi-terminal arrangement of m VSCSlack
converters, n VSCP sch converters and r VSCP ass converters is
denoted by FHVDC = −JMT-HVDC ·ΔΦHVDC , Eq. (2) shown
at the bottom of this page, where the implicit trapezoidal inte-
gration method and the Newton-Raphson algorithm are selected
to simultaneously solve the discretized differential equations of
the VSC controls and the algebraic mismatch equations, at each
iteration i and time t. Hence, matrices JSlackm contain the first-
order partial derivatives of the m VSCSlack mismatch equations,
FSlackm , with respect to variables ΔΦSlackm ; JPschn represent
the Jacobian matrices resulting from the n VSCP sch units whose
derivatives are with respect to variables ΔΦPschn ; the first-
order partial derivatives resulting from the r VSCP ass mismatch
equations, FPassr , are contained in matrices JPassr . Similarly,
the DC grid nodal mismatch equations and their corresponding
derivatives are accommodated in FDC and JDC , respectively,
where vector ΔΦDC contains the DC nodal voltages. Finally,
the cross terms JSdc , JPsdc , JPadc , encompass the mutual
derivatives between the VSC mismatch equations with respect
DC voltages, and vice versa for terms JdcS , JdcPs , JdcPa . The
control loops of the converters are reported in the Appendix.
A. A Brief Discussion on the Modeling of MMC-HVDC Links
The dynamic modeling framework, summarized by (1)–(2),
features the inclusion of several VSC-connected AC systems.
As for the employed VSC models to form the arbitrary HVDC
verters. However, the proposed modeling framework can be
reformulated for positive-sequence dynamic simulations with
MMC-HVDC systems. But it would be necessary to determine in
advance the new AC-to-DC voltage relationship of the selected
multilevel converter, Vac = k · m · Edc · ejφ , specifically the
product k·m that represents the modular multilevel arrangement
and modulation strategy of the VSC station. Similarly, the DC
voltage dynamics of MMCs can be different from those of two-
level converters [20], [21]. Therefore, the definition of suitable
differential equations related to those dynamics to be resolved
within this dynamic modeling framework is key for obtaining
realistic results [21], [22]. The reader may refer to other relevant
works related to the modelling of MMCs focusing on the analysis
of their internal dynamics, such as [23]–[25]. Having defined the
AC-to-DC voltage relationship and the differential equations as-
sociated with the internal energy dynamics of MMC units, their
power flow equations can be derived, as in [18], [19]. In turn,
these can be used for positive-sequence dynamic simulations
of MMC-HVDC power grids. This modeling flexibility is the
main reason why this platform is selected to incorporate VSC-
connected offshore DFIG-based wind farm dynamic models, as
shown in subsequent sections.
III. DFIG-BASED WIND TURBINE MODEL
One of the big challenges in today’s dynamic power sys-
tem analyses is the very long simulation times accrued when
repetitive studies are required, in a range of power system
applications. In this sense, the use of a switching-based modeling
approach to represent each VSC of the back-to-back converter
of a DFIG, where the PWM pattern is fully emulated, would
hinder the possibility of carrying out dynamic simulations of
real-scale systems incorporating a multi-terminal VSC-HVDC
grid and DFIG-type wind farms. Conversely, an RMS-based
modeling approach would offer a feasible solution to this prob-
lem where the computing times are considerably reduced, com-
pared to those obtained using an EMT-based solution approach
(switching-based VSC models). With this goal in mind, this
section focuses on deriving an RMS-type model of the B2B

⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t)

FSlack1 JSlack1 · · · 0 ΔΦSlack1
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ .. .. .. [JSdc ] ⎟
⎜
..
⎟ ⎜ . 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ .. ⎟
⎜ . ⎟ ⎜ . . ⎟ ⎜ . ⎟
⎜ FSlackm ⎟ ⎜ 0 · · · J ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ Slackm ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦSlackm ⎟
⎜ FPsch1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ J · · · 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦPsch1 ⎟
⎟ ⎜ ⎟
Psch1
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ . . . ⎜ ⎟
⎜
..
⎟ ⎜ 0 .. .. .. 0 [JPsdc ] ⎟ ..
⎜ . ⎟ ⎜
= −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ . ⎟
⎜ FPschn ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 0 · · · JPschn ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦPschn ⎟
⎜ FPass1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ JPass1 · · · 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦPass1 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ .
.. ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 . . . [J ] ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ .. ⎟
⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ . . . Padc ⎟ .
⎟ ⎜ ⎟
. . .
⎝ FPassr ⎠ ⎜
⎝ 0 · · · JPassr ⎠ ⎝ ΔΦPassr ⎠
FDC [JdcS ] [JdcPs ] [JdcPa ] [Jdc ] ΔΦDC
(2)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020

Fig. 4. Control loop for the reactive power control at stator’s terminals.

to the switching power loss at rated values. Ir and Ig are the

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a DFIG-based wind generator. actual terminal currents of the RSC and GSC, respectively, and
Inom is for the converters’ nominal currents.
The expressions for the active and reactive power injections
at nodes r and 0r, with Vr = Vr ∠θr and Vg = Vg ∠θg , are
Pr = Vr2 Gr − kmr Vr Edc [Gr cos (θr − φr )
+ Br sin (θr − φr )] (3)
Qr = − Vr2 Br − kmr Vr Edc [Gr sin (θr − φr )

Fig. 3. Equivalent circuit of the B2B converter. − Br cos (θr − φr )] (4)

P0r = k 2 2 2
mr Edc Gr − kmr Vr Edc [Gr cos (φr − θr )
converter, which seamlessly combines with the rest of the com- + Br sin (φr − θr )] + Pswr (5)
ponents comprising the DFIG-type wind generator model with
Q0r = − k 2 mr 2 Edc
2
Br − kmr Vr Edc [Gr sin (φr − θr )
the schematic diagram shown in Fig. 2.
− Br cos (φr − θr )] + Qeqr (6)
A. The New B2B Converter for DFIG-Based Wind Generators
where Pswr , Qeqr and the terminal current Ir are computed as,
The power electronic circuit employed in a DFIG is made
up of two VSCs connected in a B2B arrangement sharing a Pswr = Edc
2
G0r (Ir /Inom )2 (7)
capacitor on their DC side, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 2. Qeqr = −k22 mr 2 Edc
2
Beqr (8)
The DC voltage is supported and stabilized by the DC capacitor,
whereas the VAR generation/absorption process is attained by Ir =
the PWM control via the manipulation of the voltage and current
waveforms inside the VSCs. (G2r + Br2 ) (Vr2 + k 2 mr 2 Edc
2 − 2km V E cos (θ − φ ))
r r dc r r

The DC-to-AC voltage conversion for a two-level, three-phase (9)

VSC is V = kmEdc ejφ , where the voltage V is the line-to-line A similar set of equations to (3)–(9) may be obtained for the
AC voltage at the network’s reference frame. Edc is the DC powers injected at the GSC terminals by simply replacing the
link voltage, k = (3/8), m is the amplitude modulation ratio, subscripts r by g, where node g would correspond to a generic
and φ is the phase-shifting angle of the voltage V with respect node k of the system, therefore Vk = Vg and θk = θg . Also,
to Edc . To capture these features of the VSC operation, at notice that in the previous equations and their state variables are
the fundamental frequency, the rotor-side converter (RSC) and expressed in the network’s reference frame. The rotor voltages
the grid-side converter (GSC), may be represented each as an in the dq reference frame, vdr and vqr , may be then obtained by
ideal tap-changing transformer with complex taps, coupled to using the standard transformation,
an impedance, an equivalent variable shunt susceptance and a
shunt resistor on its DC side, as shown in Fig. 3. Vr = vdr 2 + v 2 , θ = arctan (V
qr r r,imag /Vr,real ) (10)
The tap magnitudes of the ideal tap-changing transformers



bear a resemblance to the amplitude modulation ratios of the Vr,real cos δr sin δr vqr
= ,
RSC and GSC, mr and mg , respectively. The phase-shifting Vr,imag sin δr − cos δr vdr
angles φr and φg are the phase angles of voltages V1r and
δr = θe − (ωm /ωs ) θk (11)
V1g , respectively. The series reactances Xr and Xg represent the
interface magnetics. The series resistor Rr and Rg are associated where δr represents the difference between the angular displace-
with the conduction losses, of RSC and GSC, respectively, which ment θe of the synchronous rotating reference frame and the
are proportional to the AC terminal current squared. These re- induction machine’s rotor angle [26].
actances and resistances also account for the AC filtering equip- Rotor-side converter controllers: the controllers of the RSC
ment between the VSCs and the rotor/stator circuits. The con- are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The control loop that exerts
ductances Gswr = G0 (Ir /Inom )2 and Gswg = G0 (Ig /Inom )2 voltage control over vdr is intended for keeping a reference value
enable the calculation of the switching power losses of the of reactive power in the stator as Qgs,ref = Pnom tan(ϕ), where
converters, where G0 is a constant conductance corresponding ϕ stands for the fixed power factor angle at which the stator is

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CASTRO AND ACHA: ON THE DYNAMIC MODELING OF MARINE VSC-HVDC POWER GRIDS INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS
Fig. 5. Control loop for maximum power extraction.
Fig. 6. (a) DC voltage controller of the B2B converter, (b) AC voltage
controller of the GSC.
required to operate [16], [17], as shown in Fig. 4. On the other
hand, the control loop shown in Fig. 5 drives the DFIG to operate
at the maximum power extraction point (MPT). This controller
regulates the rotor voltage vqr in accordance with changes in the
actual rotor speed ω m .
Grid-side converter controllers and DC link dynamics: when
changes occur in the DC link, the capacitor undergoes charg-
ing/discharging stages, which impacts on its DC voltage. Apply-
ing Kirchhoff’s law to the DC link shown in Fig. 2, the following
relationship holds: ic = idcr − idcg . By equating this expression
and that of the capacitor’s current, yields:
dEDC idcr − idcg
= (12)
dt Cdc
where the current idcr is computed as idcr = −P0r /Edc , with
P0r taken from (5). Substituting this expression into (12), the
DC link voltage dynamics in the B2B converter are:
 dt
dEDC 1 P0r
= − − idcg (13)
dt CDC EDC
As it is a standard practice, the GSC is responsible for con-
trolling the voltage at the DC link regardless of the amount
and direction of the rotor active power Pgr . The DC voltage
control is carried out by controlling the DC current entering the
GSC, idcg , as shown in Fig. 6(a), where Edc and Edcref are the
actual and reference voltages, respectively. On the other hand,
the GSC also performs AC voltage regulation, therefore only
one basic control loop for the modulation ratio of the GSC, mg ,
is required, as shown in Fig. 6(b), where Vk and Vkref are the
(0)
actual and reference voltages, respectively, and mg is the initial,
steady-state value of the modulation ratio.
B. Modeling of the Wind Turbine and the WRIG
For completeness, the modeling of its wind turbine and its
controls and the wound rotor induction generator, are briefly
discussed in this section.
Wind turbine and its basic controls: the conversion of the
kinetic energy from the wind into mechanical power is made
by the wind turbine’s rotor and may be computed by Pm =
1/2ρCp (c1 . . . c9 , λ, β)AVw3 , which is mainly a function of the
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2893
Fig. 7. (a) Blade pitch angle controller; (b) MPT characteristic.
wind speed Vw , the area swept by the rotor blades A, its aerody-
namic power coefficient Cp , the air density ρ, the tip-speed ratio
λ and the blade pitch angle β [27]. Moreover, there is a power
limitation strategy to prevent mechanical stress in the rotor shaft
when the wind speed surpasses the rated speed. The mechanical
power is reduced using a controller, which acts upon the blade
pitch angle, β, as shown in Fig. 7(a). One way to design the pitch
angle controller calls for the monitoring of the electrical power
output of the DFIG, Pe = Pgs − Pg , to bring it back within
limits by changing β. On the other hand, a power optimization
strategy is implemented in the DFIG which focuses on driving
the wind generator to operate at its optimum rotational speed
and torque, Tref = Pm,opt /ωm,opt , as shown in Fig. 7(b).
Wound-rotor induction generator model: The voltage equa-
tions that govern the WRIG’s dynamic behavior are obtained
by applying Kirchhoff’s and Faraday’s laws as well as Park’s
transformation and its third-order dynamic model is expressed
as [26],
de d (ωs − ωm ) Lr  ω s Lm
T0 = ωs Lm iqr + eq − vqr (14)
dt Rr Rr
de q (ωs − ωm ) Lr  ω s Lm
T0 = −ωs Lm idr − ed + vdr (15)
Rr Rr
dωm Te − Tm
= (16)
dt 2H
where Rr , Lr and Lm are the rotor resistance, rotor inductance
and magnetizing inductance, e´ is the per-unit e.m.f behind the
transient reactance, ωs is the electrical rotating sped of the stator,
ωm is the mechanical speed of the generator rotor, T’0 is the
transient open-circuit time constant [s], Tm is the mechanical
torque, Te is the electromagnetic torque, H is the total inertia
of the rotating mass, v is voltage, i is current, the subscripts d y
q stand for the direct and quadrature axes, respectively, and the
subscripts s y r represent quantities corresponding to the stator
and rotor, respectively.
IV. VSC-CONNECTED DFIG-BASED WIND FARMS
A. Steady-State Operating Conditions of Each DFIG
The steady-state model of the DFIG may be directly derived
from the algebraic power equations and differential equations
(with the dynamic terms set to zero) of the WRIG (14)–(16)
which combine well with those of the B2B converter (2)–(7),
keeping in mind that the RSC controllers ensure that the DFIG
operates at Qgsref and Tref . If the DFIG is connected to node
2894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020


k of the network, the iterative Newton-Raphson method may be Fe q = eq(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt ė q(t−Δt) − e q(t) − 0.5Δt ė q(t)
used to solve the set of nonlinear equations (17)–(27), whose (35)
solution may be used as the steady-state operating conditions 
necessary for the ensuing dynamic simulations. Fωm = ωm(t−Δt) +0.5Δt ω̇m(t−Δt) − ωm(t) − 0.5Δt ω̇m(t)
(36)
ΔPk = Pgs − Pg − Pdk − Pkcal (17)
Fβaux = βaux (t−Δt) + 0.5Δt β̇aux(t−Δt)
ΔQk = Qgs − Qg − Qdk − Qcal
k (18)  
− βaux (t) − 0.5Δt β̇aux(t) (37)
Δχ1 = ωs Lm iqr + (ωs − ωm ) Lr Rr−1 eq − ωs Lm Rr−1 vqr  
(19) Fβ = β(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt β̇(t−Δt) − β(t) − 0.5Δt β̇(t) (38)
Δχ2 = −ωs Lm idr − (ωs − ωm ) Lr Rr−1 ed + ωs Lm Rr−1 vdr
Fidr,aux = idr,aux (t−Δt) + 0.5Δt i̇dr,aux(t−Δt)
(20)
 
ΔT = Tref − Te (21) − idr,aux (t) − 0.5Δt i̇dr,aux(t) (39)

ΔQgs = Qgsref − Qgs (22) Fvdr,aux = vdr,aux (t−Δt) + 0.5Δt v̇dr,aux(t−Δt)

ΔPr = Pgr − Pr (23)  
− vdr,aux (t) − 0.5Δt v̇dr,aux(t) (40)
ΔQr = Qgr − Qr (24)
Fvqr,aux = vqr,aux (t−Δt) + 0.5Δt v̇qr,aux(t−Δt)
ΔQ0r = Q0r (25)
 
ΔQ0g = Q0g (26) − vqr,aux (t) − 0.5Δt v̇qr,aux(t) (41)
ΔP0 = P0r + P0g (27) FEdc = Edc(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt Ėdc(t−Δt)
 
where Pdk and Qdk represent the active and reactive powers − Edc(t) − 0.5Δt Ėdc(t) (42)
drawn by a load at bus k, respectively, and Pkcal and Qcal k are
the active and reactive power terms that link the node k with the Fidcaux = idcaux(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt i̇dcaux(t−Δt)
rest of the network. The solution of (17)–(27), using Newton’s 
− idcaux(t) − 0.5Δt i̇dcaux(t) (43)
algorithm, requires the formation of the Jacobian matrix. The
linearization of this set of equations is ΔF = −J Δz, where J Fdmag = dmg(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt dṁg(t−Δt)
represents a matrix of first order partial derivatives, ΔF = [ΔPk 
ΔQk Δχ1 Δχ2 ΔT ΔQgs ΔPr ΔQr ΔQ0r ΔQ0g ΔP0 ]T and − dmg(t) − 0.5Δt dṁg(t) (44)
 
Δz = [Δθk Δmg Δvdr Δvqr Δed Δeq Δφr Δmr ΔBeqr ΔBeqg Δφg ].
Notice that the vector Δz includes neither Edc nor Vk because The linearized form of the dynamic DFIG model, connected
both terms are constant during the steady-state period. to a generic node k of the wind farm distribution network, is

(i,t) (i,t) (i,t)

ΔFDF IG = −JDF IG ΔzDF IG (45)
B. DFIG Model for RMS-Type Dynamic Simulations
Once the initial conditions have been determined, the dynamic ΔF (i,t) = [ΔPk ΔQk ΔPr ΔQr ΔQ0r ΔP0 Fe d Fe q . . .
simulations may be carried out by numerically solving, step- Fωm Fβaux Fβ Fidr,aux  Fvdr,aux Fvqr,aux
by-step, all the power mismatch equations and the discretized FEdc . . . Fidcaux Fdmg
differential-algebraic equations, also expressed as mismatch (46)
equations (using the implicit trapezoidal method), emerging Δz (i,t) = [Δθk ΔVk Δφr Δmr ΔBeqr Δφg Δe d Δe q . . .
from the dynamic controllers of each DFIG, Δωm Δβaux Δβ Δidr,aux Δvdr,aux . . .
Δvqr,aux ΔEdc Δidcaux Δdmg ]T
ΔPk = Pgs − Pg − Pdk − Pkcal (28)
(47)
ΔQk = Qgs − Qg − Qdk − Qcal
k (29)
ΔPr = Pgr − Pr (30) C. Dynamic Model of VSC-Connected DFIG-Based
Wind Farms
ΔQr = Qgr − Qr (31)
Fig. 8 shows, in schematic form, a power converter, VSCW F ,
ΔQ0r = Q0r (32) linking a wind farm and a generic DC network. This power
ΔP0 = Edc idcg − P0g (33) converter facilitates the free transit of the power generated by
 the wind generators, continuously pursuing the balance between
F e d = ed(t−Δt) + 0.5Δt ė d(t−Δt) − e d(t) − 0.5Δt ė d(t) the power produced by the wind farm and the power injected into
(34) the DC network. However, this power balance cannot be attained

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CASTRO AND ACHA: ON THE DYNAMIC MODELING OF MARINE VSC-HVDC POWER GRIDS INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS
Fig. 8. VSC connected DFIG-based wind farm coupled to a DC grid.
instantaneously, causing the wind farm’s AC power network to
experience frequency deviations.
From the power system standpoint, the VSCW F must provide
the angular reference for all the nodal voltage phase angles
of the wind farm AC power network, i.e., φwf = 0, during
steady-state. For the dynamic operating regime, the difference
between the DC power entering the inverter, Edc Idc , and the
power flowing out of the converter towards its AC terminals, P0v ,
will yield frequency deviations in the wind farm. Indeed, P0v
corresponds to the total power generated by the wind generators
minus the power losses produced by the wind farm AC power
network. The angular frequency ωwf and the angle φwf of the
converter may be dynamically computed as
dωwf ω0
(a) = (Edc Idc − P0v ) ,
dt 2Hvsc
dφwf
(b) = ωwf − ω0
dt
where ω0 = 2πfnom and fnom is the nominal frequency of
the wind farm. Notice that the angle φwf and the angular
speed ωwf are also the reference signals for the wind farm
AC power grid. The equivalent inertia constant of the converter
2895
Fig. 9. (a) DC current controller and (b) modulation ratio controller of the
converter VSCWF.
the VSCWF , Idc , aimed at keeping the frequency of its coupled
wind farm at its nominal value, and the other control loop for
exerting AC voltage control using the modulation ratio, as shown
in Figs. 9(a) and 9(b), respectively.
In connection with Fig. 8, the overall mismatch equations of
the voltage source converter VSCW F , including those resulting
from its ancillary components, are given by (50)–(59). The
discretized differential equations of the voltage dynamics of Cdc
and current dynamics of Ldc of VSCW F are given in (50)–(51),
respectively. Equations (52)–(55) are obtained by discretizing
the differential equations emerging from the control loops shown
in Fig. 9 and from (48), respectively. Finally, equations (56)–(59)
stand for the active and reactive power mismatch equations at
nodes v and k, respectively.
FEdc = Edc(t−Δt) + 0.5ΔtĖdc(t−Δt)
 
− Edc( t) − 0.5ΔtĖdc(t) (50)
(48)
 
FIx = Ix(t−Δt) + 0.5ΔtI˙x(t−Δt) − Ix( t) − 0.5ΔtI˙x(t)
(51)
Fdma = dma(t−Δt) + 0.5Δtdṁa(t−Δt)
Hvsc [s] may be estimated from the electrostatic and electro- 

− dma(t) − 0.5Δtdṁa(t) (52)
magnetic energies stored in the capacitor, WC = 1/2; Cdc E02 ,
and inductor, WL = 1/2; Ldc I02 , coupled to its DC bus. This FIdcaux = Idcaux(t−Δt) + 0.5ΔtI˙dcaux(t−Δt)
fictitious inertia constant of the VSCW F may be calculated  
by Hvsc = (WC + WL )/Snom [18], where E0 and I0 are the − Idcaux(t) − 0.5ΔtI˙dcaux(t) (53)
nominal voltage and current of the capacitor and inductor, re-
spectively, whereas Snom is the rated apparent power of the Fφwf = φwf (t−Δt) + 0.5Δtφ̇wf (t−Δt)
converter. This takes an approximate value of Hvsc ≈ 5 ms,  
which is much smaller than the inertia featured by conventional − φwf (t) − 0.5Δtφ̇wf (t) (54)
rotating machines (∼5 s). The power flowing out of the converter
Fωwf = ωwf (t−Δt) + 0.5Δtω̇wf (t−Δt)
towards its AC terminals, is computed as,
 
P0v = k 2 m2a Edc
2
G − kma Vv Edc [G cos (φwf − θv ) − ωwf ( t) − 0.5Δtω̇wf (t) (55)

+ B sin (φwf − θv )] + Edc

2
G0 Iv2 /Inom
2
(49) ΔPv = − Pv − Pdv − Pvltc (56)
where = (G + B )
Iv2 2 2
(Vv2
+k 2
− 2kma Vv Edc
2 2
ma Edc ΔQv = − Qv − Qdv − Qvltc (57)
cos(θv − φwf )), Inom is the nominal current of the power
converter, Y = G + jB accounts for both the conduction losses ΔPk = − Pkltc − Pdk − Pkcal (58)
and interface
 magnetics of the converter and the phase reactor, ΔQk = − Qkltc − Qdk − Qcal (59)
k
k = 3/8, Vv = Vv ∠ θv , and G0 is related to the switching
losses of the VSCW F . For unified dynamic simulations of VSC connected DFIG-type
The control system of a VSC interfacing a wind farm with wind farms, the previous set of equations, FVSCwf : (50)–(59),
a DC network may be realized by using two control loops to must be solved, at every integration step Δt, together with
conform to practical converter stations, which offer two degrees those corresponding to each DFIG included in the wind farm,
of freedom. One control loop for regulating the DC current of FDFIG : (28)–(44), along with those resulting from the power

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2896 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020

TABLE II power mismatch equations of the high-voltage side of the OLTC

CONVERTER VSCWF AND ASSOCIATED VARIABLES
(see Fig. 1) with respect to their corresponding VSC’s variables
(shown in Table I), for the three types of converters (VSCSlack ,
VSCP sch and VSCP ass ). Similarly, the derivatives of the active
and reactive power mismatch equations of the high-voltage side
of the OLTC with respect to their corresponding AC voltage
mismatch equations of the wind farm AC network, ΔPQwf . magnitudes and phase angles are suitably accommodated in
Hence, if the DFIG-type wind farm contains n wind generators, JMTm , JMTn and JMTr , for the slack, power-scheduled and
its dynamical model will have the following numerical structure: passive converters, respectively.
where JVSC wf accommodates the partial derivatives of the The terms FWF γ, JWF γ and ΦWF γ, which are explicitly
mismatch equations of VSCW F , (50)–(59), with respect to its given in (63), comprise nwf individual terms of the form of
state and control variables ΔzVSC wf , summarized in Table II. (60)–(61). Matrices JWFdc accommodate the terms arising
The coupling between the VSC and the wind farm AC grid is from deriving (50)–(51), of each VSCW F , with respect to all
node k, as shown in Fig. 8; hence, JV wf contains the deriva- nodal voltages of the DC network. Similarly, matrices JdcWF
tives of (58)–(59) with respect to all nodal phase angles and comprise the derivative terms of DC network’s mismatch equa-
voltage magnitudes that link to node k, through a low-voltage tions with respect to the DC voltages of each VSCW F .
AC transmission line or cable. Similarly, Jwf V comprises the ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
derivatives of active and reactive power mismatches of the wind FWF1 JWF1 0
⎜ .. ⎟ ⎜ .. ⎟
farm’s nodes with respect to θk and Vk . The Jacobian matrix Jac FWFγ = ⎝ . ⎠, JWFγ = ⎝ . ⎠,
contains the partial derivatives of the active and reactive power FWFnwf 0 JWFnwf
mismatches with respect to the phase angles and the voltage ⎛ ⎞
ΔΦWF1
magnitudes and ΔθV is the vector of corrections of the phase ⎜ .. ⎟
angles and the voltage magnitudes of the wind farm’s AC power ΔΦWFγ =⎝ . ⎠,
network. Jac1 , . . . , Jacn are vectors of suitable orders which ΔΦWFnwf
accommodate the derivatives of the active and reactive power ⎛ ⎞T ⎛ ⎞
JdcWF1 JWFdc1
mismatches with respect to the state and control variables of each ⎜ .. ⎟ ⎜ .. ⎟
DFIG contained in the wind farm. The derivatives of the DFIG’s JdcWF =⎝ . ⎠ , JWFdc = ⎝ . ⎠
mismatch equations with respect to the phase angles and voltage JdcWFnwf JWFdcnwf
magnitudes of the wind farm AC power network are suitably (63)
located in vectors J1ac , . . . , Jnac . Notice that FDFIGj , JDFIGj
and ΔzDFIGj , with j = 1, …n, take the form of (45)–(47). It should be noted that (62)–(63) can be suitably modified to
In a compact manner, the dyanamic model of a VSC- incorporate alternative control strategies, such as the Edc − P
connected DFIG-based wind farm (60) shown at the bottom of control droop strategy for the VSC-HVDC grid. This would
this page, is as follows: require a suitable reformulation of the algebraic differential
equations emerging from the control loops of the VSCs shown
(i,t) (i,t) (i,t)
FWF = −JWF ΔΦWF (61) in the Appendix. It is worthwhile remarking that an efficient dy-
namic simulation heavily hinges on selecting a suitable starting
V. DYNAMIC MODELING FRAMEWORK FOR MULTI-TERMINAL equilibrium point. This is obtained by solving the steady-state
VSC-HVDC CONNECTED DFIG-BASED WIND FARMS power flow equations of the VSC-based transmission grid with
their coupled AC systems as in [18], [19], including those of the
The dynamic model of the multi-terminal VSC-HVDC sys- newly developed VSC-connected offshore wind farms (17)–(27)
tem, given by JMT−HVDC in (2), comprising m VSCSlack and (56)–(59).
converters, n VSCP sch converters and r VSCP ass converters,
with α = m + n + r, is extended to comprise nwf DFIG-type
wind farms. The newly expanded framework is given by (62). VI. STUDY CASES
Expression (62) shown at the bottom of the next page, in- The numerical implementation of the developed formulation
cludes, for completeness, the contribution of the conventional was coded in MATLAB and the simulations were executed
AC power networks (FACα , JACα , ΦACα ), which are coupled using a PC Intel Core i7, 3.6-GHz, 8 GB RAM, Win 7 64-bit
to the DC network through VSC units. Matrices, JACm , JACn OS. The differential equations related to the VSC and DFIG
and JACr contain the derivative terms of the active and reactive controls are discretized with the implicit trapezoidal method,

⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t)

FVSCwf JVSCwf JV wf 0 ΔzVSCwf
⎜ ΔPQwf ⎟ ⎜ Jwf V Jac Jac1 ··· Jacn ⎟ ⎜ ΔθV ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ FDFIG1 ⎟ ⎜ J1ac JDFIG1 0 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔzDFIG1 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ = −⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (60)
⎜ .. ⎟ ⎜ .. .. ⎟ ⎜ .. ⎟
⎝ . ⎠ ⎝ 0 . 0 . 0 ⎠ ⎝ . ⎠
FDFIGn Jnac 0 0 JDFIGn ΔzDFIGn

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CASTRO AND ACHA: ON THE DYNAMIC MODELING OF MARINE VSC-HVDC POWER GRIDS INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS 2897

wind farm I increases from 8 m/s to 10 m/s with a rate of change

Fig. 10. Six-terminal HVDC link with two VSC-connected wind farms.
using an integration time step of 1 ms. In turn, the numerical
solution of the differential-algebraic equations and the nodal
active and reactive power balance equations for each of the
AC and DC nodes is obtained by adopting a unified method,
signifying that the nonlinear equations (61)–(62) representing
the marine HVDC-connected wind farms are simultaneously
solved at every time step.
The AC/DC network shown in Fig. 10 is used to illustrate
the validity and prowess of the new modeling framework. This
is an HVDC grid made up by six VSC stations, two of which
connect to identical 200-MW wind farms. This power grid model
was also implemented in the Simscape Electrical software of
Simulink, for comparison purposes.
VSC 1 is taken to be the slack converter, VSCSlack , which
exerts DC voltage control, VSC 2 feeds into a passive network
(PN) having a 100 MW load whereas VSC 3 and VSC 5 are
power-scheduled converters, VSCP sch , drawing each Psch =
125 MW from the DC network. The DFIG-type wind farms,
WF I and WF II, are connected to the DC network through
the stations VSC 4 and VSC 6, respectively. With no loss of
generality, each wind farm is represented by three equivalent
wind generators. On the other hand, the three AC networks,
AC 1, AC 2 and AC 3, which are coupled to VSC 1, VSC 3 and
VSC 5, respectively, are represented by the Thevenin equivalents
shown in Fig. 10. The transmission line impedances of these AC
grids, including those of the wind farms, are z = j0.06 p.u and
the DC cable resistances are shown in the figure. The rest of the
parameters are given in the Appendix.
Study case I - validation of the new approach: Two events are
simulated to assess the power grid dynamic response: (i) at t =
0.5 s, the scheduled power, Psch , of VSC 3 abruptly changes
from 125 MW to 200 MW; (ii) at t = 3 s, the wind speed, Vw , of
of ΔVw /Δ = 1 m · s−1 /s.
The steady-state conditions of selected variables for the VSC-
based transmission grid with two VSC-connected wind farms are
reported in Table III. This table also shows the corresponding re-
sults obtained for the switching-based AC/DC power grid model
implemented in Simulink, after 50 s of simulation. It is observed
that relatively small differences exist between both approaches,
i.e., average errors for the DC power flows and variables are infe-
rior to 3%. Similarly, Fig. 11 reports the validation of results for
the dynamic operating regime of the VSC-based HVDC power
grid, with both models being executed for 50 s of simulation.
Notice that the dynamic response furnished by the introduced
approach concurs very well with that of the highly-detailed
EMT-type solution. Table IV reports the computing times of
both fundamentally different approaches where the superior
computational efficiency featured by the developed method is
evident.
Note that the model initialization (steady-state conditions) for
the EMT-type simulation takes various hours because of the very
different dynamics (time constants) of the generation units and
VSC stations. That is, the power generators contained in the
AC grids were realistically modeled, as opposed to representing
them as idealized, controlled voltage sources. Certainly, once the
steady-state conditions have been obtained, these can be saved
as a snapshot and used for starting new dynamic simulations,
thus avoiding the recalculation of the steady-state. However, this
recalculation would be needed if the AC/DC grid model were up-
dated, a situation that occurs when power system analysts carry
out various dynamic simulations at the planning and operation
stages. These aspects justify per se the new RMS-type dynamic
modeling framework for HVDC systems with VSC-connected
wind farms. It should be kept in mind that Transmission System
Operators (TSO) often resort to using supercomputers to reduce
the computational times. However, it is expected that the ratio
of computing times between both approaches is similar given
the two fundamentally different approaches under comparison.
Concerning the dynamics involved in this study case, the
sudden increase of Psch in VSC 3 and, hence, in P3, as seen
in Fig. 11(a), causes a transient discharge of the energy stored
in the DC capacitors, causing nodal voltage drops in the DC
network, as shown in Fig. 11(b). As soon as the DC voltage
controller of VSC 1 (which acts as VSCSlack ) takes over, this
converter starts injecting power into the DC network, as seen in
P1 of Fig. 11(a), resulting in an improved DC voltage. Notice
that this perturbation produces a negligible impact on the other
VSC connected networks, i.e., PN, WF I, AC 3 and WF II. On
the other hand, the wind speeds of WG 1, 2 and 3 comprising
WF I, start increasing after t = 10 s, reaching each a mechanical
torque of Tm = −0.458 p.u. and a wind power generation of

⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t) ⎛ ⎞(i,t)

FACα JACα JACm JACn JACr 0 0 ΔΦACα
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ FSlackm ⎟ ⎜ JMTm 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦSlackm ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ FPschn ⎟ ⎜ JMTn 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦPschn ⎟
⎜ ⎟ = −⎜ JMT−HVDC ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (62)
⎜ FPassr ⎟ ⎜ JMTr 0 ⎟ ⎜ ΔΦPassr ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
FDC ⎝ 0 JdcWF ⎠ ΔΦDC
FWFγ 0 0 0 0 JWFdc JWFγ ΔΦWFγ

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2898 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020

TABLE III
STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS OF THE SIX-TERMINAL VSC-BASED HVDC NETWORK

Fig. 11. Validation of the proposed approach - Study case I. (a) Power entering the VSCs; (b) DC grid voltages; (c) Modulation ratios; (d) Mechanical torque;
(e) Output power by the wind farms.

TABLE IV AC 1, as observed in Fig. 11(a). On the other hand, the dynamic

COMPUTING TIMES
Pg = 113.49 MW, at the new steady-state when Vw = 10 m/s
and t = 40 s approximately, as observed from Figs. 11(d)–11(e),
respectively. This results in additional power entering the DC
network thus causing minor voltage swells. The additional
power in the DC network is counteracted by VSC 1, which
reduces its power P1 , assisting in the power balance of network
performances of the modulation ratios of the six VSCs, shown
in Fig. 11(c), are dynamically adjusted to comply with the AC
voltage control command. Note that the VSC modulation ratios
experience greater transient oscillations for the abrupt change in
Psch of VSC 3 occurs than when WF I varies its output power
generation. Indeed, the variations of Vw in WF I, only impact
the DC network and the AC power grid coupled to the VSCSlack
type station, AC 1, with the other power grids experiencing
minor variations. This is the hallmark of an HVDC system,
which blocks the electrical interactions between AC power
networks. However, it may be observed that when power changes
occur at any of the VSC connected networks, the AC power
grids coupled to VSCSlack type converters do experience power

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CASTRO AND ACHA: ON THE DYNAMIC MODELING OF MARINE VSC-HVDC POWER GRIDS INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND FARMS
Fig. 12. Dynamic behavior of the HVDC system – Study case II.
deviations. This situation is expected to occur in the context of
multi-terminal HVDC links with VSC-connected DFIG-based
wind farms. To shed additional light on this point, the Study Case
II is carried out.
Study case II: Considering that VSC 1 and VSC 5 are slack
converters, at t = 0.5 s: (i) the wind speed of wind farm I
increases from 8 m/s to 10 m/s; (ii) the wind speed of wind
farm II decreases from 12 m/s to 8 m/s. Both speed changes
are characterized by ΔVw /Δt = 4 m · s−1 /s; as expected, these
are directly reflected on the mechanical speed of the wind
generators, as illustrated in Fig. 12(a). Furthermore, the power
generated by WF I increases from 60.21 MW to 117.3 MW
whereas that of WF II reduces from 188.26 MW to 60.02 MW,
as shown in Fig. 12(b), a fact that is reflected on powers, P4 and
P6 , of VSC 4 and VSC 6, respectively, as observed in Fig. 12(c).
Recalling that VSC 1 and VSC 5 are tasked with DC voltage
control, as opposed to DC power control, both converters share
the responsibility of balancing the powers in the AC/DC system.
Hence, their coupled networks, AC 1 and AC 3, must supply
or absorb the necessary power to attain this balance, therefore
frequency deviations appear in both AC systems, as shown in
Fig. 12(d), settling down to 49.92 Hz and 49.98 Hz, respectively.
The wind power variations also cause temporary frequency devi-
ations in the AC grids of the DFIG-based wind farms. However,
converters VSCW F I and VSCW F II fittingly control the current
injection to the DC grid thus effectively regulating the frequency
of both wind farms, as inferred from Fig. 12(d). The dynamic
performances of the DC voltages and modulation ratios of the
VSCs are given in Figs. 12(e) and 12(f), respectively, noticing
that both variables experience very small variations in this study
case.
Study case III: The DC transmission line that connects buses
3-4 trips at t = 0.5 s. This event provokes the meshed DC grid
to turn into a radial one. As illustrated in Fig. 13(a), this DC line
carried 116 MW at steady-state, but its disconnection prevents
part of the wind power generation of WF I from being transmitted
to the passive network fed by VSC 2. In this condition, the only
path available to evacuate the wind generation by WF I is the DC
line 4–5, whose power flow changes from −60 MW to 59 MW
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2899
Fig. 13. Dynamic behavior of the HVDC system – Study case III.
Fig. 14. Control loops for converters: (a) VSCSlack ; (b) VSCP ass ; (c)
VSCP sch ; (d) Voltage control for the three VSCs
during the disturbance. As expected, this internal contingency
of the HVDC system imposes little impact on the AC powers,
including those of the wind farms, P4 and P6 , as appreciated
from Fig. 13(b). However, this disturbance does cause power
flow rearrangements, accompanied by voltage fluctuations, in
the HVDC grid, as shown in Fig. 13(c). In turn, these are
efficiently mitigated by VSC 1 and 5 which fittingly control
their DC bus voltages. In contrast, Fig. 13(d) shows that the
modulation ratios barely change during the event.
Admittedly, this kind of bottleneck scenarios may be typical
in the operation of HVDC grids with wind power generation,
thus the developed dynamic modelling framework may become
a very useful tool for power system operators.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper has introduced an advanced modeling frame-
work for the efficient and reliable steady-state and dynamic
assessments of multi-terminal VSC-HVDC systems with VSC-
connected DFIG-based wind farms. From the modeling stand-
point, the new frame-of-reference is comprehensive and highly
flexible; it can accommodate any number of VSC stations with
different control strategies to conform to their pairing AC grid
requirements. From the literature survey and the validation test
carried out in the paper, it is concluded that heretofore the
introduced modeling framework is more flexible and numer-
ically efficient than alternative formulations based on EMT
models.
Both the steady state and the dynamic formulations are solved
using the Newton-Raphson method; the latter is combined with
the implicit trapezoidal rule. This applies to conventional power
plants and their controls, the VSC-connected DFIG-based wind
farms and the VSC controls of the multi-terminal HVDC system.
2900
The rotor and stator circuits of the developed RMS-type DFIG
model seamlessly combine with its HVDC converter model.
Moreover, the explicit representation of the DFIG’s back-to-
back converter model brings about unrivalled modeling flexibil-
ity. This is further accentuated when the DFIG-based wind farms
are placed within the context of multi-terminal VSC-HVDC
systems.
Ample use of the modeling framework has shown to be a very
reliable computational tool. To demonstrate this, a six-terminal
VSC-HVDC link with two VSC-connected DFIG-based wind
farms was used. It is shown that the dynamic interactions be-
tween the interconnected networks have been well captured by
the modeling and numerical solution approach presented in the
paper. As a general conclusion, it may be surmised that the
potential usefulness of the modeling, techniques and methods
derived in the paper would be of paramount importance to power
system operators and analysts when dealing with this type of
future HVDC power networks.
APPENDIX
– Parameters of each VSC on a 100 MVA base: Snom =
2 p.u.; Edcnom = 2.0 p.u.; G0 = 0.06 p.u.; R = 1e-3 p.u.; X =
5e-3 p.u.; Hc = 0.021; Hi = 7.5e − 5; Bf ilt = 0.6; ZLT C =
2e-3 + j2e-2 p.u. Kpe = 1.5; Kie = 10; Kpp = 0; Kip = 0.025;
Kpω = 0.025; Kiω = 0.25; Kma = 7; Tma = 0.20.
DFIG-based wind turbine: Pnom = 2.0 MW, H = 3.0 s,
R = 37.5 m, ngb = 115, ρ = 1.225 kg/m3 , c1 = 0.22, c2 =
116, c3 = 0.4, c4 = 0.0, c5 = 0, c6 = 5, c7 = 12.5, c8 = 0.08,
c9 = 0.035, β = 0. WRIG: Rs = 0.0175 p.u, Ls = 0.2571 p.u,
Rr = 0.0190 p.u, Lr = 0.2950 p.u, Lm = 6.921 p.u, nps = 4.
Pitch-angle controller: Kpb = 30, Kib = 3, Kβ = 5.0, Tβ = 10.
B2B converter: Snom = 0.35∗Pnom , Hc = 2.652 ms, Edc = 2.0
p.u, G0r = G0g = 5e-4 p.u, R1r = R1g = 1e-4 p.u, X1r = 0.01
p.u., X1g = 0.1 p.u. RSC controller: Kpidr = 0.5, Kiidr = 8.0,
Kpvdr = 0.05, Kivdr = 10.0, Kpvqr = 0.05, Kivqr = 10.0. DC
link controller: Kpdc = 0.008, Kidc = 1.0. GSC controller:
Kacg = 15, Tacg = 0.03.
AC power generating units: xd = 0.296 p.u, R = 5%.
– Control loops of the VSCs forming an MT-HVDC
arrangement:
REFERENCES
[1] Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Annual Market Update,
2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.tuulivoimayhdistys.fi/filebank/
1191-GWEC_Global_Wind_Report_April_2018.pdf
[2] Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC). Offshore Wind Industry
Prospectus, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.
renewableuk.com/resource/resmgr/publications/catapult_prospectus_
final.pdf
[3] The Crown State. Offshore Wind, 2018. [Online]. Available:
www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/media-and-insights/seabed-notices/
offshore-wind/
[4] O. Anaya-Lara, J.O. Tande, K. Uhlen, and K. Merz, Offshore Wind Energy
Technology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2018.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGY PETRONAS. Downloaded on June 20,2022 at 05:38:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 11, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2020
[5] H. J. Bahirat and B.A. Mork, “Operation of DC series-parallel connected
offshore wind farm,” IEEE Trans. Sust. Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 596–603,
Apr. 2019.
[6] P. Hou, W. Hu, M. Soltani, C. Cheng, B. Zhang, and Z. Chen, “Offshore
wind farm layout design considering optimized power dispatch strategy,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 638–647, Apr. 2017.
[7] O. Dahmani, S. Bourguet, M. Machmoum, P. Guerin, P. Rhein, and L.
Josse, “Optimization and reliability evaluation of an offshore wind farm,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 542–550, Apr. 2017.
[8] Y. Guo, H. Gao, Q. Wu, H. Zhao, J. Ostergaard, and M. Shahidehpour,
“Enhanced voltage control of VSC-HVDC-connected offshore wind farms
based on model predictive control,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 474–487, Jan. 2018.
[9] L. P. Kunjumuhammed, B. C. Pal, C. Oates, and K. J. Dyke, “Electrical
oscillations in wind farm systems: Analysis and insight based on detailed
modeling,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 51–62, Jan. 2016.
[10] U. Karaagac, S.O. Faried, J. Mahseredjian, and A. Edris, “Coordinated
control of wind energy conversion systems for mitigating subsynchronous
interaction in DFIG-based wind farms,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 2440–2449, Sep. 2014.
[11] H. J. Bahirat and B. A. Mork, “Operation of DC series-parallel connected
offshore wind farm,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 596–
603, Apr. 2019.
[12] S. Cole, J. Beerten, and R. Belmans, “Generalized dynamic VSC MTDC
model for power system stability studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25,
no. 3, pp. 1655–1662, Aug. 2010.
[13] G. O. Kalcon, G. P. Adam, O. Anaya-Lara, S. Lo, and K. Uhlen, “Small
signal stability analysis of multi-terminal VSC-based DC transmission
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1818–1830, Nov.
2012.
[14] N. Trinh, M. Zeller, K. Wuerflinger, and I. Erlich, “Generic model of
MMC-VSC-HVDC for interaction study with AC power system,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 27–34, Jan. 2016.
[15] Q. Hao, Z. Li, F. Gao, and J. Zhang, “Reduced-order small-signal models of
modular multilevel converter and MMC-based HVdc Grid,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 2257–2268, Mar. 2019.
[16] O. Anaya-Lara, N. Jenkins, J. B. Ekanayake, P. Cartwright, and M. Hughes,
Wind Energy Generation: Modelling and Control. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley, 2009.
[17] C. E. Ugalde-Loo, J. B. Ekanayake, and N. Jenkins, “State-space modeling
of wind turbine generators for power system studies,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 223–232, Jan./Feb. 2013.
[18] L. M. Castro and E. Acha, “A unified modeling approach of multi-terminal
VSC-HVDC links for dynamic simulations of large-scale power systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31, pp. 5051–5060, Feb. 2016.
[19] E. Acha, P. Roncero-Sanchez, A. Villa-Jaén, L. M. Castro, and B.
Kazemtabrizi, VSC-FACTS-HVDC: Analysis, Modelling and Simulation
in Power Grids, Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, May 2019.
[20] J. Beerten, G. B. Diaz, S. D’Arco, and J. A. Suul, “Comparison of
small-signal dynamics in MMC and two-level VSC HVDC transmission
schemes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Energy Conf., Apr. 2016, pp. 1–6.
[21] J. Freytes et al., “Dynamic analysis of MMC-based MTDC grids: Use
of MMC energy to improve voltage behavior,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 137–148, Feb. 2019.
[22] K. Shinoda, A. Benchaib, J. Dai, and X. Guillaud, “Virtual capacitor
control: Mitigation of DC voltage fluctuations in MMC-based HVdc
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 455–465, Jul. 2017.
[23] M. Mehrasa, E. Pouresmaeil, S. Zabini, and J. P. S. Catalão, “Dynamic
model, control and stability analysis of MMC in HVDC transmission sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1471–1482, Jun. 2017.
[24] S. Zhu et al., “Reduced-order dynamic model of modular multilevel
converter in long time scale and its application in power system low-
frequency oscillation analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 34, no. 6,
pp. 2110–2122, Feb. 2019.
[25] O. C. Sakinci and J. Berteen, “Generalized dynamic phasor modelling of
the MMC for small-signal stability analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 991–1000, Feb. 2019.
[26] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[27] T. Ackerman, Wind Power in Power Systems, 1st ed., Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley, 2005.