FULLTEXT01

UPTEC-ES12026
Examensarbete 30 hp
Augusti 2012
Study of Grid Code Compliance
Thanet Wind Farm
Malin Sjölund
Abstract
Study of Grid Code Compliance - Thanet Wind Farm
Malin Sjölund
Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

UTH-enheten The trend towards harmonizing grid codes within
Europe will increase the demands for grid code
Besöksadress: compliance. Wind power is for several reasons not
Ångströmlaboratoriet
Lägerhyddsvägen 1 comparable to conventional power generation but will,
Hus 4, Plan 0 due to large installations, need to show compliance
with the grid codes. This thesis is investigating grid
Postadress: code requirements as proposed by National Grid (UK)
Box 536
751 21 Uppsala and ENTSO-E. Modelling work and simulations have
also been performed to investigate the grid code
Telefon: compliance of Thanet offshore wind farm in UK. The
018 – 471 30 03 work has been about investigating frequency response
Telefax: and fault-ride-through criterion and shows that grid
018 – 471 30 00 codes are fulfilled in Thanet but that the model
requires further work.
Hemsida:
http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
Handledare: Urban Axelsson, Ying He

Ämnesgranskare: Mikael Bergkvist
Examinator: Kjell Pernestål
ISSN: 1650-8300, UPTEC ES12 026
Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattning
”Grid Codes” innebär systemkrav som måste uppfyllas av en produktionsenhet för att
den ska få koppla upp sig på elnätet. Anledningen är att elnätet är ett stort och viktigt
system som det är viktigt att upprätthålla stabiliteten på. Stabiliteten på elnätet kan
framförallt känneteckas av att avbrott inte inträffar, alternativt inträffar ytterst sällan.
Men stabilitet innebär också att hålla frekvens och spänning inom de nominella värden
som är upprättade för att elektrisk utrustning ska kunna fungera utan svårigheter.
Vindkraft är historiskt sett en liten energikälla och har därför inte varit föremål för
omfattande systemkrav. Detta utifrån att det har resonerats om att vindkraften inte
påverkat elnätet då produktionen varit liten och elnätet starkt. Under senare år har
dock vindkraften sett en enorm utveckling och från att ha inneburit små maskiner på
några hundra kilowatt byggs nu stora parker som omfattar ett hundratal megawatt.
Det är av dessa anledningar naturligt att krav på att upprätthålla systemet ställs även
på vindkraftsparker men det innebär extra kostnader för de som äger vindkraftparkerna.
Inom EU finns det ambitioner att harmonisera elmarknaden för att underlätta handel
över gränserna. Av denna anledning har också författandet av gemensamma systemkrav
påbörjats, lett av ENTSO-E (European Network for Transmission System Operators of
Electricity).
Det är tydligt att systemkraven utformas i en riktning så att de kommer bli mer krävande
i framtiden, framförallt för vindkraft eftersom denna energikälla på många sätt skiljer
sig från traditionell. Bland annat är vindkraften intermittent och har inte det naturliga
tröghetsmoment som storskaliga synkronmaskiner besitter.
Existerande systemkrav idag är utformade utifrån systemets behov. England har tradi-
tionellt hårda systemkrav och kan användas som en god referens för analys av nya förslag.
England är dock inte det enda landet som ställer krav på vindkraften vid anslutning och
turbintillverkare blir tvungna att tillgodose lösningar för många olika behov.
Thanet offshore vindpark har varit i fokus för denna studie, parken består av vindtur-
biner av typen dubbel-matad asynkrongeneratorer. Reglertekniska lösningar har legat
i fokus vid studier för hur parken uppfyller systemkrav på frekvensrespons och ”fault-
ride-through” kriterier då fel simuleras på det överliggande nätet.
Studien visar att vindparken är kapabel att uppfylla de krav som studerats. Studien
påvisar dock att modellen som använts har brister och tolkning av resultaten bör ta
hänsyn till detta.
3
Summary
In terms of wind farm owner Vattenfall is responsible to ensure grid code compliance of
its wind farm Thanet. As Thanet is connecting to UK the grid code to comply with is
the one issued by National Grid.
The grid codes concerned in this study have been those covering frequency response
and fault-ride through. As these disturbances are not convenient to introduce in the real
transmission system simulation studies in the software PSS/E have been performed.
The study has been covering modelling work, out of an existing model covering the
grid connection, as well as simulation studies regarding dynamics. The modelling work
has resulted in an aggregated representation of Thanet wind farm and the transmission
grid in the connecting point has been expanded and represented in a Thevenin equivalent.
The model consists of the connection configuration, including SVC Plus devices, and
aggregated wind turbines provided by the wind turbine manufacturer. The wind tur-
bines also involves a power plant controller, which is a technique developed for future
grid code demands.
The simulations assures grid code compliance for Thanet offshore wind farm with re-
gards to frequency response and fault ride through for three-pase shortcircuit faults and
single-line to ground faults on the overlying network. These simulations are limited to
full-load operation.
The study also covers summaries of the grid code issued by National Grid and European
Network of Transmission System Operator for Electricity (ENTSO-E). It is concluded
that future grid codes most certainly will be more demanding for wind farm owners and
that technique such as the power plant controller will be required to achieve compliance.
4
Abbrevation List
AC Alternating Current
DC Direct Current
DFIG Double-Fed Induction Generator
ENTSO-E European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity
FRT Fault Ride Through
FSM Frequency Sensitive Mode
HV High Voltage
LFSM Limited Frequency Sensitive Mode
LVRT Low Voltage Ride Through
MSC Mechanical Switched Capacitor
MSR Mechanical Switched Reactor
NG National Grid
PCC Point of Common Coupling
PPC Power Plant Controller
TSO Transmission System Operator
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
5
Contents
1 Introduction 8
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6 Project Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Theory 13
2.1 Wind power technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 System stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Frequency control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 Fault Ride Through -FRT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Symmetrical Components and Unbalanced Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Power Plant Controller -PPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Grid Codes 19
3.1 National Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.1 Frequency Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2 Voltage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Fault Ride Through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 ENTSO-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.1 Frequency Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.2 Voltage Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2.3 Fault Ride Through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4 Model Work 37
4.1 Aggregating Thanet wind farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2 Study of the overlying net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2.1 Model for frequency response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2.2 Model for fault studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3 Dynamic Parameter Set-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6
5 Frequency Response 45
5.1 High Frequency Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2 Low Frequency Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6 Solid Three-Phase Short Circuit Faults 50

6.1 Results from Dynamic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.2 Voltage and Current Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.3 Swing Bus Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7 Unsymmetrical Single Line to Ground Fault 60

7.1 Zero sequence data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
7.2 Voltage and Current Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.3 Dynamic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8 Discussion 67
8.1 Grid Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.2 Thanet Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.3 Conclusion and Prospects for Further Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Grid codes are basically the rules to be followed when connecting generators to the grid.
The grid codes within a transmission region are issued by the, for that region, transmis-
son system operator (TSO), with the purpose to ensure system stability. As wind power
until the end of the nineties was rather small and had small impact on system operation,
grid code requirements specially issued for wind power plants are a fairly new concern [1].
With wind power plants growing bigger in size it is reasonable that wind power must
be included in the grid codes. Wind power is an intermittent power source by nature
though and can therefore not be regarded as a conventional synchronous generation unit.
The region for which the Transmission System Operator (TSO) is responsible is nor-
mally a country (or part of a country for countries of a greater area). Since the purpose
with the grid codes is to sustain system stability, the grid codes will depend on system
needs. The grid codes contain power quality requirements as well as system stability
requirements, this work will be covering system stability, i.e. frequency response, voltage
stability and fault ride through (FRT).
At present the grid codes issued by the European TSO:s are individual for the coun-
tries. Vattenfall is operating wind power in Germany, UK and Holland as well as in
Sweden and is thereby facing different grid codes for the different countries. The grid
codes in UK have shown to be technically demanding and are therefore extra cost driving.
The European Network of Transmission System Operators of Electricity (ENTSO-E)

has been working for a common grid code for the TSO:s operating in Europe. This grid
code is under development and this thesis is covering the draft presented in January
2012 [3]. The aim of the ENTSO-E grid code is to harmonize the power market and
ensure system stability. With operation in several European countries Vattenfall will be
affected by the new regulations and sees interest in discussion regarding the new grid
codes.
8
1.2 Purpose
This thesis has the main purpose to study grid code compliance for Thanet wind farm
UK. Secondly it serves to clarify how different grid codes affect technical solutions and
their costs. Theory will be complemented with simulation studies to give a systems
perspective and a better understandning for techniques involved in meeting grid code
demands.
For several reasons wind power is not comparable to conventional, large-scale syn-
chronous generation. Also, the fact that demands from grid codes differ between coun-
tries put preassure on the technique developers to deliver several solutions. In order to
obtain economies of scale and create a more harmonized market ENTSO-E serves its
purpose.
However this thesis holds a wind power point of view and will therefore discuss the
studied grid codes out of this perspective. The objective is to highlight which future
demands will force extra costs to wind power installations and to give a ground for dis-
cussion whether it is reasonable demands or what changes could be proposed.
The simulations will be dynamic studies on the offshore windfarm Thanet connected
indirectly to the transmission grid operated by National Grid in UK. The purpose is to
study how trip of generation and short-circuits on the overlying net will affect frequency
and voltage stability and their control techniques. The goal is to use the model and
simulations for verification of grid code compliance with National Grid (NG) [2].
1.3 Previous Work

Thanet is an offshore windfarm outside of UK. It has a rated power output of 300 MW
and consists of 100 wind turbines, each rated 3 MW, an aggregated representation is
shown in figure 1.1.
The Thanet wind farm model origins from Siemens PTI and has been updated due to
new model releases and the need for implementation of new control techniques.
A simplified model of the connection point, consisting of an accumulated generation

of 30 MW connected to the overlying net represented as a swing bus, has already been
studied by Vattenfall VRD. The study covering this model so far focuses on load rejec-
tion [4].
When there is a mismatch between generation and load the frequency will alter, e.g.
when there is a trip of load (load reduction) the system frequency will increase. The TSO
in UK, National Grid (NG), allows an increase of frequency up to 52 Hz, whereby the
study has been carried out by stepwise reducing the load until this maximum frequency
9
Figure 1.1: Aggregated representation of Thanet wind farm.
10
is reached. The study shows that the maximum frequency is reached by a mismatch of
30 % of the wind power park generation.
The study implies imperfection in the model, since some variables have ”suspected initial
conditions” according to the software PSS/E. This implies not only imperfection in the
model but also a need for further understandning of the model and how it should be
operated.
1.4 Definitions
As can be seen in figure 1.1 the entire windfarm consist of four radials connecting to two
three-windning tranformers (located on the offshore platform) which are connected to
the point of common coupling (PCC) via two seacables. SVC Plus devices are connected
onshore directly to the PCC. The overlying grid is at the PCC represented by a swing
bus modelled by a Thevenin equivalent.
Because of the system being divided into several subsystems it is of importance to claify
these definitions:
• Wind farm will hereafter refer to the entire wind farm system connected to the
PCC, i.e. SVC Plus, seacables and the internal grid connecting the wind turbines.
• Offshore Platform will refer to the platform where three-winding transformers are
located. For this reason, when discussing the ”low-voltage side of the offshore
platform” this will mean the 33 kV side of the three-winding transformers.
• Wind turbine aggregate will be one wind turbine scaled up in order to represent
several turbines. If not stated differently the aggregates will be discussed from the
low-voltage side of the step-up transformers.
• Seacable are the cables conecting the offshore platforms to the PCC. The seacable
system does not contain the SVC Plus which are subsystems on their own con-
nected to the PCC. The length and impedances of the seacables are calculated and
modeled by Siemens PTI in the original model.
• SVC Plus consist of STATCOM, MSC and MSR devices, the rating of the STAT-
COM is +25/-22 MVAr and has been delivered by Siemens. In PSS/E each STAT-
COM is modeled as the standard library model CSTCNT.
• Overlying grid will refer to the grid at which the PCC is the entrance point. The
overlying grid has been modified during the simulations but is at all times repre-
sented by a swing bus represented as a Thevenin equivalent. What modifications
have been done to the grid and in which purpose is explained for the different
simulation cases.
• System refers to the entire system, i.e. wind farm and overlying grid.
11
1.5 Limitations
The grid code documents are covering a wide range of rules for generating units to com-
ply with. The aim of this thesis is to study the system stability and will only analyze the
grid codes’ demands on frequency response, voltage control and fault ride through (FRT).
Due to lack of dynamic data the overlying net is represented by a swing bus with short
circuit power as calculated from its Thevenin equivalent. Other units are represented
as loads, since loads do not require any dynamic data. Other equipment at the over-
lying grid, i.e. cables and tranformers, are given typical data rather than the site specific.
For offshore power parks the grid code offers a choice of fulfilling the grid code at the
PCC or at the low voltage side of the offshore platform. Due to the wind farm config-
uration this thesis has been focusing on fulfilling grid codes at PCC level and does not
present resluts for the offshore platform.
The wind farm configuration has offered restrictions in how the control devices could be
implemented in PSS/E.
The wind turbines’ response can be assumed different dependning on at which load
they are operating. This thesis has only covered full-load operation.
1.6 Project Outline

As the grid codes are a main part of this project these have been studied in detail.
The grid codes developed by National Grid (UK) are of concern regarding whether the
plant will reach grid code compliance or not and these form the base from which the
simulations are performed. The grid codes proposed by ENTSO-E will be treated as a lit-
erature study and serve as reference for the discussion regarding results and future work.
When the requirements are identified modelling work will continue and focus on Thanet.
A Power Plant Controller (PPC) is identified as a need to fullfill the Brittish grid code
and will therefore be implemented in the model. Effort will also be put on modelling of
the overlying net in the connection point, as requirements on withstandning faults apply
for faults at a voltage level of 275 kV or above.
At last simulations will be performed and the following studies have been of interest
for this thesis: frequency response and fault ride through for balanced (three phase
short circuit) and unbalanced (single line to ground) faults.
12
2. Theory
Over a few decades the development of wind power has been subjected to a journey from
individual turbines rated at kW level to wind farms rating some hundred MW.
As long as wind power contributed to the power system as small generating units the
common practice was connection directly to the distribution grid and disconnection in
presence of disturbances. This worked well since the wind power generation was small
and the grids could be assumed fairly strong. With an increased integration of wind
power, consisting of considerably larger units, the modern wind turbines are required to
and therefore designed to fulfill increasingly demanding grid codes [6].
2.1 Wind power technology

From an electrical point of view wind turbines can be divided into two groups; fixed-
speed and variable-speed operation. The wind power generators used at Thanet are
of the type Double-Fed Induction Generators (DFIG). This is an induction generator
using a cascade coupling in order to obtain a so called narrow variable speed intervall.
Having a variable speed intervall improves the mechanical effiency of the machine and
also reduces the mechanical stresses that come from wind variations [5].
The DFIG consists of a wound induction generator with its stator directly coupled to
the grid. The rotor is interfaced through a partially rated variable frequency converter.
One reason for the popularity of DFIG is that its design only requires the converter to
handle about 30 % of full power. Compared to full variable-speed interval generators,
that requires full-rated converters, this has benefits both for size and economical matters
[5].
DFIG design works in two operating modes, sub-synchronous and super-synchronous.

The sub-synchronous operating mode refers to a partial load situation and in this case
power is supplied from the wind turbine to the grid via the stator, whilst a converter
is used to supply the rotor with slip-power when needed. In super-synchronous mode a
nominal load range is accounted for. In this case power produced by the wind turbine is
supplied to the grid not only by the stator but also extra slip power is provided by the
converter, this accounts for about 25 % of rated power [7].
13
Figure 2.1: Electrical priciple of a Doubly-Fed Induction Generator
2.2 System stability

In order to obtain a stable system and a secure electricity supply, network frequency
and voltage levels must be kept close to nominal. In case of disturbing events, control
mechanisms must act in order to counteract possible deviations. Grid codes, typically
developed by the transmission system operator (TSO), facilitate rules for grid connection,
fitted to system needs [1].
2.2.1 Frequency control

Frequency is coupled to active power and units can thus regulate their active power
output in order to meet system needs for frequency compensation. Unlike conventional
power generation, with large units that responds to frequency deviations with a natural
inertia, DFIG:s require a programable control providing a synthetic inertia since the
rotor is decoupled from the grid.
Frequency response service is an automatic response, which is carried out in the power
governor, which measures the system frequency and changes the active power output
from the power plant based on configurable settings. Increasing the power output when
frequency is low and vice versa makes it possible for the wind power plant to contribute
with governor characteristics [6].
Participation of wind power in frequency control generally requires operation in non-

optimal conditions, utilizing less than available wind energy, which in the end means a
reduced revenue. This should be concerned when comparing frequency response in wind
power plants with conventional power plants where lost revenue is partly compensated
by a reduction in fuel costs [11].
14
2.2.2 Fault Ride Through -FRT
Fault Ride Through (FRT) or Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) criterion applies to
the wind farms capability to withstand a voltage dip that follows faults on the overlying
net. The purpose is to avoid cascade effects during faults, but demands are also covering
the need for the wind farm to contribute towards system stability after fault clearance.
Managing LVRT is difficult for DFIG:s and until recently the common practice was
to disconnect the generator in order to protect the vulnerable rotor-side converter [9].
This difficulty derives from that stator flux cannot follow a sudden voltage dip, and a
DC component appears. The rotor keeps rotating and a high slip occurs, this tends to
cause overvoltage and overcurrent in the rotor circuit due to the effect of DC voltage
accelerating electrons. [10]
Technically this is avoided by adding a chopper to the DC-link. The chopper will protect
the converter and ensure that current and voltage limits will not be exceeded.
Some manufacturers are also adding a crowbar to the DFIG rotor circuit. During a
voltage sag the crowbar will short-circuit the rotor. Basically this turns the DFIG to a
regular induction generator and separates the converter from the DFIG [7]. This tech-
nique is not used at Thanet though.
Roughly estimated the FRT criterion increases the investment cost for wind power with
about 5 % [8].
Figure 2.2: Electrical principle of adding a crowbar and chopper to achieve FRT [7]
2.3 Symmetrical Components and Unbalanced Faults

To express unsymmeric combinations of three phases a system to replace the three
phase-components with three symmetrical components is derived [13]:
15
• The positive sequence is a sequency with three components with the same magni-
tude but with a displacement of 120◦ and 240◦ , respectively. The phase sequence
is abca.
• The negative sequence also consist of three components with the same magnitude.
In the negative sequence they have the displacement of 240◦ and 120◦ , respectively
and the phase sequence is acba.
• The zero sequence is a sequence of three components that have all the same mag-
nitude and phase.
The three symmetrical components are commonly denoted with 1 (for the positive se-
quence), 2 (for the negative sequence) and 0 (for the zero sequence) and the relationship
between symmetrical components and the three phase system yields as follows:
IA = I1 + I2 + I0
IB = a2 I1 + aI2 + I0
IC = aI1 + a2 I2 + I0
and
I1 = 13 (IA + aIB + a2 IC )
I2 = 13 (IA + a2 IB + aIC )
I0 = 13 (IA + IB + IC )
◦
with a = ej120 representing the phase displacement. Figure 2.3 shows an example of an
unbalanced situation and how it can be expressed in its symmetrical components.
Figure 2.3: An unbalaced situation expressed in symmetrical components [15]
16
The reason for the derivation of symmetrical components is for the assesment of unbal-
anced fault analysis. The most common type of fault is the single-line to ground fault.
When doing fault analysis a no-load situation is assumed, which will yield network rep-
resentation as shown in figure 2.4
Figure 2.4: Sequence network for single line to ground fault [14]
Analysing figure 2.4 leads to the following sequence currents:
E1
I1 = I2 = I0 = Z0 +Z1 +Z2 +3ZF
when translating this back to phase currents the following is valid:
EA
IA = 3I0 = Z0 +Z1 +Z 2 +3ZF
IB = IC = 0
For a solid short circuit on the faulted line, i.e. with ZF = 0 and Z1 = Z2 the voltages
will be given as:
UA = 0 √
UB = E1 3� −150◦
17
√
UC = E1 3� 150◦
which shows that the highest obtainable voltage is the line-to-line voltage [14].
The zero sequence current can only flow in parts of the circuit that have a fourth conduc-
tor (that serves as a return path). For this reason delta and undgrounded wye portions
of the system will not allow the zero sequence current to flow [15]. Thanet wind turbines
are connected with wye-delta transformers, which (for mentioned reasons) will not allow
any zero sequence current during fault occations.
Figure 2.5: Delta -Wye transformer zero-sequence current behavior [15]
2.4 Power Plant Controller -PPC

A power plant controller is a programmable control developed by the wind turbine man-
ufacturer. It serves the purpose of controlling reactive power and voltage at power plant
level instead of letting every turbine individually respond to disturbances. It also gives
the Double-Fed Induction Generators (DFIG) a synthetic inertia, which gives the tur-
bines a more synchronous behaviour responding to frequency deviations.
Depending on grid code, there might be demands on MSC:s or STATCOM:s to sup-

port reactive power flow and voltage control. The manufacturer provides a solution for
the PPC to control also these devices.
At Thanet the PPC will have an important role in controlling the frequency. Reac-
tive power control is however controlled by the SVC Plus devices that will be closing the
control loop and dispatch control signals to the PPC.
18
3. Grid Codes
The grid codes that are of interest for this study are the grid codes issued by National
Grid (UK) and ENTSO-E (EU) . Further this study is focusing on the parts of the grid
codes covering frequency and voltage regulation due to active and reactive power control
respectively.
3.1 National Grid

The following grid code requirements are those defined for offshore power parks rated
above 50 MW [2].
3.1.1 Frequency Control

The nominal frequency within the National Electricity Transmission System is 50 Hz
and frequency shall be kept within 49.5 - 50.5 Hz. Exceptional circumstances allows
frequency to deviate between 47 - 52 Hz and generating units must then be operated
according to the pre-defined time limits listed in table 3.1.
Frequency Requirement
47 - 47.5 Hz Operation for at least 20 seconds
47.5 - 49 Hz Operation for at least 90 minutes
49 - 51 Hz Continuous operation required
51 - 51.5 Hz Operation for at least 90 minutes
Table 3.1: Frequency National Grid
Disconnection within the frequency range 47.5 - 51.5 Hz is first allowed after agreement
with National Grid. If frequency excursions would occur outside of the specified range,
i.e. above 52 Hz or below 47 Hz, the generating unit owner is responsible for protection
of its units against damage.
All generating units are required to facilitate a frequency control based on active power
output modulation. This control type is referred to as frequency sensitive mode (FSM)
19
and is characterized by settings of deadband and slope. The slope must be within 3 - 5
% and the deadband must not be greater than ±0.015 Hz. The frequency control device
might be installed on the power park module, each power park unit or in a combination
of both.
Frequency sensitive mode (FSM) is initiated by National Grid (NG) and requires the
wind power park to respond to frequency changes within the range 49.5-50.5 Hz with
a primary, secondary and high frequency response characterized in figure 3.3 and 3.4.
When FSM is not initiated the plant shall operate in Limited Frequency Sensitive Mode
(LFSM), which does not require primary, secondary or high frequency control, the tech-
nique for FSM must still be possible though.
If the frequency deviates with more than +0.5 Hz when the plant is operating in FSM
or with more than +0.4 Hz when operated in LFSM, the plant i required to decrease its
power output with at least 2 % /0.1 Hz. The characteristics covering FSM are illustrated
in figure 3.1 and LFSM in figure 3.2.
By these means frequency response has two meanings. Primary response and high fre-
quency response is defined as the response adressed whithin 10 seconds after a frequency
deviation. The response must be accordning to the slope of 3-5 % and the magnitude
shall be according to figure 3.5. For large frequency deviations, i.e. +0.5 Hz the response
is required in terms of 2 % power reduction per 0.1 Hz.
20
Figure 3.1: FSM characteristics in different frequency ranges [2]
21
Figure 3.2: LFSM characteristics for different frequency ranges [2]
Primary, secondary and high frequency response are defined according to their response
times. Primary and high frequency response are refering to the immediate response that
follows a frequency deviation up to ± 0.5 Hz. Secondary response is following a primary
response and is referring to the time intervall 30 seconds - 3 minutes after a frequency
deviation, see figure 3.3 and 3.4.
22
Figure 3.3: Frequency response requirements for primary (P) and secondary (S) fre-
quency response [2]
Figure 3.4: Frequency response requirements for high (H) frequency response [2]
23
Frequency response requires a plant operating range which ranges between maximum
capacity, i.e. 100 %, and minimum capacity, which can not be higher than 65 % of rated
capacity. Further a designed minimum operating level is defined, which can not be more
than 55 % of rated capacity, see figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: The minimum frequency response respresented as the inner curve, whilst a
typical response for a power plant is shown as the outer curve. The typical frequency
response is based on a droop of 3.33 % [16].
Due to increase in system frequency the power plant should be able adjust down to de-
signed minimum operating level and when the system frequency has recovered to target
the power plant shall recover to minimum capacity. The designed minimum operating
level is the output at which the power park module has no high frequency response ca-
pability. Therefore the power park module is not obliged to go below this output unless
the frequency goes above 50.5 Hz.
Frequency response (primary, secondary and high) verification is required at six MW

loading points:
MLP1 Designed Minimum Operating Level

MLP2 Minimum Generation
MLP3 70 % of Registered Capacity
MLP6 Registered Capacity
24
3.1.2 Voltage Control
The transmission grid is characterized by 3 different operation voltages with their normal
operation ranges as stated in table 3.2 below.
Nominal Voltage Normal Operation Range

400 kV 0.95 - 1.05 p.u.
275 kV 0.9 - 1.1 p.u.
132 kV 0.9 - 1.1 p.u.
Table 3.2: Voltage ranges National Grid
For 400 kV a range of 0.9 - 1.1 p.u. can be allowed when special conditions prevail
but voltage above 5 % of nominal will last no longer than 15 minutes if not abnormal
conditions prevail. System voltages below 132 kV will remain within ±6 % of nominal.
At grid entry point the active power output shall not be affected by voltage change
within the normal operation range, other than change in losses due to increased and
decreased voltage. Also the reactive power output under steady state conditions shall
be fully available within the voltage range 0.95 - 1.05 p.u.
The steady state tolerance of reactive power transfer to and from the offshore trans-
mission system must not exceed 5 % of rated MW, if not agreed differently in the
Bilateral Agreement.
Each offshore unit rated above 50 MW must be capable of contributing towards voltage
control through continuous changes to the reactive power supplied to the National Elec-
tricity Transmission System.
Figure 3.6 describes the operation range at which the power plant must be cabable
of supplying reactive power for voltage control to the grid.
25
Figure 3.6: P-Q chart at the grid entry point [2]
• A is the point for power factor 0.95 leading at rated power, i.e. corresponds to
-0.33 p.u. reactive power. The grid code requires this reactive power capability
down to 50 % of rated active power output.
• B is the point for power factor 0.95 lagging, i.e. 0.33 p.u. reactive power produc-
tion. The grid code requires a capability of this reactive power down to 20 % of
rated active power output.
• C is equivalent (expressed in MVAr) to -5 % of rated MW, i.e. -0.05 p.u. reactive

power
• D is equivalent (expressed in MVAr) to 5 % of rated MW, i.e. 0.05 p.u. reactive

power.
• E is equivalent (expressed in MVAr) to -12 % of rated MW, i.e. -0.12 p.u. reactive
power.
The grid code requires voltage control through reactive power regulation. The reactive
power control shall be working with a setpoint voltage between 95 - 105 %, with a
resolution of 0.25 % of the nominal voltage. The predefined slope to calculate the needed
amount of reactive power compensation to maintain the voltage at 100 % nominal (or
the reactive power net flow to zero) must be adjustable between 2 - 7 %, with 4 % as
default setting. This yields the envelope as seen in figure 3.7.
26
Figure 3.7: Operational envelope describing voltage regulation at Grid Entry Point [2]
For an on-load step change the control system must respond so that reactive power
output shall commence within 0.2 seconds from that the application of step-change was
applied. The response shall be so that 90 % of full reactive capacity will be produced
within 1 second see figure 3.8. The reactive power response shall vary linearly with the
magnitude of step change and setting time shall be maximum 2 seconds (with a peak-
to-peak magnitude of less than 5 % of change in steady state reactive power).
The response of the voltage control system shall be demonstrated by applying suitable
step disturbances. The damping of the control system shall be judged to be adequate if
corresponding active power response to the disturbances decays within 2 seconds of the
application of the step.
3.1.3 Fault Ride Through

Then fault clearance time shall be stated in the Bilateral Agreement. The agreed fault
clearance time will be the slowest allowed fault clerance time and shall not be stated
faster than:
• 80 ms at 400 kV
• 100 ms at 275 kV
• 120 ms at 132 kV
27
Figure 3.8: Response required for an on-load step change [16].
Nothing says that the actual fault clearance time cannot be faster but the probability
that fault clearance times exceed the agreed must not be greater than 2 %.
The operator of an offshore generation plant can chose either to meet fault ride through
criterions on the interface point with the onshore grid or on the low voltage (LV) side of
the offshore platform.
If fault ride through is considered for the PPC, the following is valid:
• The power park module must remain transiently stable and connected to the sys-
tem, without tripping of any generating unit, for at least 140 ms for any voltage
dip (balanced or unbalanced) down to 0 p.u. (at the fault location). The actual
duration of zero voltage will be dependent on local protection arrangements and
circuit breakers operating times.
• After fault clearance the voltage must be restored to minimum 0.9 p.u. within 0.5
seconds.
• Within 0.5 seconds after the fault clearance the active power output shall be re-
stored to 90 % of the pre-fault output (unless changes in available wind have
occurred during the fault).
• The offshore power park module shall provide active power output at least in
28
proportion to retained voltage. But exception is made due to the intermittent
nature of wind power, taking restraints in possible power generation into account
(if the changes occur in the time range of the voltage dip and restoration).
• The power park module shall provide maximum reactive current output during the
dip without exceeding transient rating limits.
When voltage dips occur for duration greater than 140 ms the offshore power park mod-
ule shall remain transiently stable when the voltage dip is balanced. Here, as well, the
recovered active power output is expected to be proportional to the voltage restoration.
In this case the active power shall be restored to at least 90 % of the pre-disturbed
value within 1 second of the restoration of voltage (back to at least 0.9 p.u.) . Though,
here as well are exceptions made for the intermittent nature of wind power.
Figure 3.9 illustrate the meaning of the voltage duration profie for voltage dips with
durations lasting longer than 140 ms. The graph does not illustrate voltage recovery
but for how long, at each voltage level, the wind farm needs to stay connected without
tripping.
Figure 3.9: The principle of the voltage-duration profile for voltage dips lasting longer
than 140ms [2].
Figure 3.9 contains the following important retained voltage levels and their associated
minimum time durtion for which the power park needs to stay connected:
29
• 30 % retained voltage -384 ms
• 50 % retained voltage -710 ms
• 85 % retained voltage -3 minutes
Following conditions prevail for wind power and other non-synchrous units:
• If the wind farm is only operating at less than 5 % or (due to high wind speeds)
more than 50 % of the turbines are set out of service, the requirements stated
above do not apply.
• The non-synchronous generators must withstand the negative phase sequence load-
ing, incurred by clearance of close-up phase-to-phase fault.
3.2 ENTSO-E
The grid code developed by European Network of Transmission System Operators for
Electricity (ENTSO-E) [3] serves the purpose to guard cross-border network issues. More
concrete the targets to be fullfilled with the grid code is:
• To support the competition and functioning of the internal market of electricity

and crossborder trade.
• To facilitate targets for penetration of renewable generation
• To maintain security of supply
Because of the code only serving cross-border issues the code is at some points referring
to national frameworks, which means the grid code issued by National Grid. Otherwise
the categorization that applies to Thanet will be ”Offshore Power Park Modules”. Fur-
ther the ENTSO-E grid code chategorizes offshore power parks dependning on whether
connected with AC, DC or hybrid and also depending on whether the connection is seen
in a single onshore connecting point or as a meshed network. The following summary is
regardning an AC connection in a single onshore point as this is the case for Thanet.
3.2.1 Frequency Control

To secure system stability generating units must stay connected and in operation at least
for specified times when system frequency deviates from the nominal 50 Hz.
30
Frequency Requirement
47 - 47.5 Hz Operation for at least 20 seconds
47.5 - 48.5 Hz Operation for at least 90 minutes
48.5 - 49 Hz To be decided by each TSO but not
less than 90 minutes
49 - 51 Hz Continuous operation required
51 - 51.5 Hz Operation for at least 90 minutes
Table 3.3: Operation requirements with regard to frequency ranges (ENTSO-E)
The grid code requires operation in limited frequency sensitive mode (LFSM) and fre-
quency sensitive mode (FSM).
LFSM is required as a response for both over- and underfrequencies and shall be ac-
tivated between and including 50.2-50.5 Hz and 49.5-49.8 Hz. A droop shall be applied
in the range 2-12 %. Actual frequency threshold and droop are decided by relevant TSO.
For natural reasons the limit to which the power plant module will be able to respond
to underfrequencies will be its maximum capacity.
FSM will be characterized as in figure 3.10, with settings in the ranges listed below.
Actual settings will be issued by the relevant TSO.
Parameters Ranges
|∆P1 |
Active Power range related to Maximum Capacity Pmax 2-10 %
|∆fı | 10-30 mHz

Frequency Response Insensitivity
|∆fı |
fn 0.02-0.06 %
Frequency Response Deadband 0-500 mHz
Droop s1 2-20 %
Table 3.4: FSM ENTSO-E
31
Figure 3.10: Frequency Sensitive Mode Characteristics [3]
In case of overfrequency the active power frequency response is limited by the power
park modules minimum regulating level and in case of underfrequency it is limited by
the modules maximum capacity.
A time delay for activation of frequency response is accepted but must not exceed 2
seconds. The total response shall have responded within 30 seconds.
3.2.2 Voltage Control

To secure stable operation the offshore power park module has to operate within voltage
range of 0.9 pu - 1.05 pu without disconnecting. If the voltage exceeds 1.05 pu but not
1.10 pu operation must proceed for at least 15 minutes.
Nominal Voltage Normal Operation Range

0.9 pu - 1.05 pu Unlimited
1.05pu - 1.10 pu 15 minutes
Table 3.5: Operation due to voltage variations as proposed by ENTSO-E
The offshore power park module is expected to contribute with voltage control through
reactive current injection. The voltage control shall be activated for voltage deviations
32
equal to or less than 10 %. This voltage control shall ensure a reactive current at the
low voltage terminals of the step-up transformer with a contribution with at least 2 % of
the rated current per percent of voltage deviation, see figure 3.11. The reactive current
injection shall be achieved within 40 ms after fault detection. The relevant TSO will
decide the actual setting regarding this fast acting reactive current injection and also
possess the right to decide if requirements regarding assymmetical current injection is
necessary in case of assymetrical faults.
Figure 3.11: Principle of voltage support by fast reactive current injection [3]
With regard to reactive power capability it is for the relevant network operator to decide
an appropriate U-Q/Pmax profile. Referring to figure 3.12 in the grid code the profile
shall not exceed the inner envelope, there is no need for the profile to be rectangular
though. Further the U-Q/Pmax profile cannot be positioned outside the outer envelope
also referring to figure 3.12.
33
Figure 3.12: U-Q/Pmax profile for an offshore power park module [3]
The maximum range of Q/Pmax in Great Britain shall be 0.66 and maximum range of
steady state voltage level 0.1 pu. For profile shapes other than rectangular (compare
figure 3.7), the voltage range represents the highest and lowest values.
The reactive power provision capability requirement applies at the high-voltage ter-
minals of the last step-up transformer to the voltage level at the connection point.
The P-Q chart in figure 3.13 describes the requirements of reactive power capability
when the power park module is operating at active power outputs below maximum ca-
pacity. The power park module shall be able to operate in every point not exceeding the
outer envelope, if all generating units are in service, it shall also be capable of providing
reactive power at any operating point inside the inner envelope also seen in figure 3.13.
Regarding reactive power control the network operator in coordination with relevant
TSO are to decide whether reactive power shall be provided by voltage control, reactive
power control, power factor control or by a combination of two of these.
• In case of voltage control mode the power park module shall contribute with volt-
age control at the connection point. The setpoint voltage shall cover at least 0.95
to 1.05 pu in steps no greater than 0.01 pu with a slope in a range of at least 2 to
7 % in steps no greater than 0.5 %.
When the voltage in the connection point equals the setpoint voltage the reac-
tive power output shall equal 0.
34
• In case of reactive power control mode the power park module shall be able of
setting the reactive power target anywhere in the reactive power range. Setting
steps shall be no greater than 5 MVAr or 5 % of full reactive power (the smallest
value).
• In case of power factor control mode the target power factor as well as the tolerance
in the connection point will be decided by relevant network operator. The power
park module shall control the power factor within the reactive power range with
steps no greater than 0.01 (power factor).
Figure 3.13: P-Q profile for an offshore power park module [3]
3.2.3 Fault Ride Through

The relevant TSO shall define a voltage against time profile at the connection point.
This voltage against time profile shall be expressed by a lower limit, which is the voltage
level at the phase experiencing the lowest retained voltage (regardless the voltage level
at the other phases). This profile shall be expressed as a line within the limits composed
by the red lines in figure 3.14.
35
Figure 3.14: The Fault Ride Through profile shall be expressed as a line at or between
the red lines defining the shaded area [3]
The relevant TSO as well as the relevant network operator shall define pre-fault and
post-fault parameters for the fault ride through capability:
• Pre-fault minimum short circuit capability at the connection point (expressed in

MVA)
• Pre-fault operating point expressed in active power and reactive power output in
the connection point
• Pre-fault voltage at the connection point
• Post-fault minimum short circuit capacity in the connection point (expressed in

MVA)
36
4. Model Work
4.1 Aggregating Thanet wind farm

Aggregating units with the same dynamic properties is a well-established method in
power system analysis and has proven efficient. It roughly means scaling up one wind
turbine to make it represent several units [12].
The power plant controller (PPC) is designed in order to control the wind farm due
to measured power flows in the point of common coupling (PCC). In the way the PPC
is constructed for PSS/E it is not meant to handle several individual wind turbines but
requires the production to be aggregated into a few big generating units.
A wind farm network was provided by Siemens PTI for the PSS/E version 30. This
model has been updated to the later PSS/E version 32 at Vattenfall. The windfarm
consists of two identical radials whereof each radial consists of two radials with the pro-
duction of 90 MW and 60 MW respectively, i.e. 150 MW in each radial summing up to
the total 300 MW when both radials are considered.
For the active power production the turbines individual production is purely additive.
The turbines’ reactive power production is also additive but in this case also the cable
configuration and the impedance have a significant contribution to the reactive power
flow. Therefore, the impedance must be considered when balancing the aggregation.
The aggregated wind farm looks as in figure 4.1.
The turbines were scaled up due to the following initial values, based on one turbine:
Active Power Reactive Power Base Power

3.0 MW 0.178 MVAr 3.14 MVA
Table 4.1: Rated power per wind turbine
Aggregation of the impedance was done roughly. Since the current flowing in the network
is not enclosed in a loop but rather adding up, Kirchoffs law applying to adding all
impedances into one equivalent is not valid. Instead the cable impedance was applied as
37
a proportion of cable resistance, as the losses were known and cable data was provided
[20]. Impedance in transformers was applied as empirically verified, typical values rather
than site specific.
r’ (Ohm/km) x’ (Ohm/km) c’ nF/km

0.095 0.102 290
Table 4.2: Cable data for the internal network
As the grid code requires a zero transfer of reactive power in the PCC the aggregation
of reactive power was further modified to fullfill this criterion in load flow, this resulted
in two types of aggregates with the following production levels:
Active Power1 Reactive Power1 Base Power1

90 MW 7.05 MVAr 94.2 MVA
Active Power2 Reactive Power2 Base Power2
60 MW 4.7 MVAr 62.8 MVA
Table 4.3: Wind turbine aggregate production in load flow
The grid code requires a reactive power range from power factor 0.95 inductive to 0.95
capacitive, i.e. ±49.3 MVAr per sea cable:
* Q = Prated ∗ tan(arccos(0.95))
In order to meet grid code requirements, in PCC, regarding reactive power capabil-
ity the wind farm is equipped with Static Var Compensator Plus (SVC Plus) devices,
one per each export cable. The entire SVC Plus block consist of a step-up transformer,
a MSC, a MSR and a SVC Plus converter (STATCOM). The SVC Plus converter is
rated +25/-22 MVAr at rated terminal voltage and the MSC and MSR 38 MVAr each.
The SVC Plus converter is modeled as the PSS/E standard library model CSTCNT and
MSC and MSR as static shunts [19], [20].
4.2 Study of the overlying net

Figure 4.2 is a part of the transmission grid closest to Thanet, describing other generating
units in the area [17]. As can be seen a nuclear power plant can be found at the
bus referred to as Dungeness. Since this study aims to investigate how the wind farm
responds to disturbances on the overlying grid, disturbances at Dungeness could be a
type of event of interest for the study.
38
Figure 4.1: Network diagram showing the aggregated Thanet wind farm.
39
Figure 4.2: Large production units close to Thanet grid connection [17].
Figure 4.3 is describing the location of Thanet wind farm connection to the British grid.
It can be seen that it is connected to the 132 kV bus known as Richborough. Its closest
connection to the 400 kV grid is in Canterbury North. The grid is represented with a
swing bus calculated as a Thevenin equivalent at the RICH11-node. At 132 kV this is
rated 3406 MVA [21]. Calculating the short circuit ratio (SCR) from the relationship:
SSC
SCR = PW F
With SSC = 3406M V A being the short circuit power in the connecting bus and PW Frated =
300M W being the rated power from the wind farm, this yields a short circuit ratio above
10, which justifies the assumption of a strong grid. However to understand the stiffness
of the grid the relationship between reactance and resistance must also be considered.
According to the Seven Year Statement [17] the X/R ratio can be assumed 10 as a typ-
ical value.
The grid will also be characterized by its inertia. Referring to Pearmine [18] a typi-
cal total machine inertia for a system the size of UK would be around 5 p.u. and is
therefore implemented in the swing bus.
40
Figure 4.3: Geographical location and connection conditions for Thanet wind farm [18].
4.2.1 Model for frequency response

As there is a lack of dynamic data regarding other generating units connected to National
Grid, the best option is to model Dungeness as a negative load. This can be seen in figure
4.4, in the network diagram blue is indicating a voltage level of 400 kV, red 275 kV,
black shows 132 kV and maroon 1-33 kV. However this is purely illustrative as the load
is more or less directly connected to the swing node, RICH11, since no impedances are
applied to the cables. The model is used for the frequency response studies and to keep
the simulations simple, frequency changes will be provoked by active power modulation
in the load.
41
42
Figure 4.4: The model used for frequency studies, representing the overlying net with a
nuclear power plant
4.2.2 Model for fault studies
For the fault ride through (FRT) studies the faults of interest should be performed on
supergrid voltage (275 kV and above). For this reason the swing bus was moved to
Canterbury North (400 kV). The short circuit current in this point was known due to
Siemens PTI’s pre-study and a new Sbase for the Thevenin equivalent with Zth = 1 p.u.
could be calculated [21].
Isc Ua Sbase
34.29 kA 400 kV 23757 MVA
Table 4.4: Thevenin equivalent CANT400
To keep the load flow stable a load of 300 MW, -11 MVAr was implemented. This
yielded the model shown in figure 4.5. This is a simplified model and data for trans-
formers and cables are based on typical data rather than actual data. The impedance
of the transformer connecting bus 2101 to RICH11 was adjusted in order to have a sig-
nificant voltage dip at the PCC.
A dummy bus was implemented to represent the middle of the line connecting bus
2000 and 2101, this one was used for the single line to ground studies whilst solid three
phase short circuit faults were applied to bus 2101.
4.3 Dynamic Parameter Set-Up

All simulations are performed with a simulation time step of 5 ms. The dynamic solution
parameters are of importance for the simulations and these have been modified from
default settings:
Iterations 200
Acceleration 0.1
Delta (Time step) 0.005
Freq. filter 0.02
Table 4.5: Dynamic solution parameters for the simulations
43
Figure 4.5: The swing bus moved to Canterborough North
44
5. Frequency Response
To investigate the frequency response additional active power was injected to the system
through a step change in the production at the negative load, i.e. the nuclear plant. To
keep the simulations simple, at this stage, only changes in active power was performed.
The grid code from National Grid states that production units must be able to op-
erate without tripping up to a system frequency of 52 Hz. It also states that all pro-
duction units rated above 50 Hz set into service after 2006 must be able to contribute
to frequency control by operation in frequency sensitive mode (FSM). When operated
in FSM the deadband must be no greater than ± 0.015 Hz and the droop between 3 -5 %.
With this background following settings was applied :The droop was set to 5 %, the
dead band ± 0.015 Hz, all generating units operated at rated power, e.g. 300 MW and
the total system inertia was assumed 5 p.u. In PSS/E the power plant controller (PPC)
was activated at time = 1 second and the step change in production was initiated at
time = 10 seconds (delayed to make sure the system was stable at the time). Active
power was injected to the system via the negative load and was stepped up until the
limit of 52 Hz was reached to investigate the wind farm’s capability.
Thereafter the wind farm’s ability to respond to low frequency events was investigated.
For this simulation the wind power production must be constrained below available
power. The production was therefore stepped down to 75 % of maximum capacity, i.e.
to 225 MW, but still the maximum capacity was set to 300 MW. Thereafter an increase
in load with 75 MW was performed.
The swing bus will only affect the time of the frequency change but will not contribute
with any frequency control as no governor is implemented in the swing bus model.
According to figure 5.3 a change in active power is seen, however with no governor im-
plemented the swing bus will strive to get back to its pre-fault condition, the time delay
in frequency change that this provokes is due to the swing bus inertia.
45
5.1 High Frequency Events
Figure 5.1 and 5.2 describe the event and illustrate that the limit of 52 Hz is reached
after an injection of additional 232 MW, i.e. 77.33 %, to the system. This gives a power
reduction of 232 MW as a response from the wind power plant. Expressed in %M/0.1
Hz this yields power reduction of -3.9 % MW/ 0.1 Hz, which is more than the grid code
requires (2 % MW/0.1 Hz).
Figure 5.1: Frequency response due to additional 232 MW into the system.
The swing bus will show significant contribution to the frequency change in terms of
its inertia and to get an adequate response time it is of importance that the swing bus’
inertia is representative for the overlying net. The inertia is chosen to 5 p.u. due to pre-
vious discussion, however it is of importance to add that this swing bus representation
does not feature any frequency response to stabilize the frequency. This means that the
swing bus will affect the frequency response in terms of how fast the system frequency
is changing but stepping down in production is a response only featured by the wind
turbines.
Figure 5.3 show the momentary response from the swingbus when applying the mis-
match, however it is also clear that the swing bus is returning to its inital value due
to the response from the wind turbines. The repsonse is represented in p.u. on a 100
MVA base, which show that the swing bus will momentary increase its consumption to
match the extra 232 MW that is injected. However within 20 seconds it will return to
its pre-disturbance consumption.
46
Figure 5.2: Active power reduction due to additional 232 MW into the system.
Figure 5.3: The swing bus response when adding extra 232 MW at the PCC node.
47
5.2 Low Frequency Events
To be able to respond to a low frequency event the active power must be constraint
below the available power. This means that the capability to respond to low frequency
events will vary dependning on how much the wind farm active power is constraint. In
this case it is constraint to a level of 75 % of rated capacity, i.e. 225 MW. Figure 5.4
and 5.5 illustrate the gain in active power output due to a reduction in system frequency.
75 MW is added to the load at time= 10 seconds and frequency change can be seen
in figure 5.4. Figure 5.5 show the active power production due to the frequency change.
A short time delay before the active power response can be seen, this is due to the dead-
band and i excepted behavior. The graph is also illustrating the losses in the seacables
as the outgoing power is below the wind turbines’ production (225 MW initially and 300
MW finally).
Figure 5.4: Frequency response due to shortage of 75 MW.
48
Figure 5.5: Active power production due to a shortage of 75 MW
49
6. Solid Three-Phase Short
Circuit Faults
As stated in the National Grid grid code the fault ride through (FRT) crieteria ap-
plies for faults, symmetrical and asymmetrical, on supergrid voltage, i.e. above 200 kV.
The three-phase short circuit fault was applied on node 2101, which is the 275 kV bus
closest to point of common coupling (PCC), to cause an as severe voltage dip as possible.
The grid code states that the power park module shall withstand a voltage dip down to
0 p.u. at supergrid voltage for at least 140 ms. Due to impedances the voltage at the
turbine terminals will not be 0 p.u. but slightly above.
The fault is applied at time = 1 second, run for 140 ms cleared at time = 1.140 s,
thereafter the simulation is run up to 5 s to investigate that the module can retain the
pre-disturbed operation without large oscillations.
Since voltage and reactive power control will be carried out by the SVC Plus for Thanet
on-site, just dispatching signals to the power plant controller (PPC), the short circuit
faults were chosen to be carried out without activation of the PPC.
6.1 Results from Dynamic Simulation

As can be seen in figure 6.1 the voltage will not drop to 0 p.u. at the PCC even though
the fault is applied close by. The voltage drops to 0.3 p.u. and the remaining voltage
is due to impedance in the transformer connecting node 2101 to RICH11. Investigating
the voltage at the wind turbine terminals, figure 6.2, implies an even higer remaining
voltage which is expected from the impedances in the sea cables and the internal grid.
The grid code requires a recovery of the supergrid voltage (> 275 kV) to at least 0.9 p.u.
of nominal in 0.5 seconds after fault clearance. Voltage recovery is attained for both the
PCC and at the wind turbine aggregates (figure 6.1 and 6.2).
50
Figure 6.1: Voltage dip at PCC due to short circuit fault on the overlying net.
Figure 6.2: Voltage dip at wind turbine terminals due to short circuit fault on the
overlying net.
The active power output from the turbines will drop due to the voltage drop as seen in
figure 6.3 and 6.4. The grid code requires the active power to be restored proportionally
51
with the voltage, i.e. a restoration to at least 90 % of the pre-fault level in 0.5 seconds
after fault clearance. From the figures this is achieved but just barely. To notice is also
the losses in the cables, which is the reason for the wind farm not reaching 300 MW
when measured at the PCC, see figure 6.4.
Figure 6.3: Active power due to a short circuit fault on the overlying network.
52
Figure 6.4: Active power from the entire wind farm.
Figure 6.5 - 6.7 describes the reactive power contribution from one windturbine aggregate
(rated 90 MW) and one of the STATCOM devices. The behaviour from the individual
system parts are described in figure 6.6 and shows that the STATCOM reaches its rated
limit. When measuring at the PCC, figure 6.7, the wind power park contributes with
140 MVAr, which is above the required 98.6 MVAr demanded for a power factor of 0.95.
As no units are tripped it is assumed that no relay-settings are overridden.
Figure 6.8 shows the frequency deviation according to the fault and implies that also
the frequency is brought back close to nominal.
53
Figure 6.5: Reactive power contribution from one wind turbine aggregate.
Figure 6.6: Reactive power contribution from one of the SVC Plus devices.
54
Figure 6.7: Reactive power contribution from the entire wind farm.
Figure 6.8: Frequency at the PCC node.
55
6.2 Voltage and Current Contribution
In the load-flow interface a static study regarding the short circuit fault has also been
executed. This shows the behavior and the symmetry of the fault, however the results
are momentary and the entire voltage drop is not covered in this study. Table 6.1 - 6.4
present the voltages and currents for phase sequence and symmetric sequence due to a
short circuit fault applied on node 2101, for node location and definitions please refer to
figure 4.5. Both voltage and current are expressed in their RMS values.
Phase Voltage [PU]

Node Vbase [kV] Re(VA ) ImVA ) Re(VB ) Im(VB ) Re(VC ) Im(VC )
229 132 0.75 0.2 -0.36 -0.66 -0.39 0.64
2101 275 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 132 0.75 0.2 -0.36 -0.66 -0.39 0.64
125 132 0.77 0.03 -0.36 -0.69 -0.42 0.65
Table 6.1: Phase voltage for a solid three-pase short circuit fault applied to bus 2101.
Sequence Voltage [PU]

Node Vbase [kV] Re(V0 ) ImV0 ) Re(V1 ) Im(V1 ) Re(V2 ) Im(V2 )
229 132 0 0 0.75 0.2 0 0
2101 275 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 132 0 0 0.75 0.2 0 0
125 132 0 0 0.77 0.03 0 0
Table 6.2: Sequence voltage for a solid three-pase short circuit fault applied to bus 2101.
Phase Currents [A]

Node Ibase [A] Re(IA ) ImIA ) Re(IB ) Im(IB ) Re(IC ) Im(IC )
229 to RICH11 438 1005 -752 -1154 -495 148 1247
Thanet to 2101 210 8.2 -363 -318 174 310 189
121 to 229 438 503 -376 -577 -247 74 623
125 to Seawall 438 499 -270 -484 -297 -15 567
Table 6.3: Phase current for a solid three-pase short circuit fault applied to bus 2101.
56
Sequence Currents [A]
Node Ibase [A] Re(I0 ) ImI0 ) Re(I1 ) Im(I1 ) Re(I2 ) Im(I2 )
229 to RICH11 438 0 0 1005 -752 0 0
Thanet to 2101 210 0 0 8.2 -363 0 0
121 to 229 438 0 0 503 -376 0 0
125 to Seawall 438 0 0 499 -270 0 0
Table 6.4: Sequence current for a solid three-pase short circuit fault applied to bus 2101.
A three-phase short circuit fault is a symmetrical fault, which is clarified by symmetrical

sequence only containing a positive sequence. Expressed in phasors the current flowing
out of the PCC is:
IA = 1255� 323◦ , IB = 1255� 203◦ and IC = 1255� 83◦
It is clear that all phases have the same magnitude with a 120◦ displacement.
6.3 Swing Bus Behavior

It is also of interest to study the contribution from the swing bus, which shall be rep-
resenting the system at the connection point. Comparing the frequency as measured at
the PCC node and the frequency at the swing-bus node, large differences can be seen in
the frequency deviation. As this fault is a short circuit fault applied between the PCC
and swing bus one can interpret the results as the wind farm being an isolated system
during the fault.
57
Figure 6.9: Frequency at the swing node, representing the overlying net.
Figure 6.10: Active power measured from the swing bus.
58
Figure 6.11: Reactive power contribution from swing bus/overlying net.
59
7. Unsymmetrical Single Line to
Ground Fault
7.1 Zero sequence data

When investigating an unbalanced fault PSS/E requires a zero sequence data as it per-
forms its calculations in a positive sequence equivalent. This means that the zero se-
quence data have to be prepared manually, which was done according to calculations at
Vattenfall VRD [22] if not stated otherwise.
In PSS/E the zero sequence data file was built up step-wise by:
• Defining the positive and negative sequence of the wind machines, calculated to:
0.0066 + j0.2110 p.u. The zero sequence was ignored, i.e. set to 0 +j0.
• Defining data sequence for the swing node, which was set as 0 + j1 as default [24]
• The cable sequences were set to the following:
– 1000mm2 cable, 2.5 km: z0 = 0.0036 + j0.0086 p.u.

– 630 mm2 cable, 24.3 km: z0 = 0.03535 + j0.0095 p.u
– 300-600 mm2 cable, 8 km: 0.05877 + j0.1983 p.u.
– 275 kV OHL, 2km: 0.00037 + j0.0034 p.u. [23]
– The positive and negative sequence was ignored as it is not required for the
zero sequence data file.
• The transformer data was identified as: z0 = j0.22 p.u. for the three-winding
transformers Y-side. Z0 is left unspecified, which in PSS/E will give an infinite
representation [24], for the Delta-sides to represent the interruption that this trans-
former configuration causes in to the zero sequence.
• The transformer connected to the swing bus is just a representative transformer

and the real data are not known. Therefore it was given typical data derived from
PSS/E example grid: z0=0.0145 +j0.145.
60
The wind turbine generator transformers and the three-winding transformers connecting
the four internal radials are all Y-Delta connected. This means that they will give no
contribution in zero sequence current and their zero sequence impedance can be regarded
infinitely large.
7.2 Voltage and Current Contributions

To estimate the voltage profiles and the current contribution the unbalanced fault is
applied in load-flow. The fault is applied as a single-line to ground fault at phase A at a
dummy bus, which represents the middle of the line between node 2101 and 2000 which
is a 275 kV OHL at the overlying net. This method is according to [24], that states that
line faults will be translated into bus faults in PSS/E.
Figure 4.5 shows the single-line network which was used for the unbalanced fault analy-
sis. Node 229 is the PCC node summing the two wind farm cables up and connecting to
the overlying net (RICH11). Node 121 is the node connecting one of the identical cables
with SVC Plus device and is connected to 229 via a zero impedance cable. Hence 121
represents the same voltage as at 229 but carries only half of the current, i.e. half the
production from the wind farm.
Node 125 is the node connecting to one of the two three-winding transformers sum-
ming two of the wind farm radials. 125 is located in the same radial as 121. One can
see (from the zero sequence current) that the three winding transformer configuration is
of Y-Delta type as all zero sequence current is blocked herein.
When presenting the current in the dummy bus it is with regard to the currents from
the wind farm.
Values presented are given as momentary RMS values.
Phase Voltage [PU]

Node Vbase [kV] Re(VA ) ImVA ) Re(VB ) Im(VB ) Re(VC ) Im(VC )
229 132 0.88 -0.06 -0.54 -0.83 -0.34 0.89
Dummy 275 0 0 -0.34 -0.86 -0.26 0.85
125 132 0.88 -0.06 -0.54 -0.83 -0.34 0.89
121 132 0.89 -0.03 -0.52 -0.85 -0.37 0.89
Table 7.1: Momentary phase voltage for a solid single line to ground fault applied to the
dummy bus.
Table 7.1 shows clearly that the fault is applied on phase A as the voltage drops to zero
for this phase at the dummy bus, the voltages for phase B and C (at the dummy node)
61
on the other hand will not equal the line-to-line voltage as described in section 2.3 as
they, expressed in phasors do not have the same magnitude or the 150◦ displacement:
VB = 0.90� 68◦
VC = 0.89� − 73◦
Due to impedances the voltage on the other buses will not drop to zero. At the buses
229, 125 and 121 the voltage difference between the phases are not significant.
Sequence Voltage [PU]

Node Vbase [kV] Re(V0 ) ImV0 ) Re(V1 ) Im(V1 ) Re(V2 ) Im(V2 )
229 132 0 0 0.93 -0.09 -0.06 0.03
Dummy 275 -0.20 -0.01 0.59 -0.02 -0.39 0.03
125 132 0 0 0.95 -0.06 -0.05 0.03
121 132 0 0 0.93 -0.09 -0.06 0.03
Table 7.2: Sequence voltage for a solid single line to ground fault appliied to the dummy
bus.
Phase Current [A]

Node Ibase [A] Re(IA ) ImIA ) Re(IB ) Im(IB ) Re(IC ) Im(IC )
229 to RICH11 438 1149 -434 -700 -889 -449 1323
Thanet to Dummy 210 -5 -180 -15 107 20 78
125 to Seawall 438 581 -93 -232 -519 -348 612
121 to 229 438 575 -284 -350 -445 -225 662
Table 7.3: Phase currents for a solid single line to ground fault applied to the dummy
bus.
Sequence Current [A]

Node Ibase [A] Re(I0 ) ImI0 ) Re(I1 ) Im(I1 ) Re(I2 ) Im(I2 )
229 to RICH11 438 0 0 1213 -290 -64 -145
Thanet to Dummy 210 -0.04 2 -11 -101 6 -80
125 to Seawall 438 0 0 617 -13 -36 -80
121 to 229 438 0 0 607 145 -32 -72
Table 7.4: Sequence currents for a solid single line to ground fault appliied to the dummy
bus.
Comparing the results with the definition of symmetrical components in sec 2.3 it is easy
to verify that phase A current is obtained from adding the sequence currents I0 , I1 and
62
I2 . In the same manner it is easy to verify that I0 = 13 (IA + IB + IC ).
The current flowing from the PCC, expressed in phasors:
IA = 1128� 339◦ , IB = 1132� 232◦ and IC = 1397� 289◦ .
7.3 Dynamic Simulation

When performing dynamic simulations PSS/E is operating in positive-sequence equiva-
lent of the power system and does not feature any possibility to show negative and zero
sequences.
However, the solution obtained from the static study only provides the momentary re-
sponse values and as these will change with time it is of interest to perform a dynamic
study as well. The grid code states the demand on the wind farm being able to ride-
through balanced and unbalanced faults for at least 140ms.
A simulation is set up similar to the one regarding balanced faults, with a single-line
to ground fault (the most common type of fault) applied on the dummy bus. Reactive
power and voltage will be controlled by the SVC Plus only. As stated the dynamic
simulation only provides a solution from the positive sequence.
Figure 7.1: Voltage profile at the PCC when applying a single line to ground fault at
the dummy bus
63
Figure 7.2: Active power supplied by one wind turbine aggregate when applying a single
line to ground fault at the dummy bus
Figure 7.3: Active power supplied by the whole wind farm when applying a single line
to ground fault at the dummy bus
64
Figure 7.4: Reactive power supplied by one wind turbine aggregate when applying a
single line to ground fault at the dummy bus
Figure 7.5: Reactive power supplied by one SVC Plus device when applying a single line
to ground fault at the dummy bus
65
Figure 7.6: Reactive power from the entire wind farm when applying a single line to
ground fault at the dummy bus
According to figure 7.1 and figure 7.2-7.3 the recovery in voltage and power after fault
clearance is well within the limit of a minimum 90 % recovery.
It is noticable from figure 7.5 that in this case the SVC Plus converter supplies re-
active power up to its upper limit 25 MVAr. Also the losses in the wind farm connection
is noticable as the active power supplied by the wind farm is not at its rated level of 300
MW when measured at the PCC.
Figure 7.2 and 7.3 also shows that the wind turbines are able to compensate some
of the active power immediatly after fault clearance.
66
8. Discussion
8.1 Grid Codes

The litterature study implies that future grid codes will become more demanding due to
system needs when implementing more intermittent power. Several work also points out
that the work of harmonized grid codes is of great importance, for trade of electricity and
harmonized markets. Special interest can also be seen from the wind turbine developers
that at present are struggeling to develop techniques that must be applicable for several
different grid codes. With harmonized grid codes there would be an increased oppor-
tunity for economies of scale, which in the long term might lower the costs of technology.
However, constraining or stepping down production to achieve frequency response means

a loss of revenue. For wind power this loss of revenue can not be motivated as a savings
in fuel costs as is the case for conventional power generation and this should be consid-
ered when putting such demands on wind power.
The fault-ride-through criterion means for wind power an increase of investment costs of
about 5 %, due to technique demands. This is still a reasonable criterion though, as the
allowance of tripping for large units could give rise to not fulfilling the (N-1) criterion,
which would cause larger costs and impact to the system.
The draft from ENTSO-E suggests that a wind power park must be able to supply
reactive power in the range -0.35 p.u. to 0.4 p.u. (based on rated MW) even when
the power park does not yield any production of active power. This implies the need
for FACTS devices being installed, which will also rise the costs and affect return of
investment.
The robustness differs between power systems and when trying to harmonize the grid
codes it is logical that the draft appears demanding for stakeholders acting in strong
power systems. No cost-benefit analysis is performed within this work but should be of
interest for the future work regardning ENTSO-E grid codes. For instance it might be a
better economical solution to rephrase some of the requirements into ancillary services
and in that way making the costs more directly linked to system needs.
67
The ENTSO-E draft is not always clear about its chategorization of production units
and hopefully this will be made clear until the grid code will become common practice.
However also existing grid codes, e.g. National Grid’s, are under constant development.
As mentioned the purpose with the grid codes are to see to system needs and must
therefore change if system needs changes.
Regarding wind power one important consideration is that the grid codes must not
be formulated in a way that prevents efforts for integration of renewable energy. Once
again these arguments should be supported by a cost-benefit analysis as there are mul-
tiple system needs.
8.2 Thanet Simulation Model

The results from this thesis show that Thanet does not show any problems in fulfilling
the grid code with the PPC implemented together with the SVC Plus device and the
results show on an expected behaviour.
One issue of instability, though, is that the power measured at the aggregate nodes
show different behaviour during fault-ride-through studies depending on whether the
turbine side on the node or the grid side of the node is concerned. As this is the same
measuring point, no mismatch shall be present and as can be seen the mismatch disap-
pears after the network has converged after the fault, see figure 8.1. The cause of this
mismatch was not found during the thesis and implies tht further work should be put
on examining the model.
68
Figure 8.1: Mismatch at node 233 depending on which side of the node is chosen for
reference
For frequency response the same stability problems does not seem to exist and the wind
farm module is responding to the frequency deviations as programmed and with a good
performance. However, the frequency response study was sensitive to voltage stability
and load location.
It is also of interest to discuss the representation of the short circuit fault separating
the wind farm into an individual system which was assumed, judging by the different
system frequencies measured at the PCC and at the swing node. One manner to avoid
this sort of behavior could be to build a further representation of the connecting grid to
implement the fault in a meshed grid.
If a fault occur on a radial directly connecting the wind farm to the transmission grid
the fault will separate the wind farm from the transmission grid and requirements on
the wind farm to stay connected to the grid can, due to separation from the grid, not
be fullfilled. The simulation study still shows that no units will trip.
Even if the short circuit would occur on a meshed node the short circuit power from the
connecting grid would be affected and this would affect the fault clearance. For the real
Thanet connection the wind farm is not radially connected to the transmission grid (275
- 400 kV), this means that for a better representation the overlying network should be
improved.
Doubts are still present regarding the correctness of the implementation of the control
69
technologies (PPC and SVC Plus):
• The SVC is represented with a model from the PSS/E standard library, which
might not be a suffcient model when representing the whole control system.
• To be able to use the PPC during fault studies there would be a need to link it
with the SVC Plus, as the SVC Plus should be the device closing the control loop.
• Further the wind farm configuration did not offer ability to apply the PPC at the
PCC node, this is also a desired property.
It is normal that simulation and modelling work are iterative processes and due to system
complexity the cause of stability problems might be hard to detect. Therefore it could
be of good practice to further reduce and simplify the windfarm.
70
8.3 Conclusion and Prospects for Further Work
• Wind power investors and technique developers will most certainly be affected by
the new ENTSO-E grid codes. More demanding grid codes will be cost driving but
might not be motivated for all power systems. For this reason it is of importance
for wind power stakeholders to keep an active part in the discussions regardning
the ENTSO-E grid code.
• A cost-benefit analysis should be initiated regardning the new grid codes. It should
be evaluated what the new requirements will cost, which parts of the power system
that will have to pay for them and which parts that will benefit from them. To
politically encourage the integration of renewable energy with incentives and at
the same time raising the costs is not a very cost-effective solution. On the other
hand interests regarding system stability is of course of great importance.
• Thanet achieves grid code compliance at rated production. However the grid code
requires short circuit studies and frequency response studies also at lower produc-
tion levels.
• The model should be further investigated to find a better respresentation of the

system and give an answer to what is causing the mismatch during the voltage
sag.
• The signals between the SVC Plus and PPC should be linked in the right manner.
• For Vattenfall Renewables and Vattenfall VRD it should be of interest to make

sure that the PPC model implementation will be performed correctly. According
to the study covering grid codes it seems that large wind farms will have to be
equipped with this type of control to become compliant with future grid codes.
Simulation is not only a powerful tool, but also necessary when investigating effect
of disturbances that for natural reasons cannot be applied on the actual grid. It
is therefore of importance that the technologies2 are modelled in simulation tools,
e.g. PSS/E, as close to their natural behaviour as possible.
71
References
[1] John Olav Tande, iuseppe Di Marzio, Kjetil Uhlen, System Requirements on Wind
Power Plants. SINTEF Energy Research, 2007
[2] National Grid, The Grid Code, Issue 4 Revision 9, 4th November, 2009
[3] ENTSO-E, ENTSO-E Draft Network Code for Requirement for Grid Connection
applicable for all Generators 24 January 2012
[4] Ying He, Vattenfall VRD, 2011-06-23
[5] Åke Larsson The Power Quality of Wind Turbines, Department of Electric Power
Engineering CHALMERS University of Technology, 2000
[6] Germán Claudio Tarnowski, Philip Carne Kjær, Søren Dalsgaard,

Anders Nyborg Regulation and Frequency Response Service Capability of Modern
Wind Power Plants, IEEE, 2010.
[7] I. Ehrlich, H. Wrede, C. Feltes Dynamic Behavior of DFIG-Based Wind Turbines

during Grid Faults, IEEE, 2007.
[8] Math H.J. Bollen, Fainan Hassan Integration of Distributed Generation in the Power
System, IEEE, John Wiley and Sons, 2011
[9] Dawei Xiang, Li Ran, Peter J. Tavner, Shunchang Yang Control of a Doubly Fed
Induction Generator in a Wind Turbine During Grid Fault-Ride Through, IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversions, 2006.
[10] Ahmad Osman Ibrahim, Thahn Hai Nguyen, Dong-Choon Lee, Su-Chang Kim,
A Fault-Ride Through Technique of DFIG Wind Turbine Systems Using Dynamic
Voltage Restorers, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2011
[11] Ranko Goic, Damir Jakus, Jakov Krstulovic, Wind Power Plants as Ancillary Ser-
vice Provider, IEEE, 2011.
[12] Pedro Rosas, Dynamic Influences of Wind Power on the Power System, Section of
Electric Power Engineering, Ørsted-DTU, 2003.
72
[13] Göran Andersson, Lennart Söder, Power System Analysis Department of Electric
Power Engineering, KTH, 1998.
[14] Anders Eliasson, Emir Isabegovic , Modeling and Simulation of Transient Fault
Response at Lillgrund Wind Farm when subjected to Faults in the Connecting 130
kV Grid, Chalmers University of Technology, 2009.
[15] R.E. Fehr, A Novel Approach for Understandning Symmetrical Components and
Sequence Networks of Three-Phase Power Systems, IEEE, 2006.
[16] National Grid, Guidance Notes for Power Park Developers, Issue 2, September 2008.
[17] National Grid, National Electricity Transmission System Seven Year Statement,
May 2001
[18] Ross Stuart Pearmine, Review of Primary Frequency Control Requirements on the
GB Power System Against a Background of Increasing Renewable Generation, School
of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, 2006.
[19] M. Steger Thanet Offshore Wind Linited - Thanet SVC Plus, Siemens AG, 2011.
[20] Nemanja Krajisnik, Thanet Offshore Wind Farm - Dynamic Stability Study,
Siemens PTI, V01, 2009.
[21] Nemanja Krajisnik, Thanet Offshore Wind Farm - Short Circuit Contribution
Study, Siemens PTI, V03, 2010.
[22] Peter Olsson, Vattenfall VRD, 2011
[23] Ying He, Störningsanalys och Fellägesbestämning i 70 kV Elsystem, Kungliga

Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm, 1996
[24] Siemens PTI, Program Operational Manual -PSS/E 32.0.5, Siemens Energy Inc.,
2010
73

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPTEC-ES12026

Study of Grid Code Compliance

Thanet Wind Farm

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

Handledare: Urban Axelsson, Ying He

6 Solid Three-Phase Short Circuit Faults 50

7 Unsymmetrical Single Line to Ground Fault 60

The European Network of Transmission System Operators of Electricity (ENTSO-E)

1.3 Previous Work

A simplified model of the connection point, consisting of an accumulated generation

1.6 Project Outline

2.1 Wind power technology

DFIG design works in two operating modes, sub-synchronous and super-synchronous.

2.2 System stability

2.2.1 Frequency control

Participation of wind power in frequency control generally requires operation in non-

2.3 Symmetrical Components and Unbalanced Faults

Figure 2.3: An unbalaced situation expressed in symmetrical components [15]

Analysing figure 2.4 leads to the following sequence currents:

when translating this back to phase currents the following is valid:

Figure 2.5: Delta -Wye transformer zero-sequence current behavior [15]

2.4 Power Plant Controller -PPC

Depending on grid code, there might be demands on MSC:s or STATCOM:s to sup-

3.1 National Grid

3.1.1 Frequency Control

Table 3.1: Frequency National Grid

Frequency response (primary, secondary and high) verification is required at six MW

MLP1 Designed Minimum Operating Level

Nominal Voltage Normal Operation Range

Table 3.2: Voltage ranges National Grid

• C is equivalent (expressed in MVAr) to -5 % of rated MW, i.e. -0.05 p.u. reactive

• D is equivalent (expressed in MVAr) to 5 % of rated MW, i.e. 0.05 p.u. reactive

3.1.3 Fault Ride Through

• 50 % retained voltage -710 ms

• 85 % retained voltage -3 minutes

• To support the competition and functioning of the internal market of electricity

• To facilitate targets for penetration of renewable generation

• To maintain security of supply

3.2.1 Frequency Control

Table 3.3: Operation requirements with regard to frequency ranges (ENTSO-E)

|∆fı | 10-30 mHz

Frequency Response Deadband 0-500 mHz

Table 3.4: FSM ENTSO-E

3.2.2 Voltage Control

Nominal Voltage Normal Operation Range

Table 3.5: Operation due to voltage variations as proposed by ENTSO-E

3.2.3 Fault Ride Through

• Pre-fault minimum short circuit capability at the connection point (expressed in

• Pre-fault voltage at the connection point

• Post-fault minimum short circuit capacity in the connection point (expressed in

4.1 Aggregating Thanet wind farm

Active Power Reactive Power Base Power

Table 4.1: Rated power per wind turbine

r’ (Ohm/km) x’ (Ohm/km) c’ nF/km

Table 4.2: Cable data for the internal network

Active Power1 Reactive Power1 Base Power1

Table 4.3: Wind turbine aggregate production in load flow

4.2 Study of the overlying net