Wind 101: Tutorial on Fundamentals of Wind Energy

SAND2010-4954P
Conducted by: Wind Power Coordinating Committee (WPCC)
Sponsored by: Power System Dynamic Performance Committee (PSDP), Transmission and Distribution Committee
(T&D), Power System Operation Committee (PSO), Energy Development and Power Generation Committee (EDPG),
Power System Analysis, Computing and Economics Committee (PSACE), and Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG)
IEEE T&D Conference and Exposition
New Orleans, LA – April 19, 2010

Section IV
Wind Power Plant Models For Bulk
System Studies
Abraham Ellis - aellis@sandia.gov

March 2010
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company,
for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration
under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
 Outline
• Load flow representation
– Single-machine equivalent model
– Reactive power modeling
• Dynamic representation
– Manufacturer-specific models
– WECC generic models
– Importance of modeling in stability studies
• Time permitting: short circuit
• Current industry activities on modeling
The material in this presentation reflects work conducted by or in conjunction with the IEEE
Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation Working Group, and the WECC Wind
Generation Modeling Group.

2
 Wind Turbine Generator Types
Four basic WTG types based on grid
interface technology
Type 1 Type 2
– Type 1: Fixed-speed, conventional Plant
Plant
Feeders

induction generator generator

Feeders
generator

PF control ac PF control
– Type 2: Variable slip, induction capacitors to
dc
capacitors

Slip power
generators with variable rotor as heat loss

resistance

– Type 3: Variable speed, doubly-fed Type 3 Type 4

asynchronous generators with Plant
Feeders Plant
rotor-side converter generator ac dc
Feeders
generator to to
ac dc dc ac
– Type 4: Variable speed, to to
dc ac
asynchronous generators with full full power

converter interface partial power

 Partial List of WTGs
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Vestas NM72 Vestas V80 GE GE 2.5XL
1.65 MW, 50/60 Hz 1.8 MW, 60Hz 1.5/3.6, 50/60 Hz 2.0 MW, 50/60 Hz
Vestas V82 Vestas V47 Gamesa G80/83/87/90 Clipper
1.65 MW, 50/60Hz 660 kW, 50/60 Hz 2 MW, 50 Hz 2.5 MW, 50/60 Hz
BONUS Gamesa G80 NORDEX N80 Enercon E66
1.3 MW, 50/60 Hz 1.8 MW, 60 Hz 2.5 MW, 50Hz 1.8 MW, 50 Hz

BONUS Suzlon S88 REPower MD70/77 Enercon E70

2.3 MW, 50 Hz 2.1 MW, 50Hz 1.5 MW, 50Hz 2.0 MW, 50 Hz
Mitsubishi MWT100a REPower MM70/82/92 Siemens SWT93
1 MW, 60 Hz 2.0 MW, 50Hz 2.3MW, 50/60Hz
Suzlon S66 Mitsubishi MWT-92/95
Samsung 2.5 MW
1.25 MW, 50 Hz 2.4 MW
Fuhrlaender FL
2.5 MW, 60 Hz
Vestas V90
1.8/3.0 MW
Acciona 1.5/3.0 MW
 Power Flow Representation
• Single-Machine Equivalent Model
Pad-mounted
Interconnection Station Collector Transformer
Line Transformer(s) System Equivalent
Equivalent
Wind Turbine
W Generator
POI or Equivalent
connection POI or Connection to
to the grid Collector System Transmission System Plant-level PF Correction
Station Reactive Shunt Capacitors
Compensation

Interconnection
Transmission Line
…or in special cases (e.g., heterogeneous
feeders or WTGs of different types)…

W Type 4
WTG
Individual WTGs
Pad-mounted
Interconnection Station Collector Transformer
Feeders and Laterals (overhead Line Transformer(s) System Equivalent
and/or underground) Equivalent
W Type 1
WTG

POI or Connection to
Transmission System Plant-level PF Correction
Reactive Shunt Capacitors
Compensation
 WPP Power Flow Parameters
• Equivalent collector system
– Impedance (Zeq) and susceptance (Beq)
• Equivalent pad-mounted transformer
– Impedance (ZTeq), taps
• Equivalent generator
– Real power level (Pgen)
– Effective reactive power level, limits (Qgen, Qmin, Qmax)
– Shunt compensation at terminals, if present (Qcap)
– Do not net Qgen and Qcap
• All other components represented explicitly
 Equivalent Collector System
• Equivalent impedance depends on WPP size, collector system
topology, and line type (OH/UG)
• If wind plant conductor schedule is available, Zeq and Beq can be
computed as follows:
– For radial feeders with N WTGs and I branches:
I

 ii
Z n 2
I
Z eq  Req  jX eq  i 1
2
Beq   Bi
N i 1

ni = number of WTGs connected upstream of the i-th branch

– Equations can be implemented easily on a spreadsheet
• This reproduces real/reactive losses assuming output from WTGs
is approximately uniform
 Equivalent Collector System
• Example with N=18 and I=21:
 Sample Equivalent Collector Data
Some segments are
overhead

• Use educated estimate value for R, X

and B if detailed collector system
impedance data is unavailable
 Equivalent WTG Representation
Set reactive level (Qgen) and limits (Qmin, Qmax), according to WTG type,
control mode and power level (Pgen)

Type 1 and Type 2 WTGs:

• Induction generator PF ≈ 0.9 under-excited; therefore Qgen = ½ Pgen , fixed!
• Model PF correction capacitors explicitly to capture voltage effect
• Set PF correction capacitors to compensate for PF = 1 at Vrated
• For example, for WPP rated at 100 MW; Qgen = Qmin = Qmax = 50 Mvar;
then assume 50 Mvar shunt capacitor at the equivalent WTG terminals.

Type 3 and Type 4 WTGs, several reactive limits and control mode are possible:
• If operated at fixed power factor (Pfref) and do not participate in voltage control
set Qgen = Qmin = Qmax = Pgen  tan(arccos (PFref))
• If WTGs participate in voltage control and WTGs have PF range  0.95 (typical),
set Qmax =  Qmin = Pgen  tan[arccos (0.95)]
• For example, for 100 MW WPP using WTGs with +/-0.95 PF range,
set Qmax = 33 Mvar and Qmin = 33 Mvar
• In practice, WTG participation in voltage control takes place when WPP plant-
level controller dynamically modifies Pfref to maintain voltage at, e.g., the POI.
 Equivalent WTG Representation
Reactive Power Capability of WTG: Check spec sheet!

0.5 Prated

Full capability at any

operating point
Reactive Power

PF = +/- 0.90 PF = +/- 0.95

0
Prated

-0.5 Prated

Voltage Control Options

Control

Interconnection
Line Wind Turbine
W Generator
Collector Equivalent
Pad-mounted
POI Station System
Transformer
Transformer(s) Equivalent
Equivalent
 Plant Level Reactive Compensation
If present, model plant-level compensation explicitly

Static (discrete-step) devices – Switched Capacitors (MSC or TSC)

 Represent as constant impedance shunt device to capture V2 characteristic
 Could be treated as fixed or automatically adjustable (e.g., based on voltage),
depending on control mode

Dynamic (continuously variable) devices (SVC, DVAR, STATCOM)

 Modeled in power flow as generators with Q-only capability
 Not quite correct, but needed for compatibility with dynamic models
 Generator model’s Qmax, Qmin limits should be set based on the
continuous Mvar rating of dynamic device (use transient overload rating
in the dynamic model)

TSC/TCR
STATCOM
SVC
 Collector System Effects
W in d n e t M W

V o l t a g e s e t- p o i n t

• WTGs may not be able to

restored to normal

W in d n e t M v a r

provide rated reactive power

support due to terminal S w itched off shunt caps
at nearby transm ission station

voltage limits. Reduced PO I voltage

set point in 2% increments

• The WPP reactive power Practical Q m in = - 1 0 6 M va r ( n e t t o 3 4 5 k V ) .

capability can be determined R e a c h e d m i nim u m 3 4 . 5 k V f e e d e r v o l t a g e . A f e w W T G s t r i p p e d o n

p r o l o n g e d l o w v o l t a g e c o n d i t i o n ( < 9 0 % o f n o m i n a l).
C a p a b ility w o u ld b e h i g h e r i f 3 4 5 k V v o l t a g e w e r e h i g h e r t h a n d u r i n g t h e

by field test or by examination test

P r a c t ic a l Q m a x = + 2 5 M V a r ( n e t t o 3 4 5 k V ).

performance data during S o m e W T G s r e a c h m a x i m u m t e r m in a l v o lt a g e a n d c o u l d

no longer increase pow er factor. A f ew W T G s tripped
due to converter over -t e m p e r a t u r e .

system events.
W in d n e t M W

• Actual reactive power

capability is voltage- W in d n e t M v a r
V o lt a g e s e t p o i n t
r e s t o r e d t o n o r m a l,
( t u r b in e s b e g i n t o r e -

dependent. synchronize)

Reduced voltage at nearby

t r a n s m is s io n s t a t io n b y 4 , 4 a n d 2 k V

Voltage controller activated

(W T G s p r e v i o u s l y a t u n i t y p f )
 Reactive Power Representation
Vt V=1.0
P

Q 0.02 + j0.13 0.04 + j0.25 0.06+ j0.37

1.18
1.12
Vt (p.u.)

V(P) at
V(P) vedQQ= =- 0.35P
-0.35P
1.06 "Asynkrongenerator"
“Induction generator”
Spenning [p.u.]

1
0.94 vedQQ= =0.00.0
V(P) at
Voltage,

“Power factor control”

"Mvar-regulering"
0.88
0.82 V(P)
V(P) at
vedQQ= =0.2P
0.2P
“Voltage control”
"Aktiv kompensering"
0.76
(spenningsregulering)
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Active
Aktivpower, P (MW)
effekt [MW]

K. Uhlen, K., Y. Coughlan, J. Kehler, A. Ellis. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation Modeling and Controls”,
IEEE PES PSCE, Seattle, WA, March 2008
 WTG Dynamic Characteristics
WTG General Dynamic Characteristics

Fixed speed (slip < 2%). Dynamics dictated by induction machine torque-speed
Type 1 curve. Shaft dynamics important.

Nearly fixed speed. Fast control of torque-speed characteristic through external

Type 2 rotor resistance. Shaft dynamics important.

Variable speed. Fast control of rotor and stator currents even during severe
Type 3 disturbances by converter (except when crowbar). Machine dynamics dominated
by converter.

Variable speed. Full, fast control of rotor and stator currents via fast, four
Type 4 quadrant converter. Machine dynamics completely masked by converter.
WTG Dynamic Models
 Dynamic Representation of WPPs
• Detailed Vs. Approximate Models
– For specialized studies involving control and torsional interactions,
protection coordination and transient analysis, detailed (e.g., 3-phase)
models are needed
– For large-scale transmission studies, approximate models (e.g., positive-
sequence) are required
• Manufacturer-specific Vs. Generic Models
– Manufacturer-provided models (even reduced-order positive-sequence)
tend to be machine-specific, proprietary, user-written
– Models for interconnection and planning studies should be generic,
standard-library, non-proprietary (similar to other grid models)
• A Balance Is Needed
– NERC has identified as critical need for grid reliability
– Efforts to make progress on generic models currently underway
WECC,IEEE and other groups, with wide industry participation
 Manufacturer--Specific Models
Manufacturer
• Validation of GE Type 4
Real Power comparison
model against detailed
WindTrap model

Reactive Power comparison

Source: From GE (K. Clark)

 WECC Generic Models
• Goals
– Specify generic, non-proprietary positive-sequence models for WTGs, that
can be used to represent WPPs
– “Generic” means that the models should be parametrically adjustable to
any specific wind turbine of the same type or topology
– Generic models should reproduce major behavior of equipment
 For example, representation of aerodynamic conversion should be
simplified to avoid using proprietary details; however, effect of
aerodynamics should be emulated, not ignored.
– Models should be validated
 Field recordings
 Detailed, validated manufacturer-specific models
– Models should be implemented, fully documented and fully supported as
standard library model in software used by transmission planners
 For WECC and most of North America, this means PSSE and PSLF
 Why Generic Models
Models??
• Vendor-specific models are useful, but not enough
– Include details specific to a particular design
– Proprietary, user-written, non-standard
– Difficult to access, utilize and maintain
– Not compatible across simulation platforms
– Vendor-specific models developed by simulation software vendors are
more stable, but the above typically holds
• Generic models for other system components are routinely used
for transmission planning and interconnection studies
• Generic models for WTGs are technically feasible
– WTG performance and modeling requirements are better understood
 What is a Generic Model?
• A generic model…
– Does not require any proprietary information
– Is parametrically adjustable to any specific wind turbine of the
same type available on the market
– Initializes from power flow without any special scripts
– Is a standard-library model in major simulation programs
• Intended for grid planning studies, which focus on grid
disturbances, not wind disturbances
• Simplified aerodynamic model to avoid proprietary Cp
curves; too much simplification is not good either
– Performance would be unacceptable if aerodynamic effects are
ignored (e.g. constant mechanical power)
 WECC Generic Models
• Technical Specifications (ca. 2005)
– Application: electrical disturbances (not wind disturbances), primarily grid faults
external to the plant, typically 3 to 6 cycle duration.
– Typical simulation time frame of interest are 20 to 30 seconds, with a ¼ cycle
integration time step. Wind speed assumed to be constant.
– Model able to handle oscillatory modes from dc to 5 Hz.
– Initialize from power flow at full or partial power without special scripts; able to
handle user-specified wind speed
– Speed and voltage protection modeled separately
– Represent machine inertia and first shaft torsional mode characteristics
– The models should be applicable to strong and weak systems with a short circuit
ratio of 2.5 and higher at the point of interconnection
– Shunt capacitors and any other reactive support equipment modeled separately
with existing standard models

– NOTE: Generic models were NOT meant to simulate behavior involving large
frequency excursions. This will be addressed in future upgrades.
 Status of WECC Modeling Effort
• Completed generic models implemented as standard-library
models in PSSE/PSLF completed
Model Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Generator wt1g wt2g wt3g wt4g
PSLF/17 Excitation / Controller wt2e wt3e wt4e
Turbine wt1t wt2t wt3t
Pitch Controller/Pseudo Gov. wt1p wt2p wt3p

Generic model WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4

PSSE/32 Generator WT1G WT2G WT3G WT4G
El. Controller WT2E WT3E WT4E
Turbine/shaft WT12T WT12T WT3T
Pitch control WT3P
Pseudo Gov/: aerodynamics WT12A WT12A

• Key Participants
– Siemens (PSSE), General Electric (PSLF), DOE (Sandia National Laboratories
and NREL), Consultants, Universities, International
• Current focus
– Additional model validation, refinement, upgrade
– Identification of generic model parameters for different WTGs
 WT1 Generic Model
Basic Description
Modules: WT1T, WT1P, WT1G

Generator model is conventional induction

machine

Default model data provided in documentation

(Mitsubishi MWT1000A)

Single or two-mass shaft model

Plant Power factor correction capacitor must be

Feeders provided and initialized from load flow data
generator

PF control
capacitors
 WT1 Generic Model
WT1P
Pitch Control Model

speed
From
Kp
Turbine pimax
Model
wref pmech
1 1
 
1 + sT1 1 + sT2
To
s2 s3
Ki 1 pimin Governor
Model
pgen 1 s
 Kdroop
1 + sTpe s1
From
Generator
s0
Model

pref

NOTE: For disturbances involving sustained frequency drops this is not necessarily
accurate – should set pimax to rated turbine output to avoid an unrealistic increase
in pmech (and therefore pgen) during simulation.
 WT1 Generic Model
Ht = Htfrac H

Hg = H - Ht
2
Hg
K = 2 (2 Freq1 ) H t
H

WT1T t 
Two-mass shaft - +
From Pmech Tmech t
Governor . 
1 1
 t
. 2Ht s

Model + +
- s0
+
tg tg 1 tg
Dshaft  s
K
- s1
+
Pgen g
From
. Telec 
1 1
g
. 
Or…
Generator 2Hg
- s
Model +
+ s2 +

g

From
Generator
Model

WT1T
Pgen
Single mass shaft
(Htfrac = 0) From Pmech
.
Tacc
1 1 
Governor  .
2H s
Model + s0
To
Generator
Model and
Governor
Model

D
WT1 Model Comparison
Against Mitsubishi MWT-1000A Manufacturer Model
 WT2 Generic Model
Basic Description
Modules: WT2T, WT2E, WT2A/WT2P, WT2G

Generator model is conventional induction

machine (WT2G same as WT1G model)

Default model data provided in documentation

(Vestas V80)

Single or two-mass shaft model (WT2T same as

WT1T model)

Power factor correction capacitor must be

Plant
Feeders provided and initialized from load flow data
generator

ac PF control
to capacitors
dc
Slip power
as heat loss
 WT2 Generic Model
From
Pgen
WT2E Generator
Kp
1 + sTp
Model
Rmax
s1
-
Rext
 Kpp + Kip / s

+ s0
To
Speed Rmin Generator
From  Kw Model
Turbine 1 + sTw
Model
s2 P vs. slip curve

WT2P
(same as WT1P) speed
From
Kp
Turbine pimax
Model
wref pmech
1 1
 
1 + sT1 1 + sT2
To
s2 s3
1 pimin Governor
pgen Ki s Model
1
 Kdroop
1 + sTpe s1
From
Generator
s0
Model

pref
WT2 Model Comparison
Against Vestas V80 Manufacturer Model
 WT3 Generic Model
Vreg bus
Basic Description
Vterm

Ip (P) Modules: WT3T, WT3E, WT3P, WT3G

Command
Eq (Q)
Converter
Control Command
Generator/
Converter
Generator is modeled as controlled current
Model Model Pgen , Qgen injection
Pgen , Qgen

Power Speed
Shaft Default model data provided in documentation
Speed Pgen
Order Order (GE 1.5 MW)
Blade
Pitch Wind Single or two-mass shaft model
Pitch Control
Turbine
Model
Model
Plant level reactive control options available for
wind farm model (PF control, Q control and
Plant
voltage control)
Feeders
generator

ac dc
to to
dc ac

partia l power
 WT3 Generic Model
WT3T
Option for 2-mass
representation

WT3P
Pitch Control Model

NOTE: Pset should normally be 1.0

unless it is controlled by a separate
active power control model, e.g. to
provide governing response. It must
always be greater than or equal to the
initial power output of the WTG.
 WT3 Generic Model
WT3E
Reactive Power Control W ind Plant Reactive Power Control Emulation
Model V rfq
Q max
K iv / s
+ +
Vc 1 1
 1/F n 
1+ sT r Q wv 1+ sT c
K pv +
s3 s5
1+ sT v Q min
s2

PFA ref
tan
varfl
g
1
Q max
P gen -1
1 Q ord
x
1+ sT p
Power Factor Q cmd
Regulator s6 0 Q min
Q ref

Q gen V term
XI Qmax vltflg
V max
Q cmd V ref 1 E q cmd
 K qi / s  K qv / s
+ + To
s0 s1 0 Generator /
V min XI Converter
Qmin
Model
 WT3 Generic Model
WT3E
Active Power (Torque)
Control Model

1.2

1.0

0.8
Power (p.u.)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
Turbine Speed Setpoint (p.u.)
 WT3 Generic Model
WT3G
Generator / Converter
Model

Isorc
Eq"cmd 1 -1 High Voltage
(efd) 1+ 0.02s X" Reactive Current
From s0 Management
exwtge
LVPL & rrpwr
Low Voltage
IPcmd 1 IPlv Active Current
(ladifd) 1+ 0.02s Management
From s1
exwtge

LVPL

Vterm
1.11
Lvplsw = 0
LVPL V
1
jX"
Lvplsw = 1 1+ 0.02s
V s2
zerox brkpt
(0.50) (0.90)
Low Voltage Power Logic
 WT3 Model Comparison
Against GE1.5 Manufacturer Model

Small System Large System

 WT4 Generic Model
Basic Description
Modules: WT4T, WT4E, WT4G

No generator model. Just converter represented

as controlled current injection (WT4G same as
WT3G model)

Default model data provided in documentation

(GE 2.x)

Machine dynamics not modeled (it is completely

Plant
Feeders
decoupled from the grid by the converter)
ac dc
generator
to to
dc ac
Plant level reactive control options available for
wind farm model (PF control, Q control and
voltage control)
full power
 WT4 Generic Model
Vrfq
(vref)
Qmax
WT4E Vreg
1
+ Kiv/s
s4
+ 1
Qord
 1/fN 
Converter Electrical 1+ sTr
s3
-
Kpv + Qwv 1+ sTc
s5
Qmin varflg
Control Model
1+ sTv
WindCONTROL s2
Emulator
1
Qmax Qcmd

PFAref Qref
tan (vref) 0 -1 Qmin
(vref)

0
Pelec 1 1
x Qord
1+ sTp (vref)
s6
pfaflg

Qgen
Vmax Iqmx
- IQcmd
Qcmd Vref
 Kqi / s  Kvi / s
+ s0 + - s1 (efd)
Vterm Vmin Iqmn to Wind
Generator
Model
P,Q Priority Flag wt4g
Converter Current Limit

Ipmx IPcmd
Pord Porx .
.
(vsig)
(ladifd)
from Wind
to Wind
Turbine Model
Generator Model
wt4t Vterm wt4g
 WT4 Generic Model
P,Q Priority Flag
WT4E (pqflag)

Converter Current
Limiter Model 0 1

Vt
Iqmn Iqmx Iqmx Iqmn

Iqmxv

Q Priority 1.6 P Priority

qmax
Vt
1.0

-1 -1
Iqmxv

Iqhl Minimum

Minimum Minimum

IPcmd
ImaxTD ImaxTD2 - IPcmd2

IQcmd
ImaxTD2 - IQcmd2
Iphl

Minimum Minimum

Ipmx Ipmx
 WT4 Generic Model
WT4T
Turbine Model

Pref dPmx Pref

Pelec - Kip
+ Pord
1 piin piou
 Kpp + 
From Wind
1 + sTpw + s -
Generator Model s0
- s1
To wt4e
(vsig)
wt4g
(pelec) dPmn

sKf
1 + sTf
s2
 WT4 Model Comparison
Against GE 2.5 MW Manufacturer Model

Terminal Voltage

Pelec

Qelec

At T=1.0 sec., place fault at POI,

clear in 250 ms
 WT4 Model Verification
Against ABB Converter PSCAD Model

From “WECC - Model Specifications, Validation”, presentation by Slavomir Seman, 7/29/09 at the IEEE PES
General Meeting, Calgary, Canada.
 Response to Frequency Disturbances
• The WECC generic models were not developed with the intent of
being accurate for significant frequency excursions
– Due-diligence checks show that the response is “reasonable”
• Current generic models do not reproduce the behavior of
advanced power management features that are imminently
becoming available from some manufacturers
– Programmed inertia, up ramp limits
– Frequency droop characteristic (reserve by spilling wind)
• These observations apply to many existing manufacturer models
as well—check model documentation!
• Generic models being improved to better represent behavior
during frequency disturbances, other improvements
– WECC Generic Models Version 2.0
 Detailed Vs. Single-
Single-Machine?
3-phase fault, different wind speed for each feeder
QWT = 0.435 0 -0.435

1 and 2 feeders

P34.5 kV

4 feeders = Typical

2 and 4 feeders = Typical

Q34.5 kV

1 feeder

From « Validation of the WECC Single-Machine Equivalent Power Plant », Presented DPWPG-WG Meeting at
IEEE PSCE, March 2009 - Jacques Brochu, Richard Gagnon, Christian Larose, Hydro Quebec
 Effect of Turbine Controls
CIMTR3 ACTIV CIMTR3

Pmech Tturb Dynamic Pmech

wind
AG turbine
AG
t
model

“Traditional” modelling of wind farm; Modelling of the wind farm with a dynamical
fixed mechanical power as input to the wind turbine model with fixed mechanical
generator model torque as input to the turbine

Voltage response after a temporary three-phase short-circuit at first PCC

1.1

1
1
0.9
Fixed torque input
0.8 W ith dynamic WT-model
0.8

Voltage bus 70441 [pu]

Voltage bus 71352 [pu]

Fixed torque input

0.7 W ith dynamic WT-model

0.6 0.6

0.5
0.4
0.4

0.3
0.2
0.2

0.1 0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim e [s] Tim e [s]

Voltage WTG terminal (0.69 kV) Voltage at point of common connection (132 kV)

K. Uhlen, K., Y. Coughlan, J. Kehler, A. Ellis. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation

Modeling and Controls”, IEEE PES PSCE, Seattle, WA, March 2008
45
 Effect of Shaft Stiffness
1.2
Fixed torque
1.1
(K = )

0.9
Voltage bus 71352 [pu]

0.8 K = 2.0
Base case, K = 0.61
0.7 K = 0.41

0.6

0.5 Increasing stiffness

0.4

0.3

0.2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]

K. Uhlen, K., Y. Coughlan, J. Kehler, A. Ellis. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation

Modeling and Controls”, IEEE PES PSCE, Seattle, WA, March 2008
 Effect of Reactive Compensation
3 Phase Fault cleared in 0.150 s
SVC
110 km
Grid
22/0.69kV
~ BUS7 BUS8
Load
BUS1 25 km P 600 MW
22/132 kV Q 100 MVAr

~ BUS3 BUS5 BUS6 20 MVAr

Cap Bank
22/0.69kV
BUS2
Wind Turbines 22/132 kV
2 X 100 MVA
BUS4

~ Synch. Gen.
200 MVA
SVC 130 MVAr SVC 150 MVAr
SVC Reactive Power Voltage at different terminals
140 1.2 220 1.2
Voltage BUS6
1.1 Voltage BUS3 200 1.1
120
Voltage BUS1
1 180 1
SVC Reactive Power[MVar]

100 0.9 160 0.9

Reactiva Power [MVar]

Voltage [p.u.]
0.8 140 0.8
Voltage[p.u]

80
0.7 120 0.7
60
0.6 100 0.6

40 0.5 80 0.5

0.4 60 0.4
20 BUS6
0.3 40 0.3 BUS3
BUS1
0 0.2 20 0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time[sec] time[sec] Time []p.u. Time [s]

K. Uhlen, K., Y. Coughlan, J. Kehler, A. Ellis. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation

Modeling and Controls”, IEEE PES PSCE, Seattle, WA, March 2008
 Voltage/Frequency Tolerance
• Dynamic simulations should include voltage (and frequency) protection
for WTGs (as well as other WPP auxiliary components)
• Even for the same WTG, protection settings vary on a project-by-project
basis – check with manufacturer!
Example for GE 1.5 MW

K. Clark. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation Modeling and Controls”, IEEE PES PSCE,
Seattle, WA, March 2008
 Short Circuit Behavior
• Wind generators are NOT synchronous generators!
• Fault contribution from various types of WTGs differ
– Type 1 &Type 2: short circuit behavior similar to induction machine
• High initial fault current, rapidly decreasing as flux collapses
• For Type 2, rotor resistance would significantly reduce fault current if the fault
occurs when it is fully inserted
– Type 3 & Type 4: short circuit behavior is a function of controls
• Generally, fault current would be at or slightly above rated value, but…
• Significant differences are possible depending on WTG design
• For instance, a Type 3 WTG may be designed to “crowbar” to limit converter
current if a fault is severe (inside the plant), in which case, its fault contribution
is similar to a Type 1 WTG
• Current technology, currents remain under control even for severe faults
 Short Circuit Behavior

• Effect of crowbar on fault for a Type WTG Main : Graphs Main : Graphs
Gen vol. rms (p.u.) Gen vol. rms (p.u.)
1.20 1.00
0.90
1.00 0.80
0.80 0.70
0.60
(per unit)

(per unit)
0.60 0.50
0.40
0.40 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10
0.00 0.00

NDH NDH

Crow Crow

Stator RMS current, A Stator RMS current, B Stator RMS current, C Stator RMS current, A Stator RMS current, B Stator RMS current, C
3.50 7.0
3.00 6.0
2.50 5.0
2.00 4.0
Istator (kA)

Istator (kA)
1.50 3.0
1.00 2.0
0.50 1.0
0.00 0.0
Stator Current, A Stator Current, B Stator Current, C Stator Current, A Stator Current, B Stator Current, C
6.0 10.0
4.0 7.5
5.0
2.0 2.5
Istator (kA)

Istator (kA)
0.0 0.0
-2.5
-2.0
-5.0
-4.0 -7.5
-6.0 -10.0
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 ... 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 ...
... ...
... ...

Transmission fault, converter retains Close-In fault, converter crowbars and

control of currents fault behavior is similar to induction
generator until converter regains conrtol
 Short Circuit Behavior
• From the transmission side, WPPs can be considered weak
sources of short circuit currents
– This can be a challenge in weak parts of the system, where wind
generation is often sited
• Collector system effects should to be taken into account
– Grounding transformers providing ground source
– STATCOM devices also contribute fault current (similar to Type 4)
• Existing short-circuit simulation tools do not allow for detailed
analysis of WPP short circuit studies
– Detailed electromagnetic transient models may be needed to support
a full protection design
– Voltage behind-impedance may be used as a conservative estimate
 Related Modeling Activities
• Manufacturers and Program Developers, Consultants
– Continue to improve all types of models
• WECC/IEEE Work Groups
– Validate, improve document generic models
• DOE/EnerNex/UWIG
– Validate, document, improve generic models
• IEC TC88 WG27
– Specify dynamic simulation models for WTG, WPP and auxiliary equipment
– Specify procedures for validation
• NERC IVGTF (Task 1.1: Planning)
– Valid, generic, non-confidential, and public standard power flow and stability
(positive-sequence) models […] needed for variable generation
– Review the Modeling, Data and Analysis (MOD) standards to identify any need
modifications to address modeling and model validation
 Selected References
• Y. Kazachkov, S. Stapleton, “Do Generic Dynamic Simulation Wind Turbine Models Exist?”, WindPower 2005, Denver,
Colorado, May 2005
• WECC WGMG, “Generic Wind Plant Models for Power System Studies”, WindPower 2006, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2006
• Muljadi, E.; Butterfield C.P.; Ellis, A.; Mechenbier, J.; Hocheimer, J.; Young, R.; Miller, N.; Delmerico, R.; Zavadil, R.;
Smith, J. C. “Equivalencing the Collector System of a Large Wind Power Plant.” IEEE Power Engineering Society,
General Meeting, June 12-16, 2006, Montreal, Quebec.
• W. W. Price, J.J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Simplified Wind Turbine Generator Aerodynamic Models for Transient Stability
Studies” Proc. IEEE PES PSCE, Atlanta, Georgia, October-November 2006.
• M. Behnke, A. Ellis, Y. Kazachkov, T. McCoy, E. Muljadi, W. Price, J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Development and Validation of
WECC Variable Speed Wind Turbine Dynamic Models for Grid Integration Studies”, AWEA WindPower, Los Angeles,
California, June 2007.
• E. Muljadi, C.P. Butterfield, B. Parsons, A. Ellis, ”Characteristics of Variable Speed Wind Turbines Under Normal and
Fault Conditions”, IEEE PES GM, Tampa, Florida, June 2007.
• N. W. Miller, W. W. Price, J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Dynamic Model of GE’s 1.5 and 3.6 MW Wind Turbine Generators –
Model Structure, Simulation Results, and Model Validation”, CIGRE Technical Brochure 328, Modeling and Dynamic
Performance of Wind Generation as it Relates to Power System Control and Dynamic Performance, CIGRE WG
C4.601, August, 2007
• WECC Wind Generator Modeling Group, “WECC Wind Power Plant Power Flow Modeling Guide,” 2008.
• Behnke M., Ellis, A. “Reactive Power Planning for Wind Power Plant Interconnections”, IEEE PES General Meeting,
Pittsburgh, PA 20-24 July 2008
• N. Samaan, R. Zavadil, J. Smith, J. Conto, “Modeling of Wind Power Plants for Short Circuit Analysis in the
Transmission Network”, Proceedings of the IEEE PES 2008 Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition.
• J. Brochu, R. Gagnon, C. Larose, “Validation of the WECC Single-Machine Equivalent Power Plant”, Presented at the
IEEE PSCE DPWPG-WG Meeting, Seattle, Washington, March 2009.
Questions?