Sie sind auf Seite 1von 34

Influence of Wind Farms on Power System Dynamic and Transient Stability

Summary report

M. Hughes, O. Anaya-Lara, N. Jenkins and G. Strbac

February 2005

DTI Centre for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy

Page 1 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Executive Summary
The aim of the work of this report was to investigate the ways in which bulk wind farm generation would interact with conventional generation and influence network fundamental dynamic characteristics. The report is based on current studies being carried out at the University of Manchester as part of the work of the DTI Centre for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy. The UK Government has a declared target that renewable energy should provide 15% of UK electricity supplies by 2015. The integration of such levels of renewable generation, mainly from wind energy, into the UK power network will heavily influence network characteristics and push network operation into currently unknown territory. Whilst the operation, control capabilities and dynamic characteristics of networks comprising synchronous generation are well established and understood, the same cannot be said for networks having mixed synchronous and induction generators. In light of this, studies are presently being carried out to establish an understanding of the basic interaction and dynamic characteristics of such mixed generation systems and the outcome of the initial work done is reported here. A simple generic network model, based on a three-generator system, is used for the present dynamic studies. In order to provide results and characteristics that could be considered directly relevant to the UK network, an operating situation was considered in which one synchronous generator was chosen to have the combined generating capacity of the EnglandWales network, another synchronous generator to have the combined capacity of the Southern Scotland network and the third generator to have a projected wind generation capacity for the Northern Scotland network. Appropriate values for the generation and transmission line interconnections were chosen in consultation with NGT. Whilst this simple generic model is in no way intended as an analogue of the UK network, it is considered to reflect the basic dynamic interactions that will influence the behaviour of the UK network when bulk wind generation is present. Time response simulation and eigenvalue analysis is used to establish basic transient and dynamic stability characteristics. A variety of generating situations are considered for the generator taken to represent the northern Scotland sub network. The wind generation is provided either by wind farms based on Fixed Speed Induction Generators (FSIGs) or Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIGs). In addition, in order to provide a base line against which wind farm influence on network dynamics can be judged, the case is also considered where the power exported is provided by conventional synchronous generation. Dependent on the following assumptions made in the modelling, namely: 1. The converters are sufficiently robust to cater for all the demands of the DFIG controller during transient operation. 2. The simplified model used for the converter and its crowbar protection provides an adequate representation of behaviour for the situations studied. 3. The DFIG 3rd order model, that ignores stator dynamics and was chosen for its compatibility with the models normally used for conventional synchronous generators in power system analysis packages, adequately represents dynamic behaviour for the situations studied. 4. The model representing the shaft dynamics of the turbine/generator system that ignores torsional oscillations is appropriate. 5. The numerous generators of wind farm generation can be represented coherently as a single generator.

Page 2 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability The studies indicate the following: i) FSIG based wind farms can contribute significantly to network damping, but are vulnerable to network faults. ii) The control flexibility and capability of DFIG based wind farms enable such generation to contribute positively to network operation in terms of voltage recovery following faults and improved system damping. iii) A DFIG has the potential of providing superior dynamic and transient performance than that of a conventional synchronous generator. iv) The results using the newly developed FMAC control scheme demonstrate the importance of DFIG control in providing good operating performance and network support. From which it can be concluded that: i) In mixed generation networks, bulk wind generation based entirely on FSIG based wind farms would make the network vulnerable to system faults, restrict generating capacity and pose operational problems. ii) Bulk wind generation via DFIG based wind farms, suitably controlled, can be accommodated on a network without introducing problems of transient or dynamic stability and can contribute positively to network operation and enhance network dynamic characteristics.

Page 3 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures.............................................................................................................. 5 List of Tables ............................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction............................................................................................................. 7 2. Assessment of dynamic and transient stability ....................................................... 8 3. Analysis tools.......................................................................................................... 8 4. Generic network model ........................................................................................... 9 5. Simulation and eigenvalue analysis studies .......................................................... 10 5.1 Generator 2 represented as a conventional synchronous generator ................ 11 5.2 Generator 2 as a FSIG-based wind farm ......................................................... 14 5.3 Generator 2 as a DFIG-based wind farm with PVdq control.......................... 17 5.4 Generator 2 as a DFIG-based wind farm with FMAC control ....................... 18 6. IPSA time response studies................................................................................... 21 6.1 Generator 2 represents a synchronous generator ............................................ 22 6.2 Generator 2 represents a FSIG ........................................................................ 23 6.3 Generator 2 represents a DFIG with PVdq control......................................... 24 7. General conclusions .............................................................................................. 26 8. Appendix............................................................................................................... 27 8.1 FSIG 3rd order mathematical model................................................................ 27 8.2 DFIG 3rd order mathematical model ............................................................... 27 8.3 Synchronous generator 6th order mathematical model.................................... 28 8.4 Schematic block diagram of the synchronous generator excitation controller 29 8.5 Machine models parameters............................................................................ 29 8.6 Network parameters ........................................................................................ 33 9. Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 34

Page 4 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

List of Figures
Fig. 1. Generic network model. ................................................................................. 10 Fig. 2. Generator transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 60 ms duration. A PSS having high saturation limits is included on generator 2. ....... 12 Fig. 3. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 60 ms duration. PSS with nominal saturation limits.................................................................... 12 Fig. 4. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Rating and power output of generator 2 reduced to 70% nominal values......... 13 Fig. 5. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with AVR control....................................................................................................... 13 Fig. 6. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with AVR plus PSS control. ...................................................................................... 14 Fig. 7. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 35 ms duration.15 Fig. 8. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 40 ms duration.15 Fig. 9. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Rating and power output of generator 2 reduced to 50% nominal value. ......... 16 Fig. 10. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a FSIG................................ 16 Fig. 11. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with PVdq control.................................................................................... 17 Fig. 12. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a DFIG with PVdq control. 18 Fig. 13. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with basic FMAC control. ....................................................................... 19 Fig. 14. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with FMAC basic control plus PSS auxiliary loop. ................................ 19 Fig. 15. Dominant eigenvalues when generator 2 is a DFIG with FMAC basic control. ............................................................................................................... 20 Fig. 16. Dominant eigenvalues when generator 2 is a DFIG with FMAC basic control plus auxiliary PSS loop...................................................................................... 21 Fig. 17. Generator transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Generator 2 represents a synchronous generator................................ 22 Fig. 18. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. Synchronous generator 1 responses............................................................................................................ 23 Fig. 19. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. FSIG responses. ........... 24 Fig. 20. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. Synchronous generator 1 responses............................................................................................................ 25 Fig. 21. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a DFIG with PVdq control. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. DFIG responses............................................................................................................ 25 Fig. 22. Synchronous generator excitation controller................................................ 29 Fig. 23. Steam turbine and governor control scheme model. .................................... 31

Page 5 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

List of Tables
Table 1: FSIG 3rd order model................................................................................... 27 Table 2: DFIG 3rd order model. ................................................................................. 27 Table 3. Synchronous generator parameters (Generator G1). ................................... 29 Table 4. AVR Settings (Generator G1). .................................................................... 30 Table 5. AVR PSS Settings (Generator G1).............................................................. 30 Table 6. Steam turbine and governor parameters (Generator G1)............................. 31 Table 7. Steam turbine and governor parameter (Generator G3 - main system)....... 33

Page 6 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

1. Introduction
The aim of the work of this report was to investigate the ways in which bulk wind farm generation would interact with conventional generation and influence network fundamental dynamic characteristics. The report is based on current studies being carried out at the University of Manchester as part of the work of the DTI Centre for Distributed Generation and Sustainable Electrical Energy. The UK Government has a declared target that renewable energy should provide 15% of UK electricity supplies by 2015. The integration of such levels of renewable generation, mainly from wind energy, into the UK power network will heavily influence network characteristics and push network operation into currently unknown territory. Whilst the operation, control capabilities and dynamic characteristics of networks comprising synchronous generation are well established and understood, the same cannot be said for networks having mixed synchronous and induction generators. In light of this, studies are presently being carried out to establish an understanding of the basic interaction and dynamic characteristics of such mixed generation systems and the outcome of the initial work done is reported here. A simple generic network model has been established that has proved very useful in the general assessment of wind farm contributions to network support and, in particular, the development of control schemes for wind farms employing Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIGs). This generic model, based on a three-generator system, is used for the dynamic studies reported here. In order to provide results and characteristics that could be considered relevant to the UK network, an operating situation was considered in which one synchronous generator was chosen to have the combined generating capacity of the EnglandWales network, another synchronous generator to have the combined capacity of the Southern Scotland network and the third generator to have a projected wind generation capacity for the Northern Scotland network. Appropriate values for the generation and transmission line interconnections were chosen in consultation with NGT. Whilst this simple generic model is in no way is intended as an analogue of the UK network, it is considered to reflect the basic dynamic interactions that will influence the behaviour of the UK network when bulk wind generation is present. The studies reported consist of both time response simulation studies and eigenvalue analysis to establish basic transient stability and dynamic stability characteristics. A variety of generating situations are considered for the generator taken to represent the northern Scotland sub network. The wind generation is provided either by wind farms based on Fixed Speed Induction Generators (FSIGs) or Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIGs). FSIG based wind farms are widely employed but are known to be vulnerable when voltage levels fall due to a system fault. The ability to manipulate the rotor voltage of a DFIG provides it with a control capability that is potentially superior to that of a synchronous generator with conventional excitation control. In the DFIG case, existing and newly developed control schemes are considered in order to demonstrate the crucial contribution that DFIG control can provide to network operation and support. In addition, in order to provide a base line against which wind farm influence on network dynamics can be judged, the case is also considered where the power exported is provided by conventional synchronous generation. Studies were also carried out using IPSA to demonstrate that the fundamental dynamic characteristics predicted for mixed wind farm and conventional generation systems using the Simulink model of the simple generic network are also given by alternative and independent simulation means.

Page 7 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

2. Assessment of dynamic and transient stability


Two distinct stability concerns exist in power system analysis, dynamic stability and transient stability. The former is concerned with the ability of a system to return to its original operating condition following a small perturbation. The latter, is concerned with the ability of the synchronous machines of the system to remain in synchronism following a large perturbation, such as is caused by a three-phase system fault that is quickly cleared. Although loss of synchronism is usually referred to as transient instability, it is not instability in the strictest sense, it merely indicates that the system fails to retain acceptable operating conditions following the disturbance. The most direct way to assess dynamic stability is via eigenvalue analysis of a model of the power system. In this case, the small-signal disturbances are considered sufficiently small so that the equations representing the system may be linearised and expressed in state-space form. Then by calculating the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the linearised system model the dynamic stability characteristics of the system can be evaluated. For stability, all of the eigenvalues must lie in the left half complex plane. Any eigenvalue in the right half plane denotes an unstable dynamic mode and system instability. The way in which system operating conditions, system parameters and controllers influence dynamic stability can be demonstrated by observing their influence on the loci of critical eigenvalues, i.e. the eigenvalues furthest to the right in the complex plane. Transient instability in a power system is caused by a severe disturbance that creates substantial imbalance between the input power supplied to the synchronous generators (by the prime-movers) and their electrical power outputs. Some of the severely disturbed generators will swing so far from their equilibrium positions that synchronism is lost in the process. Such a severe disturbance may be a sudden and large change in load, generation, or network configuration. Usually the severe disturbance, under which transient stability is tested, is a three-phase short circuit on the network. In power system terminology this is referred to as a fault. When a fault occurs, certain generators that are electrically close to the fault location are disturbed to a greater extent than the other generators, which are remote from the fault. These generators tend to accelerate or decelerate depending on the nature of the fault, from the rest of the generators in the system. If the fault duration is too long, one machine or a group of machines will separate from the rest of the system and lose synchronism, which in power system terms is referred to as transient instability. However, the power network is equipped with automatic devices that sense the existence of the faults in the network and initiate action to clear the fault, i.e. isolate the faulted section of the network. A matter of great importance, therefore, is that the time required (by the protective equipment) to clear the fault should be less than the duration of the fault that would create a disturbance large enough to cause one or more machines to lose synchronism. In systems consisting solely of synchronous generation, loss of synchronism is the normal mode of transient failure. However, in networks having mixed wind and conventional synchronous generation, transient failure may be encountered for other reasons such as the collapse of system voltage causing induction generator runaway.

3. Analysis tools
Power system dynamic and transient stability studies are normally conducted using highly developed software, with facilities for representing very large systems and detailed models of system elements. Special-purpose tools of this type are commercially available, e.g. Simpow, PSS/E and EuroStag. While most of these tools are computationally very efficient

Page 8 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability and reasonably user-friendly they have a closed architecture where it is very difficult or impossible to view or change most of the component models. Some of these tools provide the flexibility of modelling controllers such as governors and exciters using block diagram representation, however, they do not allow the user to modify any of the generator or network models. Therefore, for the studies of this report Matlab/Simulink and IPSA have been selected as the analysis tools as they provide the facilities for user-defined models for the system elements and their control systems. In Matlab/Simulink the generic network model was first linearised to conduct dynamic stability studies using eigenvalue and eigenvector techniques. Although IPSA does not provide at the moment the option to conduct small-signal stability analysis, the influence of wind generation on dynamic stability was assessed by observation of the damping characteristics on the post fault oscillations of the time domain responses. Transient stability was determined using both Matlab/Simulink and IPSA using time domain response analysis.

4. Generic network model


The generic network model used in the studies is presented in Fig. 1. The generator and network data are chosen on the basis of a projected operating scenario with a large wind generation component sited on the northern Scotland network. Generator 3 is a steam turbine driven synchronous generator provided with governor and excitation control. It is chosen to represent the main England-Wales network and has a rating of 21,000 MVA. Generator 1 is also a steam turbine driven synchronous generator provided with governor and excitation control. It is chosen to represent the southern Scotland network and has a rating of 2,800 MVA. Generator 2 is chosen to represent a projected wind generation situation on the northern Scotland network and has a rating of 2,500 MVA. This generator can be a Fixed Speed Induction Generator (FSIG) or a Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG). When a FSIG is used capacitive compensation is provided on the generator terminals in order to supply the reactive power demand of the FSIG whilst maintaining the desired voltage profile for the network. In the DFIG case two distinct forms of control scheme are dealt with. The first is a controller, termed the PVdq scheme in this report, that controls terminal voltage via the manipulation of the d axis component of the DFIG rotor voltage and controls torque (or power) via the manipulation of the q axis component of rotor voltage. The second control scheme is a newly developed and patented scheme called the Flux Magnitude and Angle Controller (FMAC) scheme. Here the magnitude of the rotor voltage is manipulated to control the terminal voltage magnitude and the phase angle of the rotor voltage is manipulated to control the power output. The latter provides lower interaction control than the PVdq scheme and lends itself more readily to the provision of network support, particularly with respect to voltage control and system damping. In addition, the generation of the northern Scotland network can be provided by conventional synchronous generation having the same control provision as modelled for generator 1. This situation is used to provide a base line case against which wind generation influence on network dynamics can be evaluated. Basic generator and network data employed are provided in the Appendix.

Page 9 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability


Bus4 X1 X2

Bus1

Bus2

X11

X12

X22

X21

Generator1 (Southern Scotland)

Fault X3 Load L1

Generator 2 (Northern Scotland)

Bus3 Load Main System (England-Wales)

Fig. 1. Generic network model.

5. Simulation and eigenvalue analysis studies


Using the generic model described in the previous section, time response simulations and eigenvalue analysis were carried out to determine overall network dynamic characteristics. The time response studies simulate system performance following a three-phase fault that is applied to the transmission system on the high voltage side of the transformer of generator 1. These studies permitted an assessment to be made of the contributions to network transient performance of generator 2, representing the northern Scotland network, when variously considered as a steam turbine driven synchronous generator, a FSIG based wind farm and a DFIG based wind farm. For all the time response simulation studies carried out, generators 1 and 3 employ turbine governor control and an Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) excitation control. A Power System Stabiliser (PSS) was not employed on either generator 1 or 3 in order that the requirements of, and damping provision supplied by, generator 2 could be judged more easily. The generation levels considered are Generator 1 2,520 MW ; Generator 2 2,240 MW ; and Generator 3 17,600 MW The eigenvalue studies aim to establish dynamic stability characteristics and look at the way that stability is influenced as the wind generation capacity on the northern Scotland system is built up in stages to the full capacity situation employed in the time response studies (2400 MVA - 2240 MW). For each condition considered the generation capacity of the southern Scotland network is adjusted along with the power it generates so that the central load L1 and the nominal power transmitted to the England/Wales network are maintained at the same base levels. The full transmission capacity of line X22 (Fig. 1) is assumed in all the cases. The parameters of generator 2 and its transformer X21 are scaled appropriately for each generation capacity case considered.

Page 10 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability The capacity factor, f2, of generator 2 used in the studies is defined as,

capacity factor f 2 =

installed capacity of G2 (MVA) maximum capacity of G2 MVA (2400 MVA)

(1)

Eigenvalues were calculated for four conditions with respect to the generation capacity of the northern Scotland network represented by generator 2 (G2). The situations correspond to values of

f 2 = 1 10, f 2 = 1 3, f2= 2 3 and f 2 = 1


giving the conditions i) Generator 2 - 1/10 nominal rating 240 MVA (f2=1/10); power output approx. 224 MW Generator 1 19/10 nominal rating 5320 MVA; power output approx. 4,536 MW ii) Generator 2 - 1/3 nominal rating 800 MVA (f2=1/3); power output approx. 750 MW Generator 1 5/3 nominal rating 4,667 MVA; power output approx. 4,010 MW iii) Generator 2 - 2/3 nominal rating 1600 MVA (f2=2/3); power output approx. 1,500 MW Generator 1 4/3 nominal rating 3733 MVA; power output approx. 3,260 MW iv) Generator 2 - nominal rating 2,400 MVA (f2=1); power output approx. 2,240 MW Generator1 - nominal rating 2800 MVA; power output approx. 2,520 MW The eigenvalue analysis was employed to evaluate the way in which both the capacity and type of generator used to represent the northern Scotland network influence the network damping and dynamic stability characteristics.

5.1 Generator 2 represented as a conventional synchronous generator


A. Time response studies As referred to earlier, this case is considered to provide a base line against which the transient and dynamic performance of the system with wind generation can be judged. Generator 2 is a conventional round rotor synchronous generator with a static excitation system having an AVR with the option of incorporating a Power System Stabiliser (PSS). Its prime mover is a steam turbine with governor control. The operating conditions considered proved quite onerous. Without the PSS on generator 2, the system was dynamically unstable. In addition, the system was found to be transiently unstable, with the system failing to regain synchronism, for the nominal transmission fault clearance time of 80 ms. The response of Fig. 2 is for a fault clearance time of 60 ms. The system is seen to remain in synchronism following fault clearance. The gain that can be employed on the PSS of generator 2 is restricted by transient stability considerations and the saturation limits of the PSS. In order to employ a PSS gain that was sufficiently large to produce the required improvement in system damping, the saturation limits of the PSS had to be increased to twice their nominal values.

Page 11 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability With the nominal limit values, the gain employed in the PSS to provide the necessary damping, leads to saturation in the PSS and the consequent loss of its stabilising influence for the large signal levels in existence following a three-phase fault. The generator then slips into a dynamically unstable operating situation and the increasing swings in power and angle excursions result in loss of synchronism as can be seen in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. Generator transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 60 ms duration. A PSS having high saturation limits is included on generator 2.

Fig. 3. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 60 ms duration. PSS with nominal saturation limits. The network can tolerate a clearance time of 80 ms for the fault considered, if the size of generator 2 (i.e. in terms of rating and hence power output) is reduced to 70% of its nominal value, keeping unchanged the size and output of generator 1, and the level of the central bus load. This effectively reduces both the generation capability of the northern Scotland network and the power transmitted from Scotland to the England/Wales network. The generator responses for this situation are shown in Fig. 4.

Page 12 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Fig. 4. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Rating and power output of generator 2 reduced to 70% nominal values.

B. Eigenvalue analysis Generator 2 as a Synchronous generator with AVR control only The loci of the eigenvalues that dictate the dominant oscillation mode of the system are presented in Fig. 5 for the case where generator 2 has AVR excitation control only.

Fig. 5. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with AVR control. The system is dynamically unstable for every generator capacity considered. The imaginary parts of the eigenvalues indicate that the system suffers from an oscillatory instability having

Page 13 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability a frequency of oscillation of approximately 4 rad/s. It can be seen that as the capacity of generator 2 is increased the network becomes increasingly unstable with the dominant eigenvalue being shifted further into the right half plane.

Generator 2 as a synchronous generator with AVR + PSS control The introduction of the Power System Stabiliser significantly improves the system dynamic stability and for generator capacity factors of f2 = 1 and f2 = 2/3 the system is dynamically stable as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with AVR plus PSS control.

5.2 Generator 2 as a FSIG-based wind farm


In this case the introduction of bulk wind power generation is considered for the northern Scotland network. It is assumed that all the generation is from Fixed Speed Induction Generator (FSIG) based wind farms. The same ratings and nominal power levels are employed as for the purely synchronous generator case i.e.: Generator 1 2,520 MW ; Generator 2 2,240 MW ; and Generator 3 17,600 MW A. Time response studies The responses of Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 clearly demonstrate that whilst an FSIG can significantly contribute to network damping it is reliant on the rest of the system to maintain the voltage levels needed for it to remain functional following network faults. Fig. 7 presents responses for the case where the fault clearance time is 35 ms, and demonstrates the significant damping contribution that a FSIG can provide. It can be seen

Page 14 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability that when generator 2 is an FSIG, the power oscillations of generator 3 decay more quickly than they do when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with Power System Stabiliser control.

Fig. 7. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 35 ms duration. However, if the fault clearance time is increased to 40 ms it can be seen in Fig. 8 that, due to the collapse of the FSIG terminal voltage, the power output of the FSIG is drastically reduced causing machine runaway. Despite this, the system retains transient stability, due to generator 3 increasing its power output via governor control to make up for the loss of generation from the FSIG. The system response can be seen to be very oscillatory but synchronous generators 1 and 3 remain in synchronism.

Fig. 8. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 40 ms duration.

Reducing the rating and power delivered from generator 2 to 50% of its nominal value enables the system to withstand a fault near generator 1 of duration 80 ms without voltage collapse (Fig. 9). The output power of generator 2 recovers following fault clearance and relatively well-damped post fault transient performance is achieved. However, as the nominal power output level of generator 1 remains unchanged, the reduction in the power generation from the FSIG results in reduced power transmission to the England/Wales network.

Page 15 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Fig. 9. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Rating and power output of generator 2 reduced to 50% nominal value. B. Eigenvalue analysis In the FSIG case, as the capacity factor f2 is increased the dominant eigenvalues are shifted to the left of the complex plane (Fig. 10). An FSIG naturally contributes positively to network damping and as the generator capacity increases so does the magnitude of its damping contribution to the network. For the capacity factors of f2 = 1 and f2 = 2/3 the overall system is seen to be dynamically stable with the dominant eigenvalue lying in the left half plane. At the lower values of f2 = 1/3 and f2 = 1/10, the eigenvalues lie in the right half plane indicating dynamic instability.

Fig. 10. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a FSIG. The system can be made dynamically stable by introducing a PSS on generator 1. Hence although a power system stabiliser contribution would be required from the rest of the system during the initial build up of wind generation, it would not be required at later stages when the higher wind generation capacity levels are reached.

Page 16 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

5.3 Generator 2 as a DFIG-based wind farm with PVdq control


A. Time response studies Again the introduction of bulk wind power generation is considered for the northern Scotland network. In this case it is assumed that all the generation is from Doubly Fed Induction Generator based wind farms with PVdq control. The same ratings and nominal power levels are employed as previously i.e.: Generator 1 2,520 MW ; Generator 2 2,240 MW ; and Generator 3 17,600 MW

The responses of Fig. 11 indicate that when generator 2 is a DFIG based wind farm with PVdq controller, the system can withstand a fault clearance time of 80 ms without the DFIG suffering from runaway or the network suffering from loss of synchronism. Thus the network transient stability when generator 2 is a DFIG is significantly better than that when it is a synchronous generator. In addition, the responses indicate that the DFIG also contributes to network damping. The decay rate of the power oscillations of generator 3 is seen to be faster than that obtained when generator 2 is a synchronous generator with PSS control. The major difference lies in the frequency of oscillation involved, with a higher natural frequency being evident in the DFIG case. With the PVdq control scheme, the form of control adopted leads to interaction between the power and voltage control loops and results in significant oscillations in the DFIG terminal voltage following fault clearance.

Fig. 11. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with PVdq control.

B. Eigenvalue analysis The positive contribution of the DFIG with PVdq control to network damping, indicated in the time response study, is confirmed by the eigenvalue analysis (Fig. 12). As the DFIG capacity factor, f2, increases, the level of damping contribution increases and this shifts the dominant eigenvalues further to the left in the complex plane. For the higher value of f2 = 1, the network is dynamically stable. Comparison of the eigenvalues corresponding to the FSIG and DFIG (with PVdq control) cases, the damping in the FSIG case is slightly greater.

Page 17 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability As before, dynamic stability can be achieved for lower values of f2 by introducing a PSS on generator 1. As for the FSIG case, although a power system stabiliser contribution would be required from the rest of the system during the initial build up of wind generation it would not be required at later stages when the higher wind generation capacity levels are reached.

Imaginary part (frequency of oscillation)

Real part (damping)

Fig. 12. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a DFIG with PVdq control.

5.4 Generator 2 as a DFIG-based wind farm with FMAC control


Again the introduction of bulk wind power generation is considered for the northern Scotland network. In this case it is assumed that all the generation of the northern Scotland network is by wind farms based on Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIGs) with the newly developed FMAC control scheme. This scheme provides lower interaction control than that of the PVdq scheme and provides a control capability that enables a wind farm to contribute more positively to network damping and voltage support. The same ratings and nominal power levels are employed as previously i.e.: Generator 1 2,520 MW ; Generator 2 2,240 MW ; and Generator 3 17,600 MW A. Time responses analysis The responses of Fig. 13 show that the DFIG based wind farm with the basic FMAC control can readily accommodate a fault clearance time of duration 80 ms. It can be seen that the system damping is better than in any of the cases previously considered. In addition, very good post fault recovery of the DFIG terminal voltage is provided and unlike the PVdq control case, the voltage response is practically non-oscillatory.

Page 18 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Fig. 13. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with basic FMAC control.

Generator 2 a DFIG with FMAC basic control plus PSS auxiliary loop
The FMAC control scheme lends itself readily to the accommodation of auxiliary loops for the provision of specific control contributions to network support. In the study of concern, an auxiliary loop that provides the wind farm with a Power System Stabiliser (PSS) facility is added. The network operating conditions are identical to those of the previous section.

Fig. 14. Transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. DFIG with FMAC basic control plus PSS auxiliary loop.

Fig. 14 shows that with the PSS auxiliary loop included, the FMAC scheme provides the DFIG with a much superior contribution to network damping following the fault. The oscillations in the power outputs of synchronous generators 1 and 3 are eliminated within 4 seconds. It should also be pointed out that the increase in system damping provided by the auxiliary PSS loop is not gained at the expense of a poorer voltage control, which is still very

Page 19 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability fast and practically non-oscillatory. This is in contrast to the situation of a PSS on a synchronous generator where, as the AVR voltage control and the PSS control both manipulate the same control variable, namely the generator field voltage, any increase in damping due to PSS action is invariably at the expense of the quality of the voltage control. The responses of this section clearly demonstrate the importance of DFIG control to the provision of voltage control and system damping in wind farm operation.

B. Eigenvalue analysis The eigenvalue loci for the DFIG with the basic FMAC control scheme as the capacity factor f2 is increased are shown in Fig. 15. The positive contribution to network damping indicated in the time response study, is confirmed by the eigenvalue analysis. As the DFIG capacity factor, f2, increases, the level of damping that it contributes to the network also increases and this shifts the dominant eigenvalues further to the left in the complex plane. For values of f2 = 1/3 and above, the eigenvalues lie in the left half of the complex plane, so that dynamically stable network operation is achieved for smaller levels of wind farm generation than in the previous cases where generator 2 is an FSIG or a DFIG with PVdq control.

Imaginary part (frequency of oscillation)

Real part (damping)

Fig. 15. Dominant eigenvalues when generator 2 is a DFIG with FMAC basic control.

When the PSS auxiliary loop is added to the basic FMAC scheme, the damping is increased significantly (Fig. 16). Again, the larger the generation capacity factor, f2, the greater the shift towards the left in the complex plane.

Page 20 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Fig. 16. Dominant eigenvalues when generator 2 is a DFIG with FMAC basic control plus auxiliary PSS loop.

In Fig. 16 the dominant eigenvalue, that which most influences the power and angle transients in the time domain has an oscillation frequency of approximately 5 rad/s, and is influenced significantly by the DFIG and its controller. The second eigenvalue loci shown in Fig. 16, with an oscillation frequency of approximately 6 rad/s, has high damping associated with it for all the conditions considered. Although this eigenvalue also influences the power and angle responses of the generators, it plays a smaller role in the power and angle responses than the other eigenvalue shown. Since the dominant eigenvalue lies in the right half complex plane for very low values of generation capacity factor f2, a power system stabiliser contribution would be required from the rest of the system during the initial build up of the wind generation capacity. Again this provision could be dispensed with at later stages when the higher wind generation capacity levels are reached.

6. IPSA time response studies


Simulation studies were also carried out using IPSA with the purpose of demonstrating that the contributions of FSIGs and DFIGs to network performance indicated from the SIMULINK model are also shown when using a separate and independent simulation package. The same network as that of the generic model was implemented on IPSA. However, due to the restrictive time frame available for the work, in place of the comprehensive models used to represent the turbine-generator controllers adopted in the SIMULINK model, simplified models provided as default representations on IPSA were employed instead. The purpose of

Page 21 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability the studies was therefore, not that of detailed comparison of the responses of one simulation package against another, but rather a demonstration that alternative and independent sources produce the same fundamental dynamic contributions to overall network performance.

6.1 Generator 2 represents a synchronous generator


In the IPSA implementation the dynamic stability was achieved, not by introducing a PSS on generator 2, but by 1. using constant mechanical power for generators 1 and 2 to eliminate the negative damping introduced by governor control. 2. employing very low transient gains for the AVRs of generators 1,2 and 3. This serves to reduce the negative damping contributions of the AVR voltage feedback loops.

Fig. 17 shows the generators time responses obtained in IPSA for the case when generator 2 represents a synchronous generator and a fault is applied near generator 1 with a clearance time of 80 ms. It can be seen that the system possesses low damping and that Generators 1 and 2 oscillate in unison against the main system represented by generator 3. Again, as for the SIMULINK case, with the full capacity generation (2,400MW) for generator 2, the system failed to regain synchronism following a fault of 80 ms. The responses of Fig. 17 are for the case where the power capacity of generator 2 is reduced to the 70% value (1,560 MW).
nassernet with synchgen
Graph 1: BUSBAR VOLTAGE - PU Graph 3: SM SLIP - PU

0.020 1.0

0.010

0.0 1.0 0.5 -0.010 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

-0.020 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Graph 2: 2.0 3.0 Bus2 SM ANGLE 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus1 - degrees 4000 90 3500 3000 45 2500 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 1500 -45 1000 -90 500 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Bus2 Bus1 2.0 3.0 Bus2 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 2000 Bus2 - MW

Graph 4: SM POWER (P)

T itle: nassernet with synchgen

IPSA 22DC<0001> 01 F eb 2005 12:41:39

Fig. 17. Generator transient performance following a fault near generator 1 of 80 ms duration. Generator 2 represents a synchronous generator.

Page 22 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

6.2 Generator 2 represents a FSIG


The case was also considered where generator 2 is an FSIG but maintaining the same models, controllers and data for generators 1 and 3 as in the previous case. As in the SIMULINK case, when the full capacity value of generator 2 (2,240MW) is used, a fault duration time of 80ms causes voltage and power collapse and machine runaway for generator 2. Reducing the capacity of generator 2 to 50% of the full capacity level (1,120 MW) enables the responses of Fig. 18 and 19 to be achieved. The benefits that an FSIG brings to network damping can be seen, with damping many times greater than that in the case where only synchronous generation is involved being provided.
nassernet with fsig
Graph 1: BUSBAR VOLTAGE - PU Graph 3: SM SLIP - PU

0.040 1.0 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.0 1.0 0.5 -0.010 -0.020 -0.030 -0.040 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Graph 2: 2.0 3.0 Bus3 SM ANGLE 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus1 - degrees 25000 90 20000 45 15000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10000 -45 5000 -90 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Bus1 2.0 3.0 Bus3 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus3 - MW -0.050 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Graph 4: SM POWER (P)

T itle: nassernet with fsig

IPSA 22DC<0001> 01 F eb 2005 13:17:47

Fig. 18. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. Synchronous generator 1 responses.

Page 23 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability


nassernet with fsig
Graph 1: BUSBAR VOLTAGE - PU 0.0 -200 1.0 -400 -600 -800 -1000 0.5 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 0.0 1.0 Bus2 Graph 2: IM SLIP 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -6E-7 0.0 - % 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus2 Graph 4: IM TERM. CURR. 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 3.0 - PU -2000 Graph 3: IM POWER (P) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 - MW 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

-0.5

2.5

-1.0

2.0

-1.5

1.5

-2.0

1.0

-2.5

0.5

0.0 1.0 Bus2 Bus2 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

T itle: nassernet with fsig

IPSA 22DC<0001> 01 F eb 2005 14:03:18

Fig. 19. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. FSIG responses.

6.3 Generator 2 represents a DFIG with PVdq control


Studies were also carried out for the case where generator 2 is a DFIG with PVqd control. With the DFIG, a fault of duration 80 ms with the full power capacity of generator 2 (2,240 MW) does not cause post fault operation problems as Figs 19 and 20 show. Again, the introduction of the DFIG significantly improves network damping over that when generator 2 is a synchronous generator. The network damping level is similar to that with the FSIG. However, in the FSIG case the machine size was half that used in the DFIG case. Consequently the FSIG contribution to system damping in terms of machine size is relatively much greater than that of the DFIG. The IPSA studies showed the same basic characteristics and contributions to network performance of FSIGs and DFIGs as indicated by the SIMULINK studies namely that 1. FSIGs are vulnerable to network faults, but contribute significantly to network damping 2. DFIG with PVdq control have better fault performance characteristics than synchronous generators and also contribute positively to system damping. Although the damping contribution is less than that provided by a FSIG.

Page 24 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

nassernet with dfig


Graph 1: BUSBAR VOLTAGE - PU Graph 3: SM SLIP - PU

0.040 1.0 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.0 1.0 0.5 -0.010 -0.020 -0.030 -0.040 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Graph 2: 2.0 3.0 Bus3 SM ANGLE 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus1 - degrees 25000 90 20000 45 15000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10000 -45 5000 -90 0.0 1.0 Bus1 Bus1 2.0 3.0 Bus3 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus3 - MW -0.050 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Graph 4: SM POWER (P)

T itle: nassernet with dfig

IPSA 22DC<0001> 01 F eb 2005 14:25:26

Fig. 20. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a FSIG. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. Synchronous generator 1 responses.
nassernet with dfig
Graph 1: BUSBAR VOLTAGE - PU 0.0 -500 1.0 -1000 -1500 -2000 0.5 -2500 -3000 -3500 0.0 1.0 Bus2 Graph 2: IM SLIP 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 - % 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Bus2 Graph 4: IM TERM. CURR. 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 4.0 3.5 -5.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 -15.0 1.5 1.0 -20.0 0.5 -25.0 Bus2 0.0 1.0 Bus2 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 - PU -4000 Graph 3: IM POWER (P) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 - MW 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

-10.0

T itle: nassernet with dfig

IPSA 22DC<0001> 01 F eb 2005 14:21:58

Fig. 21. Transient performance for the case when generator 2 represents a DFIG with PVdq control. A fault is applied near generator 1 with 80 ms duration. DFIG responses.

Page 25 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

7. General conclusions
Dependent on the following assumptions made in the modelling, namely: 1. The converters are sufficiently robust to cater for all the demands of the DFIG controller during transient operation. 2. The simplified model used for the converter and its crowbar protection provides an adequate representation of behaviour for the situations studied. 3. The DFIG 3rd order model, that ignores stator dynamics and was chosen for its compatibility with the models normally used for conventional synchronous generators in power system analysis packages, adequately represents dynamic behaviour for the situations studied. 4. The model representing the shaft dynamics of the turbine/generator system that ignores torsional oscillations is appropriate. 5. The numerous generators of wind farm generation can be represented coherently as a single generator. The studies on the simple generic network model indicate that FSIG based wind farms can contribute significantly to network damping, but are vulnerable to network faults. Reductions in network voltage due to system faults can result in a collapse of both the terminal voltage and power output of the FSIG and consequent machine runaway and tripping. ii) DFIG based wind farms using the PVdq control scheme can contribute positively to system damping, although to a lesser extent than FSIGs. iii) A DFIG based wind farm is capable of providing a superior transient performance to that of a conventional synchronous generator following a system fault. iv) DFIG based wind farms using the FMAC control scheme have the capability of strongly contributing to system damping, particularly when the auxiliary PSS loop is employed. It is also capable of providing superior performance, in terms of both voltage recovery and system damping compared with that of the PVdq control, following system faults. v) The results using the FMAC control scheme demonstrate the importance of DFIG control in providing good operating performance and network support. vi) The results generally indicate that in terms of the expansion of renewable energy in mixed generation networks, wind generation based entirely on FSIG based wind farms would make the network vulnerable to system faults, would restrict generation capacity and pose operational problems. vii) The control flexibility of DFIG based wind farms can enable wind generation to contribute positively to network operation in terms of voltage recovery following faults and improved system damping. This is particularly true when the FMAC control scheme is employed. viii) The IPSA results demonstrate wind farm dynamic characteristics and contributions to network performance fundamentally the same as those given by the generic network model. This provides further confidence in the use of the generic model in the prediction of the basic dynamic interactions in mixed generation systems and the general conclusions drawn in this report. i)

Page 26 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

8. Appendix
8.1 FSIG 3rd order mathematical model The FSIG 3rd order model equations are provide in Table 1.
Table 1: FSIG 3rd order model. vds = Rs ids + X iqs + ed
vqs = Rs iqs X ids + eq
ids = iqs = ( ed vds ) Rs + eq vqs X + X 2 1

( (

Rs2 Rs2

1 +X
'2

eq vqs Rs ( ed vds ) X '

ded 1 = ed X X ' iqs + s seq dt To deq 1 = eq + X X ' ids s sed dt To

ed =

s Lm

Lrr d 1 r = (Tm Te ) ; dt J Xr Xm ; X = Xs + Xr + Xm

qr ;

eq =

s Lm
Lrr

dr

Te = ed ids + eq iqs
X = Xs + Xm

To =

Lrr Lr + Lm = Rr Rr

8.2 DFIG 3rd order mathematical model The 3rd order model equations are given in Table 2
Table 2: DFIG 3rd order model. vds = Rs ids + X iqs + ed
vqs = Rs iqs X ids + eq ids = iqs = ( ed vds ) Rs + eq vqs X + X 2 1

( (

Rs2 Rs2

eq vqs Rs ( ed vds ) X ' + X '2

ded 1 = ed X X ' iqs + s seq s dt To deq 1 = eq + X X ' ids s sed + s dt To

Lm vqr Lrr
Lm vdr Lrr

Page 27 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

ed =

s Lm

Lrr d 1 r = (Tm Te ) ; dt J Xr Xm ; X = Xs + Xr + Xm Lrr Lr + Lm = Rr Rr

qr ;

eq =

s Lm
Lrr

dr

Te = ed ids + eq iqs
X = Xs + Xm

To =

8.3 Synchronous generator 6th order mathematical model The synchronous generator is represented in the generic network model by a 6th order model given by Equations (2) - (11).

Xd Xd 1 d d = + Eq E E X X i T ( ) ( ) fd q d d d kd 2 do dt Tdo dt Xd ) ( Xd d 1 kd ( X d X a ) id Eq ( kd ) = dt Tdo

( )

(2)

(3) (4)

X X a X Xd + d id Eq = d = d Eq X d Xa X a kd Xd Xd Xq Xq 1 d d )= + Xq Xq iq Tqo kq ( Ed Ed 2 dt Tqo dt X X q a

( )

(5)

d 1 X a iq kq kq = E X q d dt Tqo
Ed = q = X a Xq Xa Xq + Ed Xq Xq Xa Xq

(6)

( kq ) + X qiq

(7) (8) (9) (10)

d 1 ( ) = ( Pm Pe ) dt 2H d ( ) = 2 f dt = Eq + X d id ; q = Ed + X q iq d
Pe = ed id + eq iq Qe = Eq id Ed iq
2 2 Et = Ed + Eq

(11)

Page 28 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

8.4 Schematic block diagram of the synchronous generator excitation controller A simplified block diagram of the control system designed for the synchronous machine is illustrated in Fig. 22. The control system comprises the Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) and Power System Stabiliser (PSS). PSS
L2

L1
Kp 1 + sTe
L2

1 + sTc 1 + sTd

1 + sTa 1 + sTb

sTw 2 1 + sTw2

sTw1 1 + sTw1
L1

1 1 + sT pr

Pe

Verrmx

AVR
+ +

Vt _ ref Vt

Verrmn

K1

1 + sT1 1 + sT2
K LI m1

1 + sT3 1 + sT4
1 s

Rmx Rmn

1 1 + sT5

1 1 + sTvt

K LI m 2

Antiwindup logic

Verrmx

Emx K bcu Emn

Vtrm

V fd +
Verrmn

K cnv

X comm

1 + sT f 1 1 + sT f 2

1 + sT f 1 + sTg

K fbk 1 + sTct

I fd

Fig. 22. Synchronous generator excitation controller.

8.5 Machine models parameters Generator G1 (Synchronous generator - Hunterston)

The dynamics of the synchronous generator are represented by a 6th order model. The model takes into account the dynamics of the stator, field, and damper windings. The generator rotor is represented by a field winding with a single damper winding on the d axis and two damper windings on the q axis. The parameters used in the initial studies are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Synchronous generator parameters (Generator G1).
Parameter Td0 (Tq0 )
Td0

Value 6.0857 (1.653) 0.0526 0.3538

Tq0

Page 29 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability


Inertia H Speed Damping D
Xd

3.84 0.0 2.13 2.07 0.308 (0.906) 0.234 0.190 0.150 0.7025

Xq
Xd Xd

( X q ) ( X q )

X1 Saturation (1.0) Saturation (1.2)

Excitation control system parameters of Generator 1

Table 4 shows the excitation control system parameters used in the initial studies.
Table 4. AVR Settings (Generator G1).
Parameter K1
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Kbcu Ki K cnv

Value 250 0.3 6.0 0.4 1.4 0.015 3.78 0.001 9.275 0.87 0.13 1.4 -6.0 40.0

Parameter Vmn
Vmx Emn Emx X comn K LIM Tvt Tct

Value 0.0 40.0 -0.788 0.966 0.1273 166.0 0.013 0.025 1.3 0.6 -1.0 1.0 10.0

Tf 1 Tf 2
Verrmn Verrmx K lim1

K fbk
Tf Tg Rmn Rmx

Power System Stabiliser parameters

Table 5 shows the Power System Stabiliser parameters used in the initial studies.
Table 5. AVR PSS Settings (Generator G1).
Parameter Kp Value 5.1 0.01 5.0 0.02 5.0

T pr
Tw1 Te Tw 2

Page 30 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability


Tw3 Ta Tb Tc Td L1 L2

5.0 1.32 1.96 0.49 2.85 0.32 0.1

Steam turbine plus governor (Generator G1)

Fig. 23 illustrates the block diagram of the steam turbine and governor control scheme model implemented in Simulink for the case when Generator 1 is driven by a steam turbine. Table 6 shows the steam turbine and governor parameters used in the initial studies.

Fig. 23. Steam turbine and governor control scheme model. Table 6. Steam turbine and governor parameters (Generator G1).
Parameter Droop gain (equivalent 4% droop) Governor filter time constant Actuator time constant High-pressure cylinder time constant Reheater time constant Intermediate-pressure cylinder time constant Low-pressure cylinder time constant Proportion of total power from high-pressure cylinder Proportion of total power from intermediate -pressure cylinder Proportion of total power from low-pressure cylinder Inertia constant Value Kds1=25 Tfs1=0.05 s Tas1=0.15 s Thp1=0.3 s Tr1=6 s Tip1=0.35 s Tlp1=0.4 s Khp1=0.3 Kip1=0.3 Klp1=0.4 Hs1=3.84 s

Generator G3 - main system (synchronous generator)

Generator 3 is a steam turbine driven synchronous generator. 7 shows the parameters used for synchronous generator G3 in the initial studies.

Page 31 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Table 7. Synchronous generator parameters (Generator G3-main system).


Parameter Synchronous reactance d-axis Synchronous reactance q-axis Transient reactance d-axis Transient time constant d-axis Inertia constant Value X3d=2.0 X3q=1.9 X3d1=0.35 T3d1=5 s H3=4 s

AVR parameters (Generator G3 - main system)

Fig. 24 illustrates the block diagram of the excitation control system implemented in Simulink for the synchronous generator G3. The parameters used in the initial studies are displayed in Table 8.

Fig. 24. Generator G3 excitation control system.

Table 8. AVR parameters (Generator G3 - main system).


Parameter AVR gain Time constants of phase-lag compensator Exciter time constant Value K3a=250 T3a=5 T3b=1.5 T3A=0.025

Steam turbine and governor (Generator G3)

Fig. presents the block diagram of Generator G3 steam turbine and governor implemented in Simulink. The parameters used in the initial studies for Generator G3 steam turbine and governor are shown in Table 9.

Page 32 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

Fig. 25. Generator G3 steam turbine with governor. Table 7. Steam turbine and governor parameter (Generator G3 - main system).
Parameter Droop gain (equivalent 4% droop) Governor actuator time constant High-pressure cylinder time constant Reheater time constant Proportion of total power output from high-pressure cylinder Value K3d=25 T3g=0.2 T3hp=0.25 T3r=6 K3hp=0.3

Induction Generator Parameters (Generator G2)

Generator 2 can represent a wind farm employing either fixed-speed or doubly-fed induction generators. Table 10 shows the parameters of the induction generator used in the initial studies.
Table 10. Induction generator model parameters.
Parameter Stator resistance Rotor resistance Stator reactance Rotor reactance Magnetising reactance Inertia Value Rs = 0.00488 (PU) Rr = 0.00549 (PU) Xls = 0.09241 (PU) Xlr = 0.09955 (PU) Xlm = 3.95279 (PU) H = 3.5 s

When generator 2 is a synchronous generator all parameters and controllers are identical to those listed for Generator G1.

8.6 Network parameters

X11 = 0.05 PU X12 = 0.01 PU X21 = 0.05714 PU X22 = 0.1333 PU X3 = 0.2 PU Base MVA = 1000

X1 = X11+X12 X2 = X21+X22

Page 33 of 34

Influence of wind farms on power system dynamic and transient stability

9. Bibliography
[1] NATIONAL GRID TRANSCO: Appendix 1, Extracts from the Grid Code Connection Conditions, www.nationalgrid.com, June 2004. [2] EKANAYAKE, J. B., HOLDSWORTH, L., WU, X., and JENKINS, N.: "Dynamic modelling of doubly fed induction generator wind turbines," IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 2003, 18, (2), pp. 803-809. [3] ANAYA-LARA, O. HUGHES, M. and JENKINS, N.: Generic network model for wind farm control scheme design and performance assessment, Proceedings of the EWEC 2005 (European Wind Energy Conference), London, UK, 2005. [4] SLOOTWEG, J. G. and KLING, W. L.: Modelling and analysing impacts of wind power on transient stability of power systems, Wind Engineering, 25, (6), pp. 3-20, 2001. [5] KUNDUR, P.: "Power systems stability and control," McGraw-Hill, 1994. [6] SLOOTWEG, J. G.: Wind Power: Modelling and Impact on Power System Dynamics, PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2003. [7] HAGSTROM, E., NORHEIM, I. and UHLEN, K.: Large Scale Wind Power Integration in Norway and Effect on Damping in the Nordic Grid, Proceedings of the Nordic Power Conference, 2004, Chalmers, Sweden, 2004.

Page 34 of 34

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen