Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Summary report
February 2005
Page 1 of 34
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Page 9 of 34
Bus1
Bus2
X11
X12
X22
X21
Fault X3 Load L1
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 =
(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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Fig. 12. Dominant eigenvalue loci when generator 2 is a DFIG with PVdq control.
Page 18 of 34
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
-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
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.
Page 24 of 34
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
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
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
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
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
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
Lm vqr Lrr
Lm vdr Lrr
Page 27 of 34
ed =
s Lm
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
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
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
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
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
Tq0
Page 29 of 34
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 )
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
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
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 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
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. 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
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
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.
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
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