Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

PSS E Wind and Solar Models.
Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

UWIG/EnerNex/DOE Workshop MISO, St. Paul, MN August 16-17, 2011
Yuriy Kazachkov Siemens PTI
2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.
PSSE Wind Models
Current View of PTI Web Site

http://www.pti-us.com/pti/software/psse/userarea/ wind_farm_model_request_download_submit.cfm
Self-extracting files for most widely used vendor specific models are available for all PSSE releases from 29 to 32. Models of Acciona, Enercon, GE wind turbines, and the WT3 and WT4 user written generic model can be directly downloaded, others will be provided upon manufacturers authorization. All communications related to downloading the PSSE wind models have to go via the PSSE support.
Your request to download PSSE Wind Farm models has been submitted. You will receive an email from PSSE Support with further instructions.
Page 3
2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. Siemens Power Technologies International
Siemens PTI PSSE Models

Lately, we also developed PSSE dynamic simulation models for: AMSC WindTec 1.5 MW 50Hz & 1.65 MW 60Hz Wind to Energy W93 and T93 Northern Power NPS2.2-93 Several Chinese manufacturers: Sinovel, Mingyang, Sany, United Power, Sewind.
Page 4
Other Non-PTI PSSE Models

Siemens PTI is aware of several other PSSE wind modeling packages NOT developed and therefore NOT supported by Siemens PTI, such as: Vestas V52 850kW, V66 1.75MW, V80 2MW, V90 3MW, V90 1.8MW DeWind D6 1.25MW and D8 2MW Gamesa G5X 850kW and G8X 2MW Clipper Suzlon Some manufacturers recognize the importance of their models being supported by PTI and approached us with the request to review, modify, release and support their models. Acciona is a good example.
Page 5
Wind Models Simulation Infrastructure in PSSE
2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. 2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Page 6 Siemens Power Technologies International
Handling wind turbine models in PSSE Load Flow
The user is responsible for aggregating the actual wind turbines into equivalent machines. For N lumped machines, the output of the equivalent machine cannot exceed N times the rated output of the individual units. The power factor correction shunt capacitors must be added (if available) and connected to the terminals of the equivalent machine by the user. For example, for the original Vestas V80 machine, the total compensation available is 12 capacitors of 72 kVAr each. After compensation, the reactive power flow from the terminal bus to the system should be in the range of +40/-40 kVAr per machine.
Page 7
Handling wind turbine models in PSSE Dynamics
The user prepares a dynamic input data file by following the example files included in the modeling package documentation. All vendor specific models are provided in the format of users written (defined) models. The dynamic simulation models implemented by Siemens PTI are self-initializing, as with all other PSSE simulation models.
Page 8
Application Features of PSSE Software Packages

In rev 31+, the new category of machine, namely wind machine, is introduced, along with new wind related common variables. This makes simulation more convenient and efficient. In the near future, a new name, like Renewables, might be needed to have solar and other inverter based generation fit in this category. All four generic models using a wind machine category, namely WT1, WT2, WT3, and WT4, are standard starting from rev 31.1. These generic models will not be available for rev. 29 and 30 please upgrade to 32! The old user written WT3 generic model using the conventional machine in LF is available for rev 29+. Please note: this model is different from the standard generic WT3 model. Probably, at some point in foreseeable future we will close the option of treating the wind machine as a conventional machine.
Page 9
The latest wind turbine model infrastructure in PSSE a reminder

Wind machines are specified on the existing generator record of the Power Flow Raw Data File.
Bus # 1 5 Bus Name INFINITE WT Id 1 1 Code 3 2 Status 1 1 Pgen (MW) -49.618 50.25 Pmax (MW) 9999 105 Pmin (MW) -9999 0 Qgen (Mvar) -0.993 -4.317 Qmax (Mvar) 9999 34.3 Qmin (Mvar) -9999 -51.1 Mbase (MVA) 100 111.69 XSource (pu) 0.2 0.8 Wind machine Control Mode Not a wind machine Standard QT, QB limits Wind machine PF 1 1
The following additional data items, appended to the end of the record, are specified for wind machines: 0 if this is not a wind machine (this is the default value). 1 if this is a wind machine which participates in voltage control, with the values of QT and QB on the data record specifying the machines reactive power limits. 2 if this is a wind machine which participates in voltage
control, with the specified power factor (see below) and the machines active power setting (PG on the data record) used to set the machines reactive power limits.
3 if this is a wind machine which operates at a fixed power,
with the machines reactive power output and reactive power upper and lower limits all equal, and set based on the specified power factor (see below) and the machines active power setting (PG on the data record).
Power factor: ignored if the wind control mode is 0 is used in setting the machines reactive power limits when the wind control mode is 2 or 3 negative value may be specified when the wind control mode is 3, and is interpreted as a leading power factor (i.e., the wind machine produces active power and absorbs reactive power).
Page 10
The latest wind turbine model infrastructure in PSSE a reminder

Any wind model may include one or several of the following wind modules:
IC index 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Wind module type Generator Electrical control Mechanical control Pitch control Aerodynamics Wind Gust/Ramp Auxiliary control
New variables of two categories have been added to support the wind models in PSSE: Variables accessible for users, e.g., model outputs Variables not accessible for users: primarily for model developers.
Page 11
The Latest Wind Turbine Model Infrastructure in PSSE (continued)

To add the wind dynamic module as a user written model, the statement in the dynamic data file should be added as follows: IBUS USRMDL ID ModelName IC IT NI NC NS NV parameters/ IT = 1 for IC = 101 IT = 0 for IC = 102 to 107
Page 12
Simulating Manufacturer Specific PSSE Wind Models using Python Module pssewindpy The idea is to allow for a quick and automatic model setup process for manufacturer specific wind generation models in order to help users in their familiarization with these models
Module pssewindpy
Provides Python functions to simulate PSSE manufacturer specific wind models: Acciona AW15/AW30, Fuhrlaender FL2500, GE 1.5/2.5/3.6 MW, Mitsubishi MWT 92/95/100, Mitsubishi MPS1000A, Vestas V47/V80/V82/NM72, Generic WT3. Provides demo Python functions to simulate these models. Provides example Python scripts which can be edited/modified to select/specify desired wind model: To add a WTG to any PSSE load flow case To create WTG model dyre records (.dyr file created).
Page 14
Demo Simulation
5 bus demo test work Demo run python scripts: Add selected WTG, its GSU and other components if required (like fixed shunt, switched shunt etc.) Update the base case and base snapshot Simulate WTG response to bus fault or complex wind input (if applicable)
99971 BUSWTG
99972 COLLECTORBUS
99973 LVBUS
99974 HVBUS
99975 SWINGBUS G
WTG 34.5 kV 34.5 kV 138 kV 138 kV
added by pssewindpy functions
Page 15
GE 1.5 MW WTG Demo Simulation

Python Script to set up GE 1.5 MW demo:
import pssewindpy psseversion = 32 wtg_mdl = 'ge15' wtg_units = 67 pct_dispatch = 100.0 wtg_mass = 1 # PSS(R)E Version
# Number of WTG Units # % dispatch, e.g. 100.0 for 100% # Shaft Model, =1 for Single, =2 for Double mass freq = 60 # Network base freq in Hz pssewindpy.wtg_init(psse version) cnvsavfile, snpfile = pssewindpy.wtg_demo_ge(wtg_mdl, wtg_units, pct_dispatch, wtg_mass, freq)
Python Script to run Simulation:

outfile1 = pssewindpy.wtg_demo_run_collect_bus_flt(cnvsavfile, snpfile) outfile2 = pssewindpy.wtg_demo_simulate_complex_wind(cnvsavfile, snpfile)
Page 16
Adding WTG model to PSSE Case

Python function to add any manufacturer specific WTG model to any PSSE Case
chngpyfile, dyrfile = wtg_create_chng_dyr_files(wtg_mdl, bus_collect, bus_wtg, wtg_units, pct_dispatch=100,aw_extqctrl=True, aw_cnvrmvar=True, # AW1530 gewt_mass=1, # GE 1.5/3.6/2.5 MW ge15_old=False, # GE 1.5 mwt_crowbar=0, mwt_ndh=0, # mwt92/mwt95 v8047_shaft=1, # v80/v47 (enable/disable shaft model) v82nm72_qctrl='pf', v82nm72_svctype='local', # V82/NM72 v82nm72_bus_wtg2=None, v82nm72_gridsvc_kvar=None, v82nm72_svc_bus=None # V82/NM72 grid SVC v82nm72_svc_wtgside_bus=None, v82nm72_svc_gridside_bus=None, v82nm72_pf=0.95, # V82/NM72 when qctrl=pf v82nm72_kvar=0.0, # V82/NM72 when qctrl=var wt3_data={}, wt3_mass=1) # generic WT3
Page 17
Adding WTG model to PSSE Case (continued) Python function to create converted case and snapshot
-From base snapshot:
cnvsavfile, snpfile = pssewindpy.wtg_create_cnvsav_snp_files(chngpyfile, dyrfile, basesnpfile=bassnpfile, convertpyfile=None )
-From base DYR file:

cnvsavfile, snpfile = pssewindpy.wtg_create_cnvsav_snp_files(chngpyfile, dyrfile, basedyrfile=basdyrfile, convertpyfile=None )
Page 18
Adding WTG model to PSSE Case (continued) Python function to add Voltage or Frequency protection model
pssewindpy.add_protection_relay(dyrfile, relaymdl, bus_mon, bus_gen, gen_id, threshold, t_pickup, t_breaker=0.08)
For Voltage protection, model names are: 'vtgdca', 'vtgtpa' For Frequency protection, model names are: 'frqdca', 'frqtpa
'vtgdca' -> Under Voltage / Over Voltage Bus Disconnection Relay 'vtgtpa' -> Under Voltage / Over Voltage Generator Disconnection Relay 'frqdca' -> Under Frequency / Over Frequency Bus Disconnection Relay 'frqtpa' -> Under Frequency / Over Frequency Generator Disconnection Relay
bus_mon = Bus number where voltage or frequency is monitored bus_gen = Bus number of generator bus where relay is located gen_id = Generator ID threshold= Voltage (pu) or Frequency (Hz) threshold (upper or lower threshold) t_pickup = Relay pickup time (sec) t_breaker= Breaker contact parting time (sec), default = 0.08 sec.
Page 19
Generic Wind Generation Models in PSSE
Generic Wind Model WT1
The model structure:
WT1G model is a modification of the standard induction machine model

Page 21 2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. Siemens Power Technologies International
Type 2 Wind Turbine
Page 22

The first generic model developed was of Type 3.
The model includes 4 modules responsible for:

WT3G1, WT3G2 , doubly-fed induction generator which is mostly an algebraic model to calculate the current injection to the grid based on commands from controls, with or without the PLL control. WT3E1, electrical control including the torque control and a voltage control. WT3T1, the turbine model including a two-mass shaft mechanical system and a simplified method of aerodynamic conversion, namely P=Kaero** where P is mechanical power, is a pitch angle; this method was validated against results obtained when using the Cp matrix; WT3P1, the pitch control.
Page 23

The machine is decoupled from the grid by a power converter: no angular stability problem, the power conversion is controlled by converters on the machine and grid sides; the latter is also capable to control voltage, MVAr flow, or power factor.
Page 24
Siemens Wind Turbine Generic Model
The WT4 generic model includes the special entry for Siemens 2.3 MW wind turine. It was carefully parameterized jointly by Siemens PTI and Siemens Wind Power. We are planning to separate the Siemens wind turbine model as a separate standard model. Per SWPs request we have converted the WT4 generic model to earlier PSSE releases as a user written model. This is the example of parameterization of the WT4 generic model to match the response of the vendor specific model of the Siemens 2.3 MW wind turbine.
Oscillations in Pel from the vendor specific model cannot be replicated by the WT4 model because it does not take the machine dynamics into account
Page 25
Generic wind models as a basis for manufacturer specific models Some manufacturers approached us with the request to Try to parameterize the generic model in order to match their benchmark - Availability of the benchmark is a must! If testing with the adjusted parameters shows a significant mismatch add new features to the generic model and make a new vendor specific model
Example: for the Fuhrlaender 2.5 MW wind turbine model the active power up-ramping was added to the WT3
Page 26
Hot issues
Ficticious Frequency Spikes

Prevent abrupt change in bus voltage angle during and after the fault to prevent fictitious frequency spikes. Problem is very acute in weak systems. Causes false frequency relay trips. Temporary Solution: Disabling Frequency Relay. Mid-Term Solution: External Intelligent Frequency Relay with smoothen frequency measurement.
Page 28
Network Non Convergence

Prevent network non-convergence during 3-phase faults
Terminal bus voltage angle is uncertain because the reference frame is lost: no machine flux dynamics for WT3 or PLL for WT4 Many planners use PSSE setups that include the so called Shut down model: it calculates a number of Network not converged (NNC) events and stops the simulation if it exceeds the given threshold, e.g. 6 NNCs.
Page 29
Network Non Convergence
The existing model for GE WTs of 1.5 MW , 1.6, 3.6 MW (Type 3) and 2.5 MW (Type 4): two NNCs were observed when testing the 1.5 MW and 2.5 MW WTs, with 3-phase bolted fault applied to the POI bus 2 one at the fault inception, another at the instant of fault clearing The upcoming model for GE WTs of 1.5 MW, 1.6 MW (Type 3) and 2.5 MW, 2.75 MW, 4.0 MW (Type 4) no NNCs with SCR as low as 3.
s1
Page 30
Slide 30 s1
stykayu1, 6/30/2011
Frequency Events
Modeling frequency events

Can generic models be used and trusted for simulating frequency events: loss of generation or loads? This question first should be addressed to vendor specific models that provide a benchmark for generic models Collecting information from field tests or tests using the detailed equipment level models (PSCAD/EMTDC, MatLab/Simulink) is of urgent importance Below are some examples illustrating some concerns. The main question is: does the wind turbine respond to frequency events, as provided by vendor specific or generic models, seem realistic?
Page 32
Test System
Bus 15 wind turbine 100 MW unit
100 MW Load 1000 MW load
Bus 19 Hydro 1000 MW unit
Bus 19 GT 100 MW unit
Page 33
No governors: drop the WT unit

Under-frequency event: only conventional units Accelerating power (PMECH-PELEC) is negative Loads are intact. To compensate for the lost generation, outputs of on-line machines increase at the expense of the rotor kinetic energy: inertial response! New reduced frequency is such that there is a balance between generation, loads, and losses For on-line units, rotor speed and system frequency are the same
Page 34
Under sudden low frequency conditions, when load demand exceeds the generation, increase of the machine active power output by means of converting the rotor kinetic energy into the electrical energy is a sound response. For a conventional generation unit, the under-speed protection may shut it down.
Page 35
Hydro Governor Impact: drop the WT unit

Accelerating power (PMECH-PELEC) restores to ~0 New steady state frequency depends on the governor droop
Page 36
The GEWT (DFIG) vendor specific model: drop the GT unit, no Hydro governor
Great difference between the WT rotor speed and the system frequency. Note: the initial WT rotor speed is about 1.2 pu (72 Hz). For conventional machines, rotor speed follows the frequency. For DFIG it stays constant.
After the GT was dropped off, all the lost power was picked up by a Hydro. WTs power does not change.
Page 37
The GEWT (DFIG) vendor specific model: drop the GT unit, no Hydro governor; WindInertia enabled
WindInertia increased WTG Pelec by 4% at the expense of the rotor deceleration very different physics.
Page 38
MPS-1000 versus WT1; drop GT unit; hydro governor

Similar response Trustworthy: the full order machine model for both models WT rotor speed and the system frequency have a similar pattern
Page 39
V80 60 Hz (VRCC) versus WT2; drop GT unit; hydro governor

Similar response Trustworthy: the full order machine model for both models WT rotor speed and the system frequency have different patterns
Page 40
Replace vendor specific GEWT (DFIG) model by generic WT3 model; drop GT unit; no hydro governor
Full Load
Partial load
WT3 and GEWT provide identical response
Page 41
For under-frequency events, the system response shown by generic models is very close to one shown by vendor specific models. For under-frequency events, the system response shown by both models seems realistic Results from the field and from full order models are badly needed to verify the stability model performance
Page 42
Generic Solar Photovoltaic Model in PSS E
PSS/E Implementation
Irradiance Model
Irradence Model
1.2
PV Panel Model
Converter Model
Rest of System
0.8 Irradence
0.6
0.4
0.2
Irrad (I)
1 2 3 4 5 Time 6 7 8 9 10
Pdc (I)
WT4 Converter/ el. control
Voltage
PSS/E
IR, IQ
IrradU1
PANELU1
PVGU1, PVEU1
Page 44
Irradiance Model
Standard Model that allows user to vary the amount of solar irradiance. User enters up to ~10 data points (time(s), irradiance(W/m2)) as cons Initializes based on steady state P/Pmax For each time step, outputs linearized irradiance level
Irradence Model
1.2
0.8 Irradence
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 Tim e 6 7 8 9 10
Page 45
PV Panel Model
Standard Model for a PV panels I-V curves PV panels output varies with Irradiance, temperature, terminal voltage (set by MPPT) User enters maximum Pdc (per unitized) for different irradiance levels as cons For each time step, reads irradiance level, outputs linearized power order
Page 46
Converter Model use slightly modified WT4 full converter model
Largely ignores dynamics from DC side. Different reactive control modes: Voltage control, PF control, Q control For each time step, outputs linearized irradiance level
Page 47
Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

James W. Feltes and Bernardo Fernandes Siemens Power Technologies International (Siemens PTI) james.feltes@siemens.com bernardo.fernandes@siemens.com Ping-Kwan Keung Now with Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) Ping-Kwan.Keung@aeso.ca
Overview
Introduction Importance of proper modeling of wind energy projects in system studies Wind Turbines Equipment Models Case Study - System Modeling Analysis Performed - Power Flow - Short Circuit - Transient Stability Conclusions
Page 49
Introduction
The US is geographically large Areas with rich wind resources US Department of Energy in 2008 estimated the wind generation that can be technically developed: 300 GW needed for a 20% wind scenario Estimates of the number of buses required to represent each wind turbine in detail in a load flow model would be 200,000 buses (average size of 3 MW) Computers of 2030 will likely have no problem doing the calculations Unlikely that the engineers will be overjoyed at the efforts required to validate, maintain, and perform studies with this vast amount of extra data.
Page 50
Wind Farm Modeling

There has been research on techniques for the aggregation of the wind turbines in a wind farm to reduce the size and complexity of the model. Among others, the methodology proposed by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) represents a straightforward approach that is quite easy to apply. It is reported that simulation results using the simplified models derived with this methodology match simulation results using more detailed models. However, it is not always clear when these approximation techniques can be used or when the extra time and effort to develop a full representation of the wind farm is justified. This paper compares both models using an actual wind farm configuration employing calculation results
Wind Turbines Equipment Models

The response and model of a wind farm is very dependent on the type of equipment used. Directly connected induction generators (Type 1) Wound rotor induction generators (Type 2) Doubly-fed induction generators - DFIG (Type 3) Power converter connected to synchronous or induction generators (Type 4) Case study performed with the most common types of wind turbines being installed in utility scale wind farms Only Type 3 and 4 machines are used.
Case Study - System Modeling

The wind farm is loosely based on an actual wind farm. Consistent with an actual wind farm layout and turbine spacing. There are almost 500 turbines in the wind farm. Five 34.5 kV feeders. Lengths range from a few hundred feet to several miles and have between 50 and 150 turbines each. The wind farm is distant from load centers and is connected via a long 345 kV transmission line.
Page 53
Wind Farm Generation

Summary of the units modeled in the wind farm Doubly-fed induction machines (GE - Type 3) Full converter units (Siemens - Type 4)
Group 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Page 54
# Units 76 142 80 149 50 497
Model Type DFIG DFIG FC DFIG FC -
Turbine Type 3 3 4 3 4 -
Size (MW) 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 -
Total (MW) 114 213 184 224 115 850
Wind Farm Models

Detailed Model representing each of the individual units and the connections between these units and the system. - 1119 buses - 1095 branches. Very detailed data on the feeder cable system connecting the wind turbine/generators was used to create this representation. Equivalent Model. Detailed model is reduced to represent five major groups of turbines through - Lumped Sum WTG - Equivalent Padmount Transformer - Equivalent Collector System The methodology proposed by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council was used to create the equivalent
Page 55
Analysis Performed
Power Flow Determine flows on transmission lines and transformers and voltage profile - Voltage Control - Losses in the Collector System Short Circuit Analysis Wind Turbine Generators contribution on the system side Transient Stability Check synchronism after disturbances, damping of oscillations, and voltage recovery following fault clearing are adequate - Stability transfer Limit - Power System Oscillations - Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT)
Power Flow
Steady State System Studies The similarity of both aggregate and detailed models in terms of wind farm responses to contingencies in the system is dependent on the accuracy of the equivalent model. From the system studies standpoint, an equivalent model is sufficient Optimal voltage control strategy A detailed model is desirable. It reflects the voltage profile variation along the feeders. Reactive power generated or absorbed. For the same terminal voltage setpoint, a WTG at the far end of a given feeder will not respond the same way as the ones closer to the collector bus.
Page 57
Voltage Control Strategy

Figures show the voltage profile for a given feeder of the Group 1 units in steady state conditions: 1.000 pu terminal voltages setpoint. Colors indicate voltage levels. Tending to yellow = higher voltages. Tending to blue = lower voltages. WTGs controlling their own terminal voltages For an event resulting in a voltage drop in the 345 kV system, the WTGs do not respond the same way
Page 58
Voltage Control Strategy

Analysis Results - Detailed Model: Units at the far end do not provide as much reactive support as the ones closer to the collector bus The voltage drop is not as severe at the far end of the feeder. - Equivalent Model: aggregated generator detects the voltage drop and injects all available reactive power. Therefore, the effective reactive injection is unequal along the feeder in the detailed model, but the net effect into the system is similar
Page 59
Losses in the Collector System

The losses evaluated in steady state are essentially due to the collector system, transmission lines and transformers The generator related equipment losses are not taken into consideration No significant differences between the two wind farm representations in terms of system losses
WF Output (MW) 850 800 750 700 650 600 500 400 Reactive Support Reactors at POI (Mvar) (Mvar) 510 340 340 340 170 170 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 -110 -110 -110 Power to 138 kV Bus EQV Full Model Model 823.0 777.0 730.8 683.8 636.2 587.4 491.4 394.6 822.8 777.2 730.8 683.8 636.0 587.4 491.7 394.6 Power to POI EQV Model 757.4 721.5 684.9 645.5 603.2 559.0 472.6 382.5 Full Model 756.3 721.7 685.1 646.9 603.2 559.0 472.7 382.5 Voltage at POI EQV Model 1.050 1.038 1.048 1.055 1.039 1.040 1.049 1.035 Full Model 1.049 1.038 1.048 1.056 1.039 1.040 1.050 1.035 Voltage at WF 138 kV EQV Full Model Model 0.999 1.020 1.044 1.060 1.067 1.048 1.067 1.077 0.991 1.021 1.045 1.061 1.068 1.048 1.068 1.078
Page 60
Short Circuit Analysis

Type 3 and Type 4 machines have significantly different dynamic behavior than either conventional synchronous or induction machines as seen from the system X represents an effective equivalent reactance and is not the actual subtransient reactance of the machines The manufacturers recommended values are applicable to remote system faults, not for faults on the WTG terminals No significant differences between the two wind farm models in terms of short circuit contributions
3 Ph Fault Location Total Fault Currrent (A) EQV Main 138 kV Main 345 kV POI 345 kV
Page 61
Wind Farm Contribution (A)
Group 1 EQV 767 707 419 Full 755 694 410
Group2 EQV 1390 1271 708 Full 1394 1273 704
Group 3 EQV 1137 1043 601 Full 1167 1071 623
Group 4 EQV 1235 1132 650 Full 1275 1162 641
Group 5 EQV 831 765 450 Full 832 764 446
Full 6178 2420 12537
6157 2418 12548
Transient Stability
Stability simulations were performed for two contingencies involving 345 kV transmission lines in the area surrounding the POI: - Substation 1 to Substation 2, ckt 1 - POI to Substation 3, ckt 1 All contingencies simulated are three-phase faults cleared by line tripping with a total clearing time of 6 cycles
Page 62
Stability Transfer Limits

Contingency Analysis Initially the system was tested for stability at full wind farm output, for both equivalent and detailed models The wind farm did not remain stable following contingencies. The loading of the wind farm was reduced to the level at which both the wind farm and the system remained stable for the tested contingencies. Simulation Results Indicated that the wind farm presents unstable dynamic behavior or WTG trips for loading greater than approximately 700 MW, which indicates the stability limit for the case study When the lack of reactive support and/or need for system reinforcements is prominent, both equivalent and detailed wind farm models present the same dynamic performance.
Power System Oscillations

Stable Case Wind Generation set to 85% of the installed Capacity Outage of one 345 kV lines between substations 1 and 2. Figure shows the active power delivered at the POI for both equivalent and detailed models The results show a very similar dynamic behavior for both wind farm models.
900 800 700
Active Power (MW)
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (seconds)

238 - POWR 70461 TO 7046 CKT 1 : 720MW_CTG 1-2_EQV Model 4555 - POWR 70461 TO 7046 CKT 1 : 720MW_CTG 1-2_Detailed Model
Page 64
Power System Oscillations Sensitivity Case

Sensitivity Case: Created to evaluate performance under contingencies of both models for a low generation scenario. The wind farm output was adjusted to 25 %. Same Contingency as previous
1.3 1.2 1.1
Voltage at the POI (pu)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (seconds)

62 - VOLT 7046 [L_KENDAL345.00] : 212.5MW_CTG SB1 to SB2_EQV Model 62 - VOLT 7046 [L_KENDAL345.00] : 212.5MW_CTG SB1 to SB2_Detailed Model
Page 65
Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT)

Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) capability of the wind turbines defines that the wind farm should not trip off line for faults for specific under voltage conditions. A three phase fault at the POI was simulated, cleared by the outage of the 345 kV line between the POI and Substation 3. The wind farm loading is 85% or 720 MW. Simulation Results: The detailed model shows WTG trips due to the wind turbines low voltage protection of Group 1 and Group 2 units, while the equivalent model results show no wind turbine trips occurring.
Page 66
Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT)

The trips occur due to the lack of ability
Active Power (MW)
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -1 00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
of the wind turbines to provide the necessary reactive support to restore the post contingency voltages inside the plant. Results indicates that, in marginally stable cases, it is essential to use the
Time (seconds)
2 38 - POWR 70 461 TO 7 046 CKT 1 : 72 0MW_ C TG POI to SB3_ EQV Model 4 555 - POWR 7 0461 TO 704 6 CKT 1 : 7 20MW_CTG POI to SB3 _Detailed Mode l
1.5
detailed model
WTG Terminal Voltages (pu)
1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
A detailed model better takes into account the WTG responses along the feeders A higher voltage profile along the feeders may help prevent the turbine trips
Page 67
0.5 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
Time (seconds)

1733 - VOLT 61248 [G103 0.5750] : 720MW_CTG POI to SB3_Detailed Model 3369 - VOLT 62268 [K-61 0.5750] : 720MW_CTG POI to SB3_Detailed Model
Conclusions
The case studies presented are useful in making decisions on the level of modeling needed to evaluate the wind farm performance. There is trade-off in accuracy versus complexity of wind park modeling Intent of aggregated model is to reflect the response of the wind farm as seen from the system For the majority of the steady state studies to evaluate the impact in the system of a given wind farm, an equivalent representation is sufficient For detailed steady state studies like the design of voltage control or reactive power strategies in the wind farm, a detailed model is desirable A detailed modeling effort is justified in stability studies, since the models must represent accurately the plant dynamics and its response, particularly for large wind farms in weak systems A detailed representation can lead to more realistic results, especially when the dynamic transfer capability is limited Obviously, in planning practice detailed layout and data are not available.
Page 68

Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PSS E Wind and Solar Models.

Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.

PSSE Wind Models

2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.

Current View of PTI Web Site

Siemens PTI PSSE Models

Other Non-PTI PSSE Models

Wind Models Simulation Infrastructure in PSSE

Handling wind turbine models in PSSE Load Flow

Handling wind turbine models in PSSE Dynamics

Application Features of PSSE Software Packages

The latest wind turbine model infrastructure in PSSE a reminder

The latest wind turbine model infrastructure in PSSE a reminder

The Latest Wind Turbine Model Infrastructure in PSSE (continued)

WTG 34.5 kV 34.5 kV 138 kV 138 kV

added by pssewindpy functions

GE 1.5 MW WTG Demo Simulation

Python Script to run Simulation:

Adding WTG model to PSSE Case

-From base DYR file:

Generic Wind Generation Models in PSSE

Generic Wind Model WT1

The model structure:

WT1G model is a modification of the standard induction machine model

Type 2 Wind Turbine

Generic Wind Model WT3

The model includes 4 modules responsible for:

Generic Wind Model WT4

Siemens Wind Turbine Generic Model

Ficticious Frequency Spikes

Network Non Convergence

Network Non Convergence

Modeling frequency events

Bus 15 wind turbine 100 MW unit

100 MW Load 1000 MW load

Bus 19 Hydro 1000 MW unit

Bus 19 GT 100 MW unit

No governors: drop the WT unit

Hydro Governor Impact: drop the WT unit

MPS-1000 versus WT1; drop GT unit; hydro governor

V80 60 Hz (VRCC) versus WT2; drop GT unit; hydro governor

WT3 and GEWT provide identical response

Generic Solar Photovoltaic Model in PSS E

2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.

WT4 Converter/ el. control

Converter Model use slightly modified WT4 full converter model

Case Studies of Wind Park Modeling

2011 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wind Farm Modeling

Wind Turbines Equipment Models

Case Study - System Modeling

Wind Farm Generation

# Units 76 142 80 149 50 497

Model Type DFIG DFIG FC DFIG FC -

Size (MW) 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 -

Total (MW) 114 213 184 224 115 850

Wind Farm Models

Voltage Control Strategy

Voltage Control Strategy

Losses in the Collector System

Short Circuit Analysis