M.Ahmed,M.ELShimy,andM.A.Badr.Sizingofreactivepowercompensatorsforonshoreandoffshoregridconnectedwindfarms.

IndustryAcademia
Collaboration(IAC)Conference,2015,EnergyandsustainabledevelopmentTrack,Apr.68,2015,Cairo,Egypt.http://www.iacconf.com/

Sizing of reactive power compensators for onshore and

offshore grid connected wind farms
M. Ahmed1, M. EL-Shimy*1, and M. A. Badr2
1

Electrical Power and Machines Department, Ain Shams University, Abbassia, Cairo, 11517, Egypt
2
Faculty of Engineering,Future University in Egypt (FUE), New Cairo, Egypt
Corresponding author: shimymb@yahoo.com; 002 01005639589

Abstract - The analysis of reactive demands of

high voltage transmission links connecting wind
farms to the central grid is considered in this
paper. Both High Voltage AC (HVAC) and High
Voltage DC (HVDC) options as well as overhead
and
cable
transmission
alternatives
are
considered in the analysis. Therefore, the
presented work is applicable for both onshore
and offshore installations considering various
transmission technologies. The sizing of the
required reactive power compensators for the
transmission system is the main objective of the
manuscript. The target is to keep acceptable
operating voltage limits through appropriate
amounts
of
reactive
power
injection
or
absorption at the wind farms interface bus. The
considered wind farm is made up with DFIGs.
Based on the reactive power capability limits of
the DFIGs comprising the wind farm, the
minimum rating, and type of external reactive
power compensating devices are determined for
various transmission options. In addition, the
reactive power loading on the compensators at
various operating conditions of the wind farm is
determined.
Index Terms Wind power; DFIG; transmission
alternatives; loading capability limits; reactive
power compensators.

I. INTRODUCTION
From interconnection system point of view,
wind farms are connected to the grid by either
overhead or cable transmission lines. Overhead
transmission is usually used in onshore
installations while the cable transmission is
usually used in offshore installations. Most current
transmission systems are HVAC while HVDC
option is its counterpart. The choice between
HVAC and HVDC alternatives is usually based on
techno-economic selection criteria. The HVDC
alternative is technologically available in either
voltage-source converter (VSC-HVDC) or linecommutated converter (LCC-HVDC). Fig. 1
illustrates a guideline for the techno-economic
selection of various transmission alternatives.

Fig.1: Choice of transmission technology based on overall

system economics [1,4]

Generally, as clear from Fig. 1, the HVAC

alternative is more techno-economically feasible
in comparison with the HVDC option except when
the transmitted power is very high (> 400 MW)
and/or the transmission distance is very long (>
250 km) [1 - 4].
Other salient technical characteristics and
operational constraints of various transmission
alternatives can be found in [1 - 7]. Although as
shown in Fig. 1 that the LCC-HVDC shows the
highest power carrying capability over large
distances, its black start is not technically
possible while this capability is available with
both HVAC and VSC-HVDC. From the grid support
point of view, only the VSC-HVDC can absorb or
generate reactive power for supporting the grid.
This capability is facilitated by the VSC devices.
Reactive power compensators are usually needed
for grid support in either HVAC and LCC-HVDC
installations. With both HVDC alternatives,
decoupling of the connected network is available
due to the power conversion processes provided
by the power converter. The HVAC option does
not provide this decoupling capability. From
substation space and cost requirements, the
HVAC option shows the smallest values in
comparison with other alternatives. This is of
special importance in offshore applications where
the space requirements and associated costs of
power substations is one of the main concerns.
For both onshore and offshore installations,
the wind turbines comprising a wind farm are
placed in rows perpendicular to the prevailing
wind direction [8]. The major interactions among

the turbines result in the energy loss caused by

the wind turbine wakes. A wind farm design for
the maximum wind energy capture must
minimize the wake effects among turbines [9].
The wake effect can be explained considering Fig.
2 [9].
When a uniform incoming wind encounters a
wind turbine, a linearly expanding wake behind
the turbine occurs. A portion of the free stream
wind speed will be reduced from its original
speed vup to vdown as shown in Fig. 2(a). As shown
in Fig. 2(b), for the given wind direction and
placement of turbines, turbine 2 is in the wake of
turbine 1. Turbine 3 is in the wake of turbine 1
and turbine 4. Turbine 5 is not affected by the
wake of any other turbine. The energy crop
maximization and interaction (i.e. wake and
turbulence) minimization can be achieved by
proper spacing between turbines [9-14]. The
spacing definitions are illustrated in Fig. 2(c). It is
found that the optimum spacing values are S1
10R and S2 17R where R is the turbine rotor
radius shown in Fig. 2(a). With this spacing, the
aerodynamic interactions can be neglected and
the energy capture is maximized. In this paper,
proper spacing between turbines is assumed.
Therefore, the wake effect and other aerodynamic
interactions are neglected.

(c)
Fig. 2: Wake effect [9]. (a) Wind turbine wake model. (b)
Turbines affected by the wake of the other turbines. (c) Tower
spacing

A general layout of a grid-connected wind

farm is shown in Fig. 3. The grid-interconnection
system can be divided into two parts. The first
part is the infield connections (or grid) while the
second part is the bulk power transmission link
[8, 12, 13, 15]. The infield connections are usually
cables in either onshore or offshore installations.
These connections, gather the produced energy
and bring it to a central collection point. The
collection point is then tied to the main grid via
the bulk power transmission link.

Fig. 3: General layout of grid connected wind farms

(a)

(b)

The produced energy at the generator

terminals is usually of a low voltage (e.g. 690 V).
This low voltage is then increased to the level of
the infield connection voltage (up to 66 kV [4, 7]).
This is provided by turbine transformers that are
installed directly in or close to the basement of
each wind turbine. At the collection point, the
voltage is increased to the grid voltage level by
the collection point transformers. In the Zafarana
farm in Egypt as an example, the infield
connections are provided at an AC voltage of 22
kV level while the collecting substation increases
this voltage to an AC voltage of 220 kV which is
the voltage of the AC central grid [16].
Previous researches [1, 2] show that the
impact of infield connections and the collecting
transformers may ne neglected. This assumption
is based on the fact that the infield cables usually
produce reactive power for all operating
conditions due to their high capacitance while the

transformers consumes reactive power for all

operating conditions. Therefore, in this study, the
negligence of the impact infield connections and
the collecting point transformers is reasonable for
the simplification of the reactive power analysis
and compensator sizing.
This paper presents a detailed analysis of the
reactive
power
demanded
by
various
transmission systems connecting wind farms to
the grid. Both HVAC and HVDC options as well as
overhead and cable transmission alternatives are
considered in the analysis. The minimum size and
type of the required reactive power compensators
at the collection point are determined. This is
based on the difference between the reactive
power capability of the wind farm and the
reactive power needed at the collecting point for
acceptable voltage level and grid support. The
considered wind farm is made up with DFIGs. The
reactive power capability of the DFIG and the
DFIG-based wind farms is determined according
to the recent modeling advances [17]. Standard
models of the transmission links are used for the
power flow analysis. The PSAT 2.1.9 [18] is used
as a simulation environment. In addition, the
reactive power loading on the compensators at
various operating conditions of the wind farm is
determined.
II. THE STUDY SYSTEM AND MODELING
A hypothetical 150 MW wind farm is
considered. The layout of the wind farm takes the
form shown in Fig. 3. This wind farm is composed
of 100 DFIGs. The rating of each DFIG 1.5 MW. It
is assumed that the spacing between turbines is
large enough for the negligence of the wake
effect, turbulence, and other aerodynamic
interaction. Therefore, the same value of the wind
speed is assumed to affect all the turbines. The
reactive power production from the infield cable
grid is assumed to approximately compensate the
reactive power absorbed by the infield and the
collection point transformers. The considered
hypothetical wind farm is used in the analysis of
onshore and offshore installations. For the
onshore installation, the wind farm is connected
to the grid via 230 kV overhead HVAC
transmission link while the offshore installation is
assumed to be connected to the grid via a
submarine HVAC transmission link. For both
installations the impact of LCC-HVDC cable as
used as a transmission link is investigated. A set
of transmission lengths as well as the range of
the active power production from the wind farms
is simulated. These simulations in conjunction
with the capability limits of the wind farm are

used for estimating the minimum size and

operational loading of the required compensators.
The modeling and simulation of the
capability limits of the DFIGs are based on [17]
while the models for the HVAC and HVDC options
are based on [18 20]. The parameters of the
DFIG are available at [1, 2, 17] while the
parameters of various HVAC transmission options
(overhead and cables) are available at [21]. The
parameters of the LCC-HVDC line is obtained from
[22].
III. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
A flowchart showing the main actions in the
mathematical simulation of the hypothetical
system is shown in Fig. 4. The simulation is
performed with the aid of PSAT PSAT 2.1.9 [18].
The capability chart of the wind farms is
determined based on the model presented in [17]
and the results are shown in Fig. 5 where various
operational power factor values are considered. It
is clear from Fig. 5 that the DFIG wind farm is
capable of absorbing reactive power for all active
power production values (i.e. wind speed values).
The
reactive
power
absorption
limit
is
independent on the active power production
except at high values. The wind farm capability of
producing reactive power is highly dependent on
the active power. In addition, at a power
production of 120 MW, the wind farm will only be
able to absorb reactive power. The wind farm
loading capability region as affected by the PF
setting of the grid-side converter (GSC) of the
DFIG is also shown in Fig. 5.
It is depicted from the figure that the both the
lower limits of the capability region and the
intersection point between the upper and lower
limits are highly sensitive to the PF settings.
Changes in the PF cause regular changes in the
lower limits while the upper limit is irregularly
changed. The sensitivity of the upper limit varies
with the total power of the DFIG; the sensitivity
increases with the increase in the total output
power. Therefore, the inductive reactive power
capability of the DFIG is highly sensitive to the
changes of GSC PF setting while the capacitive
reactive power capability is less sensitive.
Considering unity PF as a reference, lagging PFs
cause downward shift (increase) in the inductive
reactive power capability while leading PFs
causes upward (decrease) in this capability. As
shown in figure, the impact of the GSC PF on the
capacitive reactive power capability is minor and
irregular; at a power output of about 90 MW, the
impact of the PF settings is reversed.
The results shown in Fig. 5 are important
for assessing the capability of the DFIG-based

wind farm for bus voltage control or reactive

power support. If, for example, the reactive
power required from the wind farm for keeping
the interface bus (or collecting point shown in Fig.
3) voltage with specific limits is within the wind
farm capability limits, then no external
compensators are needed. Otherwise, reactive

power compensators are required to be installed

on the interface bus. This is for supplying the
mismatch between the demanded reactive power
and the available reactive power from the DFIGs
comprising the wind farm. According to the sign
of the reactive power mismatch, the proper
compensator type will be determined while the
maximum mismatch determines the minimum
size of the required compensators. If for all power
production values, inductive reactive power is to
be absorbed by the compensator, then thyristor
controlled reactors (TCR) may be the suitable
compensator type. On the other hand, if
capacitive reactive power is required to be
injected for all values of the active power
production, then thyristor switched capacitors
(TSC) are among the proper compensator types.
If both capaciative and inductive reactive power
is required during the production of active power
values, then compensators such as SVCs or
STATCOMs are among the proper alternatives.
The sizing and type of proper reactive power
compensators as well as their loading during
various active power production from the wind
farm will be demonstrated by several numerical
examples.
With the HVAC overhead line option, the total
required reactive power at the interface bus is
shown in Fig. 6(a) while Fig. 6(b) shows the
results of Fig. 6(a) combined with the capability
chart of the wind farm.

Fig. 4: System simulation flowchart

(a)

Fig. 5: capability chart of the considered wind farm

(b)

(c)
Fig. 6: HVAC overhead lines. (a) Active and reactive power
characteristics for various lengths; (b) Line characteristics
integrated with wind farm capability limis. (c) Loading and
sizing of the required capacitive compensator (TSC) for unity
PF operation of the GSCs

Based on Fig. 6(b), it is clear that the wind farm is

having limited reactive power capability for
compensating the requirements of the lines. Table
I shows the maximum active power that can be
transmitted without the need of reactive power
compensators. The results shown in the table are
derived from the results shown in Fig. 6(b).
TABLE I
Maximum MW transmitted (or wind farm production) without
the need of compensators
PF of the GSCs of the DFIGs
Line
length
(km)
250
200
150
100

Unity

0.95

0.9

0.95

0.9

PF

lag

lag

lead

lead

150
152
153
154

Maximum MW transmitted (MW)

144
142
157
144
142
159
144
142
161
144
142
162

Now considering the XLPE HVAC transmission

cable, the total required reactive power at the
interface bus is shown in Fig. 7(a) while Fig. 7(b)
shows the results of Fig. 7(a) combined with the
capability chart of the wind farm.
It is clear from the results shown in Fig. 7
indicates that the connection of the wind farm to
the grid requires large inductive reactive power
compensation for all power transmission (i.e.
power production) values and for all lengths of
the cable. This is in contrast with the HVAC
overhead line (Fig. 6(c) and Table I) where the
magnitude of the required compensating capacity
is much less and its usage is limited to the
situations of high power production. The
continuous loading of the compensator in the
HVAC cable system is expected to cause faster
wear out (i.e. lifetime reduction) of its
components in comparison with the compensator
in the HVAC overhead case. In addition, the large
size of the compensator in the HVAC cable case is
expected to cause much higher interconnection
cost in comparison with the HVAC overhead line
case. It is also known that the costs associated
with cable installations are much higher than
those associated with overhead installations.
Therefore, the proper selection of grid connection
system should be carefully based in a detailed
techno-economic analysis.

161
164
165
167

It is clear from Table 1 and Fig. 6(b) that operating

the GSC of the DFIGs at 0.9 leading PF results in
maximization of the active power that can be
transmitted over the line without the need of
compensators.
Since,
unity
power
factor
operation is recommended by the German
Electricity Association (VDEW) [1, 2, 17], then
unity power factor operation is used for sizing the
required compensator as shown in Fig. 6(c). The
figure shows the operational loading of the
required capacitive compensator for various
power production values considering various line
lengths. The minimum size of the compensator is
equal to the maximum loading value. It is clear
from Fig. 6(c) that the compensator size increases
with the increase of the line length. In addition, it
is clear that the reactive power loading on the
compensator increases with the increase in the
active power transmission (i.e. the wind farm
active power production).

(a)

(b)

(a)

(c)
Fig. 7: HVAC XLPE cable. (a) Active and reactive power
characteristics for various lengths; (b) Line characteristics
integrated with wind farm capability limis. (c) Loading and
sizing of the required inductive compensator (TCR) for unity
PF operation of the GSCs

With the LCC-HVDC line, the results are shown

in Fig. 8. The reactive power is only needed for
supplying the converters while the conductors of
the line do not need reactive power. This is
because DC line conductors are neither absorbing
nor generating reactive power. Therefore, the
reactive power needed for the LCC-HVDC line
connecting the wind farm to the grid is expected
to be independent on the line length and the
installation type (i.e. overhead or cable);
however, of course, the reactive power needed
by the converters increases with the increase in
their capacity of loading as shown in Fig. 8(b).
The results show the LCC-HVDC line requires
capacitive compensation. Similar to the HVAC
overhead lines (Fig 6), the loading on the
compensators is not continuous and starts at high
active
power
transmission,
however,
the
compensator in the HVAC overhead line starts to
supply reactive power at an active power transfer
that is significantly higher in comparison with the
LCC-HVDC. In addition, the size of the capacitive
compensator needed for the LCC-HVDC is much
higher in comparison with the HVAC overhead
line. This is should be considered in the overall
techno-economical
evaluation
of
various
interconnection alternatives.

(b)
Fig. 8: LCC-HVDC. (a) Line characteristics integrated with wind
farm capability limis. (c) Loading and sizing of the required
capacitive compensator (TSC) for unity PF operation of the
GSCs

IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented a detailed analysis of
the reactive power characteristics of DFIG-based
grid connected wind farms.Various AC and DC
transmission alternatives are considered. In
addition, the paper presented a methodology for
sizing and type determination of the required
reactive compensators for the considered
transmission options. Various lengths of the
transmission lines are also considered.
The results show that HVAC overhead line and
LCC-HVDC lines connecting the wind farm to the
grid needs capacitive compensators while the
HVAC
cable
option
requires
inductive
compensators. The size of the compensators
needed for the HVAC overhead and HVAC cable
alternatives is highly dependent on the length of
the lines while with the LCC-HVDC option the
required compensator size is independent of the
line
length.
This
is
because
reactive
compensators in LCC-HVDC installations are
mainly needed to supply the reactive power
needed by the converter while the line
conductors do not need reactive power.
The operational loadings of the compensators
needed for various transmission alternatives are
significantly different. This is for the same active
power transmission (i.e. wind farm active power
production). In both HVAC overhead and LCCHVDC lines, the compensators supply reactive
power only at high active power transmission;
however, the loading and size of the capacitive
reactive power compensator for LCC-HVDC based
system are much higher in comparison with the
HVAC overhead basec system. With the HVAC
XLPE cable, the required inductive reactive power
compensator is needed for all values of active
power transmission and for all considered lengths
(100 km 250 km) considering the hypothetical

150 MW wind farm. From the points of view of

compensator size and compensator loading, the
HVAC overhead transmission option offers the
minimum values in comparison with the HVAC
XLPE cables and LCC-HVDC lines; however, the
determination of the optimal alternative needs
careful detailed techno-economic feasibility
analysis.
REFERENCES
[1] M. El-Shimy, Reactive power management and control of
distant large-scale grid-connected offshore wind power
farms, International Journal of Sustainable Energy, vol.
32, no. 5, pp. 449-465, 2013.
[2] M. EL-Shimy, Modeling and analysis of reactive power in
gridconnected onshore and offshore DFIG-based wind
farms, Wind Energy, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 279295, 2014
[3] L. Xu and B. R. Andersen, "Grid Connection of Large
Offshore Wind Farms Using HVDC," wind energy, vol. 9,
pp. 371382, 2006.
[4] T. Ackermann, " Transmission Systems for Offshore Wind
Farms," in Wind Power in Power Systems, ed: John Wiley &
Sons, 2005, pp. 529-553.
[5] T. Ackermann, N. Barberis Negra, J. Todorovic, L. Lazaridis,
"Evaluation of Electrical Transmission Concepts for Large
Offshore Wind Farms," presented at the In Copenhagen
offshore wind conference and Exhibition Copenhagen,
2005.
[6] N. Barberis Negra , J. Todorovic , T. Ackermann, "Loss
evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission solutions for
large offshore wind farms," Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 76, pp. 916927, 2006.

[7] F. Renaudin, "Integration and Stability of a Large Offshore

Wind Farm with HVDC Transmission in the Norwegian
Power System," Master of Science in Electric Power
Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, 2009.
[8] P. Bresesti, W. L. Kling, R. L. Hendriks, and R. Vailati.,
"HVDC Connection of Offshore Wind Farms to the
Transmission System," IEEE transactions on energy
conversion, VOL. 22, NO. 1, vol. 22, March 2007.
[9] J. Schachner, "Power Connections for Offshore Wind
Farms," Diploma Thesis, Department of Electrical
Engineering, University of Leoben, Austria, 2004.
[10] A. Kusiak and Z. Song, "Design of wind farm layout for
maximum wind energy capture," Renewable Energy vol.
35, pp. 685-694, 2010.
[11] G. Marmidis, S. Lazarou, E. Pyrgioti, "Optimal placement
of wind turbines in a wind park using Monte Carlo
simulation," Renewable Energy vol. 33, pp. 14551460,
2008.
[12] S. Lundberg, "Evaluation of wind farm layouts," Europian
Power Electroics and Drives (EPE) vol. 16, 2006.
[13] S. Lundberg, "Wind Farm Configuration and Energy
Efficiency Studies - Series DC versus AC Layouts," Thesis
for the degree of doctor of philosophy, Department of
Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden, 2006.
[14] A. Emami and P. Noghreh, "New approach on optimization
in placement of wind turbines within wind farm by genetic
algorithms," Renewable Energy vol. 35, pp. 1559-1564,
2010.
[15] P. Lazaros Lazaridis, "Economic Comparison of HVAC and
HVDC Solutions for Large Offshore Wind Farms under
Special Consideration of Reliability," Masters Thesis,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2005.
[16] New & Renewable Energy Authority (NREA). Available at:
http://nrea.gov.eg/english1.html
[17] M. Ahmed, M. EL-Shimy, and M. Badr, Advanced
modeling and analysis of the loading capability limits of
doubly-fed induction generators, Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, vol. 7, pp. 79-90, 2014.
[18] Power System Analaysis Toolbox (PSAT). Available at:
http://faraday1.ucd.ie/psat.html
[19] PSAT manual. Available at: http://licence.ucd.ie/tech/500
[20] F. Milano, Power system modelling and scripting,
Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
[21] P. Kundur, Power system stability and control. Edited by
Neal J. Balu, and Mark G. Lauby. Vol. 7. New York:
McGraw-hill, 1994.
[22] N. Barberis, J. Todorovic, and T. Ackermann. "Loss
evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission solutions for
large offshore wind farms." Electric Power Systems
Research, Vol. 76, No. 11, 2006, pp. 916-927.