Effects of the Synthetic Inertia from Wind Power on the Total System Inertia after a

Frequency Disturbance
F. Gonzalez-Longatt1, E. Chikuni2, E.Rashayi3
1
Department of Aerospace, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Coventry University, Kingdom
1
Email: fglongatt@ieee.org
2
Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa
2
Email: chikunie@cput.ac.za
3
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Zimbabwe
3
Email: Rashayi@gmail.com

Abstract The future power systems face several challenges; one
of them is the use of high power converters that virtually decouple
primary energy source from the AC power grid. An important
consequence of this situation is their effect on total system inertia
and the ability to overcome the system's frequency disturbances.
The wind power industry has created a controller to enable inertial
response on wind turbines generators: Synthetic Inertial. This
paper evaluates the effects of the inertia emulation of wind
turbines based on full-converters and their effect on total system
inertia after frequency disturbances happen. The main
contribution of this paper is to demonstrate (based on simulations)
that during an under-frequency transients on future power
systems, synthetic inertia does not completely avoid worse
scenarios in terms of under-frequency load shedding. The extra
power delivered from a wind turbine during frequency
disturbances can increase "momentary" the total system inertia
and substantially reduce the rate of change of frequency providing
time for the active governors to respond. However, synthetic
inertia might not completely avoid under-frequency load shedding.
I. INTRODUCTION
Future power systems face several challenges [1]: (i) the
high penetration level of renewable energy from highly
variable generators connected over power converters, (ii)
several technologies for energy storage with very different
time constants, some of them using power converters as an
interface to the grid, (iii) A complex European transmission
network facilitating the integration of large-scale renewable
energy sources and the balancing and transportation of
electricity based on underwater multi-terminal high voltage
direct current (MTDC) transmission. All of them have an
element in common, high power converters that decouple the
new energy sources from the pre-existent AC power systems
[1], [2].
During a system frequency disturbance the
generation/demand power balance is lost, the system
frequency will change at a rate initially determined by the
total system inertia. However, future power systems will
increase the installed power capacity (MVA) but the effective
system inertial response will stay the same as at present. This
is because the new generation units based on power
converters create a decoupling effect of the real inertia and
the ac grid [1]. The result is deeper frequency excursions of
system disturbances. If considerable reduction in the ability
to overcome system frequency's disturbances is expected, the
inertia response may be decreased. The inertial response of
the system might be negatively affected with devastating
consequences for system security and reliability [1].
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effects of synthetic
inertia on wind turbines based on full-converters on the total
system inertia after a frequency disturbance. This paper is
organized as follows: Section II describes the frequency
response on power system after a frequency disturbance.
Section III presents the concept of synthetic inertia and show
two approaches used on WT (wind turbine) controller to
create inertial responses. Section IV address aspects related to
system inertia, system frequency response and some potential
challenges for futures networks. Section V the results of
simulations that define the impact of synthetic inertia on the
protection/control schemes over a test system. Finally, the
advantages of this novel application are discussed at the
conclusions.
II. FREQUENCY RESPONSE
The system frequency of a synchronous power system
varies with the imbalance of energy supplied and the
electrical energy consumed [3], [4]. When large generating
blocks are lost, the system undergoes a frequency swing that
depends on to the size of the loss. Limits imposed on the
magnitude of frequency deviation prevent system collapse
[5]. In accordance with the Electricity Supply Regulations
1989 and hence the National Grid Companys (NGC)
Transmission License, the frequency delivered to the
consumer must not vary from the declared value by more
than 1% [6].
In the event of a sudden loss of generation or sudden
connection of a large load, the system frequency starts
dropping (Region I of Fig. 1) at a rate mainly determined by
the total angular momentum of the system Mtotal, sum of the
angular momenta of all generators (Mg,i) and spinning loads
connected to the system (ML,i).

978-1-4673-4569-9/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE 826

 Continous Service
Primary
50.2
Response
Secondary Response
10s 30s 60s Time 30 mins
50.0
Frequency (Hz)
Secondary (to 30 mins)
49.8
Primary
Reserve
49.5
49.2
Region I
Occasional Service
Fig. 1. General Frequency System Response and Controller involved: The
operational limits show on the figure correspond to England and Wales.
In the case where the frequency drops by more than 0.2
Hz, generation plants are contracted to provide additional
frequency response duties.
Large frequency disturbances, particularly trips of large
generation plants, cause generation-demand unbalance that
must be corrected by frequency control loops. These
controllers are provided in order improve the System
Frequency Response (SFR). The frequency controllers cover
multiple time-frames [1]: (i) inertial response also know as
fast primary response, (ii) governor response also known as
slow primary response, (iii) automatic generation control
(AGC), and (iv) tertiary control. These controllers define the
dynamic changes associated to SFR. [3]. These services are
illustrated in Fig. 1 (tertiary control is not illustrated).
III. SYNTHETIC INERTIA
The frequency of a power system depends on real power
balance: generation-demand. In the standard operation of a
power system, the frequency is regulated within strict limits
by adjusting the electrical supply to meet the demand. If the
balance between generation and demand is not reached, the
system frequency will change at a rate initially determined by
the total system inertia. The total system inertia comprises the
combined inertia of most of spinning generation and load
connected to the power system.
A. Inertia constant and Swing Equation
The inertia constant of a rotating system (H), or individual
generator, is used to define the energy stored in its rotating
mass (Ec0). This definition consists of the time, in seconds,
that it would take to replace this stored energy when
operating at rated mechanical speed (sm) and rated apparent
power output (Sbase) [3], [7]:
1 J sm
2
H (1)
2 Sbase
where: J is the total moment of inertia in kg.m2, sm is the
rated mechanical speed in rad/s, and Sbase is the selected base
827
apparent power in MVA.
A change in the generation/load balance, at one point in the
system will be reflected throughout the system by a change in
frequency. The relationship between the power imbalance at
the terminals of the i-th generator in p.u. (pi) and its
frequency (fi), can be expressed as:
2 H i df i
pm ,i pe ,i pi i = 1, 2, , N (2)
f n dt
where: pm,i is the mechanical turbine power in p.u., pe,i is the
electrical power in p.u., pi is the load generation imbalance
in p.u., Hi is the inertia constant in s, fi is the frequency in Hz,
fn is the nominal system frequency in Hz and dfi/dt is the rate
of change of frequency in Hz/s. This is a simplified version of
the swing equation, which assumes that any damping effects
during the disturbance are relatively small.
It follows, therefore, that if the instant of the disturbance is
known (t =t0), and the size of the power imbalance, pi(t0),
and the rate of change of frequency (ROCOF), dfi/dt at the
terminal of the i-th generator are known, then the unknown
inertia constant of this generator can be estimated (i) using
(2):
p t f
H i i 0 n
df (3)
2 i
dt t t0
It must be noted that (3) is only valid immediately after a
disturbance, a time referred to as t=t0+. After this time other
factors, not accounted for in equation (3), begin to affect the
dynamic behavior of the system. The ROCOF can be simply
determined from two consecutive measurements:
df i f (t ) f (t )
i 0 i 0 (4)
dt t t0 t0 t0
where fi(t0+) and fi(t0-) are the frequency in Hz sampled after
and before the disturbance, and t0+ and t0- represent the
corresponding sampling times. All of these values refer to the
i-th generator. The power imbalance, pi, can be defined in
terms of mechanical (Pm,i) and electrical power(Pe,i):
pi t0 pe ,i (t0 ) pe ,i (t0 ) (5)
Using (3)-(5) the inertia constant of the N generators in the
system can be calculated.
The total system inertia (HT) comprises the combined
inertia of most of spinning generation and load connected to
the power system.
B. Synthetic Inertia: Concept
If during a system frequency disturbance the balance
between generation-demand is not reached, then the system
frequency will change at a rate initially determined by the
total system inertia (HT). The total system inertia comprises
the combined inertia of most of spinning generation and load
connected to the power system. The contribution of the
system inertia of a load or generator is dependent on whether
the system frequency causes changes in its rotational speed
and, therefore, its kinetic energy.
The power associated with this change in kinetic energy is
fed or taken from the power system and is known as the
inertial response [8]. During a system frequency event the
total system inertial response of all electrical machines
connected to the system is the main factor that determine the
initial ROCOF. For a robust power system (system frequency
is not overly sensitive to the power imbalances), it is
extremely important that a large proportion of generation and
load connected to the power system contributes to the total
system inertia and then provide inertia response.
Modern WTGs (wind turbine generators) use power
electronics converters to enable variable speed operation in
order to capture wind energy over a wide range of speeds.
However, these converters isolate the rotational speed from
the system frequency so WTG based on back-to-back
AC/DC/AC converters offer no natural response to system
frequency [9], [10]. In this paper, the adjective "natural" on
the previous sentence is used because some manufacturers
have started to integrate controllers on modern WTGs in
order to provide inertial response (and governor response on
some cases) for large, short-duration frequency deviations.
The Wind turbine industry has created several names for this
control system that enable inertial responses on a WTG:
Artificial, Emulated, Simulated, or Synthetic Inertial.
Examples of synthetic inertia controlled commercially
available for WTG are: General Electric WindINERTIA
[11], [12] ENERCON Inertia Emulation [13].
The objective of the synthetic inertia control is to extract
stored inertial energy from the moving part on WTGs. The
idea is to produce incremental energy similar to that provided
by a synchronous generator with real inertia. Synthetic inertia
controllers are based on two different approaches: (i)
Releasing "hidden" inertia and (ii) Reserve capacity in pitch.
To release the "hidden" inertia a controller to the takes
kinetic energy from the wind turbine (WT)s rotating mass. A
controller based on this concept increases the electric power
output during the initial stages of a significant downward
frequency event. The active power (inertial power, p) of the
control is achieved by:
df
p 2 H syn f sys sys (6)
dt
where Hsyn express the synthetic inertia (sec) and fsys system
frequency (p.u). Implementation of releasing hidden inertia
controllers is depicted on Fig. 2.
Traditional variable speed WTs are designed to always
operate at the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) so they
have no power reserve to support frequency control in the
steady state. Reserve capacity in pitch concept coerces a wind
standby power by maintaining reserve capacity in pitch. A
de-loading controller enable the WT to operate over de-
loading curves instead of MPPT and saves the available
828
power as reserve by using a pitch controller (pitching) or
increasing the rotational speed from the MPPT value (over-
speeding). These concepts are well understood and therefore
will not be discussed further in this paper.
Hid den inertia emulatio n
d
d p 2 H synsys sys
sy s Filter 2Hs ys dt
dt
1 J sm
2
H syn
2 Sbase
P r, ref r PM PPT Pref
Pmea s PI Converter
MPPT r
r ,meas
Fig. 2. General Scheme for Releasing "Hidden" Inertia Controller
IV. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
This section presents simulations and results considering a
Test System representative of a future network which can be
obtained from [1]. This system consists of 8-generator, 8-bus,
7-load, and 22-transmission lines and it has been divided in
seven areas. DIgSILENT PowerFactoryTM is used for time-
domain simulations and DIgSILENT Simulation Language
(DSL) is used for dynamic modeling.
The system has a total generation of 100.736 GW and a
total load of 96.75GW and Fig. 3 shows steady state
conditions for case base where a power flow of about 15 GW
from the Top to Tail is depicted.
In this paper, the operational-control criteria used for
system frequency analysis is based a specific criteria defined
by the author, it is mainly an adapted version of the GB
Security and Quality of Supply Standards (GB SQSS). The
following assumptions are used in this paper:
(i) the level of infrequent loss of power infeed is set-up to
1.800 GW, and frequency response must avoid a
deviation of system frequency outside statutory limits:
range 49.8 Hz to 50.2Hz for more than 5 cycles,
(ii) frequency control devices (or speed governor) are set
up to operate with an overall speed Droop of 4% (GB
SQSS establishes between 3 and 5%),
(iii) Under Frequency Load Shedding (UFLS) is set to start
at 49.8Hz and the plan consists of six load shedding
steps of equal size pshed [14]. A delay for each load
shedding step is td = 0.1 s (5 cycles).
Fig. 4 depicts the general structure of variable-speed wind
turbine with a direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous
generator (PMSG). The models used for back-to-back
converter, detail of each model are taken from: [15], [16].
The parameter used for these models are escalated to simulate
an equivalent 5 MW wind turbine.
 power infeed from 0.3 to 3.2 GW are simulated and rate of

DIgSILENT
G1 L1a
~

22.80
G
11.15
change of frequency (ROCOF) of the frequency of inertia
Upper Top
centre (fc) is plotted on Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows the total system
-0.13 2.26
76.00

1a

2
400.00
1.00
15.81
-4.62
2.95
-4.62
2.95
10.44
-4.14
10.44
-4.14
1
TOP inertia (HT) considering the increases on the loss of
generation infeed. The ROCOF and the minimum frequency
10.54 10.54 21.62 21.62 395.40
400.00
1.00 1a-1 I 0.99

1a-2 II
-9.88

1a-2 I
18.52 10.24

Top-Left Top-Rigth
5.08
21.62

(nadir) increases as the level of loss of power infeed increase

4.75
-2.73
10.54 1a-1 II -9.88
9.50 4.95
-5.45 5.08
G

1.01
~

G2 L1

and the total system inertia is kept constant. The small

36.52 21.62
4.75
-2.73
10.54 1-4 14.80

deviations of the total system inertia are consequence of

-11.16
36.09

1-3

3-4 numerical error during the inertia estimation method

Upper-Tail
-14.01
12.46
36.09
9.94
-5.37
21.74
-9.37
6.32
21.74
Tail-Right presented on Section III.A, the overall error is less than
4 400.00
1.00
3 400.00
1.00
0.0006s.

DIgSILENT
5.61 0.00
7.20
6.77
20.20
-5.41
14.13
2.87
17.34
-8.61
8.64
4.60
10.95
2.22
7.06
-3.94
50.20
32.94 69.71 37.26 32.61 15.55
50.00
G G G 6.602 s 16.252 s 56.722 s
~ ~ ~ 49.259 p.u. 49.560 p.u. 49.513 p.u.
G4(b) G4(a) L4 G3 L3
49.80

3-7
4-7
49.60
5-7
49.40
-8.21
5.46
8.65
-4.74
-15.66
11.38
-6.76
4.43 49.20
(a)
18.98 18.98 37.26 15.55
0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99
5 7
Lowest-Tail 400.00
1.00
-8.90
400.00
1.00
-4.01
30.00
9.51
8.76
43.08
17.34
3.52
0.38
-0.23
0.85
9.04
-4.94
19.83
11.40
9.40
49.27
16.14
3.28 Middle 25.00
5-6 20.00
G G
6-7

~ ~ 15.00
G5 L5 -0.38 -8.57 G7 L7
0.23 5.72 10.00
Load Flow Balanced
TAIL
0.85 19.83
5.00
Nodes Branches 6 400.00 0.00
(b)
Line-Line Voltage, Magnitude [kV] Active Power [GW] 1.00
0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99
-9.12
Voltage, Magnitude [p.u.] Reactive Power [Gvar]
17.11
11.24
68.23
26.05
5.29 Core+Tail
Voltage, Angle [deg] Loading [%] 14.00
G
~ 13.00
G6 L6
12.00
Benchmark System Project: DPSP 2012
fglongatt.org. 11.00
Francisco M. Gonzalez-Longatt Graphic: Benchmark Model
10.00
02/01/2012 Date: 2/13/2012
PowerFactory 14.0.525 fglongatt@ieee.org 9.00
Annex:
8.00
(c)
0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99
Fig. 3. Test Case: "TOP-TAIL" System: Steady-State Conditions fglongatt
Exceptional Loss of Infeed Response Date: 2/17/2012
Francisco M. Gonzalez-Longatt, PhD March 2012 Annex: /2

Active and Active and Fig. 5. System Frequency response to an exceptional loss of generation
Mechanical reactive
Wind power Model fo power
reactive
power
infeed (a) Frequency in Hz, Generation active power in GW (b) with and (c)
Mechanical
Speed
Power Shaft Pm direct drive Pac , Qac
Power Pac , Qac Fundamental without frequency response.
Rotor model Model synchro- Stator frequency
vw Pw r usnous converter Voltage
currents frequency grid model
Rotor generator
Is -4
Pitch Vs , f
Speed
Pset x 10
angle Rotor speed 5
Reactive
turb Qset power set 300MW
point 500MW
0 -4
Pitch angle Rotor speed Pset Terminal x 10 700MW
controller controller Active power voltage 5
df/dt (p.u./s)

set point controller -5 1350MW

0
1500MW
-10 -5 1800MW
Fig. 4. General structure of a model of a variable-speed wind turbine with a -10 2300MW
direct-drive synchronous generator and full power converter -15 -15
2800MW
3200MW
-20
-20 0 5 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)
C. Results and Discussion
Fig. 6. ROCOF (p.u/s) considering level of loss of power infeed: Base Case.
An infrequent loss of infeed is used as system frequency
disturbance; it consists of tripping one generating unit s)( 5.3387
T
connected to Upper-Tail area at t=1.0s (generator G4(b) on H5.3386
ai
tr 5.3385
Fig. 3). Four generators providing governor frequency en
I 5.3384
response and three conventional generators (G2, G5, and G7) em 5.3383
sty
will be operating without active governors or at maximum S
lt
5.3382
a 5.3381
power. Fig 5 shows the plots of the system response for base o
T 0.3 0.5 0.7 1. 35 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.2
case considering an exceptional loss of power infeed, the Loss of Po wer I nfeed (GW)

UFLS is not active in this case and the frequency nadir Fig. 7. Total System Inertia (HT) considering level of loss of power infeed:
reaches fmin = 49.259Hz at tmin = 6.602s, Fig 5(a). Base Case.
The impact of synthetic inertia (Hsyn) provided by WT into
the total system inertia (HT) is quantitatively analyzed An exceptional loss of power infeed triggers a substantial
through time-domain simulations. Several levels of loss of excursion on the system frequency. The ROCOF for each

829
generation unit is shown on Fig 8, and Fig 9 shows the inertia the synthetic inertia provided by the wind farm, values from
constant of each generator (Hi) is calculated using the 0.1 to 10.0 s has been conceded the system frequency (fc)
estimation method presented in Section III.A. The ROCOF are plotted on Fig 9 and the total system inertia
exceptional loss of power infeed produce a frequency nadir of results are shown on Fig. 10 .
it is more than 741 mHz and persist for more than 5 cycles 50 0.1

(see Fig. 8 and Case I). 49.8 0

Frequency (Hz)

df/dt (Hz/s)
I
0.2 49.6 -0.1 II
III
G1
49.4 -0.2 IV
G2
0 Hsyn= 0.1s IV
G3
Frequency (Hz/s)

0.2 49.2 -0.3

G4(a)
0 50 0.1
-0.2 G5

Frequency (Hz)
-0.2 G6 49.8 0

df/dt (Hz/s)
G7
-0.4 -0.4 49.6 -0.1

-0.6 49.4 -0.2

-0.6
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Hsyn= 1.0s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 49.2 -0.3
0 10 20 30
Time (s) 50

Frequency (Hz)
49.8 0

df/dt (Hz/s)
Fig. 8. ROCOF (Hz/s) considering an exceptional loss of power infeed: Base
Case. 49.6
-0.1
49.4
Hsyn= 5.0s
Inertia Constant Hi (s)

3.5
49.2 -0.2
3 0 10 20 30
2.5 50.2 0.05
2
Hsyn= 10.0s
Frequency (Hz)
50 0

df/dt (Hz/s)
1.5
1 49.8 -0.05
0.5
49.6 -0.1
0
G1 G2 G3 G4(a ) G5 G6 G7
Loss of Power Infeed (GW) 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
Fig. 9. Generator Inertia Constant (Hi) considering an exceptional loss of
power infeed: Base Case.
Fig. 9. System Frequency (fc) and ROCOF (Hz/s) considering different
UFLS schemes: Wind Integration (Hsyn). pshed = 20%.
50.5
0.1
Frequency (Hz)

Total System Inertia HT (s)

0
df/dt (Hz/s)

50 I 8
II 7
-0.1 6
49.5 III
5
-0.2 IV
4
V 3
49 -0.3 2
0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20
1
Time (s) Time (s)
0
Fig. 9. System Frequency (fc) and ROCOF (Hz/s) considering different 0.1 1 2.5 5 10
UFLS schemes: Base Case. pshed = 20%. Synthetic Inertia Hsyn (s)

Fig. 10. Total System Inertia (HT) considering different UFLS schemes:
ULFS is activated to avoid a prohibitive frequency nadir Wind Integration considering several values of Synthetic Inertia (Hsyn).
and to allow the integration of the wind power. Several UFLS
schemes on demand side of Tail area are tested, loads: L4, An increase on the synthetic inertia increases the total
L5, L6, L7 (see Fig. 3). Initially, a UFLS scheme base on six system inertia and the increase depends on the value o the
load shedding steps of equal size pshed = 20% is examined, synthetic inertia. This is a very positive effect and it is
the results of system frequency and ROCOF are shown on independent from the load shedding scheme used. This
Fig. 9 (load shedding Case I: 0 GW, II: 2.8260GW, III: increase on the total system inertia is consequence of the
6.2940 GW, IV: 5.7520GW, V: 7.3660GW). active power contribution during the inertial response, as
A cluster of wind farm is connected on bus 3 at Tail-Right consequence the ROCOF at the very beginning of the
area and it is generating 30 GW and control loop for releasing dynamic process is decreased (considering the same loss of
"hidden" inertia (Hsyn= 3.75s) is included. Benefits of the generation infeed).
integration of this wind farm include the increase on 164
mHz the minimum frequency during at exceptional loss of
power infeed. A better evaluation include vary the value of

830
D. Discussion: Impact on the Load Shedding Schemes details is presented for the second trip, the time delays on the
trips is observed between the system considering a synthetic
Synthetic inertia changes the total system inertia and this inertia of 1.0 and 2.5s.
situation has two important consequences on the under- 0
frequency protection schemes: (i) reduce the system (a) Hsyn = 1.0s
-200
frequency exclusion and the minimum frequency reached -100

Load Shedding (MW)

after the disturbance, and (ii) change the ROCOF. -400
-200
These effects are evaluated considering changes on the -600 -300
synthetic inertia (Hsys = 0.1, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 s) and the
-800 -400 L4
step size of the load-shedding (pshed) are varied on the UFLS -500 L5
scheme: 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% and 20% (see Fig. 11) -1000
-600
L6
L7
(a) Base Case (b) Hsyn = 0.1s 3.05 3.055 3.06 3.065 3.07 3.075 3.08
-1200
15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
15
Time (s)
10
Power (GW)

10
Power (GW)

0
5 5 (b) Hsyn = 2.5s
-200
0

Load Shedding (MW)

0 0
-400
20% 20%
10% 10% -200
5% 5%
IV
-600
pshed 2.5% III
IV pshed 2.5% III
1% II 1% II
Load Shedding Case I Load Shedding Case I -800 -400
Case Case

(c) Hsyn = 1.0s (d) Hsyn = 2.5s -1000

15
-600
15 3.13 3.135 3.14 3.145 3.15
-1200
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Power (GW)

10
Power (GW)

Time (s)
5 5
Fig. 12. Power shed (GW) considering different a UFLS of six step pshed =
0 0 1%, Tdelay = 0.1s. Wind Integration considering Hsyn= 1.0s and 2.0s. Case IV:
20% 20% UFLS relays on L4, L5, L6 and L7.
10% 10%
5% 5%
IV
pshed 2.5% III pshed 2.5% III
IV
1% II 1% II
Load Shedding Case I Load Shedding Case I
Case Case
E. Discussion: Impact on the WT Power Converter
(e) Hsyn = 5.0s (f) Hsyn = 10.0s
15
15 The hidden inertia reduces the maximum ROCOF and
10
increase the frequency nadir, and this mechanism of inertia
Power (GW)

10
Power (GW)

5
5 emulation is based on release the kinetic energy of the
0
rotating masses on the WT. This mechanism has two
0

20%
10%
5%
pshed 2.5%
1%
Load Shedding Case I
Fig. 11. Power shed (GW) considering different UFLS schemes (pshed):
Wind Integration considering several values of Synthetic Inertia (Hsyn).
Synthetic inertia not completely avoid the ULFS for
system frequency disturbances like an exceptional loss of
power infeed however there are two important aspects: (i)
increases of synthetic inertia values and moderate to small
step size on the setting on the UFLS might decrease the total
power during the load shedding and, (ii) increases on the
synthetic inertia might delay the operation of the under-
frequency protection schemes. The last conclusion is depicted
on Fig. 9 where the delay is observed for the second trip of
the UFLS on Case III for synthetic inertia less than 10s, in the
particular case of Hsyn = 10s, the second operation of UFLS is
avoided. Fig 12 shows the operation of the UFLS, special
20% important consequences that require to be carefully be
10%
5%
IV
evaluated: (i) the variable speed wind turbines have a lower
IV
pshed 2.5%
II
III
Load Shedding Case
1%
I
II
III
inertia than classical synchronous generators, as consequence
Case Case
the value of the synthetic inertia must be correctly defined to
avoid an potentially dangerous decrease on the rotational
speed with all the consequences on the drive train, and (ii)
releasing the hidden inertia imply a sudden increase on the
electrical power output as consequence the full power
converter must provided this sudden increase of current.
Old wind turbines did not include controllers to provide
synthetic inertia. However an upgrade of the power control
loops allows this feature, and special evaluations are required
in order to avoid a fatal failure on the wind turbine systems.
The power devices used on power converter are quite
sensible to changes on the electrical variables, the synthetic
inertia imposes electrical transient conditions which must be
evaluated and it is especially true during the inertia release
period and the recovery period.

831
 V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper evaluates the effects of the inertia emulation of
wind turbines based on full-converters and their effect on
total system inertia after a frequency disturbances happen.
The substantial effect of synthetic inertia is on total system
inertia and system inertial response: (i) the extra power
delivered from WT can substantially reduce the ROCOF (ii)
it provides time for the active governors to respond. However
a coordination between controllers looks desirable (iii)
increasing synthetic inertia helps to delay the UFLS and
avoid repeated operations at exceptionally high values of
synthetic inertia, (iv) synthetic inertia might not completely
avoid UFLS, (v) ROCOF immediately after a system
disturbance is independent on the UFLS scheme, (vi) UFLS
helps to reduce the negative recovery effect caused by
synthetic inertia. The main contribution of this paper is to
demonstrate the potential positive effect on the total system
inertia on future power systems that integrate synthetic
inertia, however the under-frequency protection schemes
must be rethought because synthetic inertia cannot
completely avoid worse scenarios in terms of UFLS.
controls: Impacts on grid performance," in Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, 2011, pp. 1-8.
[13] S. Wachtel and A. Beekmann, "Contribution of Wind Energy
Converters with Inertia Emulation to Frequency Control and Frequency
Stability in Power Systems," presented at the 8th International
Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power
Systems as well as on Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind
Farms, Bremen, Germany, 2009.
[14] P. M. Anderson and M. Mirheydar, "An adaptive method for setting
underfrequency load shedding relays," Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 7, pp. 647-655, 1992.
[15] F. Gonzlez-Longatt, P. Wall, and V. Terzija, "A Simplified Model for
Dynamic Behavior of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator for
Direct Drive Wind Turbines," in IEEE PES Trondheim PowerTech
2011, Trondheim, Norway, 2011.
[16] S. Achilles and M. Poller. Direct drive synchronous machine models for
stability assessment of wind farm. Available:
http://www.digsilent.de/Consulting/Publications/DirectDrive_Modeling
.pdf

REFERENCES

[1] F. Gonzalez-Longatt, "Impact of Synthetic Inertia from Wind Power on

the Protection/Control Schemes of Future Power Systems: Simulation
Study," presented at the DPSP 2012 - Protecting the Smart Grid, The
11th International Conference on Developments in Power System
Protection, Birmingham, United Kingdom, 2012.
[2] F. Gonzalez-Longatt;, P. Regulski;, H. Novanda;, and V. Terzija;,
"Impact od Shaft Stiffness on Inertial Response of Fixed Speed Wind
Turbines," Automation of Electric Power Systems, vol. 36, pp. 191-197,
2012.
[3] J. Machowski, J. W. Bialek, and J. R. Bumby, Power System Dynamics:
Stability and Control, 2nd ed. ed. Oxford: John Wiley, 2008.
[4] B. Pal and B. Chaudhuri, Robust control in power systems. New York:
Springer, 2005.
[5] GB. (2009). Security and Quality of Supply Standard (SQSS).
Available:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/
[6] L. Holdsworth, J. B. Ekanayake, and N. Jenkins, "Power system
frequency response from fixed speed and doubly fed induction
generator-based wind turbines," Wind Energy, vol. 7, pp. 21-35, 2004.
[7] P. Kundur, N. J. Balu, and M. G. Lauby, Power system stability and
control. New York; London: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[8] A. Mullane, G. Bryans, and M. O'Malley, "Kinetic energy and
frequency response comparison for renewable generation systems," in
Future Power Systems, 2005 International Conference on, 2005, pp. 6
pp.-6.
[9] G. Lalor, A. Mullane, and M. O'Malley, "Frequency control and wind
turbine technologies," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20,
pp. 1905-1913, 2005.
[10] S. Yuan-zhang, Z. Zhao-sui, L. Guo-jie, and L. Jin, "Review on
frequency control of power systems with wind power penetration," in
Power System Technology (POWERCON), 2010 International
Conference on, 2010, pp. 1-8.
[11] N. Miller, K. Clark, and R. Walling, "WindINERTIA: Controlled
Inertial Response from GE Wind Turbine Generators," presented at the
45th Annual Minnesota Power Systems Conference, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 2009.
[12] N. W. Miller, K. Clark, and M. Shao, "Frequency responsive wind plant

832

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)