Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Standard Wind Turbine-Generator Models

Wind Generator Modeling Group Western Electricity Coordinating Council
IEEE PES 2006 Montreal, Quebec

It is time for a change

Wind generation capacity no longer invisible
60 GW worldwide, 40 GW in Europe, >9 GW in the US, >4 GW in the WECC footprint Some regions experiencing high saturation levels Significant expansion expected in the near future

Adequate simulation models are indispensable

Evaluate impact of adding new generators Perform planning studies to maintain system reliability at the local and regional level

The Status Quo is not acceptable

One-of-a-kind, proprietary models unnecessarily difficult to refine, validate, and maintain

Yet another A different modeling effort

WECC Wind Generator Modeling Group (MVWG)
Convened by Modeling & Validation Work Group (MVWG) in 2005 WGMG Members: Abraham Ellis Graeme Bathurst John Dunlop Yuriy Kazachkov John Kehler Eduard Muljadi William Price Craig Quist Joseph Seabrook Paul Smith Robert Wilson Robert Zavadill PNM, WECC (chair) TNEI Services AWEA Siemens PTI (PSS/E) AESO, WECC NREL GE Energy (PSLF) PacifiCorp, WECC Puget Sound, WECC ESB Grid WAPA, WECC EnerNex, UWIG

Mission statement
Invest best efforts to accomplish the following:
Develop a small set of generic (non-vendor specific), non-proprietary, positive-sequence power flow and dynamic models suitable for representation of all commercial, utility-scale WTG technologies in large scale simulations The models should be suitable for typical transmission planning and system impact studies Develop a set of best practices to represent wind plants using generic models as basic building blocks

Coordinate directly with wind manufacturers and other stakeholder groups outside WECC

Proposed standard models

Four basic topologies based on grid interface
Type 1 conventional induction generator Type 2 wound rotor induction generator with variable rotor resistance Type 3 doubly-fed induction generator Type 4 full converter interface
Type 1
Plant Feeders generator PF control capacitor s
Slip power as heat loss

Type 2
Pla nt Fee ders gene rator

Type 3
Plant Feeders gene rator
PF control capacitor s

Type 4
Plant Feede rs genera tor ac to dc dc to ac

ac to dc

ac to dc

dc to ac

full power

partial power

Technical issues
Complexity vs. completeness
Need the right tool for the job! Wind plant equivalencing (e.g., single-generator or several-generator reduced equivalent) necessary and sufficient for both power flow and dynamic simulations

Grid vs. wind disturbances

Standard models are intended for studying the effects of grid disturbances, not wind disturbances
For a typical wind plant, constant wind power during transient events (0 to 20-second time frame) is not a bad assumption Other tools that account for geographical diversity should be used to study the effect of wind variability in operations planning

Model vs. reality

Validation is required--will be challenging!

Wind plant equivalencing

Individual WTGs and turbine-level reactive compensation (if any) POI

Power Grid

Station transformer & plant-level reactive compensation (if any)

Collector system with several overhead and underground feeders underground)

Wind plant equivalencing

Single-generator equivalent
Planning studies typically assume rated MW output Reactive consumption/capability at the POI can be estimated, but should be field-verified Equivalent feeder impedance can be derived from design data
Main station Xfm Equivalent feeder impedance and shunt admittance Equivalent generator with appropriate VAR range, depending on Pgen (*)

System P.O.I. Explicit plant-level shunt compensation, if any Equivalent pad-mounted transformer

Equivalent low-voltage shunt compensation, if any

NOTE: In some cases, it may be desirable to define a several-generator equivalent model

Testing existing models

Purpose
Compare performance of a large number of existing custom models for specific disturbance conditions Determine whether category models would sufficiently capture dynamic behavior of commercial turbines

Test System
Infinite Bus 230 kV Line 1 R1, X1, B1 34.4/230 kV station transformer Rt, Xt. 34.5 kV collector system equivalent Re, Xe, Be 0.6/34.4kV equivalent GSU transformer Rte, Xte

Ideal Gen

Gen 4 1 230 kV Line 2 R2, X2, B2 2 Station-level shunt compensation 3 Turbine-level shunt compensation 5 100 MW equivalent wind turbine generator

Test scenarios
Scenario 1a 1b 1c 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 System SCR (pre/post fault) 10 / 5 10 / 5 10 / 5 20 / 10 10 / 5 20 / 10 10 / 5 20 / 10 10 / 5 20 / 10 Fault location at node 2 at node 2 at node 2 at node 2 at node 2 at node 2 mid line 1 mid line 1 mid line 1 mid line 1 Clearing time (cycles) 9 9 9 9 5 5 9 9 5 5 Output levels 100% output, rated wind sp. 50% of rated output (50 MW) 100% output, 125% wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp. 100% output, rated wind sp.

Models tested
Type Make/Model 1 1 1 2 2 3 MPS MWT1000A Bonus 1.3/2.3 MW Vestas V82/72 Vestas V80/47 Suzlon 2.0 MW * GE 1.5
(**) PSLF Only

Type Make/Model 3 3 4 4 4 4 Gamesa G80/90 Vestas V90 Enercon E70 Clipper 2.5 MW Bonus 2.3 MW Mark II GE 2.x Series **

(*) PSSE only

Some lessons learned

For the same WTG, model response is very similar in different platforms, even though implementation and level of detail differ
Supports case for a standard model for each generic type of wind turbine generator

Some existing models need improvement Technical analysis continues Manufacturers willing to cooperate
Some required confidentiality arrangements

Type 3 standard model*

Vreg bus
Ip (P) Command Converter Control Model Eq (Q) Command Generator/ Converter Model

Vterm

Structure and level of user input similar to standard generator models

Pgen , Qgen

Pgen , Qgen
Power Order Speed Order Shaft Speed

Pgen

Pitch Control Model

Blade Pitch

No special EPCL / IPLAN routines Initialize directly from power flow Separate protection model

Wind Turbine Model

* Work in progress!

Type 3 standard model*

Vterm / Eq cm d From Converter Control IPcm d 1 1+ 0.02s IP 1 1+ 0.02s Eq -1 Xeq I Yinj Isorc IXinj T

Generator / Converter Model

V/Q control of gen. internal Eq P control of converter Ip Phase-locked loop not instantaneous

Pllm ax Kipll s Pllm in Vterm VY T-1 VX Notes: 1. Kpll o + Pllm in jXeq

Pllm ax

o s

Vterm and I sorc are complex values on network reference frame.

2. In steady-state, VY = 0, VX = Vterm , and = .

* Work in progress!

Type 3 standard model*

Wind Plant Reactive Power Control Emulation Vrfq Vreg + 1 1+ sTr 1/Fn Kpv 1+ sTv Kiv / s Qmax + + Qw v Qmin 1 1+ sTc

Reactive Power Control Model

Q, PFA, or V control Optional fast Vt control
Qord 1 varflg Qmax

PFAref

tan

Qgen Vmax + Kqi / s Vmin Vref +

Vterm

Pgen Power Factor Regulator

Vterm + XIQmax Kqv / s Vterm + XIQmin

vltflg 1 0 Eq cmd
To Generator / Converter M odel

1 1+ sTp

-1 x 0 Qref

Qmin

Qcmd

(shaft speed) Anti-windup on Power Limits

Pmax & dPmax/dt X 1 1+ sTpc Pord . .

Pgen f ( Pgen )

1 1 + Tsps

ref

err Kptrq+ Kitrq / s

Ipmax

Ip cmd

Active Power (Torque) Control Model

* Work in progress!

Pmin & -dPmax/dt

To Pitch Control Model To Pitch Control Model

To Generator / Converter Model

Vterm

Type 3 standard model*

Anti-windup on Pitch Limits From Turbine M odel

err
Kpp + Kip / s Pitch Control Anti-windup on Pitch Limits

rate lim it (PIrate)

PImax Blade Pitch To Turbine M odel

cm d

1 1+ sT p PImin

Pitch Control Model

reff
From Converter Control M odel

+
Pord

K pc+ K ic / s Pitch Compensation

From Generator M odel

Constant Wind Speed

Simplified Aerodynamic M odel P = Kaero ( - o ) Pmech Pmech = Po - P

Pgen

Wind Turbine Model

Tacc :
1 2H 1 s To Pitch Control M odel and Converter Control M odel

Blade Pitch

From Pitch Control M odel

* Work in progress!

Turbine Aerodynamic Model

Detailed aerodynamics in most WTG models
The mechanical power (Pmech) applied to the generator is a function of the Power Coefficient (Cp)
Pmech = (air density) (swept area) Cp (Vw)3

Cp is a function of blade pitch and tip-speed ratio During a large electrical disturbance, blade pitch and tip speed ratio vary, thus Cp and Pmech will also vary Cp is modeled using a look-up table or Cp matrix specific to each WTG (usually considered confidential, proprietary information)

Aerodynamic Model Simplification

Assume that during grid disturbances: Wind speed change is negligible Shaft speed change has negligible effect on Cp Aerodynamic model: Pm = f () For variable speed WTGs (Type 3 and Type 4), investigation of detailed model has shown: Change of mechanical power (Pm) varies nearly linearly with change in pitch angle () in the range 0<<30 deg Pm varies linearly with respect to wind speed (Vw) from cut-in to rated wind speed varies linearly with respect to Vw for wind speeds above rated

Example GE 1.5 (Type 3)

Example GE 1.5 (Type 3)

Simplified aerodynamic model: Pm = Pm ( - ) / 100 Initialization: Pm = Pelec (from power flow) If Pm < Prated, = 0 If Pm = Prated and Vw > rated wind speed, use Fig. 9 to compute

Simplified model Case 1a

100% output, rated Vw

Simplified model Case 1b

50% output

Blue = standard model; Red = simplified model

Simplified model Case 1c

100% output, 125% rated Vw

Super-simplified Case 1c
Assumes constant Pm (not good!)

Blue = standard model; Red = simplified model

Lessons learned
For Type 3 and 4 WTGs, aerodynamic simplification is possible without significant loss of accuracy
No need for Cp curves, etc.

Model does not perform as well if aerodynamics are ignored (e.g. constant mechanical power) Similar results expected for Type 1 and 2 WTGs
Relationship between Pm and may not be as linear. Simplified model may involve more complicated equations.

Status
Type 3 and 4 standard model currently under development; Types 1 and 2 to follow
Prototyping and testing models in MatLab prior to implementation is PSLF and PSSE

Significant validation effort needed

High-order models Field recordings (turbine and plant-level)

Future
Model revisions based on the same fundamentals Need continued collaboration among stakeholders-program developers, wind industry, power industry, other