System Identification of a synchronous wind turbine generator using a modified MlMO ARX structure

M.H.J.Cuijpers

DCT 2004.38

Traineeship report Coach(es): Supervisor: Dr. Ir. D-P. Molenaar, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. Dr. Ir. M. Steinbuch, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Department Mechanical Engineering Dynamics and Control Technology Group Eindhoven, May, zoo4

Contents
Preface

..........................................

v
1 1

1 Introduction 1.1 General model of the wind turbine 1.2 Electrical module . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The generator model . . . . . . . . 1.4 Research goal . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 ARX identification

........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

2 3 5 5

2.1 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Forward and backward shift operators 2.3 SISO ARX identification . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 MATLAB implementation . . . 2.4 MIMO ARX identification . . . . . . . 2.4.1 MATLAB implementation . . . 2.5 Modified MIMO ARX identification . 2.5.1 MATLAB implementation . . .

...................... 7 ...................... 7 ...................... 7 ...................... 8 ...................... 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

15 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 20 21
23 23 23 23 24

3 Identification procedure 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Measurement setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Estimation of internal variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Standard MIMO ARX model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 CaJcula.tion of Z-domain transfer function from a MIMO ARX model . 3.4.3 Conversion to S-domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Comparing procedures 4.1 Original results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Reproduced results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Reproduction of data from measurement data . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Reproduction of Z-domain transfer function from $ data . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Reproduction of S-domain transfer function from Z-domain transfer function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Reproduction of goodness of fit ratio from S-domain transfer function 4.2.5 Reproduction of complete procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 24 25

4.2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Use of different validation data sets . . . . . . 4.3.2 Implementing a symmetric constraint . . . . 4.3.3 Fiitering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 --:--:--~ L UL& u -aA b- a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -c 2 L L ~ U ~ L U ~

. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . .. . . . . . .. . . .....

. .. . . ..
.

. . . .

. . . . ..... . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .

25 26 26 28
29
YV

sn

5 Conclusions
6 Recommendations

35 37 39
41

A List of MatLab files

B Verification of MATLAB routines

C The Lagerwey LW-50/750 wind turbine C . l The Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine C.2 Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography Glossary of symbols Samenvatting Abstract

43

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
47
49

Preface
Why spend three months trying to improve the identified model modelling of a synchronous generator? This is a question that can be asked before starting a research such as this one. At the moment, electrical power generated using wind turbines, while cheap compared t o other renewable energy sources, is still quite expensive compared to power generated using fossil fuels. In order to increase the efficiency and lower the price of generating wind power, control solutions are necessary. For good control design, however, good models are a necessity, if not critical, especially if the controller is to be included into the design of the turbine, rather than designed afterwards. Therefore three months improving the quality of the identification of an existing model are three months well spend.

Chapter 1

Introduction
Because of the inability of current design codes t o integrate the design of a new wind turbine and the design of its control system, among other reasons, Molenaar has developed a new wind turbine design code named DAWIDUM. For more information on DAWIDUM look into its manual [4]. This introductory chapter summarizes a part of his thesis [3] concerning this new design code.

1.1

General model of the wind turbine

The general onshore wind turbine model proposed in the thesis consists of five bilaterally coupled modules:

Onshore wind turbine

Figure 1.1: Wind turbine modeled as a set of four interacting modules and one input module A Wind module, describing the 3-D stochastic wind field driving the turbine. An Aerodynamic module, describing the conversion of the 3-D stochastic wind field into forces exerted on the wind turbine.

A Mechanical module, describing the conversion of these forces into velocities returned to the aerodynamic module and passed on to the electrical module.
An Electrical module, describing the conversion of these velocities to an electromechanical torque returned to the mechanical module, and electrical power.

A Controller module, linking the aerodynamic and electrical modules in order to

obtain a desired system performance. The interaction between these modules is depicted in Fig. 1.1. Together, they form a clear and useful method for designing wind turbines. For purposes of this research, only part of the electrical module is of importance. The other modules will therefore not be explained in detail.

1.2

Electrical module

The electrical module receives a rotational velocity w, from the mechanical module, and returns a resulting electromagnetic torque T,, to it; based on a setpoint T,g received from the controller module. In order to achieve fatigue load reduction on the wind turbine, it is important that this setpoint is exactly and instantaneously reproduced with a bandwidth of at least 200 Hz. To this end, a good model is a necessity. The output of the electrical module is the generated electrical power Pel,,.

Figure 1.2: Electrical module input-output configuration.

Molenaar [3] considers variable-speed wind turbines, where the generator inside the turbine rotates at variable speed. Therefore, power electronics are necessary t o convert the generated variable-frequency electrical power to the fixed 50 Hz required by the European grid, as depicted in Fig. 1.3. This research, however, considers only the identification of the generator model. Specifically, the identification of the model of the synchronous generator of the Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine. More information on this turbine can be found in appendix C and in iaoienaar i3j.

Generator
Variable voltaqe and frequency

AC

Rectifier

Inverter
Power electronic system

Grid

50-Hz

Figure 1.3: General variable rotational speed generator configuration: the cascade of rectifier and inverter converts the AC of varying frequency and voltage t o the fixed utility grid frequency of 50 Hz.

1.3

The generator model

In Fig. 1.4, a schematic representation of a synchronous generator is shown.

phase a

Stator

Figure 1.4: Schematic repeselztation of a n elementary three-phase, two-pole synchronous generator.

The stator is the fixed part of the generator, while the rotor turns around with t h e velocity w , . The rotor has one accessible circuit, the field or excitation winding, and two sets of inaccessible circuits, the damper windings. is A DC power source, represented by uf, fixed to the excitation winding of the rotor, generating an electrical current if, and a magnetic field. When the DC excitation of the field winding is provided by permanent magnets, the field windings can be replaced by fictitious ones carrying constant field currents. Gf represents the stator flux linkage. Damping effects are represented by two perpendicular damper windings on the rotor; they are real or fictitious windings that can be used to represent, for example, the damping effects of eddy currents in the machine. In Fig. 1.4, one damper winding is located along the ~ ~ direct-axis, and one along the quadrature-axis (represented by $yd and q ! in Fig.~ 1.4). The direct a,xis points in the same direction as the rotor winding, and the angle it makes when compared t o the stator windings is represented by 8,. The quadrature axis is perpendicular t o that. The stator has the usual three stator windings (a, b and c), each 120 (electrical) degrees apart. The stator windings are star connected. According to Maxwell's and Faraday's equations, voltages us,, usb and us, will be induced in the stator windings when the rotor turns. The dynamics of the generator can be described using these laws.

lx Park's transformation is used to express the stator f u linkages in the rotating d, q reference system instead of the normal stator fixed reference system. The stator windings are replaced with two fictitious windings which are fixed with respect to the rotor. One winding

is chosen to coincide with the direct-axis, and one with the quadrature-axis. Because the rotor windings are already along the direct and quadrature axes, the transformation is applied t o the stator quantities only. These now become u g , ud and u, instead of us,, u,b and us,. Finally, the analysis is only valid if the generator can be accurately described with only one damper winding. If this is not the case, the mode1 must be generalized. The complete mathematical analysis is described in much more detail by Molenaar [3]. After using Park's transformation and expanding from only one damper winding t o a finite number of damper windings, it has produced a relation between the currents id and i f , and the fluxes gd and g f , represented in Eq. (1.1).

With s the Laplace operator and Ldo(s), Lfdo(s) = Ldfo(s) and Lfo(s) proper transfer s functions which can, for a finite number of damper windings, be expressed a a ratio of polynomials in s. Note that there is no relation between iq and +, given here. While it was given in the original thesis, the identification of the synchronous generator was performed at standstill. , h this case (i.e. w = 0) the direct and quadrature axes are decoupled. Because the identification of the quadrature-axis was already satisfactory, it was not considered in this report. It is very important to note the symmetry in Eq. (1.1). The term relating I f ( s ) to qd(s) and the term relating Id(s) to @f (s) are the same. The transfer functions in Eq. (1.1) need t o be determined. The purpose of the equation can be shown more clearly using Fig. 1.5.

Figure 1.5: Block diagram of the direct axis of a n ideal synchronous machine at standstill.

In the figure the relation between the model parameters and the voltages u d and uf is shown. The in- and outputs of this model can be measured, therefore identification should be possible.

The model represented by Eq. (1.1)has been identified using a black-box MIMO ARX model [3]. This, however, ignores the symmetry expected based on the physical properties of the synchronous generator. It may be possible to improve the identification by using a modified version of the ARX identification procedure that does imply this constraint. The goal of this research will be to:

Investigate the possibility to improve the identification of a synchronous generator by using a grey box ARX structure, and evaluate the quality of the identification b y comparing the results to those of identification with a MIMO ARX structure.

1.5

Outline

Chapter 2 will explain some general theory about ARX identification, and the modifications that must be made to impleme~t symmetric constraint. Chapter 3 will describe the original a identification procedure (before modification). Chapter 4 will detail the results of applying several modifications to the identification procedure. In Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 some conclusions will be drawn and recommendations will be given on how to proceed.

Chapter 2

ARX identification
In this chapter the basics of ARX identification will be explained.iI is assumed that the reader has at least a basic knowledge of system identification, and is familiar with the subject of transfer functions, both in the S-domain and Z-domain. The interested reader is referred to Ljung [2] for more detailed information. The first sections deal with discrete representation of data, followed by an explanation of ARX identification of a simple single-input, single output system. This will then be expanded to a multiple-input, multiple-output system. Finally, possible modifications to the procedure will be discussed.

2.1

Sampling

In this research we only deal with observations in discrete 'time. A continuous-time signal such as y (t) is observed at sampling instants tk = kT, k = 1,2, ..., in which T is the sampling interval. For ease of notation, we will write yk, with y = y(kT) k

2.2

Forward and backward shift operators

Again for ease of notation, we introduce the forward and backward shift operators, q and q - l , respectively: q k = Yk+l = Y ( ( k 1)T) Y @I1

2.3

SISO ARX identification

Now, consider the case of an unknown single-input, single-output (SISO) system. The input is represented by u(t), sampled uk, and the output by y(t), sampled yk (SISO). Probably the most simple input-output relationship is obtained by describing it as a linear difference equation:

In the equation, n, and nb represent the number of parameters used for identification. nk represents the delay from Z L ~to y k . If nk = 0, there is a direct coupling between input and output. Since the white-noise term ek here enters as a direct error in the difference

equation, the model represented in Eq. (2.3) is often called an equation error model. In this case, the adjustable parameters are: 0 -=

a1 a2

. . . ana bl

. . . bn,

I we introduce f
A(q) = 1 and

+ alq-'
+

. . . + anaqPna

B ( q ) = blq-"k We obtain the following equation:

+ . . + bnbq-n"-nb+l

This kind of model is also called an ARX model, where AR refers to the autoregressive part A ( q )y k , and X to the extra input B ( q ) u k . If we now define a column pk
(,Dk - =

-Yk-l

..

'

Yk-n.

Uk-nk

-'

Uk-nk-nail

lT

(2.8)

and combine this column with Eq. (2.3) and Eq. (2.4), we obtain the following estimator for yk:
Gk =
T yke

(2.9)
ck

Our goal is to estimate Yk ,

e in such a way that the estimator

best resembles t h e output

If a measurement of y ( t ) and u ( t ) contains N samples, then a possible quadratic error criterium can be defined as follows:

This error criterium can be minimized using a least squares solution for 8, as follows:

with

For an extensive proof the reader is again redirected

2.3.1

MATLAB implementation

We can use MATLAB build the matrix R ( N ) and the column f ( N ) out of the measured to input and output signals, uk and y b Aker that, calculation of 0 becomes easy using MATLAB and Eq. (2.11). For more extensive information on this subject, see [2]. 8

An example of a MATLAB routine suitable for identifying a SISO system is given here:

function t h e t a = SISOARX(u, y, na, nb, nk) %SISOARX ARX a n a l y s i s f o r SISO system

% %

%SYNTAX % t h e t a = SISOARX(u, y , na, nb, nk) % % U column containing input d a t a % y column containing output d a t a % na,nb,nk number of parameters % theta column containing model parameters i f nargin<5 e r r o r ( ' n o t enough input argumentsy) end
i f length(u) -=length(y)

error('1ength of input and output d a t a columns must be t h e samey) end

p s i = [I ; f o r a=l:na p s i = [psi -y(maxN-a:N-a)]; end f o r b=l :nb p s i = [psi u(l+max~-b-nk:N-b+l-nk)] ; end psi=psi' ;

t h e t a = inv(RN)*fN;

2.4

MIMO ARX identification

The system we need to identify has two inputs, and two outputs. If the system is linear, we can consider this as the identification of four different systems: One system connecting input I t o output 1, one system connecting input 1to output 2, etcetera.

With some restrictions, the SISO ARX identification procedure can be easily modified to provide a MIMO ARX identification procedure. If Eq. (2.7) is written in matrix form for a 2 input 2 output system, the following result is obtained:

If the first parameter of A21(q) and the first parameter A12(q) are said to be zero instead of one1 (see Eq. (2.5)), it is again possible to identify the parameters of the model using a quadratic error criterium. It is of course necessary t o redefine and F ~ .

With i an index for the first or second input or output signal. The estimator now looks as follows:

with

B - can still be estimated using Eq. (2.9).

2.4.1

MATLAB implementation

An example of a MATLABroutine suitable for identifying a system with 2 inputs and 2 outputs is given here: function theta = MIMOARX(U, y, na, nb, nk)

% % % % %

ARX analysis for a MIMO system, in this case a 2 input and 2 output system

%SYNTAX theta = MIMOARX(u, y, na, nb, nk) %

U

2-column matrix containing input data

lfor more information on why exactly this is necessary, see Ljung [2]

10

% % %

Y na,nb,nk theta

2-column matrix containing output data number of parameters column containing model parameters

if narginC5 error(:not end

enough input arguments?)

if length(u) -=length(y) error('1ength of input and output data columns must be the samey) end

Y1 = [I; Y2 = [I; for a=l:na Yl = [YI -y(maxN-a:N-a,l)]; Y2 = [Y2 -y(maxN-a:N-a,2)] ; end Ul = [I; I u2 = [ ; for b=l:nb U1 = [UI u(l+maxN-b-nk:N-b+l-nk, I] ; ) U2 = CU2 u(l+maxN-b-nk:N-b+l-nk,2)] ; end ZY = zeros(size (YI) ) ; ZU = zeros(size(U1)) ; psi = [YL Y2 ZY ZY U1 U2 ZU ZU; ZY ZY Y1 Y2 ZU ZU Ul U21';

theta

inv(RN) *fN;

2.5

Modified MPMC ARX identification

The standard MIMO ARX procedure four different transfer functions. However, from Eq. (1.1) we know that the transfer function describing the relation between input 1 to output 2 should be the same as the transfer function describing the relation between input 2 and output 1. A modification to the standard procedure can be made to implement this constraint.

In order to satisfy the structure as represented in Eq. (1.1), the following equation must be satisfied:

The most straightforward way to satisfy this equation is by splitting it in two equations and then solving them separately:

Assuming that Bll # B22 and B 1 2 ( q ) = B Z l ( q ) , introducing the additional constraints = A 2 2 ( q ) and A 1 2 ( q ) = A21(q) = 0 solves the equations. Substituting in Eq. (2.23) gives the following result:

Y2,k
TL:~ 11113

(2.27)
All ( q )
A 1(4) 1

satis6es the required struct.;re. The next questien is hew these censtraints can be implemented into the identification procedure. One may notice that the constraint A l z ( q ) = instead of A12(q) = A,l(q) = 0 also solves the problem, but gives a less manageable result.

~~~(~)w

In order to implement these constraints, 0 and Rk can again be modified, as follows:

Note that A ( q ) can now again be written as a scalar function.

2.5.1

MATLAB implementation

In MATLAB, only one line of the MIMO routine has to be adjusted to implement the constraint:
psi
=

CY1 U1 U2 ZU; Y2 ZU U1 U2iY;

Chapter 3

Identification procedure
From Chapter 2, it has already become clear that it is possible to impose a constraint on the MIMO ARX identification procedure. What remains is to determine the exact effects of this modification on the quality of the identification procedure. This chapter explains how all parts of the identification procedure work, and whether or not they have been modified. The introduction lists all parts of the procedure, and the subsequent sections each give details about one part.

3.1

Introduction

In addition to identification of the model parameters, the identification procedure consisted of several steps: Performing measurements on the Lagerwey wind turbine generator. This step could not be repeated, so we have to work with the available measurement data. Estimation of internal variables, $f and $ d , from the measurement data, thereby obtaining a data set suitable for identification. Starting with this step, an attempt has been made to reconstruct the original identification procedure. Identifying the model from the obtained data set. Using the identified model in a simulation to calculate the output data expected from the input data from a validation data set. Comparing the simulated output with the measured output to obtain a goodness of fit ratio. The goodness of fit ratio at the end of the identification procedure is the only quantitative indication of the quality of the identification.

In order t o obtain the quality of the proposed modification to the identification procedure, the results of the original procedure must be compared t o those of the new. The results of the original procedure, however, are not in their entirety available, mainly because some data could not be retrieved from saved files. This means that this data will have to be reconstructed,

3.2

Measurement setup

In order to acquire information about the model parameters, measurement data has been taken from the synchronous generator of the Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine using the setup depicted in Fig. 3.1.

Thvris+or Freewheeling

. .. ..-..

Switch

Figure 3.1: Scheme of the measurement set-up of the modified step-response test as used for t h e identification of the machine parameters of the synchronous generator (SG) of the Lagerwey LW-50/750 wind turbine

The generator was excited by a step-like signal, generated by switching on a low-power DC voltage source (i.e. a 12 V battery). The battery was connected to the b and c stator terminals of the synchronous generator (SG). A thyristor was used for the switching. A thyristor is preferred over a mechanical switch, because it eliminates the problem of bouncing [5]. -Furthermore, the machine parameters were identified at ambient temperature (20"). The data-acquisition system consisted of three main parts, viz. an input-output (110) board, a digital signal processor (DSP) board from dSPACEwith a TMS320C40 processor from Texas Instruments, and a personal computer (PC) connected t o the processor board. The automated data-acquisition process is started by switching on the (mechanical) switch and subsequently triggering the thyristor. Depending on the measurement type, a combination of the following signals is measured: i, (stator current), ub, (stator voltage), u f (field winding voltage), and if (field winding current). Originally, three different types of measurements have been performed, but for this research, only the direct-axis measurement is of importance. One of the other measurements served to gain information about the parameters R f and R,.

The recorded time series ic(t), ub(t) and u,(t) are converted to the model input and output variables ud(t) and id(t) using the following relations, which hold for a direct-axis identification in which .he = ;T (see Fig. 1.4).

The model input and output variables uf (t) and if (t) are taken directly from the measurement. Up to this point, the results of the identification procedure show no differences to the original.

3.3

Estimation of internal variables

As can be seen in Fig. 1.5, the system to be identified has $d(t) and $f(t) as input variables rather than ud(t) and uf (t). Because these fluxes cannot be measured directly, $d(t) and zDf(t) are derived from ud(t), uf (t),&(t) and i f ( t ) using a simulation based on Fig. 3.2, which can be derived from Fig. 1.5:

Figure 3.2:

+ calculation Diagram

In practise this is done by building a SIMULINK model from Fig. 3.2 and offering the measured series ud(t), uf (t), id(t) and if (t)as input data.

The values for R, and Rf have been previously identified, as have the values for & ( t ) and It must be noted that there was a very small difference between the original g d ( t ) data and the $ d ( t ) data determined in this analysis, as shown in Fig. 3.3. The $? data was the same.
$?(t).

Figure 3.3: Left: plot of original and reproduced original and reproduced 4 values

values. Right: plot of difference between

The cause of this difference remains unclear, but may lie in the use of a different version or, of SIMULINK more likely, a different value for R,. It is possible to reduce this error to a much lower level Vs) by adjusting the value of R, to 57,969 mR instead of 57,986 mR. This goes to show that the value of $d is indeed sensitive to small changes in R,, but because it is not the value that was originally used, the difference must have evolved otherwise. Because the originally determined $(t)data was available for only one of the measurements taken, this step of the identification procedure had to be repeated. In all cases the original value for 3, has been used. The converted data set now consists of the time series g d ( t ) and the time series i d ( t ) and i f @ ) as output data.

?If ( t ) as input data, and

3.4 Identification
Next, a MIMO model must be identified from the converted data. Originally, a standard system identification toolbox. However, MIMO ARX model was identified using MATLAB'S as stated previously, this ignores the symmetry between the relation between $ d ( t ) and i f ( t )and the relation between $? ( t ) and i d ( t ) that is to be expected based on the physical properties of a synchronous generator, expressed in Eq. (1.1).

3.4.1

Standard MIMO ARX model

The standard MIMO ARX model as originally identified has the following structure:

with, for the case of the synchronous generator:

From this follows that A(q) and B(q) are both 2x2 matrices of q-operators. The function parameters can be easily identified using methods described in Chapter 2. The originally identified ARX model was, regrettably, not available for comparison. The data format in which it was saved could not be loaded into a new version of the ident toolbox in MATLAB.

3.4.2

Calculation of Z-domain transfer function from a MIMO ARX model

Ultimately, we are looking for an S-domain transfer function, so we will be better able to compare the identified model to the physical model. MATLAB provides a tool for conversion of Z-domain transfer functions to S-domain transfer functions, but what we have is an ARX model. Therefore, we first have to rewrite the ARX model in the form of a z-domain transfer function. Basically, because of the similarity between the q-operator and the z-operator, this ARX model is a Z-domain function, but the transfer function we are looking for needs to be of the following form:

2,

= G(q)uk

+ H(q)ek

(3.6)

To obtain the Z-domain transfer function we need to calculate the inverse of &q):

For a 2 by 2 matrix A(q), this becomes the following:

Here, the advantage of having a single polynomial A(q) instead of a matrix A(q) becomes apparent, because it is then much easier to calculate the inverse of the matrix A(q). Ultimately, this results in the following equation:

Where G(z)is the Z-domain transfer function. Here, a comparison can again be made. The Z-domain transfer function obtained from the reproduction of the identification procedure closely resembles the old one, particularly if the comparison is based on pole locations. More information is given in Chapter 4.

3.4.3

Conversion to S-domain

As a last step, the obtained Z-domain transfer function is converted to a frequency domain approximation routines, transfer function G(s).This has been done using standard MATLAB no special attention has been paid to the theory behind these conversions. It must be noted here that MATLAB incapable of converting every possible Z-domain is b transfer function to the S-domain. For a lot of values of n,, n and nk, an S-domain model could not be generated from the identified ARX model.

3.4.4

Filtering

In some cases, it may be desirable to filter the yk and uk data prior t o analysis. This may be because of disturbances present in the data, or because a focus on certain frequencies is desired.

Now the equation can be solved again:

Leading to:

The exact choice of F can influence the quality of the produced model greatly. This has not been investigated to a great extend, but may be the key to further improvements. In any case, if a scalar filter is chosen for F, the equation simplifies to the following:

Another interesting possibility is to choose F so that it approximates the next equation is obtained:

2-l. In this case,

- --1 2, = a d & (dl& % + (3.16) In this model, the error model H(q) has effectively been eliminated, leaving only G(q).

It should be noted here that MATLAB has, in the identification toolbox, an option called "focus on simulation". Basically, this option uses a scalar filter that approximates gaining both of the benefits described above. The approximation of is gained by first estimating an ARX model without first filtering the data, and then using the common denominator of the resulting A-' matrix as a filter.

2-I

z-l,

Whether or not a filter was used in the original identification procedure, or, if a filter was used, exactly which filter was used, is unknown. This part of the identification data was unavailable due to an incompatibility between data saved using the identification tooIbox in MATLAB and the data format used by the identification toolbox in MATLAB 4 6.

3.5

Simulation

The frequency domain transfer function G(s) can be implemented in a SIMULINK model. Next, time series ud(t) and uf(t) are offered to the SIMULINK model, resulting in approximations of &(t) and if (t). These time series are then compared to the measured time series id(t) and if(t), resulting in a so-called goodness of fit ratio.

in which yk is the measured output, average value of the measured output.

y,i,,k

is the simulated model output and gk the

Apparently, this goodness of fit ratio lies between 0 and 100%. However, if we look closely at Eq. (3.17), we can see that nothing prevents Mgof becoming a negative value, because the denominater can become smaller than the numerator. This problem can be solved with a slight modification to Eq. (3.17):

In which erfc is a variant to the error function:

m With erfc(x) ranging from 1 to 0 for values of x ranging from 0 to c .

In the rest of the report, we will keep to the old definition of the ratio as represented by Eq. (3.17), because it makes comparison with the thesis [3] easier. Keep in mind, though, that a negative value simply represents a very bad fit, and not a calculation error.

Chapter 4

Comparing procedures
In this chapter a comparison will be made between the original identification results, and those obtained with the new procedure. Additionally, some methods other than adjusting the properties of the ARX model identification procedure will be tried in order to improve the model.

The following data is available from the original identification:

0

4 sets of measurement data taken from the Lagenvey LW-50/750 wind turbine, numbered 18 through 21.

+(t)data for data set nr. 18.

The Z-domain model identified from data set nr. 18. The S-domain model extracted from the Z-domain model.

Goodness of fit ratio's obtained by comparing simulated data to measurement data from data sets nr. 18 and 21, using the S-domain model identified from data set nr. 18.

4.2

Reproduced r e s d t s

In this section the results of the reproduced identification procedure will be compared to the old, t o verify to which extend they are the same. Note that no modifications have been made to the identification procedure at this point; it has merely been rewritten for a new MATLAB version.

4.2.1

Reproduction of $ data from measurement data

As already mentioned in Chapter 3, the +d data extracted from data set nr. 18 is not exactly the same as the original data. The cause of this difference may be a different SIMULINK version or incorrect R, data, but this cannot be determined with any certainty. If a goodness of fit ratio is calculated to compare the original data to the reproduced data, a ratio of 92.5242 is obtained (See also Fig. 3.3). With a correction for R,, a ratio of 99.9964

Original

I MATLAB5.3 1

MATLAB 6.1

Table 4.1: Original pole data a?zd reproduced pole data in different versions of MATLAB,

usin.9 the s a m e model and input data

has been obtained. This corrected value for R, has not been used, however, since it is not certain a wrong R, value is the actual cause of the problem, and changing the R, value influences more than just the estimation of the Qd data.

4.2.2

Reproduction of Z-domain transfer function from $ data

Several different standard MIMO ARX models have been identified from the original $d,k and $ f , k data. These models differ in the values used for n,, nb and n k . From a wide range of models, an ARX model with n, = 2, nb = 3 and n k = 0 gives the best goodness of fit ratio at the end of the procedure. If the ARX model is identified using the original .yid,k and $f,k data, converted to a Zdomain transfer function and compared t o the originally identified Z-domain transfer function, the result is almost the same. Differences between poles and zeroes are small enough that they cannot be clearly shown on a plot. The largest percentile difference between pole locations is 9 , 10W7%,the largest percentile difference between zeroes is 0,01%.

NOTE: Because the original $d,k data was used, this small difference has nothing to do with the deviation in the reproduction of the $d,k data. The filter used was based on the , denominator of an ARX identification with n = 2, nb = 3 and n k = 0.

4.2.3

Reproduction of S-domain transfer function from Z-domain transfer function

If the original Z-domain model is converted t o an S-domain model using the MATLAB d2c command the poles of the resulting transfer function are almost the same as the original ones, h i t some of the zeroes are shifted along the imaginary =is, as shown in Fig. 4.1. This does not seem to have any significant effect. This is almost certainly due to differences in MATLAB versions, because a similar difference can be seen between the results from the d2c 5.3 6.1. command in MATLAB and MATLAB
As an example, some of the poles of the original S-domain function have been given in 5.3 Tab. 4.1, as well as the same poles calculated in MATLAB and 6.1, respectively.

4.2.4

Reproduction of goodness of fit ratio from S-domain transfer function

I the original S-domain model is used in a simulation using the identification data set (nr. f 18), the resulting GOF ratios are 99.66 and 99.48, as opposed to 99.74 and 99.47.

04 O6

'2 -

a 0-eo ,
-02-04-06-

'"

02-

-0 8 -1

-40 -20 Real Axs

-60

20

-1 I -60

-40

-20 Real Axis

Figure 4.1: Left: plot of original poles ( x ) and zeros and zeros of reproduced model

(0)

of the S-domain model. Right: poles

If the original S-domain model is used in a simulation using the validation data set (nr. 21), the resulting GOF ratios are 99.10 and 92.76, as opposed to 99.16 and 92.78. In this ease, if a comparison between MATLAB and MATLAB is made, differences 5.3 6.1 are negligible. The ori$nal file was built in MATLAB however, so this could have resulted 4, in a somewhat larger difference. If the procedure is repeated using the adjusted value for R,, different values are found which can be said t o be neither better or worse. The GOF values are 99.79 and 99.49 using the identification data set and 99.04 and 92.79 using the validation da.ta set.

4.2.5

Reproduction of complete procedure

If the complete identification procedure is reproduced, and the resulting S-domain model is
used in a simulation using the identification data set (nr. 18), the resulting GOF ratios are 99.78 and 99.56, as opposed to 99.74 and 99.47. If the complete identification procedure is reproduced, and the resulting S-domain model is used in a simulation using the validation data set (nr. 21), the resulting GOF ratios are 98.90 and 91.63, as opposed to 99.16 and 92.78.

A graphical representation of the GOF ratios is given in Fig. 4.2.

4.2.6

Conclusions

It can be concluded that the reproduced identification procedure produces results that are comparable t o the original procedure, even though some differences exist. The next step is

1 2 3 original, resimulated and completely reproduced procedures

i 1 I set 18 1 Data

.-.-

L o Data set 21 1

T 98

:
0

$ 96
94

( 92 3

90
1 2 3 original, resimulated and completely reproduced procedures

Figure 4.2: Above: G O F ratios for id.Below: G O F ratios for i f . From left to right: Original ratios, ratios for reproduction of simulation and ratios for complete reproduction to make modifications to the reproduced procedure and then compare the results t o those of the reproduced procedure. Several of the 'deviations between the original results and the reproduced results can be reasonably assumed to be the result of changes in SIMULINK MATLAB. Unfortunately, and this makes comparison to the original procedure more difficult, but usable results can still be obtained by comparison of the modified procedure with the reproduced procedure.

4.3 Modifications
This section details all of the modifications made to the identification procedure in an attempt to improve it. These modifications indude, of course, the proposed adjustment to the ARX identification, but also the pre-filtering of the data and trimming the data.

4.3.1

Use of different validation data sets

Instead of using data set nr. 21 as a validation data set, it is of course possible to use one of the other data sets for validation as well. When data set nr. 19 is used, the resulting GOF ratios are 99.70 and 99.42. For data set nr. 20 these values become 99.54 and 97.68. These values are very close to each other, but these results make the third and fourth digits of the GOF ratio seem hardly significant. In Fig. 4.3 it is striking that the fit of i f seems significantly better for data sets 19 and 20 than for data set 21. In Fig. 4.4, the excitation signals for data sets 18 through 21 are shown.

original and completely reproduced procedures

original and completely reproduced procedures

Figure 4.3: Above: G O F ratios for id. Below: G O F ratios for if. Left: Original ratios.

Right: Reproduced ratios

in, .

0.5r

01 ?
0
5

i
10

-1 5
0 5 Time [s]

10

Tme [s]

Figure 4.4: Left: ud. Right: uf. From top t o bottom: data sets 18, 19, 20, 21.

-4t first sight, there does not seem to be anything that distinguishes data set 21 (the bottom most) from the others. Similar plots have been drawn for the output time domain data, as well as frequency domain plots of the in- and output data. Neither of these plots shows any reason why the GOF ratio for data set 21 would differ do much. A more in-depth analysis of this data set might produce an answer t o this question but has not been executed.

4.3.2

Implementing a symmetric constraint

Up to now, the standard ARX routine from MATLAB been used for identification. It has, has however, been impossible to implement the symmetric constraint in the existing MATLAB routine. The existing routine is much too extensive to allow for modifications by anyone else than the original programmer. Because of this, a new ARX routine has been written based on the theory in Chapter 2. Some tests can easily prove that the rewritten ARX routine is almost as good as the one that comes with MATLAB, but again, there seem t o be some small differences. Using the rest of the theory from Chapter 2, a symmetric constraint has been implemented into the new ARX function as well. If the identification procedure is repeated using,the new ARX routine and data set 18 for identification, the following goodness of fit ratios are obtained: Validation data set 18: 99.71 and 99.09. Validation data set 19: 99.67 and 99.16. Validation data set 20: 99.66 and 96.91.
e

Validation data set 21: 99.01 and 91.94.

With n, = 2 and n b = 3 , for a total of 20 parameters1. This number of parameters turns out t o be the optimal choice, based on several experiments with different numbers of parameters. The comparison was based on the goodness of fit ratio. Implementing the constraint gives the following, lesser, results: Validation data set 18: 97.94 and 91.62. Validation data set 19: 97.84 and 90.90. Validation data set 20: 97.78 and 91.62. Validation data set 21: 97.66 and 89.36. With the optimal number of parameters now being n, = 1 and n b = 2, for a total of 7 parameters.2 However, if the filter is re-estimated using the modified ARX routine with the constraint implemented, the following ratios are obtained: Validation data set 18: 98.10 and 97.44
IIn an unconstrained model, the matrix A consists of 4 elements that each have n, degrees of freedom, and the matrix B has 4 elements that each have n degrees of freedom. This causes a total of 4 x (na nb) b degrees of freedom. 'In a constrained model, the matrix A can also be written as a scalar, and has exactly na degrees of b freedom, the matrix B has 4 elements that each have n degrees of freedom, but 2 of these are the same. b This causes a total of na 3 x n degrees of freedom.

Validation data set 19: 98.00 and 96.02 Validation data set 20: 98.01 and 94.63
e

Validation data set 21: 97.87 and 93.87

Still with n, = i and n b = 2. These values Xie worse for the first three dzta sets, but the fit uf if for the last data set is significantly better. It should also be noted that, even though the model has less degrees of freedom due to a much lower number of parameters, t h e fit is still almost as good as that of the original. If a model with less parameters is preferred, this is an advantage. This last improvement suggests that the exad choice of the filter used before identification is important for the quality of the model. In Fig. 4.5 all of the GOF ratios have been summarized.

original, reproduced, newARX, syrnrnARX

inn

11IData set 18

2 3 original, reproduced, newARX, symmARX

Figure 4.5: Above: GOF ratios for id. Below: GOF ratios for if. From left to right: Original ratios, ratios reproduced with A R X routine from MATLAB,ratios produced with own A R X mutine, ratios produced with symmetric constraint implemented.

4.3.3

Filtering

Now, the effect of using different filters will be examined. This serves only to obtain insight in the kind of effect the filter has on the identification procedure. The objective is not t o determine which is the optimal filter.

First of all, the identification procedure is run without using any filter at all. Data set 18 is used for identification (see Fig. 4.6). The resulting goodness of fit ratios, using data set 21, are -522 and -4647. This indicates that some method of filtering must have been used in the original identification procedure.

-0.8'

5 Time [s]

I 10

-1 00

5 Time Is]

10

Time [s]

Time [s]

Figure 4.6: Unfiltered i n p u t - output data The first type of filter to be examined is an estimate of A(q)-'. This filter is implemented by turning on the "focus on simulation" option described in Chapter 3. This is the method used in the preceding identification procedure, and thus gives the same results. The filtered identification data (set 18) is presented in Fig. 4.7. The resulting goodness of fit ratios are the earlier presented 98.90 and 91.63.

The second type of filter used is a standard 2nd order Butterworth filter, as typically used identification toolbox. Three of these filters have been tried, with low-pass in the MATLAB cutoff frequencies of 2, 10 and 50 Hz, giving the following results, again with data set 21 for validation: Cutoff frequency of 2 Hz: 98.40 and 90.69
s

Cutoff frequency of 10 Hz: 98.34 and 94.49 Cutoff frequency of 50 Hz: 98.82 and 92.97

The filtered data for the first fiiter (2 Iizj is given in Fig. 4.8 In Fig. 4.9, the GOF data is plotted for all four identification data sets, using all five filtering methods. The main conclusion from this data is that filtering primarily affects the goodness of fit of the if data. It does not seem t o have a large effect on the id data.

434 ..

Trimming of data

When looking at the plot of the measured input and output data, we can see that the last l part of the measurement is constant, especially when looking at u d and id. When using al of this data for the identification procedure without applying a weighting function, a lot of focus will be put on the static part of the model, which will result in a less accurate fit for

I
0
5 Time [s]

J 10

(1,2:-

-3
0

1
10

5 Time [s]

5 Time [s]

10

Figure 4.7: Input - output data filtered with

estimate

0 8 -. 0

5 Time [s]

-100' 10

'

5 Time [s]

I 10

5 Time [s]

10

5 Time [s]

Figure 4.8: Input - output data filtered with 2nd order 2 Hz Butterworth filter

original, A-' estimate, 2 rad/s, 10 radk, 50 radk

original, A-' estimate, 2 radls, 10 radls, 50 radls

Figure 4.9: Above: G O F ratios for id. Below: G O F ratios for i f . From left t o right: Original G O F ratios, Filter estimate of 4-l, 2nd order Butterworth filters at 2 Hz, 10 Hz and 50 Hz. N o constraints were implemented in a n y case. the dynamic part. It may be possible to improve on the quality of the model by using only the first part of the measurements. This theory has been tested for trimming the last 25%, 50% and 75% of the data. In all cases, an estimate of A-' has been used to filter the data. 100% of data used: 98.90 and 91.63 75% of data used: 99.01 and 92.27 50% of data used: 99.90 and 90.26 25% of data used: 98.93 and 92.57 Note that the validation data set has not been trimmed. Again, data set 21 has been used for validation. It seems that trimming the data provides an obvious improvement to the goodness of fit ratio, at least for the unmodified ARX identification. Repeating this experiment with the symmetric constraint also implemented gives the following result:
100% of data used: 97.87 and 93.87

75% of data used: 97.83 and 93.77 50% of data used: 97.84 and 94.08 25% of data used: -450 and -768218 Now, while there is a slight improvement to the fit of the if data, the fit of the id data has somewhat worsened. Furthermore, trimming the data down to 25% causes a very bad fit.

In Fig. 4.10 and Fig. 4.11 all of the GOF ratios have been plotted.

2 3 100% of data, 75%, 50% 25%

100% of data, 75%, 50%, 25%

Figure 4.10: G O F ratios for a model without constraints. Above: GOF ratios for i d . Below: G O F ratios for i f . From left t o right: Identification using the whole data set, 75% of the data set, 50% of the data set and 25% of the data set. Note that in all cases, the same identification data set has been used. The effects of identifying the model from data set 19, 20 or 21 have not been studied. The effects of trimming the data are at best unreliable, as they may give an improvement for one validation data set, but a worse fit for another.

I set 18 Data
Data set 19

100% of data, 75%, 50%, 25%

2 100% of data, 75%, 50%, 25%

Figure 4.11: G O F ratios for a model with constraints implemented. Above: G O F ratios for

id. Below: G O F ratios for if. Fram left t o right: Identification using t h e whole data set,
75% of the data set and 50% of the data set

Chapter 5

Conclusions
Before summarizing the conclusions of this research, it is desirable t o repeat the research goal that was started with.

Investigate the possibility t o improve the identification of a synchronous generator by using a grey box ARX structure, and evaluate the quality of the identification by comparing the results t o those of identification with a MIMO ARX structure.
Firstly, it can be concluded that construction of the grey box model was successful. It has been possible to improve the results with respect to a single validation data set slightly, although the main achievement is reaching almost the same results with a much lower number of parameters. It should be noted that the models presented have been identified using an optimal number of parameters. Increasing this number has had no positive effects. During comparison of the results to those of the former identification, some problems were encountered, however.

In order for comparison to be possible, it has been necessary to reproduce the old identification procedure, for several reasons detailed in Chapter 3. This reproduction, however, has failed to produce exactly the same result as those of the original procedure.

A problem encountered during reproduction of the old results, is that the old results were produced using an older version of MATLAB than the one used in this research. For some errors it can be verified that they are the results of the use of different versions of MATLAB, for other errors this remains speculation.
Secondly, the research indicates that the identification procedure is sensitive t o the application of a filter to the measurement data prior to analysis. This is especially true for the goodness of fit ratio of the if data. Good results can be obtained by using the filter generated by the "focus on simulation" option from MATLAB which basically estimates 6, as a filter. It is unclear, however, what filter, if any, was used for the original identification. The "focus on simulation" option cannot have been used in the original thesis, simply because it was not available in earlier versions of the identification toolbox. However, the results that were obtained without first filtering the data were so bad that at least something similar must have been used, such as a low-pass Butterworth filter.

Third, implementing the constraints in the existing M.~TLAB procedure has not been possible. While the alternative -4RX identification routine written for this research has given reliable results, they are not exactly the same as those of the routine provided by MATLAB.What exactly causes this difference is unknown.

kburth, the conversion from a discrete to a continuous model does not work for a iarge
range of models identified using the ARX method, which may have eliminated some possible models because of bad convertability rather than because they are bad models. It must be noted that this is largely speculation, which will require a more in-depth look at the non-convertable models identified. Last, the goodness of fit ratio of a model depends greatly on the data set used for validation. I a model is identified from data set 18, the original model gives the best results for validation f with data sets 18 through 20, while the model that has the constraints implemented gives the best results for validation with data set 21.

Chapter 6

Recommendations
Although this research has produced some results, it has also produced a lot of questions. First of all, as already mentioned in the conclusions, a more in-depth analysis of some of the non-convertable models identified may be worthwhile. Secondly, while the goodness of fit ratio can already be redefined in such a way that it ranges from 0 to 100, instead of from -oo to 100, it is still unclear what the ratio actually means, and for which class of signals it actually works. If the signal to be simulated is (almost) constant, the denominator in Eq. (3.17) will become very small, creating a negative ratio if there is but a small distortion in the simulated signal. Several other questions have arisen during this research that have not (yet) been answered:
e

What causes the differences between the ARX routine provided by MATLAB and the one written for this research? What filter, if any, was used in the original identification? What filter is the optimal filter? is it possible to built the constraints into the existing MATLAB procedure?

e What results can be obtained by using even more different validation data sets, or

using different data sets for identification? All of these questions may form the basis for additional research. As a recommendation, it would probably be best to continue to search for an improvement with the filtering and trimming of the data. Although the results seem not very useful at this point, it has been shown that filtering does influence the results of the procedure very much. And while trimming the data has not given the best possible results, it is in fact the application of a very crude time-domain weighting function. Better results may be obtained by time-weighting the data instead of just cutting away part of it. An attempt to implement the proposed modification in the existing MATLAB procedure could be made again, but will probably cost more time than it's worth.

Appendix A

List of MatLab files

This is a listing of the .m files that have been used to generate the results presented in this report. Extensive listings of these files have not been included. ARXm0d.m syntax: model = ARXmod(DATA, ORDERS) purpose: Identification of an ARX mode1 from the dataset DATA. ORDERS is a matrix that defines n,, n b and nk. ARXmod2.m syntax: model = ARXmod2(DATA, ORDERS) purpose: Similar to ARXmod but with a symmetric constraint implemented. ARX2tf2.m syntax: model = ARXmod2(model) purpose: converts an ARX model with a symmetric constraint implemented to the Z-domain transfer function format. chapterX.m syntax: chapterX purpose: These files have been used to generate the results presented in the corresponding chapter, and typically produce a .mat file that holds the calculated data. calcFi1ter.m syntax: cdcFi!ter purpose: This file generates different estimates of A(q)-l to be used as filters by the various chapterX files. v1ine.m syntax: vline purpose: draws a vertical dotted line in the current plot. h1ine.m syntax: hline purpose: draws a horizontal dotted line in the current plot. Figures.m syntax: Figures purpose: generates all figures in the report and saves them as .eps files.

functionva1idate.m syntax: functionvalidate purpose: Generates the data in Appendix B. processd2ta.m syntax: processdata(namein, nameout) purpose: Processing measurement data from a file to a format that can be used by the other functions.

Appendix B

Verification of MATLAB routines

In order to validate the designed MATLAB routines, a small experiment has been designed. First, a theoretical discrete 2-input 2-output system with the following transfer function is introduced: yk = G ( z ) z L ~ (B.1) with

If this system is to be represented by an ARX model, it should be in the following form:

Now, we offer two random input da.ta series to a SIMULINK simulation of this system, obtaining two output data series. These data series will form an identification data set. If this identification data set is offered to any of the ARX identification routines discussed in this research, the result is the exact ARX model presented above. As an extra test, the output data series have been disturbed with white noise, and the identification has been redone. Now the results differ for the standard MIMO ARX identification and the ARX identification with the symmetric constraint implemented. For the standard ARX identification we get:

And with the symmetric constraint:

Not only has it been proven that the ARX identifica,tion function works properly, it has also been proven that the procedure with the symmetric constraint implemented is indeed better suited t o identify a system that has such a constraint.

Appendix C

The Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine

In this appendix a description of the Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine is given, as well as the technical data of the generator. The specific wind turbine that measurements have been taken from is located near Nieuwe Tonge (Province of Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands).

C.l

The Lagerwey LW-50/750 wind turbine

The Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine is a 750 kW, variable speed wind turbine with an upwind rotor of 50.5-meter diameter. A picture of this turbine is shown in Fig. (3.1. The "LW-501750" is located near Nieuwe-Tonge (Province of Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands). The rotor consists of 3 blades that can be actively and individually pitched mer the full span. The pitch control is used for power control at full load, and t o stop the turbine if the safe operating limits are exceeded. The turbine is equipped with a gearless (or direct-drive) synchronous ring-generator, which converts the mechanical power into electrical power at variable frequency. Subsequently, an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) based frequency converter is used to convert the electrical energy of varying frequency to the utility grid with a fixed 50-Hz frequency. The generator torque will follow an external set-point signal, which is calculated by the control computer. The support structure consists of a 46.165-meter conical tower with a circular cross section, and a foundation. The tower is made of tubular steel. The Lagerwey LW-501750 belongs t o a new generation of wind turbines which are more flexible than the majority of the turbines currently on the market. It has soft characteristics realized in all subsystems in order to reduce internal stresses, and thereby to make lighter, and hence less costly components possible. The explanation for this is that in a stiff system concept the transient air loadings go into the structural components as physical strains, and (sooner or later) induce fatigue damage. In a soft system concept, on the other hand, these air loadings are reacted primarily by the subsystem masses with little strain energy involvement. In other words: the subsystems bend under the transient air loading by which internal stresses will be reduced. Hence, there is low tendency for fatigue failure in a dynamically soft system.

Figure (2.1: Lagerwey LW-50/750 wind turbine, located near Nieuwe-Tonge (Province of Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands).

C.2

Generator

The Lagerwey LW-501750 belongs to a new generation of wind turbines in which the conventional rotor-gearbox-generator drive train is abandoned. The three bladed rotor is directly connected-to the (synchronous) generator. This has the major advantage of not having a gearbox and therefore avoiding extensive, and expensive gearbox maintenance. Besides that, the noise level is reduced since the gearbox is a relatively noisy system component. The Lagerwey LW-501750 generator is a 750 kW, directly driven (or low-speed), synchronous ring-generator. The power is generated in two star connected three-phase systems. A rectifier at the tower base converts the three-phase alternating currents t o 1100 V DC. The DC-bus is very short and, adjacent t o the rectifier, is an inverter, which converts the DC to 690 V AC 50-Hz of the utility grid. Insulated gate bipolar transistors IGBT are used as switching elements. Such converters are able to generate almost perfect sine waves with low harmonic distortion (THD 3 %). This is due to the fact that by switching the IGBT's properly, only the high-frequency harmonics remain. The applied switching frequency is 2 kHz. Because all power is rectified to DC and then inverted to AC the generator is decoupled from the utility grid, which allows operation at a wide range of speeds. This configuration thus unites the advantages of variable speed (additional energy capture at partial load and potential reduction of fatigue loads on rotor and drive-train) with those of a grid supply having substantially lower harmonic feedback. The main features are summarized in Table C.1.

<

Table (2.1: M a i n technical data Lagerwey LW-50/750 generator.

Bibliography
[l]P.M.J. van den Hof, System identification. 1997.

[2] L. Ljung, S y s t e m identification theory for the user. P T R Prentice Hall, inc., 1987 [3] D-P. Molenaar, Cost eflectiue design and operation of variable speed wind turbines Closing the gap between the control engineering and the wind engineering community. DUP Science, 2003. [4] D-P. Molenaar, D A W I D U M User's Guide, Version 1, Mechanical Engineering, Systems and Control Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, TUD-WBMR-N552, December 2000. [5] J.M. Vleeshouwers, Synchronous machine identification by a simple step-response test. PhD. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, April 1998.

Glossary of symbols

mechanical rotational speed electromechanical torque electrical power setpoint for electromechanical torque stator current of the a-phase stator voltage of the a-phase stator flux linkage of the a-phase stator current of the b-phase stator voltage of the b-phase stator flux linkage of the b-phase stator current of the c-phase stator voltage of the c-phase stator flux linkage of the c-phase field winding current direct-axis single damper winding current quadrature-axis single damper winding current field winding voltage field winding flux direct-axis single damper winding flux quadrature-axis single damper winding flux Angle between the direct axis and the magnetic axis of phase a direct-axis finite dzrLperiYinding current direct-axis finite damper winding flux Laplace transform of id Laplace transform of if Transfer function Transfer function Transfer function Laplace transform of $d Laplace transform of $f field-winding resistance stator-winding resistance Laplace operator continuous-time output signal discrete-time output signal

sampling interval forward shik operator backward shift operator model parameter
--A-l
ULUUCL

-"-..- -+-,p a

a u L c b c A

discrete-time output signal discrete-time error signal column of model parameters output model input model regression vector error criterium estimator for y k MIMO output model MIMO input model coefficient matrix filtered discrete-time output data filtered discrete-time input data Filter Goodness of fit ratio Simulated output data average of yk alternate error function argument to erfc(x) integration variable

Samenvatt ing
Om een optimale regelaar voor een synchrone generator in een windturbine t e kunnen ontwerpen is het nodig eerst een goed model van de synchrone generator t e verkrijgen. In zijn proefschrift heeft David Molenaar een model gei'dentificeerd met behulp van een standaard MIMO ARX identificatieprocedure. Deze identificatieprocedure houdt echter geen rekening met de symmetrie die in het model verwacht wordt op basis van een analyse van de synchrone generator. In dit onderzoek is de identificatie van de synchrone generator van de Lagerwey LW501750 windturbine opnieuw uitgevoerd met behulp van een aangepaste MIMO ARX identificatieprocedure, die in staat is om rekening te houden met een symmetrische beperking in het model. IJerder zijn er enkele technieken uitgeprobeert waarmee de kwaliteit van het eerder geidentificeerde model verbeterd kan worden.

Abstract
In order t o be able t o develop an optimal controller for the synchronous generator of a wind turbine, it is necessary t o obtain a good model of this synchronous generator. In his thesis, David Molenaar has identified a model using a standard MIMO ARX identification procedure. This identification procedure, however, ignores the model symmetry that is to be expected according to an analysis of the synchronous generator.

In this research, identification of the synchronous generator of the Lagerwey LW-501750 wind turbine has been reattempted using a modified MIMO ARX procedure in which a symmetric constraint has been implemented. In addition, several other methods t o improve the quality of the earlier obtained model have been tested.