Validation of a Second Generation Type 3 Generic Wind Model
Matthew P. Richwine (Presenter) [email protected]
Juan J. Sanchez-Gasca Nicholas W. Miller
July 30th, 2014 IEEE PES GM
Washington DC
1
Introduction
• GE in active in development of dynamic models
• Use for modeling dynamics of the bulk power system
• Always evolving, trade-offs
2
Converter
Control
Model
Pitch
Control
Model
Wind
Turbine
Model
Blade Pitch
Generator /
Converter
Model
Power
Order
Speed
OrderShaft Speed
Current Command, Ip
Voltage Command, Eq
Real
Power
Terminal Voltage
Regulated Bus Voltage
Real & Reactive
Power
Pgen
Qgen
First-Generation Type 3 Generic Model GE Type 3 Wind Turbine Model
Motivation for Testing
Represent installed behavior
Validation checks that models are reasonable
Highlights areas where models can be improved
Emerging Requirements ie. NERC MOD-025,-026,-027
3
Wind Turbine Model
Generic Models v. GE Models
- Both models are similar in that they neglect the generator flux
- GE models differ in the following ways:
- Voltage Droop
- Active Power Control (APC)
- WindINERTIA
- LVRT, ZVRT
4
Torque
Control
Pitch
ControlAero
Drive-Train
Electrical
Control
Generator/
Converter
Pgen
Pgen
Prefo
Qref
Pord
Pref
w
w ref
Iqcmd
Ipcmd
Iq
Ip
Plant Level
Control
Vref/Vreg
or Qref/Qgen
fref/freq and
Plant_pref/Pgen
Vterm
Pgen
Qgen
Pm
q
Changes from first generation to second generation
- Modularity (7 modules v. 4 modules)
- More input to model development
Converter
Control
Model
Pitch
Control
Model
Wind
Turbine
Model
Blade Pitch
Generator /
Converter
Model
Power
Order
Speed
OrderShaft Speed
Current Command, Ip
Voltage Command, Eq
Real
Power
Terminal Voltage
Regulated Bus Voltage
Real & Reactive
Power
Pgen
Qgen
First-Generation Generic Model
Second-Generation Generic Model
Model Validation Approach Equipment
Representation
Model Validation Actual Equipment
Medium Voltage Bus (e.g. 34.5kV) Terminal Bus
P gen
Q gen
Vreg bus
Vterm
Unit Transformer
Point of Interconnection
(POI) Bus
Substation
Transformer
Collector Equivalent Impedance
Unit transformers are typically 2-3 MVA, 6% leakage reactance delta-wye connected padmounts, modeled as a single equivalent transformer
Multiple wind turbines are modeled as a single equivalent wind turbine
The collector system may cover several miles, have different topologies, and is modeled as an equivalent impedance.
Substation transformers usually have FOA rating roughly equal to total MVA of WTGs. Switching shunt reactive compensation at the substation may be used as a stimulus for testing
Wind Plant Model
System Model
Physical Wind Farm Schematic
7
Equivalent Wind Farm Schematic
Voltage Reference Step Test
Testing can be challenging
• Changing wind conditions
• Changing grid conditions
Voltage Reference Step Test
• Voltage regulation mode
• +2% step at POI (144kV bus)
• Near unit PF prior to step
• Power fluctuating with wind
8
Capacitor Bank Switching Test
Shunt Capacitor Switching Test
• Voltage regulation mode
• 10MVAr capacitor switched in, then out
• Near unit PF at the start of testing
• Power (wind speed) decreasing
9
Future Work • Capturing power fluctuations in simulation
• Frequency response testing
• Multi-plant volt/Var coordination
10
Active coordination
regulates POR
voltage (Red)
Active coordination
balances VARs
from all wind farms
Shunt Capacitor Opens with Active Coordination
applied on top of Droop Coordination
WF1 WF2 WF3
System
Shunt Cap
POR Bus
Conclusions
• Staged testing shows a match among Generic models, GE models, field test results
• Reactive power path is decoupled from the active power path
11
References
[1] A. Ellis, E. Muljadi, J. Sanchez-Gasca, Y. Kazachkov, “Generic Models for Simulation of Wind Power Plants in Bulk System Planning Studies”, Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting 2011, Detroit, MI, USA, July 24-28.
[2] A. Ellis, Y. Kazachkov, E. Muljadi, P. Pourbeik, J.J. Sanchez-Gasca , Working Group Joint Report – WECC Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation & IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation of the IEEE PES Power Stability Controls Subcommittee of the IEEE PES Power System Dynamic Performance Committee, “Description and Technical Specifications for Generic WTG Models – A Status Report”, Proc. IEEE PES 2011 Power Systems Conference and Exposition (PSCE), March, 2011, Phoenix, AZ.
[3] P. Pourbeik, A. Ellis, J. Sanchez-Gasca, Y. Kazachkov, E. Muljadi, J. Senthil and D. Davies, “Generic Stability Models for Type 3 & 4 Wind Turbine Generators for WECC”, Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. July 2013.
[4] T. Ackermann, A. Ellis, J. Fortmann, J. Matevosyan, E. Muljadi, R. Piwko, P. Pourbeik, E. Quitmann, P. Sorensen, H. Urdal, B. Zavadil, “Code Shift – Grid Specifications and Dynamic Wind Turbine Models”, IEEE Power and Energy, vol. 11, pp. 73-82, Nov./Dec. 2013
[5] E. Muljadi, C.P. Butterfield, A. Ellis, J. Mechenbier, J. Hocheimer, R. Young, N. Miller, R. Delmerico, R. Zavadil, J.C. Smith, ”Equivalencing the Collector System of a Large Wind Power Plant”, presented at the IEEE Power Engineering Society, Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, June 12-16, 2006.
12