Modeling and Dynamic

Performance of Renewable
Energy Systems
P. Pourbeik and N. Miller
SC C4 – System Technical Performance

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
ON LARGE ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
 11/08/2016

Modeling and Dynamic Tutorial Content

Performance of Renewable • Overview of Renewable Energy Systems (5 minutes)
Energy Systems
• Dynamic Performance of Renewable Energy Systems (35 minutes)

P. Pourbeik and N. Miller

• Modeling of Renewable Energy Systems (35 minutes)
SC C4 – System Technical Performance
Content
• Questions and Answers (15 minutes)

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL
ON LARGE ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
3

1
 11/08/2016

Overview of Renewable Energy Systems How does RE interface with the Grid?
What are renewable energy (RE) systems? • Earlier technologies of wind
Overview of •
•
Wind Energy
Solar Energy (photovoltaic and solar thermal)
generators were direct connect
induction generators Plant
Feeders gene rator
P lant
Feeders

Renewable Energy
g ene rato r

• These do still exist and are ac PF control

• Hydro Power Plants (modern variable speed)

PF con trol to capaci tor s

important to model
capacitor s Slip power
dc
as heat loss

• Wave and Tidal Energy

Systems
Type 1 – Squirrel-cage induction Type 2 – Wound rotor induction generator
• However, the majority of RE generator with variable rotor resistance

•
Plant

Etc. today use power electronic generato r

Feeders
ac dc
Plant
Feede rs

interfaces genera tor to to

Our Focus here will be on Wind and Photovoltaic • Even advance pumped storage
ac
to
dc
dc
to
ac
dc ac

Systems hydro uses a power converter partial power

full power

interface Type 3 – Doubly-fed asynchronous generator Type 4 – Full converter interface

Note: Solar Thermal is typically a synchronous generator interface • So we will focus mainly on the
power electronic interface
based RE
5

2
 11/08/2016

What is the power electronic interface? What is the power electronic interface? Modeling and Dynamic Performance
• A full-converter interface means that the grid side • Power electronic interface energy sources are
Thyristor Based IGBT Based
converter acts as an inverter, changing dc current to different to synchronous generation
Line Commutated Converter Voltage Source Converter ac current • They can be more flexible and faster to respond
(consumes Vars) (control P & Q)
P P
• The converter being a VSC it is able to • They can provide voltage support, reactive support,
independently, and very quickly, control P (MW) and and both fast and temporarily frequency, and
ac dc ac dc
Q (Mvar) to within the converter ratings sustained primary frequency response
• This means great flexibility (voltage control, etc.) • To provide sustained primary frequency response,
• Type 3 wind turbines are very similar, thought not some of the incident energy must be curtailed and
Q Q
full-converter interface (more later) kept in reserve – this has economic implications
The typical RE grid interface

3
 11/08/2016

Variable-Speed Wind
Basic principle of a RES Turbine Components Gear Box
Generator

Blades

The basic principle is to convert one energy form Nacelle

Dynamic Performance into another Rotor

of Renewable Energy
Hub
Kinetic Mechanical Electrical
energy energy energy Main
Shaft

Systems
For WTGs: Tower

Power Converter
Rotor Generator

For PV: Transformer &

solar irradia on → DC power → Converter to AC power Electrical

4
 11/08/2016

Wind Power: Why Wind M

Power Curve Turbines must have variable a

1,600 speed
x
WTG- Electrical Conversion Technologies
1,400 vw = wind speed Pla nt
Plant Feeders
Electrical Power (kW)

Rated Power Cut-out Feeders g ene rator

1,200 Rated Wind speed
generator

1,000
Wind speed  = blade pitch angle PF control
ac
to
PF contro l
cap acitor s
capacitor s Slip p ower
dc

800 as heat loss

Pmech
600  = rotor speed Type 1 – Squirrel-cage induction generator Type 2 – Wound rotor induction generator
with variable rotor resistance
 shaft
A r v 3w Cp ( , )
Cut-in
400 Wind speed P power
Plant
Feeders
Plant

, Ar , Kb (Air density and 2 gene rator ac dc

Feeders
200 generator
Swept area)
to to
tip speed ratio,  = Kb ( / vw) dc ac
ac dc
0 ideal Cp = 0.593 to to
0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Turbines Need to have some maximum Cp = 0.47 at  = 7 for dc ac

speed variability to: 3 blade rotor

full power
Wind Speed (m/s) partia l power

Electrical power output as a function of wind speed • - Control mechanical loads Type 3 – Doubly-fed asynchronous generator Type 4 – Full converter interface

 - Maximize energy capture Types 2, 3, and 4 are variable speed generators

5
 11/08/2016

DFG Frequency and

Speed (Type 3 WTG)
What Really is a Doubly-Fed Generator?
Generator
Type 4 and PV
• Physically – the machine resembles an induction Stator
generator Rotor To Grid Plant
Feeders
ac dc
• Conceptually – it is like a variable speed, genera tor to to
dc ac
“synchronous” generator with bus-fed excitation
full power
• Functionally – it tends to operate more like a Net of Rotor mechanical G enerator
Side
Grid Side
Converter
angular speed and
current-regulated electronic converter electrical angular speed is
Converter

Ei Grid interface controlled completely by grid-side inverter

It is not just a type of “induction generator”; operationally, synchronous: phasor
AC/DC/AC Power Converter
diagram looks like a
there is little in common with an induction generator synchronous machine
Vt

6
 11/08/2016

Voltage Regulation Reactive Power Capability Wind Plant Level

Hierarchical Control Philosophy Control Substation
• WTG level – Individual WTGs have fast, autonomous, self- Rating Point HV Bus

protecting regulation of their terminal voltages - will always respond • Coordinated turbine and plant Point of Interconnection
GE 1.5 MW supervisory control structure
rapidly and correctly for grid voltage events
(POI)
Q WP PW P
LTC
Q-Capability LV Bus
• Voltage, VAR, & PF control
QL Reactive

• Wind Plant level – Plant-level controls meet performance • PF requirements primarily met QC Power
Controller

requirements (e.g., voltage regulation) at the point-of- by WTG reactive capability, but
interconnection (POI) augmented by mechanically Reactive Compensation
switched shunt devices if (if required)

• Sends supervisory reactive power commands to individual necessary PWTG PWTG

WTGs to ‘trim up’ initial individual WTG response
• Combined plant response Q WTG Q WTG
• Coordinates other substation equipment (e.g., switched • Steady-state PF range - 0.90 under-excited/0.90 over-excited; Full
eliminates need for SVC, PWTG PWTG
shunt capacitors) leading and lagging range over full power range
STATCOM, or other expensive
• Interfaces with utility SCADA / accepts commands (e.g., • Dynamic range meets or exceeds steady-state range equipment Q WTG Q WTG

voltage reference setpoint) from utility system operator • WTG reactive capability often sufficient to satisfy PF requirements at
• Integrated with substation
PWTG PWTG

POI; No need for FACTS devices

SCADA Q WTG Q WTG
• VAR capability reduced at low power due to units cycling off -line
• Faster reactive response than synch. generator

7
 11/08/2016

Actual measurements from Frequency Response

Wind Plant Frequency Responsive Controls
162MW WPP • Grid must maintain balance between load and generation
• Large disturbances, particularly trips of large generating plants, cause • Governor control responds
unbalance that must be corrected by “Frequency Response” • to both frequency drops and increases
Wind Plant Voltage Voltage at POI
• Frequency response covers multiple time frames • in 5-60 second time frame
• inertial response (up to a few seconds) • requires curtailment to be able to increase power
• governor response (“Primary Response” – 1s to 10s of seconds) • this is either Fast Frequency Response, or Primary Frequency Response
• AGC response (“Secondary Response” - tens of seconds to tens (depending on aggressiveness of the control)
of minutes)
• Inertial control (“synthetic”, “virtual”) responds
Wind Plant Power Output • Committed synchronous generation naturally contributes to system
inertia. • Up to 10-second time frame
• inertial response for these resources is not controllable, and is • uses inertial energy from rotating wind turbine to supply power to system
not a function of loading level
Average Wind Speed • Some synchronous generation provides governor response, if • requires energy recovery from system to return wind turbines to nominal
(a) governors are enabled and speed
(b) it has “headroom” to increase output • more responsive at higher wind speeds
Voltage and Reactive Power Regulation
Like a Synchronous Power Plant • this is Fast Frequency Response,
NOT System Inertial Response GE Energy, May 2006/ 24

8
 11/08/2016

Primary Response: Wind and Synchronous Gens Inertia-based Fast Frequency Control
Field Test and Model of Wind Plant
a.k.a. “Synthetic Inertia”
Frequency Response
Plant
• Over vs. Under-frequency Power
Plant Power Maximum
= rating for synchronous plants
Response = available for wind plants • Use controls to extract stored inertial energy
• Provide incremental energy contribution during the 1st 10 seconds

Headroom
• Low or zero opportunity cost or Plant Power Dispatch
variable cost on over-frequency = actual production of grid events;
response Droop
• 83 MW plant • Allow time for governors and other controls to act
Deadband
• Under-frequency response can
System short System needs • Test is release of • Focus on functional behavior and grid response:
have high opportunity or variable power
do not try to exactly replicate synchronous
high frequency input
of generation

cost 100% (Normal Frequency) machine behavior

• Std GE WTG model
• “Droop “
Speed (for synchronous machines)
Frequency (for wind plants) (wndtge); Constraints:
parameters tuned • Not possible to increase wind speed
• Is the change in power output per change in frequency. But be careful: higher (more)
droop means less aggressive response; lower slopes in the curve. for this plant • Slowing wind turbine reduces aerodynamic lift: Must avoid stall
• Can be asymmetric. Wind, and especially PV, can easily have different over- versus • Must respect WTG component ratings: loading & electrical ratings
under-frequency droop characteristics. Rules should make it possible to take
advantage of this. • Must respect other controls:
25
• Turbulence management; drive-train and tower loads mgmt

9
 11/08/2016

Example: Frequency Control on Wind Plants

Disturbance: Trip 2 Palo Verde units (~2,750MW)

1 Light Spring High Mix

Models
2 Light Spring High Mix with governor
3
control* • Model - A set of mathematical equations either
4 Light Spring High Mix with inertial control*
algebraic or differential, or both, that constitute a
Light Spring High Mix with both controls
Modeling of mathematical emulation of a real physical system.
Renewable Energy
• So by definition no model is perfect!!
Systems
2

4
3
40% of wind plants had
these controls, for a total of
1
300 MW initial curtailment
out of 27GW production.
• All models have limitations, and it is important to
understand them

Simulation of Western US in Future High Wind and Solar condition: 28

[Link]

10
 11/08/2016

Modeling Needs Detailed Vendor Specific Model Usage Concerns with Detailed Vendor Models in
• Detailed equipment design – vendor specific, internal, • Used in EMT type tools for detailed studies Large Scale Positive Sequence Simulations
highly complex and proprietary models • Hybrid Simulations: • Limited documentation – not easy to debug issues
• Detailed equipment/system interaction studies, e.g. • EMT models for RE plant an surrounding interfaced with
insulation coordination, EMC, torsional-interactions, etc. positive sequence large grid model (e.g. PSCAD + Siemens • Non-Disclosure Agreements – cannot share with
PTI PSS®E) reliability entities and other TSOs
• Vendor specific models are needed
• EMT modeling • Vendor supplied detailed model encapsulated in a DLL • Not portable across commercial software platforms –
• Models again are typically proprietary that can be interfaced with different simulation tools a lot of effort by Vendor and others to keep multiple
versions for different tools and different versions of
• Detailed collector system design and grid interface, • In many cases, such vendor specific models will come
tools
particularly for very weak systems (low short-circuit with Non-Disclosure Agreements
ratio) – again vendor specific models are likely • Models have been found to interact in some
needed commercial tools – hard to debug

11
 11/08/2016

WECC Effort Response of 1st Generation Generic WTG

Generic (standard) Models • 1st Generation Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) models Models
• CIGRE started effort in 2004 [1] 1st Generation WTG model versus actual WTG response Type 3 WTG (WTG is not GE)

• Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)

continued this work [2], [6], [11], [12], [13] and [14]
• IEC TC88 WG27 is also working on standard models
for Wind Turbine Generators [3]
• What is presented here pulls from all these public
documents, with a particular focus on the CIGRE and
WECC efforts • Were developed ~ 2005 – 2009
• EPRI has been also instrumental in funding the R&D • Concerns raised in 2010 with respect to:
• Type 1 & 2 showing unreasonable frequency response
behind much of this work • Type 3 & 4 not matching multiple vendors

12
 11/08/2016

2nd Generation Generic WTG Models 2nd Generation Generic WTG Models TYPE 3 WTG
Just one example – ran many tens of cases of comparisons
between measurement and simulation for those who provided data
New

Similar – some changes

13
 11/08/2016

TYPE 4A WTG TYPE 4B WTG Utility Scale PV

14
 11/08/2016

The Core Module: New Feature:

Modeling Various RES Renewable Energy Electrical Controls Complex Plant Controller

Freeze state s2 if Vreg < Vfrz

VcompFl a Vref Vaux

Vreg +
g +
(from b us vbus) 1 1 _
I branch |Vreg – (Rc+ jXc)I bra nch|
(cu rre nt th rou gh a d efin e b ranch, e.g. 1 + s Tfltr
0 s0
sub station tra nsformer) +
Qmax
Qbr anch Kc + Qaux
dbd emax
(re active power through a define branch, + 1 Wext
Kp + Ki 1 + s Tft
e.g . substatio n transformer ) _
Qbranch 1 s 1 + s Tfv
1 + s Tfltr 0
(fro m agg reg ate turbine mode l emi n s2 s3
or col lecti on point o f wind pla nt) s1 + RefFl ag
2 Qmin
RES Model Combination Qref
_
pfare f tan
Type 3 WTG regc_a, reec_a, repc_a, wtgt_a, wtga_a, wtgp_a, wtgq_a +

Type 4 WTG regc_a, reec_a, repc_a (optional: wtgt_a) wr ef1 + wref2

+
…….. wref50
+

PV plant regc_a, reec_b (or reec_a), repc_a Pl ant_pref Paux

Pmax Freq_ fla g
Pbranch +
+ fe max 0
Battery Energy Storage regc_a, reec_c (optional: repc_a) (from agg regate
turbin e mod el termina l
1 _
Kp g + Kig 1 1
Pext
Kw 1 Kw2 Kw50
1 + s Tp s 1 + s Tlag
or colle ction po int of +
s4 femin s5 s6
wind pla nt)
0 Pmin
fd bd1,fdb d2 Dd n 1 1 1
Freq +
(from agg regate _ 1 + sTw1 1 + sTw2 1 + sTw 50
turbin e mod el termina l
or collec tion po int of +
+ Du p Wo1 Wo2 Wo50
wind plan t)
Fre q_ref (BU S1, ID1) (BUS2, ID2) (BUS50, ID50)
0

+
pref1 + pref2
+ …….. pref50

Kz1 Kz2 Kz5 0

See [16] for complete details
See [15] for complete details
1 1 1
1 + sTw1 1 + sTw2 1 + sTw50

Po1 Po2 Po50

(BUS1, ID1) (BUS2, ID2) (BUS50, ID50)

15
 11/08/2016

VALIDATION SINGEL WTG VALIDATION SINGEL WTG

Type 3 [16] Type 4 [16] VALIDATION
Vendor 2 Vendor 2b Vendor 1 Vendor 2 • Validation cases have been done with wind power
plants using PMU disturbance data [16]
• Validation cases have been done with PV and Energy
storage systems as well [16].
• Certainly more work can be done and certainly there
Vendor 3 are improvements that can be made to the models as
Vendor 4
Vendor 3 learning increases with their application

16
 11/08/2016

Present Status Value of Generic Models Limitations of Generic Models

• WECC Models have been implemented and • Portability – standard and portable across several
tested/compared across several commercial tool commercial platforms • Not good for looking at details of unbalance
platforms (Siemens PTI PSS®E, GE PSLFTM, PowerWorld faults/conditions – these are positive sequence models
• Public – documented and open, so they can be
Simulator, PowerTech Labs TSAT) debugged • Limited bandwidth of validity – true of majority of
• Have been also adopted by some European tools and models in large scale simulations
• Validation – as shown they have been validated
tested to some extent (DigSilent PowerFactory) against several vendor equipment to show reasonable • Not good for studying very weak systems
• There are known difference between WECC and IEC performance • Assume constant wind speed (solar irradiation)
generic models: • Modeling future systems – useful for modeling futuristic • Presently do not offer modeling of “synthetic inertia”;
• Active drive-train damping emulation studies where looking at different potential however, they can model and have been validated for
• Simple emulation of active crow-bar penetration levels of RES modeling primary frequency response
• Integrator state reset on torque controller

17
 Further Reading:
[1] CIGRE Technical Brochure 328, Modeling and Dynamic Behavior of Wind Generation as it Relates to Power System Control and
Dynamic Performance, Prepared by CIGRE WG C4.601, August 2007. ([Link])
[2] A. Ellis, P. Pourbeik, J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, J, Senthil and J. Weber, “Generic Wind Turbine Generator Models for WECC – A Second
Status Report”, Proceedings of the IEEE PES GM 2015, Denver, CO, July 2015.
[3] J. Fortmann, P. Pourbeik, N. Miller, Y. Kazachkov, J. Bech, B. Andresen and P. E. Sørensen, “Wind Plant Models in IEC 61400-27-2 and
WECC - latest developments in international standards on wind turbine and wind plant modeling”, Conference: 14th International
Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Power
Plants, October 2015.
[4] G. Lammert, L. D. P. Ospina, P. Pourbeik, D. Fetzer, M. Braun, “Implementation and Validation of WECC Generic
Photovoltaic System Models in DIgSILENT PowerFactory”, to be published in the Proceedings of the IEEE PES GM, July 2016.
[5] EPRI Report, Generic Models and Model Validation for Wind and Solar PV Generation: Technical Update, Product ID 1021763,
December 2011 [Link]
[6] WECC Solar Plant Dynamic Modeling Guidelines, April 2014
[Link]
[7] Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (NREL) [Link]
[8] Western Wind and Solar Integration Study – Phase 3 (NREL) [Link]
[9] EPRI/NREL Report on Active Power Control for Wind [Link]
[10] Eastern Frequency Response Study by GE [Link]
 Further Reading:
[11] WECC 2nd Generation WTG Model Specifications: [Link]
[Link]
[12] WECC PV Model Specifications: [Link]
[Link]
[13] WECC PV Modeling Guide:
[Link]
[14] WECC WTG Modeling Guide:
[Link]
[15] EPRI Report, Model User Guide for Generic Renewable Energy System Models, 2015
[Link]
[16] WECC REMTF Workshop
[Link]
[17] WECC White Paper, Value and Limitations of the Positive Sequence Generic Models for Renewable energy Systems, December
2015.
[Link]
ons%20December%[Link]&action=default&DefaultItemOpen=1
 COPYRIGHT © 2016

This tutorial has been prepared based upon

the work of CIGRE and its Working Groups.
If it is used in total or in part, proper
reference and credit should be given to
CIGRE.

COPYRIGHT &
DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER NOTICE
NOTICE
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance
about the contents of this publication, nor
does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the
information. All implied warranties and
conditions are excluded to the maximum
extent permitted by law”.