Energy 101 (2016) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

ADALINE (ADAptive Linear NEuron)-based coordinated control for

wind power fluctuations smoothing with reduced BESS
(battery energy storage system) capacity
M. Jannati a, *, S.H. Hosseinian b, B. Vahidi b, Guo-jie Li c
a
University of Shahreza, Dep. of Electrical Engineering, Shahreza, Iran
b
Amirkabir University of Technology, Dep. of Electrical Engineering, Tehran 15916-34311, Iran
c
Key Laboratory of Control of Power Transmission and Conversion, Ministry of Education (Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University),
Shanghai, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Most wind turbine generators installed in large wind farms are variable speed types which operate at the
Received 12 December 2014 maximum power point tracking mode in order to increase the power generation. Due to this fact and
Received in revised form regarding the random nature of the wind speed, the output power of the wind farm fluctuates randomly.
27 January 2016
Fluctuating power affects network operation and needs to be smoothed. In order to mitigate the output
Accepted 28 January 2016
Available online 24 February 2016
power fluctuations of a wind farm, a 4-step coordinated control technique based on ADALINE (ADAptive
Linear NEuron) is proposed in this paper which uses a small BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) ca-
pacity. At first the on-line tracking of the WFOP (Wind Farm Output Power) is carried out by ADALINE.
Keywords:
Wind farm power fluctuation
Afterwards, two constraints for maximum permissible fluctuations are imposed on the ADALINE output.
ADALINE (ADAptive Linear NEuron) Two states of charging feedback control strategies are implemented in the third and fourth steps.
Coordinated control Reducing the battery capacity in proposed coordinated control technique is fulfilled through the accurate
BESS (battery energy storage system) tracking performed by ADALINE and also by maintaining the level of BESS saved energy within the
batteries safe performance region performed by state of charging feedback control strategies. Simulation
results run by real data verify that the performance of the proposed approach is considerably better than
the basic approach.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Global warming along with persuasion of environmental orga-
nizations to decrease greenhouse gases on the one hand, and
increasing demand for electrical energy and its growing final price
on the other hand have attracted the attention of governments and
different societies to renewable energy resources [1]. Wind is one of
the renewable energy resources possessing characteristics dis-
tinguishing it from others. However, emergence of the wind energy
in electrical networks and increasing the power production in wind
farms resulted in some new challenges too. Because of their high
final cost compared with other parts of the power generation
network, wind turbines need to work at the maximum power point
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohsen.jannati@shahreza.ac.ir (M. Jannati), hosseinian@aut.
ac.ir (S.H. Hosseinian), vahidi@aut.ac.ir (B. Vahidi), liguojie@sjtu.edu.cn (G.-j. Li).
tracking mode [2]. Due to this fact and regarding the random nature
of wind speed, the output power of the wind farm fluctuates. The
effect of fluctuations on the system stability is more significant
when the wind farm capacity or the wind power production part in
the whole power system increases. This is a challenge which may
lead to the power system collapse in unsuitable situations [3].
So far, various researches have been conducted in order to mitigate
fluctuations of WFOP (Wind Farm Output Power).
A large majority of studies demonstrated that wind power fluc-
tuations can be mitigated by blade pitch control [4]. However, me-
chanical stress may damage blades if the pitch angel control operates
fast enough to mitigate short-term fluctuations. Utilizing ESSs (En-
ergy Storage Systems) by different technologies has been recognized
as another acceptable solution to smooth wind power fluctuations
[5e7]. In Refs. [8] and [9] some approaches based on pumped storage
and compressed air energy saving have been studied which have a
low dynamic adjustment speed and it is not suitable for large wind
farms. Implementing SMES (Superconducting Magnetic Energy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.01.100
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8
Storage) has been recommended in Ref. [10], but it is not cost-
effective. The solution proposed in Ref. [11] is use of SCES (Super
Capacitor Energy Storages) which together with the BESS (Battery
Energy Storage System) technology form the HESS (Hybrid Energy
Storage System) technology. Also, Lithium-ion battery is an energy
saving technology with a high energy density and acceptable energy
efficiency which has notable potential in power fluctuation
smoothing applications [12,13]. In most wind farms, BESS is utilized
alone or together with SCES.
In addition to ESS, the smoothing process needs a control sys-
tem for COD (Charging Or Discharging). Control methods are usu-
ally based on First-order FLF (Low-pass Filter) which is suitable for
real-time applications and is implemented easily [14]. The WFOP
becomes smoother after tracking by FLF control. Most of previous
researches have focused on the basic FLF method with fixed time
constant [14]. In Ref. [15] a rate limiter has been added to FLF in
order to limit the maximum output power fluctuations. Also, a
knowledge-based ANN (Artificial Neural Network) control system
has been integrated with FLF for scheduling wind power supply in
two time-scales using two storage systems in Ref. [16]. Although
fluctuations decrease by using a large fixed time constant, it in-
creases the needed saving capacity. Conversely, small time constant
increases the output power fluctuations despite of lessening the
needed saving capacity. Due to this fact, flexible time constant for
FLF has been suggested in Refs. [17e19]. Another solution is to use
wavelet transform instead of FLF, a frequency distribution allocates
wind power fluctuations to the different HESS components to more
easily satisfy 1-min and 30-min fluctuation mitigation re-
quirements [20]. High frequency low density energy is saved in
SCES and low frequency high density energy is saved in BESS
[19,20]. This approach is usable just in the wind farms equipped
with both the BESS and SCES technologies.
In order to decrease the needed BESS capacity, some coordi-
nated control methods has concentrated on optimum utilization of
BESS safe performance region. For example, in Refs. [21] and [22] a
SOC (State Of Charge) feedback control method has been added to
the basic FLF for keeping the battery SOC within the correct range.
In Ref. [23], a chain rule control mode with the factors of SOC, cycle
limit current and battery life is used to realize the optimal control of
a power smoothing system.
In order to mitigate the output power fluctuations of a wind farm,
a 4-step coordinated control technique is proposed in this paper
which uses a low BESS capacity. ADALINE is employed in the tracking
step of output active power. Precise and fast tracking, high operation
speed and simple practical implementation are excellent specifica-
tions of ADALINE. In the second step, two constraints defined by
utilities are applied to the ADALINE output (more details have been
addressed in Section 4.1). In the third and fourth steps, two control
strategies make the best possible use of the battery safe performance
region by controlling the level of remained energy in the BESS.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
provides some background on basics of the wind PFS (Power
Fluctuation Smoothing) and introduces the FLF-based control
approach. In Section 3 constraints of the wind farm power fluctu-
ation mitigation imposed by utilities is described. The proposed
control approach for PFS is elaborated in Section 4. Simulation re-
sults, comparison, and discussion are presented in Section 5.
Conclusion and references develop Section 6 and section 7 of the
paper respectively.
2. Basics of wind farm PFS
Fig. 1 shows the configuration of a wind farm connected to the
ESS and the power network while PWF, Pco and PE indicate WFOP,
Fig. 1. Configuration of a wind farm connected to the ESS and the power network.
COP (Combined Output Power) injected to the network and power
exchanged by the ESS respectively.
In fact, the WFOP cannot be injected to the network directly
because of the unpredictable fluctuations. Inevitably, the fluctua-
tions need to be smoothed before injecting to the network. In the
process of the smoothing, use of the following items is necessary:
1) ESS
2) A control system for energy charging/discharging
Depending on the wind farm capacity, the BESS or the HESS may
be employed.
The most inexpensive and the easiest approach is to use a FLF as
shown in the power fluctuation smoothing control system of Fig. 2.
In this method, the WFOP is fed to a FLF with a given time
constant TF. Then PWF(s) is compared to Po(s). If Po(s)
PWF(s) < 0,
then PE(s) is saved into the ESS; if Po(s)
PWF(s) > 0, PE(s) should be
provided by the ESS.
3. PFMC (power fluctuation mitigation constraints)
It is ideally expected that the COP has always a constant value. In
this case a very high capacity ESS is required which is extremely
costly and practically unfeasible. So some constraints determined
by utilities are applied to the smoothing process. These constraints
vary from country to country in different manuscripts. For instance,
in a research conducted in the United States [24], the power ramp
constraint has been considered the average power of 1 min so that
the instantaneous ramp up and ramp down should be at most equal
to 5 percent of the average power in 1 min. The maximum power
ramp rate is 10 percent of the rated power per minute for wind
power systems in Germany and in Ireland, there are two specified
ramp rate settings of 1 min and 10 min [25]. Utilities in Japan
introduced two 1-min and 20-min power ramp rates that allows
the COP of the wind farm to have fluctuations up to 2 percent and
10 percent of the wind farm rated power per each 1-min time
window and 20-min time window respectively. Also, different
constraints have been implemented in China. For instance re-
searchers in Ref. [26] declare that two 1-min and 30-min con-
straints are necessary for the ramp rate of the wind farm COP. These
Fig. 2. Power fluctuation smoothing based on the FLF method.
 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8
two constraints define maximum variation values as 2 percent and
7 percent of the wind farm rated power per 1-min window and per
30-min window respectively.
The most stringent constraints belong to the dual power ramp
constraints. In this study two power ramp constraints are taken
into account; as the test network is a wind farm located in China,
dual constraints used in china are chosen to be used in this study:
1) The maximum variation in the COP is set to 2 percent of the
wind farm rated power (Prated) per 1-min window (PFMC-1min)
i.e. maxfDPCo j1
min g  Prated  x1 % where x1 ¼ 2.
2) The maximum variation in the COP is set to 7 percent of Prated per
30-min window (PFMC-30 min) i.e. maxfDPCo j30
min g  Prated 
x30 % where x30 ¼ 7.
It should be remarked that the maximum variation in instan-
taneous COP per each 30-min window may increase up to 10
percent temporarily.
4. The proposed coordinated control method for smoothing
Applying PFMC-1min and PFMC-30min, in this study a coordi-
nated control technique in the smoothing process of a wind farm
power fluctuation is presented which uses a lower BESS capacity in
order to decrease the investment cost as much as possible. This
technique comprises 4 steps:
1) Suitable tracking of the WFOP
The first important part of the smoothing process is tracking of
the WFOP. Improper tracking may impose surplus required BESS
capacity and thus affect the efficiency of other control steps. In this
research, tracking of the WFOP is performed by means of ADALINE
for the first time. Having no delay, controllable precision and simple
on-line implementation make the proposed method a much better
replacement for FLF method.
2) Limiting the COP by applying dual constraints (PFMC-1min and
PFMC-30min)
The constraints mentioned in Section 3 are applied after the
tracking step. Indeed, dual constraints prevent unexpected increase
or decrease in the COP and play a significant part in assigning the
BESS capacity used in wind farms.
3) State of charging feedback control strategy-1
In this step, the optimum SOC performance region of batteries is
defined and then a COD method is determined which contributes in
fixing batteries in their defined optimum performance region while
reducing the system necessity for battery capacity. Therefore, when
the battery SOC approaches to the optimum performance region,
the feedback control strategy prolongs its entrance to this region
(more details have been addressed in Section 4.3).
4) State of charging feedback control strategy-2
The purpose of state of charging feedback control strategy-2 is
to decrease the system need for batteries. This strategy is applied
when the battery SOC is still out of its unsafe region and as
mentioned in Section 4.4, by increase in PFMC-30min for short time
intervals contributes to extreme decrease in needed battery
capacity.
Four mentioned steps are discussed in more detail in next
sections.
3
4.1. ADALINE architecture
ADALINE is a two-layer neural network with n inputs and one
output which the output is a linear combination of the inputs. It
was first proposed by Widrow and Hoff, Stanford University [16,27].
Main features of the ADALINE are as follows:
1. It can be trained on-line based on changing inputs and the target
response.
2. It is a self adaptive algorithm which can be applied to the
weights training.
3. It has a simple structure making it easily implemented on
hardware.
In order to track a given signal (or its harmonic components for
various applications) on-line, an adaptive linear neuron can be
implemented. To ponder the subject, consider an arbitrary signal
containing a harmonic component as follows:
X
N
zðtÞ ¼ Adc e
bt þ Zn sinðnut þ fn Þ (1)
n¼1
where Adc e
bt is transient DC component and b, Zn and fn are
damping time constant, magnitude and phase of the nth harmonic
respectively. Also N indicates the total number of harmonics and u
is the main frequency and is assumed to be constant. Now z(t) can
be rewritten in discrete time domain:
)
X
N
zðkÞ ¼ Adc ð1
bkTs Þ þ fAn sin nu tðkÞ þ Bn cos nu tðkÞ
n¼1
(2)
where Adc(1
bkTs) indicates the first two terms of Taylor expansion
of the transient DC component and Ns is the sampling rate. In
addition, Ts ¼ 2p/uNs, An ¼ Zncosfn, Bn ¼ Znsinfn and t(k) is the kth
sampling time. As the input vector, X(k) is defined as follows:
XðkÞ ¼ ½sin u tðkÞ cos u tðkÞ…sin nu tðkÞ cos nu tðkÞ 1
kTs T
(3)
where q(k) is the ADALINE weight vector. Thus the ADALINE output
equals to the inner product of q(k) with X(k):
X
N
zðkÞ ¼ qn ðkÞXn ðkÞ ¼ qT ðkÞXðkÞ (4)
n¼1
During the training phase, if the output ~
zðkÞ equals to the target
signal, discrete Fourier transform coefficients of z(k) refer to the
weight vector q(k). In the training phase, the weights should be
chosen so that the error between ADALINE output and target signal
is minimized. Widrow-Hoff training rule based on the Least Square
Error approach is used to train ADALINE [28]. The weights are
corrected as follows:
eðkÞXðkÞ
qðk þ 1Þ ¼ qðkÞ þ a (5)
l þ X T ðkÞXðkÞ
where q(k) and q(kþ1) are the weight vectors in the kth and (k þ 1)
th time interval respectively. In addition, X(k) represents the input
vector in kth time interval and eðkÞ ¼ zðkÞ
~zðkÞ is the error. Also, l
as a small value is used to avoid the denominator being zero and a
is the training rate. Indeed, parameter a is the most effective factor
on the precision of ADALINE and decreasing the error and its value
is practically considered as a2(0,1).
4 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8

In order to track the waveform of z(k) precisely, the error e(k)

should equal to zero or be smaller than a threshold value. If this
condition is satisfied, z(k) is written as:

zðkÞ ¼ ~
zðkÞ ¼ qTo XðkÞ (6)
After the error converges to zero, the weight vector qo in (6)
equals to:

qo ¼ ½A1 B1 ::: AN BN Adc bAdc T (7)

Now that the weight vector was achieved, the harmonic com-
ponents of the waveforms in the kth time interval can be easily
calculated via the equations resulted from Ref. [29]. However the
harmonic calculation of the waveform is not intended here. The
method for training ADALINE has been described in ADALINE
training algorithm of [30].
Fig. 3. Waveforms of WFOP, ADLINE output power and FLF output power.

4.1.1. ADALINE implementation for PFS purposes

n o
The major application for ADALINE is to extract the harmonics of
WP1Co ¼ PCo
k
m k
2
; …; PCo k
1
; PCo (10)
a desired waveform [28]. In this paper a different amazing appli-
cation is presented for it. In order to extract the harmonics of a
n o
waveform, ADALINE needs to track desired waveform precisely and
WP30 k
n
¼ PCo k
2
; …; PCo k
1
; PCo (11)
quickly. As ADALINE has a remarkable performance speed, it is Co

recognized as an on-line approach [29]. Since in this study Dt ¼ 5 sec, m and n values are assigned 12 and
The considered signal in this research is the waveform of WFOP. 360 respectively.
Ideally it is expected to be similar to a DC waveform; however it has Considering PFMC-1min and PFMC-30min, the COP value of the
unpredictable fluctuations practically. Assuming that u ¼ 0, next sample should be within a specific range; otherwise the
z(t) ¼ PADA(t), ~zðtÞ ¼ PWF ðtÞ and e(t) ¼ DP(t) ¼ PADA(t)
PWF(t), the mentioned constraints are not satisfied. To clarify the issue,
following equation is achieved: waveforms of PCo has been shown in Fig. 4 for 30 min hypotheti-
cally. Specifically for (k
1)th sample while having windows WP1Co
DPðkÞ ¼ eðkÞ ¼ PADA ðkÞ
PWF ðkÞ (8)
and WP30Co
, the maximum power fluctuations during one and 30-min
time periods (ε1 and ε30) are obtained as follows:
where PADA(k), PWF(k) and DP(k) indicate the output power of
ADALINE, the WFOP and their difference in kth sample respectively. n o n o
The kth sample is the sample at time t, i.e. t ¼ k  Dt where Dt max WP1Co
min WP1co
represents the sampling period. ε1 ¼  100 (12)
Prated
Moreover, the needed battery capacity at time t or in the kth
sample is calculated by (9): n o n o
max WP30
co

min WP30
co
X
k X
k ε30 ¼  100 (13)
CðkÞ ¼ DPðiÞ  Dt ¼ eðiÞ  Dt (9) Prated
i¼1 i¼1 Regarding the description in Section 3, it's obvious that ε1  x1
Equation (9) indicates that the needed battery capacity until the and ε30  x30.
kth sample is achieved via multiplying the sampling period by the It should be noted that although the kth sample have not taken
sum of the network learning error function. k range can be assigned by both the PFMC-1min and PFMC-
yet, PCo
The waveform of the wind farm output alluded in Section 5 k is outside a specified range, conditions
30min. It means that if PCo
along with the waveforms of ADALINE output have been shown
in Fig. 3 that are related to a 16 h time period.
As it can be inferred from Fig. 3, the FLF method has not been
very successful in the tracking of the wind farm output power.
Although the FLF graph is smoother, it needs more BESS capacity for
the smoothing process. However, the ADALINE method has a better
tracking result. It has accomplished the smoothing purpose with
less BESS capacity. Therefore, the ADALINE method is more cost-
effective than the FLF method. Moreover, it is observed that delay
of the ADALINE output is less than that of the FLF output.

4.2. Constraints control of PFS

The PCo data is saved into one and 30-min windows. Upon
receiving new data, the oldest data existing in the window is
removed and the new data is added. Assume that COP data win-
dow (up to kth sample) for one and 30 min is formulated as in (10)
and (11): Fig. 4. Waveforms of the COP for 30 min hypothetically.
 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8 5

)
ε1  x1 and ε30  x30 are not satisfied for the kth sample. Therefore, m 
bk 1 X b kþi
P
b kþi
k 2½P k k k P ¼ P (21)
Co
1 ; P Co
1 
considering PFMC-1min, we have: PCo where P Co
1 E;REF ADA WF
m i¼1
and P k Co
1 are the upper and lower bounds respectively. Likewise,
k k
k where P b b
k 2½P k WF and P ADA are the predicted WFOP and ADALINE
considering PFMC-30min, we have: PCo Co
30 ; P Co
30  where bk
k respectively. P E;REF represents the state of COD reference for the kth
P Co
30 and P k Co
30 are the upper and lower bounds respectively. bk bk
sample. P E;REF < 0 and P E;REF > 0 are indicative of COD for the kth
Upper and lower bounds shown in Fig. 4 are calculated by following sample respectively.
equations: b k (the predicted SOC at kth sample) is calculated:
Now S OC
n o
k b k < 30 and P
1. If SOCmin < S OC bk
P Co
1 ¼ min WP1Co þ Prated  x1 % (14) E;REF > 0, discharging is allowed but
k
PCo declines.
n o b k < SOCmax , no new constraint is determined for
2. If SOCmin < S OC
P kCo
1 ¼ max WP1Co
Prated  x1 % (15) COD at kth sample.
b k < SOCmax and P
3. If 70 < S OC bk < 0, charging is allowed but P k
E;REF Co
n o increases.
k
P Co
30 ¼ min WP30
Co
þ Prated  x30 % (16)
These constraints prolong the entrance time of batteries to their
n o optimum performance region. In other words, the total needed
P kCo
30 ¼ max WP30
Co

Prated  x30 % (17) capacity for smoothing purposes is reduced. Fig. 5 shows the
strategy of this step schematically.
Now considering (18), (19) is achieved: k in this strategy is under the following constraints:
Concisely, PCo

8
> k k
> P Co
PCo S OC
> k
b k þ Pk b k 2ðSOC ; 30Þ& P
b
>
> if S OC min E;REF > 0
>
> 30 Co
>
>
>
< Pk b k 2ðSOC ; SOCmax Þ
k Co if S OC min
PCo ¼ (22)
> k
> k  
>
> P
PCo
>
> Co b k
70 þ P k
S OC if S OC bk
b k 2ð70; SOCmax Þ& P <0
>
> 30 Co E;REF
>
>
:
Go SCFC
2 O:W

h k
i h k
i h k
i 4.4. SCFC-2 (state of charging feedback control-2)
P kCo ; P Co ¼ P kCo
1 ; P Co
1 ∩ P kCo
30 ; P Co
30 (18)
By implementing SCFC-1, the battery SOC is set to be within the
h k
i optimum region. As explained previously, adjusting the SOC in the
k
PCo 2 P kCo ; P Co (19) ranges of [10,20]% or [80, 90]% doesn't hurt the battery specifically
for short time periods. In this step, COD is allowed but PFMC-30min
where PCok represents the COP in kth sample. Concisely, considering becomes milder. As shown in Fig. 6, moderating this constraint is
the data up to (k
1)th sample and PFMC-1min and PFMC-30min, achieved by selecting x30. Indeed, by appointing a variable value for
PCo in kth sample is under the following constraint: x30 in a given short time, the needed battery capacity is reduced
8 again. In this strategy: xnew
> Pk if k
PCo  P k Co 30 2½x30 ; x30  where x30 ¼ 7 and
>
< Co   x30 ¼ 10 . Also, the algorithm of this strategy is as follows:
k
k
PCo ¼ PCok
if PCo 2 P k Co ; P Co
k
(20)
>
>
: k k k
P Co if PCo P Co

4.3. SCFC-1 (state of charging feedback control-1)

Various factors influence the longevity of batteries used in wind

farms (often lithium-ion type). Depth of the COD is one of the most
significant factors affecting battery life directly [31]. Excessive COD
reduces the useful life of the battery. Due to this fact, battery pro-
ducers allocate a specific range for its COD. The optimum perfor-
mance region of BESS is usually defined as SOC2[20,80]%. Although
selecting the range SOC2[10,90]% doesn't damage the battery
seriously, the applied range in this step of the proposed strategy is
defined as SOCmin ¼ 20%, SOCmax ¼ 80%.
First of all, state of battery COD reference for the next sample
(i.e. kth sample) should be achieved by implementing a linear
prediction [32]: k considering the SCFC-1.
Fig. 5. Selection method for PCo
6 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8

Fig. 7. The under-study wind farm.

Fig. 6. The selection method of x30 in the SCFC-2.

the PFMC-30min is moderated slightly, x30 remains less than 10

1) Set SOCmin ¼ 10% and SOCmax ¼ 90%. percent.
b k < 80, the strategy is stopped (S OC
2) If 20 < S OC b k estimation has In other words, although PFMC-30min is up to 7%, it is assumed
been performed in SCFC-1). that PFMC-30min is allowed to be 10% by the utility as well. So, as
b k < 20 and P
3) If SOCmin < S OC bk
E;REF > 0, discharging is allowed and long as being in the allowed SOC region of a battery unit, PFMC-
new
x30 is obtained by (23): 30min is considered 7% and thus the output power will be
smoother. As the SOC of a battery unit reaches to the mentioned
x30
x30  b k  region, PFMC-30min is allowed to increase up to 10%. This post-
xnew
30 ¼ S OC
10 þ x30 (23)
10 pones need for another battery unit. If the trend of power changes
is reversed, there is no need for an extra unit and thus the required
BESS capacity is further reduced.
bk
b k < 90 and P
4) If SOCmax < S OC E;REF < 0, charging is allowed and Fig. 6 illustrates the selection method of x30 in this step.
new
x30 is obtained by (24):

x30
x30  b k  5. Simulation results

xnew
30 ¼ S OC
80 þ x30 (24)
10
5.1. The under-study wind farm

5) Now (16) and (17) are rewritten as follows: Being located in Shanxi Province, China, the under-study 99 MW
wind farm contains 66 DFIGs (Doubly-Fed Induction Generators)
n o
k 30 each of which has 1.5 MW capacity. Each DFIG unit utilizes both
P Co
xnew ¼ min W P þ Prated  xnew
30 % (25)
30 Co
boost programs and has 0.69 kV export voltage which then boosts
to 35 kV. All the DFIG units are connected together and to the power
n o
grid via a collection line. Then the voltage boosts to 110 kV. Fig. 7
P kCo
xnew ¼ max WP30
Prated  xnew
30 % (26)
30 Co shows the under-study wind farm. The analysis of the proposed
k technique is performed based on the real data of the given WFOP
where P Co
xnew
30
and P k Co
xnew are new upper and lower bounds with the sampling period of 5 s.
30
respectively. It is worth mentioning that 1-min constraint is usually
satisfied by a proper tracking.
Thus, the following term applies to the COP at kth sample: 5.2. Wind farm PFS through the proposed technique

h k
i In order to analyze the performance of the proposed coordi-
k
PCo 2 P kCo
xnew ; P Co
xnew
30
(27) nated control method, the real data of a whole day related to WFOP
30

described in Section 5.1 is used. In the process of the smoothing,

So the permission for COD at kth sample is approved. In addi-
data is received by the 4-step coordinated control system. The
tion, the upper and lower bounds for 30-min constraint are upda-
waveform of the WFOP along with that of the smoothed COP has
ted according to the (28) and thus the constraint in (20) is
been shown in Fig. 8. The COP injected to the grid holds consider-
disregarded:
ably less fluctuations than the WFOP. Also, PFMC-1min and PFMC-
8 30min have been applied. The required capacity allocation for
>
> k k
 P kCo
xnew
>
> P Co
xnew if PCo obtaining this waveform can be calculated through the (9).
< 30  30 
k Regarding the proposed strategies, the capacity calculated by (9) is
k
PCo ¼ PCok k
if PCo 2 P kCo
xnew ;P Co
xnew (28)
>
> 30 30 within the range of [10,90]%. Thus the total required battery ca-
>
> k k P
:P Co
xnew k
if PCo  P Co
xnew pacity equals to CðkÞ ¼ 1:2  ki¼1 eðiÞ  Dt. Therefore, in order to
30 30
accomplish the PFS of the wind farm addressed in Fig. 8, a BESS
While reducing the needed BESS capacity by selecting a variable with 12.1387 MWh capacity is required.
temporary value for x30, the proposed strategy keeps the battery The waveform related to the instantaneous changes of the BESS
away from its unsafe SOC region (SOC < 10 or SOC > 90). Although capacity pertaining to the smoothing process of Fig. 8 has been
 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8 7

Fig. 8. Waveforms of the WFOP and the COP.

shown in Fig. 9. It should be noted that the initial SOC of BESS is

80%. Fig. 9 has five performance regions explained in Section 4.3
and Section 4.4. The applied strategy in regions [20,30]% and
[70,80]% is SCFC-1 while SCFC-2 is applied in regions [10,20]% and
[80,90]%.
The waveforms of the maximum instantaneous power fluctua-
tions in 1-min and 30-min time windows (ε1 and ε30) have been
given in Fig. 10 (a) and Fig. 10 (b) respectively. According to Fig. 10
(b), when ε302(7,10] time periods are very short.
The proposed approach for smoothing has been tested with and
without using two SCFS (state of charging feedback control) stra-
tegies applying the real data of one month. Likewise, the FLF based
smoothing approach with TF ¼ 1200 sec has been tested. Simulation
Fig. 10. Waveforms of the maximum instantaneous power fluctuations in: a) 1-min
results have been given in Table 1. It is concluded through the re- time window b) 20-min time window.
sults that the needed BESS capacity in the ADALINE based approach
(with or without use of SCFC strategies) is less than the FLF based
approach. Moreover, the installed BESS in a typical wind farm is in the form
of separate units practically [18]. So the calculated BESS capacity via
5.3. Discussion simulations may differ from the practical one. However, the pro-
posed approach in this study decreases the need for capacity much
For allocating the required BESS capacity in a given wind farm, more compared with FLF based approach even in practice. Because,
off-line simulations based on the data derived from several months the proposed approach utilizes the regions [10,30]% and [70,90]% of
or years should be performed consecutively. Through this, the each battery unit optimally. For instance, by defining a simple al-
minimum required BESS capacity for that wind farm is defined. gorithm for unit selection in one-day simulations and assuming
Therefore, it is not accurate to define the BESS capacity based on 50% initial SOC for each 2 MWh battery unit, the proposed approach
one day data merely. performs complete smoothing utilizing 7 units while the FLF
approach needs 16 units more than that.

Table 1
The required BESS capacity allocation through the proposed approach and FLF
approach.

Time Capacity (MWh)

ADALINE FLF

With SCFC-1 & SCFC-2 Without SCFC-1 & SCFC-2 TF ¼ 1200

Day 1 12.9387 16.5678 24.3894

Day 2 13.1224 17.6224 27.8077
Day 3 12.2782 16.1971 23.2524
Day 4 12.0549 15.5617 22.5846
Day 5 14.1286 18.6219 27.7218
Day 6 12.8210 16.4219 24.2715
Day 7 12.9572 17.2219 25.5230
7 Days 18.4120 21.6219 28.7274
10 Days 19.1786 23.6219 29.8764
20 Days 17.8532 20.6219 28.1042
30 Days 18.3231 21.6219 28.2487
Fig. 9. Instantaneous changes of the BESS capacity.
8 M. Jannati et al. / Energy 101 (2016) 1e8
Moreover, ADALINE is used for tracking in the proposed method
which is trained in less than 20 msec. on the other hand, the
required time for running both methods is very small so that their
operation can be realized online. Eventually, the total time is much
smaller than the sampling period of the wind power (the sampling
period is 5 s according to the Section 5.1). Therefore, the calculation
speed is sufficiently fast to satisfy online operation requirements in
both methods. Since the FLF-based method has a simple structure
as well, the proposed ADALINE-based method has no advantage
over it in computational cost point of view.
Another point is that constraints imposed by the utilities for
renewable PFS have direct effect on the required BESS capacity.
Dual constraints which impose the most stringent conditions in-
crease the system need for BESS capacity, but provide smoother
active power for injecting to the grid. Thus, selecting different
constraints leads to different results in various manuscripts.
In the other words, in a specific country or utility if the PFMC-
1min constraint is utilized rather than the mentioned dual con-
straints (PFMC-1min and PFMC-30min), the required BESS capacity
decreases considerably. The constraints are defined by the utilities
based on the power grid structure and the capacity of available
batteries.
6. Conclusion
In order to mitigate the output power fluctuations of a wind
farm, a coordinated control based on ADALINE was proposed in this
paper by use of a low BESS capacity. The proposed coordinated
technique contains 4-step including: tracking by ADALINE,
applying PFMC-1min and PFMC-30min, and finally performing the
strategies SCFC-1 and SCFC-2. Compared with the basic FLF based
approach, the accurate and fast tracking of the WFOP performed by
ADALINE contributes to decrease the required capacity for energy
saving in the system. In the next step two constraints defined by
utilities are applied which are very significant factors in allocating
the required BESS for the wind farm. Two SCFC strategies make the
best possible use of the battery safe performance region by con-
trolling the level of remained energy in the BESS. For performance
analysis, real output power data of a typical wind farm was tested
by the proposed technique and the basic FLF based approach. It is
concluded through the simulation results that the required BESS
capacity in the ADALINE based approach (with or without use of
SCFC strategies) is less than the FLF based approach.
References
[1] Mohibullah Imdadullah, Ashraf I. Estimation of CO2 mitigation potential
through renewable energy generation. In: Power and Energy Conference,
PECon '06. IEEE; 2006. p. 24e9.
[2] Abdeddaim S, Betka A. Optimal tracking and robust power control of the DFIG
wind turbine. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;49:234e42. Elseveir.
[3] Jannati M, Hosseinian SH, Vahidi B, Li Guo-Jie. A survey on energy storage
resources configurations in order to propose an optimum configuration for
smoothing fluctuations of future large wind power plants. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;29:158e72. Elsevier.
[4] Devaraj D, Jeevajyothi R. Impact of fixed and variable speed wind turbine
systems on power system voltage stability enhancement. In: IET Conference
on Renewable Power Generation; 2011. p. 1e9.
[5] Senjyu T, Sakamoto R, Urasaki N, Funabashi T, Fujita H, Sekine H. Output
power leveling of wind turbine generator for all operating regions by pitch
angle control. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2006;21(2):467e75.
[6] Uehara A, Pratap A, Goya T, Senjyu T, Yona A, Urasaki N, et al. A coordinated
control method to smooth wind power fluctuations of a PMSG-based WECS.
IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2011;26(2):550e8.
[7] Abbey C, Joos G. Supercapacitor energy storage for wind energy applications.
IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2007;43(3):769e76.
[8] Barton JP, Infield DG. Energy storage and its use with intermittent renewable
energy. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2004;19(2):441e8.
[9] Liyan Q, Wei Q. Constant power control of DFIG wind turbines with super-
capacitor energy storage. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2011;47(1):359e67.
[10] Pan WX, Fan YW, Ju L, Gao AL. Optimal selection of pumped storage system
capacity in wind farms. Electr Technol 2008;3:120e4.
[11] Tan J, Li GJ, Tang ZW. Power control and benefit analysis based on compressed
air energy storage in wind farms. Autom Electr Power Syst 2011;8:33e7.
[12] Tomkoi A, Takahashi R, Murata T. Smoothing control of wind power generator
output by superconducting magnetic energy storage system. In: Proceedings
of International Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, Seoul, Korea;
2007. p. 302e7.
[13] Jia HX, Zhang Y, Wang YF. Application of energy storage technology in wind
power systems. Renew Energy 2009;27:10e5.
[14] Ribeiro PF, Johnson BK, Crow ML, Arsoy A, Liu YL. Energy storage systems for
advanced power application. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2001;89(12):1744e56.
[15] Boutoubat M, Mokrani L, Machmoum M. Control of a wind energy conversion
system equipped by a DFIG for active power generation and power quality
improvement. Renew Energy 2013;50:378e86. Elsevier.
[16] Tanabe T, Sato T, Tanikawa R, Aoki I, Funabashi T, Yokoyama R. Generation
scheduling for wind power generation by storage battery system and mete-
orological forecast. In: Proc. 21st Century IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen.
Meeting e Convers. Del. Electr. Energy, Jul.; 2008. p. 1e7.
[17] Abbey C, Strunz K, Joos G. A knowledge-based approach for control of two-
level energy storage for wind energy systems. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
2009;24(2):539e47.
[18] Jiang Q, Gong Y, Wang H. Battery energy storage system dual-layer control
strategy for mitigating wind farm fluctuations. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2013;99:1e11.
[19] Member Q, Wang H. Two-time-scale coordination control for a battery energy
storage system to mitigate wind power fluctuations. IEEE Trans Energy
Convers 2013;28(1):52e61.
[20] Jiang Q, Hong H. Wavelet-based capacity configuration and coordinated
control of hybrid energy storage system for smoothing out wind power
fluctuations. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2013;28(2):1363e72.
[21] Xiaojuan H, Fang Ch, Xiwang C, Yong L, Xiangjun L. A power smoothing
control strategy and optimized allocation of battery capacity based on hybrid
storage energy technology. Energies 2012;5:1593e612.
[22] Xiangjun L, Dong H, Li W, Xiaokang L. Control strategy of battery state of
charge for wind/battery hybrid power system. In: Proc. 2010 IEEE Int. Symp.
Ind. Electron., Bari, Italy; 2010. p. 2723e6.
[23] Yoshimoto K, Nanahara T, Koshimizu G. New control method for regulating
state-of-charge of a battery in hybrid wind power/battery energy storage
system. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE PES Power Systems Conference and
Exposition (PSCE '06), Atlanta, GA, USA; 2006. p. 1244e51.
[24] Sercan T, Mesut EB, Subhashish B, Alex H. Validation of battery energy storage
control for wind farm dispatching. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 2010. p. 1e7.
[25] Esmaili A, Nasiri A. Power smoothing and power ramp control for wind en-
ergy using energy storage. In: Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition
(ECCE); 2011. p. 922e7.
[26] Fox B, Flynn D, Bryans L, Jenkins N, Milborrow D, Malley MO, et al. Wind
power integration: connection and system operation aspects. IET Power En-
ergy Ser 2007;50.
[27] Widrow B, Hoff ME. Adaptive switching circuits. In: WESTCON Convention,
Record Part IV; 1960. p. 96e104.
[28] Widrow B, Lehr MA. 30 years of adaptive neural networks: perceptrons,
adaline and backpropagation. IEEE Proc 1990;78(9):1415e42.
[29] Alcantara FJ, Salameron P. A new technique for unbalance current and voltage
estimation with neural networks. IEEE Trans Power Del 2005;20(2):852e8.
[30] Vahidi B, Jannati M, Hosseinian SH. A novel approach to adaptive single phase
autoreclosure scheme for EHV power transmission lines based on learning
error function of ADALINE. Soc Model Simul Int 2008;84(12):601e10.
SIMULATION.
[31] Wang ZQ, Manry MT, Schiano JL. LMS learning algorithms: misconceptions
and new results on convergence. In: IEEE Trans. Neural Networks; 2000.
p. 47e56.
[32] Babazadeh H, Wenzhong G, Xiaoyu W. Controller design for a hybrid energy
storage system enabling longer battery life in wind turbine generators. In:
North American Power Symposium (NAPS). IEEE; 2011. p. 1e7.