Moelling and Model Validation of Variable Energy Resource EPRI

2010 TECHNICAL REPORT
Modeling and Model Validation for

Variable Generation Technologies:
Focus on Wind Generation
10022224
10022224
Modeling and Model Validation for
Variable Generation Technologies:
Focus on Wind Generation
1020150
Final Report, December 2010
EPRI Project Manager

P. Pourbeik
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
10022224
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10022224
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization prepared this report:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

942 Corridor Park Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37932
Principal Investigator
P. Pourbeik
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. EPRI would like to acknowledge the support
of the following organizations:
Alliant Energy Corporation

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp.
California ISO
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Dairyland Power Cooperative
Great River Energy
Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Coop., Inc
Hydro One Networks, Inc.
ISO New England
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Lincoln Electric System
Nebraska Public Power District
New York Power Authority
Northeast Utilities Service Co.
PJM Interconnection
Sacramento Municipal Util. District
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Modeling and Model Validation for Variable Generation Technologies: Focus on Wind
Generation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020150.
iii
10022224
In addition, EPRI wishes to acknowledge the Western Electricity Coordinating Council
Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force; the IEEE Power and Energy Society Wind Generation
Dynamic Performance Working Group; and the International Electrotechnical Commission
Technical Committee 88, Working Group 27 as forums in which the author actively participated
in fruitful discussions related to the development of generic and public models for wind turbine
generators.
Finally, we wish to extend our deepest gratitude to the following individuals for participating as
presenters at the EPRI workshop on wind turbine modeling and model validation in Charlotte,
NC, on September 22, 2010:
Abraham Ellis SNL

John Jansen Enernex
Yuriy Kazachkov Siemens PTI
Christian Larose Hydro Quebec
Jason MacDowell GE Energy
Edward Muljadi NREL
Juan Sanchez-Gasca GE Energy
Slavomir Seman ABB Inc.
iv
10022224
ABSTRACT
The influx of variable-generation technologies, particularly wind generation, into the bulk
transmission grid has been tremendous over the past decade. This trend will likely continue, in
light of national and state renewable portfolio standards. Thus, there is a need for generic,
standard, and publicly available models for variable-generation technologies for power system
planning studies.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), in collaboration with the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC) Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force, the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation’s Integration of Variable Generation Task Force, the IEEE
Dynamic Performance of Wind Generation Working Group, and the International
Electrotechnical Commission’s Technical Committee 88, Working Group 27, has contributed to
the industry-wide effort to develop generic and public models for modeling the steady-state and
dynamic performance of variable-generation technologies for power system analysis.
First-generation models have been developed for wind generation technologies, primarily
through the efforts of the WECC and IEEE working groups. These models are presently
available in commercial software packages offered by GE, Siemens PTI, Powertech, and
PowerWorld; other vendors might also have adopted these models.
EPRI’s active engagement in these industry efforts is critical to ensure that EPRI funders realize
value from the EPRI R&D work. EPRI funders will derive value only if the models have wide
industry acceptance and are incorporated into commercial tools. By coordinating our efforts with
broader industry model development and validation efforts, we can ensure that the models
developed through EPRI R&D projects are well vetted, standardized, and accessible through
widely used planning software. EPRI staff members have taken significant leadership roles in
these industry efforts. Finally, by engaging and coordinating our R&D efforts with these industry
groups, we gain access to the technical talents of a broad range of industry experts.
This report documents the model development and validation efforts, as well as future work that
is needed to continually improve the models and the validation procedures. It also includes the
presentations from a one-day workshop held at EPRI’s Charlotte, NC, office on September 22,
2010, to discuss the current generic models, the validation efforts, and needed improvements.
Keywords
Model validation
Variable generation
Wind turbine generator
v
10022224
10022224
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
2 SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY EFFORTS AND EPRI ENGAGEMENT .....................................2-1

2.1 NERC IVGTF1-1 .............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 WECC REMTF ................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 IEEE DPWG WG.............................................................................................................2-3
2.3 IEC TC88 WG27 .............................................................................................................2-4
3 WIND TURBINE GENERATOR MODEL VALIDATION USING MEASUREMENT

DATA .........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 The Measurement Data...................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Modeling and Model Validation .......................................................................................3-5
4 SOLAR PV MODELING .........................................................................................................4-1
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................5-1
6 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................6-1

References ............................................................................................................................6-1
A APPENDIX – SLIDES FROM THE EPRI WORKSHOP ON MODELING AND MODEL

VALIDATION OF VARIABLE GENERATION (WITH EMPHASIS ON WIND
GENERATION)......................................................................................................................... A-1
vii
10022224
10022224
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Disturbance monitoring for model validation using EPRI PPPD..............................3-1
Figure 3-2: Example fit between measurement and validated model using the EPRI
PPPD tool...........................................................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-3: Measured response of the full-converter unit for factory test...................................3-3
Figure 3-4: Imposed voltage disturbance...................................................................................3-3
Figure 3-5: ABB LV Drives, Wind AC, testing facility in Helsinki, Finland [13], [14]. ..................3-4
Figure 3-6: WT4 generic model (developed through WECC REMTF) for the full-converter
wind turbine generator. ......................................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-7: Comparison of fitted (simulated) and measured response of the full-converter
wind turbine generator. ......................................................................................................3-8
Figure 4-1: Proposed approach to modeling solar PV. ..............................................................4-1
ix
10022224
10022224
1
INTRODUCTION
EPRI has been a key participant in several industry wide efforts focused at developing public,
generic models for wind turbine generators for the purpose of large power system studies. These
efforts include the
1. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Renewable Energy Modeling Task

Force (REMTF), a Task Force of the WECC Modeling and Validation Working Group
(MVWG).
2. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Integration of Variable

Generation Task Force 1-1 (IVGTF 1-1).
3. The IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation, a

Working Group of the Power System Dynamic Performance Committee.
4. The International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), Working Group number 27 of

Technical Committee 88 (IEC TC88 WG27).
In addition to these effort, the Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG) in collaboration with
Enernex, and based on a Department of Energy funded project, is also working on these issues.
EPRI is also engaged with UWIG to coordinate the model validation efforts associated with this
project with the DOE effort.
EPRI’s participation and active engagement in these broader industry efforts to develop and
validate planning models for variable generation technologies is critical to ensuring that EPRI
funders realize value from the EPRI research and development (R&D) work. The EPRI funders
will only derive value if the models are incorporated in the commercial tool sets that they use for
conducting planning studies, and if the models have wide industry acceptance by all the key
stakeholders. By engaging and coordinating our efforts with broader industry model
development and validation efforts, we are able to ensure that the models developed through
EPRI R&D projects are well-vetted, standardized, and accessible through the most widely
utilized planning software packages. EPRI staff members have taken significant leadership roles
in these industry efforts. Finally, by actively engaging and coordinating our modeling R&D
efforts with these industry groups, we gain access to the technical talents of a broad range of
industry experts.
This report is a summary of the work performed under the P173.003 Modeling and Grid
Performance of Variable Generation for 2010. The basic goals of the project were:
1-1
10022224
Introduction
1. To collaborate with industry efforts to advance the process of development and

deployment of publicly available, generic models for variable generation system –
presently particularly concentrating on wind generation and solar PV.
2. To hold a workshop on the latest state of the art in modeling and model validation of
wind generation.
3. To attempt to prove the concept of being able to used disturbance data for model
validation on wind generation – this of course was dependant on obtaining such data.
Objectives 1 and 2 above were fully met. Objective 3 was partially met and is still a work in
progress; the single dominant challenge has been obtaining actual field measurements from wind
power plants. Much time and effort was spent on obtaining data from various sources and
reviewing the data for adequacy for model validation. In the end we were able to obtain some
quite useful data from one equipment vendor based on factory tests. This lead to successful
model validation based on measurements for that particular unit and is discussed in detail in this
report. We continue to engage others for further sources of data to the test model validation on
as many of the models as possible with as many various data sources as possible.
The remainder of the report is organized as follows:
• Section 2 summarizes the various industry efforts in which EPRI was fully engaged
through 2010 in an effort to advance the process of development and deployment of
publicly available, generic models for variable generation.
• Section 3 describes the work presently done in attempting to prove the concept of model
validation for wind generation using disturbance recordings.
• Section 4 gives a short overview of the present status of modeling and model validation
for utility scale solar photovoltaic (PV) installations.
The slides from the EPRI sponsored workshop are provided as an attachment in Appendix A.
1-2
10022224
2
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY EFFORTS AND EPRI
ENGAGEMENT
EPRI has been a key participant in several industry wide efforts focused at developing public,
generic models for wind turbine generators for the purpose of large power system studies. These
efforts include the
1. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Integration of Variable

Generation Task Force 1-1 (IVGTF 1-1).
2. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Renewable Energy Modeling Task

Force (REMTF), a Task Force of the WECC Modeling and Validation Working Group
(MVWG).
3. The IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation, a

Working Group of the Power System Dynamic Performance Committee.
4. The International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), Working Group number 27 of

Technical Committee 88 (IEC TC88 WG27).
In addition to these effort, the Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG) in collaboration with
Enernex, and based on a Department of Energy funded project is also working on these issues.
EPRI is engaged with UWIG and coordinating efforts.
This section provides a concise summary of these activities as a means of informing the reader of
the coordinated efforts in the industry, in which EPRI is actively involved, for bringing to
fruition standard models and model validation techniques for variable generation technologies.
2.1 NERC IVGTF1-1
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) established the Integration of
Variable Generation Task Force in 2008. In April 2009 the Task Force released its first
report [1]. EPRI was engaged on the leadership team of the TF. One of the key follow-up
tasks identified in that report was the need for standard, valid, generic, non-confidential, and
public power flow and stability models for variable generation technologies, and for a task
force to review existing NERC Modeling, Data and Analysis (MOD) Standards to ensure
high levels of variable generation can be simulated and appropriately addressed through the
existing standards. Thus, in phase two of the IVGTF the IVGTF Task 1-1 group was formed,
which was lead by EPRI.
2-1
10022224
Summary of Industry Efforts and EPRI Engagement
The IVGTF Task 1-1 group developed a document that was then presented to the NERC
Planning Committee at their March 2010 meeting. Subsequently after some minor edits it
was presented to the Planning Committee again in June 2010 and approved. The document is
a public report [2]. The key conclusions and recommendations of this report may be
summarized as follows:
1. Detailed comments were made relative to recommended changes to existing MOD

standards in order to adequately address variable generation modeling (MOD-011:
Regional Steady-State Data Requirements and Reporting Procedures; MOD-012:
Dynamics Data for Transmission System Modeling and Simulation; MOD-013-1: RRO
Dynamics Data Requirements and Reporting Procedures; MOD-024-2 — Verification
and Data Reporting of Generator Real Power Capability; MOD-025-1 — Verification of
Generator Gross and Net Reactive Power Capability).
2. Detailed comments were made relative to the MOD-026-1 — Verification of Models and
Data for Generator Excitation System Functions, and MOD-027-1 — Verification of
Models and Data for Turbine/Governor and Load Control, which are both standards
currently under development for model validation of generation equipment. It was
suggested that both these standards will require some editing and much thought to
adequately incorporate variable generation modeling and model validation.
3. The key recommendation of the report was for NERC to pursue addressing these
recommended considerations for the MOD standards. The appropriate NERC MOD
Standards Drafting Teams (SDT) were contacted, in the case of MOD 26/27 through
conference calls between the IVGTF 1-1 and the SDT, to present the recommendations of
the TF for consideration by the SDT in the development process of the standard.
The full document is of course publicly available at www.nerc.com.
The various NERC SDTs are working on the proposed recommendations. The next draft of
MOD 26/27 are due imminently to be released, and should have much of the comments related
to VG modeling addressed.
2.2 WECC REMTF
The Western Electricity Coordinating Council Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force
(previously the Wind Generation Modeling Task Force) has been working on the development of
generic wind turbine generators for many years, and more recently – over the course of the past
couple of years – on solar PV modeling. This group is chaired by Abraham Ellis of Sandia
National Laboratory (SNL). The group has recently developed three documents [3], [4] and [5].
These are public documents that can be downloaded from the WECC website (www.wecc.biz).
The first two documents cover recommendations on modeling of wind power plants in
powerflow and in dynamics simulations. The third addresses powerflow modeling of solar
photovoltaic systems. The most significant contribution of the documents is the specification of
the first generation of generic wind turbine generator models, which have been implemented in
2-2
10022224
the GE PSLF® and Siemens PTI PSS®E software platforms and also being or already
implemented in several other power system simulation tools. These models are:
1. The WT1 or type-1 wind turbine generator model. This model represents the
conventional induction generator wind turbine generator.
2. The WT2 or type-2 wind turbine generator model. This model represents the variable
rotor resistance induction generator wind turbine generator.
3. The WT3 or type-3 wind turbine generator model. This model represents the doubly-fed
asynchronous wind turbine generator.
4. The WT4 or type-4 wind turbine generator model. This model represents the full-
converter wind turbine generator.
Through the efforts of this and some of the other groups (i.e. IEEE DPWG and IEC TC88
WG27, see below) several issues have been identified which require to be addressed in the
development of the next generation of generic models. These include:
1. The ability to represent some of the immerging functionalities in wind turbine

technologies such as emulated inertial response and primary frequency response.
2. To refine and validate the frequency response of particularly the WT1 model.
3. To address the fact that the current WT3 model does not cater to the various control
strategies that are presently adopted by various vendors of this equipment.
4. To address the potential concern for response of the WT3 model to unbalanced faults on
the transmission grid.
A more in-depth discussion of some of these issues may be found in the EPRI workshop slides in
Appendix A.
2.3 IEEE DPWG WG
The IEEE Dynamic Performance of Wind Generation Working Group (DPWG WG) is a
working group under the Power System Stability Controls Subcommittee of the Power System
Dynamic Performance Committee (PSDPC), of the Power and Energy Society. The group was
established in 2005, and lead by N. Miller of GE until 2007. From 2007 to 2010 the WG
chairman has been A. Ellis of SNL and in 2011 it will be lead by P. Pourbeik of EPRI.
In 2010, the group developed two documents which have been approved by the PSDPC and will
be published in 2011 [6], [7]. The first document [6] presents the current generic wind turbine
generator model structures for wide public dissemination. The second document [7] presents the
current state of the art in model validation – this document was lead by EPRI. The afternoon
2-3
10022224
slides of the EPRI workshop slides in Appendix A cover the majority of this material on model
validation.
2.3 IEC TC88 WG27
Working Group 27 of Technical Committee 88, of the International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC TC88 WG 27), was commissioned in October of 2009 to develop an
international standard on modeling of wind turbine generators and wind power plants.
The scope of work of the WG is as follows 1 :
“To define standard dynamic simulation models for wind turbines and wind farms, which are
intended for use in power system and grid stability analyses, and should be applicable for
dynamic simulations of power system events such as short circuits (low voltage ride through),
loss of generation or loads, and system separation. The proposed work shall develop a standard
consisting of two parts with the following scope.
Part 1 shall specify dynamic simulation models for the generic wind turbine
topologies/concepts/configurations on the market. The standard shall define the generic terms
and parameters with the purpose of specifying the electrical characteristics of a wind turbine at
the connection terminals. In addition the standard shall specify a metrology to create models for
future wind turbine concepts.
The standard shall include procedures for validation of the models specified. The simulation
models shall refer to the wind turbine connection terminals. The validation procedures shall
include tests as specified in IEC 61400-21, Ed. 2, focusing response to voltage dips and set-point
requests.
The electrical simulation models shall be developed to the outmost degree of independency from
applied simulation tools. If simulation tool considerations are required they shall be separated in
the models by a clear tool interface definition.
Part 2 shall specify dynamic simulation models for the generic wind farm
topologies/configurations on the market including wind farm control and auxiliary equipment. In
addition the standard shall specify a metrology to create models for future wind farm
configurations.
The standard shall include procedures for validation of the specified models. The simulation
models shall refer to the wind farm point of common coupling.
The electrical simulation models shall be developed to the outmost degree of independency from
the applied simulation tools. If specific simulation tool considerations are required they shall be
separated in the models by a clear tool interface definition”
1
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=102:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:5613
2-4
10022224
The group intends on developing clear specifications for generic, standard models for wind
turbine generators as a first phase and then extending this to standard models for wind power
plants. In addition, the group will develop a guide for model validation as part of the standard.
The time line for the project is roughly to have phase 1 completed by the end of 2012 and phase
2 by 2014.
2-5
10022224
10022224
3
WIND TURBINE GENERATOR MODEL VALIDATION
USING MEASUREMENT DATA
Over the past several years, EPRI has developed the Power Plant Parameter Derivation (PPPD)
tool for the purpose of synchronous generator model validation using measurement data. Most
notably a novel and innovative development has been the ability to use on-line disturbance
recordings with the tool for power plant model validation with synchronous generators [8], [9],
[10] and [11]. A brief explanation of the PPPD tool is pertinent. One of the innovative features
of the PPPD tool is the ability to use on-line disturbance measurements at a synchronous
generator power plant to validate the models of the plant. A simple illustration of this process is
shown in Figure 3-1. A digital fault recorder in the power plant captures data from a system
event. This data is then extracted and off-line ported through the EPRI PPPD software tool
together with selections by the user of the appropriate model structure for the plant and an initial
set of model parameter estimates and proposed upper and lower bounds on the model
parameters. The software tool then through an automated algorithm optimizes the parameters to
achieve the best fit between simulation and measurement based on a least-square error
optimization algorithm. An example of the kind of fits achieved from measurement data is
shown in Figure 3-2.
Major Disturbance
The Power System
DFR
Ifd, Vfd, Vs, Is,
freq.
_
Power Plant Model
ERROR
Refine Model to Get a

Good Fit (automated
process)
Figure 3-1: Disturbance monitoring for model validation using EPRI PPPD.
3-1
10022224
Wind Turbine Generator Model Validation Using Measurement Data
Measured
Vt (pu)
0.96 Fitted
0.95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ifd (pu)
1.95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2.1
Vfd (pu)
1.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s econds )
Figure 3-2: Example fit between measurement and validated model using the EPRI PPPD
tool.
One of the goals of this P173 research and development project has been and continues to be to
explore the potential for applying a similar approach for model validation of generic models
applied for the simulation of asynchronous generation technologies used for variable generation
resources such as wind turbine and solar PV. The key challenge has been acquiring the
necessary measurement data from an actual wind power plant or single wind-turbine to
experiment with the concept.
ABB LV Drives – Wind AC (ABB) graciously provided us, through a non-disclosure agreement,
some data from a factory test of one of their full-converter wind-turbine generator systems. As a
result we were able to do some work in this regard using the data provided by ABB. This section
provides a brief summary of that effort and the conclusions and recommendations from the
effort.
3.1 The Measurement Data
The data provided was from a factory test of an ABB 2.5 MW wind turbine cage-induction
generator, connected to the distribution network through a full power converter and generator
step-up transformer. It was tested at rated power by imposing a voltage dip that results in 10%
of rated voltage on all three phases at the low voltage terminals of the converter. All three phase
currents and voltages at the terminals of the unit were monitored and sampled at 10 kHz. The
data was then re-sampled down to a lower sampling rate for the model validation process.
Figure 3-3 shows the per unitized, positive sequence currents active current (Ia), reactive current
(Iq), real power (P) and reactive power (Q) as measured in response to the imposed voltage dip
(Figure 3-4).
3-2
10022224
ABB has already validated the model of this unit [7], [12], however, our aim here is to
investigate the potential for model validation using a technique similar to the EPRI PPPD tool
[8].
Figure 3-5 shows the ABB testing facility where these tests were performed. The voltage dip is
imposed by switching inductor Xp.
Figure 3-3: Measured response of the full-converter unit for factory test.
Figure 3-4: Imposed voltage disturbance.
3-3
10022224
Figure 3-5: ABB LV Drives, Wind AC, testing facility in Helsinki, Finland [13], [14].
3-4
10022224
3.2 Modeling and Model Validation
First the WECC/IEEE [6] WT4 generic model was developed in MATLAB®. The model
developed in shown Figure 3-6. A few pertinent comments need to be made about the model:
1. The turbine mechanical side and thus generator side converter are neglected. This is
based on the present assumption that the item of primary importance for power system
stability analysis is the grid side converter that interacts with the system [6].
2. The limits on the real (Ipmax) and reactive (Iqmax/Iqmin) current output of the model are
dynamic. They are determined as follows:
If there is no voltage dip (i.e. Voltage_dip = 0), then

Iqmax = minimum { Imax 2 − Ipcmd 2 , Imax} & Iqmin = -Iqmax
elseif there is a voltage dip, then
Iqmax = Iqh1 & Iqmin = -Iqmax
end
If there is no voltage dip (i.e. Voltage_dip = 0), then

Ipmax = minimum { Imax 2 − Iqcmd 2 , Imax}
elseif there is a voltage dip, then
Iqmax = IPmax
end
3. The is a rate limit on the active current output (as shown in the figure by Irmax/Irmin)
Thus, with the model is place the approach we took to model validation was similar to the PPPD
concept, namely we took one of the measured quantities as used it as an imposed input on the
model and thus tried to fit the response of the model output to the other measured quantities.
The chosen input was the measured terminal voltage, and the chosen outputs for model
tuning/validation were the real and reactive currents, and thus real and reactive power.
The results of the model validation exercise are shown in Figure 3-7. The following
observations can be made:
1. In general, the model appears valid and there is good agreement between the model and
actual measured unit response.
2. There are some notable discrepancies between the simulation model and the measured
unit response at the point of the inception and clearing of the voltage dip. The
discrepancies are high frequency phenomena (spikes) associated with the extremely fast
dynamics of the power electronic controls. Such dynamics cannot be captured by a
simple model of the type developed here, particularly at the integration steps that are
typical of power system simulations (i.e. ¼ to ½ cycle integration steps). Thus, it is quite
3-5
10022224
legitimate to say that we can neglect these differences for the purposes of power system
simulations.
3. At the point when the voltage dip clears there is a mismatch between the measured and
simulated spike in reactive power. This is actually driven by simplicity of the generic
WT4 model because we are using a much simpler representation the transition point is
not captured as sharply and thus the spike (overshoot) in reactive current is exaggerated –
that is Iq does not reduce as quickly, thus as the voltage recovers we see a momentary
overshoot in reactive power = reactive current × voltage. This is an artifact of the model
and cannot be totally eliminated in all cases due to the simplicity of stability models.
4. Similarly, at the point of voltage recovery there is a sudden fluctuation in the active
current output of the grid side converter where by it initially spikes up, then drops to near
zero and then starts to ramp up. The sudden fluctuation is driven again by complex
controls that are partially related to the generator side converter. Once again it is neither
desirable nor practical for stability models to implement the details of such phenomena.
Instead we introduced a simple logic statement that emulates the sudden drop in the
current order and thus were able to capture the overall envelop of the response, which is
deemed quite adequate for power system stability simulations.
NOTE: It should be fully understood that the intent of the exercise here, and data presented, is to
illustrate the process of model validation. The data is from one example factory test and is not
representative of all the capabilities of this equipment. The actual equipment is flexible and able
to cater to various grid codes etc. Questions, comments or concerns related to the actual
equipment should be addressed to the equipment manufacturer.
In general it may be concluded that the technique works. That is, a similar approach to PPPD for
model validation of wind turbine generators – at least for this one case – appears feasible.
Clearly, more work is needed to establish the method more broadly to other wind turbine
generator technologies such as the type 1, 2 and 3 turbines and also to modeling the entire wind
power plant. A crucial step for this goal remains obtaining measurement data from a wind power
plant. EPRI continues to actively pursue various entities for the opportunity to collect such data.
At present we have several promising prospective. Also, the main emphasis is on the type 3 and
4 models and model validation since these power electronic based generator concepts appear to
be increasingly the dominant concepts being deployed presently. The type 1 and 2 turbines have
a significant installed base, and thus modeling and model validation for these technologies is also
important.
3-6
10022224
Figure 3-6: WT4 generic model (developed through WECC REMTF) for the full-converter
wind turbine generator.
3-7
10022224
Figure 3-7: Comparison of fitted (simulated) and measured response of the full-converter
wind turbine generator.
3-8
10022224
4
SOLAR PV MODELING
Presently, utility level solar PV plant modeling is in its early stages. Very little has been done in
terms of model validation. The current proposed concept for modeling solar PV generators is
shown in Figure 4-1. In essence one needs to develop an aggregated representation of the PV
array and solar energy source and link that with a model of the grid interface. Almost
predominantly the grid interface for solar PV technologies is voltage source converters. For this
reason the current industry perspective is to adapt the WT4 type model (used to model full-
converter wind turbine generators – as illustrated in section 3) to solar PV modeling. One
vendor has had success with this approach [15].
Figure 4-1: Proposed approach to modeling solar PV.
Therefore the primary challenge at present is to obtain actual field measurement from installed
solar PV plants, in response to system disturbances and to investigate the validity of using a
model similar to that in Figure 3-6 for simulating the dynamic behavior of solar PV. EPRI is
4-1
10022224
Solar PV Modeling
pursuing several avenues to obtain such data. This remains the subject of further research in this
project, for 2011.
4-2
10022224
5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
At present there are many industry efforts focused on the development of generic models and
model validation for variable generation technologies. EPRI’s participation and active
engagement in these broader industry efforts to develop and validate planning models for
variable generation technologies is critical to ensuring that EPRI funders realize value from the
EPRI research and development (R&D) work. The EPRI funders will only derive value if the
models are incorporated in the commercial tool sets that they use for conducting planning
studies, and if the models have wide industry acceptance by all the key stakeholders. By
engaging and coordinating our efforts with broader industry model development and validation
efforts, we are able to ensure that the models developed through EPRI R&D projects are well-
vetted, standardized, and accessible through the most widely utilized planning software
packages. EPRI staff members have taken significant leadership roles in these industry efforts.
Finally, by actively engaging and coordinating our modeling R&D efforts with these industry
groups, we gain access to the technical talents of a broad range of industry experts.
The first generation of generic, publicly available, models for wind turbine generators have been
developed through some of these efforts (primarily the WECC effort) and are now available in
the GE PSLF® and Siemens PTI PSS®E software programs. Through use of these models by
many entities using PSS/E and PSLF, it has been shown that while these models provide a
reasonable representation of some aspects of wind turbine generator behavior, there are some
needed augmentations and additions. EPRI is contributing to the effort of identifying and
addressing these needed augmentations to the next generation of models.
This report has shown how, using factory test data provided by ABB, the type-4 (WT4) generic
model seems to be adequate for at least one tested full-converter unit. The model validation was
performed using the concept developed by EPRI for validating synchronous generator models in
the Power Plant Parameter Derivation tool – namely, by playing back part of the recorded data
and fitting against the other parameters without the need for having any knowledge of the
external power system dynamics.
For future work the following activities should be pursued:
1. continue to work on, through collaboration with WECC, IEEE, IEC and others, the
enhancement of the generic wind turbine generator models, specifically as it relates to:
a. frequency and inertial response characteristics of the equipment,
5-1
10022224
Summary and Conclusions
b. the ability of the type-3 (doubly fed asynchronous generator) model to properly
capture the dynamics associated with different implementations of this
technology from various wind turbine generator vendors,
c. validating the models against actual field recordings.
2. continue to work on, through collaboration with WECC, IEEE, IEC and others, on the
development and model validation for large utility scale solar PV, and
3. continue to develop the concept of performing model validation of variable generation

technologies using a similar process as is used for synchronous generators as part of the
EPRI PPPD tool – i.e. based on on-line disturbance recordings from digital fault
recorders and phasor measurement units.
With regards to the third bullet point above, we are presently engaged with several utilities, ISOs
and other stakeholders in an attempt to secure actual measured response of wind and solar PV
plants to system disturbances. We are quite hopeful in obtaining such data which is the key next
step to furthering the process of proving that the automated, disturbance-based model validation
method can be used to validate variable generation technologies. Once proven, the capability
should be developed into a tool that can be used by the industry to validate the generic models as
they are developed and to provide generator owners with a tool for determining the appropriate
generic model parameter values that should be utilized by regional reliability coordinators for
planning studies.
5-2
10022224
6
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
1. NERC Special Report, Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation, April 2009.
www.nerc.com
2. NERC Special Report, Standard Models for Variable Generation, May 18th, 2010.
www.nerc.com
3. WECC Wind Power Plant Power Flow Modeling Guide, May 2008, Prepared by the WECC
Wind Generator Modeling Group (www.wecc.biz)
4. WECC Wind Power Plant Dynamic Modeling Guide (Draft), November 2010, Prepared by
the WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force
5. WECC Guide for Representation of Photovoltaic Systems In Large-Scale Load Flow
Simulations, August 2010, Prepared by the WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force
6. Working Group Joint Report – WECC Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind
Power Generation & IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power
Generation, “Description and Technical Specifications for Generic WTG Models – A Status
Report”, To be published in the Proceedings of the IEEE PES Power Systems Conference
and Exposition, March, 2011.
7. IEEE Adhoc Task Force on Wind Generation Model Validation, “Model Validation for Wind
Turbine Generator Models”, To be published in the IEEE Transactions on Power Systems in
2011, and presented at a panel session at the IEEE PES GM 2011.
8. P. Pourbeik, “Automated Parameter Derivation for Power Plant Models From System
Disturbance Data”, Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, Calgary, Canada, July
2009.
9. Automated Model Validation for Power Plants Using On-Line Disturbance Monitoring.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1016000. www.epri.com
10. P. Pourbeik, C. Pink and R. Bisbee, “Power Plant Model Validation for Achieving Reliability
Standard Requirements Based on Recorded On-Line Disturbance Data”, submitted for
publication at the IEEE PES Power System Exposition and Conference, March 2011.
11. Tri-State Successfully Implements Power Plant Parameter Derivation Software Tool, Product
ID 1020917. www.epri.com
12. S. Seman, J. Simolin, J.-P. Matsinen and J. Niiranen, “Validation of Type 4 Wind Turbine
Generic Simulation Model by Full-Scale Test”, Proceedings of 9th International Workshop
6-1
10022224
References and Bibliography
on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Transmission

Networks for Offshore Wind Power Plants, Oct. 18-19, 2010, Québec City, Canada.
13. S. Seman, “Examples of Model Validation for Wind Generation – ABB Work”, Presentation
at EPRI Workshop on Variable Generation Modeling and Model Validation, September 22nd,
2011 (see Appendix for slides)
14. J. Niiranen, S. Seman, J-P Matsinen, R. Virtanen and A. Vilhunen, “Low Voltage Ride
Through Testing of Wind Turbine Drives”, Conference Proceedings of EWEC 2009, April,
2009.
15. K. Clark, N. W. Miller and R. Walling, “Modeling of GE Solar Photovoltaic Plants for Grid
Studies”, April 16, 2010, Version 1.1, GE White Paper/Report.
6-2
10022224
A
APPENDIX – SLIDES FROM THE EPRI WORKSHOP ON
MODELING AND MODEL VALIDATION OF VARIABLE
GENERATION (WITH EMPHASIS ON WIND
GENERATION)
Attached are the slides from the EPRI Workshop held in Charlotte, NC on September 22nd 2010.
A-1
10022224
10022224
Overview of Variable
Generation Modeling and
Dynamic Performance
Pouyan Pourbeik
ppourbeik@epri.com
EPRI Workshop “Variable Generation
Modeling and Model Validation”
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010
10022224
OVERVIEW
• The intent is to give an overview and background for the

following discussions on details of models
BACKGROUND ON TECHNOLOGIES
TYPES OF MODELS NEEDED
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

10022224
VARIABLE GENERATION
• The main focus presently is

- Wind Generation - Solar PV

10022224
WIND GENERATION
10022224
WIND GENERATION
Variable vs Fixed-speed

10022224
WIND GENERATION
• Summarizing the mechanical controls options:

– Fixed Speed: Stall or Active-Stall
– Variable Speed: Pitch Control
• STALL – fixed blades (type 1, typically < 1MW/turbine)
• ACTIVE STALL – pitch control ( type 1 & 2, typically >

1MW/turbine)
• FULL PITCH CONTROL – on types 3 & 4 turbines

10022224
TYPE 1 – CONVENTION INDUCTION GENERATOR [1]
generator switchgear
(power switch) main circuit breaker
f = constant
n = constant
brake
10...24 kV, f = 50 Hz
or 60 Hz
rotor
Getriebe 1:50
bearing
start up
equipment
line coupling
asynchronous generator transformer
with squirrel cage rotor
and two windings medium voltage
gearbox switchgear
wind turbine
control
(Source ABB Motors&Drives, Finland ©)
Type 2 – Variable Rotor Resistance; similar with power electronics

and an external resistor on the rotor to effect variable rotor resistance.
10022224
TYPE 3 – DOUBLY-FED ASYNCHRONOUS
GENERATOR [1]
main circuit breaker
gearbox
10...24 kV, f = 50 Hz
or 60 Hz
brake
asynchronous generator
generator side grid side
with slip rings converter converter line coupling
transformer
medium voltage
switchgear
rotor bearing pitch

drive
frequency converter control
converter
wind turbine control


10022224
TYPE 4 – FULL-CONVERTER UNIT [1]
• Can be synchronous, permanent magnet or induction generator

frequency
converter line side main circuit
rectifier converter breaker
DC
excitation
converter
10...24 kV, f = 50 Hz
converter
rotor control
bearing
line coupling
transformer
medium voltage
switchgear
brake
pitch
drive
synchronous
generator wind turbine control

10022224
WIND TURBINE TECHNOLOGIES [1]
• Other emerging concepts:
variable Drehzahl konstante Drehzahl

Windrotor Synchrongenerator
shaft torque synchronousgenerator
rotor power [kW] rotor shaft torque
wind power and rotor shaft torque [kNm] 45
5 000 3 500
rotor diameter: 70 m
blade angle: 0° 50 Hz 40
3 3 000
density of air: 1,225 kg/m
4 000 35
2 500
s h a ft to rq u e [k N m ]
30
3 000
2 000 25
20
1 500
2 000
15
1 000
10
1 000
500
5
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1400 1500 1600 1700
wind speed: rotor speed [rpm] speed [rpm]
4 m/s 6 m/s 8 m/s 10 m/s 12 m/s 14 m/s
16 m/s 18 m/s Parabolik 4 m/s 6 m/s 8 m/s
10 m/s 12 m/s 14 m/s 16 m/s 18 m/s

10022224
GENERAL DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE
• Steady-State and Stability Analyses
• Voltage Ride-Through
• Reactive Capability & Voltage Control
• Inertial Response & Frequency Control
• Control Interactions & Self-Excitation

10022224
– Small-Signal Stability & Overall System Stability

• WTG do not directly participate in electromechanical
modes of rotor oscillation of synchronous generators
• They can affect the damping of electromechanical
modes in one of three ways:
– Changing flows on major tie-lines and affecting
synchronous generator dispatch
– Displacing key synchronous generators (e.g. a
large unit with a PSS is dispalced)
– Inducing/affecting the damping torque of nearby
large synchronous units

10022224
GENERAL DYNAMIC PERFORMANCE [1]
• Voltage-Ride Through (type 1 & 2)

10022224
• For Type 1 – may need combination of fast blade pitching

to remove some of the mechanical power + UPS for
controls + SVC/STATCOM to boost voltage
• For Type 2 – variable rotor resistance will push out the

break down torque by increasing rotor resistance, but may
still need SVC/STATCOM to boost voltage an ensure
voltage stability

10022224
• Type 3 – active crow-bar
Fault
Rotor Stator
Side Side
Converter Converter
Active crowbar
Fully controllable
semiconductor switch
(IGBT)
Small resistor
Stator side Rotor side

converter converter
DC bus

10022224
• Type 4 – if line side converter is a fully controlled voltage-

source converter (VSC)
– Voltage-Ride Through by control of IGBTs
– Full independent control of real and reactive power

10022224
• Voltage Control and Reactive Capability

– Type 1 & 2:
• The machine consumes reactive power
• Mechanically switched shunt capacitors (MSCs) at
the turbine provide power factor correction
• SVC/STATCOM is often employed (coordinated with
MSCs at the substation) at the point of
interconnection (POI)

10022224
• Type 3 – can provide smoothly controlled reactive power independent

of real power control and thus provide voltage regulation
• For example, GE WindVarTM

– Individual wind turbine generators (WTGs) have fast terminal
voltage regulation
– Centralized secondary control loop provides plant level control at
the point-of-interconnection (POI)
– The centralized controller can also coordinate other substation
equipment (e.g. MSCs) and interfaces with utility SCADA (e.g. to
accept voltage reference setpoint)

10022224
Wind plant voltage Voltage at POI
Wind plant power output
[2] R. Zavadil & K. Clark, “Wind Turbine Electrical Technology”, Presentation at IEEE PES GM 2008

10022224
• Type 4:
– With four-quadrant VSC on line side one has full
independent control of real and reactive power
– Voltage regulation easily done

10022224
• Control Interactions & Self-Excitation

– Near HVDC
– Near Series Capacitors
– These need special attention and study; three-phase equipment
level models in programs such as
PSCAD/EMTP/MATLAB®/DIgSILENT PowerFactory
– Type 1, 2 and 3 susceptible to electrical and potential torsional
interactions; type 4 may not be since it is decoupled
– Type 3 and 4 susceptible to control loop interactions
• Power Quality and Harmonics

– Not as much an issue when connected to strong (high short-
circuit) transmission networks
– Major manufacturer designs comply with Harmonic standards
– Flick may be an issue on weak distribution systems

10022224
• Frequency Control
– Maintain a margin between available wind power at
any instant in time and actual delivered wind power
– Cannot be achieved on STALL units (must have pitch
control)
– Has commercial/economic consequences
• Inertial response of units
– Naturally available for Induction generators
– For doubly-fed and full-converter units, needs to be
emulated through controls

10022224
• Field Tests For Frequency Control by GE [2]

4% Frequency step at 0.125Hz/sec
10% Power Increase
Power (kW)
Frequency (Hz)
Power (kW)
4% Frequency Reduction
10% Increase in Plant Power with 4% Under-Frequency

[2] R. Zavadil & K. Clark, “Wind Turbine Electrical Technology”, Presentation at IEEE
PES GM 2008
10022224
MODELING OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS

10022224
• Mechanical System
– Stall versus pitch control
– Single mass versus two-mass shaft model
• Electrical Generator
– Induction machine
– Variable rotor resistance induction machine
– Doubly-fed asynchronous machine
– Generator fully decoupled by full-converter
• Protection and Electrical Controls
– Voltage ride-through (EMULATION for type 3 & 4 in positive sequence
models)
– Under/Over Voltage/Frequency protection
– Converter controls for type 3 & 4; rotor resistance control for type 2
• Plant Wide Controls
– E.g. GE WindVarTM
– Other centralized controls such as coordinated bank switching etc.
– Dedicated transmission devices at substation (SVC/STATCOM etc.)

10022224
• Positive Sequence Generic Models – our focus today
• Short Circuit Analysis
• Some Examples of Specialized Studies Requiring 3-phase Models:

– Detailed study of voltage ride-through (particularly, for type 3 & 4)
– Resonance/Harmonics
– Self excitation
– Torsional or control interactions
– Power Quality/Flicker
– Weak low short circuit systems

10022224
Modeling of Wind Turbine Generators
• There is still a need to press forward with the generic model

development efforts
• Continue efforts in model validation against:

– Field measurements
– Factory tests
• Proprietary models will still be required (particularly 3-phase

equipment specific models for specialized studies), but we need to
support the wide dissemination and acceptance of generic models for
bulk system studies

10022224
SOLAR PV
10022224
PV Inverter
• Responsibility of grid-tied PV inverter with high penetration will include:

– Tracking array maximum power-point (MPPT)
– Protection against unintended islanding
– Providing reactive power compensation
– Ride-through power system faults
– Respond to utility protection and dispatch commands

10022224
PV AND INVERTER SYSTEM ARCHITECTURES
DC-DC
DC-AC
Centralized DC/AC with distributed series string Centralized DC/AC with series modules
Distributed series strings with DC/AC Distributed AC modules

10022224
SOLAR PV MODELLING
Reactive
Pf or Voltage Command
Power
Control
Idc Id, Iq
Solar Power
Energy Voltage
System
PV Array Source
Network
Inverter
Vdc Model
Vd, Vq
Vt, freq.
Protection

10022224
MODELING PV
• Start with the basic building blocks of the Type 4 Wind

Turbine Generator model since the interface with the grid
is the same technology VSC
• For stability studies need to investigate the need (if any)

for modeling the nature of the energy source (e.g. may be
adequate to assume solar energy constant over seconds
time frame for stability analysis, or not?)
• On-going work

10022224
UNRESOLVED ISSUES FOR STAILITY MODELS
OF POWER ELECTRONIC INTERFACED VG
• Finalized model structure

– On-going dialogue on the model structures to
incorporated various designs, particularly for type 3
• Addressing new features (inertial response, primary

frequency control etc.)
• Actual frequency response of VG
• Unbalanced disturbances → how they affect VG response

and need to capture stability impact

10022224
Summary
• Key Dynamic Issues to be investigated during studies:

– Voltage stability/regulation
– Voltage ride-through
– Frequency control/Inertia Response
– Impact on overall system rotor angle stability
These and other general stability concerns may be investigated using positive
sequence programs and models.
• Such positive sequence models of course need to be validated against

factory tests or field measurements
• More detailed 3-phase models (typically proprietary) will still be needed for
more sophisticated studies

10022224
REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE Technical Brochure 328, Modeling and Dynamic

Behavior of Wind Generation as it Relates to Power
System Control and Dynamic Performance, August 2007.
(www.e-cigre.org)

10022224
EPRI Workshop on Variable Generation Modeling and Model Validation
Charlotte, NC, USA – September 2010
Planning Models for Wind and Solar:

Purpose, Recent Progress and
Challenges Ahead
Abraham Ellis
Sandia National Laboratories
aellis@sandia.gov
10022224
Backdrop
• Lack of industry-standard planning models has
been identified as major issue for VG
“Validated, generic, non-confidential, and standard power flow and
stability (positive-sequence) models for variable generation technologies
are needed. Such models should be readily and publicly available to
power utilities and all other industry stakeholders….”
Source: http://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf
• Why aren’t we there yet?

– VG technology is relatively new, evolving rapidly
– Commercial sensitivity issues
– Inconsistent application of existing NERC standards
– Model development and refinement takes time (years)
10022224
Types of Planning Models
• Power flow (positive-sequence) models
– Facility loading, voltage stability, voltage control, …
• Dynamic (positive-sequence) models
– Large-signal stability, rotor angle stability, …
• Short circuit models
– Breaker duty, protection design/coordination, …
• Detailed, full-order, unbalanced models
– Control interaction, harmonic analysis, …
• Operations models
– Capacity planning, reserve calculations …
10022224
Application of Planning Models
• General grid planning/expansion studies
– Demonstrate compliance with grid reliability and
performance standards
• Interconnection studies
– Identify system impacts for individual proposed projects
– Formulate and test mitigation alternatives
• Evaluation of future scenarios involving high
penetration of wind or solar generation
– Guide evolution of standards
– Identify technology development needs
10022224
Interconnection Study Application
3 Phase Fault cleared in 0.150 s
SVC
110 km
Grid
22/0.69kV
~ BUS7 BUS8
Load
BUS1 25 km P 600 MW
22/132 kV Q 100 MVAr
~ BUS3 BUS5 BUS6 20 MVAr

Cap Bank
22/0.69kV
BUS2
Wind Turbines 22/132 kV
2 X 100 MVA
BUS4
~ Synch. Gen.
200 MVA
SVC 130 MVAr SVC 150 MVAr
SVC Reactive Power Voltage at different terminals
140 1.2 220 1.2
Voltage BUS6
1.1 Voltage BUS3 200 1.1
120 Voltage BUS1
1 180 1
SVC Reactive Power[MVar]
100 0.9 160 0.9
Reactiva Power [MVar] 140 0.8
Voltage [p.u.]
0.8
Voltage[p.u]
80
0.7 120 0.7
60
0.6 100 0.6
40 0.5 80 0.5
0.4 60 0.4
20 BUS6
0.3 40 0.3 BUS3
BUS1
0 0.2 20 0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time[sec] time[sec] Time []p.u. Time [s]
K. Uhlen, K., Y. Coughlan, J. Kehler, A. Ellis. ”Tutorial on Wind Generation

Modeling and Controls”, IEEE PES PSCE, Seattle, WA, March 2008
10022224
Brief Historical Perspective
• Wind Generation
– Until recently, the concept of standardized generic
models was not considered feasible
– Proprietary, vendor-specific models (from program
developers, vendors & consultants) were the only option
• Solar Generation
– Solar PV has been deployed primarily in distribution
systems (CSP use conventional generators)
– Tendency has been to use of vendor-specific models
• Recent work by WECC has produced useful results
and laid good technical foundation
10022224
WECC VG Modeling Activities
• WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force
– Develop validated generic, non-proprietary, positive-
sequence power flow and dynamic simulation models for
distributed and central-station solar and wind generation,
suitable for bulk system planning studies
– Facilitate implementation in commercial software
– Issue guidelines and model documentation
– Coordinate with stakeholders
• Participants
– Utilities, software and equipment vendors, system
integrators, consultants, DOE/National labs (Sandia
coordinating), other stakeholders (UWIG, EPRI, IEEE, …)
10022224
Single-Machine Representation
POI or
connection
to the grid Collector System
Station
Wind Plants
Interconnection
Transmission Line
Individual WTGs
Feeders and Laterals (overhead

and/or underground)
Equivalencing
10022224
Solar PV Plants
Equivalencing
10022224
WECC Generic Wind Models
• Summary of Technical Specifications
– Application: electrical disturbances (not wind disturbances),
primarily grid faults external to the plant, typically 3 to 6 cycles
– Typical simulation time frame of interest are 20 to 30 seconds,
with a ¼ cycle integration time step. (Wind assumed constant)
– Able to handle oscillatory modes from dc to 5 Hz.
– Represent machine inertia and first shaft torsional modes
– The models should be applicable to strong and weak systems with
a short circuit ratio of 2.5 and higher at the point of interconnection
– Frequency and voltage protection modeled separately
– Suitable for aggregated representation of wind plants
– Transformers and reactive support equipment (including power
factor correction capacitors) modeled separately
– Initialize from power flow at full or partial power, no special scripts
10022224
WECC Generic Wind Models
• Completed first version of WECC generic models implemented as
standard-library models in PSSE/PSLF (Phase 1)
Model Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Generator wt1g wt2g wt3g wt4g
Excitation / Controller wt2e wt3e wt4e
PSLF/17 Turbine wt1t wt2t wt3t
Pitch Controller/Pseudo Gov. wt1p wt2p wt3p
Generic model WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4

Generator WT1G WT2G WT3G WT4G
PSSE/32 El. Controller WT2E WT3E WT4E
Turbine/shaft WT12T WT12T WT3T
Pitch control WT3P
Pseudo Gov/: aerodynamics WT12A WT12A
• Effort already underway to upgrade generic models (Phase 2)

– Inclusion of active power management functionality
– Refinement of control behavior during close-in faults
– More input data sets
– More comprehensive model validation and refinement
10022224
3-phase fault, different wind speed for each feeder
QWT = 0.435 0 -0.435
1 and 2 feeders
P34.5 kV
4 feeders = Typical
2 and 4 feeders = Typical
Q34.5 kV
1 feeder
From "Validation of the WECC Single-Machine Equivalent Power Plant", Presented DPWPG-WG Meeting at IEEE
PSCE, March 2009 - Jacques Brochu, Richard Gagnon, Christian Larose, Hydro Quebec
10022224
Outlook
• Generic modeling approach for VG is promising
– WECC work has created a foundation
– Work continues for wind and solar models
– Key technical challenges include need for default
data sets and validation (data, tools, techniques)
• Current collaboration activities
– DOE/EnerNex/UWIG Wind Model Refinement Project
– IEEE WG on Dynamic Perf. of Wind Power Generation
– IEC TC88 WG27 (Wind Modeling)
– Software developers and manufacturers
10022224
Questions, Discussion
10022224
Modeling PV Systems in
Bulk System Studies
Abraham Ellis
Sandia National Laboratories
aellis@sandia.gov
IEEE PES GM 2010

Minneapolis, MN
July, 2010
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company,

for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration
under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
10022224
PV Systems Characteristics
• Different than conventional generators
– Non‐dispatchable, variable
– Collector system
– Converter interface
• Current‐limited, Zero inertia
• “Programmable”
– Trip thresholds
– Reactive power support
– Active power management*
• Should not be “invisible” to planners
2
10022224
Modeling and Reliability
• Lack of industry‐standard validated models identified
as major issue for variable generation going forward
“Validated, generic, non‐confidential, and standard power flow and
stability (positive‐sequence) models for variable generation technologies
are needed. Such models should be readily and publicly available to power
utilities and all other industry stakeholders. Model parameters should be
provided by variable generation manufacturers and a common model
validation standard across all technologies should be adopted. The NERC
Planning Committee should undertake a review of the appropriate
Modeling, Data and Analysis (MOD) Standards to ensure high levels of
variable generation can be simulated.”
Source: NERC Special Report, Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation,
http://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf
3
10022224
Application of Models
• General Grid Planning/Expansion Studies
– Test compliance against reliability criteria
– Models should not be confidential, blackbox
• Interconnection Studies
– Identify system impacts, test mitigation alternatives
• Evaluation of Future High Penetration Scenarios
– Evolution of standards
– Technology development needs
4
10022224
Bulk System Planning Studies
• Power flow (positive‐sequence)
– Facility loading, static voltage stability & control
• Dynamic (positive‐sequence)
– Large‐signal stability, rotor angle stability
• Short circuit
– Breaker duty, protection design/coordination
• Detailed, full‐order, unbalanced
– Control interaction, harmonic analysis, …
5
10022224
WECC PV Modeling Activities
• WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force
– Develop validated generic, non‐proprietary,
positive‐sequence power flow and dynamic
simulation models for distributed and central‐
station solar and wind generation for large‐scale
simulations
– Issue guidelines, model documentation
– Coordinate with stakeholders groups
• Participants in WECC REMTF PV modeling effort
– Utilities, Program Developers, Manufacturers,
System Integrators, Consultants, DOE/National Labs
(Sandia Labs coordinating)
10022224
6
Distributed PV Representation
WECC REMTF
10022224
Proposed Distributed PV Model
• Aggregated models
• Residential scale
– In load flow, net with bus load
– For dynamics, augment WECC composite load model
• Commercial scale
– In load flow, use generator & equivalent impedance
– For dynamics, use stand‐alone dynamic model
WECC REMTF 8
10022224
Load Flow Model – Residential PV
WECC REMTF 9
10022224
Dynamic Model – Residential PV
WECC REMTF 10
10022224
Dynamic Model – Commercial PV
WECC REMTF 11
10022224
Large‐Scale PV Plants
Equivalencing
WECC REMTF
10022224
Example – 21 MW PV System
Inverter cluster
PV Inverter
1 MW
UG +/-0.95 pf
feeders
24 kV
PV Transformer
3 MVA
Z=6%, X/R=10
1 4 5
9
8 7
2
SUB
3
To utility
Model station transformer and

interconnection line explicitly, if they exist.
WECC REMTF
10022224
Example – 21 MW PV System I
∑Z n 2
i i I
Collector System Equivalengcing Technique: Z eq = Req + jX eq = i =1 Beq = ∑ Bi

N2 i =1
Collector System Equivalent on 100 MVA base, 24 kV

From To R X B n R n^2 X n^2
1 4 0.03682 0.00701 0.000000691 3 0.33136 0.06307
2 4 0.02455 0.00467 0.000001036 3 0.22091 0.04205 RESULTS
4 5 0.02455 0.00467 0.000001036 9 1.98816 0.37843 Partial R sum 9.4788
3 5 0.02557 0.02116 0.000000235 3 0.23016 0.19042 Partial X sum 6.7666
N 21
5 SUB 0.02557 0.02116 0.000000235 12 3.68251 3.04673
6 8 0.03747 0.00868 0.000000561 3 0.33726 0.07809 Collector System Equivalent
7 8 0.02455 0.00467 0.000001036 3 0.22091 0.04205 (Same units as R, X & B data)
Req 0.021494 pu
8 9 0.02109 0.02501 0.000000199 6 0.75925 0.90025 Xeq 0.015344 pu
9 SUB 0.02109 0.02501 0.000000199 9 1.70831 2.02555 Beq 0.000005 pu
PV Pad-mounted Transformer Equivalent

ZT 0.00597 + j0.05970
Z Teq = = = 0.00085 + j0.00853 pu on 3 MVA base
M 7
WECC REMTF
10022224
Reactive Power Capability
Reactive Power Capability of Inverters: What is the reactive power
capability? What about partial power?
0.5 Prated
Full capability at any

operating point
PF = +/- 0.90 PF = +/- 0.95
0
Prated
-0.5 Prated
Voltage Control
Reactive Control Options
• Fixed PF/Var setting Interconnection

• Volt/Var droop Line
• Closed-lop Voltage Control S

Collector PV Generator
Pad-mounted
POCC/POI Station System Equivalent
Transformer
Transformer(s) Equivalent
Equivalent
WECC REMTF
10022224
Models for Large PV Plants
• Approximate aggregate dynamic response for entire PV plant
• Suitable for simulation of grid events
– 3‐ph (up to 9 cycles) & 1‐ph faults (up to 30 cycles) faults, frequency
events, oscillatory events (up to 10 Hz bandwidth )
– Assume constant irradiance during electrical disturbance
• Model extension should handle irradiance input (user beware!)
– Protection module to mimic “LVRT” curve (piecewise linear)
• Numerically stable with time steps of ¼ to ½ cycle
– Faster internal integration may be needed for some important controls
• Include existing and emerging control options & capabilities
– LVRT, Volt/Var control options, power control (ramp rate), behavior
during fault, frequency support
• Initializes from power flow without special scripts
WECC REMTF
10022224
Dynamic Model Connectivity
DC D- and Q-Axis
Voltage Voltage
Solar
Irradiance Network Model
PV Array Inverter (implemented
Model DC Model D- and Q-Axis in PSLF or
Current Current PSS/E)
Initial PF Desired
Q-Axis
Reactive Power Current
AC Bus Control Model Grid Protection Model
Voltage
Could use existing WECC Generic WT4 WTG model

WECC REMTF
10022224
GE PSLF PV Model Implementation
ewtgfc gewtge
• Existing, usable model; default data for GE product
• Model based on existing GE Type 4 WTG model
• Converter dynamics dominates model dynamics
• DC‐side dynamics (MPPT, dc capacitor dynamics)
assumed very fast, ignored in the model
Source: K. Clark, N. Miller, R. Walling, “Modeling of GE Solar Photovoltaic Plants for Grid Studies”, April 2010
10022224
Generic WT4 Full Converter Model
WECC REMTF
10022224
Summary
• PV systems are different than conventional
generation in key respects
• Interaction with the grid must be represented
– Interconnection studies
– General grid planning studies
• Need better models to represent distributed
and large‐scale PV in bulk system studies
• Model development activities underway
– WECC REMTF and others actively working on this
20
10022224
Overview of Industry
Efforts – Modeling VG
Pouyan Pourbeik
ppourbeik@epri.com
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010
10022224
OVERVIEW
• WECC Effort (A. Ellis already informed us on this)
• IEC Effort
• NERC IVGTF and NERC MOD Standards
• IEEE

10022224
IEC TC88 WG27
10022224
IEC TC88 WG27 SCOPE
• The purpose of IEC 61400-27 is to define standard dynamic

simulation models for wind turbines and wind power plants, which are
intended for used in power system and grid stability analyses.
• IEC 61400-27-1 (PART 1) specifies dynamic simulation models for
generic wind turbine topologies/ concepts / configurations on the
market. In addition, the standard specifies a method to create models
for future wind turbine concepts.
• IEC 61400-27-2 (PART 2) specifies dynamic simulation models for
the generic wind power plant topologies / configurations on the
market including wind power plant control and auxiliary equipment. In
addition, the standard specifies a method to create models for future
wind power plant configurations
• Both standards includes procedures for validation of the specified
electrical simulation models.
• The electrical simulation models being specified in this document are
independent of any software simulation tool.

10022224
MEMBERS
• Chairman: Poul Sørensen (Denmark)

• 39 members (15 Countries)
• 5 US members (A. Ellis, Y. Kazachkov, N. Miller, E. Muljadi, P.
Pourbeik, B. Zavadil)
• Utilities, Vendors, R&D, Universities, Transmission Owners
• Had five meetings so far and moving forward
• Two subtask:
– Model structure
– Model validation
• Starting with IEEE/WECC models with input from Germany, Spain
and Finland on proposed structural changes to type 3 and 4
• Working towards first draft of model structure discussion by
November
• Had first discussion on first cut for model validation in September in
Helsinki
• Goal for first draft for voting by in 2011 (early 2012?)

10022224
NERC IVGTF
10022224
PLANNING WORK GROUP TASKS
Tasks Status Task Lead
1.1 Standard, non-proprietary power flow and stability Complete Pouyan

models for variable generators Pourbeik
1.5 Evaluation of potential reliability contributions from Draft Daniel Brooks

emerging flexible resources Presented to
NERC PC
9/14/10
1.8 Evaluation of potential adverse bulk system In Progress Daniel Brooks

reliability impacts of high levels of distributed energy
resources

10022224
NERC IVGTF
• Integration of Variable Generation Task Force
• 13 tasks
• Task 1-1 – on Modeling and Model Validation
• Task 1-1 report completed and approved by NERC

Planning Committee in June 2010
• http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_Report_PhaseII
_Task1-1_Final(5.24).pdf

10022224
Task 1-1: Standard Variable Generation Models
Recommendations
• Recommended changes/additions to
existing NERC MOD standards to
include variable generators
– MOD 11, 12, 13
– MOD 24, 25, 26, 27
• NERC Planning Committee

members urged IVGTF 1-1 to
pursue NERC reliability standard
development
• Several NERC Standards Drafting

Teams undertaking MOD Standard
development have been contacted
to present the recommendations
from this report for their
consideration and incorporation in
subsequent updates
10022224
RECOMENDATIONS FROM TASK 1-1
Recommendations made on necessary changes to:

• MOD-011: Regional Steady-State Data Requirements and
Reporting Procedures
• MOD-012: Dynamics Data for Transmission System Modeling and
Simulation
• MOD-013-1: RRO Dynamics Data Requirements and Reporting
Procedures
• MOD-024-2 — Verification and Data Reporting of Generator Real
Power Capability
• MOD-025-1 — Verification of Generator Gross and Net Reactive
Power Capability
• MOD-026-1 — Verification of Models and Data for Generator
Excitation System Functions – SECOND POSTING (and MOD 27)

10022224
NERC MOD’s
10022224
MOD 26 & 27 (see IVGTF 1-1 report for details)
• Unit/Plant Size for Validation

• Validation of various technologies in a single plant
• Validation of different control layers
• Future functionality
• Modeling of protection
• Fuel source for variable generation: For variable
generation one needs to be cognizant of the variable
nature of the energy source and thus the possible
impracticality of performing model validation at a desired
plant output, but rather having to accept model validation
at whatever plant output can be achieved at the time of
testing or disturbance monitoring.
• Revalidation: How often should models be revalidated?

10022224
IEEE WG
10022224
IEEE WORKING GROUP
• Dynamic Performance of Wind Power WG (under IEEE PES Power System

Dynamic Performance Committee)
• Past Chair: N. Miller 2005 – 2007
• Present Chair: A. Ellis 2007 – 2010
• Incoming Chair: P. Pourbeik 2011 –
• Held two tutorials on modeling 2008 & 2009 (at IEEE Conferences)
• Two publications coming out soon, on

– Working Group Joint Report – WECC WGDP & IEEE DPWP Generation,
“Description and Technical Specifications for Generic WTG Models – A
Status Report”, submitted for publication (entities involved EPRI, GE, NREL, Siemens
PTI, SNL)
– IEEE ad hoc TF on Wind Turbine Model Validation, “Model Validation for
Wind Turbine Generator Models”, submitted for publication (entities involved
AESO, ABB, EPRI, GE, Hydro Quebec, NREL, REpower, Siemens PTI)
• Planning a panel session on model validation for 2011 PES GM

10022224
Wind Power Plant Equivalencing
Eduard Muljadi
EPRI Workshop on Variable

Generation Modeling and
Model Validation
Charlotte, North Carolina

September 22, 2010
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
10022224
Power Generation
Conventional vs Wind Power Plant
• Single or multiple large (100 MW) • Many (hundreds) of wind turbines (1 MW – 5
generators. MW each)
• Prime mover: steam, combustion engine • Prime mover: wind (wind turbine) –renewable
– non-renewable fuel affected by fuel (free, natural, pollution free)
cost, politics, and pollution restrictions.
• Controllability: adjustable up to max limit • Controllability: curtailment
and down to min limit.
• Predictability: preplanned generation • Predictability: wind variability based on wind
based on load forecasting, influenced by forecasting, influenced more by nature (wind)
human operation based on optimum than human, based on maximizing energy
operation (scheduled operation). production (unscheduled operation).
• Located relatively close to the load • Located at wind resource, it may be far from
center. the load center.
• Generator: synchronous generator • Generator: Four different types (fixed speed,
variable slip, variable speed, full converter) –
non synchronous generation
• Fixed speed – no slip: flux is controlled • Type 3 & 4: variable speed with flux oriented
via exciter winding. Flux and rotor rotate controller (FOC) via power converter. Rotor
synchronously. does not have to rotate synchronously.
10022224
Wind Dynamic Model
Types of Wind Turbine Generator
Four basic topologies based on grid interface:

– Type 1 – conventional induction generator
– Type 2 – wound-rotor induction generator with variable rotor
resistance
– Type 3 – doubly-fed induction generator
– Type 4 – full converter interface
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Pla nt Plant
Plant Plant
Fee ders Feeders
Feeders
Feeders
generator gene rator gene rator ac dc
generator to to
PF control dc ac
ac PF control ac dc
capacitor s capacitor s to to
to
dc dc ac
Slip power full power
as heat loss
partial power
10022224
Wind Power Plant
Equivalencing Method
Grid
POI or
connection
to the grid Collector System
Station
Interconnection
Transmission Line
Individual WTGs
Multiple machine representation
Feeders and Laterals (overhead

and/or underground)
10022224
Single Turbine
Representation
• The wind turbine generators in the wind plant are built of
the same size, the same manufacturer.
• The type, size and method of control of reactive

compensation on each turbine is the same.
• The terrain is flat and the expected wind speeds

throughout the wind plant is approximately the same.
• The control strategy, control setting, are the same.
10022224
Assumptions
IT I1
I1
I1 I2
I2
I3
WTG-1
I3
I2
I3
WTG-2 IT
WTG-3 IT
(a) Currents entering a Node b) Phasor Summation (c) Algebraic Summation

(assume unique phase angles) (assume equal phase angles)
Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) IT = I1 + I2 + I3
10022224
Derivation
EXAMPLE: Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4
The voltage drop across each impedance, can I1 I2 I3 I4 IS

(a)
be easily derived as follows.
The voltage drop across Z1 = ΔVZ1 = I1 Z1 = I Z1 1 2 3 4
. (b)
IS ZS
The voltage drop across Z4 =
a) single series daisy-chain
ΔVZ4 = (I1 + I2 + I3+ I4) Z4 = 4 I Z4 b) equivalent representation of circuit (a)
The power loss at each impedance, can be

computed as:
STot_loss = IS2 ZS
SLoss_Z1 = ΔVZ1 I1* = I1 I1* Z1 = I I* Z1 = I2 Z1
IS = n I
SLoss_Z4 = ΔVZ4 (I1 + I2 + I3 + I4)*
∑
n 2
= 42 I2 Z4 m=1
m Zm
ZS =
2 2 2 2 n2
STot_loss = I (Z1 + 2 Z2 + 3 Z3 + 4 Z4 )
∑ m=1 Zm
2 n 2
STot_loss = I m
10022224
Derivation
Wind turbine transformer Shunt representation
Turbine
#1 0.570 kV 34.5 kV
R+jX
(0.3572+j3.3370)
B/2 B/2
Turbine
#136
n
Btot = ∑ Bi
0.570 kV 34.5 kV
(0.3572+j3.3370)
i =1
10997 10996
0.570 kV 34.5 kV ZPMXFMR_WF = ZPMXFMR_WTG /nturbine
Wind Farm (0.3572+j3.3370)/136 =
(0.0026+j0.02454)
(136 turbines)
10022224
Derivation
Depends on feeder type (OH/UG) and WPP size
Zeq and Beq, can be computed from WPP conductor
schedule, if available
– For radial feeders with N WTGs and I branches:
I
∑ ii
Z n 2
Beq = ∑ Bi
I
Z eq = Req + jX eq = i =1
N2 i =1
– Where ni is the number of WTGs connected upstream of

the i-th branch
– This can be implemented easily on a spreadsheet
10022224
Example
10022224
Validation
Detailed Vs. Single-Machine Representations
3-phase fault, all WTGs at 12 m/sec
QWT = 0.435 0 -0.435
P34.5 kV
Q34.5 kV
From « Validation of the WECC Single-Machine Equivalent Power Plant », Presented DPWPG-WG Meeting at IEEE
10022224
Validation
Detailed Vs. Single-Machine Representations
3-phase fault, different wind speed for each feeder
QWT = 0.435 0 -0.435
1 and 2 feeders
P34.5 kV
4 feeders = Typical
2 and 4 feeders = Typical
Q34.5 kV
1 feeder
From « Validation of the WECC Single-Machine Equivalent Power Plant », Presented DPWPG-WG Meeting at IEEE
10022224
EPRI Workshop on Variable Generation Modeling and Model Validation
Charlotte, NC, USA – September, 2010
Generic Wind Turbine

Dynamic Models in PSLF and PSSE
Juan J. Sanchez-Gasca
GE Energy
Juan1.Sanchez@ge.com
Yuriy Kazachkov
Siemens Energy
Yuriy.Kazachkov@siemens.com
10022224
Generic Model Development
WTG
PS CAD-type
Models
• Validation performed by
manufacturers for a
Detailed transient specific type of WTG
stability models
Generic transient
• Validation must include WTGs
stability models
of several manufacturers
2
10022224
Technical Issues
• Generic models are intended for transmission

planning studies, which focus on grid disturbances,
not wind disturbances
• Simulation of the aerodynamic conversion should

be simplified to avoid using proprietary Cp curves
• Too much simplification is not good: a model does

not perform well if aerodynamics is ignored (e.g.
constant mechanical power)
3
10022224
Turbine Model
P elec
Wind
Speed
P mech ω gen
Aerodynamic Rotor
Model Model
Blade ω rotor
Pitch
θ
P elec Control Pord

System
ρ
Pmech = Ar v 3 C p (λ , θ )
2
4
10022224
Aerodynamic Model Simplification
Detailed 3-D Cp Curve.
2-D Cp Curve used in

detailed models
0.5
o
θ=1
0.4
θ=3o
Linear relations
o
θ=5
0.3
o
θ=7
allow for simplifications

Cp
θ=9o
0.2
θ=11o
o
θ=13
o
θ=15
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
λ
5
10022224
Type 1 Generic Model
Terminal Voltage
Shaft Speed
Wind Generator
Turbine Real Power Model Pgen
Model
Qgen
WT12T WT1G
WT1T
Mechanical
Power
Pseudo
Governor
Model
WT12A
WT1P
6
10022224
Pseudo-Governor Model
The pseudo governor model is an attempt to simplify and generalize calculation of

the aero-torque. This model was designed and developed after thorough
investigation of aero-dynamic characteristics and pitch control of several vendor
specific wind turbines. The model uses two inputs, one in terms of the rotor speed
deviation and another in terms of the real power at the machine terminals. The
filtered output is the mechanical power on the rotor blade side.
This model is used for Type 1 and 2 generic models.
7
10022224
Wind Turbine Model
If Htfrac = 0 – single mass shaft
8
10022224
Type 1 Generic Model Validation
• Results of testing the WT1 generic model against a vendor specific
model are superimposed on plots below.
• A satisfactory match is demonstrated.
9
10022224
Terminal Voltage
Δ Rotor Resistance
Rotor
Generator
Resistance Real Power Model Pgen
Control Model
Qgen
WT2E WT2G
Shaft Speed Real

Power
Pseudo “Aero” Torque

Wind
Governor Turbine
Model Model
WT12A WT12T
WT2P WT2T
10
10022224
Rotor Resistance Control Model
This module uses the machine rotor speed and electrical power as inputs and
calculates the portion of the available rotor external resistance to be added to the
internal rotor resistance.
11
10022224
Type 2 Generic Model Validation Against the Vendor
specific V80 Model
12
10022224
Type 3 Generic Model: Aerodynamic Model
Simplification
• Assume wind speed is constant for the duration of
the typical period of interest in dynamic simulations
(up to about 20 seconds)
• For variable speed Type 3 WTG it was noticed that

– Rate of change of mechanical power (Pmech)
varies linearly with respect to pitch angle (θ ) in
the range 0 < θ < 30 deg
– Pmech varies linearly with respect to wind speed
(Vw) from cut-in to rated wind speed
– θ varies linearly with respect to Vw for wind
speeds above rated
13
10022224
Example – GE 1.5 (Type 3)
14
10022224
Example – GE 1.5 (Type 3)
“Aerodynamic governor” model
Pm = Pmo – θ ( θ - θ o ) / 100
Initialization:
• Pmo = Pelec (from power flow)

• Use Fig. 8 to find Vw for θo = 0
• Use Fig. 9 to compute θo if
Pe = Prated and user-input
Vw is greater than rated wind speed
15
10022224
Generic Model Validation
100% output 50% output
Blue = standard model; Red = simplified model
16
10022224
Generic Model Validation – Small System
17
10022224
Generic Model Validation – Large System
18
10022224
Regulated Bus Voltage
Terminal Voltage
Current Command
Converter Generator /
Voltage Command
Control Converter
Pgen
Model Model
Real & Reactive Qgen
WT3E Power WT3G
Power Speed Shaft Speed Real

Order Order Power
Pitch Wind
Blade Pitch
Control Turbine
Model Model
WT3P WT3T
19
10022224
• Structure and level of user input similar to standard

generator models
– No special EPCL / IPLAN routines
– Initialize directly from power flow
– Separate protection model
• Results obtained with generic WT3 models in PSSE and

PSLF are identical and match the results obtained with the
standard model of the GE 1.5 MW WT
20
10022224
Type 3 Generic Model. Generator
Model
Limits reactive current injected
into the network
Isorc
Eq"cmd 1 -1 High Voltage
(efd) 1+ 0.02s X" Reactive Current
From s0 Management
exwtge
LVPL & rrpwr
Low Voltage
Designed to reduce active
IPcmd 1 IPlv Active Current
current in a linear fashion
(ladifd) 1+ 0.02s Management
From s1
exwtge
LVPL
Vterm
1.11
Lvplsw = 0
LVPL V
1
jX"
Lvplsw = 1 1+ 0.02s
V s2
zerox brkpt
(0.50) (0.90)
Low Voltage Power Logic
21
10022224
Wind Turbine
Model
Anti-windup on
Pitch Limits r ate lim it (PIrate )
PImax
Blade
Pitch Control
ω err θ cm d
Fr om
Tur bi ne ω Σ +
Kp p + Kip / s Σ
1
1+ s T p
Pitch
θ Model
M odel + + To
P i tch + Tur bi ne
Contr ol PImin M odel
ω reff
Fr om Anti-windup on
Conver ter Pitch Limits
Contr ol
M odel
+
P o rd Σ K pc+ K ic / s
1 P i tch
Compensa ti on
22
10022224
Reactive Power
Control Model
ω
(shaft speed)
Anti-windup
on
Active Power
Pmax & dPmax/dt
ωref +
Power Limits
Ipmax (Torque) Control
Pgen ωerr Pord Ip cmd
f ( Pgen )
1
1 + Tsps
Σ Kptrq+ Kitrq / s X
1
1+ sTpc
.
. To
Model
Generator /
Converter
Pmin & -dPmax/dt Model
To Pitch
To Pitch
Control Vterm
Model Control
Model
23
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model (PSS/E)
24
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model (PSLF)
WT4E WT4G
WT4T
25
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model: Converter/Generator
Module
• The power converter/generator module calculates the current injection to the
grid based on filtered active and reactive power commands from the electric
Type 4 Generic Model: converter/generator module al control module. Both
components of the injected current are processed under the high/low voltage
conditions by means of a special logic.
26
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model: Electrical Control
Module
27
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model: Electrical Control
• The converter control module includes reactive and active power controls.
• The reactive control calculates the reactive current command for the
various control options, which could be any of the following:
- Remote bus voltage control
- Power factor control
- Reactive Power control
• The active power control is based on the idea that we do not need to
simulate a machine at all. Irrespective of how the active power control is
implemented and what criteria it uses, this control is responsible for
keeping the power balance between the machine and the grid injection.
• In the suggested model, the active power control compares the active
power injected to the grid against the power reference and changes the
active component of the injected current respectively.
• Since the machine is not modeled, this model cannot reproduce
oscillations of electrical power caused by torsional oscillations of a two-
mass shaft system
28
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model: Validation Against the Vendor Specific Model
of GE-2.5 MW (Single Mass Shaft System). Fault at the POI.
Qelec
Terminal Voltage
Pelec
29
10022224
Type 4 Generic Model: Validation Against the Vendor Specific Model of GE-2.5
MW (Single Mass Shaft System). Converter Current Limit Step Change
Pelec
Qelec
WIPCMND
At T=0.1 sec., converter current limit was

reduced from 1.7 p.u. to 0.8 p.u. and
restored back to 1.7 p.u. at T=4.1 sec.
30
10022224
LHVRT – Low/High Voltage Ride-Through
31
10022224
PSLF WTG Generic Dynamic Models
Model Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Generator wt1g wt2g wt3g wt4g

Excitation / Controller wt2e wt3e wt4e
Turbine wt1t wt2t wt3t wt4t
Pitch Controller wt1p wt2p wt3p
All 4 generic models are standard for the current PSLF release
32
10022224
PSSE WTG Generic Dynamic Models
Generic model WT1 WT2 WT3 WT4

Generator WT1G WT2G WT3G WT4G
El. Controller WT2E WT3E WT4E
Turbine/shaft WT12T WT12T WT3T
Pitch control WT3P
Pseudo Governor: aerodynamics WT12A WT12A
All 4 generic models are standard for the current PSSE release
33
10022224
Applicability issues in PSSE
• In current PSSE release, generic models are
represented in load flow as a “wind machine”
category of the machine data record
• As this category was introduced recently with
PSSE-31, users who still run older versions
cannot take a full advantage of the standard
generic models and need to replace them by
user defined models
34
10022224
Some “hot” issues
35
10022224
•This section discusses
model response to
frequency events
36
10022224
Modeling frequency events
• Can generic models be used and trusted for simulating
frequency events: loss of generation or loads?
• This question first should be addressed to vendor
specific models that provide a benchmark for generic
models
• Collecting information from field tests or tests using the
detailed equipment level models (PSCAD/EMTDC,
MatLab/Simulink) is of urgent importance
• Below are some examples illustrating some concerns.
The main question is: does the wind turbine respond to
frequency events, as provided by vendor specific or
generic models, seem realistic?
37
10022224
Test System
• Bus 15 – wind turbine

100 MW unit
• 100
MW
Load • Bus 19 – Hydro 1000
MW unit
• 1000
MW
load
• Bus 19 – GT 100 MW
unit
38
10022224
No governors: drop the WT unit
• Under-frequency event: only conventional units
• Accelerating power (PMECH-PELEC) is negative
• Loads are intact. To compensate for the lost generation, outputs of on-
line machines increase at the expense of the rotor kinetic energy: inertial
response!
• New reduced frequency is such that there is a balance between
generation, loads, and losses
• For on-line units, rotor speed and system frequency are the same
39
10022224
• Under sudden low frequency conditions,
when load demand exceeds the
generation, increase of the machine
active power output by means of
converting the rotor kinetic energy into the
electrical energy is a sound response.
• For a conventional generation unit, the
under-speed protection may shut it down.
40
10022224
Hydro Governor Impact: drop the WT
unit
• Accelerating power (PMECH-PELEC) restores to ~0
• New steady state frequency depends on the governor droop
41
10022224
The GEWT (DFIG) vendor specific model:
drop the GT unit, no Hydro governor
Great difference between the WT rotor
speed and the system frequency.
Note: the initial WT rotor speed is
about 1.2 pu (72 Hz). For conventional
machines, rotor speed follows the
frequency. For DFIG it stays constant.
After the GT was dropped off, all the

lost power was picked up by a Hydro.
WT’s power does not change.
42
10022224
The GEWT (DFIG) vendor specific model: drop the GT unit,
no Hydro governor; WindInertia enabled
WindInertia increased WTG

Pelec by 4% at the expense of
the rotor deceleration –
very different physics.
43
10022224
Replace vendor specific GEWT (DFIG) model by generic
WT3 model; drop GT unit; no hydro governor
Full Load
Partial load
WT3 and GEWT provide

identical response
44
10022224
PSLF Test System – DFAG with WI
Trip Bulk Power Grid
12,000 MW
1000 MW
Generator
1000 MW
Wind Plant
45
10022224
WindINERTIA Simulation
1200
1200
Synchronous Wind Speed

1100
Power (MW)
Machine = 14 m/s
1000
1000
Without 900
Wind Inertia
Wind Speed
800800 = 11 m/s
0 10 20 30
61 30 seconds
61
Frequency (Hz)
60 60
59 59
58 58
0 10 20 30
46
10022224
MPS-1000 versus WT1; drop GT unit;
hydro governor
• Similar response
• Trustworthy: the full order machine model for both models
• WT rotor speed and the system frequency have a similar pattern
47
10022224
V80 60 Hz (VRCC) versus WT2; drop GT
unit; hydro governor
• Similar response
• Trustworthy: the full order machine model for both
models
• WT rotor speed and the system frequency have different
patterns
48
10022224
Siemens 2.3 MW (full converter) versus
WT4; drop GT unit; hydro governor
• Pelec and frequency respond similarly
49
10022224
Conclusions on Frequency Response
• For under-frequency events, the system
response shown by generic models is
very close to one shown by vendor
specific models.
• For under-frequency events, the system
response shown by both models seems
realistic
• Results from the field and from full order
models are needed to verify the stability
model performance
50
10022224
• This section is about whether
the double mass shaft approach
is necessary for stability studies
with DFIG based WTs
51
10022224
Single or multi-mass shaft model?
• Several years ago, when engineers started intensively
looking into different aspects of the wind turbine
modeling, it was suggested that, for power system
stability studies, a drive train comprising the blade
arrangement, a gear box/generator arrangement, and a
long soft shaft between them should be represented in
the model as at least two-mass mechanical system
[probably, Vladislav Akhmatov, Denmark, was the first].
• A similar approach, even with greater than 2 number of
concentrated masses, has been used for conventional
units with the purpose to determine the shaft torsional
duties but not for stability studies.
52
10022224
Is it important for system stability?
• Wind turbine manufacturer tests and field experience
confirmed that any disturbance could trigger wind
generator rotor oscillations at the lower mechanical
resonance frequency of the shaft system because of the
released potential energy of the twisted rotor.
Apparently, these oscillations can be seen in the
terminal current injected by a machine to the adjacent
grid.
• The question is whether these oscillations can
adversely affect the power system stability.
53
10022224
Test system
• PSSE twenty three bus example case
54
10022224
Oscillations ignited in the system with
conventional equipment only
• Conventional equipment only: when the 3-phase fault is applied to bus 211
the rotor angle of the machine connected to the bus 3011 and voltage of
the bus 201 oscillate at about 1.1 Hz
55
10022224
GE 1.5 MW wind turbine; WT3 model
• Machine 206 (about 830 MW) replaced by the cluster of GE 1.5 MW
machines simulated by the generic WT3 model. The SCR on bus 206 is
about 3.
• The WT3 model allows to change the frequency of the shaft oscillations
without changing the inertia, by means of changing the stiffness coefficient.
Pelec_206 as a function
of the mechanical
frequency.
Pelec first swing

peak for the single
mass approach is
about 200 MW.
Magnitude of
oscillations at 1.1 Hz
is about +/-100MW.
Mechanical damping
is not a very
trustworthy parameter
56
10022224
POI voltage is not affected
These oscillations in Pelec do not affect the
POI 500 kV Voltage oscillations
57
10022224
Impact on rotor angles is not practically
important
They do affect the rotor angle oscillations but not significantly:
58
10022224
Conclusion on single/double mass
approach
• It is clear that for wind turbines employing directly
connected machines the reactive power consumption is
more sensitive to power oscillations. At the IEC meeting
Vladislav Akhmatov referred to their experience showing
the potential for voltage stability problems with WT1.
• Probably, WT2 is between WT3 and WT1 in this regard.
• WT4 is free from this issue.
59
10022224
Conclusions and Closing Remarks
• It is possible to simplify detailed WTG models while

retaining the required level of accuracy for bulk power
system studies.
• For generic models to be widely used, it is imperative

for different manufacturers to be involved in their
development and evaluation.
• The application of user-written models without full

disclosure of associated block diagrams and data is
not a viable alternative for model validation and data
transfers by different parties.
60
10022224
Answers for energy.
®
Photovoltaic Modeling in PSS E
EPRI Workshop “Generic Wind Turbine Dynamic Models

in PSLF and PSSE”
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010,
Yuriy Kazachkov
Principal Consultant
Siemens PTI
Yuriy.Kazachkov@Siemens.com
© 2009 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.
10022224
Potential PSS/E Implementation
Rest of
Irradiance Model PV Panel Model Converter Model System
Irradence Model
1.2
1
Voltage
0.8
Irradence
0.6
0.4
WT4 PSS/E
0.2 Irrad (I) Pdc (I)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IR, IQ
Tim e
© 2009 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved

Page 2 January 26 Siemens Power Technologies International
10022224
Irradiance Model
Standard Model that allows user

to vary the amount of solar Irradence Model
irradiance. 1.2
User enters up to ~10 data points 1
(time(s), irradiance(W/m2)) as
0.8
cons
Irradence
0.6
Initializes based off steady state

P/Pmax 0.4
0.2
For each time step, outputs
linearized irradiance level 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tim e
Other options: user provides a
table (not perferred for standard
model) or ramp/step model
similar to WGUST

10022224
PV Panel Model
Standard Model for a PV panel’s

I-V curves
PV panel’s output varies with

Irradiance, temperature, terminal
voltage (set by MPPT)
User enters maximum Pdc (per

unitized) for different irradiance
levels as cons
For each time step, reads

irradiance level, outputs
linearized power order
Other options: user provides

whole curves (not preferred for
standard models) and
temperature data
10022224
Converter Model – use WT4 full converter model
Largely ignores dynamics from DC side.
Different reactive control modes: Voltage control, PF control, Q control
For each time step, outputs linearized irradiance level
Other consideration: frequency response or other ancillary services,

reactive control logic, explicit MPPT modeling or lag

10022224
GE Energy
Wind Plant Dynamic

Models and Model
Validation
EPRI Wind Workshop
Jason MacDowell
September 2010
10022224
GE Testing and
Model Validation Experience
Tests performed at Individual WTG & Wind Plant level
• Test Response to
– control test probes
– local grid events
• Three Example Plants*:

1. 67 x GE 1.5sle WTGs (100MW)
* All have GE WindCONTROL supervisory controller
2
10022224
Plant Equivalent Vmeas
Imeas
VPOI WindCONTROL
nQcmd
Shunt Bank(s):
Manually switched
for test stimulus
P PLANT
Q PLANT
VTerm
Qcmd i
Pwtg Qwtg
3
10022224
Volt/Var Control
Slower Refined Plant-Level Control
WindVAR Emulation
Vrfq
(vref)
Qmax
Kiv/s
Vreg + +
1 s4 1
1/fN Qord
1+ sTr - + Qwv 1+ sTc
Kpv
s3 s5
1+ sTv Qmin
s2
Slower WTG Fast Initial WTG

Q Control Voltage Control
Qgen
Vterm
Vmax Vterm + XIQmax
- -
+ Vref
Eq"cmd
KQi / s KVi / s
Qcmd s1
s0
+ (efd)
Vmin Vterm + XIQmin
4
10022224
Test 1: Individual WTG Test
• Test fast response of individual turbine
• 2% positive step
Qgen
Vterm
Vmax Vterm + XIQmax
- -
+ Vref
Eq"cmd
KQi / s KVi / s
Qcmd s1
s0
+ (efd)
Vmin Vterm + XIQmin
Voltage Step
Stimulus
5
10022224
PSLF vs. Test (+2% step @ WTG) – 30 MW Plant
Measured = Blue Simulated = Red
QWTG QCMD
Vt WTG VREG CMD
6
10022224
Test 2: Plant Level Volt/Var Test Vmeas
Imeas
VPOI WindCONTROL
nQcmd
Switch Off 10
MVAr Shunt
Capacitor Shunt Bank(s):
Manually switched
for test stimulus
P PLANT
Q PLANT
VTerm
Qcmd i
Pwtg Qwtg
7
10022224
Volt/Var Control
Switching Slower Refined Plant-Level Control
operation causes WindVAR Emulation
POI and WTG

Vrfq
(vref)
Qmax
voltages to step Vreg
1
+
Kiv/s
+ 1
down
s4
1/fN Qord
1+ sTr - + Qwv 1+ sTc
Kpv
s3 s5
1+ sTv Qmin
Voltage Step Stimulus s2
Slower WTG Fast Initial WTG

Q Control Voltage Control
Both fast WTG and Qgen
Vterm
slower supervisory -
Vmax Vterm + XIQmax
-
controls respond +
KQi / s
Vref
KVi / s Eq"cmd
Qcmd s1
s0
+ (efd)
Vmin Vterm + XIQmin
8
10022224
WTG and Plant Reactive Power Response – 70 MW Plant
Switch Off 10 MVAr Shunt Capacitor
Voltage Dip
Fast Initial WTG

Response
WTG Q
Slow Coordinated
Wind Plant
Response
Multi-modal response is grid friendly

9
10022224
Cap Switching Test vs. Model – 70 MW Plant
Model closely replicates field response
10
10022224
Field Test vs. Simulation – Voltage – 70 MW Plant
25200
Measured Voltage
Simulated Voltage
24500
0 60
11
10022224
Cap Switching Test vs. Model – 100MW Plant
BLUE = MEASURED GREEN = SIMULATED
W42: V POI (Blue = Measured Green = Simulated) [(W10)|overplot(W45)]
1.00
1
Vpoi (pu)
0.99
0.9
POI Voltage Response
0.98
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Second
W43: Q POI (Blue = Measured Green = Simulated) [(W14)|overplot(W46)]
9
6
Qpoi (MVAr)
3
0
-3 POI Q Response
-6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Second
W44: Qcmd POI (Blue = Measured Green = Simulated) [(W19)|overplot(W47*90.18)]
10
Qcmd (MVAr)
-10
Plant Qcmd
-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Second
12
10022224
Version 4.5
April, 2010
13
10022224
GE Energy
For more information or to contact us please visit

www.ge-energy.com/ease
Jason M. MacDowell
jason.macdowell@ge.com
10022224
Slavomir Seman, ABB Drives, Wind AC, Finland
slavomir.a.seman@fi.abb.com
EPRI Charlotte (NC) September 22, 2010
Examples of Model Validation for

Wind Generation – ABB Work
© ABB Group 10022224
November 23, 2010 | Slide 1
Power and productivity for a better world
ABB
As one of the world’s leading engineering companies, we

help our customers to use electrical power efficiently, to
increase industrial productivity and to lower environmental
impact in a sustainable way.
117,000 employees in about 100 countries, with $32 billion
in revenue (2009)
© ABB
© ABB Group
Group 10022224
November 23,
November 23, 2010
2010 || Slide
Slide 22
ABB’s discrete automation and motion
Drives business unit
Dedicated to the manufacturing and marketing of low voltage AC

and DC drives, wind turbine converters and solar inverters.
Wind turbine converters from 0.6 to 6 MW, for both doubly-fed
and full converter turbine concepts.
Wind Turbine Converters are manufactured in Finland (Helsinki),
Estonia (Jüri), China (Beijing), USA (New Berlin, WI).
© ABB
© ABB Group
Group 10022224
November 23,
November 23, 2010
2010 || Slide
Slide 33
Full Power Converter Concept with IG

ABB Generic Model of WT 4 Type – Full converter
ABB Generic model is based on 1 VARFLG

modification of WECC model (PSS-E, Reactive Power Contol by Terminal Voltage Flag, Goto3
1 = Reactive Power Control by Terminal Voltage
PSLF) of type 4 (full converter) can be 0 = else
represented in different SW platforms 0 PFAFLG

Power Factor Control/ Lookup Table Control Flag, Goto1
1 = Reactive Power Control by Power Factor
0 = Reactive Power Control by external reference
Pelec
Ipcmd Ipcmd
Vref Vref Pelec
Constant Iqcmd
Pord Pord
Constant Iqcmd Vterm
Vterm isorc
Vref
Electrical Control model
Converter/Generator model
Converter Current(RMS) Grid Voltage(RMS)
Grid Model
ABB Generic model of WT 4 type model – Full power converter
Q
Electrical Control Model
© ABB Group
November 23, 2010 | Slide 6 Generator/Converter model

Validation of WT 4 type model – Grid model

Fault Ride Through – ABB Drives Test Setup
EUT

Lab. Test – Full Converter (Type 4) 0V- Fault Ride Through

Validation of WT 4 Type Model Against Full Power Test
2,5 MW, Full converter WTD under 3-ph dip , Generic model Ts = 5 ms
G rid V o lt a g e C o n ve rt e r A c t ive C u rre n t
1 1.4
G e n e ric M o d e l
0.9 M e a s u re d va lu e s
1.2
G e n e ric M o d e l
0.8 M e a s u re d va lu e s
1
0.7
0.6
0.8
Voltage
Current
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Tim e Tim e
C o nve rte r To tal C urre nt C o n ve rt e r R e a c t ive C u rre n t
1 .4 1.2
G en eric M od el G e n e ric M o d e l
M ea s u red va lu es M e a s u re d va lu e s
1 .2 1
1 0.8
0 .8 0.6
Current
Current
0 .6 0.4
0 .4 0.2
0 .2 0
0 -0 . 2
0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0 .8 1 1 .2 1.4 1 .6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Tim e
10022224 Tim e
© ABB Group
Validation of WT 4 type model – German valid. Procedure TR4
2.5 MW, Full-converter WTD under 3-ph dip, Generic model Ts = 5 ms
VALIDATION ACCORDING TO GERMAN VALIDATION STANDARD FGW TR4

Terminal voltage
2
measurement
simulation
1.5
0.5
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5
0.5 1 1.5 2
Reactive current – validation (TR4)
2.5 MW Full-converter WTD under 3-ph dip, Generic model Ts = 5 ms
Simulated Reactive CurrentMeasured Reactive Current

Reactive Current
Reactive Current
2
measurement 2
positive sequence
simulation
1 average
1.5
0
A B1 B2 C1 C2
1
Voltage [p.u.]
0.5 1 1.5 2
0.5
2
0 positive sequence
1 average
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 A B1 B2 C1 C2
Time[p.u.]
0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s]
Difference of averages (pu)

Averages difference Reactive Current
0.5
Area Actual Limit
0
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5
0.5 1 1.5 2
ence of positive sequences (pu)
-1
A B1 B2 C1 C2
0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s]
Comparison Simulink vs. DigSilent PF (Ts = 5 ms)
Active Current
Model is tool independent ! 1.5
Active Current, Simulink
Terminal Voltage
Active Current, DigSilent
1.5
Terminal Voltage, Simulink
Terminal Voltage, DigSilent
1
Current
1
Voltage
0.5
0.5
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Reactive Current
Time 1.5
Reactive Power
1.5 Reactive Current, Simulink
Reactive Power, Simulink Reactive Current, DigSilent
Reactive Power, DigSilent
1
1
Current
Voltage
0.5
0.5
0 0
© ABB Group2 2.5 3
10022224 3.5 4 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Time
Conclusions - Generic Full-Power WT Model Validation
ABB generic model based on modified WECC Type 4 model was validated
Model is tool independent and not vendor specific
Generator and converter represented as controlled current source - valid for
Full converter concept
How to validate? Engeneer’s judgement of detailed validation results
Generic model assumes: DC bus voltage controlled to be mantained within
the limits during transients (e.g. Break chopper)

Doubly Fed Asynchronous Generator
main contactor for main circuit breaker

normal on-off operation for protection
asynchronous
generator
with slip rings
1500 rpm ±30%
gearbox
10...24 kV, f = 50 Hz
or 60 Hz
frequency
converter
brake
Active generator grid side
crowbar side converter
protection converter line coupling
transformer
medium voltage
switchgear
rotor bearing pitch

drive
converter control
wind turbine control

ABB Detailed Vendor Specific Model – Block Definition
Grid’s and WF network model DFIG Wind turbine block

Multi-inertia
Grid Line Transformer mechanics
Rhfnet RhfLine RhfTrfm
Generator
Xk
G
Rk x_line r_line x_Trm r_Trm
E C_Trm
C_Line / 2
Converters
C_Line / 2
Rcap_Trm ISU INU
Xgridshort Xlineshort Xshort Crowbar
Rgridshort Rlineshort Rshort
- Single, two or three -phase short
Single, two or three phase short

Black Box Model - DFAG
Sk, Xnet
ZWP
X1
Grid DFIG WT
132 kV/20kV Wind park network X2 20kV/690V
ITrpra Upra Upra ITpra

INITIALIZATION
ITrprb Uprb Uprb ITprb
ITrprc Uprc Uprc ITprc
Grid + WF network DFIG Wind Turbine (drive train not included)

DFAG – Detailed model 3-phase fault 0% Un, 180 ms
MEASURED INSTANTANEOUS VALUES AT LV SIDE OF TR
500
450
400
350
300
Urms[V]
250
200
uurmsgrid [V]
150 uvrmsgrid [V]
uwrmsgrid [V]
100
50
0
4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500 5600
Time [ms]

DFAG – Detailed model 3-phase fault 0% Un, 180 ms
comparison of measured and simulated LV TR currents
8000
simulated
6000 measured
4000
2000
i s [A]
-2000
-4000
-6000
4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500 5600
t [ms]

DFAG – Detailed model (2-phase fault 20% Un, 467 ms)
Phase Voltage at MV side of WT TR
Phase current at MV side of WT TR

ABB Generic model of WT 3 type model – DFAG
•Generator and converter represented as controlled current source. Fits well for Full
converter concept
•Can be also applied for steady state and quasi-steady state of Type 3 DFAG
•However, it is not suitable for transient analyses of DFAG under severe balanced and
unbalanced fault!
•DFAG is directly coupled with power grid and therefore dynamic behavior of
Electromechanical system is to be represented by more detailed model or optionally
reduced (generic) model shall be extended by additional protection logic that would
represent operation of crowbar and transient behavior during unbalance
Generator/Converter model
© ABB Group

Example #1 Validation of Aggregated DFAG Standardized Models
Used in EWIS Report
Background:
This activity was initiated by EWIS (European Wind Integration Study) that asked
the wind industry's comments with respect to WT modeling and it is coordinated
through EWEA (European Wind Energy Association)
ABB was invited by EWEA as WT component manufacturer and member of
EWEA Working Group on Grid Code Requirements to provide comments on
EWIS Wind Turbine Validation Report (2008-04-22)
The comments and observations were formulated by ABB Drives Oy, Finland

EWIS Model Validation – Simplification vs. Accuracy
The complexity of the models used for the actual study has on the one hand
to be exact enough with respect to the dynamic behavior of the turbine,
fulfilling all grid code requirements in Europe but on the other hand be
suitable for large-scale grid studies.
Therefore simplified wind turbine models are used in EWIS that perform the
typical response of each technology (see 1.2).
(report text)
After detailed study of the EWIS simulation report could be concluded:

There are doubts if of the most of SIMPLIFIED WT models used in EWIS
study perform the typical response of each technology especially in case of
DFAG concept (will be shown on example)
The example case of grid disturbance with time duration 150 ms is not
enough to demonstrate the Europe grid code fulfillment especially
regarding reactive current support and active power production during a
voltage dip.

Validation – EWIS Simulation vs. ABB measurement
Full power test at 2 MW DFAG Turbine equipped by ABB converter –
measurement performed at 20kV terminals by certificated test laboratory during
REE grid code validation in Nov. 2006 vs. simulated results by EWIS.
EWIS Models Full power test at 2 MW DFIG at 20kV
terminals
20% Un 3 phase Voltage Dip, Full

power dip lasts for 500 ms
Voltage support starts within 1,5 - 2
cycles (30-40 ms)

Validation – EWIS Simulation vs. ABB Measurement
Full power test at 2 MW DFIG Turbine equipped by ABB converter – measurement
performed at 20kV terminals by certificated test laboratory during REE grid code
validation in Nov. 2006 vs. simulated results by EWIS.
EWIS model Full power test at 2 MW DFIG at

20kV terminals
20%Un 3 phase Voltage Dip, Full

power, dip lasts for 500 ms
Q supply starts within 2 cycles
(40 ms) and required value is
supplied within 150 ms
Present status of advanced ABB DFIG technology performance
2 MW DFIG WT drive fed from ABB laboratory network under symmetrical
voltage dip with 23% Un remaining voltage performed in 03/2008
100% of reactive current

is provided within 40 ms
–comparable with Full –
Scale concept
Crowbar operates 0.5 -1
cycle (10-20 ms)!!!

38 ms !
Example #2 Realistic Representation of Dynamic Behavior of
DFAG Under Severe Unbalanced Fault

Dynamic Behavior of DFAG Under Severe Unbalanced Fault

Dynamic Behavior of DFAG Under Severe Unbalanced Fault

Dip Transformation – Example 3 phase fault always same
© ABB Group
November 23, 2010 | Slide 30 Unbalanced - fault change due to TR conection
10022224
DFAG - 2-phase Fault Ride-Through
Dip at transformer LV side

4 M E A S URE D V O LTA G E (HIG H V O LTA G E S IDE )
x 10
2 .5
1 .5 uuv(rm s ) grid [V ]
uvw(rm s ) grid [V ]
uwu(rm s ) grid [V ]
1
0 .5
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
T im e [m s ]

DFAG - 2-phase Fault Ride-Through
Transformed dip at LV side
MEASURED GRID VOLTAGE (LOW VOLTAGE SIDE)
800
700
600
uuv(rms)grid [V]
500
uvw(rms)grid [V]
400 uwu(rms)grid [V]
300
200
100
-1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
© ABB Group
10022224 Time [ms]
Example #1 Conclusions – Comments
The main drawback of the models presented in EWIS validation report is
consideration of excessive crowbar operation time
100 ms
175 ms
20%Un, 3 phase Voltage Dip in 2006 typical CB operational time was

40ms, nowadays 0.5 -1 cycle (10-20ms)
While crowbar is active rotor side converter can't modulate and thus
provide reactive current (reactive power) – this influence simulation results.

If the crowbar is connected to the
rotor circuit the doubly fed
induction generator becomes a
regular induction generator with
an additional resistance within the
rotor circuit, which influences the
torque-slip characteristic of the
machine. During this time period
the behavior of the machine – as
reactive power exchange or
electromechanical torque – can
not be controlled and therefore
the machine will start to speed up
and to absorb reactive power from
the grid, which causes decreasing
of the voltage. (text of report
Version 3.0 – including EWEA
Crowbar fired DFIG consumes Q feedback added after ABB
comments
The presented case in EWIS report of 20% voltage dip with time duration of 150
ms is too short to demonstrate grid code compliance of the main grid codes valid
in EU.
The use of reduced generator model decreases ability to represent the realistic
transient behavior of the DFIG. For example figure below showing instantaneous
values of rotor currents where the 100 Hz component is vanishing that results in
vanishing of the rotor current peaks.
The use of 5th order transient model of DFIG should not significantly decrease the
speed of calculation. However, the question is if the used software packages offer
such model.
Final conclusion – oversimplification may lead to unrealistic simulation model

performance especially during severe grid fault simulation. The validation of
simulated results against measurements at e.g. 20 kV level would increase
confidence in used simulation models.
WECC Technical Requirements for Standard WTG Model-WT 3
Large scale transient stability simulations = positive-sequence model
WTG model expected to provide good indication of dynamic performance of WPP
at PCC not inside of WPP
Primarily balanced transmission system faults to be studied – for WT3 unbalanced
faults should also be studied due to risk of tripping at low or high speed and severe
unbalance
It should be assumed that the entire wind power plant either remains in service or
trips off line based on the applicable interconnection requirements.
Example: FERC FRT requirement: 1 phase-to-ground fault at PCC – how we define
voltage tolerance (tripping level) at LV side of WTG for a fault that goes through 2
transformers typically Dy connected which changes the character of unbalance at
the WTG terminals.
Suggested solution - Once the voltage and speed tolerances are known for a
specific project, a separate protection model could be used to emulate (in
simulation) the expected response of the WPP to unbalanced disturbances (e.g.
tripping the units for extreme unbalance if that happens in real-life)
Generic wind turbine model interface (alternative with negative
sequence protection Prposed by DTU – Poul Sørensen)
Protection settings
ITWp(t) Protection ITp(t)

system
model
Dynamic UTn(t) Dynamic
model simulation
UTp(t)
Control parameters
Static Load flow
External conditions parameters calculation
UT,p(0) , ITp(0)
Wind turbine Grid

model model
37
© ABB Group
10022224 TC88 WG27 meeting New Orleans 2010-04
Answers for energy.
Experience in PSS®E Generic

Wind Model Validation
EPRI Workshop “Generic Wind Turbine Dynamic Models in PSLF and PSSE”
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010,
Yuriy Kazachkov
Siemens PTI
Yuriy.Kazachkov@Siemens.com
© 2009 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved.
10022224
Types of validation work
Validation of generic models against

- vendor specific models
- manufacturer’s high order electromagnetic type
models (MatLab/Simulink, PSCAD/EMTDC,
etc.)
- so far, lab test results have been used for
validation of some vendor specific models only
(Mitsubishi MWT 2.4 MW)

Page 2 Siemens Power Technologies International
10022224
Validation of generic models against vendor
specific models - 1
All four types of PSS®E generic wind models have been validated against
respective vendor specific models:
- WT1 vs Mitsubishi MPS-1000 and Vestas V82
- WT2 vs Vestas V80 60 Hz
- WT3 vs GE-1.5
- WT4 vs GE-2.5
The purpose was to parametrize generic models in order to get a good match of
Vterm, Pelec, and Qelec responses for the same test system and scenarios.
Usually, we do validation tests for 100% of rated power and some partial load.
As most of vendor specific models have been developed in close cooperation
with and based on strong feedback from manufacturers we considered the
benchmark credible enough.
Some manufacturers (GE) carefully validated vendor specific models of their
technology against their in-house high order models.

10022224
Validation of generic models against vendor
specific models - 2
Validation work with Siemens Wind Power resulted in the second entry
added to a generic WT4 PSS®E model.
The main difference between the old (the same as in PSLF) and new
entries is that the converter current limiter takes into consideration such
factors as:
- P, Q converter capability curves
- The effect of the DC link connection between the machine side
converter and the grid side converter
- Restriction on the magnitude of the internal voltage generated
by the grid side converter
- Constraints of the internal smoothing reactor.

10022224
Development of vendor specific models based on
generic models and their validation
Several manufacturers approached us with the request to develop the dynamic simulation
model for them starting with adjustment of the generic model.
The mandatory requirement is a benchmark test results.
Some models could not be made without a modification of a generic model.
A good example is the model for Fuhrlaender 2.5 MW wind turbine. We had to add the
power ramping feature to the WT3 model:
We have also been developing PSS®E dynamic simulation models for Wind-To-Energy
W93 (WT3) and T93 2.05 MW (WT4) 50 and 60 Hz and validating them against high
order manufacturer’s models. © 2009 Siemens Energy, Inc. All rights reserved
10022224
Conclusion
Besides the straightforward objective of the validation

work, it provides invaluable input for directions of future
upgrades of generic models.
We will have to find the way for validating generic
models for frequency events, power ramping capability
and other features demanded by utilities.

10022224
Hydro-Quebec experience with
Wind Turbine and Wind Power Plant
Model Validation
EPRI Workshop on « Modeling and Model Validation of Wind Generation »

Charlotte, North Carolina USA, Sep 22, 2010
Co-Authors:
Christian Larose, M.ing. Richard Gagnon
Power System Simulation Jacques Brochu
IREQ, Hydro-Québec Research Institute Charles-Éric Langlois
Quebec, CANADA Mohamed Asmine
larose.christian@ireq.ca
10022224
Presentation overview
¾ To insure reliable integration of wind generation, various
research activities, related to wind turbine modeling,
has been conducted by Hydro-Quebec...
1. Validation of type-III WT EMT model

using on-line-disturbance monitoring
2. Validation of type-III WT stability model
by comparison with an EMT model.
3. Validation of type-II WT stability model
4. Validation of aggregation techniques for WPP modeling
5. Generic equivalent collector system parameters
for preliminary studies
WT: « Wind Turbine »

WPP: « Wind Power Plant »
EMT: « Electromagnetic Transient »
EPRI Workshop on « Modeling and Model Validation of Wind Generation » 2
10022224
The Hydro-Quebec network (Canada)
¾ Installed capacity:
37 000 MW (95% hydro)
¾ Main characteristics:
Long transmission line
with serie compensation Quebec
Many asynchronous
interconnections
SVCs, HVDC link
¾ Wind power:
4000 MW by 2015
New
500 MW (2009) Brunswick
Ontario Maine
Vermont
New
York
10022224
Wind Generation in Quebec
Actually in service: ~500 MW (type-III)
In service by 2015: ~4000 MW (type-III & IV)

10022224
1- Validation of type-III WT EMT models
¾ For the purpose of model validation
On-line monitoring equipments were installed on a WPP
Various events of faults and frequency deviations
were recorded.
Location of V & I monitoring on a 73-turbine WPP.
( monitoring at WT, feeder and POI level )
34.5kV Feeder Selected type-3 WT
POI
230kV V I
575V
V I
IG
To other I
V I
V I
feeders
V
Grounding
transformer
V Voltage measurement To other WTs
I Current measurement
POI: « Point of Interconnection »
10022224
1- Validation of type-III WT EMT models
¾ Results of on-line Comparison at WT level during a remote fault
monitoring are used to «on-line monitoring» vs «EMT model»
fine-tune and validate…
EMT model of type-III WT
EMT model of WPP
– (non-public model)
Lessons learned…
«Various cases of disturbances and
operating conditions must be used
to increase the validity of the model»
«Fine-tuning becomes more complex

with large and/or unbalanced disturbance»

10022224
2- Validation of type-III WT stability model
by comparison with an EMT model
¾ The previous EMT model Comparison of 3 WT models
for a 150-ms 3-phase fault at the POI
of WT is used to adapt… Voltage
stability model type-III WT
Dynamics of induction Hydro-Quebec stability model
pu
generators and WPP voltage Hydro-Quebec EMT model
control are included PSS/E generic model
Active Power
MW
Lessons learned…
«This approach is helpful to gain a
better understanding of the impact Reactive Power
of the numerous levels of control
Mvar
of the type-III WT on the network»
time (sec)
POI: « Point of Interconnection »
10022224
3- Validation of type-II WT stability model
¾ Results of on-line Voltage at substation
monitoring at a substation
pu
are also used to validate… On-line monitoring
Hydro-Quebec stability model
stability model type-II WT
Active Power at substation
MW
Comparison for a remote fault
seen from a substation with
2 WPPs using type-2 WT Reactive Power at substation
Mvar
time (sec)

10022224
4- Validation of aggregation techniques
for WPP modeling Comparison of 4 different WPP models
during a 2-phase fault.
¾ The validity of the
- a detailed WPP model with 73 WTs
«NREL equivalencing method» - a 1-, 2- and 4-WT equivalent WPP models
has been demonstrated
Using a detailed EMT model of a
WPP with all 73-turbine represented
with the collector system.
Lessons learned…
«More than one equivalent WT is not
necessary for modeling a WPP when all
WT are exposed to the same wind speed»
WPP detailed model (73 WTs) WPP aggregated models
•1-WT Eq
•2-WT Eq
•4-WT Eq

10022224
5- Generic Equivalent Collector System
Parameters for preliminary studies
¾ Looking at the collector system
of 17 actual WPP between
50 and 300MW … Generic
parameters
17 Equivalent
Collector System
(NREL method)
Coll. Syst. R X B
Extreme
ΔR ΔX ΔB
variations
Underground 0.013
0.016 0.032 All Coll. Syst. ± 60% ± 60% ± 50%
Underground
and 0.059
Overhead

10022224
P
¾ Performing a R
sensitivity analysis Q
Reference case X average
of the proposed V
generic ECS… B
I
Station transformer Equivalent Equivalent wind

and Grounding bank collector turbine generator
system
1 30 ° : 1 Z ECS 1 30 ° : 1
B ECS
P
8 set of traces R± R
Q
showing extreme X± X Extreme
differences in V
B± B
I
ECS: « Equivalent collector system »
10022224
Validated for various Extreme discrepancies expected at ECS output
conditions… with generic parameters in place of NREL parameters
• Weak / Strong network

ΔP < ±2% ΔP < ±6% ΔQ < ±7% ΔQ < ±7%
• Low / Nominal wind
• 0.9 / -0.9 Power factors
• ABCG, AB, AG faults
Lessons learned…
«Generic ECS
Parameters are handy
first-guess values
when no ECS data
is available»
9-cycle AG faults on a weak power system.
Nominal wind speed, 0.9, 1 and -0.9 PFs.
10022224
References and related publications…
[1] Ad hoc Task Force on Wind Generation Model Validation, of the IEEE PES Working
Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation, “Model Validation for
Wind Turbine Generator Models » submitted in august 2010 for publication in the
IEEE PES Transactions on Power Systems
[2] C.-E. Langlois, D. Lefebvre, L. Dubé and R. Gagnon, “Developing a Type-III Wind
Turbine Model for Stability Studies of the Hydro-Quebec Network”, in Proc. 8th
International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power
Systems. Bremen, Germany, Oct 2009, pp. 674-679.
[3] C. Larose, R. Gagnon, G. Turmel, P. Giroux, J. Brochu, D. McNabb and D. Lefebvre,

“Large Wind Power Plant Modeling Techniques for Power System Simulation
Studies”, in Proc. 8th International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind
Power into Power Systems. Bremen, Germany, Oct 2009, pp. 472-478.
[4] J. Brochu, C. Larose and R. Gagnon, "Validation of single- and multiple-machine

equivalents for modeling wind power plants“, submitted in April 2010 for
publication in the IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion.
[5] J. Brochu, C. Larose and R. Gagnon, "Generic equivalent collector system

parameters for large wind power plants“, submitted in April 2010 for publication in
the IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion.

10022224
UWIG/EnerNex Project
EPRI Workshop on Variable Generation Modeling
and Model Validation
Charlotte, NC
Sept. 22, 2010
John Jansen, Ph.D., P.E.

620 Mabry Hood Road, Suite 300

Knoxville, Tennessee 37932
Tel: (865) 218-4600 ex. 6186
john@enernex.com
www.enernex.com
10022224
Objectives
Complete characterization and documentation of the four generic models
Comparative testing of the generic models against more detailed (and
sometimes proprietary) versions developed by turbine vendors
Developing recommended parameters for the generic models to best mimic
the performance of specific commercial wind turbines
Documenting results of the comparative simulations in an application guide
for users
Defining and implementing proposed enhancements to the generic wind
turbine model structures, if needed
Acquiring test data for validation
Conducting technology transfer activities
EPRI Workshop Sept. 22, 2010
Slide 2
10022224
Why?
Wind turbine and plant modeling remains at top of power
industry needs list
Landscape is much different than it was 5 years ago
– Many parallel activities
– Increased and widespread interest
Much progress made since over past five years
– Individual efforts (turbine vendors, TSPs)
– WECC initiative w/ voluntary contributions
Slide 3
10022224
Organization
Utility Wind Integration Group
(UWIG) EnerNex Corporation
J. Charles Smith Jeff Lamoree
NERC Dale Osborn
MISO EnerNex
Regional Jay Caspary Robert Zavadil
Reliability SPP Principal Investigator
Organizations Siemens‐PTI
Yuriy Kazachkov John Jansen
Transmission Abraham Ellix
Providers Sandia NL
Wind Industry Mark Lauby
Manufacturers NERC
GE Energy
Nick Miller
National Brian Parsons Kara Clark
Laboratories NREL Juan Sanchez
INDUSTRY TECHNICAL REVIEW PROJECT

STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE CORE TEAM
Slide 4
10022224
Getting our arms around the problem…
Currently installed
– 35,000 MW
– 20,000+ wind turbines
Objective is to maximize benefit of project; addressing
every turbine model in operation is likely not possible
Simulations and comparisons of the type to be conducted
in this project have already been done for certain turbine
models
A database is being created to manage wide range of
information needed for this project
Slide 5
10022224
Project Phases
I. User Documentation and Application Guide for Generic
Wind Turbine Models
II. Model Validation
Slide 6
10022224
Phase I Tasks
A. Develop application guide outline
B. Extend generic models
C. Construct and test benchmark system(s)
D. Inventory commercial wind turbine models and
documentation
E. Perform parametric simulations for generic models on
benchmark system(s); develop material for application
guide
F. Perform simulations on benchmark systems with
commercial wind turbine models
Slide 7
10022224
Phase I Tasks – cont.
G. Re‐run benchmark simulations with appropriate generic
models; tune generic model parameters to best fit
commercial model behavior
H. Wind plant modeling techniques
I. Test generic models in large system case studies – case
studies
J. Develop draft application and users guide; Tech Transfer
and Outreach
Slide 8
10022224
Phase II Tasks
A. Inventory available data for model validation
B. Devise program for collection of field data from archives,
ongoing activities (e.g. NREL), or new field
measurements
C. Perform comparative simulations of generic, vendor‐
specific, and other available models for events with
available data
D. Develop addendum for application guide
Slide 9
10022224
Revised Schedule per new start date
Time from
Milestone or Task Completion
Project Start
UWIG PRE‐Project Kickoff Meeting and TRC #1; Cedar Rapids, IA Oct. 2009
Kick‐off Teleconference 12/15/2009
Project Start 1/02/2010
Application Guide Draft Outline hold
Recommended extensions to existing generic models In progress
Construct benchmark test system(s) hold
Complete inventory of commercial wind turbine model documentation In progress
Perform parametric simulations for generic models on benchmark system(s) defer
Inventory available field data, test stand data, or detailed transient
In progress
simulations
Devise program for collection of field data from archives, ongoing activities
In progress
(e.g. NREL), or new field measurements
UWIG Project Review Meeting and TRC #3; Portland, OR April 2010
Perform simulations on benchmark systems with commercial wind turbine
models
Adapt generic model parameters to best fit commercial model behavior
Develop material for application guide and workshops
Slide 10
10022224
Revised Schedule (cont.)
Time from
Milestone or Task Completion
Project Start
UWIG Project Review Meeting and TRC #5; Quebec City, Que., CAN October 2010
2 Regional Workshops; Dallas, TX and Minneapolis, MN January 2011
2 Regional Workshops; Columbus, OH and Salt Lake City, UT February 2011
Develop draft application and users guide
UWIG Project Review Meeting and TRC #7; Bakersfield, CA April 2011
TRC #8 Teleconference August 2011
Complete web site with project deliverables
Project Completion January 2012
Slide 11
10022224
Possible Technical Approach Using the Mitsubishi
MWT 1000 A Wind Turbine as an Example
1. Comparing generic model with detail model on
benchmark system
2. Developing recommended parameters (parametric
search) for the generic models to best mimic the
performance of specific commercial wind turbines
Slide 12
10022224
Parametric Search on the WT1P Generic
Governor Model
speed
From
Kp
Turbine pimax
Model
wref pmech
1 1
Σ Σ
1 + sT1 1 + sT2
To
s2 s3 Governor
Ki 1 pimin Model
pgen 1 s
Σ Kdroop
1 + sTpe s1
From
Generator
s0
Model
pref
To limit the parameter search space, only Kdroop, Pimax, Kw, Kp and Ki will
be allowed to be modified in wt1p model (pseudo governor model). It was
found that only the first three parameters were relevant to this study.
Slide 13
10022224
Three Cases to Test Performance of
Generic Model
A comparison between the Mitsubishi MWT1000A (Type 1) wind turbine and the
generic models in PSLF for three cases have been performed:
Case 1: At bus 14, a fault of with an impedance of 4 pu (i.e., Zfault = 4pu) for a duration
of 0.5 sec with a system short circuit ratio (SCR) = 3 and for a duration of 2 sec with a
system SCR = 21.
Case 2: Trip of a 100 MW generator at bus 20.
Case 3: Trip of a 100 MW load. Å Only case that will be discussed due to time
The fault or disturbance occurs at the system time of 5 seconds allowing all the
transients to settle out.
Slide 14
10022224
Bench Mark System (Source from Yuriy
Kazachkov of Siemens PTI)
Case 1 Fault
b11 b12
Case 2 b13 b14 b15
Trip Wind Turbine
100 MW Load G
100 MW
34.5 kV 0.57 kV
b16 b17 b19 Hydro LV
G 1,000 MW
1,000 MW Load
b18 b20 Gen LV
G
Case3 Trip
100 MW
230 kV 24 kV
Slide 15
10022224
Case 3A (SCR = 3) – Load Trip
Freq Comparison
Case 3A (SCR=3) - freq: generic(blue), detailed(red)
61.6
61.4
61.2
61 To measure “closeness” between
60.8
two curves the following two
performance indices are being used:
Hz
60.6
60.4 T
PI1 = e ( ξ ) dξ
∫
2
60.2
0
60
T
59.8
-5 0 5 10 15
time (sec.)
20 25 30 35 PI 2 = ∫ e ( ξ ) dξ
0
Freq vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 1.07 and PI2 = 3.76.
Slide 16
10022224
Freq Comparison (Optimized)
Case 3F (SCR=3) - freq: generic(blue), detailed(red)
61.6
61.4
61.2
61
60.8
Hz
60.6
60.4
60.2
60
59.8
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Freq vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 4.56 e‐02 and PI2 = 8.20 e‐01.
Slide 17
10022224
Voltage Comparison
Case 3A (SCR=3) - vt: generic(blue), detailed(red)
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
Volts (pu)
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3A‐Generator Voltage vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 1.08 e‐01 and PI2 = 1.49.
Slide 18
10022224
Case 3F (SCR = 3) – Load Trip
Voltage Comparison (Optimized)
Case 3F (SCR=3) - vt: generic(blue), detailed(red)
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
Volts (pu)
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.9
0.89
0.88
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3F‐Generator Voltage vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 9.64 e‐03 and PI2 = 3.80 e‐01.
Slide 19
10022224
Real Power Comparison
Case 3A (SCR=3) - pg: generic(blue), detailed(red)
110
100
90
80
MW
70
60
50
40
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3A‐Electrical Power vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 1.10 e+04 and PI2 = 4.26 e+02.
Slide 20
10022224
Real Power Comparison (Optimized)
Case 3F (SCR=3) - pg: generic(blue), detailed(red)
104
102
100
98
MW
96
94
92
90
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3F‐Electrical Power vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 3.67 e+02 and PI2 = 7.27 e+01.
Slide 21
10022224
Reactive Power Comparison
Case 3A (SCR=3) - qg: generic(blue), detailed(red)

-36
-38
-40
MVAR
-42
-44
-46
-48
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3A‐Reactive Power vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 3.51 e+02 and PI2 =8.25 e+01.
Slide 22
10022224
Reactive Power Comparison (Optimized)
Case 3F (SCR=3) - qg: generic(blue), detailed(red)
-42
-43
-44
MVAR
-45
-46
-47
-48
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
time (sec.)
Case 3F‐Reactive Power vs. time (detailed model is red, generic model is blue),
SCR = 3. PI1 = 2.54 e+01 and PI2 = 1.93 e+01.
Slide 23
10022224
Summary/Conclusion
1. Programmatically, the Uwig/EnerNex project objectives, how it’s organization, project
phases and schedule has been discussed.
2. Technically, the Mitsubishi MWT 1000 A wind turbine has been used as an example to
demonstrate:
a) how a comparison with a generic model with a user specific detail model on a
benchmark system could be performed, and
b) how a parametric search could be conducted and potential improvements
achievable.
Based on the objectives:
1. Comparative testing of the generic models against more detailed versions developed by turbine vendors
2. Developing recommended parameters for the generic models to best mimic the performance of specific commercial wind turbines
Slide 24
10022224
International Overview on
Validation
Requirements/Efforts
Pouyan Pourbeik
Jason MacDowell
Slavomir Seman
EPRI Workshop “Variable Generation Modeling

and Model Validation”
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010
10022224
OVERVIEW
• Will show a couple of examples not covered yet
• German
• Australian

10022224
GERMAN EXAMPLE – FROM REPOWER [1]
0.5
Measured reactive
0
current (pu)
-0.5
-1 positive sequence
average
1. defining the start and end for periods A, B and C for the FRT-Test,
-1.5
0.5 ‘A’: 1before1.5 2 dip2.5 3 3.5 4
•2. Period
identifying theand
transient voltage
stationary- pre-fault
intervals during periods A, 4.5
B and C
•3. 0.5
Period ‘B’: after
comparing the beginning
the difference of theofaverages
the voltage
fordip and until theand
measurement
Simulated reactive
beginning
simulationofforthe voltage
each recovery.
interval with an allowed limit
0
current (pu)
•4. Period ‘C’: After

comparing the beginning
the difference of theofpositive
the voltage recovery.
sequence values of each
-0.5
stationary interval with an allowed limit
5. Calculating
-1 apositive
global sequence
deviation based on a weighted average over the
average
entire FRT-Test.
-1.5
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
time [s]

10022224
Validation of WT 4 type model – German valid. Procedure
TR4
2.5 MW, Full-converter WTD under 3-ph dip, Generic model Ts = 5 ms

Terminal voltage
2
measurement
simulation
1.5
0.5
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5
0.5 1 1.5 2
© ABB Group
10022224
Reactive current – validation (TR4)
2.5 MW Full-converter WTD under 3-ph dip, Generic model Ts = 5 ms
Simulated Reactive CurrentMeasured Reactive Current

Reactive Current
Reactive Current
2
measurement 2
positive sequence
simulation
1 average
1.5
0
A B1 B2 C1 C2
1
Voltage [p.u.]
0.5 1 1.5 2
0.5
2
0 positive sequence
1 average
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 A B1 B2 C1 C2
Time[p.u.]
0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s]
Difference of averages (pu)

Averages difference Reactive Current
0.5
Area Actual Limit
0
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5
0.5 1 1.5 2
ence of positive sequences (pu)
-1
A B1 B2 C1 C2
0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [s]
© ABB Group
10022224
Problematic Definitions Influence Result of Validation
• WT4 generic model sucessfully validated – following German TR 4
• Comment – there is a risk of having up to a 100% error (in short time periods) that is not
real – the reason is that at the end of the fault (clearance), due to the typically long
integration time step (relative to the actual speed of controls, which is in the kilo-Hz
range), it is difficult to rapidly emulate fault clearing using the generic models.
V A L ID A T IO N A C C O R D IN G T O G E R M A N V A L ID A T IO N S T A N D A R D F G W T R 4
R eac tiv e C u rren t
2
m easu rem e n t
sim u latio n Averages difference
1.5 Area Actual
Limit
1
0.5
A B1 B2 C1 C2
-0.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0 .8 1 1.2
Transition between
transient and
stationary intervals –
problematic definition
and its influence on
result of validation
10022224
AUSTRALIAN ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS1
Powerflow and Short Circuit Models
1.For POI quantities, the deviation of the plant model vs.

plant response for active and reactive power must not
exceed 10% of the total change in that quantity.
2.The model must not demonstrate characteristics that are

not present in the actual plant response.
1 Taken from Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Generating System Model Guidelines

10022224
AUSTRALIAN ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS
Transient & Oscillatory Stability Models

1.For any control system models, the overall linear response over a frequency bandwidth
of at least 0.1–5Hz must be within the following tolerances:
a. magnitude must be within 10% of the actual control system magnitude at any
particular frequency; and
b. phase must be within 5 degrees of the actual control system phase at any
particular frequency.
2.For POI quantities, at any point during the simulation, the deviation of the plant model
from the actual plant response for active power and reactive power must not exceed 10%
of the total change in that quantity. During periods of oscillatory behavior, this criterion
applies to:
a. the first cycle of the oscillatory response after the transient period (i.e. if
associated with a fault, then after clearance of the fault and the transient
recovery from the fault); and
b. after the first cycle of the oscillatory response, to the upper and lower bounds of
the envelope of the oscillatory response.

10022224

3.For time domain responses that include non-linear responses or performance, as well
as responses to switching or controlled sequence events (e.g. operation of fault ride-
through schemes and converter mode changes), the key features of the response are
within the following tolerances:
a. Rapid slopes in the simulated response, compared with the actual plant response
must be within the less restrictive of 10% and from the start to the finish of the
slope, 20 milliseconds.
b. For rapid events caused by control sequences (such as some fault ride-through
control schemes) or switching events, the sizes of peaks and troughs (measured
over the total change for that peak or trough) must be within 10% of the change;
c. Oscillations in active power, reactive power and voltage in the frequency range
0.1 to 5Hz must have damping and frequency of the oscillation within 10% of the
actual response of the plant. The phase of the oscillations (relative to the other
quantities, e.g. active power versus reactive power) must be within 5 degrees in
terms of the dominant oscillatory mode. This does not apply to rapid events under
item (b), but does apply to any subsequent oscillations;
d. The timing of the occurrence of the rapid slopes, events or the commencement of
oscillations described in paragraphs (a)-(c) must be consistent with the plant
characteristic that initiates the response.
10022224

4.Taking into account the level at which voltage settles at the connection point, the final
active power or reactive power value at which the model settles is within the more
restrictive of:
a. the final value at which the actual plant response would settle ±2% of the plant’s
nameplate rating; or
b. the final value at which the actual plant response would settle ±10% of the total
change in the quantity during the transient period during and following the
disturbance.
5.The model must not show characteristics that are not present in the actual plant
response.
6.The model, as implemented in the relevant software simulation product for which it was
provided, must be numerically stable across a simulation time of 10 minutes.

10022224
SUMMARY& CONCLUSIONS
• Having some form of “quantitative” measure on validation accuracy

can be helpful.
• However:
– There are physical limits, namely measurement errors can be as
much as 3 – 5% (see IEEE paper [1])
– Also, certain physical phenomena are not captured in models (e.g.
magnetic hysteresis)
– Stability level models cannot capture all the nuances of physical
response (e.g. exact EMT behavior at fault clearing, etc.)
• So being too prescriptive on validation accuracy can be a significant

barrier/problem
• Extreme care must be exercised (through engineering judgment) to

ensure requirements are not prohibitive and impractical

10022224
REFERENCE
[1] IEEE ad hoc TF on Wind Turbine Model Validation,

“Model Validation for Wind Turbine Generator Models”,
submitted for publication; (authros in alphabetical order: M. Asmine,
J.Brochu, J. Fortmann, R.Gagnon , Y. Kazachkov, C. E. Langlois, C. Larose,
E. Muljadi, J. MacDowell, P. Pourbeik (TF Lead), S. A. Seman and K. Wiens)

10022224
Day Summary
Pouyan Pourbeik
ppourbeik@epri.com
Charlotte, NC
September 22, 2010
10022224
VG MODELING NEEDS
• First generation of Generic WTG out there
• Need to address the following issues:

– Frequency response
– Structural completeness (for WT3 and WT4)
– Addressing unbalanced fault response
– Adding new features (frequency regulation, inertial response, etc.)
• Model validation
– Continue to validate generic models to build confidence and establish applicability
to all technologies
• PV Modeling needs to further mature
• Models need to be well disseminated in commercial software and supported by

vendors
• We will still need 3-phase (proprietary) other vendor specific models (as we do for other
equipment) for specialized and equipment specific/detailed studies

10022224
DONE FOR THE DAY
• Questions and comments?

• Please fill out the evaluation forms for the Workshop
• Also, if you want CEUs fill out and turn in the CEU
application forms

10022224
10022224
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute Inc., (EPRI, www.epri.com)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the spe- conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery
cific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regu- nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers
lations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes as well as experts from academia and industry to help address challenges
an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, health, safety and the
who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and
event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully supports research in emerging technologies. EPRI’s members represent
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the
is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to deter- United States, and international participation extends to 40 countries.
mine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company ac-
knowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and
acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellec-
tual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
Program:
Integration of Variable Generation and Controllable Loads
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
1020150
Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10022224

Moelling and Model Validation of Variable Energy Resource EPRI

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Moelling and Model Validation of Variable Energy Resource EPRI

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2010 TECHNICAL REPORT

Modeling and Model Validation for

Final Report, December 2010

EPRI Project Manager

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION PREPARED THIS REPORT:

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

The following organization prepared this report:

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Alliant Energy Corporation

Abraham Ellis SNL

2 SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY EFFORTS AND EPRI ENGAGEMENT .....................................2-1

3 WIND TURBINE GENERATOR MODEL VALIDATION USING MEASUREMENT

4 SOLAR PV MODELING .........................................................................................................4-1

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................5-1

6 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................6-1

A APPENDIX – SLIDES FROM THE EPRI WORKSHOP ON MODELING AND MODEL

1. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Renewable Energy Modeling Task

2. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Integration of Variable

3. The IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation, a

4. The International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), Working Group number 27 of

1. To collaborate with industry efforts to advance the process of development and

The remainder of the report is organized as follows:

1. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Integration of Variable

2. Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Renewable Energy Modeling Task

3. The IEEE Working Group on Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation, a

4. The International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), Working Group number 27 of

2.1 NERC IVGTF1-1

1. Detailed comments were made relative to recommended changes to existing MOD

The full document is of course publicly available at www.nerc.com.

2.2 WECC REMTF

1. The ability to represent some of the immerging functionalities in wind turbine

2.3 IEEE DPWG WG

2.3 IEC TC88 WG27

Working Group 27 of Technical Committee 88, of the International Electrotechnical

The scope of work of the WG is as follows 1 :

The Power System

Refine Model to Get a

3.1 The Measurement Data

Figure 3-4: Imposed voltage disturbance.

3.2 Modeling and Model Validation

If there is no voltage dip (i.e. Voltage_dip = 0), then

If there is no voltage dip (i.e. Voltage_dip = 0), then

Figure 4-1: Proposed approach to modeling solar PV.

For future work the following activities should be pursued:

a. frequency and inertial response characteristics of the equipment,

c. validating the models against actual field recordings.

3. continue to develop the concept of performing model validation of variable generation

on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems as well as on Transmission

• The intent is to give an overview and background for the

TYPES OF MODELS NEEDED

© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

• The main focus presently is

© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 3

© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 5

• Summarizing the mechanical controls options:

• STALL – fixed blades (type 1, typically < 1MW/turbine)

• ACTIVE STALL – pitch control ( type 1 & 2, typically >

• FULL PITCH CONTROL – on types 3 & 4 turbines

© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 6

(Source ABB Motors&Drives, Finland ©)

Type 2 – Variable Rotor Resistance; similar with power electronics