Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Primary Frequency Control by Wind Turbines
Primary Frequency Control by Wind Turbines
I. INTRODUCTION
scheduled value by restoring the inertial energy to its predisturbance value. DFIG based wind turbines possess no or
limited (due to limited band width of the current controller)
inertia [3] since the machine is decoupled from the grid by a
voltage source converter. In the absence of the inertia as a
medium of energy storage, the DFIG is not capable of inherent
frequency response. The steadily increasing number of wind
turbines in the grid is bound to lead to the retirement of more
and more conventional plants and thus to the reduction of
overall system inertia. Without countermeasures, this would
have wide ranging repercussions on the operational indices of
the system including system security, cost of operation and
protection system setting. This problem is well-known and
extensively discussed over the last few years. The emerging
consensus view points to the conclusion that large wind farms
have to be operated like conventional power plants. In
Germany and other European countries TSOs have published
in the recent past special requirements which all newly
installed wind farms have to fulfill. Regarding frequency
support, the E.on Grid Code [4] in Germany, for example,
stipulates a linear reduction of active power output by wind
turbines at the rate of 40% for every Hz frequency increase
over and above 50.2 Hz.
To offset the effect of the reduction in system inertia, one
possible option is to equip variable-speed wind turbines with
frequency support schemes using active power control. In [57] it was proposed to run wind turbines in a part load mode
during normal operation and then use the reserve margin for
providing frequency support by means of pitch angle control.
This option necessitates foregoing some energy (the operating
point lies slightly outside the maximum power point). In [812] results of investigations indicating the possibility of
providing frequency support by using the rotating mass of the
generator are reported and [13] reports verification of
simulation results on test benches. Building on these
suggestions, this paper introduces three different frequency
support strategies. The first option involves frequency support
by pitch control along the lines proposed by publications
mentioned above. Simulations based on real world values are
presented here to substantiate the feasibility of this approach.
To use the energy stored in the rotating masses of the turbine,
a control scheme utilising kinetic energy is introduced, which
employs an additional, continuous control to provide
frequency support. Another approach to support the frequency
using rotating masses of the turbines is also introduced and
both strategies based on kinetic energy control are compared.
Simulations have been carried out on a test grid and the results
compared.
700 MW Thermal
50 km
1600 MW Thermal
1300 MW Hydro
PCC
380 kV
100 km
L3
50 km
L1
L2
Load Switching
143+j50 MVA
Additional Load
Wind Farm
410 MW
14x2.5 km
33 kV
Cables
WG
DFIG
actual WT power.
Speed control thru Power
p max
ref
pWT
1
VT 1+
sTT
Rotor speed R
WT ref. power
WT power
p WT_ref
Turbine Torque
from wind power
conversion model
d Rd
dt
d Rq
dt
rR
lR
Rd + (R 0 ) Rq + kR rRiSd + uRd
max 0
R_nom
1
V 1+
sT
1
1+ sTW
max
ref
1
TA
&min
max
1
s
1
3
Arot CP (, )vw
2
Turbine power
and torque
pm
Power conversion
Fig. 2: Rotor speed and pitch angle control as well as power conversion model
uS
Grid
min
Pitch actuator
tm
iS
z'
Rotor Flux
DFIG Terminal
sTD
1+ sTV
r
= (R 0 ) Rd R Rq + kR rR iSq + uRq
lR
Wind speed
vW
Pitch
compensator
dR 1
= kR ( RdiSq RqiSd ) + tm
dt Tm
p S _ ref xS
u S xh
(3)
q S _ ref xS u S
u S xh xh
(4)
iRdu_ ref =
S
iRqu_ ref =
S
pWT _ ref
pS _ ref
1
1 + pT1
xS
xh
uS
iRd
_ ref
uS
iRd
uS
qWT _ ref
uS
s iRd
xR
magnitude
limiter
iR_max
pLSC
uS
iRq
uS
s h u S i Rq
x R
xS
uS
qS _ ref
1
1 + pT2
xS
xh
qLSC
u S
iRq
_ ref
uS
uS
uRd
K I 1 +
pTI
K I 1 +
pTI
Magnitude limiter
uR_max
pTH -
uS
uRq
1
xh
uref
-u
FVC ( p )
uS
fGrid_ref
1+sTDP
1+ sTVP
K=f(P0)
R_ref0
sTW
1+ sTW
sTD
1+ sTV
Grid
Frequency
R_nom
1
1+ sTW
50
Supplied power by WT
0.76
49.8
Decelerating Energy
Grid Frequency
0.75
49.6
WT drive power
0.74
0.73
Frequency
drop
0.72
10
20
1
TA
&min
max
1
s
3
1
Arot CP (, )vw
2
30
40
50
60
70
80
48.8
90 t/s 100
1.19
n/p.u.
p/p.u.
0.77
1.17
Mechanical drive
0.76
1.15
0.75
1.13
Rotor speed
0.74
1.11
0.73
1.09
Discharging
kinetic
energy
1.07
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1.05
90 t/s 100
Fig. 10: Mechanical drive and rotor speed for the case shown in Fig. 9
Turbine power
and torque
pm
tm
min
Pitch actuator
49
Frequency recovery
0.71
0
49.4
49.2
Accelerating Energy
max
ref
0.77
0.72
max 0
1
V 1+
sT
f/Hz
p WT_ref
1+sTD1
1+sTV1
50.2
p/p.u.
WT ref. power
pTH -
0.78
0.71
Rotor speed R
additional
power command
K1
1
VT 1+
sTT
ref
pWT
Power conversion
The red area corresponds to the accelerating energy which is II. WT controlled to deliver more power rotor decelerates
recovered afterwards by decreasing the electrical output
and frequency is supported
power, or alternatively the energy drawn from the grid after III. WT controlled to operate at optimal speed rotor rethe frequency reached its minimum. As can be seen in Fig. 10,
accelerates
as long as mechanical power is smaller than electrical power
Speed control thru Power
(up to around 30 s), the rotor speed drops. This means that the
p
operating point of the turbine on the p--characteristic (Fig. 3)
WT ref. Power
1
p
is moved to a less favorable region in terms of aero dynamical
V 1+
sT
+
efficiency since the (nearly optimal) nominal tracking curve of p
additional
Rotor speed
0
the machine is abandoned. Following this, the turbine cannot power command
extract as much power from the wind as would be possible at
higher rotational speed. Following the drop in rotational
The only difference to KEC I:
p Plus sign instead of minus
speed, the speed control through power lowers the active
Different parameters
1+sT
K
1
power set-point of the turbine to keep the turbine on the
1+sT
Wind speed
designated tracking curve and regain speed. The mechanical
v
sT
Pitch
drive supplies more energy to the machine than fed into the
1+ sT
compensator
sT
1
grid and rotor speed recovers. Compared to the progression of
Turbine
1 + sT
1+ sT
Grid
the frequency curve for the case without any additional
power and
.
torque
0
primary control by wind turbines (see Fig. 7), the minimum
p
t
1
1
1
1
frequency is boosted by KEC I (compare also Fig. 15). The re
A C (, )v
V 1+
2
T
s
sT
accelerating of the wind turbines however slightly broadens
.
0
&
the lower part of the frequency slump by limiting energy fed
ref
WT
WT_ref
TH
V1
ma
ma
ma
ref
ro
3
w
mi
mi
R_nom
50.2
p/p.u.
f/Hz
Supplied power by WT
0.79
50
Decelerating Energy
Phase 2
0.77
49.8
0.75
Phase 1 fmin
49.6
Accelerating Energy
0.73
Grid Frequency
Phase 3
Time
49.4
0.71
49.2
0.69
T0
5 -15 s
30 s 60 s
49
0.67
Frequency
drop
0.65
0
10
20
Frequency recovery
30
40
50
60
70
80
48.8
90 t/s 100
1.19
p/p.u.
n/p.u.
0.79
1.17
Mechanical drive
0.77
1.15
Rotor speed
0.75
1.13
0.73
1.11
Charging
kinetic
energy
0.71
0.69
1.07
0.67
0.65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1.05
t/s 100
Fig. 14: Mechanical torque and rotor speed for the case shown in Fig. 13
50.2
f/Hz
No Frequency Control
50
49.8
KEC2
49.6
49.4
49.2
49
48.8
0
20
40
60
80
t/s
100
8
with the consulting company EAB in Berlin and the Fraunhofer Institute IITB
Dresden respectively. During this time, he also had a teaching assignment at
the University of Dresden. Since 1998, he is Professor and head of the
Institute of Electrical Power Systems at the University of DuisburgEssen/Germany. His major scientific interest is focused on power system
stability and control, modelling and simulation of power system dynamics
including intelligent system applications. He is a member of VDE and senior
member of IEEE.
VI. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]