IMPACT OF SYNTHETIC INERTIA FROM WIND POWER
ON THE PROTECTION/CONTROL SCHEMES OF FUTURE
POWER SYSTEMS: SIMULATION STUDY
F. Gonzalez-Longatt†
†
Faculty of Computering and Engineering, Coventry University
AS410 Armstrong-Siddeley Building, Priory Street, CV1 5FB- Coventry, +44 779 5634298, fglongatt@ieee.org
Keywords: Frequency controller, frequency stability, power
system, protection scheme, wind turbine generator.
Abstract
Future power systems face several challenges; one of them is
the use of high power converters that decouple new energy
sources from the AC power grid. This decreases the total
system inertia affecting its ability to overcome system
frequency's disturbances. The wind power industry has
created a controller to enable inertial response on wind
turbines generators: Artificial, Emulated, Simulated, or
Synthetic Inertial. This paper deals with issues related to the
synthetic inertia of wind turbines based on full-converters and
their effect on the frequency protection/control schemes
during the recovery period after system frequency
disturbances happen. The main contribution of this paper is to
demonstrate (based on simulations) the recovery period of
under-frequency transients on future power systems which
integrate wind turbines with synthetic inertia capability not
completely avoid worse scenarios in terms of under-
frequency load shedding. The extra power delivered from a
wind turbine during frequency disturbances can substantially
reduce the rate of change of frequency providing time for the
active governors to respond. However, synthetic inertia might
not completely avoid under-frequency load shedding.
1 Introduction
Future power systems face several challenges: (i) the high
penetration level of renewable energy from highly variable
generators connected over power converters, (ii) several
technologies for energy storage with very different time
constants, some of them using power converters as an
interface to the grid, (iii) A pan-European transmission
network facilitating the integration of large-scale renewable
energy sources and the balancing and transportation of
electricity based on underwater multi-terminal high voltage
direct current (MTDC) transmission. All of them have an
element in common, high power converters that decouple the
new energy sources from the pre-existent AC power systems.
During a system frequency disturbance the
generation/demand power balance is lost, the system
frequency will change at a rate initially determined by the
total system inertia. However, future power systems will
increase the installed power capacity (MVA) but the effective
system inertial response will stay the same nowadays, this is
because the new generation units based on power converters
creates a decoupling effect of the real inertia and the ac grid.
The result is deeper frequency excursions of system
disturbances. A considerable reduction in the ability to
overcome system frequency's disturbances is expected, the
inertia response may be decreased. The inertial response of
the system might be negatively affected with devastating
consequences for system security and reliability.
There are several good papers [1], [2], [3], and technical
reports [4], [5], [6] dealing with theory [7], [8], [9], modelling
[10] and simulation [2], [11] of inertial response of wind
turbine generators (WTG) and some of them provide general
ideas about possible impacts on power systems and there
effects on transient under-frequency response [12], [13], [14].
Even some controls strategies have been proposed to mitigate
the impact of reduced inertia [15]. However, there is lack of
knowledge about the impact of inertial response of wind
turbines on deterministic frequency protection/control
schemes in future power systems.
This aim of this paper is presents the real impact of synthetic
inertia on wind turbines based on full-converters and there
effect on the frequency protection/control schemes during the
recovery period after system frequency disturbances happen.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the
frequency response on power system after a frequency
disturbance. Section 3 presents the concept of synthetic
inertia and show two approaches used on WT controller to
create inertial responses. Section 4 address aspects related to
protection/control schemes on power system and some
potential challenges for futures networks. Section 5 the results
of simulations that define the impact of synthetic inertia on
the protection/control schemes over a test system. Finally, the
advantages of this novel application are discussed in Section
5.
2 Frequency Response
The frequency of a power system depends on real power
balance: generation-demand. In the normal operation of a
power system, the frequency is regulated within strict limits
by adjusting the electrical supply to meet the demand.
Responsibility of frequency control is managed in United
Kingdom by National Grid PLC, thought the procurement and
despatch of frequency response services, under normal integrate controllers on modern WTG’s in order to provide
operation conditions the frequency is maintained at inertial response (and governor response on some cases) for
50Hzr0.2Hz [16]. large, short-duration frequency deviations.
If the balance between generation-demand is not reached, the The Wind turbine industry has created several names for this
system frequency will change at a rate which is dependent control system that enable inertial responses on a WTG:
upon the initial power mismatch and the total system inertia. Artificial, Emulated, Simulated, or Synthetic Inertial.
Large frequency disturbances, particularly trips of large Examples of synthetic inertia controlled commercially
generation plants, cause generation-demand unbalance that available for WTG are: General Electric WindINERTIA™
must be corrected by frequency control loops. These [18], [19], ENERCON“ Inertia Emulation [20].
controllers are provided in order improve the system The objective of the synthetic inertia control is extracting the
frequency response (SFR). The frequency controllers cover stored inertial energy from the moving part on WTGs. The
multiple time-frames: (i) inertial response also know as fast idea is to produce incremental energy similar to that provided
primary response, (ii) governor response also known as slow by a synchronous generator with real inertia. This is a local
primary response, and (iii) automatic generation control and automatic controller at wind turbine level which has a
(AGC). These controllers define the dynamic changes response in the same time-frame as primary controllers
associated to System Frequency Response (SFR). (<30s). Synthetic inertia controllers are based on two different
During a system frequency disturbance, the inertial response approaches: (a) Releasing "hidden" inertia and (b) Reserve
dominates initial frequency changes then the combination of capacity in pitch.
system inertia and governors response dictate the extreme
value of frequency (maximum or minimum). Later, the 2.1 Releasing the "Hidden" Inertia
governor response and load response dominate the frequency
mismatch between the system frequency and statutory value Releasing the "hidden" inertia concept allows a controller to
until AGC takes over. Tertiary frequency control is additional the take the kinetic energy from a wind turbine (WT) rotating
and slower compared to previous two controllers. The task of mass. Significant energy is stored on a WTG, electrical
tertiary control depends on the organizational structure of a generator operating at high speed has a large amount kinetic
given power system and the role that power plant plays in the energy stored in rotor of generator, but majority of that
structure [17]. Primary response is provided locally at device kinetic energy is in rotor bales. A WT using permanent
level, Secondary response is mainly area-wide inside an magnet synchronous generator (PMSG) on a direct-drive
administrative area, and tertiary response is a global concept concept has less kinetic energy stored due to the lower
for interconnected systems. rotational speed. Table 1 shows typical values of 3MW
Frequency response provided by WTG's is different to modern variable speed WTG.
Rated Speed Generator rotor
traditional generation systems. Modern variable speed WTG Drive train Concept Generator Type
[rpm] inertia [Kg/m2]
does not naturally contribute to system inertial and does not Wound rotor
contribute to the governor response without incurring Double fed 3-stage
asynchronous 6- 1200 250
gear
significant operational cost penalties. pole
Low Speed Full Permanent
converter (LSFC) magnet, multi 14 40,500
3 Synthetic Inertia Direct drive pole
Medium Speed full
Permanent
The total system inertia of a traditional power system Converter (MSFC)
magnet 14-pole
400 510
comprises of the combined inertia of most of the spinning 2-stage gear
High Speed Full
generation and load connected to the power system. The Permanent
Converter (HSFC) 1600 115
contribution of the system inertia to a single load or generator Magnet 6-pole
3-stage gear
depend on changes in the system frequency and causes Table 1: Typical data for a 3MW WTG.
change in its rotational speed hence, a change its kinetic Releasing the "hidden" inertia control loop increases electric
energy. power output during the initial stages of a significant
The power associated with this change in kinetic energy is fed downward frequency event. The active power (inertial power,
or taken from the power system and is known as the inertial 'P) of the control is achieved by:
response. During a system frequency event the total system df sys
inertia response of all electrical machines connected to the 'P 2 H u f sys u (1)
system is the main factor that determines the initial rate of dt
frequency change (ROCOF). where H express the synthetic inertia (sec) and fsys system
Modern WTGs use power electronics converters to enable frequency (p.u). Implementation of releasing hidden inertia
variable speed operation in order to capture wind energy over controllers is depicted on Figure 1. The WT can quickly store
a wide range of speeds. However, these converters isolate the and release a large amount of kinetic energy in the rotating
rotational speed from the system frequency so WTG based on masses because of the power electronic converter, due to a
back-to-back AC/DC/AC converters offer no natural large amount of inertia and wide rotational speed. However,
response to system frequency [3], [10]. discharge of energy to the grid is only for a short period
Author has included the adjective "natural" on the previous available (<30s) and recovery of WT power is supplied by the
sentence because some manufacturers have started to grid (unless the wind speed increases favorably!!!).
Slowing the wind turbine reduces aerodynamic lift and
security limitations must be considered to avoid a stall.
Inertial power must respect WTG components rating like
mechanical loading as well as converter and generator
electrical rating [9]. For large under-frequency events, the
inertial control feature temporarily increases the power output
of the wind turbine by about 5% to 10% of its rated power,
for several seconds. ENERCON“ emulated inertia increases
the power output about 4% to 10% of rated power for 10s [8].
Controller Releasing Hidden Inertia:
max df/dt
fs Derivator
K
df/dt
Kfilter,Tfilter2,Tfilter2
Grid
Frequency
[p.u]
min df/dt min
Filter
df/dt
Figure 1: Releasing Hidden Inertia Controller.
2.2 Reserve Capacity in Pitch
Traditional variable speed WTs are designed to always
operate at the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) so they
have no power reserve to support frequency control in there
steady state. Reserve capacity in pitch concept coerces a wind
standby power by maintaining reserve capacity in pitch [9],
[21]. A de-loading controller enable the WT to operate over
de-loading curves instead of MPPT and saves the available
power as reserve by using a pitch controller (pitching) or
increasing the rotational speed from the MPPT value (over-
speeding).
Frequency support using this controller is already discussed in
details in several publications [2], [9], [18], [22], even
EirGrid, the transmission system operator of the Republic of
Ireland, already estipulate a scheme with this controller [23].
One negative consequence of this controller is WTs have to
be operated at a considerably lower power output that
otherwise possible for a given wind speed, as a consequence,
less power generation is achieved and the wind is not fully
utilized. A monetary compensation scheme for the wind farm
owners can be created to resolve this situation. An additional
grid frequency control loop in the pitch angle controller is
required and it must be carefully designed in order to meet
mechanical loads on the pitch drive. This approach involves
some well-know consequences and requirements, as
consequence, it is not considered in this paper.
4 Protection/Control Schemes
When a severe frequency disturbance occurs, e.g. loss of a
station (all generating units), loss of a major load centre, or
loss of AC or DC interconnection, emergency control
measures may be required to maintain frequency stability.
These control measures may include: tripping of generators,
fast generation reduction, HVDC power transfer control, load
shedding, controlled opening of interconnection to
neighbouring systems to prevent spreading of frequency
problems and controlled islanding of local system into
separate areas with matching generation and load.
Under-frequency load shedding (UFLS) is the most widely
used protection against frequency collapse. Typically, load is
shed based on a local frequency measurement in several steps
of 5-20 % (of the total feeder load) each. Automatic load
shedding is implemented using underfrequency relays.
Typical threshold values are 48-48.5 Hz for a 50 Hz system.
The main draw back of these schemes is their delayed
response since they must wait for the frequency to decline
before taking action. A great proportion of inertia is expected
to be decoupled to the system frequency in future power
DIgSILENT
systems. As consequence a larger frequency drop is expected
max in future networks, as consequence deterministic frequency
Filter
filtere.. D_P K
K2H
Delta_P
protection/control schemes must be re-thought. Synthetic
2H
Additional
power command Inertial response from wind turbines can increase system
security and aid large scale systems to overcome system
frequency disturbances, however, control interactions can
create disastrous situations.
5 Simulation and Results
This section presents simulations and results over a Test
System representative of a future network. All models where
developed by the author using information publically
available and personal assumptions where they are necessary.
DigSILENT“ PowerFactoryTM [24] is used for time-domain
simulations and DIgSILENT Simulation Language (DSL) is
used for dynamic modelling. All simulations are performed
using a personal computer based on Intel“, CoreTM i7 CPU
2.0GHz, 8 GB RAM with Windows 7 Home Edition 64-bit
operating system.
5.1 Test System
The test network used for simulation in this study it is given
in Figure 2. This system consists of 8-generator, 8-bus, 7-
load, and 22-transmission lines. It is a hypothetical
simplification of a large 400 kV transmission system, it has
been divided in seven areas: Top-Right, Top-left, Upper-Tail,
Tail-Right, Lowest-Tail, Middle and Core+Tail. The
generator G4(a) represents the aggregation of a large number
of generators and it is selected as a reference. The system has
a total generation of 100.736 GW and a total load of
96.75GW.
Figure 2 shows the load flows for case base, there is a power
flow of about 15 GW from the Top to Tail, particularly from
Upper-Tail and Tail-Right and Core-Tail. Tail is an area rich
on generation and Core-Tail is a load-rich area. Dynamic
models for governor and automatic voltage controller (AVR)
are provided to this test model.
Figure 3 and 4, show the general steam turbine used as
governor for all synchronous power plants and a version on
IEEE Type I excitation system [25] is used as AVR. For the
system demand of 100 GW, equivalent system inertia of 7.2
MWs/MVA is assumed by the author for the synchronous
power plants (no wind). Demand is considered 100%
dynamic with a time constant of 0.1s and frequency
dependence of active power is included.
 outside statutory limits: range 49.8 Hz to 50.2Hz for more

DIgSILENT
G1 L1a
~

22.80
G
11.15
than 5 cycles, (ii) the level of normal loss of power infeed is
Upper Top -0.13
76.00
2.26
set-up to 1.35 GW, frequency response to avoid a deviation in
2
1a 400.00
1.00
15.81
-4.62
2.95
-4.62
2.95
10.44
-4.14
10.44
-4.14
1
TOP the system frequency by more than 0.2Hz, (iii) the system
400.00
10.54 10.54 21.62 21.62
1a-1 I
395.40
0.99 frequency could rise to 52 Hz or fall to 47 Hz in exceptional
1a-2 II
1.00
1a-2 I

-9.88 10.24
18.52 5.08
Top-Left 4.75
-2.73
21.62 Top-Rigth circumstances. If system frequency is over 52.0 Hz, over-
10.54 1a-1 II -9.88
9.50 4.95
5.08
G

-5.45
~

G2 36.52
4.75
-2.73
21.62
1.01
L1
frequency relays will trip generators, (iv) frequency control
10.54 1-4

devices (or a speed governor) are set up to operate with an

14.80
-11.16
36.09

3-4
1-3
overall speed Droop of 4% (GB SQSS establishes between 3
-14.01 9.94 -9.37
and 5%). In this paper, UFLS is set to start at 49.8Hz and the
Upper-Tail 12.46 -5.37 6.32 Tail-Right
4
36.09 21.74

3
21.74
plan consists of six load shedding steps of unequal size with
400.00
1.00
5.61
7.20
6.77
20.20
-5.41
14.13
2.87
17.34
-8.61
400.00
1.00
0.00
8.64
4.60
10.95
2.22
7.06
-3.94
the total amount of load shed of 0.25 p.u [26]. A delay for
32.94

G
69.71

G
37.26 32.61

G
15.55
each load shedding step is 0.1 s (5 cycles). Figure 5 shows
~ ~ ~
G4(b) G4(a) L4 G3 L3 specific under-frequency relay model developed and used in
3-7

4-7

5-7
this paper.

DIgSILENT
-8.21 8.65 -15.66 -6.76
5.46 -4.74 11.38 4.43 Under U and Under F: Under U and Under Freq Trip at 6 Steps
18.98 18.98 37.26 15.55

5 7 Under Frequency Protection

Lowest-Tail 400.00
1.00
-8.90
400.00
1.00
-4.01
9.51
8.76
43.08
17.34
3.52
0.38
-0.23
0.85
9.04
-4.94
19.83
11.40
9.40
49.27
16.14
3.28 Middle 1 F<
Trip_Step1
1 Logic yout
RelFrq* RelLslogic
5-6
6-7

G G
~ ~
G5 L5 -0.38 -8.57 G7 L7 2 F< 2 Logic
0.23 5.72 RelFrq* Trip_Step2 RelLslogic yout
Load Flow Balanced
TAIL
0.85 19.83

Nodes Branches 6 400.00 3 F< 3 Logic

Line-Line Voltage, Magnitude [kV] Active Power [GW] 1.00
RelFrq* Trip_Step3 RelLslogic yout
-9.12
Voltage, Magnitude [p.u.] Reactive Power [Gvar]
17.11
11.24
68.23
26.05
5.29 Core+Tail F
0
Voltage, Angle [deg] Loading [%] Measurement
4 F< 4 Logic
G RelFmeas*
RelFrq* Trip_Step4 RelLslogic
~ 1 yout

G6 L6
U
Benchmark System Project: DPSP 2012
fglongatt.org. 5 F<
RelFrq* Trip_Step5
5 Logic
RelLslogic
yout

Francisco M. Gonzalez-Longatt Graphic: Benchmark Model

02/01/2012 Date: 2/13/2012
Trip_Step6
PowerFactory 14.0.525 fglongatt@ieee.org Annex: 6 F< 6 Logic yout
RelFrq* RelLslogic

Figure 2: Test System: Case Base.

DIgSILENT

gov_GTGOV: General Turbine Governor Under_U

U< Logic yout
U< RelLslogic
RelUlim
psco Under Voltage Protection
0

psetp
1
Droop Valve Vmax Pole/Zero Gain

w - at (1+sTb)/(1+sTa) pturb
2
1/K {1/(1+sT)} K 0
R T1 T3,T2 At
- -
Figure 5: Under-frequency Relay Model including 6-step
wref

dw

0 pt
3 Vmin 1
Turb 1
Friction Pturb

load shedding.
2
K wlss
Dt
Power Base
sgnn
4
cosn
5

5.3 Wind Turbine Model

Figure 6 depict the general structure of a variable-speed wind
Figure 3: Model of General Turbine Governor.
turbine with a direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous
DIgSILENT

avr_IEET1: Modified 1968 IEEE Type 1 Excitation System

IEEE Std 421.5-1992
IEEE Recommended Practice for
generator (PMSG) and Figure 6 shows the model for the wind
Excitation System Models for Power
System Stability Studies turbines created using DSL. Figure 7 show the models used
0
voel
for a back-to-back converter, details of each model are taken
1
vuel
Voltage Regulator
Vrmax
Te and and gain Ke
associated with the
voltage regulator
from: [27], [28], [29]. The parameters used for these models
usetp
2

u - Verr {K/(1+sT)} Vr efd uerrs are escalated to simulate an equivalent 5 MW wind turbine.
3 1/sT Limiter_int
Ka,Ta Te EFdmax,EFdmin
- -
upss
4
Vrmin
Vf

K
Ke

sK/(1+sT)
Kf,Tf
Se

Se(Efd)
E1,Se1,EFdmax,Sefdmax

Saturation

Figure 6: General structure of a variable-speed wind

turbine with a direct-drive synchronous generator with
Figure 4: Model of General AVR. full-scale frequency converter.
5.2. Frequency Response Assumptions 5.4 Results and Discussion
In this paper, the operational-control criteria used for system The impact of a synthetic inertia is being quantitatively
frequency analysis is based a specific criteria defined by the analysed through time-domain simulations. This is a multi-
author, it is mainly a personal version of the GB Security and machine system as consequence, the author uses the concept
Quality of Supply Standards (GB SQSS). The following of frequency of inertia centre (fc) to analyse changes in
assumptions are used in this paper: (i) the level of infrequency system frequency. A loss infeed is used as system frequency
loss of power infeed is set-up to 1.800 GW, and frequency disturbance; it consists of tripping at t = 1.0s of one
response must avoid a deviation of the system frequency generating unit connected to Upper-Tail area at 1s (generator
G4(b) on Figure 2). The case base consists of just H = 3.75s is included. Benefits of the integration of this wind
synchronous generators (no wind) which feed system farm include the reduction of power flows between Top and
demand. The author assumes four generators providing a Tail areas but an increase of 164 mHz in the minimum
governor frequency response and three conventional frequency during at exceptional loss of the power infeed.

DIgSILENT
generators (G2, G5, and G7) will be operating without active 50.20

50.00
governors (e.g., nuclear power stations) or at maximum 49.80
6.602 s
49.259 p.u.
16.252 s
49.560 p.u.
56.722 s
49.513 p.u.

power (e.g., valves wide open). Several levels of loss of 49.60

power infeed from 0.3 to 3.2 GW are simulated and rate of 49.40

49.20
(a)
change of frequency (ROCOF) is plotted on Figure 8. The 0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99

30.00
ROCOF and the minimum frequency (nadir) increases as the 25.00

level of loss of power infeed increase. 20.00

15.00

DIgSILENT
Variable Speed Wind Turbine: Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator 10.00
5.00
curex
u 0.00
(b)
0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99

0 14.00
PMG ve
1 0 0
13.00
Mechanical System
1 12.00
2
omega_tur1 Generator 11.00
Pitch Control ElmSym* 3
ElmSha* Pwind 10.00
0 0 0
beta Shaft pt
speed_gen

1Wind Turbine 1 ElmSha* 1 1 9.00

Wind Speed ElmTur*
(c)
hpi

2
speed_gen1

ElmFile vw Shaft
8.00
Wind Speed Rotor 0.000 12.00 24.00 36.00 47.99 [s] 59.99

0 Exceptional Loss of Infeed Response Date: 2/17/2012

Speed Measurement fglongatt Francisco M. Gonzalez-Longatt, PhD March 2012 Annex: /2
ElmSpe* 1

Figure 9: System Frequency response to an exceptional

loss of generation infeed (a) Frequency, Generation active
Figure 6: General structure of the model for a variable- power in GW (b) with and (c) without frequency response.
speed wind turbine. 50.5
0.1
DIgSILENT

Back-to-Back Frame: Converter and Controllers

Frequency (Hz)

df/dt (Hz/s)
50 I
Vdc
DC Voltage
Speed Measurement
Elm*
speed
MPT
P_ref
0

PLL_R
0
cosref_R
0 StaVmea* Vdc_ref 0 1
id_ref
0
-0.1 II
ElmMpt*
ElmPhi*1 sinref_R

Power Meas_Gen
P
1
1

Q_ref
1Vdc-Q Controller
ElmDsl* 0
iq_ref
1
49.5 III
StaPqmea* 2
4
Power Meas_Grid
StaPqmea* 5
Inverter
-0.2 IV
Q 3
ElmVsc*
Vac_ref 2

Vac-P Controller
Rectifier
ElmVsc* V
AC Gen Voltage Vac_Gen ElmDsl* Udc-Q
StaVmea* 3
0
id_ref_R
2
49 -0.3
Vdc_ref 4
PLL_I
0
cosref_I
2 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20
ElmPll*,ElmPhi*
0

AC Grid Voltage
u Vdc 5
7
1
iq_ref_R
3 DC/AC
Controller
1
sinref_I
3
Time (s) Time (s)
StaVmea* 1 fsys
6

AC/DC
Controller Vac-P
AC/DC
DC/AC
Converter Figure 10: System Frequency and ROCOF considering
Converter
different UFLS schemes: Base Case
50 0.1
Figure 7: General structure of the model for back-to-back
Frequency (Hz)

49.8 0
converter.
df/dt (Hz/s)

I
0.02 49.6 -0.1 II
III
0 300MW 49.4 -0.2 IV
0 500MW H= 0.1s IV
-0.02 700MW 49.2 -0.3
-0.02
df/dt (Hz)

1350MW 50 0.1
df/dt (Hz)

-0.04 1500MW
Frequency (Hz)

-0.04 49.8 0
1800MW
df/dt (Hz/s)

-0.06 -0.06 2300MW 49.6 -0.1

2800MW
-0.08 -0.08
1 2 3 3200MW 49.4 -0.2
H= 1.0s
-0.1 49.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -0.3
Time (s) 50
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8: Under-frequency Relay Model including 6-step 49.8 0

df/dt (Hz/s)

load shedding. 49.6

The author used an exceptional loss of power infeed to trigger 49.4
-0.1

a substantial frequency excursion in the Test System; this H= 5.0s

49.2 -0 2
system frequency disturbance activates the UFLS. This 50.2 0.05
exceptional loss risk deviates system frequency more than H= 10.0s
Frequency (Hz)

50
741 mHz and persist for more than 5 cycles (see Figure 9 and 0
df/dt (Hz/s)

Case I Figure 10). Several UFLS schemes on demand side of 49.8 -0.05
Tail area are tested, loads: L4, L5, L6, L7 (see Figure 2), 49.6 -0.1
results of system frequency and ROCOF are shown on Figure
10 (load shedding Case I: 0 GW, II: 2.8260GW, III: 6.2940 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20
Time (s) Time (s)
GW, IV: 5.7520GW, V: 7.3660GW). A cluster of wind farms
is connected on bus 3 at the Tail-Right area and is generating Figure 11: System Frequency and ROCOF considering
30 GW and the control loop for releasing "hidden" inertia of different UFLS schemes: Wind Integration.
The inertial control has a substantial impact on system
performance. The short term impact is delivery of extra power
from WT with substantially reduces the ROCOF, allowing
time for the active governors to respond (see Figure 11).
Increasing the capability of WT to release of hidden inertia
helps to delay the UFLS. However, the frequency response
provided by synthetic inertia might not completely avoid
UFLS. Reducing the amount of synthetic inertia reduces the
recovery effect but frequency support provided by wind
turbines is reduced as well. Results demonstrate UFLS helps
to reduce the negative recovery effect caused by synthetic
inertia and increase security level during extreme loss power
infeed.
4 Conclusions
This paper is presents simulations results that provide ideas
about the potential impact of synthetic inertia on wind
turbines based on full-converter on the under-frequency
protection/control schemes during the recovery period after
system frequency disturbance happen. The substantial impact
of synthetic inertia is on system inertial response: (a) the extra
power delivered from WT can substantially reduces the
ROCOF (b) it provides time for the active governors to
respond, however a coordination between controllers looks
desirable (c) increasing synthetic inertia helps to delay the
UFLS (d) synthetic inertia might not completely avoid UFLS,
(e) UFLS helps to reduce the negative recovery effect caused
by synthetic inertia. The main contribution of this paper is to
demonstrate (based on simulations) recovery period of under-
frequency transient on future power systems that integrate
synthetic inertia capability not completely avoid worse
scenarios in terms of UFLS.
References
[1] J. B. Ekamayake, N. Jenkins, and G. Strbac, "Frequency Response
From Wind Turbines," Wind Engineering, vol. 32, pp. 537-586, 2008.
[2] J. Ekanayake and N. Jenkins, "Comparison of the response of doubly
fed and fixed-speed induction generator wind turbines to changes in
network frequency," Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on, vol.
19, pp. 800-802, 2004.
[3] G. Lalor, A. Mullane, and M. O'Malley, "Frequency control and wind
turbine technologies," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20,
pp. 1905-1913, 2005.
[4] N. Plc. (2010). National Grid, Grid Code Frequency Response
Working Group: "Simulated Inertia". Available:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gridcode/workinggr
oups/freqresp/
[5] S. Seman and R. Sakki. (2011). Inertial response – generators and the
power electronics. Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2011/active_power
_control_workshop/seman.pdf
[6] GE. (2009). WindINERTIA Control fact sheet. Available:
http://www.ge-
energy.com/products_and_services/products/wind_turbines/index.jsp
[7] J. Morren, S. W. H. de Haan, W. L. Kling, and J. A. Ferreira, "Wind
turbines emulating inertia and supporting primary frequency control,"
Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 21, pp. 433-434, 2006.
[8] S. Wachtel and A. Beekmann, "Contribution of Wind Energy
Converters with Inertia Emulation to frequency control and frequency
stability in Power Systems," presented at the 8th International
Workshop on Large Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power
Systems as well as on Offshore Wind Farms, Bremen, Germany, 2009.
[9] I. Erlich and M. Wilch, "Primary frequency control by wind turbines,"
in Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, 2010, pp.
1-8.
[10] S. Yuan-zhang, Z. Zhao-sui, L. Guo-jie, and L. Jin, "Review on
frequency control of power systems with wind power penetration," in
Power System Technology (POWERCON), 2010 International
Conference on, 2010, pp. 1-8.
[11] M. Singh, M. Vyas, and S. Santoso, "Using generic wind turbine
models to compare inertial response of wind turbine technologies," in
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, 2010, pp. 1-
7.
[12] R. Doherty, A. Mullane, G. Nolan, D. J. Burke, A. Bryson, and M.
O'Malley, "An Assessment of the Impact of Wind Generation on
System Frequency Control," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 25, pp. 452-460, 2010.
[13] L. Ruttledge and D. Flynn, "System-wide inertial response from fixed
speed and variable speed wind turbines," in Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, 2011, pp. 1-7.
[14] I. Erlich, W. Winter, and A. Dittrich, "Advanced grid requirements for
the integration of wind turbines into the German transmission system,"
in Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2006. IEEE, 2006, p.
7 pp.
[15] D. Gautam, L. Goel, R. Ayyanar, V. Vittal, and T. Harbour, "Control
Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Reduced Inertia Due to Doubly Fed
Induction Generators on Large Power Systems," Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 26, pp. 214-224, 2011.
[16] GB. (2009). Security and Quality of Supply Standard (SQSS).
Available:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Codes/gbsqsscode/
[17] J. Machowski, J. W. Bialek, and J. R. Bumby, Power system dynamics
: stability and control, 2nd ed. ed. Oxford: John Wiley, 2008.
[18] N. W. Miller, K. Clark, and M. Shao, "Frequency responsive wind
plant controls: Impacts on grid performance," in Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, 2011, pp. 1-8.
[19] N. Miller, K. Clark, and R. Walling, "WindINERTIA: Controlled
Inertial Response from GE Wind Turbine Generators," presented at the
45th Annual Minnesota Power Systems Conference, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 2009.
[20] S. Wachtel and A. Beekmann, "Contribution of Wind Energy
Converters with Inertia Emulation to Frequency Control and
Frequency Stability in Power Systems," presented at the 8th
International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power
into Power Systems as well as on Transmission Networks for Offshore
Wind Farms, Bremen, Germany, 2009.
[21] A. Teninge, C. Jecu, D. Roye, S. Bacha, J. Duval, and R. Belhomme,
"Contribution to frequency control through wind turbine inertial
energy storage," Renewable Power Generation, IET, vol. 3, pp. 358-
370, 2009.
[22] J. R. Kristoffersen and P. Christiansen, "Horns Rev offshore windfarm:
its main controller and remote control system," Wind Engineering, vol.
27, pp. 351-359, 2003.
[23] EirGrid. (2008). EirGrid Grid Code, Version 3.2. Available:
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/gridcode/
[24] DIgSILENT, "DIgSILENT PowerFactory," 14.0.524.2 ed.
Gomaringen, Germany, 2011.
[25] "IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for
Power System Stability Studies," IEEE Std 421.5-1992, p. 0_1, 1992.
[26] P. M. Anderson and M. Mirheydar, "An adaptive method for setting
underfrequency load shedding relays," Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 7, pp. 647-655, 1992.
[27] F. Gonzalez-Longatt, "Dynamical Model of Variable Speed WECS:
Attend of Simplification," presented at the Proceeding of Fifth
International Workshop on Large Scale Integration of Wind Power and
Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind Farms, Glasgow, Scotland,
2006.
[28] S. Achilles and M. Poller. Direct drive synchronous machine models
for stability assessment of wind farm. Available:
http://www.digsilent.de/Consulting/Publications/DirectDrive_Modelin
g.pdf
[29] F. González-Longatt, P. Wall, and V. Terzija, "A Simplified Model for
Dynamic Behavior of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator for
Direct Drive Wind Turbines," in IEEE PES Trondheim PowerTech
2011, Trondheim, Norway, 2011.