This article was downloaded by: [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy]

On: 20 March 2012, At: 14:46

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable

Energy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gsol20

Reactive power management and

control of distant large-scale grid-
connected offshore wind power farms
a
M. EL-Shimy
a
Electric Power and Machines Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Ain Shams University, 11517, Cairo, Egypt

Available online: 20 Mar 2012

To cite this article: M. EL-Shimy (2012): Reactive power management and control of distant large-
scale grid-connected offshore wind power farms, International Journal of Sustainable Energy,
DOI:10.1080/14786451.2012.660156

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2012.660156

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy
iFirst, 2012, 1–17

Reactive power management and control of distant large-scale

grid-connected offshore wind power farms
M. EL-Shimy*
Electric Power and Machines Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University,
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

11517 Cairo, Egypt

(Received 24 May 2011; final version received 13 January 2012)

Reactive power management and control of distant large-scale offshore wind power farms connected to
the grid through high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) transmission cable are presented in this paper.
The choice of the transmission option is based on the capacity of the considered wind farm (WF) and
the distance to the onshore grid connection point. The WF is made up of identical doubly-fed induction
generators (DFIGs). Modelling and improved analysis of the effective reactive power capability of DFIGs
as affected by various operational constraints are provided. In addition, modelling and analysis of the
reactive power demands, balance, and control are presented. The minimum capacity and reactive power
settings for reactive power compensation required for the system are determined. Possibility of unity power
factor operation suggested by the German electricity association (VDEW) is investigated. A summary of
the main outcomes of the work presented in this paper is provided in the conclusions section.

Keywords: wind power; HVAC transmission; DFIG; reactive power capability; reactive power
management; voltage control

1. Introduction

The main functions of an electrical power system include transportation of the electrical power
from the generators to the loads. Voltage control refers to the task of keeping the node voltages
in the system within the required limits and of preventing any deviation from the nominal value
to become larger than the allowed values (Slootweg et al. 2005). It is mandatory that the voltage
is kept close to the nominal value and within an acceptable bandwidth (normally 5–10%) in the
whole power system. It is also important to remember that node voltage is a local quantity, in
contrast to system frequency, which is a global or system-wide quantity (Kundur 1994, Slootweg
et al. 2005). The voltage of a certain node can be controlled exclusively at that particular node
or in its direct vicinity. Transmission networks are characterised by high X/R ratio that results
in a high sensitivity of node voltage to reactive power changes. In contrast, distribution grids
are characterised by much lower X/R ratio with respect to transmission networks that results in

*Email: shimymb@yahoo.com

ISSN 1478-6451 print/ISSN 1478-646X online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2012.660156
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 M. EL-Shimy

lower sensitivity of the node voltage to reactive power changes; detailed comparison between the
transmission and distribution grids can be found in Slootweg et al. (2005).
Wind farms (WFs) that are large enough to be connected to the transmission system tend to be
erected in remote areas or offshore because of many technical and environmental issues. Given
that the node voltage is a local quantity, it can be difficult to control the voltage at these distant
places by the use of conventional power stations elsewhere in the grid. Therefore, wind turbines
have to have voltage control capabilities. The reason for any necessary additional measures for
voltage control is not that conventional power generation is replaced by wind power generation
as such, but that generation moves away from the vicinity of the load to a more distant location
(Slootweg et al. 2005).
Wind turbines have to have voltage control capabilities (Slootweg et al. 2005) and have to
contribute to voltage regulation in the power system (Matevosyan et al. 2005). Consequently, new
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

grid codes have been established (Tapia et al. 2001, Jauch et al. 2005, Matevosyan et al. 2005)
demanding new WFs to behave as conventional power plants. Main requirements established in
these new grid codes are the wind turbine low voltage ride through capability and reactive power
capability. The first specification aims to improve transient stability in a power system with a high
penetration of wind energy, while the second specification aims to support voltage control in such
a power system (Santos-Martin et al. 2008).
A vast majority of wind turbines that are currently being installed use one of the three main
types of electromechanical conversion systems (Slootweg et al. 2005): namely, constant-speed
type made up with squirrel-cage induction generator (SCIG), variable-speed type made up with
doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG), and the third type is called the direct-drive wind turbine
because it does not need a gearbox. The DFIG is the most employed generator in wind energy
nowadays (Li and Chen 2008, Santos-Martin et al. 2008, Spinato et al. 2009,Arabian-Hoseynabadi
et al. 2010, Jingjing et al. 2010). The SCIG can only consume reactive power, and the reactive
power exchange with the grid cannot be controlled. With an SCIG, rotor speed, active power
generation, and terminal voltage govern the reactive power exchange with the grid. Therefore,
SCIG-based wind turbines cannot be used for voltage control. By utilising DFIG reactive power
control capability, WFs composed of DFIGs can be used as a continuous reactive power source
to support the control of the system voltage with lower costs on the reactive power compensation
device (Pena et al. 1996a, Atkinson et al. 1997, Tapia et al. 2004, Jingjing et al. 2010).
As the wingspan and the height of the wind turbines have grown, it has become difficult to
acceptable onshore locations to erect these huge towers, especially in densely populated areas.
In addition, the wind speed offshore is potentially higher than onshore, which leads to a much
higher power production. Therefore, the interest in the utilisation of offshore wind power is
increasing significantly worldwide (Ackermann 2005, Li and Chen 2008, Spinato et al. 2009,
Arabian-Hoseynabadi et al. 2010, Jingjing et al. 2010). Countering the benefits of the offshore
option are the higher costs associated with offshore WFs.
For cabling to shore, either high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) or high-voltage direct
current (HVDC) connections could be used. For HVDC connections, there are two technical
options: line-commutated converter (LCC)-based HVDC and voltage source converter (VSC)-
based HVDC technologies. Significant technical, environmental, and economical issues for the
three transmission-to-shore options (i.e. HVAC, LCC HVDC, and VSC HVDC) are briefly
explained in Appendix 1. A vast majority of currently running offshore WFs have adopted an
AC alternative, and all those planned to be installed within the near future will use an AC solu-
tion (Ackermann 2005). The choice of HVAC option is based on the considered WF capacity
and distance to onshore grid connection point. In addition, previous studies show that the HVAC
option has some technical, environmental, and economic advantages over HVDC options (i.e.
LCC-based HVDC and VSC-based HVDC) for the considered capacity and distance as explained
in Appendix 1. As the size of future WFs and the distance to the shore is likely to increase, this
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 3

might be changed. Detailed comparison between these three standard transmission solutions is
obtained from Ackermann (2005), Barberis Negra et al. (2006), and de Alegría et al. (2009).
The reactive power management and control of distant large-scale offshore wind power farms
connected to the grid through an HVAC transmission cable are considered in this paper. The
considered WF is made up with DFIGs. Improved modelling and analysis of the effective reactive
power capability of DFIGs as affected by the optimal power-tracking (OPT) constraints and other
operational variables are provided. Reactive power requirements for the cable power transmission
systems are modelled and compared with the reactive power capability of the WF. Possibility of
unity power factor operation suggested by the Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft – the German
Electricity Association (VDEW), is investigated. Aggregate reactive power demand on the WF is
assessed such that the bus voltages remain within an acceptable bandwidth considering various
operational limits. In addition, the minimum capacity and reactive power settings for reactive
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

power compensation required for the system are determined.

2. Problem formulation

In this section, the equations for describing the performance of a long HVAC power transmission
line as affected by the aggregate power injections from DFIGs-based WF as well as other system
variables are derived. The aggregate reactive power demand on the WF is determined in order to
keep bus voltages with a predefined acceptable bandwidth. The aggregate active power generated
from the WF is determined based on the OPT curve of individual DFIG. The effective capability
limits of DFIGs are derived based on Santos-Martin et al. (2008). The generator-by-generator WF
model (Tapia et al. 2006) are used in order to allocate reactive power demand on individual DFIG
with the WF as well as determining the necessary reactive power compensator to be installed in
cases where the WF is not of sufficient reactive power to deliver the demanded reactive power. The
model is valid for both offshore and onshore installations. In the following equations, bold/italic
symbols are used to describe vector quantities while italic symbols are used to describe scalar
quantities. The nomenclature is shown in Tables 1–3.
Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the considered hypothetical system. The system
consists of an offshore WF made up with n-identical DFIG connected to the HVAC grid through a
long HVAC cable transmission line. The HVAC grid is considered as an infinite bus. The resistive
elements of the transmission line are neglected; which is an acceptable assumption, given that the
X/R ratio of HVAC lines is of high value (Slootweg et al. 2005).

Table 1. Nomenclature for the transmission line.

V1 Voltage at the WF bus (bus 1)

V2 Voltage at the grid interface bus (bus 2)
α Phase angle of V2
Zo Surge impedance of the transmission line
θ Electrical length of the transmission line
Po SIL of the line
VSE Voltage at the SE of a transmission line = V2
VRE Voltage at the RE of a transmission line = V1
IRE RE current of a transmission line
PRE RE active power
QRE RE reactive power
(V1 /V2 )cr Critical voltage ratio for voltage stability
 4 M. EL-Shimy

Table 2. Nomenclature for individual DFIG.

i Index for the ith DFIG in the WF

PTi Total active power injection from the ith DFIG
QTi Total reactive power injection from the ith DFIG
QT Total reactive power production from a DFIG
max
QTi Maximum reactive power of the ith DFIG in the WF
min
QTi Minimum reactive power of the ith DFIG in the WF
ref
QTi Reference setting for the DFIG reactive power controller
PT Total active power production from a DFIG
PTi Total active power production from the ith DFIG in the WF
si Slip of the ith DFIG in the WF
Kopt− i Optimisation constant for the ith WTG in the WF
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Is Stator current
Ir Rotor current
Vs Stator voltage
s Slip
xs Stator reactance
xm Magnetising reactance
xσ s Stator leakage reactance
rs Stator resistance
E Internal e.m.f. of a DFIG
Ps Stator active power injection
Qs Stator reactive power injection
δ The load angle which is the phase angle of E with respect to the phase angle of Vs
Qsmin Stator reactive power limit; the minimum acceptable reactive power for stable operation
QTmin Minimum reactive power limit of a DFIG
QT+ | Is Positive roots of the stator current locus
QT− | Is Negative roots of the stator current locus
QT+ | Ir Positive roots of the rotor current locus
QT− | Ir Negative roots of the rotor current locus
QTmax | tracking Maximum reactive power limit of a DFIG considering OPT
QTmax | rated slip Maximum reactive power limit of a DFIG under a constant slip equals to the rated slip
PTmax Maximum total active power production from a DFIG
opt
PT Total power production from a DFIG associated with the OPT range

Table 3. Nomenclature for the WF.

Qc Reactive power injection from the wind farm reactive power compensation
PWF Active power injection
DFIG
QWF Total reactive power injections from the DFIGs comprising the WF
QWF Wind farm reactive power injection, QWF = QWF DFIG + Q
c
φWF Power factor angle of the WF
D |P
QWF Reactive power demand on the WF at a given output active power (or rotor slip) in order to keep the bus
WF
voltage within the acceptable bandwidth
max
PWF Maximum power production from the WF
max
QDFIGs Upper limit of the aggregate effective capability region of the DFIGs comprising the WF
min
QDFIGs Lower limit of the aggregate effective capability region of the DFIGs comprising the WF
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 5
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure 1. A schematic of the considered hypothetical system.

Based on the fundamental modelling of long HVAC lines (Kundur 1994, Cutsem and Vournas
1998) and Appendix 2, the following voltage relation is valid for the considered hypothetical
system:
 
(PWF − jQWF )
V 2 = V 1 cos θ − jZo sin θ . (1)
V ∗1
The WF output power equations can be easily derived from Equation (1). Through mathematical
treatment of Equation (1) and considering the phase angle of the voltage of bus 1 (the WF output
voltage) as a reference, the voltage solutions of Equation (1) are found to take the form:
 
  
V1 1  1 PWF 1 PWF PWF 2 2
= + f (θ ) tan φWF ± + f (θ ) tan φWF − f (θ ), (2)
V2 cos θ 2 Po 4 Po Po

where f (θ ) = sin θ cos θ

Equation (2) relates the WF output active power at various values of the WF power factor angle
(φWF ) to its output voltage. The plot of Equation (2) is known as PV curves that are frequently
used in the assessment of voltage stability of power systems. Stable parts of these PV curves
correspond to the positive sign of the inner root in Equation (2).
In order to relate the WF output active power (PWF ) and voltage to the WF reactive power
(QWF ), the following equation is derived based on Equation (1):

 2    2    2
QWF V1 1 V1 1 PWF
= ∓ − . (3)
Po V2 tan θ V2 sin2 θ Po

The negative sign of the root in Equation (3) determines the stable operation range of the line.
Equation (3) can be used to determine the reactive power demand on the WF under various output
active power production (QWF D
|PWF ). This is in order to keep the wind farm bus voltage within
a predefined acceptable bandwidth. The acceptable voltage bandwidth is usually in the range of
0.95–1.05 p.u. The reactive power of the WF is called the aggregate reactive power (QWF ) because
it is the summation of the reactive power output from all DFIG within the WF. The reactive power
of a DFIG (QT ) can be controlled by controlling its rotor current through the rotor-side converter
(Santos-Martin et al. 2008, Jingjing et al. 2010). If this reactive power demand on the WF is
outside the capability limits of the DFIGs, then additional reactive power compensation is needed
to keep the WF bus voltage within the acceptable limits.
 6 M. EL-Shimy

Based on the generator-by-generator WF model (Tapia et al. 2006, Jingjing et al. 2010), Equa-
tions (4)–(7) are derived based on a simple control logic and can be used to allocate the WF
reactive power demand on individual DFIGs that comprise the WF according to the individual
generator slip (or the wind speed) and to determine the need of reactive power compensation:

n 
n n 
If QTi ≤ QWF |PWF ≤
min D
QTi then Qc = 0 and QTi = QWF
max ref D max
QTi QTi max
, (4)
i=1 i=1 i=1


n 
n
D
If QWF |PWF > max
QTi then Qc = QWF
D
|PWF − max
QTi ref
and QTi = QTi
max
, (5)
i=1 i=1


n 
n
D
If QWF |PWF < min
QTi then Qc = QWF
D
|PWF − min
QTi ref
and QTi = QTi
min
, (6)
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

i=1 i=1


n
DFIG
QWF = QTi . (7)
i=1

Equations (4)–(7) can be used to allocate the required reactive power demand (QWF D
|PWF ) on
individual DFIGs that comprise the WF. In addition, these equations can be used to determine
the need of reactive power compensation. Capacitive compensations (Qc > 0) are needed in the
situations described by Equation (5) while inductive compensations (Qc < 0) are needed in the
situation of Equation (6).
The value of the WF aggregate active power production (PWF ) is related to the rotor speed (or
the wind speed) by the OPT curve of the wind turbine generator (WTG) (Pena et al. 1996b). For
each DFIG in the WF, this curve can be approximated by

PTi = Kopt (1 − si )3 . (8)

The aggregate active power production is given by


n
PWF = PTi . (9)
i=1

The maximum reactive power limits of a DFIG can be determined from the generator’s capa-
bility curve. For a DFIG and based on Santos-Martin et al. (2008) and Jingjing et al. (2010), the
total reactive power can be expressed as a function of stator current (Is ), rotor current (Ir ), the
total active power (PT ), the stator voltage (Vs ), and the rotor slip (s) by Equations (10) and (11).
Equations (10) and (11) are derived under the condition that the stator-side converter is working at
unity power factor, which is a normal situation in most commercial DFIG systems (Santos-Martin
et al. 2008, Jingjing et al. 2010). Hence, the total reactive power is equal to the stator reactive
power. The stator current locus and rotor current locus are given, respectively, by (Santos-Martin
et al. 2008, Jingjing et al. 2010)
  2
PT
QT = ± (3Vs Is ) − 2 , (10)
(1 − s)
 2     2  2
Vs xm PT
QT = −3 ± 3 Vs Ir − . (11)
xs xs (1 − s)
Equations (10) and (11) in conjunction with the minimum total stator reactive power constrain
(Santos-Martin et al. 2008, Jingjing et al. 2010) shown in Equation (12) can be used to determine
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 7

the reactive power capability of a DFIG under a given set of operating conditions (PT , Vs , Is ,
Ir , s). A proof for Equation (12) and explanations of the steady-state stability limits are given
Appendix 3.
V2
QTmin = −3 s . (12)
xs
The capability limits of the DFIG are obtained under rated conditions using Equations (10)–(12)
where the value of the slip is kept constant at rated conditions (Santos-Martin et al. 2008, Jingjing
et al. 2010); however, under normal operation of a DFIG, the output active power is dependent
on the value of the slip as depicted from Equation (8) that represents the OPT characteristics.
Therefore, the OPT characteristics of DFIGs should be considered in constructing the capability
curve for improving its accuracy. The effective capability limits, as introduced in this paper, are
determined such that the slip in Equations (10) and (11) is set according to the OPT characteristics
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

presented in Equation (8).

3. The study system

The study system (Figure 1) consists of a 50 Hz large-scale offshore WF with a capacity of

300 MW, connected to the grid via a 100 km submarine cable transmission system. Based on the
considered WF capacity and cable length, the HVAC option is selected for the cabling-to-shore
system. Based on Table A1, and Figure A1, it is expected that the HVAC option will be more
economically and technically viable in comparison with the HVDC options for the considered
wind power system. In addition, a vast majority of currently running offshore WFs have adopted
an AC alternative, and all those planned to be installed within the near future will use an AC
solution (Ackermann 2005). Therefore, the selection of the HVAC option for the considered WF
is supported by the current preferable choice for cabling-to-shore systems. The WF is made up
of 200 DFIG each of 1.5 MW rated active power. The ratings and the parameters of the DFIG
are listed in Table 4, and they are based on Jingjing et al. (2010). The WF is connected to the
utility grid via a 230 kV HVAC submarine cable. Parameters of the transmission line are based
on Kundur (1994). The selected transmission voltage is based on the voltage of the main unified
grid network in Egypt, which is 220 kV. The surge impedance loading (SIL) and phase shift for
the cable are 26.2, 2019 MW, and 0.006558 rad/km, respectively.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Reactive power capability of DFIG

Equations (10)–(12) are used to construct the reactive power capability limits curve of the DFIG
with data shown in Table 4 and to study the effect of various variables on reactive power capability
of the DFIG.

Table 4. DFIG ratings and parameters.

Apparent power 1.667 MVA Rated slip −0.3

Active power 1.5 MW Stator resistance 0.001692 
Stator voltage 690 V Stator leakage reactance 0.03692 
Stator current 805.3 A Magnetising reactance 1.4568 
Rotor current 743 A Rotor resistance 0.002423 
Initial slip 0.3 Rotor leakage reactance 0.03579 
 8 M. EL-Shimy
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure 2. DFIG capability limits under rated conditions of currents, stator voltage, and rotor speed.

Figure 2 illustrates the DFIG capability limits and the capability region (the shaded area)
obtained under rated conditions of currents, stator voltage, and slip. In this figure, the effect of the
OPT is not considered. This is to show some misleading behaviour of DFIGs when the OPT is
not taken into consideration. In Figure 2, QT+ | Is and QT− | Is , respectively, are plots of the positive
and negative roots of the stator current locus represented by Equation (10), and QT+ | Ir and QT− | Is ,
respectively, are plots of the positive and negative roots of the rotor current locus represented by
Equation (11).
It is depicted from Figure 2 that the boundaries of the capability region (the shaded area) are
limited by the positive root of the rotor current locus (Equation (11)), the minimum reactive power
(Equation (12)), and the rated active power of the WTG. Clearly, the reactive power capability
of the DFIG is highly related to the rated rotor current and can be increased by increasing it;
however, increasing the rotor rated current will increase the overall cost of the WTG system due
to increase of the ratings of the machine and the electronic converter.
The estimated capability limits of Figure 2 are calculated under rated rotor speed (Jingjing
et al. 2010); however, the active power production from a DFIG is dependent on the rotor slip (as
shown in Figure 3) through the OPT characteristics represented by Equation (8). Therefore, the
accuracy of the method used to construct the capability limits can be enhanced by considering the

Figure 3. Effective reactive power capability limits.

 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 9

slip-power interrelation of DFIG. Figure 3 illustrates the effective reactive power capability limits
and the effective capability region (the shaded area) of the DFIG considering rated conditions of
stator voltage, stator current, and rotor current as well as the slip dependency on the active power
generated.
Figure 3 indicates that the maximum reactive power curve (QTmax |tracking) is slightly lower in
comparison with the curve obtained under rated slip (QTmax |rated slip). In addition, the effective
minimum active power production, which is corresponding to the initial slip, is also shown in
Figure 3, and its value is 0.234 MW. The maximum reactive power limit decreases with the
increase of the active power production. This, for the given DFIG, limits its maximum reactive
power production to 0.002 MVAR under rated conditions of active power production and stator
voltage. Therefore, the reactive power capability range is mainly inductive, as shown in Figure 3,
under full active power production. Within the effective capability region, the reactive power
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

production or absorption of the DFIG can be regulated by controlling its rotor current.
The impact of stator voltage on the effective reactive power capability of the DFIG is demon-
strated in Figure 4. Figure 4(a) shows the effective capability region as affected by stator voltage
variations for the acceptable voltage bandwidth. In Figure 4(b), the relation between QTmax and Vs
is shown. These figures are obtained using Equations (8) and (10)–(12) with the stator voltage
being changed from 0.95–1.05 p.u.
It is depicted from Figure 4(a) that the magnitude of minimum reactive power limits increases
with the increase in the stator voltage regardless of the output active power. Based on Equation
(12) and Figure 4(a), the minimum reactive power limit is independent of the active power pro-
duction and its value is constant for a constant stator voltage. Its value is −0.863, −0.956, and
−1.054 MVAR at a p.u. stator voltage of 0.95, 1.00, and 1.05 V, respectively. The maximum reac-
tive power limits depend on both the stator voltage and the output active power or the rotor slip.
The output active power and the rotor slip are dependent variables and related by the OPT curve
defined in Equation (8) and Figure 4(a). It is depicted from Figure 4(a) and (b) that regardless of
the stator voltage, the increase in the output active power reduces the maximum reactive power
limits. For low output active power, such as 0.2PTmax , the increase of the stator voltage reduces
the maximum reactive power limits; however, at a high output active power such as 0.8PTmax ,
increase of the stator voltage increases the maximum reactive power limits. With the DFIG deliv-
ering its maximum output power, the maximum reactive power limit is negative (i.e. inductive)
at low stator voltage, for example, the maximum reactive power limit is −0.027 MVAR at a sta-
tor voltage of 0.95 p.u. An increase in the stator voltage results in an increase in the maximum
reactive power limit. The maximum reactive power limit becomes capacitive at higher stator
voltage, for example, it is 0.002 MVAR at unity voltage and 0.018 MVAR at a stator voltage of
1.05 p.u.

4.2. WF: grid interaction

The performance of the cable connecting the WF and the grid is simulated through the PV curves
represented by Equation (2) considering WF power factor variations as shown in Figure 5. The
minimum and maximum voltage limits of bus 1 (the WF bus) and the critical voltage line ((V1 /V2 )cr )
for voltage stability as well as the relative value of the WF-rated active power relative to the SIL
max
of the line (PWF /Po ) are shown in Figure 5.
It is well known that the upper part of any PV curve is corresponding to stable operation while
the lower part indicates voltage instability situations. The transition point between the voltage
stability and voltage instability curves is the critical conditions of voltage level and loading. The
entire PV curve is highly dependent on the WF power factor. A unity voltage magnitude for the
infinite bus voltage is considered in the subsequent analysis.
 10 M. EL-Shimy
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure 4. Impact of stator voltage level on DFIG capability. (a) Effective capability regions and (b) QTmax /Vs curves.

According to the VDEW, a unity power factor operation for WFs is recommended (Matevosyan
et al. 2005). The performance of both lines under unity power factor operation is shown in
Figure 5. From voltage stability point of view, the unity power factor operation is acceptable.
From the reactive power capability point of view, it is possible according to Figure 4 to run
the DFIG under the unity power factor with the stator voltage being equal to 1 p.u. or higher;
however, low stator voltage limits the capability of the DFIG to run at the unity power factor
during high-output power production. Based on Figure 4(b), operation under the lagging power
factor (reactive power absorption) is only available with stator voltage less than 0.99 p.u. and the
rated active power production.
Equation (2) is used to determine the WF bus voltage (assuming an infinite bus running at a
unity voltage level) as a function of the active power injected from the WF to the system under the
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 11
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure 5. PV curves for the cable.

Figure 6. Voltage performance under unity power factor operation.

unity power factor operation and the results are shown in Figure 6. These results are also shown
in Figure 5.
It is depicted from Figure 6 that the upper voltage limit is always violated over the entire range of
the active power output from the WF. Therefore, an inductive compensation is required. Thyristor-
controlled reactors (TCRs) would be an appropriate compensation for cable-based installations.
The reactive power demand on the WF can be determined from Equation (3) such that the
voltage remains within the acceptable bandwidth. In this example, this reactive power demand is
compared with the aggregate reactive power capability of the DFIGs in order to size the reactive
power compensation where it is needed. Figure 7 shows the demanded reactive power required
to keep the WF bus voltage within the acceptable bandwidth. In Figure 7, the upper limit of the
max
aggregate effective capability region of the DFIGs is denoted by QDFIGs while the lower limit is
min
denoted by QDFIGs .
Cable-based transmission systems require inductive reactive power compensation for all oper-
ating conditions as depicted from Figures 6 and 7. TCRs can be used to provide the required
reactive compensation for cable-based installations. The reactive power setting of the TCRs can
be determined (based on Figure 7) as the difference between the minimum reactive power demand
on the WF at 1.05 p.u voltage and the maximum inductive capability of the WF at the same voltage
 12 M. EL-Shimy
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure 7. Reactive power demand on the WF and compensation requirements.

level. Operation of the WF at the 1.05 p.u voltage level corresponds to its maximum inductive
power capability limit as illustrated in Figure 4. The capacity of the TCR needed for the offshore
system is found to be 373 MVAR.
Possible reduction of the required inductive compensation can be achieved by using HVDC
transmission systems for offshore WFs (Barberis Negra et al. 2006); however, the final decision
should be based on a detailed techno-economical analysis (Ackermann 2005, Barberis Negra
et al. 2006). This kind of analysis is retained as a future work. It remains to be seen how technical
development will affect the economics of the different solutions in the future.

5. Conclusions

The reactive power management and control of distant large-scale offshore wind power installa-
tions connected to the grid through HVAC cable transmission systems are considered in this paper.
In addition, improved modelling and analysis of reactive power requirements in DFIG-based WFs
connected to the grid through HVAC transmission systems are presented.
It is found that four lines bind the effective capability region of a DFIG. These lines represent
the maximum reactive power curve, the minimum reactive power line, the minimum active power
line, and the maximum active power line. The maximum reactive power limit depends on the
stator voltage, the output active power, and the OPT characteristics. This limit decreases with
the increase of the active power production. The steady-state stability determines the minimum
reactive power limit. This limit is highly dependent on the stator voltage and independent of the
active power production. In addition, its value is constant for a constant stator voltage. Under
rated active power production, the reactive power capability range is mainly inductive.
The effects of stator voltage variations on the effective capability region are determined. It is
found that the magnitude of minimum reactive power limit increases with the increase in the stator
voltage regardless of the output active power. Regardless of the stator voltage, the increase in the
output active power reduces the maximum reactive power limit. For low output active power, the
increase of the stator voltage reduces the maximum reactive power limit; however, at high active
power production, increase of the stator voltage increases the maximum reactive power limit.
With the considered DFIG delivering its maximum output power, the maximum reactive power
limit is negative (i.e. inductive) at low stator voltage. The increase in the stator voltage results in
an increase in the maximum reactive power limit. The maximum reactive power limit becomes
capacitive at higher stator voltage.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 13

The performance of the transmission line connecting the WF to the grid is simulated through
the PV curves. Analysis of the unity power factor operation of the WF revealed that, from the
voltage stability point of view, the unity power factor operation is acceptable. From the reactive
power capability point of view, it is possible to run the DFIG under the unity power factor with the
stator voltage being equal to 1 p.u. or higher; however, low stator voltage limits the capability of
the DFIG to run at a unity power factor during high-output power production. For the considered
DFIG, operation under the lagging power factor (reactive power absorption) is only available with
stator voltage less than 0.99 p.u. and the rated active power production.
Aggregate reactive power demands on the WF are assessed such that the bus voltages remain
within the acceptable bandwidth considering various operational limits. It is found that, cable-
based transmission systems require inductive reactive compensation for all operating conditions.
The minimum capacity and the reactive power setting of the required compensator, such as TCR,
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

are determined based on the lower limit of the aggregate effective capability region of the DFIGs
and the minimum demanded reactive power.
Future work would include techno-economical analysis of HVAC alternative transmission sys-
tems in comparison with HVDC for offshore systems and dynamic performance analysis of WFs,
including the dynamic characteristics of the reactive power compensation.

References

Ackermann, T., 2005. Transmission systems for offshore wind farms. In: T. Ackermann, ed. Wind power in power systems,
Chapter 22. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 479–503.
de Alegría, I.M., et al., 2009. Transmission alternatives for offshore electrical power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 13, 1027–1038.
Arabian-Hoseynabadi, H., Oraee, H. and Tavner, P.J., 2010. Wind turbine productivity considering electrical subassembly
reliability. Renewable Energy, 35, 190–197.
Atkinson, D.J., Lakin, R.A. and Jones, R., 1997. A vector-controlled doubly-fed induction generator for a variable-speed
wind turbine application. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement & Control, 19, 2–12.
Barberis Negra, N., Todorovic, J. and Ackermann, T., 2006. Loss evaluation of HVAC and HVDC transmission solutions
for large offshore wind farms. Electric Power Systems Research, 76, 916–927.
Cutsem, T.V. and Vournas, C., 1998. Voltage stability of electric power systems. New York: Springer.
Jauch, C., et al., 2005. International comparison of requirements for connection of wind turbines to power systems. Wind
Energy, 8, 295–306.
Jingjing, Z., et al., 2010. Reactive power control of wind farm made up with doubly fed induction generators in distribution
system. Electric Power Systems Research, 80, 698–706.
Kundur, P., 1994. Power system stability and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Li, H. and Chen, Z., 2008. Overview of different wind generator systems and their comparisons. IET Renewable Power
Generation, 2, 123–138.
Matevosyan, J., Ackermann, T. and Bolik, S.M., 2005. Chapter 7. Technical regulations for the interconnection of wind
farms to the power system. In: T. Ackermann, ed. Wind power in power systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
115–142.
Pena, R.S., Clare, J.C. and Asher, G.M., 1996a. Vector control of a variable speed doubly-fed induction machine for wind
generation systems. EPE Journal, 6, 60–67.
Pena, R., Clare, J.C. and Asher, G.M., 1996b. Doubly fed induction generator using back-to-back PWM converters and
its application to variable-speed wind-energy generation. IEE Proceedings – Electrical Power Applications, 143,
231–241.
Santos-Martin, D., Arnaltes, S. and Rodriguez Amenedo, J.L., 2008. Reactive power capability of doubly fed asynchronous
generators. Electric Power Systems Research, 78, 1837–1840.
Slootweg, J.G., et al., 2005. Chapter 19. Wind power and voltage control. In: T. Ackermann, ed. Wind power in power
systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 413–432.
Spinato, F., et al., 2009. Reliability of wind turbine subassemblies. IET Renewable Power Generation, 3, 387–401.
Tapia, A., et al., 2001. Berasategui. Reactive power control of a wind farm made up with doubly fed induction generators
(I). In: Power Tech Proceedings, 2001 IEEE Porto, Vol. 4, 10–13 September 2001, Porto, Portugal.
Tapia, A., Tapia, G. and Ostolaza, J.X., 2004. Reactive power control of wind farms for voltage control applications.
Renewable Energy, 29, 377–392.
Tapia, G., Tapia, A. and Ostolaza, J.X., 2006. Two alternative modeling approaches for the evaluation of wind farm active
and reactive power performances. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 21, 909–920.
 14 M. EL-Shimy

Appendix 1.

The technical capabilities of the three standard transmission solutions are compared in Table A1. It should be noted
that the technical capabilities of each system could probably be improved by adding additional equipment to the overall
system solution. Based on Table A1 and Ackermann (2005), the following comments on the technical, environmental, and
economical characteristics and capabilities of the three transmission options can be stated.
The maximum rating for a three-phase AC cable depends mainly on the voltage level, the length of the cable, and
the compensation. For example, the rating of 245 kV cable is 350 MW over a maximum length of 100 km, or 300 MW
over 150–200 km (Ackermann 2005). Bipolar cable pairs for VSC-based HVDC, in comparison, can have a maximum
rating of 600 MW for a voltage level of ±150 kV, independent of the cable length. For LCC-based HVDC, the cable and
converter ratings are not limiting factors regarding the maximum capacity (<1000 MW) of the offshore WFs that are
presently under discussion.
Generally, for the same rating of an offshore WF, a larger number of cables are required with the HVAC option in
comparison with the HVDC option. In addition, with the LCC HVDC option, the number of required cables is less than
those associated with the VSC HVDC option. The number of required cables will influence the total investment costs;
however, the overall system reliability may increase with increasing the number of cables.
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

In HVAC-based systems, the losses are highly dependent on the length and the characteristics of the AC cables. While
in HVDC-based systems, there is a very limited correlation with the length of the DC cable and the major losses are
associated with the converter stations. The LCC HVDC stations show high efficiency in comparison with VSC HVDC
stations. Generally, there is a distance X where the distance-related HVAC losses reach similar levels to those of HVDC
links. For distances larger than X, losses in the HVDC solution are lower than those for HVAC links. The distance X
depends on the system configuration (e.g. on cable type and voltage levels) but is, however, usually longer for VSC HVDC
than for LCC HVDC technology.
From the grid impact point of view, both HVDC technologies have a significant advantage over an HVAC solution;
HVDC technologies significantly reduce the fault contribution to the onshore power network. From the environmental
impact point of view, three-core AC submarine cables have a lower magnetic field than DC submarine cables; however,
AC solutions may require more cables than DC solutions. Hence, it is not directly obvious which solution will have the
lowest environmental impact and is therefore very much case dependent.
The total system cost comprises investment costs and operating costs, including transmission losses and converter
losses. Investment costs change with rating and operating costs (i.e. losses) and with the distance from a strong network
connection point onshore. Therefore, the economic analysis has to be carried out based on specific cases. It remains to
be seen how technical development will affect the economics of the different solutions in the future. Advocates of VSC-
based HVDC solutions argue that cost reduction in power electronics will make this technology cheaper in the near future,
whereas HVAC advocates hope that a future increase in transmission voltage will provide similar benefits (Ackermann

Table A1. Technical capabilities of transmission solutions (Ackermann 2005).

Transmission solution

HVAC LCC-based HVDC VSC-based HVDC

The maximum available 200 MW at 150 kV; ∼ 1200 MW 350 MW; 500 MW
capacity per system 350 MW at 245 kV (announced)
Voltage level Up to 245 kV Up to ±500 kV Up to ±500 kV
Does the transmission Yes No No
capacity depend on the
distance?
Total system losses Depends on the distance 2–3% + offshore 4–6%
ancillary services losses
Does it have a black-start Yes No Yes
capability?
Level of faults High in comparison with Low in comparison with Low in comparison with
HVDC HVAC HVAC
Technical capability for Limited Limited Wide range of possibilities
network support
Are offshore substations Yes No Planned (2005)
on operation?
Space requirements for Small Capacity dependent; the Capacity dependent; the
offshore substations converter is larger than converter is smaller
VSC than LCC but larger
than HVAC substations
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 15
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure A1. Choice of transmission technology based on overall system economics (Ackermann 2005).

2005). Figure A1 shows a summary of some general economic conclusions based on WF capacities and distances to
onshore grid connection point of different transmission options (Ackermann 2005).

Appendix 2. Proof of equation (1)

The standard performance equations for a long AC transmission line (Kundur 1994, Cutsem and Vournas 1998), shown
in Figure A2, revealed that
VSE = VRE cos θ + jZo IRE sin θ , (A1)
where VSE is the voltage at the sending end (SE) of the line while VRE , and IRE are the receiving-end (RE) voltage and
current.
The RE power (PRE + jQRE ) is related to the RE current (IRE ) by
(PRE − jQRE )
IRE = . (A2)
V∗RE
Eliminating I RE from Equations (A1) using Equation (A2) and considering the power and current directions of the WF
as shown in Figure A2 result in
 
(PWF − jQWF )
VSE = VRE cos θ − jZo sin θ . (A3)
V∗RE
Using the bus voltage nomenclature shown in Figure 1, that is, V SE = V 2 and V RE = V 1 , Equation (A3) becomes
Equation (1).

Figure A2. An AC transmission line.

 16 M. EL-Shimy

Appendix 3. Proof of equation (12)

The steady-state equivalent circuit of the DFIG, shown in Figure A3(a), is shown in Figure A3(b). The stator voltage
equation derived from this equivalent circuit takes the form

Vs = −rs Is − j (xσ s + xm ) Is − jxm Ir . (A4)

Defining the generator internal electromotive force (e.m.f.) as E = jxm Ir and considering that the stator reactance xs equals
to the sum of the stator leakage reactance xσ s and the magnetising reactance xm . Substituting these values in Equation
(A4) results in Equation (A5) which is used to construct the stator equivalent circuit shown in Figure A3(c).

Vs = −rs Is − jxs Is − E. (A5)

Based on the stator equivalent circuit (Figure A3(c))

Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

(E − Vs )
Is = . (A6)
(rs + jxs )

The stator active and reactive power can be obtained using

Ps − jQs = 3V∗s Is . (A7)

Figure A3. DFIG: (a) assembly; (b) steady-state equivelent circuit; and (c) stator equivalent circuit.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 17
Downloaded by [Dr Mohamed EL-Shimy] at 14:46 20 March 2012

Figure A4. Stator power–angle characteristics (for E > Vs ).

Neglecting the stator resistance rs , substituting Equation (A6) into Equation (A7), taking the stator voltage phase angle
as a reference, and separating the real and imaginary parts of the resulting equation result in the following power–angle
relations
 
Vs E
Ps = 3 sin δ, (A8)
xs
   2
Vs E Vs
Qs = 3 cos δ − 3 . (A9)
xs xs

A generic plot for Equations (A8) and (A9) when E > Vs is shown in Figure A4. Based on Equation (A8) and Figure A4,
it is depicted that, at constant stator voltage and rotor current (or internal e.m.f.), the stator active power is proportional
to the sine of δ. The point of maximum power (PMP) is at δ = 90◦ , that is, when the stator voltage and the internal e.m.f.
are orthogonal. For steady-state stability, an increase in the active power production should be associated with an increase
in the load angle δ. Therefore, the PMP is the steady-state stability limit (Psmax = 3 (Vs E/xs )). In addition, the left-hand
side of the PMP defines the stable part of the power angle characteristics while the right-hand side of the PMP defines
the unstable part. In Figure A4, the stable parts and the unstable parts of the power–angle characteristics are illustrated
by black lines and grey line, respectively.
Based on Figure A4, from stability point of view, the stator reactive power limit is the minimum acceptable reactive
power for stable operation (Qsmin ). This reactive power limit is corresponding to the stator reactive power when the
generator delivers the maximum stator active power (i.e. at δ = 90◦ and Qsmin = −3(Vs2 /xs )). It is shown in Santos-
Martin et al. (2008) that the value of the stator reactive power limit Qsmin is not only the steady-state stability limit but also
the approximate dynamic stability limit. Under the considered unity power factor operation of the stator-side converter,
the total reactive power of the DFIG QT equals to its stator reactive power Qs . Therefore, the steady-state limit of reactive
power is given by Equation (12), that is, QTmin = −3Vs2 /xs .