CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO.

3, SUMMER 2019 163

Measurement-Based Characteristic Curves for

Voltage Stability and Control at the Point of
Interconnection of Wind Power Plants
Courbes caractéristiques basées sur les mesures
pour la stabilité et le contrôle de la tension au
point d’interconnexion des centrales éoliennes
Xiaodong Liang , Senior Member, IEEE, Md. Nasmus Sakib Khan Shabbir, Student Member, IEEE,
Nahidul Khan, and Xiaodi Yan
Abstract— In this paper, the measurement-based characteristic curves, reactive power–voltage ( Q–V ) curve
and reactive power–active power–voltage ( Q– P–V ) curve, are developed for voltage stability and control at
the point of interconnection (POI) between a wind power plant (WPP) and a utility grid. The procedure to
obtain an effective Q–V curve using the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) measurement data
is proposed. The SCADA data used in this paper were recorded in 2016 at the POI of a 27-MW WPP currently
in operation in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Each Q–V curve is created for a particular month
using the SCADA data corresponding to a very narrowly defined active power range, so the active power is
considered constant as the conventional Q–V curve concept. The MATLAB curve fitting toolbox is used to
realize the most fit mathematical equations for Q–V and Q– P–V curves. The developed Q–V and Q– P–V
curves can be used for the data-driven voltage control for WPPs; and the Q–V curves can also be used for
the voltage stability evaluation.
Résumé— Dans cet article, les courbes caractéristiques basées sur la mesure, la courbe puissance réactive-
tension (Q–T) et la courbe puissance réactive-puissance active-tension (Q–P–T) sont développées pour la stabilité
de la tension et le contrôle au point d’interconnexion (PI) entre une centrale éolienne (CE) et un réseau de
distribution. La procédure permettant d’obtenir une courbe Q–T efficace, à l’aide des données de mesure du
système de contrôle et d’acquisition de données (SCADA), est proposée. Les données SCADA utilisées dans ce
document ont été enregistrées en 2016 au PI d’un CE de 27 MW actuellement en opération à Terre-Neuve et
Labrador (TNL), Canada. Chaque courbe Q–T est créée pour un mois donné à l’aide des données SCADA
correspondant à une plage de puissance active très étroitement définie. La puissance active est donc considérée
comme constante comme dans le concept classique de courbe Q–T. L’outil d’ajustement de courbe MATLAB
est utilisé pour réaliser les équations mathématiques les mieux ajustées pour les courbes Q–T et Q–P–T. Les
courbes Q–T et Q–P–T développées peuvent être utilisées pour le contrôle de tension piloté par les données
pour les CE; Les courbes Q–T peuvent également être utilisées pour l’évaluation de la stabilité de la tension.
Index Terms— Measurement-based reactive power–voltage ( Q–V ) curve, reactive power–active power–
voltage ( Q– P–V ) curve, voltage control, voltage stability, wind farms.

I. I NTRODUCTION To evaluate voltage stability, various indices can be obtained

V OLTAGE stability and control are major power system
operation concerns, which become especially challeng-
ing when power grids are populated with large-scale renew-
able power generation, such as wind power plants (WPPs).
Manuscript received October 31, 2018; revised January 1, 2019; accepted
March 11, 2019. Date of current version July 23, 2019. This work was
supported in part by RDC Ignite R&D fund under Grant 5404-2059-101.
(Corresponding author: Xiaodong Liang.)
X. Liang, M. N. S. K. Shabbir, and X. Yan are with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, NL A1B 3X5, Canada (e-mail: xliang@mun.ca; mnskshabbir@
mun.ca; xy0516@mun.ca).
N. Khan is with the Energy Control Center, Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro, St. John’s, NL A1B 4K7, Canada (e-mail: nahidulkhan@nlh.nl.ca).
Associate Editor managing this paper’s review: Om Malik.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/CJECE.2019.2906007
0840-8688 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
through characteristic curves. The most commonly used char-
acteristic curves are real power–voltage (P–V ) and reactive
power–voltage (Q–V ) curves to determine the static voltage
stability limits of a power system [1]–[12]. Several other
characteristic curves have also been reported in the litera-
ture for voltage stability assessment, including the complex
power–voltage (S–V ) curve [10] and voltage–current (V –I )
curve to estimate the critical load value at the verge of
voltage collapse, which can be obtained using local measure-
ments of voltage and current magnitude without requiring
the knowledge of the Thevenin equivalent parameters of a
bus of interest [12], the active power–reactive power (P–Q)
curve to determine the maximal reactive margin at load
buses based on the bus impedance [13], [14], and the active
164 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO. 3, SUMMER 2019

power–reactive power–voltage (P–Q–V ) curve to assess the

voltage stability margins using the Thevenin equivalent circuit
parameters; it shows the boundary of the maximum active
power, maximum reactive power, and minimum voltage in
a 3-D diagram [15], [16]. In these indices, the voltage and
current are magnitudes. Fig. 1. Simplified power system.
Among different types of characteristic curves, the Q–V
curve has been widely accepted by utility companies, such as II. T HEORETICAL C HARACTERISTIC E QUATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Western Electric- A complex power system can be represented by an equiva-
ity Coordinating Council (WECC), due to its less convergence lent generation and a load in Fig. 1. The active power P and
problem and direct relationship with reactive power compensa- reactive power Q supplied to the load at the load bus can be
tion [1]. A measurement-based Q–V curve is proposed in [1]; expressed as follows [18]:
however, it requires to adjust certain system parameters and EV
to employ a special compensation method in the measurement P = sin(δ1 − δ2 ) (1)
X
procedure to obtain the Q–V curve, which restricts its practical 2
EV V
usage in power system operation. Q= cos(δ1 − δ2 ) − (2)
Primary reactive power reserves in a system include gen- X X
erators operating in voltage control mode, shunt capacitors, where E and δ1 are the magnitude and phase angle of the
and static VAR compensators. When a system does not have generator terminal voltage, V and δ2 are the magnitude and
adequate reactive reserves or transmission lines fail to deliver phase angle of the voltage at the load bus, and X is the
the required reactive power to the location in need, voltage magnitude of the branch reactance between the generation and
instability occurs. Real-time corrective actions are required, the load.
such as adding shunt capacitors as proposed in [17]. To achieve Rearranging (1) and (2), the following formulas are derived:
optimal control of the added shunt capacitors for the reactive PX
power compensation, a function of reactive power versus real sin(δ1 − δ2 ) = (3)
EV  
power and voltage magnitude (Q–P–V ) is utilized in [17]; V2 X
however, to obtain this function, the manufacturer’s charac- cos (δ1 − δ2 ) = Q+ . (4)
X EV
teristic curves of wind turbine generators are required, which
might not be readily available. Combining (3) and (4), the following relationship is derived:
In this paper, a measurement-based approach for creating    2
PX 2 QX+V 2
Q–V and Q–P–V curves at the point of interconnection (POI) + = 1. (5)
EV EV
of a WPP is proposed through curve and surface fitting
techniques using the supervisory control and data acquisi- Based on (5), the mathematical relationship of the active
tion (SCADA) field measurement data for a practical WPP. power, reactive power, and voltage magnitude at the load bus
There are no special requirements, such as adjusting system can be expressed as follows:
parameters or requests of wind turbine generator characteristic 1
from the manufacturer, in order to develop the curves. The P =± (E V )2 − (Q X + V 2 )2
X
proposed data-driven approach is based on the measurement P is a real number → (E V )2 − (Q X + V 2 )2 ≥ 0 (6)
data during the system’s normal operation. One advantage of 1 1
the measurement-based characteristic curve is not to rely on Q = − V2 ± (E V )2 − (P X)2
X X
the power-flow simulation, and thus, the results are not affected Q is a real number → (E V )2 − (P X)2 ≥ 0. (7)
by the accuracy of the computer simulation model. Field
measurements reflect the properties of individual components There is a plus or minus sign associated with (6) and (7);
in real life; the generated mathematical functions and curves however, only the positive sign is chosen in each equation.
can be directly used in voltage stability assessment of the POI Therefore, the derived final mathematical functions are
bus and/or implemented in the voltage control actions. 1
This paper is arranged as follows. In Section II, mathe- P = (E V )2 − (Q X + V 2 )2
X
matical derivation based on the fundamental power system (E V )2 ≥ (Q X + V 2 )2 (8)
theory is developed to show the relationship between the 1 2 1
active power, reactive power, and bus voltage magnitude. Q=− V + (E V )2 − (P X)2
X X
In Section III, the measurement-based Q–V curve approach
(E V )2 ≥ (P X)2 . (9)
is proposed using the SCADA data of a WPP currently
in operation in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada, However, to determine P–V , Q–V , and Q–P–V functions
and the procedure for creating such a curve for a general from (8) and (9), E and X values must be known for a specific
application is proposed. In Section IV, the measurement- system. These parameters can be difficult to determine for a
based Q–P–V curve approach is proposed using the large, complex power grid.
SCADA data for the same WPP. Conclusions are drawn On the other hand, the measurement-based P–V , Q–V , and
in Section V. Q–P–V curves can be constructed through curve fitting, thus
LIANG et al.: MEASUREMENT-BASED CHARACTERISTIC CURVES FOR VOLTAGE STABILITY AND CONTROL AT THE POI OF WPPs
Fig. 2. Electrical single-line diagram of the sample WPP.
offering a convenient way to evaluate the voltage stability and
implement the voltage control at the POI of a WPP.
III. S YSTEM U NDER S TUDY
A 27-MW grid-connected WPP currently in operation in
NL, Canada, is used as a sample WPP in this paper. There
are nine doubly fed induction generators (DFIG), each rated
at 3 MW, in this WPP. The WPP is integrated into the power
grid’s 66-kV bus through a step-up transformer. The electrical
single-line diagram of a wind farm is shown in Fig. 2.
The measurements were conducted on the primary 66-kV
side of the 25-MVA step-up transformer through the SCADA
system for a whole year in 2016. The data sampling rate
is 1 sample point/s; each sample point was stamped with
a corresponding date and time when it was recorded. Each
measurement point consists of three measured data: the voltage
magnitude in V, the active power in MW, and the reactive
power in MVAR.
It was found that the active power supplied by the WPP
significantly varies during the operation every month, ranging
from 2 to 27 MW.
IV. M EASUREMENT-BASED Q–V C URVE
Q–V curves are commonly used for voltage stability eval-
uation and voltage control. The traditional way to generate
a Q–V curve at a load bus of interest in a power system
is through off-line successive power-flow simulation. The
procedure is to first change the selected load bus to a PV bus
in the power-flow simulation and then, record the required
reactive power by placing a variable reactive power source,
such as a fictitious generator (synchronous condenser) at the
selected bus for different bus voltage settings (the active power
remains the same for a particular Q–V curve). The voltage
set point of this fictitious generator is varied, and its reactive
power output is allowed to be any value needed to meet
the voltage set point; this is how the commercial software,
PowerWorld, computes the Q–V curves in the software’s Q–V
165
curves tool [19]. A Q–V curve has a base case with reactive
power equal to zero. This base case is also named an initial
voltage point.
For a selected bus, if the specified voltage can be reached
without needing additional reactive power compensation when
varying the voltage setting points of the bus, the Q–V curve
for this particular bus may be flat. One example would be to
study the Q–V curve at a real generator’s terminal bus; the
Q–V curve will be flat at zero within the generator’s reactive
power capability. This remains true if the measurements are
taken to obtain the Q–V curve instead of simulation.
Although Q–V curves created through power-flow simula-
tion have been practiced for decades, the accuracy of such
Q–V curves depends on the accuracy of the power-flow sim-
ulation model. To overcome this limitation, a measurement-
based Q–V curve method is proposed in this paper. By using
this measurement-based method, a power system simulation
model and the related procedures are not required; Q–V curves
are created directly using the field measurement data that
reflect real system operation conditions.
In this paper, measurements were taken at the POI of the
WPP. As a generation system, the whole WPP can be treated
as an equivalent generator, and thus, the POI is practically a
generator bus.
A. Proposed Procedure to Draw Q–V Curves
Three scenarios are considered for creating a measurement-
based Q–V curve at the POI of the sample WPP using the
SCADA data: 1) Scenario 1—base case (the initial voltage
point) is the lowest voltage point; 2) Scenario 2—base case
(the initial voltage point) is the data point with the reactive
power equal to 0 (Q = 0) or near zero; and 3) directly
plotting the Q–V curve using the measurement data. Similar
to traditional Q–V curves, a fixed active power value is chosen
for each Q–V curve.
The procedure to draw a Q–V curve for Scenario 1 is shown
in the following.
1) For a given month, choose an active power P value from
the SCADA data, for example, P = 4.1–4.2 MW and
then select all data points within this specified active
power range.
2) Rearrange the data points based on their voltages
increasing from small to large for Scenario 1 with the
lowest voltage point as the very first point in the data
set.
3) The voltage of the first data point is named V 10 , and the
reactive power of the first data point is named Q10 . This
point is treated as an initial condition, also known as the
“base case;” therefore, it has reactive power equal to 0
on the Q–V curve. The first point on the Q–V curve is
then determined by Q0 = Q10 − Q10 = 0, V = V 10 ,
i.e., (Q0, V 10 ).
4) The voltage of the second data point is named V 11
(V 11 > V 10 ), and the reactive power of the second
data point is named as Q11 . The change in the reactive
power output for the second data point voltage can be
calculated as Q1 = Q11 − Q10 . The second point
166 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO. 3, SUMMER 2019
Fig. 3. Q–V curve at P = 4.1–4.2 MW fit by Gaussian 2 model.
(a) Scenario 1. (b) Scenario 2. (c) Scenario 3.
on the Q–V curve is then determined by Q1 =
Q11 − Q10 , V = V 11 , i.e., (Q1, V 11 ).
5) Similarly, the voltage of the third data point is named
V12 , and the reactive power of the third data point is
named Q12 . Note that V 10 and Q10 remain the same as
steps 3 and 4 and all repeating steps. The change in the
reactive power output for the third data point voltage can
be calculated Q2 = Q12 − Q10 . The third point on the
Q–V curve is then determined by Q2 = Q12 − Q10 ,
V = V 12 , i.e., (Q2, V 12 ).
6) This process will continue until reaching the last data
point. The new processed data are used to obtain the
Q–V curve through the curve fitting.
In Scenario 1, the reactive power value at the lowest
voltage point serves as a reference; the same amount of
reactive power, Q10 , was reduced from each measurement
point. The lowest voltage point has a zero reactive power
after this processing. It moves the Q–V curve downward
(if Q10 is positive) or upward (if Q10 is negative) at this
reactive power amount. For P = 4.1–4.2 MW, the lowest
voltage point has (P, Q, V ) = (4.1040 MW, 0.9172 MVAR,
66.9633 kV/1.0146 p.u.); in this case, Q10 = 0.9172 MVAR,
and the Q–V curve moves downward at the amount of
0.9172 MVAR. For P = 26.1–26.2 MW, the lowest volt-
age point has (P, Q, V ) = (26.1998 MW, 2.5662 MVAR,
67.2868 kV/1.0195 p.u.), Q10 = 2.5662 MVAR, and the Q–V
curve moves downward at the amount of 2.5662 MVAR.
The procedure to draw a Q–V curve for Scenario 2 is given
in the following.
1) Similar to Step 1 in Scenario 1, for a given month
of SCADA data, choose an active power P value, for
example, P = 4.1–4.2 MW, and then, select all data
points within this specified active power range
2) Rearrange data points based on their reactive power
increasing from small to large in order to find the
reactive power point equal to or near zero for Scenario 2.
The base case is chosen as a point with the reactive
power equal to zero or near zero if such a point can be
found, or in the case, all reactive power are much larger
than 0; the smallest reactive power point can serve as a
base case. In either case, the reactive power at the base
case is named Q10 .
3) Once the base case is found, the reactive power value of
every single point in the data set will be subtracted by
Q10 . For the sample point i (i =0−n), Qi = Q1i −
Q10 , V = V 1i . The Q–V curve can be obtained using
all the points (Qi, V 1i ) through curve fitting.
In Scenario 2, if a base case with the exact zero reactive
power value can be found, the calculation can be greatly
simplified because the measured reactive power Q(new) at a
new voltage level (other than the initial voltage corresponding
to the base case) will be equal to Q, Q = Q(new) − 0.
In this case, we do not need to calculate Q but directly
use the measured Q to plot the Q–V curve. Although a base
case with an exact zero reactive power is desired, it may
be very difficult to find such an operating point in real life,
so near zero is also acceptable; in this case, if it is just a near
zero reactive power value, Q for each new voltage levels
must be calculated as follows Q = Q(new) − Qnearzero.
Although the value of Qnearzero is small, it still has a value;
therefore, Q calculation cannot be omitted. In reality, for
a given active power P value, the reactive power may or
may not have a near zero point. For example, for P = 4.1–
4.2-MW range, the reactive power near zero point is found
at 0.00203 MVAR, and the base case is (P, Q, V ) =
(4.189 MW, 0.00203 MVAR, 67.8249 kV/1.0276 p.u.). In this
case, the reactive power at every data point is subtracted by
0.00203 MVAR. However, for P = 26.1–26.2-MW range,
the reactive power near zero point does not actually exist,
the one closest to zero is found at 2.4028 MVAR, the base case
is (P, Q, V ) = (26.1081 MW, 2.4028 MVAR, 1.0201 p.u.),
and the reactive power at every data point is subtracted
by 2.4028 MVAR.
LIANG et al.: MEASUREMENT-BASED CHARACTERISTIC CURVES FOR VOLTAGE STABILITY AND CONTROL AT THE POI OF WPPs
TABLE I
G OODNESS OF F IT S TATISTICS FOR P OLYNOMIAL 5 AND G AUSSIAN 2 F ITTING
Scenario 3 is a curve fitting effort directly using the mea-
surement data without processing, which reflects the actual
operating range of the WPP. By creating the curve like this,
it indicates that there is an operating point at the POI, which
can serve as the base case with the reactive power equal to
zero; it may be out of the narrow operating range of the
measurements, but it should exist within the system.
Fig. 3 shows the curve fitting results of the constructed Q–V
curves using the proposed procedures for P = 4.1–4.2 MW
for the three scenarios.
Due to ever-changing operating conditions of the WPP,
which is significantly different from the conventional power
generation, it is hard to determine a fixed operating point.
By comparing the three scenarios for a Q–V curve, it is
found each scenario associated with a Q–V curve in a similar
shape but shifted from each other due to different reference
points taken in each scenario. Considering that it is reasonable
to assume that a zero reactive power operating point will
always exist although it may not be displayed in the narrow
field measurement data, Scenario 3, by directly creating a
Q–V curve using the SCADA data through curve fitting,
is recommended to be a simple way to represent a Q–V curve
at the POI of a WPP.
B. Mathematical Equations for Q–V curves
To create a Q–V characteristic curve and obtain the math-
ematical equations, the curve fitting technique is implemented
in this paper using the MATLAB curve fitting toolbox.
As investigated in [2], Polynomial 5 (fifth-order polynomial
167
TABLE II
G OODNESS OF F IT S TATISTICS FOR P OLY 11 AND
P OLY 22 FOR Q– P –V C URVE
model) and Gaussian 2 (second-order Gaussian model) are
considered as the target fitting functions for the Q–V curve.
The fifth-order polynomial model can be expressed by the
following equation:
y = a1 x 5 + a2 x 4 + a3 x 3 + a4 x 2 + a5 x + a6 (10)
where a1 –a6 are the parameters to be fit. The second-order
Gaussian model can be written as follows:
(x−b1 )2 (x−b2 )2
− −
c12 c22
y = a1 e + a2 e (11)
where a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 , and c1 , c2 are parameters to be fit. In (10)
and (11), x is the voltage magnitude in per unit (p.u.) and y
is the reactive power in MVAR.
To construct a family of Q–V curves, the SCADA
data in March 2016 are processed; the data are assorted
based on 13 different real power values: P = 2.1–2.11 MW,
4.1–4.11 MW, 6.1–6.11 MW, 8.1–8.11 MW, 10.1–10.11 MW,
12.1–12.11 MW, 14.1–14.11 MW, 16.1–16.11 MW, 18.1–
18.11 MW, 20.1–20.11 MW, 22.1–22.11 MW, 24.1–
24.11 MW, and 26.1 – 26.11 MW. A small range of the active
168 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO. 3, SUMMER 2019
TABLE III
E RRORS B ETWEEN C ALCULATED D ATA U SING P OLY 11 AND P OLY 22 IN M ETHOD 1 V ERSUS SCADA M EASUREMENT D ATA IN M ARCH 2016
power is taken instead of a single value in order to obtain
enough points for a better curve fitting while maintaining a
practically constant real power P value for each Q–V curve.
The goodness of fit statistics of the curve fitting using the
two target equations, (10) and (11), is displayed in Table I.
The goodness of fit for the fitting equations can be evaluated
by four parameters: the sum of squares due to error (SSE),
the root-mean-squared error (RMSE), the R-square, and the
adjusted R-square. An accurate model usually has a smaller
SSE or RMSE value but with R-square and adjusted R-square
closer to 1 [2].
It is found that Gaussian 2 model shows better accuracy for
most cases than Polynomial 5 model for March data, showing
smaller SSE and RMSE errors and larger R-square values. The
determined coefficients for Gaussian 2 mathematical models
for each Q–V curve with a particular active power P are
provided in Table VIII. Three sample Q–V curves using
Gaussian 2 for three different active power values are shown
in Fig. 4.
A further study using the SCADA data measured in
June 2016 for the same WPP indicates that Polynomial 5
model has better accuracy for more than half cases for the
June data set. Therefore, either Polynomial 5 or Gaussian 2
model can be chosen to develop a Q–V curve based on the
particular data set.
V. M EASUREMENT-BASED Q– P–V C URVE
The Q–P–V curve is required to implement a control action
for the voltage at the POI. Reference [17] derived such a
relationship based on the manufacturer data of wind turbines.
In this paper, a measurement-based Q–P–V characteristic can
be determined through the surface fitting technique using the
SCADA data, and a practical control scheme can be developed
using this curve.
In this paper, two methods are considered to develop the
Q–P–V curves using the SCADA data for a particular month.
Method 1 is to use only partial measurement data, for example,
use data points sorted with 13 specific active power values
in Tables I and II and the corresponding reactive power and
voltage values measured in March 2016. Method 2 is to use all
SCADA data in March 2016. The two methods are discussed
in the following.
A. Method 1
In this method, only a partial of the SCADA data in
March 2016 is used. Thirteen active power P values shown
in Tables I and II, together with all associated reactive power Q
and voltage V values, serve as input data for the surface fitting.
Both polynomial 11 (Poly11) and polynomial 22 (Poly22) are
considered as the target functions. The Q–P–V curve in the
form of Poly11 is expressed as follows:
Q 11 = f 11 (P, V ) = p00 + p01 P + p10 V (12)
where p00 , p01 , and p10 are coefficients for Poly11, P is the
active power in MW, and V is the voltage magnitude in p.u.
The Q–P–V curve in the form of Poly22 is expressed by
the following equation:
  
Q 22 = f 22 (P, V ) = p00 + p01 P + p10 V
  
+ p02 P + p11
2
V P + p20 V2 (13)
where p00  , p  , p  , p  , p  , and p  are coefficients for
01 10 20 11 02
Poly22, P is the active power in MW, and V is the voltage
magnitude in p.u.
The goodness of fit statistics of the surface fitting using the
two target equations, (12) and (13), are displayed in Table II.
It appears that Poly 11 and Poly 22 have similar accuracy in
this fitting, with Poly 22 slightly more accurate than Ploy 11.
Coefficients for Poly 11 and Poly 22 with 95% confidence
bounds can be found in Table IX.
The accuracy of the fit Poly11 and Poly22 equations are
compared with the SCADA data in March 2016 by choosing
the random measurement data points throughout the month as
shown in Table III; relative errors between the calculated data
using the fit equations and the SCADA measurements are also
shown in Table III. Table V also indicates that Poly11 has a
comparable error as Poly22.
LIANG et al.: MEASUREMENT-BASED CHARACTERISTIC CURVES FOR VOLTAGE STABILITY AND CONTROL AT THE POI OF WPPs
Fig. 4. Created Q–V curves by Gaussian 2 model using the SCADA data at the POI of the WPP measured in March 2016. (a) P = 2.1–2.11 MW.
(b) P = 12.1–12.11 MW. (c) P = 20.1–20.11 MW.
TABLE IV
G OODNESS OF F IT D ATA C OMPARISON B ETWEEN P OLY 21 AND
P OLY 55 M ODELS
B. Method 2
In this section, the Q–P–V mathematical function is devel-
oped using all SCADA measurement data in March 2016.
Poly11-to-Poly55 surface fitting models are studied; it is found
that all the models fit well with the field measurement data set,
but the accuracy of the model does not significantly improve
after the Poly21 model. The goodness of fit comparison
between Poly21 and Poly55 model is tabulated in Table IV.
Therefore, to keep the order of the mathematical model
minimum, Poly21 is considered as the suitable mathematical
model. The general expression of Poly21 model is as follows:
Q(x, y) = p00 + p10 x + p01 y + p20 x 2 + p11 x y (14)
where p00, p01, p10 , p20 , and p11 are coefficients for Poly21,
Q (x, y) is the reactive power capability of the WPP in p.u.,
x is the voltage magnitude V at the POI in p.u., and y is the
active power P in p.u. The voltage base and power base are
66 kV and 27 MVA, respectively.
169
TABLE V
G OODNESS OF F IT D ATA OF P OLY 21 M ODELS
Because the actual data set is significantly scattered,
the robustness algorithm is adopted to improve the accuracy
of the model. Three types of Poly21 models are studied; one
model is without any robustness algorithm, and two models
are with a robustness algorithm. The robustness algorithms
implemented in this paper are Bisquare and the least absolute
residuals (LARs) algorithm.
The goodness of fit results for the three types of
Poly21 models is shown in Table V. In Table V, the good-
ness of fit data show better fitting for “LAR” and “without
robustness” models; the two models have slightly smaller SSE
and RMSE values and slightly larger R-square and adjusted
R-square values than the “Bisquare” model. Coefficients for
the three types of Poly21 models with 95% confidence bounds
can be found in Table X.
To further validate the most suitable model, the relative
percentage errors between the calculated reactive power Q
and the SCADA data using the three types of Poly21 models
are provided in Table VI. Among the five arbitrary chosen
operating points in Table VI, the “Bisquare” model shows
much larger errors than the other two types of models.
170 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO. 3, SUMMER 2019

TABLE VI
E RRORS B ETWEEN THE C ALCULATION AND F IELD M EASUREMENT A CTUAL D ATA FOR T HREE T YPES OF P OLY 21 M ODELS

TABLE VII
E RRORS B ETWEEN C ALCULATED D ATA U SING P OLY 21 (LAR) AND P OLY 21 (W ITHOUT ROBUSTNESS ) IN M ETHOD 2 V ERSUS SCADA
M EASUREMENT D ATA IN M ARCH 2016

Fig. 5. Errors between the calculated reactive power Q and SCADA Fig. 6. Developed poly21 model through surface fitting using the LAR
measurement data in March 2016 for models developed by Methods 1 and 2. algorithm based on the field measurement data at POI. (a) Surface fitting
diagram. (b) Residuals.

The “without robustness” model has smaller errors for two

operating points, and the “LAR” model has smaller errors
for the remaining three operating points. The “LAR” algo-
rithm leads to reasonably low and consistent errors, whereas
the “without robustness” algorithm leads to errors that can
significantly vary.
To further validate the “LAR” and “without robustness”
models obtained using Method 2, the same set of SCADA
measurement date used in Table III is used to calculate the
errors between calculations and measurements, and the results
are shown in Table VII.
Tables III and VII show a few large errors, which is rea-
sonable due to the scattered nature of the data; however, most
errors are rather small. The four different models developed
using Methods 1 and 2 are compared in Fig. 5 for the errors
LIANG et al.: MEASUREMENT-BASED CHARACTERISTIC CURVES FOR VOLTAGE STABILITY AND CONTROL AT THE POI OF WPPs 171

TABLE VIII
C OEFFICIENTS FOR Q–V C URVES U SING G AUSSIAN 2 M ODEL W ITH 95% C ONFIDENCE B OUNDS

TABLE IX TABLE X
C OEFFICIENTS FOR P OLY 11 AND P OLY 22 (M ETHOD 1) C OEFFICIENTS OF P OLY 21 M ODELS (M ETHOD 2)
W ITH 95% C ONFIDENCE B OUNDS W ITH 95% C ONFIDENCE B OUNDS

between the calculated reactive power Q versus the SCADA

measurement data. It is found that Poly21 (LAR) shows the
smallest and most stable errors among all models. Therefore,
the Poly21 (LAR) model is chosen as the final model in
this paper. The created model can be readily used in voltage
controller design. The surface fitting graph and residuals of
the final model are depicted in Fig. 6.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, methods to develop measurement-based char-
acteristic curves, Q–V and Q–P–V curves, at the POI of a
WPP are proposed. These methods are further implemented
using the SCADA field measurement data recorded at the POI
of a 27-MW WPP currently in operation in NL, Canada.
Q–V curves are commonly used in power system stability
analysis or voltage control at a chosen bus. Conventional
Q–V curves are created through off-line successive power-
flow simulation for a chosen bus in a power system; however,
the accuracy of such Q–V curves depends largely on the
accuracy of the power system simulation model, which is hard
to validate in real life, especially when wind power generation
is involved. In this paper, a measurement-based Q–V curve
method is proposed by using curve fitting techniques through
the MATLAB curve fitting toolbox and the SCADA data at
the POI. The Q–V curve is represented by a fitting equa-
tion. A fifth-order polynomial equation (Polynomial 5) and a
second-order Gaussian model (Gaussian 2) are investigated in
case studies as the fitting equation. The procedure of creating
measurement-based Q–V curves is provided in this paper.
The Q–P–V curves can be used for the voltage control
of WPPs; two methods to create the Q–P–V curves at the
POI of a WPP using the SCADA data are demonstrated and
compared. The equations representing the Q–P–V curves
are determined using surface fitting techniques through the
172 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 42, NO. 3, SUMMER 2019
MATLAB curve fitting toolbox. The accuracy of the Q–P–V
curves is validated using the SCADA measurement data.
The proposed measurement-based methods do not reply
on the power-flow simulation model and do not need the
manufacturer data or the system configuration. This data-
driven approach can help to achieve voltage stability evalu-
ation or real-time voltage control with great accuracy.
VII. A PPENDIX
See Tables VIII–X.
R EFERENCES
[1] Z. Huang, L. Bao, and W. Xu, “A method to measure QV curves and
its applications in power systems,” Electr. Power Energy Syst., vol. 29,
pp. 147–154, Feb. 2007.
[2] C. Andalib-Bin-Karim, X. Liang, N. Khan, and H. Zhang, “Determine
Q–V characteristics of grid-connected wind farms for voltage control
using a data-driven analytics approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53,
no. 5, pp. 4162–4175, Sep./Oct. 2017.
[3] S.-C. Wang, C.-J. Wu, and P.-H. Huang, “Analysis of power system
QV curve by Fuzzy modeling,” in Proc. ICROS-SICE Int. Joint Conf.,
Aug. 2009, pp. 343–347.
[4] T. J. Overbye, I. Dobson, and C. L. DeMarco, “Q-V curve interpretations
of energy measures for voltage security,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9,
no. 1, pp. 331–340, Feb. 1994.
[5] R. S. Moura, A. C. Z. de Souza, B. I. L. Lopes, and F. W. Mohn, “Effects
of QV curves in the dynamic behaviour of power systems,” IET Gener.,
Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 2861–2870, 2016.
[6] B. H. Chowdhury and C. W. Taylor, “Voltage stability analysis: V-Q
power flow simulation versus dynamic simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1354–1359, Nov. 2000.
[7] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1994, p. 965.
[8] G. G. Rao, H. P. Kecincha, and D. Thukaram, “Voltage stability: Some
reflections on Q-V characteristics of loads,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Energy
Manage. Power Del. (EMPD), Mar. 1998, pp. 79–84.
[9] Y. Fu, T. S. Chug, and X. Y. Li, “An improved approach to voltage sta-
bility analysis via network equivalence,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Power
Syst. Control, Operation Manage. (APSCOM), Nov. 1997, pp. 231–235.
[10] Y.-Y. Hong and C.-C. Liu, “A heuristic and algorithmic approach to
VAR planning,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 505–512,
May 1992.
[11] R. R. Austria, X. Xu, and M. Power, “Voltage stability assessment of the
National Grid system using modern analytical tools,” in Proc. IEEE/PES
Transmiss. Distrib. Conf. Expo., Nov. 2001, pp. 229–234.
[12] M. H. Haque, “Use of V-I characteristic as a tool to assess the static
voltage stability limit of a power system,” IEE Proc.-Gener., Transmiss.
Distrib., vol. 151, no. 1, pp. 1–7, Jan. 2004.
[13] M. Sobierajski, K. Wilkosz, J. Bertsch, and M. Fulczyk, “Using bus
impedance and bus P-Q curve for voltage stability control,” in Proc.
IEEE/PES Transmiss. Distrib. Conf. Expo., Nov. 2001, pp. 79–84.
[14] M. Sobierajski and M. Fulczyk, “Voltage stability study by P-Q curve
with rectangular probability distribution of bus load,” in Proc. 8th Int.
Conf. Probabilistic Methods Appl. Power Syst., 2004, pp. 894–899.
[15] S. H. Li and H. D. Chiang, “Continuation power flow with nonlinear
power injection variations: A piecewise linear approximation,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1637–1643, Nov. 2008.
[16] P. Prabhakar and A. Kumar, “Performance evaluation of voltage stability
index to assess steady state voltage collapse,” in Proc. 6th IEEE Power
India Int. Conf. (PIICON), Dec. 2014, pp. 1–6.
[17] W. Edmondson and S. Mukherjee, “Adaptive capacitor switching for
wind energy generation,” in Proc. IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc. Annu. Meeting,
Oct. 2017, pp. 1–6.
[18] Y. Wang, “Advanced load shedding scheme for voltage collapse pre-
vention,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Comput. Eng., Univ. Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2011.
[19] (Jan. 1, 2019). QV Curves. [Online]. Available: https://www.powerworld.
com/WebHelp/Content/MainDocumentation_HTML/QV_Curves.htm
Xiaodong Liang (M’06–SM’09) was born in
Lingyuan, China. She received the B.Eng. and
M.Eng. degrees from Shenyang Polytechnic Univer-
sity, Shenyang, China, in 1992 and 1995, respec-
tively, the M.Sc. degree from the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, in 2004, and
the Ph.D. degree from the University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada, in 2013, all in electrical
engineering.
From 1995 to 1999, she was a Lecturer with
Northeastern University, Shenyang. In 2001, she
joined Schlumberger, Edmonton, a world-leading oil field service company,
where she was promoted to Principal Power Systems Engineer in 2009.
After serving Schlumberger for almost 12 years, she joined Washington State
University, Vancouver, WA, USA, in 2013. From 2013 to 2015, she was an
Assistant Professor with Washington State University. In 2015, she joined the
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, where she is
currently an Associate Professor. Her current research interests include power
systems, renewable energy, and electric machines.
Dr. Liang is also a registered Professional Engineer in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Md. Nasmus Sakib Khan Shabbir (S’17) was born
in Tangail, Bangladesh. He received the B.Sc. degree
in electrical and electronic engineering from the
Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology,
Rajshahi, Bangladesh, in 2012. He is currently pur-
suing the Ph.D. degree with the Memorial University
of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada.
From 2013 to 2016, he was a Lecturer with the
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineer-
ing, Bangladesh University of Business and Tech-
nology, Dhaka, Bangladesh, where he was promoted
to Assistant Professor in 2016 and served until 2017. His current research
interests include the design and control of high-performance power electronic
converters and their applications in renewable energy integration to power
grids.
Nahidul Khan was born in Dhaka, Bangladesh. He
received the B.Sc. degree in electrical and electronic
engineering from the Khulna University of Engineer-
ing & Technology (KUET), Khulna, Bangladesh,
in 2004, and the M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in elec-
trical engineering from the Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada, in 2008 and
2015, respectively.
From 2005 to 2006, he was a Lecturer with Stam-
ford University Bangladesh, Dhaka. From 2013 to
2015, he was a Protection and Control Engineer
with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - a Nalcor Energy company, St.
John’s, where he is currently a System Operation Engineer. His current
research and teaching interests include renewable energy integration, energy
storage application, multiterminal high-voltage direct current transmission,
and power system operation and control, developing transient analysis and
creating operational philosophies.
Dr. Khan is also a registered Professional Engineer in the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Xiaodi Yan was born in Beijing, China. He is
currently pursuing the bachelor’s degree in electrical
engineering and computer science with the Memo-
rial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL,
Canada.
He has done a co-op work term working on data
mining of grid-connected wind-farm measurement
data at the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Memorial University of Newfoundland,
from 2017 to 2017.