Skip to main content

Vestas: Type I

Vendor Specific Model Characterization

Model Performance: Case 1 – Fault Event

In this case a remote fault is applied to bus 12 for a duration of 6 cycles (0.1 sec).

In the course of the project when making a parameterization of the WT1 generic model for the Vestas Type I system, the following observations have been made:

  • For SCR=5, the benchmark Vestas Type I turbine model does not show a stable response to the fault cleared by tripping the line. However it shows a stable response to the fault cleared without a line tripping.
  • So, for the system with SCR = 5 it makes sense to parameterize the WT1 model without tripping the line, while for the system with SCR = 10, the parameterization was carried out for WT1 model with the line tripping.

Vestas: Type I – Case 1 and SCR=5

Vestas: Type I – Case 1 and SCR=10

Model Performance: Case 2 – Under-Frequency Event

In this case a under frequency event is created by tripping the 100 MVA generation unit at bus 20.

Vestas: Type I – Case 2 and SCR=5

Vestas: Type I – Case 2 and SCR=10

Model Performance: Case 3 – Over-Frequency Event

In this case a under frequency event is created by tripping the 100 MVA load at bus 11

Vestas: Type I – Case 3 and SCR=5

Vestas: Type I – Case 3 and SCR=10

Generic Model Parameterization – PSSE Environment

The parameter values shown in the table resulted from a compromise between the simulated cases (i.e. SCR 5 and SCR 10) and network conditions (i.e. fault, under- and over frequency).

 PSSE parameter values
WT1G WT12A WT12T
T’ 1.262 DROOP 8.191367 H 2.94
T” 0.00 KP 0.00 DAMP 0.00
X 4.01 TI 20.79893 Htfrac 0.7279
X’ 0.1581 T1 1.161715 Freq1 2.00
X” 0.00 T2 0.00 DSHAFT 1.00
XL 0.0873 TPE 0.00
E1 1.00 LIMMAX 0.936986
S(E1) 0.06 LIMMIN 0.25
E2 1.20
S(E2) 0.15
There are three generic wind turbine models in PSSE for a type 1 wind turbine (WT1). These models are WT1G, WT12T, and WT12A. The WT1G model includes the induction generator dynamics. The WT12T model includes the double mass shaft compliance model. Finally, the WT12A model contains the pseudo governor model. The values for the parameters resulted from a compromise between the two cases (SCR 5 and SCR 10). The set of parameters had to be tuned to satisfactory match the results of dynamic simulation for the VSM and the generic WT1 model for both SCR cases.

Parameterization: Case 1 – Fault Event

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 1 and SCR=5

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 1 and SCR=10

Parameterization: Case 2 – Under-Frequency Event

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 2 and SCR=5

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 2 and SCR=10

Parameterization: Case 3 – Over-Frequency Event

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 3 and SCR=5

Parameterization of WT1 vs Vestas: Type I – Case 3 and SCR=10

Results Validation

With the fault in case 1 (SCR=5) cleared without tripping the line, the parameterization of the WT1 model showed stable and adequate response. For cases 2 and 3 (over frequency and under frequency events), the response of the generic model matches the response of the VSM in the frequency range of interest. However, for case 1 (fault event), the response of the generic model matches the response of the VSM poorly. In other words, while the generic models are a good representation of the Vestas: Type 1 turbine VSM behavior during frequency events, they are rather a poor alternative for severe fault events.

Vendor Specific Model Validation

No data available

References