Submitted:
21 September 2023
Posted:
25 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- (1)
- The method of using multiple artificial neural networks (ANNs) to identify the electromechanical transient power fluctuation curve of mixed WFs is introduced into the research on equivalent modeling. For small sample data scenarios, the established model has good performance.
- (2)
- Meaningful insights into how to select the equivalent node model are provided. The WT type, wind speed and direction, and the fault voltage dip are select as the independent variables of the equivalent node model. The active power and reactive power at the point of connection (POC) are selected as the dependent variables.
2. Ideas and Methods
- (1)
- It focuses on the input and output characteristics of WFs, without emphasizing the internal structure and operation principle. The WF structure modeling can be omitted.
- (2)
- The ANN has a large number of connections, and the weights of the connection correspond to the model parameters. By adjusting these parameters, the ANN can approximate the outputs of nonlinear systems
- (3)
- The time spending on modeling is only related to the ANN and its learning algorithm, and no longer depends on the type and number of WTs within one WF.
3. External Characteristics of Mixed WF
3.1. Composition of Mixed WF
3.2. Influencing Factors of External Characteristics of Mixed WF
3.2.1. WT Type
3.2.2. Wind Speed and Direction
3.2.3. Fault Voltage Dip
3.3. External Characteristic Analysis
4. Equivalent Node Modeling for Mixed Wind Farm
4.1. Equivalent Node Model
4.2. Experimental Design and Data Collection
4.3. ANN-Based Equivalent Modeling
5. Example Analysis
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- During the electromechanical transient process, the external characteristics of the mixed WF are mainly affected by three factors: the WT type, the wind speed and direction, and the voltage dip at the POC. At the same time, the output active and reactive power will affect the frequency and voltage of the power systems. therefore, the input and output variables of the equivalent node model are determined.
- (2)
- The ANN directly identifies the whole mixed WF as a black box, which avoids the selection and quantification of clustering indicators, as well as the equivalent parameters calculation of WTs, collection lines, grounding transformers, and control strategy.
- (3)
- Based on the MATLAB platform, the establishment of the equivalent node model is realized, which makes the equivalent modeling of WFs no longer limited to the professional simulation platform, and it is also more convenient for the power dispatching department to use, enhancing the engineering practical value of the equivalent model.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
| SCIG | Wind turbine | |||
| Blade radius /m | 48 | Shaft system stiffness factor /(pu/rad) | 1.11 | |
| Inertia time constant /s | 3.5 | Rated wind speed /(m/s) | 10 | |
| Cut-in wind speed /(m/s) | 3 | Cut-out wind speed /(m/s) | 23 | |
| Squirrel-cage induction generator | ||||
| Rated power /MW | 2 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| Rated voltage /kV | 0.69 | Stator impedance /pu | 0.01+j0.1 | |
| Rotor impedance /pu | 0.01+j0.1 | Stator and rotor mutual impedance /pu | J3 | |
| Grounding transformer | ||||
| Rated capacity /MVA | 5 | Impedance /pu | 3 | |
| Rated Ratio /kV | 25/0.575 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| DFIG | Wind Turbine | |||
| Blade radius /m | 31 | Shaft system stiffness factor /(pu/rad) | 1.11 | |
| Inertia time constant /s | 4.32 | Rated wind speed /(m/s) | 12.5 | |
| Cut-in wind speed /(m/s) | 4.5 | Cut-out wind speed /(m/s) | 22 | |
| Double-fed induction generators | ||||
| Rated power /MW | 1.5 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| Rated voltage /kV | 0.575 | Stator impedance /pu | 0.016+j0.16 | |
| Rotor impedance /pu | 0.023+j0.18 | Stator and rotor mutual impedance /pu | j2.9 | |
| Power converters | ||||
| Rated capacity of rotor-side converter /MVA | 0.525 | Rated capacity of grid-side converter /MVA | 0.75 | |
| DC Bus Rated Voltage /kV | 1.15 | DC side bus capacitance /F | 0.01 | |
| Crowbar circuit input threshold /pu | 2 | Crowbar circuit cut out threshold /pu | 0.35 | |
| Crowbar resistance /pu | 0.1 | |||
| Grounding transformer | ||||
| Rated capacity /MVA | 1.75 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| Rated Ratio /kV | 25/0.575 | Impedance /pu | 0.06 | |
| PMSG | Wind turbine | |||
| Blade radius /m | 38 | Shaft system stiffness factor /(pu/rad) | 1.2 | |
| Inertia time constant /s | 4.6 | Rated wind speed /(m/s) | 12.5 | |
| Cut-in wind speed /(m/s) | 4.5 | Cut-out wind speed /(m/s) | 22 | |
| Permanent magnet synchronous generator | ||||
| Rated power /MW | 2 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| Rated voltage /kV | 0.69 | Rated DC bus voltage /kV | 1.1 | |
| Stator resistance /pu | 0.0001 | d-axis inductance of stator/ pu | 1.5 | |
| q-axis inductance of stator/ pu | 1.5 | DC bus capacitor/ F | 0.01 | |
| Grounding transformer | ||||
| Rated capacity /MVA | 2.5 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 | |
| Rated Ratio /kV | 25/0.69 | Impedance /pu | 0.06 | |
| Main Transformer | Rated capacity /MVA | 150 | Rated frequency /Hz | 50 |
| Rated Ratio (kV) | 220/25 | Impedance /pu | 0.135 | |
| Cable line | Unit resistance /(Ω/km) | 0.1153 | Unit inductance (/Ω/km) | j0.3297 |
References
- Global Wind Energy Council. Global Wind Report 2021; Global Wind Energy Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 6–7. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Xiao, J.; Hou, J.; Lyu, X. Development potential assessment for wind and photovoltaic power energy resources in the main desert–gobi–wilderness areas of China. Energies 2023, 16, 4559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarala, A.; Bhat, S.; Mitra, A.; Zycham, D.; Sowa, P. Transient stability analysis of a multi-machine power system integrated with renewables. Energies 2022, 15, 4824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibko, Z.; Hołdynski, G.; Borusiewicz, A. Impact of wind power plant operation on voltage quality parameters—example from Poland. Energies 2022, 15, 5573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández, L. M.; García, C. A.; Saenz, J. R.; Jurado, F. Equivalent models of wind farms by using aggregated wind turbines and equivalent winds. Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 691–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wind Turbines—Part 27-1: Electrical simulation models—wind turbines, IEC 61400-27-1, Switzerland, 2015.
- WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force. WECC wind power plant dynamic modeling guidelines. USA: EPRI, 2014.
- Trudnowski, D. J.; Gentile, A,; Khan, J. M.; Petritz, E. M. Fixed-speed wind-generator and wind-park modeling for transient stability studies. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2004, 19, 1911–1917. [CrossRef]
- Chao, P.; Li, W.; Liang, X.; Xu, S.; Shuai, Y. An analytical two-machine equivalent method of DFIG-based wind power plants considering complete FRT processes. IEEE Trans. on Power Syst. 2021, 36, 3657–3667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhmotov, V.; Knudsen, H. An aggregate model of a grid-connected, large-scale, offshore wind farm for power stability investigations—importance of windmill mechanical system. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 2002, 24, 709–717. [Google Scholar]
- Brochu, J.; Larose, C.; Gagnon, R. Validation of single- and multiple-machine equivalents for modeling wind power plants[J]. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 2011, 26, 532–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, W.; Wang, X.; Meng, Y.; Shi, W. Dynamic clustering equivalent model of wind turbines based on spanning tree. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2015, 7, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Zhao, L.; Matsuo, I. B. M.; Lee, W. J. A dynamic weighted aggregation equivalent modeling approach for the DFIG wind farm considering the Weibull distribution for fault analysis. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 2019, 55, 5514–5523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Wu, D.; Ju, P.; Rehtanz, C.; Wu, F.; Pan, X. Modeling of wind speeds inside a wind farm with application to wind farm aggregate modeling considering LVRT characteristic. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 2020, 35, 508–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Ding, M.; Han, P. Equivalent modeling of DFIG-based wind power plant considering crowbar protection. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2016, 2016, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Cao, M.; Li, Y. An equivalent modeling method of DFIG-based wind farm considering improved identification of Crowbar status. Proceedings of the CSEE 2022, 42, 603–614. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.; Ding, M. Equivalent modeling of PMSG-based wind power plants considering LVRT capabilities: electromechanical transients in power systems. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 2037. [Google Scholar]
- Chandra, D. R.; Kumari, M. S.; Sydulu, M.; Grimaccia, F.; Mussetta, M.; Leva, S.; Duong, M. Q. Impact of SCIG, DFIG wind power plant on IEEE 14 bus system with small signal stability assessment. In Proceedings of the 2014 Eighteenth National Power Systems Conference, Guwahati, India, 18-20 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nafisa, M. T.; Jahan, E.; Mannan, M. A. Design and analysis of a grid-tied dual rotor PMSG and SCIG-based wind farms. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 9th Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference, Bangalore, India, 30 September 2021 - 02 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Yang, C.; Zhao, B.; Wang, H. S.; Chen, Z. Aggregated models and transient performances of a mixed wind farm with different wind turbine generator systems. Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 2012, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leon, A. E.; Mauricio, J. M.; Gomez-Exposito, A.; Solsona, J. A. An improved control strategy for hybrid wind farms. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energ. 2010, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teninge, A.; Roye, D.; Bacha, S.; Duval, J. Low voltage ride-through capabilities of wind plant combining different turbine technologies. Proceedings of 2009 13th European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications, Barcelona, Spain, 08-10 September 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Zou, A,; Yang, C. ; Wang, Y. A new method for stability analysis of recurrent neural networks with interval time-varying delay. IEEE Trans. Neural Networ., 2010, 21, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]







| Serial Number | (%) | (Mvar) | Serial Number | (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.78 | 0.267 | 11 | 9.89 | 0.676 |
| 2 | 6.31 | 0.383 | 12 | 10.05 | 0.872 |
| 3 | 7.11 | 0.465 | 13 | 10.23 | 0.765 |
| 4 | 7.50 | 0.496 | 14 | 10.45 | 0.696 |
| 5 | 7.68 | 0.561 | 15 | 10.86 | 0.723 |
| 6 | 8.43 | 0.605 | 16 | 11.32 | 0.705 |
| 7 | 8.60 | 0.622 | 17 | 11.57 | 0.912 |
| 8 | 9.12 | 0.593 | 18 | 11.68 | 0.725 |
| 9 | 9.26 | 0.536 | 19 | 12.22 | 1.160 |
| 10 | 9.53 | 0.623 | 20 | 13.18 | 1.362 |
| Time | Active power | Reactive power | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured Value | Output value of equivalent node model | Mean relative error/% | Measured Value | Output value of equivalent node model | Mean relative error /Mvar | |
| 0.00 | 12.428 | 11.821 | 4.884 | 1.890 | 1.866 | 0.024 |
| 0.05 | 12.428 | 11.821 | 4.884 | 1.890 | 1.866 | 0.024 |
| 0.10 | 6.938 | 6.147 | 11.401 | 19.192 | 19.102 | 0.089 |
| 0.15 | 8.736 | 9.353 | 7.063 | 20.763 | 20.971 | 0.208 |
| 0.20 | 10.073 | 10.146 | 0.725 | 17.947 | 17.248 | 0.698 |
| 0.25 | 9.396 | 9.372 | 0.255 | 16.427 | 16.556 | 0.129 |
| 0.30 | 17.724 | 21.361 | 20.520 | -9.978 | -10.140 | 0.162 |
| 0.35 | 13.554 | 11.903 | 12.181 | -6.177 | -5.691 | 0.486 |
| 0.40 | 8.608 | 7.638 | 11.269 | -2.853 | -2.851 | 0.002 |
| 0.45 | 10.466 | 10.095 | 3.545 | -1.594 | -1.869 | 0.275 |
| 0.50 | 14.347 | 12.836 | 10.532 | -1.269 | -1.210 | 0.059 |
| 0.55 | 14.722 | 14.509 | 1.447 | -0.415 | -0.436 | 0.021 |
| 0.60 | 12.03 | 11.551 | 3.982 | 0.777 | 0.670 | 0.107 |
| 0.65 | 11.45 | 11.026 | 3.703 | 1.200 | 1.090 | 0.111 |
| 0.70 | 13.488 | 12.751 | 5.464 | 1.029 | 0.264 | 0.764 |
| 0.75 | 14.378 | 13.611 | 5.335 | 1.010 | 0.961 | 0.049 |
| 0.80 | 13.165 | 12.06 | 8.393 | 1.417 | 1.037 | 0.380 |
| 0.85 | 12.294 | 12.169 | 1.017 | 1.628 | 0.695 | 0.933 |
| 0.90 | 12.953 | 12.392 | 4.331 | 1.599 | 1.090 | 0.510 |
| 0.95 | 13.541 | 13.406 | 0.997 | 1.525 | 0.959 | 0.566 |
| 1.00 | 13.015 | 12.815 | 1.537 | 1.633 | 0.873 | 0.760 |
| 1.50 | 12.049 | 11.287 | 6.324 | 1.988 | 2.075 | 0.086 |
| 2.00 | 12.749 | 11.91 | 6.581 | 1.831 | 1.741 | 0.090 |
| 2.50 | 12.417 | 11.799 | 4.977 | 0.933 | 1.049 | 0.116 |
| 3.00 | 12.428 | 12.022 | 3.267 | 1.059 | 1.083 | 0.024 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).