Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12
21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS http: //www.cigre.org A1_106_2010 CIGRE 2010 Improvement of the voltage ride

21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS http: //www.cigre.org

A1_106_2010

CIGRE 2010

Improvement of the voltage ride through capability of synchronous generators by excitation control

L. Rouco Universidad Pontificia Comillas Spain

C. Ginet, K. Chan, K. Mayor, O. Malcher and L. Díez-Maroto Alstom Switzerland

R. Cherkaoui École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Switzerland

SUMMARY Ten years ago, wind generators used to disconnect from the grid in case of a voltage dip. Undervoltage protection systems used to trip wind generators not only to protect both electric machines and power electronic converters but also to prevent their islanded operation. In the mean-time, the massive development of wind power generation has required the increase of the voltage ride through capability of wind generators to prevent that a fault in the network could cause the collapse of the system. The requirement of voltage ride through capability of wind generators has been incorporated into many grid codes. The main requirement has been established as a time-voltage curve that must be sustained by wind generators.

Moreover, the voltage ride through capability requirement has been extended to synchronous generators in a number of grid codes. Grid codes have added new requirements with respect to what IEC and IEEE standards had already established. Grid codes require that synchronous generators should remain connected to the grid in case of transient variations of voltage at the generator step-up transformer HV terminals defined by a time-voltage curve.

This paper has reviewed the voltage ride through capability required by a number of grid codes. The comprehensive review has shown that grid code requirements are not uniform. The paper has also studied the sensitivity of synchronous generator response to the English grid code requirements with respect to a number of parameters such as the step-up transformer reactance, the turbine-generator rotor inertia, the synchronous machine short circuit ratio and excitation ceiling factor. The study has been conducted on a generator taken from the technical literature and which data are provided. The sensitivity study has shown that both a lower value of the step-up transformer reactance (0.12 pu) and a higher value of synchronous generator SCR (0.61 pu) would ensure that the Engish grid code requirements in case of solid and non-solid faults are fulfilled. It should be pointed out however that such low transformer reactance or high SCR may not be possible due to other design and economic aspects of the power plant.

This paper has outlined a solution for generating units equipped with bus fed static excitation systems. The approach consists in connecting a supplementary dc voltage source in the generator excitation winding when a fault occurs. The paper has shown that such an approach allows compliance with the English grid code requirements.

KEYWORDS Synchronous generators, voltage ride through capability, grid codes, excitation control.

1

INTRODUCTION

Ten years ago, wind generators used to disconnect from the grid in case of a voltage dip. Undervoltage protection systems with tight settings used to trip wind generators not only to protect both electric machines and power electronic converters but also to prevent their islanded operation. In the mean- time, the massive development of wind power generation has required the increase of the voltage ride through capability of wind generators to prevent that a fault in the network could cause the collapse of the system [1]. The requirement of voltage ride through capability of wind generators has been incorporated into many grid codes. The main requirement has been established as a time-voltage curve that must be sustained by wind generators.

Moreover, the voltage ride through capability requirement has been extended to synchronous generators in a number of grid codes. Grid codes have added new requirements with respect to what IEC [2] and IEEE [3] standards require to cylindrical rotor generators. IEC and IEEE standards require that cylindrical rotor generators shall be capable of continuous rated output at rated power factor over the ranges of +/-5% in voltage and +3%/-5% in frequency. In addition, grid codes require that synchronous generators should remain connected to the grid in case of transient variations of voltage at the generator step-up transformer HV terminals defined by a time-voltage curve. Although a synchronous generator may disconnect from the grid due to either generator loss of synchronism or power plant auxiliaries tripping (merely because of low voltage AC contactors drop out) as a result of sever transmission system voltage transient variations, the paper’s concern is the generator tripping due to loss of synchronism.

This paper addresses the improvement of the voltage ride through capability of synchronous generators as required by grid codes by excitation control. Grid code requirements are firstly reviewed. The sensitivity of synchronous generators response with respect to a number of parameters is also determined. This paper extends the discussion started in [4].

2 REVIEW OF GRID CODES REQUIREMENTS

This section contains a comprehensive review of the voltage ride through capability of synchronous

generators as required by a number of grid codes worldwide. Precisely grid codes set by TSOs of England [5], Ireland [6], France [7], Italy [8], Germany [9], Scandinavia [10], Spain [11] and USA [12] are considered. Most reviewed codes are required by TSOs in Europe. However, an example in the USA is also considered (what is discussed is actually a draft standard).

Table 1 summarizes the requirements of reviewed grid codes. The definition of required voltage dip, the definition of generator operating range (reactive power capability) and the required external impedance are provided. Few codes (English and Irish ones) also include requirements of machine and excitation parameters (namely short circuit ratio and ceiling excitation voltage) that affect the machine response in case of voltage dips. Section 4 addresses the sensitivity of synchronous generators response to grid code requirements with respect to synchronous generator short circuit ratio and excitation system ceiling factor.

Voltage dips as required by the reviewed grid codes can be classified into two groups:

rectangular voltage dips, and

polygonal voltage dips.

Requirements of the English, Irish, French and Italian grid codes lie in the rectangular voltage dip category. The recovery voltage is sharp. English and Irish grid codes incorporate a multi-dip requirement whereas French and Italian ones have a single-dip one. The multi-dip requirement of the English code results from the consideration of an explicit voltage-fault duration curve.

Table 1: Summary of grid codes requirements.

TSO (Country or Region)

Grid

Code

Voltage Dip

Generator

 

External Impedance

Reference

and

(voltage, time)

Operating Points

 
 

Articles

 

NGC (England and Wales)

[5]

0%, 140 ms 30%, 384 ms 50%, 710 ms (See Figure 1)

Any between 0.85 lag

Not specified

CC.6.3.15.1

and 0.95 lead generator terminals

at

 

(voltage dip)

 

CC.6.3.2

 

(Reactive

power

 

capability)

EIRGRID

[6]

5%, 200 ms 50%, 600 ms (See Figure 1)

Any between 0.85 lag and 0.93 lead power factors at generator terminals

Not specified

(Ireland)

CC.7.3.1.1.h

 

(Voltage dip)

CC.7.3.1.1.g refers to

 

CC.7.3.6.1.f

   

(Reactive

power

capability)

RTE

[6]

0%, 150 ms

Unity power factors at HV transformer terminals

0.54 pu (generators between 250 and 800 MW)

(France)

4.3.3.3

(See Figure 1)

TERNA

[7]

0%, 250 ms (See Figure 1)

Any between 0.85 lag and 0.9 lead power factors at generator terminals

Not specified

(Italy)

1B.3.8.4.a

(Voltage dip)

   

1B.5.3.3

(Reactive

power

 

capability)

E.ON

[8]

See Figure 2.

Any between 0.925 lag and 0.95 lead power factors at HV transformer terminals

Not specified

(Germany)

3.2.6

(Voltage dip)

 

3.2.5

(Reactive

power

 

capability)

NORDEL

[9]

See Figure 2

Any

between

0.85-

Not specified

(Scandinavia)

Connection

Code

0.93 lag and 0.95-0.98

3.2.4

lead

at

HV

(Voltage

dip

and

transformer

terminals

Reactive

power

depending

on

the

capability)

country:

 

REE

[10]

See Figure 2

Any between 0.989 lag and 0.989 lead at HV transformer terminals

Not specified

(Spain)

3.1

(Voltage dip)

 

[13]

6.1.1

 

(Reactive

power

capability)

WECC (Western US, Canada and Mexico)

[12]

See Figure 2

Not specified

 

Not specified

3.2.6

 

(Voltage dip)

 

Requirements of the German, Scandinavian, Spanish and American grid codes belong to the polygonal voltage dip category. The recovery voltage is smoother. Figure 2 compares the polygonal voltage dips examined. The shape of recovery voltage in the polygonal voltage dips results from enveloping recovery voltages obtained from a number of simulations and measurements [14]. It is interesting to note that the French grid code requires that the auxiliaries rather than the synchronous generator itself should withstand a polygonal type voltage dip.

The reactive power capability is required at both generator and step-up transformer HV terminals. The most demanding operating condition with respect to generator ability to withstand a voltage dip is the rated active power under the lower lead power factor. The lower lead factor varies from 0.9 to 0.95 at generator terminals and from 0.95 to 0.989 at step-up transformer HV terminals.

None of the grid codes surveyed, apart from the French one, details the external impedance to be considered. Hence, the study will assume an infinite network at the connection point of the generator to the network in such cases.

1 0.8 0.6 EIRGRID-5% 0.4 EIRGRID-50% NGC-0% NGC-30% 0.2 NGC-50% RTE TERNA 0 -0.5 0
1
0.8
0.6
EIRGRID-5%
0.4
EIRGRID-50%
NGC-0%
NGC-30%
0.2
NGC-50%
RTE
TERNA
0
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Voltage (pu)

Time (seconds)

Figure 1: Comparison of rectangular voltage dip requirements.

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 E.ON 0.2 NORDEL REE WECC 0 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
E.ON
0.2
NORDEL
REE
WECC
0
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Voltage (pu)

Time (seconds)

Figure 2: Comparison of polygonal voltage dip requirements.

This review is not exhaustive. However, it clearly shows that grid code requirements are not uniform. UCTE in Europe is aware of this circumstance and has opened a discussion on it [15].

V V REF REF E E V  KI V  KI FDmax T FDmax
V
V
REF
REF
E
E
V  KI
V  KI
FDmax T
FDmax T
C FD
C FD
 
E
E
V V
FD
FD
T T
1 1 1
K K K A
A A
1 1 1  s T
 
s T
s T
R R R
 
 
E
E
V  KI
V  KI
FDmin T
FDmin T
C FD
C FD
V V
S S
Figure 3: Bus fed static excitation system model.
V V Smax Smax   V V 1  1  sT sT 1
V V
Smax
Smax
 
V
V
1 
1
sT
sT
1
1 1  s T
 
s
s T T
sK
sK
sK
S S
S S
1 1
S S
S S
S 5 5 5
K K K
S 3 3 3
S S
S
1
1 
sT
sT
1
1 1  sT
 
sT
sT
1 1 1  sT
 
sT
sT
S S
2 2
S S
S 4
4 4
S S
S 5 5 5
V
V
Smin
Smin

Figure 4: Speed deviation stabilizer model.

3 RESPONSE OF SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS TO GRID CODE REQUIREMENTS

This section studies the response of a typical turbogenerator [15] in case of voltage dips required in the

reviewed grid codes. The generator is connected to the network through its step-up transformer. A bus

fed static excitation system supplies the generator excitation. The excitation system incorporates a speed deviation power system stabilizer. The excitation system and stabilizer models are displayed respectively in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Although speed deviation stabilizers are not commonly used, the simulation model has considered the stabilizer proposed in [15]. The simulation model has neglected the synchronous machine stator and network transients and has assumed that the turbine supplies constant mechanical power throughout the transient. Generating unit data are provided in the appendix. The simulations have always been performed in the extreme leading case specified in each grid code.

The generator response in case of rectangular type voltage dips is analyzed firstly. Figure 5 shows the responses (generator speed deviation) of the generator case of rectangular voltage dips (EIRGRID, NGC, RTE and TERNA grid codes). The generator remains stable in case of the solid faults required by the Irish, English and French grid codes. In contrast, the generator looses synchronism in case of the non solid faults of the Irish and English grid codes and in case of the solid fault of the Italian grid codes. It should be noted that TERNA requires a clearing time of 250 ms in case of a solid fault whereas EIGRID, NGC and RTE require clearing times of 200, 140 and 150 ms. Moreover, TERNA requires the generator operating at 0.9 lead power factor.

Generator response in case of RTE conditions is less damped because of the connecting reactance between the HV transformer terminals and the infinite bus. The response is damped due to the action of the power system stabilizer. Although the stabilizer has been considered in the simulation model, it should be noted that the stabilizer action does not affect the critical clearing time. The stabilizer purpose is the improvement of the damping of the generator electromechanical oscillation.

0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 EIRGRID: 5%-200ms EIRGRID: 50%-600ms -0.02 NGC: 0%-140ms NGC:
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
EIRGRID: 5%-200ms
EIRGRID: 50%-600ms
-0.02
NGC: 0%-140ms
NGC: 30%-384ms
-0.03
NGC: 50%-710ms
-0.04
RTE
TERNA
-0.05
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Generator Speed Deviation (pu)

Time (seconds)

Figure 5: Generator response in case of of voltage dips required by EIRGRID, NGC, RTE and TERNA.

0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 E.ON -0.06 NORDEL -0.08 REE WECC -0.1
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
E.ON
-0.06
NORDEL
-0.08
REE
WECC
-0.1
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Generator Speed Deviation (pu)

Time (seconds)

Figure 6: Generator response in case of voltage dips required by E.ON, NORDEL, REE and WECC.

The generator response in case of polygonal type voltage dips is addressed in the following. In contrast to the generator response in case of rectangular voltage dips, the generator looses

Generator Speed Deviation(pu)

synchronism in case of the voltage dips required by the German, Scandinavian, Spanish and American grid codes. Figure 6 shows the time variation of the generator speed deviation in such cases.

It is believed that the fact that none of the required polygonal voltage dips can be withstood is related with the definition of the voltage dip rather with the features of the machine [4]. Hence, the paper will focus on evaluating the factors that affect the ability of synchronous generators to withstand non-solid faults of longer duration as those required by the English grid code.

4 SENSITIVITY OF SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO GENERATOR PARAMETERS This section provides a study on the sensitivity of synchronous generator response to the NGC grid code with respect to a number of parameters: i.e. step-up transformer reactance, turbine-generator rotor inertia, synchronous machine short circuit ratio and excitation ceiling factor.

NGC 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 0%-245ms 30%-365ms 50%-620ms -0.03 -1 0 1 2
NGC
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
0%-245ms
30%-365ms
50%-620ms
-0.03
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5

Time (seconds)

Figure 7: Generator response in case of critical clearing times of NGC faults.

The critical clearing times of the faults required by NGC grid code are firstly determined. Figure 7 displays the generator response in case of the critical clearing times of NGC grid code faults. The critical clearing time of a solid fault (245 ms) is greater than the required value (140 ms) whereas the critical clearing times of non-solid faults corresponding to voltages dips of 30% and 50% are 365 ms and 620 ms which are smaller than the required values (384 ms and 710 ms respectively).

Table 2: Sensitivity of the critical clearing times with respect to step-up transformer reactance, turbine-generator rotor inertia, synchronous generator short circuit ratio and excitation system ceiling factor.

 

Transformer Reactance (pu)

   

Short Circuit Ratio (pu)

Voltage (%)

0.12

0.15

0.18

Voltage (%)

0.51

0.556

0.61

0

250

245

235

0

235

245

255

30

385

365

345

30

345

365

385

50

730

620

560

50

560

620

710

Rotor Inertia (s)

 

Ceiling Factor (pu)

Voltage (%)

4

6.5

8

Voltage (%)

1.6

2.5

3.4

0

190

245

270

0

240

245

245

30

285

365

405

30

350

365

375

50

485

620

690

50

555

620

710

Table 2 contains the results of the study on the sensitivity of synchronous generator response to the NGC grid code with respect to step-up transformer reactance, turbine-generator rotor inertia, synchronous machine short circuit ratio and excitation ceiling factor. The critical clearing times of solid and non-solid faults are determined for three values of each parameter. The central value is the reference value of the parameter. The critical clearing time is highlighted in bold type numbers when it is greater than the required clearing time.

The sensitivity analysis with respect to the step-up transformer reactance shows that NGC requirements are only met if the transformer reactance is 12%. The NGC requirement in case of solid faults is also met in case of a wide rage range of the transformer reactance (12-18%).

The sensitivity analysis also indicates that higher rotor inertia (8 s) facilitates the achievement of the NGC requirement in case of non-solid faults of 30% of rated voltage. The NGC requirement in case of solid faults is also met in case of a wide rage range of the rotor inertia (4.5-8 s).

The sensitivity with respect to the synchronous generator Short Circuit Ratio (SCR = 1/Xd) has been addressed affecting the value of mutual reactances at direct and quadrature axis, Xad and Xaq,

respectively, while keeping constant the stator and rotor leakage reactances. The higher and lower values of the SCR have been achieved as 0.9 x Xad and 1.1 x Xad respectively. The sensitivity study has shown that all NGC requirements can be achieved when the SCR is 0.61 pu. The NGC requirement in case of solid faults is also met in case of a wide rage range of SCR (0.51-0.61 pu). It should be noted that the range of the SCR considered is above the minimum admissible value required

by NGC in (CC.6.3.2) which is 0.5 pu [5].

The excitation ceiling excitation factor is defined as maximum excitation voltage in a per unit system which base value is the excitation required to supply rated active and reactive power at rated voltage at generator terminals. The ceiling excitation voltage in the excitation system model is expressed in a non reciprocal excitation per unit system which base value is the excitation required to supply rated voltage in the air gap line at no load. Table 3 provides the correspondence between the selected values

of the ceiling factor and the maximum field voltage.

Table 3: Correspondence between Ceiling Factor with Maximum Field Voltage.

Ceiling Factor (pu)

1.6

2.5

3.4

Efdmax (pu)

4.1

6.4

8.7

The sensitivity study has also shown that high excitation ceiling excitation factor (3.4 pu) facilitates the achievement of the NGC requirement in case of non-solid faults of 50% of rated voltage. The NGC requirement in case of solid faults is also met in case of a wide rage range of the ceiling factor (1.6-

3.4 pu). It is interesting to note that NGC (CC.A.6.4.4.3) [5] requires that the ceiling factor should not

be smaller than 2 pu and higher than 3 pu. It could be exceptionally up to 4 pu. The sensitivity study

indicates the suitability of the reference value of the ceiling value. Actually, the IEEE Guide for the Preparation of Excitation System Specifications [15] states that the ceiling voltage to be used is best determined from power simulation studies.

The sensitivity study has shown that both a lower value of the step-up transformer reactance (0.12 pu) and a higher value of synchronous generator SCR (0.61 pu) allows to fulfil NGC grid code requirements in case of solid and non-solid faults. Reducing the reactance of the step-up transformer might not be feasible in large units. Increasing the synchronous generator SCR would result in a wide variety of technical problems while non-admissible cost increasing.

Reducing the reactance of the step-up transformer might not be feasible in large units. Increasing the synchronous generator SCR from 0.5 to 0.6 would result in an equivalent generator volume increase in the range 5-10% and in a reduction of the generator efficiency in the range of 0.02-0.04 % [18]. Increasing the ceiling factor from 1.6 pu to 2.5 pu would lead to a volume increase of the excitation system transformer in the range 10-30% [18].

5 IMPROVEMENT OF SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR RESPONSE BY EXCITATION CONTROL

A number of approaches have been reported in the literature to improve the transient stability of

synchronous generators [15]. Some are incorporated to generating units (i.e. fast excitation systems, fast valving in steam turbines) while others are implemented at transmission system level (single pole reclosing, fast transmission line protections, braking resistors, series capacitors). Grid codes require a

specific performance to generating units while do not providing room for implementation of solutions at the transmission system side.

This section outlines a solution for generating units equipped with bus fed static excitation systems. The field voltage supplied by a bus fed excitation system is affected by the generator terminal voltage. The approach consists in connecting a supplementary dc voltage source in the generator excitation winding. The connection of such supplementary voltage is dictated by the variation of the terminal voltage. The dc voltage is connected to complement the voltage supplied by the thyristor bridge of the excitation system when a fault occurs. Figure 8 shows the model of a bus excitation system with the supplementary control. The value of the dc voltage source VSOU has been determined to allow the generator to fulfil NGC grid code requirements in case of solid and non-solid faults. Precisely, the ability to withstand a non-solid fault of 50% dip of rated voltage requires the higher value of VSOU which is 4.5 pu in the excitation system per unit system. It has been also assumed that VTmax = 0.85 pu and VTmin = 0.55 pu and TDELAY = 20ms.

V V REF REF E E V  KI V  KI  V 
V V
REF
REF
E
E
V  KI
V  KI
 V
 V
FDmax T
FDmax T
C FD
C FD
SUP
SUP
 
E E
V
V
FD
FD
T T
1 1 1
K K K A
A A
1 1 1
 s T
 
sT
sT
R R R
 
 
 
 
E
E
V  KI
V  KI
 V
 V
V
V
FDmin T
FDmin T
C FD
C FD
SUP
SUP
V
V
SUP
SUP
S S
V V
T T
 sT sT
V
V


V
V
 Ve 
 Ve
   
DELAY
DELAY
SUP
SUP
SOU
SOU
T
T
 1 if
1
if V
V
 
V
V
T T
Tmin
Tmin
 
   
V
V
V V
T T
SOU
SOU
0 0
if V
if
V
 
V
V
T T
Tmax
Tmax

Figure 8: Model of bus fed static excitation system with supplementary control.

NGC

0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 -0.02 0%-140ms 30%-384ms 50%-710ms -0.03 -1 0 1 2 3
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
0%-140ms
30%-384ms
50%-710ms
-0.03
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Generator Speed Deviation (pu)

Time (seconds)

Figure 9: Generator response in case of NGC faults with supplementary control in the excitation system.

Figure 9 confirms the stability of the synchronous generator in case of the NGC grid code requirements when its bus fed excitation system is equipped with the proposed supplementary control. Figure 10 compares the generator response in case (field voltage and electromagnetic torque) of NGC non-solid fault of 50% dip of rated voltage without and with supplementary excitation control. It should be emphasized that without supplementary control the critical clearing time is 620 ms whereas the critical clearing time is 710 ms with supplementary excitation control. Figure 10 confirms that the field voltage has increased due to the action of the supplementary excitation control. Hence, the field voltage increase results in the increase of the electromagnetic torque. It should be noted that the electromagnetic torque as provided by the simulation model is an approximation of the actual value due to the fact that synchronous machine stator transients have been neglected.

6 CONCLUSIONS This paper has reviewed the voltage ride through capability required by a number
6
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has reviewed the voltage ride through capability required by a number of grid codes. The
comprehensive review has shown that grid code requirements are not uniform. Differences in the
definition not only of the voltage dip but also of the generator operating point have been also found.
According to their shape, voltage dips can be separated into either rectangular or polygonal types.
Within the rectangular voltage dip category, single- and multi-dip requirements can also be found.
NGC:50%
NGC:50%
10
2.5
8
2
6
1.5
4
1
2
0.5
0
0
-2
-0.5
-4
-1
-6
-1.5
-8
Without supplementary control:620ms
-2
Without supplementary control:620ms
With supplementary control:710ms
With supplementary control:710ms
-10
-2.5
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Time (seconds)
Time (seconds)
Field Voltage (pu)
Electromagnetic Torque (pu)

Figure 10: Comparison of generator response in case of NGC non-solid fault of 50% of rated voltage without and with supplementary excitation control: field voltage (left) and electromagnetic torque (right).

NGC, EIRGRID, TERNA and RTE codes belong to the rectangular voltage dip category. The RTE code requirements are fulfilled by the typical configuration simulated. Multi-dip NGC and EIGRID requirements are only fulfilled partially. The TERNA code requirement is not fulfilled. E.ON, NORDEL, REE and WECC codes belong to the polygonal voltage dip category. In contrast to the generator response in case of rectangular voltage dips, the generator looses synchronism in case of the voltage dips required by the German, Scandinavian, Spanish and American grid codes. It is believed that the fact that none of the required polygonal voltage dips can be withstood is related with the definition of the voltage dip itself rather than with the features of the machine. Hence, the paper has focused on evaluating the factors that affect the ability of synchronous generators to withstand non- solid faults of longer duration as those required by the English grid code.

The paper has also studied the sensitivity of synchronous generator response to the NGC grid code requirements with respect to a number of parameters: i.e. step-up transformer reactance, turbine- generator rotor inertia, synchronous machine short circuit ratio and excitation ceiling factor. The sensitivity study has shown that both a lower value of the step-up transformer reactance (0.12 pu) and a higher value of synchronous generator SCR (0.61 pu) would ensure that NGC grid code requirements in case of solid and non-solid faults are fulfilled.

This paper has outlined a solution for generating units equipped with bus fed static excitation systems. The approach consists in connecting a supplementary dc voltage source in the generator excitation winding when a fault occurs. The paper has shown that such an approach allows compliance with NGC grid code requirements, while using common values for transformer reactance and generator SCR

7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]

P.B. Eriksen, T. Ackermann, H. Abildgaard, P. Smith, W. Winter, J.M. Rodriguez Garcia,

“System operation with high wind penetration”, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2005, Pages: 65 – 74. [2] International Electrotechnical Commission, “International Standard, Rotating electrical machines, Part 3: Specific requirements for synchronous generators driven by steam turbines or combustion gas turbines”, IEC Standard 60034-3, Edition 6.0, 2007-11.

[3]

IEEE, “IEEE Standard for Cylindrical-Rotor 50 Hz and 60 Hz Synchronous Generators Rated

[4]

10 MVA and Above”, IEEE Standard C50.13-2005. L. Rouco, C. Ginet, K. Chan, K. Mayor, O. Malcher, L. Díez-Maroto, R. Cherkaoui, “Voltage

[5]

ride through capability of synchronous generators: Grid code requirements and sensitivity with respect to their parameters”, Cigré Study Committee A1 Meeting, Sydney (Australia), 21-24 September 2009. National Grid Electricity Transmission, “The Grid Code”, Issue 4, 24 June 2009, available at

http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/67374C36-1635-42E8-A2B8-

 

B7B8B9AF2408/35187/Complete_I4GridCode.pdf.

 

[6]

EirGrid,

“EirGrid

Grid

Code”,

Version

3.3,

30

January

2009,

available

at

http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Grid%20Code%20v3.3.pdf.

 

[7]

RTE Gestionnaire du Reseau de Transport D’Electricité, “Documentation technique du

référence”,

24

 

avril

2009,

available

at http://clients.rte-

france.com/htm/fr/mediatheque/telecharge/reftech/24-04-09_complet.pdf.

 

[8]

Terna, “Codice di trasmissione dispacciamento, sviluppo e sicurezza della rete”, 12 gennaio

2009,

available

 

at

http://www.terna.it/default/Home/SISTEMA_ELETTRICO/codice_rete.aspx.

 

[9]

E.On

Netz,

“Grid

Code:

High

and

extra

high

voltage”,

1

April

2006,

available

at

http://www.eon-

 

netz.com/pages/ehn_de/Veroeffentlichungen/Netzanschluss/Netzanschlussregeln/ENENARHS

2006eng.pdf.

 

[10]

Nordel,

“Nordic

Grid

Code

2007

Edition”,

15

January

2007,

available

at

http://www.nordel.org/content/default.asp?pagename=openfile&DocID=4948.

 

[11]

Red Eléctrica de España, “Procedimiento de Operación 12.2: Instalaciones conectadas a la red de transporte: requisitos mínimos de diseño, equipamiento, funcionamiento y seguridad y

puesta en servicio”,

 

11

February 2005, available at

http://www.ree.es/operacion/pdf/po/PO_resol_11feb2005.pdf.

 

[12]

WECC, “Generator Low Voltage Ride-Through Criterion”, Draft Standard, PRC-024-WECC- 1-CR, 20 February 2008, available at http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Development/WECC-

60/Shared%20Documents/WECC-0060%20PRC-024-WECC-1-

CR%20Low%20Voltage%20Ride%20Through%20Criterion%20Draft%201%202-20-08.pdf.

[13] Red Eléctrica de España, “Procedimiento de Operación 7.4: Servicio complementario de

control

http://www.ree.es/operacion/pdf/po/PO_resol_10mar2000_correc.pdf.

de

tensión

de

la

red

de transporte”, 10 March 2000, available at

[14]

WECC Wind Generation Task Force (WGTF), “The Technical Basis for the New WECC Voltage Ride-Through (VRT) Standard”, White Paper, 13 June 2007, available at

http://www.wecc.biz/Standards/Development/WECC-

60/Shared%20Documents/Voltage%20Ride%20Through%20White%20Paper%206-13-07.pdf.

[15]

UCTE, “Requirements to generating units”, September 2008.

[16]

P. Kundur, “Power System Stability and Control”, Mc Graw Hill, 1994.

[17]

IEEE, “IEEE Guide for the Preparation of Excitation System Specifications”, IEEE Standard

421.4-2004.

[18]

C. E. Stephan, Z. Baba, “Specifying a Turbogenerator’s Electrical Parameters Guided by Standards and Grid Codes”, Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Electric Machines and Drives, pp. 63 – 68.

APPENDIX: GENERATOR AND TRANSFORMER DATA Generator mechanical data:

H = 6.5 s

Generator electrical data:

Xd = 1.8 pu, X’d = 0.3 pu, X’’d = 0.25 pu, Xq = 1.7 pu, X’q = 0.55 pu, X’’q = 0.25 pu, Xl = 0.2 pu, Ra = 0.0025 pu, T’d0 = 8 s, T’’d0 = 0.030 s, T’q0 = 0.4 s, T’’q0 = 0.05 s

Excitation system model parameters:

KA = 200 pu, TR = 0.01 s, EFDmax = 6.4 pu, EFDmin = -6.4 pu, KC = 0.1 pu

Stabilizer model parameters:

KS = 20 pu, TS1 = 0.05 s, TS2 = 0.02 s, TS3 = 3 s, TS4 = 5.4 s, TS5 = 10 s, VSmax = 0.05 pu VSmin = -0.05

Transformer electrical data:

Xt = 0.15 pu