See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224205043

Doubly-fed induction generator modeling and control in DigSilent

PowerFactory

Conference Paper · November 2010

DOI: 10.1109/POWERCON.2010.5666596 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

17 1,172

3 authors, including:

Camille Hamon
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GARPUR: Generally Accepted Reliability Principle with Uncertainty modelling and through probabilistic Risk assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Camille Hamon on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Doubly-fed Induction Generator Modeling and

Control in DigSilent PowerFactory
C. Hamon, K. Elkington, M. Ghandhari
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract—Several computer programs exist to carry out dy- influence of this new signal on the damping of the system is
namic simulations and this study will focus on one of them, studied.
namely DigDilent PowerFactory. It offers two built-in models
of doubly-fed induction generator. A new model has also been
developed, based upon a controllable voltage source. These II. M ACHINE THEORY
three models are compared, in terms of dynamic behavior and A. Working Principles
simulation time. One of them is then used to study the impact of
an input control signal based on the single machine equivalent In the case of a DFIG, both stator and rotor have three sinu-
method. This signal provides power oscillation damping. soidally distributed windings, corresponding to three phases,
Index Terms—DFIG, PowerFactory displaced by 120◦ .
The rotor is connected to the grid through converters and
a DC-link. A schematic of such a system is presented in
I. I NTRODUCTION figure 1. The size of the converters limits the amount of
power flowing between the rotor and the grid.
I NTERNATIONAL agreements have set high demands on
the share of renewable energy in the total energy mix.
Among renewable sources, significant investments have been
made in wind power. In Europe, for instance, the total installed
DFIG Grid
capacity of wind power was 76 GW at the end of 2009, out
of which almost 10.5 GW was newly installed during 2009.
This represents nearly 40% of new installations of all energy
sources combined [1]. DC link
The number of large wind parks is due to rise, which DC AC
C
will significantly impact existing power systems. These effects
AC DC
must be studied, using exhaustive models of wind turbines.
Rotor-side converter G rid-side converter
However, due to the intricacy of electric grids, models which
are too detailed take a long time to simulate. Therefore a Fig. 1: DFIG with its converters
trade-off between simplicity and accuracy must be made,
and comprehensive models should be simplified. The aim of
this work is to use a specific simulation software package,
DigSilent PowerFactory version 14 [2], to study the behavior B. Electrical equations
of doubly-fed induction generators (DFIG). The electrical equations for DFIG are conveniently ex-
Comprehensive studies of DFIG [3]–[6] have been made. pressed in the dq-reference frame, rotating at synchronous
Models of different orders have been presented and different speed:
control strategies have been studied.        
PowerFactory offers two built-in DFIG models, one comes vds ids 1 d ψds −ψqs
= −Rs + + ,
as a built-in example in version 13 and the second is a built- vqs iqs ωs dt ψqs ψds
in component. PowerFactory has already been used in some (1)
       
studies [7], [8] but these have only used one of the models. vdr idr 1 d ψdr −ψqr
= −Rr + +s ,
There is a need to compare these models to study whether vqr iqr ωs dt ψqr ψdr
they differ from each other, and if so, in which aspects. Also, (2)
PowerFactory offers possibilities to create new models. A third 
ψds
 
Xs ids + Xm idr

new DFIG model has been created using a voltage source. The =− , (3)
ψqs Xs iqs + Xm iqr
behaviors of the two built-in models and the new model are    
ψdr Xr idr + Xm ids
compared. =− , (4)
ψqr Xr iqr + Xm iqs
With increasing wind power penetration, control of DFIG
to secure operation of power systems will become all the where d and q denote the d and q components. The symbols
more important. A specific control strategy that uses the v, i, R, X and ψ stand for voltages, currents, resistances,
single equivalent machine (SIME) signal is examined and the reactances and flux linkages per second, respectively. The
 2

subscripts s and r denote the stator and rotor quantities, m III. T HIRD - ORDER MODEL
is used for the mutual reactance. The symbols ωs and s are A very common assumption in power system simulations is
the synchronous speed and the slip. that stator transients are neglected. The latter varies at high
Complex substitution is used in the following. To each frequency and is not of interest when studying electrome-
vector quantity f~dq of two elements can be associated one chanical transients [10]. In the dq-reference frame rotating
complex quantity f¯dq : at synchronous speed, it means neglecting the dψ dt term in
s

  the stator electrical equation [11]. It eliminates the differential

fd
f~dq = → fd + jfq = f¯dq . (5) terms in equation (6) of the detailed model which then
fq
becomes a so-called third-order model. The stator resistance is
Also, the usual per-unit system is used to normalize all often assumed to be very small so that it is usually neglected
electrical quantities. Equations (1), (2), (3) and (4) can then to further simplify the model. The stator voltage equation can
be rewritten as: then be rewritten as

1 dψ̄dqs v̄dqs = j ψ̄dqs . (16)

v̄dqs = −Rs ı̄dqs + + j ψ̄dqs , (6)
ωs dt Defining
1 dψ̄dqr
v̄dqr = −Rr ı̄dqr + + jsψ̄dqr , (7) 0 Xm
ωs dt Ē = j ψ̄dqr , (17)
ψ̄dqs = −Xs ı̄dqs − Xm ı̄dqr , (8) Xr
0 X2
ψ̄dqr = −Xr ı̄dqr − Xm ı̄dqs , (9) X = Xs − m , (18)
Xr
with all quantities in per-unit. and using equations (8) and (9), the stator voltage equation
(16) can also be written as [12]
0 0
C. Mechanical equation v̄dqs = Ē − jX ı̄dqs , (19)
0
The dynamics of the generator shaft relate the rotor speed and it can then be represented as a voltage Ē behind a
0
and the electromagnetic torque: reactance X as depicted in figure 2.
dωm 0
J = Tm − Te , (10) jX
dt ~ıdqs
Ē
0
v̄dqs
where J is the inertia of the machine, Tm is the mechanical
torque and Te is the electromagnetic torque.
The mechanical torque Tm is related to the mechanical Fig. 2: Stator equivalent circuit
power Pm extracted from the wind and available on the
turbine’s shaft:
Pm p Introducing the transient open-circuit time constant T0 :
Tm = = Pm , (11)
ωm ωr Xr
T0 = , (20)
where ωr is the rotor electrical speed and p is the number of ωs Rr
pole pairs. Introducing the electrical active power defined as and using equations (9) and (16), the rotor voltage equation
(7) can be expressed as
Pe = ψqr idr − ψdr iqr = ψds iqs − ψqs ids , (12) 0 
dĒ 1 Xs 0 0
= − 0 Ē − jsωs T0 Ē
the electromagnetic torque can be written as [9] dt T0 X
0
! (21)
p Xs − X Xm
Te = Pe . (13) + v̄dqs + jT0 ωs v̄dqr .
ωs X0 Xr
Defining the acceleration time constant as Considering equation (16), the electrical active power Pe
defined in (12) can be rewritten
Jωbase
Tag = , (14)
Tbase Pe = vsd ids + vsq iqs , (22)
where ωbase and Tbase are the base speed and the base torque, which means that it is equal to the stator active power Ps ,
the mechanical equation can be written as: which is also defined by the right-hand side of equation (22).
The electrical torque given by equation (13) can then be
dωm 1
= (Tm − Te ) , (15) written
dt Tag
p
Te = Ps . (23)
with all quantities in per-unit. ωs
 3

IV. C ONTROL STRATEGY the critical machines and one set S2 with the non-critical
The machine is controlled by the rotor-side converter. Let: machines, as defined in [13]. The following quantities are
defined:
• VDC be the voltage of the DC-link X X
• md and mq be the modulation depths set by the rotor-side Hi δ i Hi δ i
converter for d− and q− components, respectively. 1 i ∈S 2i ∈S
δsime = X − X , (31)
The rotor voltage components are therefore set as: Hi Hi
√ i ∈S i ∈S
3VDC X1 X2
vrd = md √ , (24)
2 2 Hi ω i Hi ω i
√ i ∈S1 i ∈S2
3VDC ωsime = − , (32)
vrq = mq √ . (25)
X X
2 2 Hi Hi
i ∈S1 i ∈S2
The controlled quantities are either total active and reactive
powers or total active power and stator voltage. where the symbols δi , ωi and Hi denote the rotor angle, the
Only a small part of the total active power is exchanged with angular speed and the inertia of synchronous generator i. From
the grid via the rotor. This means that stator active power can these the SIME signal is defined:
be controlled to control total active power. Using equations
ysime = sin (δsime ) ωsime . (33)
(8) and (16), expression (22) for stator active power can be
rewritten as This signal can be amplified and is used as shown in figure
Xm 3. The amplification gains KSp and KSq (or KSv if voltage
Ps = − (vsd idr + vsq iqr ). (26) is controlled instead of reactive power) can be different. In
Xs
this figure, the subscript meas denotes measured values and
The grid-side converter is controlled in this study to prevent
the subscript set setpoint values.
any flow of reactive power between the rotor and the grid.
Controlling stator reactive power means therefore controlling
total reactive power. Stator reactive power is expressed as:
ysime
Qs = Im(v̄dqs ı̄∗dqs ) = vsq ids − vsd iqs . (27)
Using equations (8) and (16), this expression can be rewritten: P meas KSp
Xm 1
Qs = (vsd iqr − vsq idr ) − |v̄s |2 . (28)
Xs Xs -
+
+
+

P set P Ip my
This expression shows the coupling between reactive power
and stator voltage.
Expressions (26) and (28) can be simplified when all
- +
quantities are expressed in the stator flux reference frame. The Qset or V set P Iq mx
latter has it x−axis aligned with the stator flux. Given relation + +

(16) between stator voltage and stator flux, this means that the
y−axis is aligned with stator voltage. Expressions for stator
active and reactive powers become: Qmeas or V meas KSq or KSv

Xm
Ps = − vs iyr , (29) ysime
Xs
Xm 1 2
Qs = − vs ixr − v . (30)
Xs Xs s Fig. 3: Control strategy with additional signal
Therefore, in this new reference frame, active power is
controlled by acting upon the y-component of rotor current and The signal may add damping in the system if it is properly
reactive power (or voltage) by acting upon the x-component tuned.
of rotor current. The two components of rotor current are
controlled by acting upon rotor voltage, set by the rotor-side
converter as described by equations (24) and (25). V. DFIG MODELS

Two PI controllers are used to control either active and PowerFactory offers two built-in DFIG models. The first is
reactive powers or active power and stator voltage. Their depicted in figure 4 and will be referred to as Model A in
outputs are modulation depths mx and my , defined in the the following. The second is depicted in figure 5 and will be
stator flux reference frame, which are then rotated back to the referred to as Model B in the following.
dq−reference frame to get md and mq . In Model A, the rotor side’s power factor is controlled to
Another control strategy based upon the introduction of a be one. The controller is however not instantaneous and small
new signal will also be studied. In this new strategy, a system amounts of reactive power are either produced or consumed.
with two sets of generators is considered, one set S1 with In Model B, the DC-link is hidden and the user does not have
 4

20,00 kV
consider figure 5 once again, the amount of power flowing
BB 1 from the transformer to the grid can be defined. This model
900,00 MVA is therefore much more interesting than the other one.

2-Winding Transformer
5,36 %
Finally, PowerFactory allows the user to define a control
strategy. The built-in components are controllable via input
signals. Model A is controlled by the modulation depths of
900,00 MVA
5,36 %
the rotor-side controller in a reference frame rotating with
3,30 kV the rotor angle. With Model B, the user defines the two
components of the rotor voltage directly, in the rotor-angle
2-Winding Transformer(1)

900,00 MVA
0,43 %
oriented reference frame.
900000. kVA

In addition to these two built-in models, a new DFIG model

900,00 MVA
0,43 %
has been built upon a voltage source as represented in figure
6.
U11
400,00 MVA
1,15 kV
X̄eq
Ēeq v̄g = v̄s : grid
400,00 MVA

138491,88..

400,00 MVA
1

PWM U1
Fig. 6: Equivalent circuit
900000. kVA

G
~
G1d
1 x 90000..
900000. kVA
One of the greatest advantages with this approach is that
1939. V
DC most power system simulation software provides controllable
voltage source models. This means that even software pack-
Fig. 4: Built-in model with DC link in PowerFactory ages which do not allow the user to create new components
can be used. This can be done in PowerFactory. The user
can create control schemes for existing components but the
Terminal creation of completely new components is not possible.
110,00..
The built-in voltage source will therefore be controlled
to emulate the DFIG’s behavior, according to the strategy
depicted in figure 7. In this figure, Eeq and δ represent the
voltage magnitude and angle of the controlled source, and Ps ,
2-Winding..

Pr and Qs are stator active power, rotor active power and

stator reactive power, respectively.
Terminal(1) 110,00..

Control scheme

mx , my
G
~
Asynchron..
Computation of the power
theoretically delivered by the DFIG
Fig. 5: Built-in model without DC link in PowerFactory
Ps , Qs , Pr

any control over the grid-side converter. Computation of the

controlled source’s voltage
magnitude and angle
Other interesting differences exist, specifically concerning
the load flow calculations. With Model A, it is only possible Eeq , δ
to define the active and reactive powers produced by the stator.
There is no possibility to define it as a PV (to set active power
and voltage) or PQ (to set active and reactive powers) bus. This Voltage source
P meas , Qmeas
puts some strong limitations on the load flow behavior of this
model, since we are generally interested in total power and not
Fig. 7: Strategy to compute Eeq and δ
only stator power. With Model B however, the user can define
the generator bus as a PV or PQ bus. It is even possible for
the user to define the power flow at another bus. Thus, if we From the modulation depth components, the DFIG equa-
 5

tions are used to calculate the theoretical active and reactive same dymamics. For disturbance 2 however, Model B differs
power transmitted to the grid. The total powers transmitted to from the other two. The difference in behavior with the other
the grid are: two models is however very small and it can be seen in the
generated active power and speed, Model B deviates from
Pg = Ps + Pr , (34)
Model A and Model C mostly during the first oscillation.
Qg = Qs . (35)
Once these powers are obtained, the voltage which must be
0.9 1.11
set by the equivalent controlled voltage source to feed the

active power (pu)

grid is calculated. The actual powers transmitted to the grid 0.85 1.1

speed (pu)
are then measured, compared with the setpoints and used by
0.8 1.1
the control scheme to compute the control signals mx and my .
This model will be referred to as Model C in the following. 0.75 1.09
The new model is based upon a voltage source but it might
0.7 1.09
be noted that any built-in component which can be controlled 5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8
time (s) time (s)
to produce the right amount of power could also be used.
(a) Active powers generated by the (b) Speeds of the generators
DFIGs
VI. S TUDY CASES
In this paper, two sets of simulations are carried out. The 0.3
reactive power (pu)

first is used to compare the three models presented in section 0.28 1.04

voltage (pu)
V. The second studies the effect of the SIME signal introduced 0.26
in section IV. Both sets of simulations use the system depicted
0.24 1.02
in figure 8.
0.22

G1 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 G3
0.2
5 6 7 8
1
5 6 7 8
time (s) time (s)
(c) Reactive powers generated by the (d) Voltages at bus 1
DFIGs
2 4 Fig. 9: Disturbance 1, magnified parts, for Model A [dotted],
L7 L9 Model B [dashdotted] and Model C [dashed], setpoints [solid]
G2 G4

Fig. 8: Two-area system

The system is composed of two areas, each containing 0.78 1.1

active power (pu)

two generators. Generators G2, G3 and G4 are synchronous 1.1

speed (pu)

generators. Generator G1 is a DFIG generator, modeled by 0.78

either Model A, Model B or Model C. 1.1
Except for the values used for the DFIG, all values can be 1.1
0.78
found in [10]. As for the DFIG, the values can be found in
1.09
the appendix in table II. 6 8 10 5 6 7 8
time (s) time (s)

A. Model comparison (a) Active powers generated by the (b) Speeds of the generators
DFIGs
In this section, the synchronous generators are each
equipped with an excitation system with power system sta- 0.31
reactive power (pu)

bilizer (PSS) whose values can be found in [10]. The active

0.31 1.07
voltage (pu)

and reactive powers produced by the DFIG are controlled by

the scheme described by figure 3 without additional signal. 0.3
The following disturbances have been simulated: 1.06
0.3
• disturbance 1: a three-phase short-circuit at bus 9 cleared
by tripping a line between buses 8 and 9 after 100 0.29
5 6 7 8 5 6 7 8
milliseconds time (s) time (s)
• disturbance 2: a reactive power setpoint increase of 0.3 (c) Reactive powers generated by the (d) Voltages at bus 1
p.u. (defined as Qset in figure 3) DFIGs
Magnified parts depicting the transient responses of the Fig. 10: Disturbance 1, magnified parts, for Model A [dotted],
three models can be found in figures 9 and 10. For distur- Model B [dashdotted] and Model C [dashed], setpoints [solid]
bance 1, all models behave in the same way. They have the
 6

TABLE I: Simulation time comparison - elapsed time in 0.6

seconds
Model A Model B Model C 0.4

Active power (pu)

Simulation 1 55 3 5
Simulation 2 10 3 3 0.2

0
Computation time is also an important criterion. A speed
comparison has therefore been performed. The elapsed time
for each simulation and each model is gathered in table I. −0.2
The simulation times of Model B and the Model C compared
to Model A can be nearly 20 times faster, depending on −0.4
simulations. This is a considerable difference and makes
Model A only interested to use for specific simulations such 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
as studies of the DC-link behavior. time (s)

B. SIME signal Fig. 11: Active power along a line between buses 8 and 9 after
disturbance 1, with [dashed] and without [solid] the additional
In this part, the DFIG is Model B (depicted in figure 5).
signal
The control strategy will be altered to include the additional
signal as presented in section IV and compared to the scheme
without this extra signal. The system depicted in figure 8 is
known for interarea oscillations [10]. Generators G3 and G4 4
are the critical machines and generator G2 is the non-critical
AVR output (pu)

machine. Voltage is controlled instead of reactive power. All 2

values for the control scheme can be found in the appendix in
table IV. The excitation system for the synchronous generators 0
is IEEE type AC4, whose parameter values can be found in
[10]. The PSSs have been taken away from the synchronous −2
generators. The aim is to study whether the SIME signal can
add damping to power oscillations. A three-phase short-circuit
−4
at bus 8 cleared by tripping a line between buses 8 and 9 after
100 milliseconds is simulated. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The active power along the remaining line between buses 8
time (s)
and 9 reflects the interaction between the two areas of the
system and is plotted in figure 11. Without the additional Fig. 12: Disturbance 1, outputs of the voltage regulator of
signal, the system becomes unstable after a few oscillations. generator 2, with [dashed] and without [solid] the additional
In figure 12, the output of the voltage regulator of generator 2 signal
is plotted. This output is limited and the lower limit is hit only
one oscillation after the fault. After two oscillations, the output
begins oscillating rapidly between the lower and the upper in speed with Model A is very large. Considerable time can
limits. The same phenomenon occurs in the voltage regulators be gained by using this model in simulations. Finally, it is
of generators 3 and 4. simpler to use and comes as a all-in-one component whereas
With the altered control scheme, the power oscillations are the other model comes with a DC link, another converter and
stabilized and damped and the equilibrium point of the system a transformer for the rotor side. This makes Model A suitable
is altered. Since one line was tripped between buses 8 and 9, only when modeling the converters is of interest.
the power flow along the remaining line increases as observed The new model that was developed has been tested just in
in figure 11. Also, although the voltage regulator output of a few cases in this study. It is more complicated to use than
generator 2 hits the limit once, it is set back to its setpoint built-in components but it is more flexible because it relies on
value as seen in figure 12. code and can be made to do exactly what the user wishes.
The SIME signal has shown great potential to add damping
VII. C ONCLUSION to the system when using DFIG.
The theory lying behind DFIG has been used to create a
new model in PowerFactory based upon a voltage source. This R EFERENCES
model and two built-in models were compared in this study. [1] European Wind Energy Association. Statistics & targets, April 2010.
Model B offers many more possibilities for load flow, can [2] DigSilent GmbH. Manuals DigSilent PowerFactory, 14.0 edition, 2007.
[3] JB Ekanayake, L. Holdsworth, and N. Jenkins. Comparison of 5th order
be defined either as a PQ or a PV bus and can be controlled to and 3rd order machine models for doubly fed induction generator (dfig)
set the load flow values at a remote bus. Also, the difference wind turbines. Electric Power Systems Research, 67(3):207–215, 2003.
 7

[4] Feng Wu, Xiao-Ping Zhang, K. Godfrey, and Ping Ju. Modeling and
control of wind turbine with doubly fed induction generator. In Power
Systems Conference and Exposition, 2006. PSCE ’06. 2006 IEEE PES,
pages 1404–1409, Atlanta, GA, October/November 2006.
[5] R. Pena, J. C. Clare, and G. M. Asher. Doubly fed induction generator
using back-to-back PWM converters and its application to variable-
speed wind-energy generation. In Electric Power Applications, IEE
Proceedings -, volume 143, pages 231–241, May 1996.
[6] P. Ledesma and J. Usaola. Doubly fed induction generator model for
transient stability analysis. IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion,
20(2):388–397, June 2005.
[7] M.A. Poller. Doubly-fed induction machine models for stability assess-
ment of wind farms. In Power Tech Conference Proceedings, 2003 IEEE
Bologna, volume 3, page 6 pp. Vol.3, 23-26 2003. TABLE III: Values used in the control scheme for the model
[8] A.D. Hansen, F. Iov, P.E. Sørensen, N.A. Cutululis, C. Jauch, and comparison
F. Blaabjerg. Dynamic wind turbine models in power system simulation
tool DIgSILENT. Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Parameter Value
2007.
[9] P.C. Krause, O. Wasynczuk, and S.D. Sudhoff. Analysis of electric Kp 0.2 (p.u.)
machinery. McGraw-Hill New York, 1986. Tp 2 (s)
[10] P. Kundur, N.J. Balu, and M.G. Lauby. Power system stability and Kq 0.2 (p.u.)
control. McGraw-Hill Professional, 1994. Tq 2 (s)
[11] P. C. Krause, F. Nozari, T. L. Skvarenina, and D. W. Olive. The theory KSp 0 (p.u.)
of neglecting stator transients. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus KSv 0 (p.u.)
and Systems, 98(1):141–148, January 1979.
[12] K. Elkington, V. Knazkins, and M. Ghandhari. Modal analysis of power
systems with doubly fed induction generators. In Bulk Power System
Dynamics and Control - VII. Revitalizing Operational Reliability, 2007
iREP Symposium, pages 1–8, Charleston, SC, August 2007.
[13] M. Ghandhari, G. Andersson, M. Pavella, and D. Ernst. A control
strategy for controllable series capacitor in electric power systems.
Automatica, 37(10):1575 – 1583, 2001.

A PPENDIX A
VALUES USED IN THE SIMULATIONS
The values used for DFIG are gathered in table II.

TABLE II: DFIG parameters

Name Value
Rated Power 900 (MW)
Rated Voltage 3.3 (kV)
Number of poles 2
Nominal frequency 50 (Hz)
Stator resistance Rs 0 (p.u.)
Stator reactance Xs 3.1 (p.u.)
Rotor resistance Rr 0.01 (p.u.)
Rotor reactance Xr 3.1 (p.u.)
Mutual reactance Xm 0.1 (p.u.)
Acceleration time constant Tag 1.145767 (s) TABLE IV: Values used in the control scheme with SIME
DC Voltage 1.3225 (p.u.) signal
Parameter Value
The PI controllers used in this paper to control active power,
reactive power or voltage are defined as: Kp 0.1 (p.u.)
  Tp 2 (s)
1 Kv 0.1 (p.u.)
PIp = Kp 1 + , (36) Tv 2 (s)
sTd KSp -10 (p.u.)
 
1 KSv 5 (p.u.)
PIq = Kq 1 + , (37)
sTq
 
1
PIv = Kv 1 + . (38)
sTv
The values in tables III and IV have been used for the model
comparison in section VI-A and the study of the SIME signal
in section VI-B, respectively.

View publication stats