Generic Stability Models for Type 3 & 4 Wind

Turbine Generators for WECC

P. Pourbeik, A. Ellis, J. Sanchez-Gasca, Y. Kazachkov, E. Muljadi, J. Senthil and D. Davies
Working Group Joint Report – WECC Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force & IEEE Working Group on
Dynamic Performance of Wind Power Generation

(WTGs). These models were approved at the November

Abstract—This paper provides a brief summary of the
development of the second generation of type 3 and 4 generic
wind turbine generator models for stability studies under the
Western Electricity Coordinating Council Renewable Energy
Modeling Task Force (WECC REMTF). .
Index Terms—Wind Generator Modeling, Model
Validation, Renewable Generation Modeling
2012 meeting of the WECC Modeling and Validation
Working Group (MVWG) and the various commercial
software vendors are now working on implementing the
models for testing and release of the model in 2013. The
progress of this work is summarized in several recent
reports [3], [4] and [5]. Pertinent references to other recent
work include [6], [7] and [8].

I. INTRODUCTION The four main wind turbine generator technologies are

shown pictorially in Figure 1.
Presently, there are two industry groups working towards
the development of generic and standard models for use in
power system stability simulations for wind turbine
generators. The first group, which was established in 2005,

To Grid
To Grid
is the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
Renewable Energy Modeling Task Force (REMTF). The
second group, which was commissioned in 2009, is the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical
Committee (TC) 88, Working Group (WG) 27. In addition,
in 2010 the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), Integration of Variable Generation
Task Force (IVGTF) Task 1-1 published a report [1] that
outlined and emphasized the need for such generic models
for variable generation. The IVGTF Task 1.3 report
To Grid

discusses modeling needs for interconnection studies [2].
In [1] the term “generic” is clarified to refer to a model that
is standard, public and not specific to any vendor, so that it
can be parameterized in order to reasonably emulate the
dynamic behavior of a wide range of equipment and at the
same time does not directly represent any actual turbine
control strategy or divulge proprietary information. The
intended usage of these models, as described in the context
of the NERC, WECC and IEC efforts, is primarily for
power system stability analysis, with a focus on positive
sequence analysis. The need for three-phase models and
vendor specific models still certainly exists for specialized
and site specific studies [1].
This paper focuses on the results of the generic model
development activity under the WECC REMTF and reports
on the recently approved set of new 2nd generation generic
models for the type 3 and 4 wind turbine generators
To Grid
Figure 1: The four many wind turbine technologies.
Today, the most commonly installed technologies (both in
the US and overseas) for new wind power plants are the
type 3 and 4 units. All the major equipment vendors supply
one or both of these technologies. There are, however, a
large number of the type 1 and 2 units in-service around the
world, and so modeling them is also of importance. Some
vendors do still supply the type 1 and 2 turbines.
In this paper we will present a concise summary of the
second generation of WECC generic models that have been
developed through recent efforts for type 3 and 4 WTGs.
The details of the model specifications can be found in [4]
and [5].

Corresponding author: P. Pourbeik, EPRI; email: ppourbeik@epri.com

or pouyan@ieee.org

978-1-4799-1303-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

 II. THE NEW MODEL STRUCTURE FOR THE SECOND The detailed structure of the models can be found in [4], as
GENERATION TYPE 3 AND 4 GENERIC WTG MODELS FOR well as a list of parameters and also possible control
WECC strategy options (see Table 3-1 in [4]).
One of the new aspects of the second generation models for
type 3 and 4 WTG is the decision by the WECC REMTF to
move towards a modular approach. That is, the models are
made up of smaller modules that are truly generic and
usable for any appropriate renewable generation system.
For this release of the models each component name is
followed by “_a” to designate the first version of the
module. This allows for additional versions to be
developed for each module as changes are deemed
necessary in the future.
Figure 2 shows the overall structure of the second
generation type 3 WTG model. The model has seven (7)
modules:
1. The renewable energy generator/converter (regc_a)
model, which has inputs of real (Ipcmd) and reactive
(Iqcmd) current command and outputs of real (Ip) and Figure 2: The type 3 WTG model structure
reactive (Iq) current injection into the grid model.
Figure 3 shows the overall structure of the second
2. The renewable energy electrical controls (reec_a) model, generation type 4 WTG model. The model has four (4)
which has inputs of real power reference (Pref) that can modules:
be externally controlled, reactive power reference (Qref)
that can be externally controlled and feedback of the 1. The renewable energy generator/converter model
reactive power generated (Qgen). The outputs of this (regc_a), which is identical to that for the type 3 WTG.
model are the real (Ipcmd) and reactive (Iqcmd) current 2. The renewable energy electrical controls model (reec_a),
command. which is identical to that for the type 3 WTG.
3. The emulation of the wind turbine generator drive-train 3. The emulation of the driven-train (wtgt_a) for simulating
(wtgt_a) for simulating torsional oscillations. The output drive-train oscillations.
of this model is speed (spd). In this case speed is
assumed to be a vector spd = [ωt ωg], where ωt is the 4. A simple renewable energy plant controller (repc_a),
which is identical to that for the type 3 WTG.
turbine speed and ωg the generator speed. The
mechanical power/torque can be varied through the The details of these models can be found in [5].
action of the connected aero-dynamic model.
4. A simple model of the wind turbine generator aero-
dynamics (wtgar_a). This is based on reference [9], and
the existing first generation WT3 generic model.
5. A simplified representation of the wind turbine generator
pitch-controller (wtgpt_a). This is similar to the existing
type 3 pitch-control model, with the addition of one
parameter Kcc. This parameter was added through
consultation and discussions within the IEC group.
6. A simple emulation of the wind turbine generator torque
control (wtgtrq_a).
7. A simple renewable energy plant controller (repc_a),
which has inputs of either voltage reference (Vref) and
measured/regulated voltage (Vreg) at the plant level, or
reactive power reference (Qref) and measured reactive Figure 3: The type 4 WTG model structure
power (Qgen) at the plant level. The output of the
repc_a model is a reactive power command that connects Note that these small component models (or modules) have
to Qref on the reec_a model. not been specifically named WT3 or WT4 since several of
the modules are identical. Also, the plant controller and a
simplified version of the electrical controls are to be used
for modeling solar PV. Thus, by keeping this modular
approach we can work towards a library of individual
modular blocks that can be appropriately combined to
formulate the various types of renewable energy generation
technologies. This leaves room for future expansion, where
certain modules, such as the wind plant controller, can be
revised, updated or made available in several versions.
III. MODEL VALIDATION
It can be said broadly that the goal of model validation is to
establish that a model and its chosen parameters adequately
represent the dynamic performance of the “as-installed”
device being modeled for the purpose of power system
studies [1], [7]. This statement leaves room for
interpretation on the meaning of “adequate” and “power
system studies”. For example, many international entities
have strict quantitative rules and techniques for determining
model validation, while in North America the determination
of model validation adequacy is left more to the
engineering judgment of the expert. Each approach has its
merits and deficiencies, and it is not the goal here to go into
a protracted discussion of these issues. A simple summary
will be provided of the concept of model validation. The
model validation examples shown here are consistent with
the WECC Generator Facility Data, Testing and Model
Validation Requirements [10], which states that model
validation should demonstrate a reasonable match between
the WECC approved model and reference data.
A. The Process of Model Validation:
Model validation is generally a four step process:
Step 1: Define the model structure to be used.
Step 2: Collect measured data from the actual device(s) to
be modeled. Such data is typically collected either from a
set of “staged” tests, on-line monitoring of the device, or
tests performed on the device in the factory.
Step 3: Simulating the same set of tests/events as
occurred/forced during the data collection process using the
model(s) in step 1 and compare the simulated response of
the device to the recorded response in step 2.
Step 4: If the two responses match adequately we have a
validated model. If not we go back to step 1 and refine the
model or model parameters, and also check the measured
data in step 2 to ensure we have appropriately allowed for
potential measurement errors.
In step 2 we also allow for factory tests, particularly for
technology that is new and innovative (such as wind and
solar PV) or where field tests may be destructive or harmful
to the equipment and network stability. The issues related
to measurement errors and understanding the limitations of
a model (i.e. not expecting that a stability model should be
capable of reproducing electromagnetic transients) is one
that requires careful consideration (see [1] and [7]).
Next section gives a few select examples of model
validation using these new model structures for the type 3
and 4 WTG.
IV. EXAMPLE CASES OF MODEL VALIDATION WITH THE
NEW TYPE 3 AND 4 WTG MODELS
EPRI, through non-disclosure agreements with several of
the wind turbine generator manufacturers, was able to
obtain measured data of the response of various WTGs
from both field and full factory tests of the actual
equipment. Discussions of the validation cases performed
are provided in [3], [4] and [5]. A perusal of the simulation
in [3] will show that a range of operating conditions has
been analyzed. It is not possible to report on all those here,
so only a very few examples are shown. As indicated, the
raw data used to developed the various graphs and
simulations presented here (and in [3], [4] and [5]) was
provided to EPRI under non-disclosure agreements (NDA).
These vendors graciously agreed to allow the public
dissemination of the research results, as presented here and
in the other references. The actual data, however, is
covered under the NDA and cannot be disclosed.
Furthermore, the results are shared simply for the purpose
of evaluating the models developed. No other conclusions
should be drawn with respect to the various results. The
exercise here, and data presented, is to illustrate the process
of model validation. The data is from a few example tests
and is not representative of all the capabilities of the
equipment. The actual equipment is flexible and able to
cater to various grid codes. Questions related to the actual
equipment should be addressed to the equipment
manufacturers.
Figure 4 through to Figure 8 shows a few select examples
of model validation for three different vendor’s equipment.
The first two figures pertain to type 3 WTGs and the last
three to type 4.
The following comments are pertinent with regards to the
simulations:
1. By referring to [3], [4] and [5] it can be seen that many
other cases have been simulated over a range of operating
conditions and for various voltage dip levels, and similar
sets of results obtained in all cases.
2. In a few cases, e.g. Figure 6, we do have to re-initialize
the P-controller states upon fault clearing to get a close
match as shown here – this has been discussed many
times (e.g. see [3]). This was not seen to be essential for
large grid simulations by the WECC REMTF and so the
final commercial software implementation of the models
will not allow for such re-initialization of the P-
controller.
3. In general the simulation fits are quite good and
reasonable for the purposes of large scale power systems
simulation studies. This was the general consensus of the
WECC REMTF.
It is believed that the proposed second generation type 3
and 4 WTG models are reasonable and certainly a
significant improvement over the first generation models, in
addressing some of the concerns with the first generation
models such as the ability to emulate various methods of
current injection during and after a grid fault.
Note that the spikes in P and Q upon inception and clearing
of the voltage dip are still present, but this is an artifice of
simulation as explained in detail in [3], and as observed
even in the first generation of models. Some numerical
methods have been discussed and implemented by the
software vendors to minimize these spikes.

Figure 6: Comparison of simulation and measured response for a

type 4 WTG (vendor 1); response to a voltage dip at the high-voltage
side of the WTG step-up transformer. Values shown are as measured
and simulated on the low-voltage side of the transformer.

Figure 4: Comparison of simulation and measured response for a

type 3 WTG (vendor 1); response to a voltage dip at the high-voltage
side of the WTG step-up transformer. Values shown are as measured
and simulated on the low-voltage side of the transformer.

Figure 7: Comparison of simulation and measured response for a

type 4 WTG (vendor 2); response to a voltage dip at the high-voltage
side of the WTG step-up transformer. Values shown are as measured
and simulated on the low-voltage side of the transformer.

Figure 5: Comparison of simulation and measured response for a

type 3 WTG (vendor 3); response to a voltage dip at the high-voltage
side of the WTG step-up transformer. Values shown are as measured
and simulated on the low-voltage side of the transformer.

Figure 8: Comparison of simulation and measured response for a

type 4 WTG (vendor 3); response to a voltage dip at the high-voltage
side of the WTG step-up transformer. Values shown are as measured
and simulated on the low-voltage side of the transformer.
The user should realize that these models are quite
simplified, and for the purpose of emulating the behavior of
equipment for system wide planning studies. As such, for
the most part the fitted model parameters do not directly
correspond to actual equipment settings or physical
quantities. For example, the shaft damping coefficient
(Dshaft) in the drive-train model is fitted to capture the net
damping of the torsional mode seen in the post fault
electrical power response (e.g. Figure 5 and Figure 7). In
the actual equipment, the drive train oscillations are
damped through filtered signals and active damping
controllers, which obviously are significantly different from
the simple generic two mass drive train model used here.
All the simulations shown here were performed by EPRI
using the EPRI wind turbine generation model validation
(WTGMV) software tool version 1.0 [11]. This tool has
been publicly released. The method is based on a play-
back technique.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper has summarized the work done in developing
the 2nd generation of generic and standard WTG models
(type 3 and type 4 specifically) within the WECC REMTF
effort. The models described here were presented and
approved by the WECC MVWG at its meeting in
November 2012. The model specification documents were
finalized and publicly released [4] and [5], in July/August.
Several of the commercial software vendors are
implementing the models for testing and release in 2013.
Future revisions of the models are inevitable. The fact that
these models have been developed in a modular format
ensures that such revisions will be more readily
implementable. Many of the slight differences between the
WECC and IEC versions are presently under discussion by
both groups. Some of the differences are borne by the
different validation and performance philosophy between
the European and North American markets. For example,
due to many of the specific and varying grid codes in
Europe there is much greater emphasis and closer scrutiny
of the comparison between the model and measured
quantities during the fault/voltage-dip, while in North
America there is much greater emphasis on system recovery
post-fault.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the WECC
REMTF (led by Abraham Ellis of SNL) and the IEC TC88
WG27 (led by Poul Sørensen of Risø). The authors also
thank EPRI and the Department of Energy, through SNL
and the NREL, for supporting various portions of this work.
EPRI expresses its sincere gratitude to ABB, Siemens and
Vestas for sharing, under non-disclosure agreements, data
from their equipment which significantly helped in this
research effort to improve the generic wind turbine models.
Finally, the authors are grateful to the following individuals
for fruitful and insightful discussions during the course of
this work:
Babak Badrzadeh, Vestas (presently no longer with Vestas)
Jens Fortmann, REPower
Thomas Schmidt Grau, Vestas
Nick Miller, GE
Nikolaus Moeller Goldenbaum, Siemens Wind Power
Jouko Niiranen, ABB
Slavomir Seman, ABB (presently no longer with ABB)
Tony Yip, Vestas (presently no longer with Vestas)
VII. REFERENCES:
[1] NERC Special Report, Standard Models for Variable Generation,
May 18th, 2010
http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_Report_PhaseII_Task1-
1_Final(5.24).pdf
[2] NERC Special Report, Interconnection Requirements for Variable
Generation, September 2012
http://www.nerc.com/files/2012_IVGTF_Task_1-3.pdf
[3] Generic Models and Model Validation for Wind and Solar PV
Generation: Technical Update. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2011,
1021763.
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=0000000000010217
63
[4] P. Pourbeik, “Proposed Changes to the WECC WT3 Generic Model
for Type 3 Wind Turbine Generators”, Prepared under Subcontract
No. NFT-1-11342-01 with NREL, Issued to WECC REMTF and
IEC TC88 WG27 3/26/12; (last revised 8/29/12).
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/M
VWG/11052012/Lists/Minutes/1/Report_on_WT3_Model_Descripti
on_PP082912.pdf
[5] P. Pourbeik, “Proposed Changes to the WECC WT4 Generic Model
for Type 4 Wind Turbine Generators”, Prepared under Subcontract
No. NFT-1-11342-01 with NREL, Issued to WECC REMTF and
IEC TC88 WG27 12/16/11; (last revised 8/29/12).
http://www.wecc.biz/committees/StandingCommittees/PCC/TSS/M
VWG/11052012/Lists/Minutes/1/Report_on_WT4_Model_Descripti
on_PP082912.pdf
[6] A. Ellis, Y. Kazachkov, E. Muljadi, P. Pourbeik and J. J. Sanchez-
Gasca, Working Group Joint Report – WECC REMTF & IEEE
DPWPG WG, “Description and Technical Specifications for Generic
WTG Models – A Status Report”, Proceedings of the IEEE PES
PSCE, March 2011.
[7] M. Asmine, J. Brochu, J. Fortmann, R. Gagnon, Y. Kazachkov, C.-
E. Langlois, C. Larose, E. Muljadi, J. MacDowell, P. Pourbeik, S. a.
Seman and K. Wiens, “Model Validation for Wind Turbine
Generator Models” , IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Aug. 2011,
Volume: 26 , Issue: 3, Page(s): 1769 - 1782
[8] P. Sørensen, B. Andresen, J. Fortmann, K. Johansen and P.
Pourbeik, “Overview, status and outline of the new IEC 61400 -27 –
Electrical simulation models for wind power generation”, 10th
International Workshop on Large-Scale Integration of Wind Power
into Power Systems as well as on Transmission Networks of
Offshore Wind Power Plants. Aarhus, Denmark, 25-26. October
2011.
[9] W. W. Price and J.J. Sanchez-Gasca, “Simplified Wind Turbine
Generator Aerodynamic Models for Transient Stability Studies”
Proc. IEEE PES 2006 Power Systems Conference and Exposition
(PSCE), Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2006, Atlanta, GA, pp. 986-992
[10] WECC Generator Facility Data, Testing and Model Validation
Requirements, 2012
http://www.wecc.biz/library/WECC%20Documents/Documents%20
for%20Generators/Generator%20Testing%20Program/WECC%20G
en%20Fac%20Testing%20and%20Model%20Validation%20Rqmts
%20v%207-13-2012.pdf
[11] Wind Turbine Generator Model Validation (WTGMV) Software;
EPRI Product ID 1024346;
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=0000000000010243
46