Modeling Wind Farms for Power System Load

Flow and Stability Studies

Yuriy Kazachkov, Senior Member, IEEE, and Ronald Voelzke1

Abstract-- Wind energy conversion systems comprise
mechanical and electrical equipment and their controls.
Modeling these systems for power system load flow and
stability simulation studies requires careful analysis of the
equipment and controls to determine the characteristics that
are important in the timeframe and bandwidth of such
studies.
The objective of this paper is to review and discuss the
most significant characteristics and specifics of models of
fixed and variable speed wind turbine units and wind farms,
along with important issues to be considered for incorporating
of large scale wind farms into grids. The growing size of wind
farms require a full scale system planning in order to
guaranty a safe and reliable operation of the wind power
plant. Selected important planning issues are discussed in this
paper.
Index Terms--interconnections, load flow analysis,
modeling, power system dynamic stability, wind power
generation

I. NOMENCLATURE
WT
WF
WTG
DFIG
WRIG
VwAV
dw
az
VWB
P
Vsched
PF Taero
PELEC
QELEC
Cp
PSS/E
PCC

- wind turbine
- wind farm
- wind turbine generator
- doubly-fed induction generator
- wound rotor induction generator
- average wind speed
- displacement factor
- azimuth angle
- effective wind speed
- pitch angle
- scheduled voltage
power factor
- mechanical torque from blades
- machine real power
- machine reactive power
- aerodynamic performance factor
- Power System Simulator for Engineering
- Point of Common Coupling

II.

often coincide with relatively remote parts of the power

system. In the particular case of off shore wind farms the
distance between the wind field and the point of grid
connection may exceed more than 100 km.
Grid operators consider the individual wind farm
including facilities for interconnection to the power
transmission system as a single power unit. This unit
performance must comply with the Grid Code.
Thus the operation of the wind farm and its response to
disturbances or other changing conditions on the power
system is becoming of increasing concern, especially in
cases where the wind farms represent a significant portion
of the local generation.
Wind energy conversion systems comprise mechanical
and electrical equipment and their controls. Modeling
these systems for power system stability simulation studies
requires careful analysis of the equipment and controls to
determine the characteristics that are important in the
timeframe and bandwidth of such studies.
The objective of this paper is to review and discuss the
most significant issues to be discussed and investigated for
the incorporation of large scale (particularly remote) wind
farms into grids. Furthermore characteristics and specifics
of models of fixed and variable speed wind turbine units
will be discussed.

III. MODELING WIND FARMS FOR LOAD FLOW

STUDIES

The model of the wind farm can be considered to have

two potential levels of representation:

INTRODUCTION

The location of a wind farm is selected primarily based

on good wind conditions and, of course, favorable
economic and environmental conditions. These conditions
1

Yuriy Kazachkov is with Siemens Power Technologies International,

Schenectady, NY, USA (e-mail: Yuriy.Kazachkov@siemens.com).
Ronald Voelzke is with Siemens AG, Power Transmission &
Distribution Service, Power Technology, Erlangen, Germany (e-mail:
Ronald.Voelzke@siemens.com).

A detailed model of the wind farm, representing

individual units and the connections between these
units and the system. A large wind farm may have
over a hundred units. These units are generally spread
over a large area, typically connected by a series of
feeders. These feeders typically are connected at a
collector bus which is connected to the power
system. The detailed model will thus consist of, say, a
hundred or more buses and a similar number of lines.
Examples of such a strategy when the detailed model
might be needed are:
- wind park internal grid design and cable selection
- protection coordination
- short circuit current calculation
The wind farm can be modeled as seen from the
system. Here, the concern is not on the individual

2
wind turbines but on the aggregate effect of the entire
farm on the power system. The individual generators
are lumped into equivalent machines, generally
represented at the collector buses. Thus the size of the
system representation of the wind farm is reduced to a
few buses and the data requirements are significantly
reduced. This level of modeling is often used in
system studies where the effects of the injection into
the system on system flows and voltages are the
concern, and internal wind farm conditions do not
need to be determined.
The load flow model of a wind farm serves two
purposes: as the basis for load flow studies including
thermal, voltage and other analyses, and as the initial
condition for stability analysis.
For the lumped representation, an equivalent of the wind
farm must be created. In either case, an automation of the
data entry process is desirable. This automation was
accomplished through the development of a Model
Builder program. It models the individual or equivalent
units with the necessary steady-state parameters and
facilitates the addition of individual or equivalent units,
along with their step-up transformers, to the power flow
case at "collector buses" specified by the user. The user
must define the configuration between these collector buses
and the system interconnection point. Some details of this
program are described in the Appendix.
IV. MODELING WIND FARMS FOR STABILITY
STUDIES

Figure 1 shows the generalized wind turbine model with

control elements.

Figure1. Generalized wind turbine model with control

elements
The program designated for stability studies is usually
split into two parts. The first part comprises all dynamic
simulation models including models of the equipment
physically connected to the grid. These models calculate

and update at every integration step current injections from

this equipment to respective network buses. The current
injections are used by the second part of the program which
is responsible for the algebraic network solution and for
updating the bus voltage vector at each integration step.
Actually, a question of accurate modeling of some
equipment refers to accuracy of simulating the current
injection. The fact that the programs designated for
stability studies deal with fundamental frequency vectors of
voltages and currents, not with their instantaneous values,
makes this challenge somewhat less onerous.
The bandwidth typical for stability studies determines
those features of the real equipment that must be taken into
account or filter out. Let us illustrate this statement on the
example of a DFIG.
The 3-phase rotor terminals of the DFIG are connected
to the rotor side power converter. Terminal voltage of the
DFIG is determined by controls. In the available
implementations, the actual macro control objectives, e.g.
real and reactive power, are met separately by controlling
respective components of the rotor current as it is shown in
the most generic way in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The generic block diagram of the DFIG control

The second controller shown in the diagram actually
stands for all control systems of the power converter
including PWM, firing system, etc. Naturally, for the
stability models a lot of simplifications must be made, to
filter out all systems whose response is beyond the
respective bandwidth.
Similar simplifications can be considered with regard to
the model of the machine itself. It is well known that, for
the purpose of stability studies, the machine stator flux
linkage dynamics can be ignored. For the conventional
induction machine, without any controls, taking the rotor
flux linkage dynamics into account is a must. Availability
of fast acting controls may change this approach with
respect to DFIG. The dynamics of controls determining the
output of the power converter, along with the dynamics of
the machine, are so fast with regard to the stability analysis
bandwidth that only controls dynamics may be taken into
account. The only role of the machine model will be
converting commands from controls into the current
injected to the network bus in an algebraic way, along with
simulating the mechanical rotor movement.
Mathematically, neglecting the rotor flux linkage
dynamics is justified by the assumption that the rotor
current components responsible for meeting the macro
control objectives are given as outputs of the controls. In
this regard, the generic block diagram of the DFIG with

3
controls is simplified as it is shown in Figure 3: rotor
voltage is not needed anymore as an input for the machine
model.
For the synchronous or induction generator decoupled
from the grid by a full size power converter, the frequency
of the line-side converter current will follow the utility
voltage frequency, hence, the unit remains in synchronism
with the grid. Both real and reactive power generation and
their combination are subject to limits related to the power
converter rating and/or limits imposed by the generator and
the drive train. For studying the impact on the grid, a
governor model is not needed as speed is controlled only
by the power electronics.

V. MODEL VALIDATION
Unfortunately, very limited number of WTG field or
factory dynamic test results is available. The main way of
validation is comparing results of the simulations using
simplified stability models as mentioned above versus
results of the simulations obtained by manufacturers using
their so called design models. These mostly are
PSCAD/EMTDC or MatLab/Simulink models that
comprise models of the DFIG machine, power converter,
and controls with a great number of details.

Figure 3. The simplified block diagram of the DFIG

control
A. Fault ride through capability
Trying to meet power system needs, manufacturers keep
developing sophisticated controls to expand a band of
voltage and frequency where wind turbines remain in
operation despite severe transients.
For fixed speed wind turbines employing conventional
induction machines, only additional dynamic reactive
power support (SVC, fast switched capacitors, or
STATCOM) can solve this problem. For DFIGs with the
active power converter control, the rotor side converter and
the grid side converter both can boost a reactive power in
order to increase the terminal voltage during the fault and
the rate of its restoration after the fault is cleared. For
WRIGs with the passive power converter control (like
external resistors for Vestas V80 Opti-slip WT), it can be
a combination of the additional dynamic VAR support and
attempts to reduce the reactive power consumption by a
WTG during the fault by increasing the effective total rotor
resistance. This is well illustrated in Figure 4 by plots of
terminal voltage and electric power of the V80 WRIG with
the external rotor resistor control for the case of a weak
interconnection. One can see that, after the fault was
cleared, the WTG terminal voltage tended to drop creating
conditions for the voltage instability. As it was confirmed
by simulations, this would have inevitably happened if
conventional induction machines were used. The WRIG
control improves the system stability by increasing the total
rotor resistance that resulted in reduction of the reactive
power consumption.

Figure 4. Improving voltage stability by the WRIG with the

external rotor resistance control
An attempt of this kind of validation is illustrated in
Figure 5 for the Vestas V80. Shown are terminal voltage,
net electric power, and effective total rotor resistance
obtained for the simplified stability model and the
manufacturers design model. As one can see, the match is
satisfactory for all 3 variables after the fault is cleared.
However the effective rotor resistance response to the fault
is quite different which resulted in noticeable difference of
the electric power during the fault. The reason is that the
stability program was unable to reproduce the crowbar
protection that evidently came into play right after the fault
was applied.

Figure 5. Validation against the manufacturers design

model. The Single Line to Ground fault.
The question is if this accuracy good enough for stability
simulations? Will this difference in electric power result in
larger drop of the terminal voltage igniting the undervoltage protection? Answers to these questions depend on
how strong the wind farm interconnection is.
If it is known from practice that in some situations more
sophisticated controls, like the rotor current protection, can
significantly affect the WT response to a disturbance then
other, more detailed programs must be used for stability
studies. These programs will probably be employing the 3phase instantaneous value analysis. A good example of this
type of a program is Siemenss Netomac. It is worth
mentioning that currently efforts have been undertaken to
incorporate some features of this program into PSS/E.
Some models were validated against the manufacturers
stability models which, in turn, were validated against
manufacturers internal design models. A good illustration
is shown for the model of GE 1.5 MW WT in Figure 6.

Lightning protection studies

Security and reliability studies

The above mentioned studies will result in practical

solutions for wind farm developers and operators regarding
parameters and selection of the right equipment.
The following examples will explain these requirements
in more detail.
Figure 7 shows an example how to interconnect
individual wind power units in order to meet the short
circuit and nominal current design level of a switchgear.
420

420

420

Short circuit capacity of

33 kV busbar:

33 kV

5 WPP

Offshore Wind farm

26,6 kA

31.5 kA

4200 A

4
Einspeisefeld

140 MW
33 kV

280 MW generation

9,8 kA
2x500mm
2
2x500mm

80 Turbines

280/140/140 MVA

In = 2x 1250 A
95 km 33 kV

150/33/33 kV

Cable

150 kV AC Cable
100 km Offshore

AC-Kabel

In = 2x 1250 A
420

420

420

33 kV

280 MW
150 kV AC

26,6 kA
4200 A
9,8 kA

140 MW
33 kV

2x500mm

Figure 7. Structure of an off shore wind farm grid

Figure 6 Validation against the manufacturers stability

model. Small grid voltage fluctuations. Top axis: WTG
terminal voltage, bottom axis: net reactive power.
VI. DESIGN AND SIZING STUDIES
Experience gained with existing wind farms has shown
that careless neglect of design and sizing work in the
planning phase of a project may result in severe operating
problems. The following issues may be of importance for a
serious project planning.

Short circuit studies

Cable sizing calculations
Harmonic analysis studies
Earthing studies
Protection coordination studies
Insulations coordination studies
Voltage fluctuation studies

The output power of the wind farm can be calculated at

the PCC. It is well known that the WF output is dependent
on the wind speed and wind direction. However wind
shadow effects between individual WTs are not widely
appreciated yet. The following discussion shows that this
effect should be implemented in the WF model as well.
The wind distribution among the wind turbines
determines the power produced by each single WT and, at
the same time, the fluctuation of the whole power received
from the wind farm. The main effect that should be
regarded is so called wake effect, which is the shadowing
from one wind turbine to the next. The wind speed directly
behind the turbine is decreased and depends on the
aerodynamic characteristics of turbine. Another turbine
operating in this wake, or deep inside a wind farm where
the effects of numerous wakes may be felt simultaneously,
will therefore produce less energy than a turbine operating
in the free stream. There are various models describing the
wake effect, i.e. Ainslie model, Lissaman model or Ris
model. The last of these, namely the wake model by Jensen
(Ris-model), with the basic assumption of linear wake
profile, is presented in Figure 8. It is quite simple and
therefore allows taking the wake effect into account with
minimal additional calculation time.
Figures 10, a and b show how the wake (tower shadow)
effect impacts the distribution of the wind speed and output
power for the example system of the Figure 9.

Output power WEC in MW

5
5,00
4,50
4,00
3,50
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00

P WEC32
P WEC33
P WEC34
P WEC35

T16OS

T16

T16US

N11

B16

B16S

T11OS

T11

T11US

B11

N6

T17OS

T17

T6US

N1

B17S

T12OS

T12

B12

B1S

DFIG1

L1

N7

T7OS

B122

T7

T7US

N2

B7

T2OS

B72

T2

T2US

B2

DFIG12

B2S

DFIG7

DFIG2

L12

L2
L7

N18

N13

T18OS

T18

N3

T18US

T13OS

B18

B18S

T13

T13US

B13

N8

T8OS

B132

T8

T8US

T3OS

B8

B82

T3

T3US

B3

L13

B3S

N3

DFIG18

L3

DFIG13

L19

DFIG8

DFIG3

L14
L9

N19

T19OS

T19

T19US

B19

N14
B19S

T14OS

T14

T14US

B14

L4

N9

T9OS

B142

DFIG19

T9

T9US

B9

N4

T4OS

B92

T4

T4US

B4

DFIG14

B4S

DFIG9

DFIG4

L18

L8
L20

3T1U2

L15

N20

T20OS

T20

T20US

B20

N15
B202

T15OS

T15

T15US

B15

L5

N10

T10OS

B152

T10

T10US

B10

N5

T5OS

B102

T5

T5US

B5

B5S

3T1OS

LOF

UW Diele

L10

Busbar A

3T1

Diele

3T1U3

DFIG20

10b

DFIG15

DFIG10

DFIG5

NL18

SVC

SVC

NL8

N44

N43

NL44

N42

L43

L44

T44OS

T44

L42

T44US

B441

N41

T43OS
B442

T43

L41

T43US

B43

T42OS
B432

T42

T42US

B42

T41OS
B422

T41

T41US

B41

B412

3T2USb

3T2
DFIG44

Ein_test

DFIG43

DFIG42

DFIG41

3T2OS
B3T2O

3T2USa

10a

N48
2

N47

N46

N45

8
NL48

L47

L48

T48OS

T48

L46

T48US

B481

SHR1

T47OS
B482

T47

L45

T47US

B47

T46OS
B472

T46

T46US

B46

T45OS
B462

T45

T45US

B45

B452

SHR5
NL28

8-7-4
DFIG48

DFIG47

DFIG46

DFIG45

NL38

2-1

7-4

2-2

7-3

N36

T36OS

T36

T36US

B361

B362
N31

T31OS

T31

T31US

N26
B312

T26OS

T26

T26US

B26

N21
B262

T21OS

T21

T21US

B21

B212

DFIG36

DFIG31

L36

2-3

DFIG26

DFIG21

L28

L31

L38

L26

L21

7-2
N37

T37OS

T37

T37US

B371

B372
N32

T32OS

T32

T32US

B321

600

Figure 10, b. Active output power of individual WEC

inside the wind field

T1US

DFIG6

T12US

DFIG17

L17

T1

B1

L6

N12

T1OS

B62

DFIG11

T17US

B17

T6

B6

L11

N17

T6OS

B112

DFIG16

L16

400

time in sec

Fig. 8 Wind shadow effect per Ris model

N16

200

N27
B322

T27OS

T27

T27US

B27

N22
B272

T22OS

T22

Another important application issue is discussed in

Figures 11 and 12. With long cable feeders, system faults
may result in harmonic voltage oscillations after fault
clearance due to non linear characteristics of transformers.
These kind of over voltages have to be considered for the
over voltage protection of long distance cable connections
as well as the over voltage protection of the internal wind
farm grid. Figure 12 illustrates the 150 kV bus voltage after
re-energizing the platform based transformers. The
transformer inrush current may result in severe
overvoltages.

T22US

B22

B222

DFIG37

DFIG32

2-4

DFIG27

DFIG22

7-1
L37
L32

N38

T38OS

T38

T38US

B381

L27

N33

T33OS

T33

L33
6

N23

T33US

B331

L22

N28

B382
T28OS
B332

T28

T28US

B28

T23OS
B282

T23US
B232

L23

DFIG38

7
DFIG33

SHR3

T23

B23

DFIG28

DFIG23

SHR4

L39
L34

N39

T39OS

T39

L29

L24

T39US

B391

B392
N34

T34OS

T34

T34US

B341

N29
B342

T29OS

T29

T29US

B29

N24
B292

T24OS

T24

T24US

B24

B242

DFIG39

DFIG34

DFIG29

DFIG24

Non linear transformer saturation

L40

L35

N40

T40OS

T40

B401

L30

L25

T40US
B402
N35

T35OS
B351

T35

T35US

N30
B352

T30OS
B30

T30

T30US

N25
B302

T25OS
B25

T25

T25US
B252

DFIG40

DFIG35

DFIG30

DFIG25

Figure 9. Off-shore wind farm model for dynamic studies.

Wind front is on the bottom.

Wind speed in m/sec

14,00
12,00
V-Wind

10,00

V-Wind WEC32

8,00

Figure 11. Typical AC cable interconnection of off

shore wind farms

V-Wind WEC33

6,00

V-Wind WEC34

4,00

V-Wind WEC35

2,00
0,00
0

200

400

600

time in sec

Figure 10, a.Wind speed at individual WEC due to wind

shadow effect

Long distance sea or land cable connections of wind farms

require reactive power compensation units to comply with
the Grid Code requirements as shown in Figure 13 with
regard to a power factor at PCC. In order to meet these
requirements, additional variable reactive power devices
(SVC, STATCOM) can be necessary. The SVC can also
contribute to evaluate the current profile over the cable
transmission as it is shown in Figure 14.
As it can be seen from examples above, there is a
number of issues which have to be considered in particular
system design studies for large scale wind farms. All of
them can be handled by Siemens Power Technologies and
brought to an applicable solution with practical

6
recommendations regarding design and selection of
equipment.

Paragraph VI emphasizes importance of careful design and

sizing work in order to guaranty safe and reliable operation
of a wind farm. Planning issues mentioned in this
paragraph are part of Siemens PT planning portfolio for
new wind power projects.
0,840

0,830

0,828
0,824

150 kV bus bar voltage

Cable Current [kA]

0,820

0,820
0,812

0,810

0,809
0,805

0,803
0,800

0,795
0,790

0,794
0,790

0,788
0,784

0,780

0,779

0,777
0,772

0,770

0,795

SVC 20MVAr
induc.
SVC 20MVAr
cap.

0,791

0,786
0,781

Normal
Operation

0,803
0,800
0,797

0,800

0,799

0,783

0,784

0,782

0,779
0,775

0,781

0,778

0,777

0,774

0,773

0,777

0,769

0,760
0

20

40

60

80
Length [km]

100

120

140

160

Figure 14. Cable current profile and effect of SVC

Transformer currents
Figure 12 Transient transformer currents and system
voltage after short circuit and re-energizing

VIII. APPENDIX
A. DESCRIPTION OF PSS/E WIND POWER SOFTWARE
PACKAGES
1) Load Flow Model Builder

Grid Voltage

underexcited

overexcited

Figure 13. Basic Grid Code requirements

VII. CONCLUSION
This paper has discussed significant characteristics and
specifics of models of fixed and variable speed wind
turbine units and wind farms that have been developed for
a commercial power system load flow and stability
simulation package. These models will allow the wind
farms to be represented in the load flow and stability
analysis involved in the planning and operation of power
systems.

Depending on a wind turbine type, the model builder

program may include different features and provisions for
automatic load flow solution. Since some parameters, like
the machine reactive power consumption or the power
factor correction system reactive power generation, can be
sensitive to the terminal voltage, the program may include
iterative loops.
Because of this voltage dependency, the load flow case
created by the model builder for the given dispatch
sometimes cannot be accurately used for load flow studies,
like contingency analysis, where change of the voltage
profile may result from the contingency. The solution of
this problem was found in developing a special
contingency processor which is able to update the
voltage sensitive parameters when moving from the base
to contingency conditions in the iterative manner.
The same model builder is used for calculating and
storing other data needed for initialization of the dynamic
simulation models. The dynamic model initialization data
flow is shown in Figure A-1.
The program can be also used for calculating and writing
out the dynamic data to a data file for input to the dynamic
simulation program. For example, a recording of measured
wind speed can be read from a file to input the variation in
wind speed into the simulation program.
2) Dynamic Simulation Models

7
a) Wind model
The wind model allows two types of wind variation: a
gust or a ramp as shown in Figure A-2.

d) Modeling the drive train between rotor blades

and a generator

MW output
Wind-Power
Curve

VWB

VwAV dwaz P
Vsched

Rotor
Speed

or
PF

Load Flow: Equivalent

Unit connected to a
collector bus

first sight, noticeably contributes to wind turbine unit

response to disturbances coming from the wind or from the
grid, especially for wind turbines with no inherent
electrical controls. Several versions of a pitch control
program have been developed to fit different
manufacturers implementations.

mechanical
parameters

Wind Dynamic
Model and
Pitch Control

Taero

The long soft shaft is modeled as a two mass system

with stiffness and damping factors to be determined from
manufacturers design and field tests. The accuracy of
derivation of these parameters is critical as it can be seen
from Figure A-3.

generator and
control parameters

Drive Train
Dynamic
Model

Dynamic models
of a generator
and its controls

Tmech

VWB

P
Initial Rotor Speed
Initial PELEC
Initial QELEC

Figure A-1. Data flow for initialization of dynamic

simulation models

Figure A-3. Response of the machine rotor slip of the

WRIG with the external resistor control to the wind ramp
at different damping factors
e) Wind turbine generator

Figure A-2. Simulation of wind gust and ramp

b) Aerodynamic conversion program
This program:
reads the Cp matrix from the text file into the
working memory
initializes the pitch angle upon given wind speed
and power
at each integration step, in the way of twodimensional (tip speed ratio and pitch angle)
interpolation, updates aerodynamic torque using
current turbine speed from the shaft model and
pitch angle from the pitch control model.
c) Pitch control
The pitch control, which seems relatively slow for the

For wind turbines employing synchronous or

conventional induction machines, slightly modified
standard PSS/E models are included into respective
software packages.
For DFIG or WRIG based WTs, different models have
been developed for different control strategies, from the
full order model of the double cage machine to the
simplified mostly algebraic model commented in the main
text above.
All the machine models are initialized from the total
generator MW and MVAR specified in the load flow,
along with the rotor slip, by using an iterative solution in
terms of the stator real power.

f) Under/over voltage frequency protection

The protection trips the generators or the generator along
with the power factor correction system when voltage or
frequency deviates outside a permissible range. Generally,
voltage and frequency are monitored either at the terminal

8
bus or the collector bus and the protection exercises several
threshold levels.
B. PSS/E SOFTWARE PACKAGES DEVELOPED FOR
WIND POWER APPLICATIONS

[4]

[5]
[6]

1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

Wind Turbine Employing Induction Generator Directly

Connected to the Grid NEG Micon NM72 1.5 MW 60
Hz, NM72 1.65 MW 50 Hz, Bonus 1.3 MW 60 Hz,
Bonus 2.3 MW 50 Hz and Bonus 1.3 MW 50 Hz.
Wind Turbine Employing Doubly Fed Induction
Generator with Active Rotor Control by means of
Power Converter DFIGDC for BIWTP/WEJRG
(generic), GE 1.5 MW 50 and 60 Hz, GE 3.6 MW 50
and 60 Hz, Gamesa G80 2.0 MW 50 Hz, Nordex N80
2.5 MW 50 Hz, RePower 50Hz MD70 & MD77
1.5MW, MM70 & MM82 2MW.
Wind Turbine Employing Wound Rotor Induction
Generator with Passive Rotor Control by means of
External Resistors Vestas V80 1.8 MW and V47 0.66
MW 60 Hz, Gamesa G80 1.8 MW 60 Hz.
Wind Turbine Employing Induction Generator
Decoupled from the Grid by a Power Converter (Static
Interface) Kenetech 0.4 MW 33-MVS as a prototype.
Wind Turbine Employing Synchronous Generator
Decoupled from the Grid by a Power Converter
Enercon E-66 1.8MW.

For different reasons, mostly related to proprietary

issues, only Vestas and GE WT models can be downloaded
by any licensed PSS/E user from the Siemens PTI web site.
Other models can be distributed following some procedure
which involves PTI and a manufacturer.
The structure of all software packages corresponds to the
discussion above. Some models are shared by all software
packages (the protection or wind simulating models are
examples) and are included into the so called Shared
Library.

IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many people from Siemens PTD/PTI and other
institutions, including representatives of the manufacturers,
should be acknowledged for their contribution to model
development, along with several companies who provided
their financial support.
X. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

E. N. Hinrichsen and P. J. Nolan, Dynamics and stability of wind

turbine generators, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
PAS-101, No. 8, August 1982, pp. 2640-2648.
V. Akhmatov, Modeling of variable speed wind turbines with
doubly fed induction generators in short term stability
investigations, Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on
Transmission Networks for Offshore Wind farms, Stockholm, April
2002.
S. Heier, Grid Integration of Wind Energy Conversion Systems. John
Wiley & Sons, 1998.

[7]
[8]
[9]

J. G. Slootweg, S. W. H. de Haan, H. Polinder, W. L. King, General

model for representing variable speed wind turbines in power system
dynamics simulations, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol. 18,
No. 1, February 2003.
Yu. Kazachkov, J. Feltes, R. Zavadil, Modeling Wind Farms for
Power System Stability Studies, IEEE PES 2003 General Meeting,
Publication No. 03GM0946, Toronto, Canada., 2003
Yu. Kazachkov, S. Stapleton, Modeling Wind farms for Power
System Stability Studies, Siemens PTI eNewsletter, April 2004
Yu. Kazachkov, Challenges in Modeling Wind Farms for Load
Flow and Stability Studies of Large Power Systems, IX SEPOPE,
Brazil, May 2004
R.Voelzke, Y Sassnick, N Christl, Integration of large scale wind
farms into grids, technical aspects of transmission system design and
grid control, EWEC Madrid, 2002
R.Voelzke, Planung und Auslegung von Netzen fr grosse
Offshore-Windparks und deren Einbindung in bertragungsnetze,
HUSUM Wind 2003

XI. BIOGRAPHY
Yuriy Kazachkov received the M.S. and Ph.D. in EE from the
Polytechnic Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia in 1961 and 1971
respectively. Until 1992, he worked with the HVDC Transmission
Research Institute in St. Petersburg and was responsible for the operational
modes, equipment and control specifications, and ac/dc compatibility of
power converters for HVDC and other applications. Since 1992, Mr.
Kazachkov has worked with Power Technology, Inc., Schenectady, NY, in
its Consulting Services. He has been involved in numerous system
planning projects and studies domestically and worldwide. He has been
also responsible for dynamic simulation model development, specifically
for HVDC, FACTS, and wind applications. Mr. Kazachkov is a senior
member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society.
Ronald Voelzke received the M.S. in EE from the Moscow Power
Engineering Institute, Russia in 1976 and the Ph.D. from Technical
University in Zittau, Germany in 1984. Until 1989, he worked with the
Technical University in Zittau and was responsible for the development
and setting up a training center (hardware and software) for dispatchers in
large power systems with extensive operating experience. From 1989 till
1991 he worked with the Vattenfall Europe Transmission (former
Kombinat Verbundnetze Energie) and was responsible for system
planning. Since 1991, Ronald Voelzke has worked with Siemens Power
Transmission and Distribution, Erlangen, Germany, in its Network
Planning and Consulting Services. He has been involved in numerous
system planning projects and studies domestically and worldwide. He has
been also responsible for planning and consulting services for wind power
projects. Ronald Voelzke is member of the German DKE group K121
Short-Circuit Currents and the German DKE group K121.1 ShortCircuit Current Calculation.