Upload
lamtuyen
View
225
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Big Picture: A discussion of the present and future of wind turbine control, with one example
Katie Johnson Colorado School of Mines AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control
Research Program National Renewable Energy Laboratory
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 2
Aspects of “wind turbine control” (the past/present?)
Outcome from the control group at the 2010 “University Collaboration” on Wind Energy (hosted by Cornell University)
Sensors, actuators,
and monitoring
Aerodynamic control
Public perception
Policy
Grid integration
Power electronics
design
Generator design
Power electronics
control
Generator control
Structural dynamic control
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 3
Symposium topics (the present/future?)
Load Mitigation
Wind Estimation
MPC
Fault Detection
Aeroelastic Control Design
Wind Farm Control
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 4
Balance of approaches (present/future?)
Controller Driven
Application Driven
Wind Farms (3)
Lidar (2)
FDI
Load Reduction
MPC (4)
Passivity-based
LPV
Barrier Certificates
Besides the need to read abstracts…can we take anything out of this picture?
What is missing?
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 5
What is an area that you think should be a research focus in the next 5-10 years (related to wind turbine control)?
Active participation
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 6
The future – what others have told me
Transition region
Wind inflow evolution models
Smart rotor
“Regulation control” (utility grid)
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 7
Motivation/Brainstorming What do we want to get out of this symposium,
anyway? Regulation control
Another area of wind turbine control, also known as “active power control”
Conclusions
Outline
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 8
How can wind turbines help the grid?
0s Typically 5 – 10s
, Typically 15 – 30s
, Typically 5 – 15 min,
Initial slope of decline is determined by system inertia (or cumulative inertial response of all generators)
Primary Control. AGC
Time
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 9
One technique: power reserveP
ower
Wind speed
NormalDeratedRelative spinning reserveAbsolute spinning reserve
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 10
Inertial control – extracting energy from spinning rotor
Another technique: inertial control
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 11
To design and test control strategies to allow the turbine to contribute to grid regulation, where strategies are first simple and intuitive Tasked to “turn over rocks and look for snakes.”
Research objectives
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 12
Simulation turbine & baseline
Hub Height (m)
Rotor Diameter
(m)
Max Pitch Rate
(degrees / sec)
Rated Gen.Torque (N-
m)
Rated Rotor Speed (RPM)
Rated Wind
Speed (m/s)
Rated Power (kW)
36.576 40 20 3,524 37 12.5 550
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 13
Motivation/Brainstorming Regulation control
Basic control concepts for power reference following
Combined concepts for power reference following Inertial control Regulation control conclusions
Conclusions Where do we go from here?
Outline
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 14
Torque-based APC
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 15
Pitch Control 2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Power (kW)
Gen
erat
or s
peed
(R
PM)
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 16
Wind profile
Power reference
Simulation setup
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2008
101214161820
Time(s)
Win
d (m
/s)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200440460480500520540560
Time(s)
Pow
er d
eman
ded
(kW
)
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 17
Torque-based APC simulation results
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200-5
0
5
10
15
20
Pitc
h an
gle
(deg
ree)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time(s)
HS
S to
rque
(Nm
)
HSS torqueCommanded torque
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2001000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
Gen
spe
ed (R
PM
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
100200300400500600700800
Time(s)
Gen
pow
er (k
W)
Power producedPower demanded
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 18
Pitch Control 2 simulation results
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pitc
h an
gle
(deg
ree)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time(s)
HS
S to
rque
(Nm
)
HSS torqueCommanded torque
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200100011001200130014001500160017001800
Gen
spe
ed (R
PM
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Time(s)
Gen
pow
er (k
W)
Power producedPower demanded
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 19
Load and actuation comparison
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80A
vera
ge p
itch
angl
e (°
)
RM
S p
itch
rate
(°/s
ec)
RM
S g
ener
atio
n to
rque
(Nm
)
Mea
n ge
nera
tion
torq
ue (N
m)
Sta
ndar
d de
v. g
en. t
orqu
e (N
m)
Tow
er b
endi
ng D
ELs
(Nm
)
Driv
etra
in to
rsio
n D
ELs
(Nm
)
Flap
wis
e bl
ade
bedi
ng D
ELs
(Nm
)
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om B
asel
ine
Torque-basedPitch 0Pitch 1Pitch 2Pitch 3
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 20
Reference tracking comparison
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
RMS power error (Nm)(best: torque-based)
Rise time (0.1 – 0.9) (sec)* (best: Pitch 3)
Settling time (2%) (sec)*(best: torque-based)
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om B
est C
ase
Torque-basedPitch 0Pitch 1Pitch 2Pitch 3
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 21
Field test results: Pitch Control 2
400 500 600 700 800 900 10005
10
15
20
25
Seconds
m/s
Met wind speed 36.6m
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000200
300
400
500
600
Seconds
kW, n
one
PE Line powerPower Reference
Thanks to Dr. Paul Fleming, NREL
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 22
Field test results: Pitch Control 2
400 500 600 700 800 900 10000
5
10
15
20
Seconds
degr
ees
Blade 1 pitch angle
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000-1000
0
1000
2000
Seconds
kN-m
Tower bending E/W
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 23
Combined Controller 1
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 24
Combined Controller 2
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 25
Combined Controller 3
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 26
Combined Controller 1 simulation results
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pitc
h an
gle
(deg
ree)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time(s)
HS
S to
rque
(Nm
)
HSS torqueCommanded torque
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200100011001200130014001500160017001800
Gen
spe
ed (R
PM
)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Time(s)
Gen
pow
er (k
W)
Power producedPower demanded
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 27
Load and actuation comparison
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Ave
rage
pitc
h an
gle
(°)
RM
S p
itch
rate
(°/s
ec)
RM
S g
ener
atio
n to
rque
(Nm
)
Mea
n ge
nera
tion
torq
ue (N
m)
Sta
ndar
d de
v. g
en. t
orqu
e(N
m)
Tow
er b
endi
ng D
ELs
(Nm
)
Driv
etra
in to
rsio
n D
ELs
(Nm
)
Flap
wis
e bl
ade
bedi
ng D
ELs
(Nm
)
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om B
asel
ine
Torque-basedPitch 2Combined 1Combined 2Combined 3
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 28
Reference tracking comparison
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
RMS power error (Nm)(best: Combined 3)
Rise time (0.1 – 0.9) (sec)* (best: Combined 3)
Settling time (2%) (sec)*(best: torque-based)
Perc
ent C
hang
e fr
om B
est C
ase
Torque-basedPitch 2Combined 1Combined 2Combined 3
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 29
Motivation/Brainstorming Regulation control
Basic control concepts for power reference following
Combined concepts for power reference following Inertial control Regulation control conclusions
Conclusions Where do we go from here?
Outline
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 30
Wind profile used (11.4 m/s average)
Power referenceNone to 450 kW at 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, 180,
and 200 s
Inertial control simulation setup
0 50 100 150 200 250 3006
8
10
12
14
16
18Wind
Time(s)
m/s
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 31
Simulation Setup
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 32
Simulation Result (60 – 120 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
Genpower
Power producedPower demanded
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 3006
8
10
12
14
16
18Wind
Time(s)m
/s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 33
Simulation Result (140 – 200 s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
time(s)
0 50 100 150 200 250 3006
8
10
12
14
16
18Wind
Time(s)m
/s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300-500
0
500
1000
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 34
Time above 60% of power reference
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Dur
atio
n (s
)
Time (s)
Available time in s (E/450kW) Duration of time above 60% of power reference
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 35
Loads: blades, tower, and drive train
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
73.825 116.8675 162.945 163.3625 163.36 168.84 195.015 226.84
Perc
ent c
hang
e fr
om b
asel
ine
Time to stop calculation (s): at 60% of demanded
Tower DEL increaseDrivetrain DEL increaseBlade DEL increase
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 36
Pros Cons
Torque-based APC Fast tracking performance Region 2 control
Pitch Control 2 Performs well in all regions
Slightly slow tracking performance
Combined Control 1 Better performance Overshoot
Combined Control 3 Best Performance More overshoot
Inertial Control
Able to provide >60% for extended time scale of primary control in these
tests
Turbine stopped – re-start was not part of research
Regulation control conclusions
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 37
Design and analysis using more sophisticated control architectures
Strategies for generating power reference signals Requires strong understanding of the utility grid
Field testing
Regulation control: future work needed
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 38
Colorado School of Mines Including M.S. student Yunho Jeong
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Aalborg University
Vestas
Acknowledgments
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 39
White paper/proposal? Attempt to influence funding agencies? Book? Home?
Where do we go from here?
K. Johnson – AAU/Vestas Wind Turbine Control Symposium (Nov. 28-29, 2011) 40