Microgrid Technologies - Группа авторов

Скачать книгу

system without GUPFC and with fuel cell shows improvement in the load voltage profile in intentionalislanding connection but fails to maintain load voltage profile with the non-islanding condition during the fault. Figure 2.23 Summary of simulation: Percentage load voltage deviation from rated value for line to ground fault.Figure 2.24 Summary of simulation: Percentage load voltage deviation from rated value for three phase to ground fault.

      3 The system with GUPFC and without fuel cell shows improvement in load voltage profile during 27a fault in intentional islanding condition but with the non-islanded condition, the load voltage deviation in this system matches the system without GUPFC and without fuel cell.

      4 The system with GUPFC and with fuel cell shows improved results and lower percentage load voltage deviation from rated load voltage during the fault. The percentage deviation of the load voltage is minimum in intentional islanded system operation compared to the non-islanded system.

      5 The system with active GUPFC i.e. GUPFC embedded with the fuel cell shows minimum percentage load voltage deviation from its rated value during the fault on the system. The most probable fault, single phase to ground fault, has minimum percentage load voltage deviation as compared to three-phase to ground fault during non-islanding and intentional islanding conditions.

      6 The graphs in Figures 2.23 and 2.24 illustrate the deviation of load voltage from rated value under different network situations.

      7 The load voltage in ‘without GUPFC and without fuel cell’ and ‘with GUPFC and without fuel cell’ shows maximum deviation from rated value.

      8 The load voltage in ‘without GUPFC and with fuel cell’ shows medium deviation from rated value.

      9 The system in ‘with GUPFC and with fuel cell’ has a lower deviation.

      10 The load voltage in ‘with active GUPFC’ has the lowest deviation from the rated load voltage.

      2.5.4 Summary

      Due to fault on any component of the power system, voltage profile is affected; and hence power stability and quality deteriorate. The improvement in stability is not possible only by adding distributed generators (DG) in the system, but additional power flow controllers are also required to support it. With the help of FACTS controllers like GUPFC, the usable capacity of the transmission line improves and it can be flexibly loaded with larger limits depending on the system conditions. GUPFC fails to control power flow when capacitor charging power becomes unavailable due to fault. If GUPFC is present in the intentionally separated sub-system, then the charging of the capacitor is an additional load on the sub-system, which becomes sensitive due to the small power number (MW/Hz). The performance of GUPFC depends on the amount of charge on its capacitor, which depends on the connection to the energy source. It is, therefore, necessary that a generation embedded with the GUPFC system is needed.

      2.6.1 IEEE 9 Bus Test System

Schematic illustration of MAC 24 network diagram.

Скачать книгу


From To R (pu) B (pu) B/2 (pu)
BUS15 BUS14 0.00430 0.04770 0.63700
BUS7 BUS11 0.02444 0.12226 0.10272
BUS12 BUS13 0.01321 0.06608 0.05552
BUS13 BUS11 0.00314 0.01570 0.05275
BUS13 BUS16 0.00578 0.02891 0.02429
BUS16 BUS11 0.00247 0.01239 0.04164
BUS16 BUS17 0.00248 0.01239 0.01041
BUS5 BUS6 0.00450 0.02251 0.30260
BUS6 BUS7 0.03716 0.18586 0.15616
BUS6 BUS13 0.05169 0.25856 0.21723
BUS6 BUS16 0.01530 0.07655 0.57882
BUS6 BUS8 0.01239 0.06195 0.20822
BUS8 BUS9 0.00363 0.01817