Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Standards
Ryan D. Quint, NERC
Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
September 2016
Disclaimer
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD Standards Framework
MOD-032
Data for Power System Modeling and Analysis
MOD-033
Steady-State and Dynamic System Model Validation
3 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Applicability of MOD Standards
4 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Implementation Plans
Standard Implementation
Order approving standard on 3/20/2014
Effective Date (all requirements) – 7/1/2016
Implementation Plan:
MOD-025-2 • 40% after 2 years
• 60% after 3 years
• 80% after 4 years
• 100% after 5 years
Order approving standard on 3/20/2014
Effective Dates:
• R1, R3, R4, R5 – 7/1/14
MOD-026-1
• R2 – 7/1/18
&
Implementation Plan:
MOD-027-1
• 30% after 4 years
• 50% after 6 years
• 100% after 10 years
5 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2:
Verification and Data Reporting of Generator Real
and Reactive Power Capability and Synchronous
Condenser Reactive Power Capability
6 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Requirements
7 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
ͻ Verification Specifications:
First verification for each unit must be a staged test
If operational data for different points recorded on different days,
designate earliest as verification date
Periodicity:
o At least every 5 years; or within 12 months of discovery of change affecting
P or Q capability > 10% and expected to last > 6 months
New units must be verified within 12 months of commercial ops date
o Applies to existing units that have been in long-term shut down
P capability and full load Q capability testing should be performed at
same time; however, separate testing is allowed.
Q capability testing should be scheduled for time advantageous for unit
being verified to demonstrate its Q capabilities
o While TOP takes measures to maintain plant’s system bus voltage at
scheduled value within tolerance
8 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
ͻ Verification Specifications
Units < 20 MVA at plant > 75 MVA aggregate - individual or aggregate
Units > 20 MVA must be verified individually
Check auxiliary equipment in-serve for expected normal operation
AVR in-service for Q capability verification
Operational data within 2 years prior to verification date acceptable as
long as meets criteria and 90% of previous staged test
o Previous test must have demonstrated at least 50% of D-curve Q capability
o If previously test was unduly restricted, then another staged test required
9 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
10 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
Pmin
Pmax 2.2. Q capability* max
Qmax over- and under-excited
Qmax for:
ͻ Normal Pmin, as soon as
limit is reached (nuclear
exempt)
ͻ Normal Pmax, as soon as
limit is reached
11 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
12 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 1
ͻ Considerations:
Verify at normal operating hydrogen pressure for hydrogen-cooled units.
Calculate GSU losses if measurements taken at high-side
o GSU losses may be estimated based on GSU impedance.
Simplified one-line diagram must show sources of auxiliary P and Q and
associated connections for each unit verified.
o Include GSU and/or system interconnection and auxiliary transformers.
o Show Q flow with directional arrows.
o If metering does not exist, provide engineering estimate.
If adjustment requested by TP, develop relationships between test
conditions and unit output so that the amount of P that can be expected
can be determined at different conditions, such as summer peak
conditions.
13 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-025-2
Attachment 2
ͻ One-line diagram
ͻ Table and summary of
verification information
ͻ Current and past test data
14 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-026-1:
Verification of Models and Data for Generator
Excitation Control System or Plant Volt/Var Control
Functions
MOD-027-1:
Verification of Models and Data for
Turbine/Governor and Load Control or Active
Power/Frequency Control Functions
15 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-026-1/MOD-027-1
Terminology
16 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-026-1/MOD-027-1
Requirements
18 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-026-1/MOD-027-1
Requirements
19 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-026-1/MOD-027-1
Requirements
MOD-026-1:
R5: GO provides response to TP within 90 days following receipt of
technically justified* request to perform model review, including:
Details of plans to verify model
Corrected model data including source of revision
* TP demonstrates simulated vs. measured response does not match
MOD-027-1 / MOD-026-1:
R5/R6: TP provides written response to GO within 90 days of
receiving verified model that model is usable or not usable,
including:
Initializes without error
No-disturbance simulation results in negligible transients
Exhibit positive damping
20 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
21 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
09/21/2016 | ATLANTA, GA
Bilgehan Donmez
SENIOR ENGINEER | REAL-TIME STUDIES
ISO New England Is Part of a Larger Electric
Power System
NERC
North American Electric Reliability Corporation
• Eastern Interconnection spans Québec Interconnection
from Rocky Mountains to East NPCC
Northeast
Coast and Canadian Maritimes Power
Coordinating
Council
– Primarily alternating-current
(AC) transmission
– New England linked to rest of
Eastern Interconnection via
transmission ties to New York
and New Brunswick
2
System Details
Note: Without energy efficiency and solar, the region’s peak demand is forecasted to grow 1.1% annually and the region’s overall electricity demand
is forecasted to grow 1.0% annually. Summer peak demand is based on the “90/10” forecast for extreme summer weather.
3
A Range of Generation and Demand Resources Are
Used to Meet New England’s Energy Needs
Existing and Future Resources
• 350 generators in the region (MW)
35,000
• 31,000 MW of generating capacity 31,000
30,000
• 11,500 MW of proposed
generation in the ISO Queue 25,000
– Mostly natural gas and wind
20,000
• 4,200 MW of generation has
retired or will retire in the next 15,000
11,500
five years
10,000
4
New England Has Significant Wind Potential
5
New England’s Transmission Grid Is the Interstate
Highway System for Electricity
6
Ensuring Reliable Power System Operations Is a
Major Responsibility
• Maintain minute-to-minute
reliable operation of
region’s generation and
transmission system
• Perform centralized
dispatch of the lowest-
priced resources
• Coordinate and schedule
maintenance outages
• Coordinate operations with
neighboring power systems
7
Operational Limits
9
Operational Use of PMUs
10
How do we use PMUs? Examples…
11
12
Example 2: Event Details
13
Unit Details
14
PMU Data: Line Flow and Total Plant Output
15
Example 2 is a Success Story in using PMU data
to correct Plant Models
• We worked with the generator owner to analyze the results.
• The generator owner hired a consultant to check the
parameters of the dynamic model and updated the exciter
model parameters to better represent the plant behavior.
• The generator owner also decided to install a power system
stabilizer, which is scheduled to go in-service by the end of
September.
16
What is next?
• MOD 26 and 27
• MOD 33
• Online Transient Stability Analysis
17
Power Plant Model Validation
(MOD-26 & MOD-27)
• Batch Model Validation – 19 generators/plants with 1 click
– A MATLAB tool calls TSAT playback function
-1210
(MV )
Real Power (MW)
-1220
P
PMU Curve
ti
-1230
TSAT Volt-Theta Curve
R
-1240
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s)
120
110
Reactive Power (MVar)
100
90
PMU Curve
TSAT Volt-Theta Curve
80
TSAT Volt-Freq Curve
70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s)
18
System Wide Model Validation (MOD-33)
SE Case
19
Pilot On-line Transient Stability Assessment
• Real-Time security
assessment Fixed data (updated periodically)
Network Dynamic
Generator
model in data in
mapping
planning planning
table
• Post event analysis Updated in real time
case case
– Good match with PMU EMS Snapshot Data Preparation Tool (DPT)
Dynamic
equivalent for
external area
20
21
Power Plant Model Validation
and Performance Monitoring
presented by Dmitry Kosterev
Bonneville Power Administration
Frequency - Responsive
Frequency Non-
responsive, or
Baseloaded
June 14 2004 Westwing Event
Malin Frequency, June 14 2004 West Wing event
60.1
Frequency response
60
representation improved
59.9 greatly
Frequency [Hz]
Actual
59.8
Malin Freq
59.7
59.6
COI Power, June 14 2004 West Wing Disturbance
6000
59.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Time [sec] 5500
5000
4500
Power [MW]
Actual
4000
COI
3500
power pick-up
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Time [sec]
Frequency
response is not just
about system
frequency
Distribution of
frequency response
also affects post-
contingency path
loading and voltage
stability.
It is an issues in
WECC because of
unbalanced
frequency response
distribution
2006 WECC Generating Unit Model
Validation Policy
• WECC formalized its model validation requirements in
Generating Unit Model Validation Policy
• Data Requirements
– Data must be provided using grid simulator models
• Baseline model development
– Required for new plants, when equipment changes are
made, or when a model is found to be in error
• Periodic model verification
– Done every 5 years to make sure that models are up to date
• Reactive limit testing
NERC Reliability Standards
2007 – NERC started the development of model verification
standards
Z 1 1 1
6 1 + s Tf
6 Tp s
ucl Gmin
Damping PILOT
SERVOMOTOR
s Tr
Rt 1 + s Tr
Rp
17
Disturbance Monitoring
BEFORE AFTER
28
Success Stories – Plant B
BEFORE-2014 AFTER-2015
180 180
175 175
Active Power [MW]
165 165
160 160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Time
20 20
10 10
Reactive Power [MVAR]
0 0
-10 -10
-20 -20
-30 -30
-40 -40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Time
29
Success Stories – Plant C
BEFORE-2014 AFTER-2015
240 238
238 236
236
234
234
232
232
230
230
228 228
226 226
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Time
10 10
5 5
Reactive Power [MVAR]
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
-25 -25
-30 -30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time Time 30
Detecting Control Abnormalities
After baseline is established, performance data can be used to detect
generator control abnormalities
Power
700
Unexpected action from
680
550
620
600 540
580
530
560
480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 Time (sec)
-50
Abnormal runback in
reactive power
-100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (sec)
31
Wind Power Plant Model Verification
32
Wind Power Plant Model Verification
Wind power plant dynamic models are complex and not
well understood by utilities or plant operators
– 7 models, more than 130 parameters
33
Wind Power Plant Model Validation Example
Input:
POI Voltage
Measure of success:
POI Reactive Power
Measure of success:
34.5-kV substation
voltage
Summary
Accurate models are required for reliable and economic power
system operations
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
September 2016
Governor Test via Load Reference Step
Load Reference Step Test Sequence
0.5
+0.4
0.4
0.3
TNR Change (%)
0.2
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
-0.1 -0.2
-0.2
-0.3 -0.4
-0.4
-0.5
00:00
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
Time (mm:ss)
September 2016
6
Februa ry 22013
013
Governor Test via Load Reference Step
CTG Governor Test via Loa d Reference Step
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
Sept. 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
Sept. 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
10
Sept. 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
Practicalities of
Genera tor a nd Excita tion
Testing
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
12
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
13
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
Didn’t get the signals you expected
14
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
Can’t operate as you would like
15
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
17
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
18
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
CT Phase Errors
• P = f (cos) Q = f (sin)
• Therefore, Q more sensitive to CT pha se errors when
opera ting a t typica l power fa ctors.
Actual Measured Measurement Error
V (kV) I (kA) I Phase (deg) P (MW) Q(MVAR) pf CT Phase Error (deg) P (MW) Q(MVAR) P (MW) Q(MVAR)
18.000 5.556 0.0 100.00 0.00 1.00 2.4 99.91 4.19 -0.09 4.19
18.000 5.556 2.0 99.94 3.49 1.00 2.4 99.71 7.67 -0.23 4.18
18.000 5.556 4.0 99.76 6.98 1.00 2.4 99.38 11.15 -0.38 4.17
18.000 5.556 6.0 99.45 10.45 0.99 2.4 98.93 14.61 -0.52 4.16
18.000 5.556 8.0 99.03 13.92 0.99 2.4 98.36 18.05 -0.67 4.13
18.000 5.556 10.0 98.48 17.36 0.98 2.4 97.67 21.47 -0.81 4.11
18.000 5.556 12.0 97.81 20.79 0.98 2.4 96.86 24.87 -0.96 4.08
18.000 5.556 14.0 97.03 24.19 0.97 2.4 95.93 28.23 -1.10 4.04
18.000 5.556 16.0 96.13 27.56 0.96 2.4 94.89 31.56 -1.24 4.00
18.000 5.556 18.0 95.11 30.90 0.95 2.4 93.73 34.86 -1.38 3.96
18.000 5.556 20.0 93.97 34.20 0.94 2.4 92.45 38.11 -1.51 3.91
18.000 5.556 22.0 92.72 37.46 0.93 2.4 91.07 41.31 -1.65 3.85
18.000 5.556 24.0 91.35 40.67 0.91 2.4 89.57 44.46 -1.78 3.79
18.000 5.556 26.0 89.88 43.84 0.90 2.4 87.96 47.56 -1.91 3.73
18.000 5.556 28.0 88.29 46.95 0.88 2.4 86.25 50..6
50 60
50.60 -2
2.0
04
-2.04 3.66
66
66
3.66
18.000 5.556 30.0 86.60 50.00 0.87 2.4 84.43 53
5 3.58
58
53.58 -2
2.17
17
-2.17 3.58
58
3.58
19
Sept. 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
20
September 2016
Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
Experience in Testing –
A Consulta nts Perspective
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
22
July 2013
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
23
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
24
September 2016
Power Pla nt Model Verifica tion a nd Testing Workshop
25
September 2016
Thank You!
Dan Leonard
GE Energy Consulting
daniel1.leonard@ge.com
518-385-0165
Power Plants
Overview
John Undrill
NERC Workshop
September 2016
Does the plant type (hydro/thermal) matter?
(Ef d − vt )
Ii =
Xd
Ef d Vt sinδ
Pe =
Xd
Vt (Ef d − vt )
Qe =
Xd
Real three phase Idealized d-q axis
machine machine
Generator
characteristics
Magnetization curve
Capability curve
Generator
characteristics
Vee curve
Generator
model
Steady state
operation
Sets up initial
conditions for
dynamic
simulations
Generator
model
Dynamics
Standard
Maxwellian
Simple principle
Devilish details
Used in derived
form (via Park
transformation) in
simulations
Basis of genrou/
gentpj
Generator model
'RPLQLRQ¶V)RVVLODQG+\GUR)OHHW§JHQHUDWRUV
Operated by 2 RTO’s
1) PJM
2) ISO-NE
Presentation Summary
3
A case of Voltage
Instability –
inadequate leading Adjacent
MVAR capability Bus Cold
Line Loads
230kV
UT SST
Generator
with UEL G
Adjacent Plant Loads
Generating Unit Instabilities
6
A case of Voltage
Instability –
inadequate leading
MVAR capability
UEL attempts to
drive MVARs
NORTH by
increasing field
current
Generating Unit Instabilities
7
Adjacent Bus
Cold Loads
MW’s
A case of Speed Unknown
Instability –
inadequate MW
capability 230kV
UT SST
12 MW
GTG
G
Adjacent Plant Loads
PPM Basics - Overview
8
A synchronous machine
model captures effects of
both flux and kinetic energy
Feedback signal
governor
Fuel valve Turbine
Operator characteristic characteristic
input
Load-based
temperature Exhaust
limit temperature
Turbine
damping
Questions
Modeling Improvements
Initiative Update
Mohamed Osman, NERC
Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
September 2016
Advanced Analytics
Goals:
ͻ Improve interconnection-wide models
ͻ Address modeling gaps
ͻ Develop modeling guidance
ͻ Understand changing grid characteristics
ͻ Increase industry awareness and expertise
ͻ Collaborate with entire utility industry
ͻ Engage with other industry groups
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Case Quality Metrics Assessments
3 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Dynamics Metrics
Phases 1 and 2
Phase Dynamics
Phase 1 • Generator netting
(2015) • Generator classical model representation
• Consistence reactance values
Phase 2 • Generator inertia and time constants
(2016) • Saturation factors and “severe” factors
• Generator speed damping coefficient
• Turbine-governor time constants
• Turbine power development fractions
• GAST models
• DC exciter self-excitation parameters
• WT3E electrical wind speeds
4 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Phase 2 Metrics Assessment
Observations
5 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Phase 2 Metrics Assessment
Observations
ͻ Speed Damping D
Non-classical gen models with non-zero damping value
ͻ Turbine-Governor Power Development Fractions
Units with governor model with fractions that do not add to 100%
ͻ GAST Model
NERC developing Modeling Notification for GAST; predominant in EI
ͻ Self-Excitation Parameter for DC Exciters
Many units with small positive rather than small negative value
6 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Example Dynamic Data Results
Dynamics Metrics
Case SUM WIN SLL
Phase Metric Perf Score (%) Perf Score (%) Perf Score (%)
Gens without Models 142 / 3402 4.17 189 / 3347 5.65 153 / 3401 4.50
Netted Gens with Models 3 / 2616 0.11 14 / 2161 0.65 2 / 1892 0.11
Phase I Netted Generators 12 / 2616 0.46 22 / 2161 1.02 7 / 1892 0.37
Gens with Classical Models 3 / 4063 0.07 3 / 3985 0.08 3 / 4063 0.07
Inconsistent Reactances 110 / 3351 3.28 123 / 3359 3.66 110 / 3342 3.29
Inconsistent Time Constants 213 /3351 6.36 217 / 3359 6.46 213 / 3342 6.37
Unreasonable Inertia Constants 622 / 3354 18.55 622 / 3362 18.50 619 / 3345 18.51
Unreasonable Saturation Factors 1869 / 3351 55.77 1884 / 3359 56.09 1859 / 3342 55.63
Severe Saturation Factors 243 / 3351 7.25 255 / 3359 7.59 243 / 3342 7.27
PSS but no Excitation 18 / 1726 1.04 22 / 1711 1.29 12 / 1718 0.70
Phase II Inconsistent Speed Damping 313 / 3351 9.34 340 / 3359 10.12 312 / 3342 9.34
Inconsistent Lead-Lag Time Const 24 / 1444 1.66 34 / 1454 2.34 24 / 1430 1.68
Erroneous Power Dev Fractions 21 / 224 9.38 21 / 238 8.82 21 / 224 9.38
GAST Models 30 / 2337 1.28 31 / 2319 1.34 30 / 2322 1.29
DC Exciter Self-Excitation Errors 52 / 665 7.82 52 / 696 7.47 52 / 662 7.85
Inconsistent Type III Wind Speeds 1 / 102 0.98 1 / 77 1.30 1 / 103 0.97
7 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Appendix Materials
Supporting Industry based on Findings
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
Exponential Characteristic
0.2
Quadratic Characteristic
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
L I
ad fd
8 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
MOD-032 Feedback Loop
MOD-032
Case Quality
Designee
Assessment
Review
Updated
New Base
Model
Cases
Checks
Coordinate
w/ Entities
9 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Plant Level Controls and Protection
Modeling Improvements
10 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Modeling Notifications
11 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Case Fidelity
12 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Renewable Energy Modeling
13 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Plant Modeling Focuses
14 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Where Can We Help?
15 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
16 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Disturbance-Based PPMV
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Disturbance-Based PPMV Overview
3 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Data Recording Locations
4 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
PPMV Playback Model
5 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Disturbance-Based
Verification Comparison
6 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Disturbance-Based PPMV Process
7 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Independent Verification
8 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
What a Good Model Looks Like
9 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
What a Bad Model Looks Like
10 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Verification vs. Calibration
vs.
ͻ Calibration: tuning model to match measured response
Needs to be supervised by engineering judgment
Requires very good understanding of plant behavior and baseline model
Should not be used to replace baseline testing
Should not solely rely upon numerical curve fitting techniques
11 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Beyond Standards:
Performance Monitoring
12 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Reliability Guideline:
PPMV using PMUs
13 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
14 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Workshop Objectives
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
3 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Key Takeaways and
Next Steps
Ryan D. Quint, NERC
Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
September 2016
Key Takeaways
ͻ Modeling
Accurate modeling critical for reliable operation and planning of the bulk
power system
Power plant controls and technologies are evolving and the models need
to reflect these changes accordingly
Plant-level controls can and should be modeled, as appropriate, if they
affect the unit in the dynamics timeframe
Accurate models essential for reliable and economic operation of the
bulk power system
ͻ Model Verification
Generator testing programs have benefits beyond standards compliance
Sustained model verification proven beneficial for GOs and TPs
“Baseline testing” needs to be defined and/or used appropriately
o Development of a baseline model via test and/or calculation is essential
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Key Takeaways
ͻ Plant Performance
Boiler and turbine controls/interactions should be considered in more
detail to determine an appropriate level of modeling, as applicable
Frequency response and adequate modeling of FR a continued concern
with continued NERC focus
Plant-level controls should not interfere with sustained primary
response of governor and excitation systems
ͻ Transmission Planning and Operations Perspective
Auxiliary protection and performance needs to be better understood by
the planners in system studies – understand vulnerabilities of ride-
through limitations
System operators can and have limited or shut off units if models are
inadequate to represent reality – need representative models for
reliability
4 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Potential Next Steps
5 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Logistics
6 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
7 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Overview of EPRI
PPPD Tool
Anish Gaikwad
agaikwad@epri.com
Pouyan Pourbeik
ppourbeik@peace-pllc.com
NERC Workshop
September 2016
3
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
HOW IT IS APPLIED
The novel aspect is the ability to use on-line disturbance
data for model validation
It can also be used to process data collected during
“emulated disturbances”, e.g. on-line voltage regulator step
tests, digital turbine-governor speed-reference step tests
Vt (pu)
0.96 Fitted
0.95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PMU/DFR
Ifd (pu)
2
at Plant 1.95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2.1
Vfd (pu)
2
1.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (seconds)
4
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
DATA RECORDING AND CAPTURE
A B C
Digital Fault
Generator Recorder
(can be a
dedicated DF or
an inbuilt DFR in
Field current measured
exciter)
Field across the field shunt
Winding
5
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
VALIDATION PROCESS
Collect Disturbance
Data from DFR
Yes
Finished
6
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
KEY BENEFITS OF PPPD
Many practical aspects of generator model validation (based
on over a decade of experience in generator testing) are
built into the tools functionality
7
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EXCITER/GENERATOR RESPONSE
On-line, disturbance monitoring
8
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EXCITER/GENERATOR RESPONSE
(NO GENERATOR FIELD DATA)
0.99
0.98
0.97
Voltage (pu)
0.96
0.95
Measured
0.94 Optimized Fit
Initial Estimate
0.93
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (seconds)
9
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
GOVERNOR RESPONSE
95
P (MW)
90
85
80
75
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (seconds)
10
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
GOVERNOR RESPONSE
Large steam-turbine
11
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EXPERIENCE WITH PPPD
User’s Group since 2010
Presently 31 group members (utilities, ISOs, GOs) – 3 are
international
Amongst the members well over 100 synchronous
generators validated (generator + exciter)
In the past couple of years UG members have started
working on turbine-governor model validation and tens of
units validated
Applied both using on-line disturbance monitoring (DFR or
PMU) and on-line step-tests
Applied in WECC, ERCOT and EI
12
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CONTINUED WORK
The tool is constantly updated – in 2016 Version 9.0 will be
released
13
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
REMV TOOL – WILL BE PART OF PPPD
IN VERSION 9.0
PMU
Vt VtI
It ItT
SVS
15
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
OTHER TOOLS
The MMVTUG includes also load modeling tools, which are
outside the scope of the current discussion
16
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
17
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Generator Baseline Testing
Instrumentation and Steady State Calculations
Greg Brooks
US Army Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla District
NERC Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
September 21, 2016
Data Collection
BUILDING STRONG®
Data Collection
BUILDING STRONG®
Measurement Points
CT IT
PT
VT
Field
Vfd
Stator
Ifd
BUILDING STRONG®
General Considerations
Use calibrated transducers
Ź The meters may not be
Your test gear is the cheap part
Ź Minimize setup time
• Good connectors (don’t wire your gear in the field)
• Labeling and color coding
• Use good cable management
Ź Have a bulletproof, efficient calibration and
signal check procedure
BUILDING STRONG®
Noise Mitigation
Shielded Twisted pairs
Ź Reduces EMI
Keep unshielded leads short and twisted
Use balanced differential signals
BUILDING STRONG®
Stator Values Transducers
VT – Use a little transformer
Ź Scales and Isolates
IT - Passive Clamps
Ź No batteries
Ź Contribute some phase shift
• Correct with linear interpolation
• Park Transformation
• Find the power angle, add the correction, then
recalculate P and Q using S and the new power
angle
BUILDING STRONG®
Field Values
Avoid clearance issues in the exciter
Ź Measure at the meters or slip rigs
Use adequate isolation transducers
ŹVERY IMPORTANT!
BUILDING STRONG®
Transducer Calibration
Be calibrated, the meters on the board
may not be.
Voltage drop when ifd isn’t measured
directly at the shunt
Ź Use an analog meter and don’t lift any leads
RC
A Vm, Rm Shunt
RA
BUILDING STRONG®
Governor Values
Gate and Blade (Kaplan)
Ź Auxiliary outputs from digital governors
• Be careful of voltage references!
Ź Linear string transducers
BUILDING STRONG®
Data Acquisition
Sample Rate: 2 kHz
Simultaneous or Sequential
Ź The closer the better
Differential inputs reject common mode
noise
16 Bit is sufficient
Real time data
BUILDING STRONG®
Essential Requirements
Acquisition Hardware
Acquisition Software
Data Processing Software
Simulation Software
6 hours of time on the unit at varying
operating points
Lots of time back in the office
BUILDING STRONG®
Generator Steady State Test
Procedures
&
Parameter Fitting
BUILDING STRONG®
Generator Model
GENTPJ
BUILDING STRONG®
Steady State Parameters
GENTPJ
BUILDING STRONG®
Open Circuit Saturation Curve
1.2
Duration - 20 minutes
0.8
Purpose 0.6
0.4
Hazards
0
0 200 400 600 800
Field Current (Amps)
BUILDING STRONG®
Open Circuit Saturation Curve
Procedure
Generator Status: offline at rated speed
Manually adjust VT in steps
Ź Only adjust in one direction until extreme is reached
Example
Ź From 14.8 kV down to 8 kV, then up to 14.8 kV
Ź Use 200 V steps waiting for 5 seconds between
Record VT and ifd
BUILDING STRONG®
Open Circuit Saturation Curve
1.2
ifdo
1
Terminal Voltage, per unit
Hysteresis
0.8
0.6
Measured
Saturation Curve
0.4
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
BUILDING STRONG®
Open Circuit Saturation Curve
1.4
Steps
1.2 1) Estimate ifdo ifd1.2 itest1.2
2) Saturation Factors
Terminal Voltage, per unit
1 ifdo itest1.0
0.8
_1.0=( _ 1.0 _ 1.0)/ _ 1.0
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
BUILDING STRONG®
Open Circuit Saturation Curve
Quadratic Model
. .
.
= =
. .
< =
Ź = 1+
Vary parameters in blue to find best fit
BUILDING STRONG®
V-Curve & Reactive Limits
0.6
0.5
Purpose 0.2
BUILDING STRONG®
V-Curve & Reactive Limits
Procedure
Perform at +0, 70%, and 90% MW
Start at 0 MVAR
Slowly lower MVARs toward lower limit
Ź Stop at reactive limit or discomfort
Slowly raise MVARs toward upper limit
Ź Stop at reactive limit or discomfort
Slowly lower MVARs to 0 MVAR
Adjust MW and repeat
BUILDING STRONG®
Generator Capability Curve
V-Curve & Reactive Limit Test
0.8
0.3
-0.7
-1.2
BUILDING STRONG®
V-Curve
0.6
0.4
0.3
Measured P=0%
Measured P=90%
Model
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Field Current, per unit
BUILDING STRONG®
Automatic Curve Fitting
Never a substitute for engineering
Gets you close very quickly
Starting point
Ź Factory Specifications
Ź Prior test data
Ź Pay attention to the per unit base
BUILDING STRONG®
Starting Point
Manually Find ifdo
Manually Find ifdo
Manually Find ifdo
Manually Find ifdo
Manually Find ifdo
Manually Find S1.0
Manually Find S1.0
Manually Find S1.0
Manually Find S1.0
Automatically Solve
Use the Solver For the Rest
Questions?
BUILDING STRONG®
Generator model
Generator model - genrou
Generator model - gentpj
Generator models - genrou gentpj
Different ancestry
genrou
- used at GE
- descended from - gensal
- analog computer modeling
gentpj
- used at Westinghouse
- probably originated in digital form
Generator models - genrou gentpj
Both use open circuit magentization curve as the basis for representing
saturation throughout the structure
genrou and gentpj are far from the only possibilities for generator modeling
in fact, I prefer and a different model for much of my own work
Generator models - genrou gentpj
2vbus1
1vt1
0.95 0.95
0.9 0.9
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
180 100
160 80
1pg1
1qg1
140 60
120 40
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
6 3.5
5
3
1efd1
1if1
4
2.5
3
2 2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
3 2
1.5
2
1elmv1
1elmt1
1
1
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time, sec Time, sec
junkf.cha / junkj.cha
Generator develops synchronizing and
damping torques
Generator develops synchronizing and
damping torques
5 5
4 4
3 3
Ks(f)
Ks(f)
2 2
1 1
0 0
10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
1.4 0.5
1.2
0.4
1
0.8 0.3
Kd(f)
Kd(f)
0.6 0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
Frequency, Hz Frequency, Hz
Robert J. O’Keefe
American Electric Power
22
TPL-001-4 R3.3.1.1 & R4.3.1.2 – Generator Low
Voltage Tripping
Auxiliary bus UV protection & equipment contactor drop out are the UV
tripping mechanisms identified by AEP Generation
55
TPL-001-4 R3.3.1.1 & R4.3.1.2 – Generator Low
Voltage Tripping
“Addressing PRC-024-1 for the generators alone is a massive task; adding the auxiliary
equipment would require an implementation plan years longer than what is approved”
“There is not a great deal of certainty around when units will trip. I expect that all units
will be different”
“Testing for ride through was perceived to be quite difficult which is why the drafting
team, urged by industry comment, did not require it. Some additional measures were
added into the [PRC-024] standard at one point but had to be taken back out due to
industry push back”
77
TPL-001-4 R3.3.1.1 & R4.3.1.2 – Generator Low
Voltage Tripping
• UV settings, time delays, whether a unit even has auxiliary bus protection vary widely
• Known UV settings at or below 72 percent
• Time delays vary between instantaneous to 10 seconds or more
• UV level below which AEP Generation experience says contactor dropout may be
expected: 82 percent
• No standard on contactor dropout
Sample Events
Following are plots of generator bus voltage (low side of GSU) from
stable delayed clearing fault scenarios (754 Data Survey) and FIDVR
events
Will it Trip?
1.2
Per Unit Voltage
Time
Scale:
0 – 2.5
seconds
.20
11 11
Will it Trip?
12 12
Will it Trip?
13 13
Will it Trip?
14 14
Will it Trip?
15 15
Will it Trip?
16 16
Will it Trip?
17 17
Will it Trip?
18 18
Will it Trip?
19 19
Will it Trip?
20 20
Will it Trip?
21 21
Will it Trip?
22 22
Will it Trip?
23 23
Will it Trip?
24 24
Will it Trip?
25 25
Will it Trip?
26 26
Will it Trip?
27 27
Will it Trip?
ͻ Existing generation
ͻ New generation
30 30
HOW DO WE BETTER
DEFINE / PREDICT
CONVENTIONAL PLANT LV
RIDE-THROUGH WITHOUT
IMPOSING EXCESSIVE
BURDEN ON GENERATORS?
Thank you!
Power Plant Modeling
Generator Control Systems
Shawn Patterson
Bureau of Reclamation
NERC Power Plant Model Verification and Testing Workshop
September 20, 2016
Simplified Generator
Field Winding
Stator
N
+
S -
Rotor
Excitation Control System
Portion included in exciter models
Manual
Control DC
Field Current 3 phase
AC voltage
Exciter
(DC
Voltage Generator
Source)
Terminal
Raise/ Automatic Voltage
Lower Voltage Feedback
Command Regulator
Reference
Adjuster
Voltage Regulators Use
Feedback Control
Difference between
Desired and Actual
Output
Feedback
Rotating DC Exciters - Older Systems
Non-continuously acting voltage regulator
AVR
Changes resistance
Field
Pilot
Exciter
PE Rheostat EXC
GEN
(Exciter for
Main Exciter) Main Exciter
Exciter Field Main (Generator) Field
Feedback
Rotating (DC) Exciter
Setpoint
Block Diagrams,
Transfer Functions,
B Laplace Transforms Saturation
Magnetic Amplifier Systems
Manual Control
Field
Rheostat EXC
GEN
Amplidyne
(or Mag Amp)
AVR
From
Station
Service
EXC
GEN
or
Generator
Terminals
Controller Options
DC
Source EXC
GEN
If controlled here, Direct control of main
slower response field here (faster)
AVR
AC Rotating Exciter with Rectifier
At least 12 model options to choose from
Static Systems
Rectifier Bridge
Supplied by
Main Generator
Terminals or
GEN
Other AC Power
Source
AVR
Limiter Input Options
PSS Input
Q
MACHINE CAPABILITY
Overexcitation Limiter
MVAR
out Stator
Heating Limit
P
MVAR
in
Underexcitation Limiter
Overexcitation Limiter
Stability Control
Response
Timing
Underexcitation Limiter
G Allows
VAR
sharing
between
G parallel
generators
Vc = Vt+jXcIt
Voltage Droop
Power System Stabilizer
Difference between
Desired and Actual
Output
Gate/Valve
Opening
Feedback
Mechanical Governor
Gate Motion
Controller Hydro
Mechanical Governor
Valve Motion
Steam
Electro – Hydraulic Governor
Electronics
(analog or digital)
Hydro
Hydraulics
Prime Mover
Hydro
Prime Mover
Steam Pressure to Mechanical Torque
Valve position
Optional Controller(s)
Steam
Complex Control Systems
Gas Turbine
Outer Loop Control Systems
Speed Governor
2 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
The Capability Goal
LGIA and SGIA should be modified to require the same for all
future generation.
3 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Reliability Guideline: Primary
Frequency Control
• Posted 12/15/2015
4 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Next Step: Generator Survey
6 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
What is the Reliability Issue
7 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Turbine OEM Reach Out to Customer Base
8 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
2012 Frequency Response Initiative
Report
9 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
What has been learned – Outer
Loop Control
10 RELIABILITY | ACCOUNTABILITY
Improvements
No Frequency Algorithm
in DCS
3 -175 MW GE7FA Gas Mark VIe Turbine
3/3/2015
Frequency Algorithm in
Plant DCS
11 RELIABILITY
R ELIABILIITY | A
ACCOUNTABILITY
CCOUNTABILITY
Eastern Profile Changing ? New Trend
1. Actually operate a unit over its full range – can find issues, mis-coordination, etc.
3. Check that expectations for the plant match reality by verifying models, system
layout, capabilities, etc.
Know the limits of a computer code vs. the vagaries of real, high-definition life.
Benefits of Power Plant Model validation
Operator experiences and exposure is diminishing due to:
SCADA
Automation
“Black Box” approach
Training reductions
?
?
?
Case Study 1: Ultimate Step Test
Know what you’re
doing before you
do it.
Reason?
Case Study 3: Power-gate Curves
2. Events involve
interaction with limiter
3. Out of 14 identical
units with the exact
same digital exciter
settings, only 2 exhibit
this behavior
4. Confirmed not
SCADA
Case Study 5: Limiter / UEL coordination
3. Validation is not a burden, but an opportunity to deeply check our systems as a whole.
ERCOT Experience on Power Plant Model
Validation
José Conto
2
The ERCOT Region
At a glance
• About 90% of Texas load - 24 million consumers
• Competitive-choice customers: 75% of load
• More than 7 million electric-service ID’s
(premises)
• More than 46,500 circuit miles of high-voltage
transmission
• More than 550 generating units
• More than 77,000 megawatts (MW) of expected
available summer peak capacity
PUBLIC 3
The ERCOT Grid
Generation Development
• Over 54 GW new generation added since 1999, 148 units decommissioned
• 16,189 MW generation committed for the future
• Over 61 GW of active generation requests under review,
o Includes more than 24 GW of wind (January 2016)
o Solar in queue: 1,417 MW in 2016, 1,765 MW in 2017
PUBLIC 4
Planning Studies
PUBLIC 5
Studies outside the box
PUBLIC 6
PMUs in ERCOT
• Total 98 PMUs @ 42
locations (Dec. 2015)
Future PMUs
- New generating Facilities over 20 MVA
- FACTS devices
- Transmission Facility (associated constraint)
PUBLIC 7
Generator Dynamic Model Validation
• Iterative process will produce a model that matches the actual dynamic
behavior of the equipment in the field
PUBLIC 8
Single machine outage – Frequency Event
138 kV bus
PUBLIC 9
PUBLIC
1
0.96
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.1
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
PMU_V
4.60
4.80
5.00
Wind Generator Model Validation
Simulation_Default
10
Model Translation – Wind Turbine PSSe UDM to TSAT
Generator Terminal Voltage (93018) Generator Active Power (93018) Generator Reactive Power (93018)
Q (MVAr)
P (MW)
V (pu)
time (s)
TSAT
PUBLIC
Thanks!
José Conto
Principal, Dynamic Studies
ERCOT System Planning
(512) 248-3141
Jose.Conto@ercot.com
12
Excitation system
Must be capable of
today - fast control of megawatt-level real power
readily practical with electronics
legacy - fast control of multi-kilowatt level real power
prior to about 1945 - had to be electromechanical
1945 - about 1975 - had to be electromagnetic
Excitation system
Measured or calculated
Then measure the overall output response to an input
G(s) = Y(s)/U(s)
T’do
Calculate
Measure or get
From manufacturer
Control Loops
Break the problem down
• Isolate components if possible
• Open loop tests if possible
• Offline tests remove power system influence
• Sometimes possible to measure components while unit is shut down
• Test AVR first without PSS, Compensation
• Testing at reduced load removes effect of local mode oscillation
• In general, linear elements should be measured, nonlinear elements
are calculated
Model Parameters
• Linear parameters
• gains, time constants
• Small signal tests/analysis
• Step and frequency response tests
• Nonlinear Parameters
• limits, gain multipliers
• Large signal tests, or calculate
Calculated and measured Calculated
Measured
Some models
are better than others
at frequencies higher
3 Hz
-20
-2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (Hz)
100
Phase (deg)
-100
-200
-2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (Hz)
Power System Stabilizer
Timing
Pickup
Reset
Overexcitation Limiter
Same approaches as
overexcitation limiter.
Steve Yang
Bonneville Power Administration
1
BPA Overview
• Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) is a
federal Power Marketing
Agency in Pacific Northwest
• BPA markets power from 31
Federal dams and the
Columbia Generating Station
Nuclear Plant
• BPA operates more than
15,000 miles of
transmission, including
4,735 miles of 500-kV lines
2
Outline
3
Dynamic Disturbance Recorders (DDRs)
for Model Validation at BPA
• Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU)
– Output voltage and current phasors, calculated frequency,
active and reactive power
– Data can be archived locally and streamed to a control center
in real time
– Minimum filtering is preferred for model validation
Point of
Interconnection
V I
G
G
Record:
- POI bus voltage
- POI bus frequency
- Power plant MWs and MVARs
• Conventional –
• 14 plants,
• 133 generators,
• 21,345 MW of generation
• Wind –
• 12 plants
• 1,200 MW of generation
• More to be added
6
BPA PPMV Tools
• BPA PPMV
• Sequence of GE PSLF EPCLs and MATLAB programs
• BPA-PNNL PPMV
• Stand-alone data management program and
automated PSLF interfaces
• EPRI PPPD
• Stand-alone MATLAB based software
7
PPMV Process: Initial Set-up
Extract power plant data from WECC
basecase and build a sub-system
8
PPMV Process: Event Notifications
9
PPMV Process: Collect and Review Data
10
PPMV Process: Run Validation
11
Initial Results
12
When models and reality don’t agree
13
Transformer Name Plate and Tap Setting
14
New Transformer Data
15
PPMV Process: Review Results
16
PPMV Process: Generate Report
17
WECC Re-Certification of Centralia
Power Plant
18
Calibration
19
Calibration
Before calibration After calibration
• PPMV can complement model development and calibration, there are successful
case studies. However, engineering expertise and knowledge of generator
controls are essential
• Beware of curve fitting exercises 20
If All Fails Repeat Baseline Test
21
After Re-test
MOD-027
MOD-026
22
Going Beyond the Standards
23
Performance Monitoring and
Detection of Control Failures
• PMU monitoring provides detection of generator abnormalities
Power
700
680
Unexpected action
660
640
PSS failure from plant controller
Active Power [MW]
620
600
Power
580 550
560
540
540 Observed
Expected 530
520
50
500
Observed
490 Expected
Reactive Power (MVAR)
0 480
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
25
Thank You!
Contact information:
Steve Yang (hyang@bpa.gov)
26
GE Perspective
Power plant modelling & verification
e
Observations
Observations Global trends
• Plant operating in load control with no • Loss of inertia from renewable growth
frequency bias
• Reduction in primary response due to lag in • Faster + higher primary response
plant level load control loop or requirements
communication
• Assumption that AGC target contains • Reserve margin capability/enforcement
frequency bias necessary
• Co-ordination AGC – Plant control –Turbine • Droop setting reductions ( ie IESO 3 %
governor requirement for GT in CCGT)
• Frequency signal resolution limitations in
plant controller • Dead band reductions or modification
• Large steam governor dead band vs boiler
stability vs hydraulic system capability • Proliferation of different requirements
Page 1 NERC PPMVT Workshop – Manufacturer Panel Confidential © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved. September 2016
MOD-026
Generator Excitation Control System Model Verification
x Model comparison with test results is more productive when excitation system
model reflects:
¾ Actual AVR settings, rather than “typical” settings
¾ Updated IEEE model, when appropriate.
Example: IEEE Type ST4B and ST6B models for static excitation systems with
P-I control became available in 2005 in IEEE 421.5-2005 standard
x Testing typically includes AVR signal injection into AVR voltage summing junction via:
¾ Test points on analog AVRs
¾ Software signals on most modern digital AVRs
x Types of excitation systems which can be tested, modeled, simulated and validated
by Siemens:
¾ All Siemens excitation systems including RG3, Thyripol, Thyrisiem
¾ All legacy Westinghouse excitation systems, including WTA, WTA-300, WDR,
MGR, PRX, Magastat
¾ Selected third party excitation systems (Cutler-Hammer, Basler, Semipol, etc.)
¾ Other systems with coordination between plant owner and AVR OEM.
Page 2 NERC PPMVT Workshop – Manufacturer Panel Confidential © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved. September 2016
MOD-026
Generator Excitation Control System Model Verification
Field
Voltage
Page 3 NERC PPMVT Workshop – Manufacturer Panel Confidential © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved. September 2016
MOD-027
Turbine/Governor Model Verification
• Settings affecting turbine-governor models and model validation
in modern turbine control systems:
¾ Proportional gain (affects droop)
¾ Integral gain (affected by reset or repeat time constant)
¾ Dead band (set in terms of rpm)
• Signal injection into frequency error summing junction via software in modern
digital control systems
• Types of turbine control systems which can tested, modeled, simulated and
validated by Siemens :
¾ All Siemens controls systems, including
SPPA-T3000, SPPA-T2000, TXP, Simatic S5 and S7 systems
¾ All legacy Westinghouse control systems including AEH*, DEH*, WDPF
* Cannot perform with signal injection
¾ All Siemens turbines with non-OEM controls, including
Allis Chalmers, Westinghouse
¾ Selected third party control systems
Page 4 NERC PPMVT Workshop – Manufacturer Panel Confidential © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved. September 2016
MOD-027
Turbine/Governor Model Verification
Page 5 NERC PPMVT Workshop – Manufacturer Panel Confidential © Siemens Energy, Inc. 2016. All rights reserved. September 2016
Establishing the Baseline Model
John Undrill
NERC Workshop
September 2016
You should not assume that the equipment in the plant matches
the data used in initial setup of the model
but
Turbine may be in
They will/may know details of their equipment that are site specific,
undocumented, disabled, nonstandard additions
NERC Workshop
September 2016
John Undrill
1
Basics of Power Systems Dynamics
dω
Newtonian dynamics 2H = Tengine − Telec
dt
dω Pengine − Pelec
2H =
dt ω
ΔPlnom
Governor gain = Kp Δω =
Kp + Dengine + Dload
ΔPlnom ΔPlnom
= =
Kp + D D + R1
This describes the steady state frequency offset but does not describe
the dynamic behavior of the system
Governing Droop
The governor
(special cases)
n = nref − R Pengine
Kp (nref − n) = Pengine
R = 1/Kp
n = nref − R Pengine
Note that we have used valve stroke as a surrogate for engine power
Proportional governor
This is oversimplified -
This is more realistic -
Would always be stable if it
Four 90deg phase shifts
could be built -
Small steam turbine / small gas turbine
Could not be built
5 percent load increase on isolated engine
Kp = 20 speed Kp - 25
Kp = 33, 25, 20
Red R = 0.03
Green R = 0.04
Blue R = 0.05
R = 0.05 R = 0.005
Operator
adjusts
speed-load
references
to adjust
allocation of
power output
red
0.0 Divx 10 Divy 10 Time 100.0 0.0 Divx 10 Divy 10 Time 100.0
Name Min Max Col CpPu F Fa Fb Fc Fd Name Min Max Col CpPu F Fa Fb Fc Fd
1 s1 0.0 1.0 2 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 s1 0.0 1.0 2 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 s2 0.98 1.02 1 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 s2 0.98 1.02 1 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 s6 0.0 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 s6 0.0 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 Divx 10 Divy 10 Time 250.0 0.0 Divx 10 Divy 10 Time 250.0
Name Min Max Col CpPu F Fa Fb Fc Fd Name Min Max Col CpPu F Fa Fb Fc Fd
1 s1 0.0 1.0 2 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 s1 0.0 1.0 2 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 s2 0.98 1.02 1 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 s2 0.98 1.02 1 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 s6 0.0 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 s6 0.0 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
R enewable Energy Modeling
NERC PPMVT Workshop
Matt Richwine
September 20, 2016
W ind Plant Model Network
Equivalent
Station Turbine
System Transformer(s) MV Collector Transformer Equivalent
Equivalent Equivalent WTG
System
HS SS LS SS HS WTG
WTG Bus
Xfmr Bus Xfmr Bus Xfmr Bus
• Recommended network for representing wind farms in positive sequence RMS models for
transmission planning
• Aggregation of the collector and turbines has been established for many years in
industry[1]
2
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
Generic Renewables Models
Generic RMS Models
Renewables Models, 1st Generation
Renewables Models, 2nd Generation (WECC)
Renewables Models, IEC61440-27 (ENTSO-E)
Exciter-like
functions
Generator-like
functions
• Not all modules are
required for all wind
turbine types
• Some modules are also
used for solar plant
representation Governor-like
functions
Typical Applications
• Equipment Interactions • Interconnection • Bulk Transmission
• Very Weak Systems Studies Planning Studies
• Special Purpose Studies • Special Transmission
Planning Studies
Iqcmd
Qref Iq
Electrical Ipcmd Generator/
Pgen Ip
Torque Pref Control Converter
Prefo Control
Pord
Z
Zref Pgen
Drive-Train
Pm
Pitch T
Aero
Control
5
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
P lant Interactions V1reg
G1 X1 Xg Vinf
X2
Challenge:
V2reg
Plant volt/VAr (MOD-026) model validation can be
confounded by other local voltage-regulating devices G2
(wind farms, solar plants, STATCOMs, SVCs, etc). Factors
include:
• Weak grids (Xg >> X1, X2): Interaction likely
• Non-dominant plant (X1 >> X2): G1 hard to isolate
• Non-linear response (ie. deadbands): Non-linear
plant must be fully modeled or disabled
Occurrence:
• Wind plants are often located on weak grids
• Wind plants are often clustered where wind is good
• SVCs/STATCOMs are often used in weak grids for
voltage support
• Deadbands are common in volt/var controls
Noisy Region
Noisy Region
7
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
P MU Measurements Vref +
+
Verr PI Iq X
Vbus
X2
PMU V2reg
G2
Mitigation Option:
Imposing a voltage (from a PMU recording) farther up-
stream can leave the feedback loop closed and
improve model validation
However, data recorded farther up-stream often
includes more interacting equipment – becomes
difficult to isolate one device
V1reg PMU
G1 X1 Xg Vinf
Test data courtesy of BPA
X2
V2reg
8
G2 NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
P MU Measurements
Important to check when using PMU
data for Volt/VAr model validation:
1. No non-linearity in the local system
(close enough to interact significantly
with the plant under test)
9
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
Questions?
T hank You!
Matt Richwine
GE Energy Consulting
Matthew.Richwine@ge.com
518-385-4407
11
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
References
[1] E. Muljadi, C.P. Butterfield, A. Ellis, J. Mechenbier, J. Hocheimer, R. Young, N. Miller, R. Delmerico, R. Zavadil, J.C. Smith, ”Equivalencing the
Collector System of a Large Wind Power Plant”, presented at the IEEE Power Engineering Society, Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec,
June 12-16, 2006.
[2] Richwine, M.P.; Sanchez-Gasca, J.J.; Miller, N.W., "Validation of a second generation Type 3 generic wind model," in PES General Meeting |
Conference & Exposition, 2014 IEEE, July 2014
12
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
Capacitor Bank Switching Test
13
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
A ctive Power Response – GE Model
• Frequency step injection test – release of an over-frequency step (or fast
ramp) test
• Plant responds according to its frequency droop curve (example shown)
• Wind speed is not fed into the model
• Close match of active power achieved
15
NERC Model Workshop
9/20/2016
© Copyright 2013, First Solar, Inc.
Introduction
• Test results from NREL-DOE test on FS PV plant
• 3 Tools/Platforms
a) PNNL-BPA Power Plant Model Validation (PPMV) Tool
b) GE PSLF Tuning (Manual)
c) EPRI Renewable Energy Model Validation (REMV) Tool
• Conducted 3 tests
a) Under-Frequency Test
b) Capacitor Switching Test
Figure Courtesy - Dmitriy Kosterev, Steve Yang, Pavel Etingov, “PMU-based application for power plant model validation (PPMV)”, NASPI Working Group Meeting, March 23-24, 2015
Event 1 –Under-Frequency Test
• Frequency time series from actual event in ERCOT measured on November 29, 2011 was used
• Centralized Power Plant Controller (PPC) emulated this frequency response
• Plant operated in curtailed mode with 50% of plant capacity left as reserve
• Very aggressive droop setting of 1.67% was implement during test
REMV Tool
6
Event 3 –Reactive Power Control Test
• “Staged test” data used for this model validation task
• Centralized Power Plant Controller (PPC) was set in VAR control mode
• During test, set point for reactive power was changed from 0 MVAR to roughly 1.6 MVAR and
back to 0 MVAR
• PPC issued reactive current command to achieve desired reactive power at POI.
REMV Tool
Sachin Soni
Sachin.soni@firstsolar.com
623-255-9981
© ABB Group
September 30, 2016 | Slide 2
Generator Governor Frequency Response
Primary Frequency Control Consideration
© ABB Group
September 30, 2016 | Slide 3
Basics of Power System Control
Reactive Power
NERC Workshop
September 2016
John Undrill
1
Control and sharing of reactive power load requires droop
Ef d = K(Vref − vt )
(Ef d − vt )
Q=
Xs
K Xs
vt = vref − Q
K +1 K +1
Ef d = K(Vref − (vt − Xc Q))
(Ef d − vt )
Q=
Xs
K Xs − KXc
vt = vref − Q
K +1 K +1
Ef d = K(Vref − (vt − Xc Q))
(Ef d − vt )
Q=
Xs
K Xs − KXc
vt = vref − Q
K +1 K +1
Make K >> 1
Then K/(K+1) ~= 1
Then
vt = vref + Xc Q
Rising series current compensation
Could we -
VChadliev@firstsolar.com
© Copyright 2013, First Solar, Inc.
First Solar Plant Control System Architecture
x Modern solar PV plants can contribute to the reliability and
efficiency of grid operation through sophisticated Power
Plant Controller by offering the following capabilities:
California
Hoodoo Wash
IInc.
Arizona
First SSolar,
Substation
2013, Fi
i h 2013
Copyright l
North Gila 500kV Palo Verde-Hassayampa
Substation Transmission Line
©C
4
Agua Caliente - Typical Plant Operating Day (March 19, 2014)
1.2 110%
Power (PU)
0.9
Power (PU) and Reactive Power (PU)
0.6
0.0
Reactive Power (PU)
-0.3
-0.6 90%
4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
Time of Day 5
Agua Caliente Voltage Support – Event on March 21, 2014
105%
0.6
Voltage (PU)
100%
Voltage (PU)
PU))
Night
0.3
Shutdown