Making Dynamic Simulations Output Comparable to ... · Making Dynamic Simulations Output Comparable...
Transcript of Making Dynamic Simulations Output Comparable to ... · Making Dynamic Simulations Output Comparable...
Making Dynamic Simulations Output Comparable to Synchrophasor
Measurements of PMUsA. Srivastava†, H. Lee†, M. Zhou†, P. Banerjee†, E. Farantatos‡
and M. Patel‡
†Smart Grid Demonstration and Research Investigation Lab (SGDRIL)Energy System Innovation center, Washington State University
‡Electric Power Research InstituteContact: [email protected]
NASPI March 2016
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
Number of applications for PMU based model validation:• Validation of Power Plant Models (PPPD),
Renewable Energy Models (REMV), Static Var System Models (SVSMV) - (EPRI)
• Validating Generator model using PPMV (BPA)
• Model validation of HVDC and Nuclear Unit (ISO-NE)
• Tuning Wind Turbine model (ERCOT)• Load Model validation (WECC)
Better model leads to better analysis, Understanding interaction of components, Improve situational awareness and Higher resource utilization
Typical Schematic for PMU based model Validation
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
The phasor values obtained from dynamic simulationtools and PMUs in the field may differ due to:• The filters used in the PMU may introduce
magnitude attenuation and phase offset• The results from phasor domain simulations do not
result from estimation algorithm from a point ofwave signal
• PMU may use several cycle data to obtain the phasorat any instant. Hence, estimated phasor by PMU isrepresentative of several preceding cycles.
• Test system benchmarking by matching response fromRTDS and Electromechanical Dynamics SimulationPlatform
• Analyzing effect of PMU filtering and estimation bycomparing RTDS+PMU with Dynamics simulationplatform
Real Time Simulator PDC
PMU A
PMU B
PMU C
PMU D
Power Amplifier
Power Amplifier
...
Ethernet Switch
GPS
Ethernet LAN Connection
Hardwired Connection
GPS Clock Connection
Test Bed @ Washington State University PMU Performance Analyzer
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
G1
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
1413
12
6
G2
Test System Model: Kundur System
Test System Model: IEEE 14 System
• The voltage magnitude and angle at each bus are obtained from the power flow solution of the test systems in both PSS/E and RTDS.
• Total Vector Error (TVE) gives a measure of the mismatch between the voltage phasors obtained from the RTDS and PSS/E, by considering the phasors generated from RTDS as the true value.
where,
: denotes the voltage phasors obtained from PSS/E power flow solution: denotes the voltage phasors obtained from RTDS power flow solution
Comparison between RTDS and PSS/E
• According to the IEEE ICAP Synchrophasor Measurement Test SuiteSpecifications [1], the following two criteria are used as metrics tocompare the response between the two platforms:
– Error at the Peak Point– Error at Settling Point
[1] “IEEE Synchrophasor Measurement Test Suite Specification," in IEEE Synchrophasor Measurement Test Suite Specification”, vol., no., 2014
N = Number of peak points and valley points
where,
PRTDS, PPSSE=values at peak points and valley points
e = mismatch at settling point
where,
N= Number of peak points and valley pointsTRTDS, TPSSE=time at peak points and valley points
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01Total Vector Error (IEEE 14 Bus System)
BUS
Tota
l Vec
tor
Err
or (%
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
BUS
Tota
l Vec
tor
Err
or (%
)
Total Vector Error (Kundur System)
Steady State Response Results and Benchmarking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01Total Vector Error (IEEE 14 Bus System)
BUS
Tota
l Vec
tor
Err
or (%
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01Total Vector Error (Kundur Bus System)
BUS
Tota
l Vec
tor
Err
or (%
)
Operation Condition A Operation Condition B
%TVE (IEEE 14)
%TVE(Kundur)
Exciter Step Change Response of Generator 1
(IEEE 14)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 51
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.1
time (s)
Vte
rmin
al1
(p
.u.)
PSSERTDS
Terminal Voltage Magnitude of Generator 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
time (s)
Efd
1 (
p.u
.)
PSSERTDS
Field Voltage Magnitude of Generator 1
Exciter Step Change Response of Generator 1
(Kundur)
Terminal Voltage Magnitude of Generator 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 71
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
Time (s)
Term
inal V
olt
ag
e (
p.u
.)
RTDSPSSE
Magnitude Error : 0.1106 %Time Error : 0.03565 sec
Field Voltage Magnitude of Generator 1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
Time (s)
Efd
(p
.u.)
RTDSPSSE
Magnitude Error: 0.3162 %Time Error : 0.01416 sec
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
• The Absolute Vector Error (AVE) was used as a metric to quantify thecomparison between the PSS/E and RTDS simulation results and betweenthe PSS/E simulation results and the measured responses from the PMUs.
• The Total Vector Error comparing PMU ‘x’ with PSS/E and RTDS with PSSEis also evaluated for the best and the worst PMU during the initial 0.2secof the transient for the PMUs located at the generator bus for both thetest system.
Four PMUs have been used in the experiments:• PMU A Vendor 1 (P-Class) • PMU B Vendor 2 (M-Class) • PMU C Vendor 2 (P-Class) • PMU D Vendor 3 (DFR)
IEEE 14 Bus system: Load Shedding at Bus 3
0.95 1 1.05 1.11.04
1.045
1.05
1.055
1.06
1.065
1.07
1.075
Time (sec)
Vo
ltag
e (
pu
)
Voltage Magnitude Response
PSSERTDSPMU BPMU D
Voltage Magnitude Response from 0.95sec to 1.1sec
– Load Shed – PMU installed at Bus 2
Phase Angle Response from 0.95sec to 1.1sec
– Load Shed – PMU installed at Bus 2
0.95 1 1.05 1.1-6
-5.5
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
Time (sec)
An
gle
(d
eg
ree
)
Phase Angle
PSSERTDSPMU BPMU D
IEEE 14 Bus system: Load Shedding at Bus 3
AVE from 0.95sec to 1.1sec – Load Shed – PMU installed at Bus 2
0.95 1 1.05 1.10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035Absolute Vector Error
Time (sec)
|VE
|
AVE RTDS - PSSEAVE PMU B - PSSEAVE PMU D - PSSE
TVE from 0.95sec to 1.1sec – Load Shed – PMU installed at Bus 2
0.95 1 1.05 1.10
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Time (sec)
TV
E (
%)
Total Vector Error
TVE RTDS - PSSETVE PMU B - PSSETVE PMU D - PSSE
Kundur system: Bus Fault at Bus 6
Voltage Magnitude Response from 0.95sec to 1.2sec
– Bus Fault – PMU installed at Bus 3
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.20.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
Time (sec)
Vo
ltag
e (
pu
)
Voltage Magnitude Response
PSSERTDSPMU CPMU D
Phase Angle from 0.95sec to 1.2sec– Bus Fault – PMU installed at Bus 3
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20Phase Angle
Time (sec)
An
gle
(d
eg
ree
)
PSSERTDSPMU CPMU D
Kundur system: Bus Fault at Bus 6
AVE from 0.95sec to 1.2sec– Bus Fault – PMU installed at Bus 3
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.20
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14Absolute Vector Error
Time (sec)
|VE
|
AVE RTDS - PSSEAVE PMU C - PSSEAVE PMU D - PSSE
TVE from 0.95sec to 1.2sec– Bus Fault – PMU installed at Bus 3
0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.20
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Total Vector Error
Time (sec)
TV
E (
%)
TVE RTDS - PSSETVE PMU C - PSSETVE PMU D - PSSE
0 1 2 3 4 5 60
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Total Vector Error
Modulation Frequency (Hz)
TV
E (
%)
PMU APMU BPMU CPMU D
PMUs Total Vector Error for Joint Amplitude and Phase Modulated Signal
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8Total Vector Error
Time (sec)
TV
E (
%)
PMU APMU BPMU CPMU D
PMUs Total Vector Error for Frequency Ramp
OutlineIntroduction to PMU based model validation
Motivation and goals for this study
• Test system model• Steady state response• Dynamic response
Test system benchmarking in RTDS and Dynamic Simulators
• Disturbance test scenarios and results• Dynamic compliance validation and results
Hardware in the loop benchmarking and PMU filtering effect
Summary
Summary
25
The steady state power flow matches 0.005% of the TVE for both. The step response of the excitation system of individual generators resulted in
magnitude error and the time error which are less than 0.5% and 0.04sec, respectively.
The AVE of the PMU D, when installed at Bus 2 is 0.005 for around 3sec after the occurrence of the disturbance, then decreased to 0.002. The AVE of other three PMUs are equal to the AVE of RTDS and PSS/E.
The AVE of PMU D is more than the AVE of other PMUs for 1 sec after the fault is cleared. The AVE of other PMUs are nearly same as the AVE of the RTDS and PSS/E.
The TVE of RTDS meters for Joint AM-PM is observed to be less than 0.001% The TVE of PMU D is more than 10% for most of the modulation frequency. The TVE of the RTDS meters for the frequency ramp test is less than 0.15% The TVE of PMU D is more than 1% for frequency ranging from 55Hz to 58Hz
Conclusions
26
The response of the DFR is observed to be different as compared to that of other PMUs
The TVE of P class PMUs is also more than 1% for off nominal frequency more than 62Hz and lower than 58Hz
M class PMUs accurately report the voltage phasor during slow to moderate disturbances.
The application of PMU data just after the occurrence of the disturbance for modeling systems of very small time constants is a challenging task. Hence, suitable filters may be designed for PSS/E to match the system responses with P class and M class PMUs separately.