Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Jan 2019
Unnoticed Differences in PSS/E and
PSLF Format — 2nd Generation Generic
Renewable Energy Model
Prepared by
Sam (Shengqiang) Li, P.Eng.
Interconnection Planning Engineer
BC Hydro
o Many WECC members (BCH, AESO, Pacific Corp, etc.) require
generator models to be submitted in both PSS/E and PSLF format.
o Models are often validated in PSS/E format and manually translated to
GE PSLF format.
o PSS/E and PSLF have a few unnoticeable differences in the way they
handle the models, particularly in renewable energy models.
o Improper translation of wind/solar models from PSS/E to PSLF format
may result in errors or inconsistency.
Background
2
Drive Train Model (WTDTAU1 / wtgt_a)
o Kshaft in drive train model
Plant Controller Model (REPCAU1 / repc_a)
o System MVA base vs model MVA base
Generator Frequency Protection Model (FRQTPAT / lhfrt)
o Nuisance tripping due to numeric issues
o Workaround in PSLF and PSS/E
Commonly-Overlooked Model Differences
3
1. Drive Train Model
4
MW output in PSLF
The same parameters do not give the same model responses. Why?
Wind Farm MW output in PSS/E
6 - MW_QTYG T1 : _2L323_SLSgfedcb
Time (seconds)
109876543210
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
MW output in PSS/E
1. Drive Train Model — kshaft
5
Takeaway: when translating from PSS/E
model to PSLF model, multiply the
calculated Kshaft by a factor of w0=377
(=2*3.14*60).
For example,
If Kshaft in PSS/E = 1.48 PU,
then kshaft in PSLF = 560 PU.
PSLF Drive Train Model
PSS/E Drive Train Model
Wind Farm MW output in PSS/E
6 - MW_QTYG T1 : _2L323_SLSgfedcb
Time (seconds)
109876543210
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
1. Drive Train Model — kshaft
6
MW output in PSS/E
MW output in PSLF
Plots matches after updating kshaft in PSLF model
Kshaft = 1.48 PU
Kshaft = 560 PU
1. Drive Train Model — kshaft
7
List of suspicious wtgt_a model (kshaft too low) in WECC 18HS
Base Cases
no. bus name area zone mvab ht hg dshaft kshaft wo
52 365600 SOLANO3WIND 30 304 143.6 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
53 365574 SOLANO2WIND 30 304 98.6 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
2 80541 CSS .6A 50 500 28.8 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
3 80542 CSS .6B 50 500 25.2 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
4 80543 CSS .6C 50 500 23.4 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
5 80544 CSS .6D 50 500 21.6 6.7 5.7 1.5 0.2 1
1 59011 WINDYGS1 54 573 51.1 4.88 0.42 1 0.28 1
44 69511 TOPW_SE_WG 65 679 112.4 5.3 1 0.92 1.85 1
505 MVATotal Capability of Effected WGF =
2. Plant Controller Model — MVA bases
8
PSS/E Type REPCAU1 PSLF Type repc_a
Pbranch and Qbranch are per-
unitized based on generator
MVA base
Pbranch and Qbranch are per-
unitized based on system MVA
base (100 MVA)
Solution:
Set “puflag” to 1 in PSLF type repc_a model,
meaning generator MVA base will be used.
2. Plant Controller Model — MVA bases
9
no. bus name area zone MODEL_LID mvab tfltr kp … puflag
67 69778 CHAUT_SG 65 686PAVANT_46_CHAUTAUQ_SOLAR 0 0.2 18 … 0
66 69773 BASELINE_SG 65 686PAVANT_46_BASELINE_SOLAR 0 0.2 18 … 0
48 66328 SWEETWATER 65 668 0 0.2 18 … 0
64 69765 GRANT MTE_SG 65 657PINTURA_138_GRANITE_MTN 0 0.2 18 … 0
63 69758 STEVENSVL_SG 65 657THREEPKS_138_STEVENSVLL 0 0.2 0.1 … 0
62 69753 IRON SPRG_SG 65 657 THREEPKS_138_IRONSPGS 0 0.2 18 … 0
61 69748 ROOT CK_WG 65 679 ROOT_CR_34.5_G1 0 0.02 8 … 0
60 69740 ESCALANT_SG3 65 657 0 0.02 0.1 … 0
59 69729 ENTERPRSL_SG 65 657 0 0.02 1 … 0
58 69723 ARAPAHOE_SG 65 686PAVANT_46_ARAPAHO_SOLAR 0 0.2 18 … 0
57 69713 RED HILLS_SG 65 657PAROWAN_138_REDHILLS_SOLAR 0 0.02 0.5 … 0
56 69515 JOLLYHL2 65 652 JOLLYHIL_34.5_G2 0 0.02 5 … 0
55 69514 JOLLYHL1 65 652 JOLLYHIL_34.5_G1 0 0.02 5 … 0
54 69511 TOPW_SE_WG 65 679 TOP_WRLD_0.57_G02 112.4 1.25 2 … 0
53 69505 TOPW_GE_WG 65 679 110 0.02 0.5 … 0
65 69769 GRANT MTW_SG 65 657 0 0.2 18 … 0
52 69092 3BUTTES_WG 65 6793BUTTEWF_34.5_TB_WIND_1 110 0.02 12 … 0
51 69073 HIPLN_G 65 679HIPLAINS_34.5_HIPLAINS_WIND 141.95 0.02 0.29 … 1
50 69032 DNLP1_G1 65 679 DUNLAP_34.5_G01 123.58 0.02 2.8 … 1
49 69027 7MIHL G1 65 679 SVNMILE_34.5_CKT1 131.93 0.02 0.7 … 1
List of repc_a models in area 65. Most are still using puflag=0.
3. Generator Freq Prot Model — Numeric Issues
10
o WECC issued a White Paper on “Understanding Frequency Calculation in
Positive Sequence Stability Programs”.
o Frequency protection models (lhfrt model in PSLF and FRGTPAT model in
PSS/E) may incorrectly trip on close-in faults.
3. Generator Freq Prot Model — Workaround
11
o The recommended solutions are.
— PSLF type lhfrt model, set “alarm” flag to 1.0 (monitor only)
— PSS/E type FRGTPAT model, set breaker time “TB” to 99 sec.
4. Make Sure Translation is Correct
12
The best way to ensure the flawless model translation is —
Benchmarking PSS/E and PSLF Models in their native software.
(i) SCR=20 (ii) SCR=3
o Pay particular attention to translated wind model parameters.
o Many wind models are validated in the non-native software (other than
PSS/E & PSLF). TPs may need to check for initialization errors caused
by typos, missing parameters, invalid invocation, etc.
o Whenever possible, try benchmark the model in both PSS/E and PSLF
to ensure consistency.
5. Recommendations for TPs
13
For many type-3 wind farms in BC, DVARs are set as the MasterController (MC) and the WTGs are following the command of MC.
Current SVSMO3 model lacks the following modeling capabilities torepresent such control configurations.
1. Plant-Level Line Drop Compensation (not linear droop Xc0);
2. Ability to control a switchable shunt (not 8 fixed shunts) and wind turbines ;
3. Ability to withdraw VARs output after turbines and shunt capacitor responds.
Future Work — Potential Enhancement of
SVSMO3 model for Use in Type-3 WGF
14
A Separate but Related Topic
Potential Enhancement of the SVSMO3 model
for Type 3 WGF (Tentative Changes)
15
