Welcome!

The meeting will begin at 2:00 p.m. ET / 11:00 a.m. PT June 21, 2017

Today’s Topic: Generator Model Validation using PMU data for MOD-26, MOD-27
Requirements
Registration URL: https://electricpowergroup2.webex.com/
Webinar Teleconference Number: 1-650-479-3208
Access code: 667 000 612

Please mute your phone during the presentation.

We will encourage discussion at planned QA session.
Thank you for your cooperation.
For any technical issues with this webinar, please contact Kosareff@electricpowergroup.com or call (626) 685–2015

|
 Webinar
June 21, 2017

Presented by
Neeraj Nayak, EPG

|
▪ Introduction

▪ Methodology
> Validation Process

> Calibration Process

▪ Case Study – Gas Turbine Generator

▪ Key Takeaways

▪ Q&A, Discussion

▪ Summary

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved |2

|3
▪ Models are widely used in power system planning and operation studies

▪ Models are used to predict response of the grid and assess system stability during events

▪ Inaccurate models result in incorrect determination of system response and system stability. For e.g. August
1996 blackout – models did not represent reality

▪ Traditional staged tests for Generator Model Validation

> Require units to be taken out of service
> Expensive and Time consuming

▪ NERC MOD-026, MOD-027 reliability standards require verification of generator dynamic models including
excitation controls, governor and turbine controls

▪ Synchrophasor data from PMUs provides a cost effective and efficient way to validate generator model
parameters

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved | 4

Source: NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/MOD-026-1.pdf
Source: NERC Reliability Standards, http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/MOD-027-1.pdf

|5
Source: NERC Reliability Guideline, “Power Plant Dynamic Model Verification using PMUs”, September 2016

|6
Source: NERC Reliability Guideline, “Power Plant Dynamic Model Verification using PMUs”, September 2016

|7
▪ Requirements that apply to PMU based model validation – R2, R3 & R5

GO: demonstrating
a verified model

TP: verifying model accuracy

TP: providing technical

justification to request for
model review

Source: NERC Reliability Guideline, “Power Plant Dynamic Model Verification using PMUs”, September 2016 |8
▪ EPG Developed Generator Parameter Validation (GPV) Tool & Process for Generator Model Validation

▪ Inputs
> PMU Measured Event Data
> Model – power flow & dynamic data

▪ Methodology
> Automated System Reduction & Initial conditions matching
> Validation – Comparing simulated response to PMU measurements
> Automated Process of Identifying key Parameters using Sensitivity Analysis
> Calibration – Allows user input & Engineering Judgement

▪ Types of Models that can be validated: Generator, Governor, Exciter, Stabilizer

▪ Tested and Validated for Steam Turbine, Gas Turbine Generator - Presented at NASPI 2016 Workshop

▪ Benefits
> No need to take Units Offline - Reduces Cost Significantly
> Can be repeated frequently

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved |9

| 10
Steps :
1. Input Data
a) PMU Recorded Disturbance Data at Generator terminals or POI
b) Model Information – Power Flow and Dynamic Files
2. Automatic System Reduction
> GPV will reduce the system beyond the boundary bus (PMU bus)
keeping the Target Generator bus and the Boundary bus in the
reduced system
3. Match initial conditions of the model to PMU measurements at the time
of the event
4. Validation Process
> Play in Voltage and Angle measurements from the PMU
> Compare the measured P, Q response with model simulation

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 11 |

 Validate new parameters
for multiple events

System
Reduction & Sensitivity Analysis
Initial Conditions
Validation Calibration
Across Multiple Events
Match

Automatic ▪ Inject Voltage ▪ Each Generator has ~ 60-70 Algorithm: SPSA – PSO
and Angle for Model Parameters
(Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic
playback ▪ Identifies top most sensitive Approximation – Particle Swarm
parameters by computing changes Optimization)*
in P & Q response for each
▪ Compare P, Q parameter
response with ➢ Not affected by initial guess
measurement ▪ Set Bounds for individual ➢ Multiple solutions in parallel  the best fit
parameters for calibration ➢ Faster convergence
➢ e.g. Gain Ks1 from PSS2B model
original value was 10, new value was
50; loose bound required for gains
➢ Tighter Bounds for time constants &
Inertia

*Source: Wei-Jen Lee et. al., "PMU based generator parameter

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved
identification to improve the system planning and operation” | 12
▪ High resolution PMU data (Voltage, Angle, P, Q) for selected grid disturbances (.xlsx);
▪ Network Model and Dynamic Data in PSS®E saved case format (.sav) and dynamics data format (.dyr)
▪ Individual generator data is required.
For example: if Plant A has two Generators, PMU data should be taken directly from the output of the target
generator
▪ Measurements can be on high side or low side of the Transformer
▪ An artificial generator and an ideal transformer are added at the boundary bus to playback PMU measurements

Reduced System for event playback

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 13 |

Active Power (P) Reactive Power (Q)

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 14 |

▪ Identifies Key Parameters for each model
that have most effect on the P and Q
response Specify Range of parameter
values for Calibration Process
▪ Ranks Parameters based on Sensitivity
Values

Red – Top 5 Most Sensitive

Parameters
Yellow – Next 5 Most Sensitive
White – Remaining Parameters - 11
onwards
Green – Least Sensitive

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 15 |

 Parameter Description Old Value New Value

GENSAL Parameter 2 T’’qo (sec) 0.24 0.2

GENSAL Parameter 3 H, Inertia 4.0 4.7

Active Power (Before & After Calibration) Reactive Power (Before & After Calibration)

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 16 |

▪ Gas Turbine Generator - Model Validation & Calibration

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved | 17

 230 MVA Gas
Turbine Generator
Models:
GENROU
REXS
GGOV1
PSS2A

Source: NASPI PPMV Workshop October 2016

18
© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved |
 Difference in Amplitude Difference in Amplitude

Difference in Amplitude & Signature

Difference in Amplitude & Signature

Validation Results – Event 1&2

Significant Difference in P and Q Response between Simulated & PMU data

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 19 |

Sensitivity
Analysis for
One Event

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 20

|
 Rank Model Parameter
1 GENROU Xl
2 PSS2A Ks1
Sensitivity 3 REXS Tf
Analysis Results 4 PSS2A T9
5 GENROU H
Across Multiple 6 GENROU Xq
Events 7 REXS Tc1
8 PSS2A T8
9 PSS2A Tw2
10 PSS2A Tw1
11 GGOV1 Kpgov
Top 15 12 GGOV1 Kturb
Parameters 13 REXS Kip
14 REXS Tb1
15 GENROU X'q
© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 21
|
 Rank Model Parameter Old Value Minimum Maximum
1 GENROU Xl 0.15 0.01 0.5
2 PSS2A Ks1 15 1 50

Range of 3
4
REXS
PSS2A
Tf
T9
5
0.1 0.01
1 10
1

Parameters for 5
6
GENROU
GENROU
H
Xq
3.1
1.3
0.5
0.1
10
4

Calibration 7
8
REXS
PSS2A
Tc1
T8
10
0.5
1
0.1
20
3
9 PSS2A Tw2 1 0.1 10
10 PSS2A Tw1 1 0.1 10
11 GGOV1 Kpgov 6 0.5 15
12 GGOV1 Kturb 1.5 0.1 10
13 REXS Kip 5 0.5 15
14 REXS Tb1 1 0.1 10
15 GENROU X'q 0.7 0.1 3

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 22

|
 P & Q Simulated Response Compared to PMU data - Before & After Calibration

Calibration Results - Event 1, 2 & 3

After Calibration, Simulated P and Q Response Matches PMU data for All Events
© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 23 |
 Model Parameter Old Value New Value
GENROU H 3.1 6
New Identified GENROU X'q 0.7 0.4
GGOV1 Kpgov 6 3
Model GGOV1 Kturb 1.5 3
Parameters PSS2A Ks1 15 30
PSS2A Tw2 1 5
PSS2A Tw1 1 5
Final 11 REXS Tf 5 1
Parameters REXS Tc1 10 1
REXS Kip 5 1
REXS Tb1 1 10

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 24

|
Effect of Incorrect
AVR gain on
Reactive Power
Response
Similar Signature
but Offset During
the Event

25
|
 Effect of
Incorrect PMU Data

Inertia(H) on H = 3.5

Active Power H = 4.5

Response of a H = 5.5

Coal Fired Plant

Higher Inertia Constant – Takes More Time to Settle

26
|
▪ Select only the key parameters for Calibration Process
> If all parameters are selected, Optimization
algorithm tends to change parameters that do not
affect the response significantly
▪ Use Engineering Judgment to Narrow Down on
Correct Parameter Values
> Tighten range for narrowing down on correct
parameter values
Set Bounds
> Different Bounds for Different Parameters for Individual
Parameters
▪ Validating Calibration Results with Multiple Events
> Identify most sensitive parameters across all events
> Use few events to calibrate and all events to Red – Top 5 Most Sensitive Parameters
validate Yellow – Next 5 Most Sensitive
White – Remaining Parameters - 11
onwards
Green – Least Sensitive
© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved | 27
 Generator Model Validation Report

Model Data – Current Model Parameters Validation Results Calibration Results & New Model Parameters
28
|
Your Practice, Use Cases, Suggestions

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved | 29

▪ Q&A
▪ Generator Model Validation
− Your Practices
− Use Cases
− Pain Points
− Suggestions
▪ Next Webinar Focus
− Priority
− Other topics

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved | 30

▪ Extracting large amounts of synchrophasor data efficiently for offline analysis. (August 2016)
▪ Quickly creating an event report that could be distributed to operators, engineers and managers. (Sept. 2016)
▪ System Model Validation for MOD-33 Requirement (Oct. 12)
▪ Configuring alarms and validate parameters to provide meaningful results for operators. (Dec 14)
▪ Synchrophasor Intelligence in EMS for Use in Operations (Jan 2017)
▪ Use Cases of Linear State Estimator Technology for Grid Resiliency (Feb 2017)
▪ Delivering Reliable and Validated PMU Data for Use by Operators (April 2017)
▪ Generator Model Validation using PMU data for MOD-26, MOD-27 Requirements (June 2017)
▪ Remote/Mobile access with local host for real-time monitoring and event diagnostics during emergencies
▪ Data Mining for grid events of different types, e.g. oscillations, generator trips etc.
▪ Using composite alarms as early warning for operator action
• Addressing data issues, such as PMU timing, phase correction, etc.
• ePDC/DataNXT/RTDMS pub/sub Synchrophasor Distribution Service
• Other topics?

31
© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved |
▪ Synchrophasor data from PMUs provides a cost effective and efficient way to validate

generator model parameters & satisfy NERC MOD-026, MOD-027 requirements

▪ EPG’s GPV tool & methodology

> Inputs Required – PMU measured event data and Model data

> Simple Validation Process

> Automated Identification of Key Parameters through sensitivity analysis

> Allows User Input and Engineering Judgement for Calibration

> Results are combined into a report for documenting model validation and calibration results

© Electric Power Group 2017. All rights reserved 32 |

 Thank you for participating!
If you have any questions regarding any part of the webinar, please contact us at
Contact@electricpowergroup.com

http://electricpowergroup.com/webinars.html
201 S. Lake Ave., Ste. 400
Pasadena, CA 91101
626-685-2015