Dynamic Model Acceptance Guideline

DYNAMIC MODEL
ACCEPTANCE GUIDELINE
PREPARED BY: AEMO Network Development
VERSION: 1.1
EFFECTIVE DATE: 15 August 2018
STATUS: FINAL
Approved for distribution and use by:

APPROVED BY: Luke Robinson
TITLE: Manager Network Development
DATE: 10 / 08 / 2018
Australian Energy Market Operator Ltd ABN 94 072 010 327 www.aemo.com.au info@aemo.com.au
NEW SOUTH WALES QUEENSLAND SOUTH AUSTRALIA VICTORIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TASMANIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA
DYNAMIC MODEL ACCEPTANCE GUIDELINE
VERSION RELEASE HISTORY
Version Effective Date Summary of Changes

1.0 August 2014 First Issue
1.1 August 2018 Minor updates
Important Notice
AEMO has prepared this Guideline to explain how to assess accuracy and robustness of computer
models used for power system analysis.
This document is current as at the date of publication, but may have been updated or amended.
Please ensure you are using the latest version downloaded from AEMO’s website.
This Guideline is not legally binding, and does not replace applicable requirements in the National
Electricity Rules or AEMO’s Power System Model Guidelines. AEMO has made every effort to
ensure the quality of the information in this Guideline but cannot guarantee its accuracy or
completeness.
Accordingly, to the maximum extent permitted by law, AEMO and its officers, employees and
consultants involved in the preparation of this document:
 make no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the
information in this document; and
 are not liable (whether by reason of negligence or otherwise) for any statements or
representations in this document, or any omissions from it, or for any use or reliance on the
information in it.
© 2018 Australian Energy Market Operator Limited. The material in this publication may be used in
accordance with the copyright permissions on AEMO’s website.
V1.1 Page 2 of 22
Contents
1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT 5
2 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5
3 MODEL ACCEPTANCE PRINCIPLES 5

3.1 Scope 5
3.2 Model documentation and structure 6
3.3 Model initialisation 9
3.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation 9
4 MODEL ACCEPTANCE TESTS 10

4.1 Case studies for both wind farms and synchronous generators 11
4.2 Additional case studies for variable generation technologies with low voltage ride-through
function 20
4.3 Additional case studies for synchronous generators 20
4.4 Additional case studies for dynamic reactive support plant 21
4.5 Additional case studies for HVDC links 22
V1.1 Page 3 of 22
Glossary
Term Definition
AEMO Australian energy market operator
AVR Automatic voltage regulator
DSA Dynamic security assessment
EMT Electromagnetic transient
HVDC High voltage direct current
LVRT Low voltage ride through
NSP Network service provider
OEL Over excitation limiter
OPDMS Operations and planning data management system
PCC Point of common coupling
PI Proportional integral
PSS Power system stabiliser
PSS®E Power system simulator for engineering
RMS Root mean square
SCR Short circuit ratio
STATCOM Static compensator
SVC Static Var Compensator
TCR Thyristor controlled reactor
TSC Thyristor switched capacitor
UEL Under excitation limiter
V1.1 Page 4 of 22
1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
This document explains the process for carrying out dynamic model acceptance tests (MAT) for RMS
type models. Model acceptance tests are necessary to provide confidence the model is usable,
numerically robust and represents the plant under all expected operating conditions. The model
must comply with the Power System Model Guidelines and is expected to be accurate enough to
enable AEMO to assess the commissioning process and any impacts on system security. The
objective of the acceptance tests in this document is to determine the robustness of the model for
defined test conditions. The tests do not provide any assessment of compliance for performance or
access standards for specific connection points. Successful acceptance testing does not guarantee
that models submitted for a particular connection project will meet the applicable compliance
requirements.1
This document presents a systematic test suite and the key criteria for dynamic model acceptance,
including simulation case studies which the dynamic models will undergo for acceptance.
All models will be stored in AEMO’s Operations and Planning Data Management System (OPDMS)
for planning, operations and automated dynamic security assessment (DSA), and other applications.
The MAT submission should include all associated study files (case and output files) and a report
summarising key results of the tests undertaken, AEMO may provide a Python script to assist
proponents with completing a Model Acceptance Test,. Enquiries regarding the script can be sent
to connections@aemo.com.au
2 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

This document is not intended to replace AEMO’s existing Power System Model Guidelines.2 In
addition to the acceptance testing set out in this document, dynamic models provided for generator
connections must meet all requirements in the Power System Model Guidelines.
3 MODEL ACCEPTANCE PRINCIPLES
3.1 Scope
3.1.1 Scope of tests

The scope of this Guideline covers each primary plant item for which dynamic models have been
provided independently. This includes:
 For synchronous generating units, models of:
o Excitation system (AVR, exciter, PSS and limiters), using a generic (or specific, if
provided) synchronous generator model.
o Governor system, using a generic (or specific, if provided) synchronous generator and
exciter model.
 For variable generation technologies such as wind and solar farms, models of:
o Aggregated equivalent wind turbine model including central park level controller.
1
AEMO or the relevant network service provider may have specific requirements for an individual connection.
2
AEMO. Available at: https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Security_and_Reliability/System-Security-
Market-Frameworks-Review/2018/Power_Systems_Model_Guidelines_PUBLISHED.pdf
V1.1 Page 5 of 22
 For dynamic reactive support plant such as SVC and STATCOM, models of:
o Main and auxiliary control systems (e.g., power oscillation damping), with a generic
large (nearly infinite) generating system representing the source power system.
 For high voltage direct current (HVDC) links:
o If intended as interconnectors, the DC link model with a generic large (nearly infinite)
generating system connected at one end.
o If intended as embedded DC links with generating systems connected to one or both
ends the DC link model with generic (or specific, if provided) model of the generating
system(s) at one end or both ends (if applicable).
o If intended to interface islanded networks, e.g., DC-connected wind farms, the DC link
model with a specific model of the wind farm.
For plant commonly used in combination with other plant (e.g., specific wind turbine models and
dynamic reactive support devices), similar model testing can be used to assess potential model
interactions.
For plant with several control or operation modes, the model acceptance will encompass all modes.
Included in this category are:
 Central park level controller for wind and solar farms, which can provide multiple control
functions such as voltage control, frequency control, power factor control.
 Generating units with a changeover function between the star and delta connection modes for
various power output levels.
3.1.2 Model type

The model acceptance testing discussed in this document primarily applies to positive sequence
RMS type dynamic models developed in line with AEMO’s preferred simulation platforms as
discussed in:
https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Security_and_Reliability/System-Security-
Market-Frameworks-Review/2018/Power_Systems_Model_Guidelines_PUBLISHED.pdf
3.1.3 Power system study applications

This model acceptance testing guideline does not assess the model with respect to the following:
 Unbalanced disturbances.
 Power quality including harmonics, flicker, and voltage unbalance.
 Temporary and transient overvoltages.
 Control instability.
 Sub-synchronous interaction.
3.2 Model documentation and structure

Proponents need to submit the following items as part of a model assessment submission. It is
expected that all documentation provided will be consistent.
 Encrypted model in PSS®E.
 Corresponding model source codes.
V1.1 Page 6 of 22
 Corresponding transfer function block diagrams complying with the Power System Model
Guidelines.
 Instructions on how the model should be set up and used.
 Validation report comparing the model’s fault ride-through performance with the
measurements for power electronic connected generation technologies.
Model documentation and structure will be reviewed, and several main attributes will be assessed:
 The transfer function block diagram must include all functional controllers and physical plant
that materially affects the performance of the model.3
 The model must meet the accuracy requirements specified in the AEMO Power System Model
Guidelines.
 The models of the controllers and items of plant must be easily identifiable.
 The model parameter values must reflect typical values appropriate for the actual equipment
installed. The block diagram must show all model parameters and their values.
 The use of black-box type representation is not acceptable.
 The interconnection of the different functional controllers and the items of plant must be
clearly shown.
 Control systems with several discrete states or logic elements may be provided in flow chart
format if a block diagram format is not suitable.
 Model parameter values that are intended to be (or can be) externally adjusted (i.e., those
explicitly in PSS®E dynamic data file) must be clearly identified in the model block diagram.
 The model block diagram and flow charts (if applicable) must represent the corresponding
model source code.4
 The model inputs and outputs shown in the transfer function block diagram representation
should match those indicated in the model datasheet tables.
 The state variables shown in the transfer function block diagram representation should match
those indicated in the model datasheet tables.
 Model documentation and transfer function block diagram representation should be provided
at the level of detail required for AEMO and network service providers to derive the
corresponding linear small-signal model of the equipment.
 Dynamic data must be provided as ‘per unit’ quantities on the machine MVA base.
 The maximum duration of the dynamic simulation run for which the model accuracy is proven
should be clearly mentioned.
 For wind-up, and anti-wind-up proportional integral (PI) controllers details of the controller—
including any potential dead-band and saturation—must be shown in the transfer function
block diagram representation.
3
Included in this category are the central park level controllers that schedule active and reactive power across the wind and solar
farms.
4
It is also expected that the functional block diagrams provided with the Power System Design and Setting Data Sheets for a specific
generating system connection will match these diagrams, although the parameter values might differ to reflect particular
connection point performance requirements.
V1.1 Page 7 of 22
 For variable generation technologies (such as wind turbines and solar panels) the following
parameters must be accessible in the main software interface for online monitoring and
possible changes during the simulation:
o Active power at LV terminals.
o Reactive power at LV terminals.
o Active current at LV terminals.
o Reactive current at LV terminals.
o RMS voltage at LV terminals.
o Applicable set-points including:
 Active power set-point.
 Frequency set-point.
 Voltage set-point.
 Reactive power set-point.
 Power factor set-point.
o Fault ride-through activation/deactivation.
o Reactive current injection during the fault.
o Additional requirements for wind turbines5:
 Pitch angle.
 Wind speed.
 Generator rotor speed.
 Mechanical torque/power.
 Aerodynamic torque/power.
 The minimum design value of the short circuit ratio (SCR) 6 for variable generation
technologies, HVDC links, and dynamic reactive support plant must be documented. As the
model will be assessed independent of specific connection projects, the SCR must be defined
at the equipment terminals rather than the point of common coupling (PCC). Vendors must
provision detailed EMT-type models when seeking assessment of the model for a short circuit
ratio of less than three.
 The recommended range of the following dynamic simulation parameters should be stated in
the model documentation.
o Numerical integration time step. Where models use an internal integration time step
for some of its faster acting controllers this should be clearly highlighted.
o Tolerance for network solution.
o Acceleration factor for network solution.
o Frequency filter (filter time constant).
6
SCR is a measure of the strength of the network to which the equipment is connected. This is defined as the ratio of the short circuit
capacity of the grid at the point of common coupling (PCC) in MVA to the nominal power at the PCC in MW.
V1.1 Page 8 of 22
 For wind and solar farms the model aggregation methodology proposed must be clearly
specified.
o The aggregation method should not restrict access to the wind turbine terminals (LV
side of the turbine transformer).
o The use of full feeder representation for one or more feeders is not considered good
industry practice due to accompanying computational burden. It should not be used if
possible.
 Currently, AEMO accepts the source code formats FORTRAN and FLEX. Source codes written
in other formats (such as C/C++) may be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
 The model must be written and prepared using good electricity industry practice and good
model writing practices for the relevant software. For PSS®E, this would include:
o Execution of the DOCU command should show all model states, outputs and
constants that are observable/adjustable externally. The output format of these
commands should be consistent with the format of dynamic data.
o Execution of dynamic data documentation commands should not result in model
crashing.
o Using models which include calls into either of the CONEC or CONET subroutines is not
acceptable. In PSS®E this approach would require users to make a fresh compilation
every time the network configuration changes, so a dedicated FORTRAN compiler is
needed for each user.
o Using identical names should be avoided for models of similar structure where the
number of one of the CONs, ICONs, VARs, or STATES is different between the two
models.
o The model should comprise a single executable file for each physical plant. Use of
auxiliary or linking files is discouraged.
3.3 Model initialisation

 The derivative of all state variables should be less than 0.0001 during initialisation.
 Models should be initialised successfully for the entire intended plant operating range. In
other words, the model operating range should be consistent with the actual equipment
design in particular with respect to the following:
o The entire range of active power.
o The entire range of reactive power/power factor (including limits of reactive power
generation and consumption).
3.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation

Dynamic models provided should have the following characteristics:
 Voltage, frequency, active and reactive power should remain constant for dynamic simulation
runs with no disturbance.
 Should not interfere with the operation of other dynamic models.
 Should be numerically robust for dynamic simulation runs of several minutes.
V1.1 Page 9 of 22
 The numerical integration time step should be kept under 20–25% of the shortest
time constant in the process being simulated. For acceptable numerical integration time steps
please refer to section 4.3 of AEMO’s Power System Model Guidelines.
 Time constants smaller than the minimum acceptable numerical integration time step should
be avoided.
 Model outputs in terms of the voltage, frequency, active and reactive power should be
reasonably constant and consistent when doubling and halving the recommended time step.
 Should be numerically stable for a wide range of grid SCR and grid and fault X/R ratio.
 Should be numerically stable for unity, lagging and leading power factors.
 When the simulated response exhibits unusual performance characteristics several seconds after
removal of the disturbance, provision of off-site test results for identical equipment is necessary
to demonstrate that the actual equipment will perform the same way.
 Models are expected to work for a range of the dynamic simulation parameters rather than for
specific settings.
 To avoid excessive simulation burden when integrating those models into AEMO OPDMS and
DSA tools the minimum permissible values of the numerical integration time step and
acceleration factors are 1 ms and 0.2 ms respectively. The frequency filter time constant should
be set to four times the integration time step.
4 MODEL ACCEPTANCE TESTS

The model acceptances tests that need to be carried out are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
As examples, the test circuits used for variable generation and synchronous generation technologies
are shown in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) respectively.
Test set-up for acceptance testing of HVDC links and dynamic reactive support plant can be
established by referring to Section 2.1 of this document.
In Figure 1(a) and 1(b) the network slack bus is an infinite bus where the voltage magnitude and
voltage angle are determined by an ideal voltage source being the reference node and balancing
node. The unit and substation transformer voltages provided are example values and can vary
according to the nominal values of the particular equipment.
Note that it is a common practice to connect the power plant (e.g., wind farms) via two parallel
connected substation transformers. The substation transformer impedance shown in Figure 1(a)
therefore represents two parallel connected transformers.
As indicated by equation (1), with the application of a network fault the remaining voltage, Udip can
be calculated as a function of fault impedance Zf, system impedance Zs, and source voltage Vs.
Zf
Equation (1) U dip  Vs 
d  Zs  Z f
where d is a variable which allows varying fault distance with respect to the generating unit
Note that Udip as the remaining voltage that appears when zero in-feed is provided by the generating
unit for which the model is being tested.
Rearranging (1) and assuming Vs equal to 1 pu the fault impedance can be calculated as:
V1.1 Page 10 of 22
U dip
Equation (2) Zf  d  Zs 
1  U dip
Equation (2) implies that the fault impedance can be determined as a function of the predefined
residual voltage at the fault location.
4.1 Case studies for both wind farms and synchronous generators
In summary, the general model acceptance tests required can be summarised as follows:
 Fault disturbance tests with three-phase-to-ground fault scenarios considering various factors
such as:
o Fault duration.
o Voltage dip.
o Grid SCR.
o Grid X/R ratio.
o Pre-fault active power at the PCC.
o Pre-fault reactive power at the PCC.
o Fault X/R ratio.
 Non-fault disturbance tests:
o Step response test on machine active power set-point as shown in Figure 2.
o Step response test on machine reactive power set-point as shown in Figure 3.
o Step response test on grid voltage magnitude.
o Rate of change of grid frequency test as shown in Figure 4. (Note that for all cases the
grid frequency is increased to 52 Hz and restored to 50 Hz again).
o Step response test on grid voltage angle equal to ±20°.

The plotting channels used depend on the equipment, but as a minimum the following quantities
will be plotted for all equipment at their terminals and POC:
 Active power.
 Reactive power.
 Active current.
 Reactive current.
 Magnitude of terminal voltage.
 Phase angle of terminal voltage.
 Grid frequency.
Additional plotting channels may be used for assessment of each specific type of equipment.
V1.1 Page 11 of 22
Generating unit Substation Grid and fault ”Infinite”

source
Zs=Rs+jXs
Xs/Rs=3,10
Y/D Ubus D/Y Upcc

(1-d)*Zs d*Zs
WTG
R=1 e-5 ohm

220.0 kV
0.69 or 1 kV/33 kV 33 kV/220 kV 50Hz
X=8% Zf = Rf+jXf
X=6% Source
R=0.6% Xf/Rf=3
R=0.3%
Fault
(a)Wind farm model acceptance set-up
Generating unit Substation Grid and fault ”Infinite”

source
Zs=Rs+jXs
Xs/Rs=3,10
D/Y Ubus Upcc (1-d)*Zs d*Zs
SG
R=1 e-5 ohm

220.0 kV
15-30 kV/220 kV 50Hz
X=12-16% Zf = Rf+jXf
Source
R=0.5-0.6% Xf/Rf=3
Fault
(b) Synchronous generator model acceptance set-up
Figure 1 Test circuit for model acceptance testing
V1.1 Page 12 of 22
Table 1 Large disturbance test cases

Note: The table below assumes SCR values of 3 and 5 and X/R values of 3 and 10. In the event the SCR and
X/R values are expected to be lower at the generating systems connection point then the SCR and X/R values
for system normal and the most severe N-1 credible contingency should be used.
Fault Residual Short- Grid Active power Time step Acceleration Reactive
Item Duration voltage circuit X/R (pu) (ms) factor power (pu)
(s) (pu) ratio ratio
Voltage
dip test
cases
1 0.12 0 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
2 0.12 0 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
3 0.12 0 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
4 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
5 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
6 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
7 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0
8 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3
9 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3
10 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0
11 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3
12 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3
13 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
14 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
15 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
16 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
17 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
18 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
19 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.0
20 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.3
21 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 -0.3
V1.1 Page 13 of 22
22 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.0
23 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.3
24 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 -0.3
25 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.0
26 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.3
27 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 -0.3
28 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 0.0
29 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 0.3
30 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 -0.3
31 0.5 0.7 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
32 0.5 0.7 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
33 0.5 0.7 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
34 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
35 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
36 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
37 0.5 0.7 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0
38 0.5 0.7 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3
39 0.5 0.7 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3
40 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0
41 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3
42 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3
43 0.5 0.7 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
44 0.5 0.7 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
45 0.5 0.7 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
46 0.5 0.7 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0
47 0.5 0.7 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3
V1.1 Page 14 of 22
48 0.5 0.7 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3
49 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.0
50 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.3
51 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 -0.3
52 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.0
53 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.3
54 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 -0.3
55 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.0
56 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.3
57 0.5 0.7 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 -0.3
58 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 0.0
59 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 0.3
60 0.5 0.7 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 -0.3
Table 2 Small disturbance test cases

Section Event SCR Grid Active Time step Acceleration Reactive
X/R power (ms) factor power (pu)
ratio (pu)
Small-
disturbance
test cases
1 Pref step as per Fig.2 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0

3 Pref step as per Fig.2 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3

V1.1 Page 15 of 22

19 Qref step as per Fig.3 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0



31 Voltage step as per Fig.4 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0

43 Grid frequency ramp 3 3 1.0 1 0.3 0.0

up/down: ±2 Hz/s
up/down: ±2 Hz/s
up/down: ±2 Hz/s
up/down: ±2 Hz/s
V1.1 Page 16 of 22

up/down: ±4 Hz/s
up/down: ±4 Hz/s
up/down: ±4 Hz/s
up/down: ±4 Hz/s
up/down: ±4 Hz/s
up/down: ±4 Hz/s
53 Grid voltage angle change 3 3 1.0 1 0.3 0.0

equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
equal to ±20°
V1.1 Page 17 of 22
Figure 2 Active power set point step response test
Figure 3 Reactive power set point step response test
V1.1 Page 18 of 22
Figure 4 Voltage set point step response test and grid voltage disturbance test
Figure 5 Rate of change of frequency test
V1.1 Page 19 of 22
4.2 Additional case studies for variable generation technologies with low
voltage ride-through function
 For wind turbines with low voltage ride-through (LVRT) control (assuming the voltage
threshold for activation of the LVRT control is k%), apply voltage step responses of (k+1)%, and
(k-1) to ensure correct operation of the control without any oscillatory behaviour.
4.3 Additional case studies for synchronous generators
4.3.1 Excitation system limiters

 To test any limiter, control, or protection (such as under- and over-excitation limiters) in
synchronous machines, adjust the operating conditions such that these controls can be
activated. The following case studies are generally used to demonstrate correct operation of
the limiters.
 Case study 1
On-load Vref step responses over the capability of the plant at three load levels: minimum
load, full load and one or more loading levels between:
o 5% step in Vref starting from within the UEL and not operating into another limiter.
o 5% step in Vref starting from within the generator’s capability curve. The final settling
value should be just within the UEL and should not enter into any limiter, including the
UEL.
o 5% step in Vref starting from within the OEL and not operating into another limiter.
o 5% step in Vref starting from within the generator’s capability curve. The final settling
value should be just within the OEL and should not enter into any limiter, including the
OEL.
Active Power (P)
Full Load
UEL OEL
½ to ¾ Load
Minimum Load
Reactive Power (Q)
step start step final setting value step direction
Figure 6 - Step response simulations without limiter operation
V1.1 Page 20 of 22
 Case study 2
On load Vref step responses into excitation limiters over the capability of the plant at three
load levels: minimum load, full load and one or more loading levels between. Step responses
should be determined at each loading level for (see Figure 7):
o 5% step in Vref, into the UEL.
o 5% step in Vref, into the OEL.
Active Power (P)
Full Load
UEL OEL
½ to ¾ Load
Minimum Load
Reactive Power (Q)
step start step stopped by limiter step direction
Figure 7 - Step response simulations into UEL and OEL
4.3.2 Governor
 To ensure there is no adverse interaction between the governor and PSS, the following case
study is carried out
o For operation at full load and unity power factor compare PSS performance for each
governor operating mode, and with the governor switched out of service (constant
mechanical power applied to the synchronous generator model). It is expected the governor
does not materially change the overall performance.
4.4 Additional case studies for dynamic reactive support plant

 Similar tests specified in Section 6.3.1 are carried out; the only difference is that the device
does not transfer any active power. The tests are not therefore repeated at various active
power levels.
 When mode changes are involved within the operating range of the device, e.g., changeover
from thyristor switched capacitor (TSC) mode to thyristor controlled reactor (TCR) for static var
compensators (SVCs), the model acceptance testing will be carried out in the vicinity of the
changeover point to confirm correct operation when changeover occurs.
V1.1 Page 21 of 22
4.5 Additional case studies for HVDC links

 Similar tests specified in section 6.3.1 are carried out.
V1.1 Page 22 of 22

Dynamic Model Acceptance Guideline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Model Acceptance Guideline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Model Acceptance Guideline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of this document?

What is the purpose of this document?

What are the model acceptance principles?

What are the model acceptance principles?

DYNAMIC MODEL

Approved for distribution and use by:

VERSION RELEASE HISTORY

Version Effective Date Summary of Changes

2 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5

3 MODEL ACCEPTANCE PRINCIPLES 5

4 MODEL ACCEPTANCE TESTS 10

2 RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

3 MODEL ACCEPTANCE PRINCIPLES

3.1.1 Scope of tests

3.1.2 Model type

3.1.3 Power system study applications

3.2 Model documentation and structure

3.3 Model initialisation

3.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation

4 MODEL ACCEPTANCE TESTS

o Step response test on grid voltage magnitude.

o Step response test on grid voltage angle equal to ±20°.

Generating unit Substation Grid and fault ”Infinite”

Y/D Ubus D/Y Upcc

R=1 e-5 ohm

(a)Wind farm model acceptance set-up

Generating unit Substation Grid and fault ”Infinite”

D/Y Ubus Upcc (1-d)*Zs d*Zs

R=1 e-5 ohm

(b) Synchronous generator model acceptance set-up

Figure 1 Test circuit for model acceptance testing

Table 1 Large disturbance test cases

2 0.12 0 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3

3 0.12 0 5 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3

4 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.0

5 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 0.3

6 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3

7 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0

8 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3

9 0.12 0 5 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3

10 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.0

11 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 0.3

12 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 1.0 -0.3

13 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0

14 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3

15 0.12 0 5 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3

16 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.0

17 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 0.3

18 0.12 0 3 10 1.0 2 1.0 -0.3

19 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.0

20 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 0.3

21 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 1 1.0 -0.3

22 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.0

23 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 0.3

24 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 1 1.0 -0.3

25 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.0

26 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 0.3

27 0.12 0 3 3 1.0 2 0.3 -0.3

28 0.12 0 3 3 0.05 2 0.3 0.0

D/Y Ubus Upcc (1-d)Zs dZs