Model Acceptance Test Guideline Nov 2021

Dynamic Model Acceptance Test
Guideline
Version 2: November 2021
Important notice
PURPOSE
This Guideline provides information to National Electricity Market participants about the assessment and
testing process AEMO undertakes before accepting new or updated plant models for use in system studies
and due diligence assessments for connection applications, registrations and plant alterations.
Participants and vendors should ensure they refer to the most recent version of this document for AEMO’s
general requirements.
DISCLAIMER
This document or the information in it may be updated or amended from time to time. This document does
not constitute legal or business advice, and should not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining detailed
advice about the National Electricity Law, the National Electricity Rules, or any other applicable laws,
procedures or policies. AEMO has made every reasonable effort to ensure the quality of the information in
this document 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 currency, accuracy, reliability 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.
VERSION CONTROL
Version Release date Change summary
1.0 17/2/2021 First issue after consultation with NEM Power System Model Reference Group (PSMRG)
2.0 26/11/2021 Revised after operational experience in response to requests for clarification from industry and
NSPs:
• Purpose statement updated (in Important Notice) to clarify DMAT application
• Table 2 updated to reflect POC conditions for initialisation and snapshot checks
• Section 2.5 and checklist (A1, Table 20, item 14) updated to highlight implications of submitting
non-FORTRAN source coded models for PSS®E (not advisable).
• Update to section 2.2 to clarify initialisation cannot rely on scripts. Checklist in A.1, Table 20, item
34 (bullet point 3) also confirms use of scripts not permitted.
• Footnote update to Table 20, item 16 (use of MINS models), item 26 (firmware versions), item 39
(transformer saturation).
• Clarification and a footnote update to Table 20, item 30 (open loop gain and phase margin
information)
• Unbalanced faults updated in section 3.2.5 Table 4 to reflect the most relevant (minimal) POC
conditions of interest for assessment of asymmetrical disturbances.
• Clarification of fault duration in “note A” for Test 121 (section 3.2.6).
© 2021 Australian Energy Market Operator Limited.

The material in this publication may be used in accordance with the copyright permissions on AEMO’s website.
Version Release date Change summary
• Correction of error for Tests 227 and 229 - signage of input source step application (section
3.2.20) . Test 155, corrected to reflect 1.0 pu active power output.
• Clarification note added for tests 193 to 198.
• Figure updates for excitation limiter tests in section 3.6.1
• Appendix A.2 updated with clarifications to existing FAQs, additional FAQs, and list of minimum
tests for self-assessment prior to DMAT submission (also referenced in section 2.6).
• New Appendix A.3 – Selected examples and issues.
© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 3

Contents
1. About this Guideline 7
1.1 Purpose and scope 7
1.2 Related policies and procedures 8
1.3 Completion of Model Acceptance Tests 8
2. Model acceptance principles 9

2.1 Scope 9
2.2 Model documentation and structure 11
2.3 Model initialisation and dynamic simulation requirements 15
2.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation 15
2.5 Wrapper-based RMS models 18
2.6 Model Acceptance Test checklist including pre-requisite information 19
3. Model Acceptance Tests 20

3.1 Pre-requisite information 20
3.2 Case studies for both IBR and synchronous plant 20
3.3 Additional case studies for IBR generation technologies with low and high voltage ride-
through function 44
3.4 Additional grid voltage tests for IBR operating at reduced energy source inputs 44
3.5 Additional case studies to verify minimum declared SCR that the IBR generation can
sustain 45
3.6 Additional case studies for synchronous generators and synchronous condenser
systems 45
3.7 Additional case studies for dynamic reactive support plant 47
3.8 Additional tests for IBRs with reactive power mode without active power production 48
3.9 Additional tests for battery-equipped systems 48
3.10 Additional tests for South Australian Connections 48
3.11 Other technologies 48
3.12 Model integration into AEMO’s OPDMS and PSCAD TM network case 48
A1. DMAT checklist 49
A2. Frequently asked questions 59
A3. Selected Examples and Issues 66
Abbreviations 70

Tables
Table 1 DMAT due diligence and acceptance pathway 10
Table 2 Flat run, snapshot and initialisation test 23
Table 3 Balanced fault – large disturbance test cases 24
Table 4 Unbalanced fault – large disturbance test cases 25
Table 5 MFRT random event selection for EMTP model test 30
Table 6 MFRT random event selection for RMS model test 30
Table 7 TOV test case 31
Table 8 Voltage and Reactive Power (and/or PF) control reference step change test 32
Table 9 Active Power Controller Reference step change test 35
Table 10 Grid frequency controller test 35
Table 11 Grid voltage response test 38
Table 12 Grid oscillatory rejection test 40
Table 13 Grid phase angle response test 41
Table 14 SCR = 1: Active power reference change test 42
Table 15 SCR=1- FRT Test 42
Table 16 FRT Benchmarking for POC SCR and X/R Conditions 43
Table 17 Input power source step change (for example, wind speed, irradiance) 44
Table 18 Model source code, transfer function block diagrams, technical description, and
complete parameter list 49
Table 19 Evidence of type test (or otherwise, such as laboratory converter module test) FRT
validation, evidence of low SCR capability, evidence of multiple FRT testing and
validation including protective mechanisms 50
Table 20 Model documentation, layout, and run time capabilities – requirements (cross
check) 52
Table 21 Required model output channels 57
Table 22 List of minimum mandatory tests for self assessment (Continuation of DMAT
Checklist) 65

Figures
Figure 1 An example test circuit for model acceptance testing 22
Figure 2 5% Voltage reference step test [pu] 33
Figure 3 5% Grid voltage step response test [pu] 34
Figure 4 Reactive Power (and/or PF) reference test [pu] 34
Figure 5 Active Power Reference [pu] 35
Figure 6 Grid frequency test – overfrequency [Hz] (fast 4 Hz/sec (250 ms) ramp rate and
frequency reaching 52 Hz over 3 seconds) 36
Figure 7 Grid frequency test – underfrequency (fast 4 Hz/sec (250 ms) ramp rate and
frequency change of 1 Hz/second over 3 seconds) 37
Figure 8 Grid voltage ramp response test [pu] (voltage ramped over 6 seconds) 38
Figure 9 10% Grid voltage step response test [pu] 39
Figure 10 Extended dip grid voltage recovery test 39
Figure 11 Oscillatory rejection tests [ example of 1 Hz to 10 Hz in steps of 1 Hz per
modulation] 40
Figure 12 SCR = 1 Active power reference change test [pu] 42
Figure 13 Step response simulations without limiter operation 46
Figure 14 Step response simulations into UEL and OEL 47
Figure 15 PSSE and PSCAD benchmarking inconsistency and instability in the DQ reference
frame for an IBR plant 66
Figure 16 PSSE and PSCAD benchmarking results for one selected fault in this DMAT
Guideline. D axis current comparison. (The second plot shows zoomed in response
of the “spike” signal) 67
Figure 17 Active and Reactive Power benchmarking inconsistency for RMS quantities 67
Figure 18 PSCAD Example of the post fault response considering time step change in the
proponent provided model (existing connection in the NEM) 68
Figure 19 An example of a modelled response for one unbalanced fault 68

1. About this Guideline
1.1 Purpose and scope
AEMO has prepared this Guideline to explain how it assesses the accuracy, consistency and robustness of
computer models used for power system analysis. This document explains the process for carrying out
dynamic model acceptance tests (DMATs) for root mean square (RMS) and electromagnetic transient (EMT)
type models1. DMATs are necessary to provide confidence the model is usable and numerically robust, and
represents the installed plant under reasonably expected operating conditions. The objectives of the
acceptance tests described in this document are to determine the following:
• Robustness of the model for defined test conditions specified by upper and lower boundaries of system
strength.
• Consistency and accuracy of PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM modelled performance from the
manufacturer/Generator provided validation, and consistency of PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM modelled
performance reflective of equivalent system strength conditions at the point of connection (POC) in the
National Electricity Market (NEM) and the test scenarios in this Guideline.
• If the model information provided to AEMO and the network service provider (NSP):
– Is fit for purpose in progressing with the power system connection studies.
– Is acceptable for AEMO and the NSP’s due diligence works, including application of models for AEMO’s
operational, planning, and power system assessment needs.
– Meets AEMO’s modelling requirements outlined in the Power System Model Guidelines2.
– Has documentation and structure that meets National Electricity Rules (NER) requirements, including
for provision of data, source information, settings, and control diagrams.
It is essential to note that:
• Model acceptance tests do not assess compliance of any given plant with performance or access
standards at its connection point.
• Model acceptance does not indicate that models submitted for a particular connection project will
meet the applicable compliance requirements3.
• The requirements for model validation following the connection or modification of a generating
system must still be complied with.
This document presents a systematic DMAT suite and the key criteria for dynamic model acceptance,
including simulation case studies which the dynamic models will undergo for acceptance.
1
At present AEMO primarily uses PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM, respectively, for RMS and EMT studies.
2
At https://aemo.com.au/Stakeholder-Consultation/Consultations/Power-System-Model-Guidelines-and-System-Strength-Impact-Assessment-Guidelines.
3
AEMO or the relevant NSP may have specific requirements for an individual connection.

1.2 Related policies and procedures
In addition to the acceptance testing set out in this document, dynamic models and information provided
must meet all requirements set out in the Power System Model Guidelines4, Power System Design Data Sheets
and Power System Setting Data Sheets5, and the NER.
To further aid understanding of model application, please see the details outlined in Section 2 of the
Guidelines for Assessment of Generator Performance Standards6.
1.3 Completion of Model Acceptance Tests

AEMO’s costs of model acceptance testing will be based on the hourly rate for the required resources. The
total cost and time can vary depending on model complexity and the quality of information provided by the
vendor. Certain information required in this Guideline is for AEMO only and will not be included in model
disclosures required under the NER. Such aspects include unencrypted source codes and detailed parameter
lists/settings.
On completion of a DMAT, AEMO will inform the vendor of model acceptance, model rejection, or if
improved models (or model settings) are required, for relevant purposes depending on the status of the
generating system, for example:
• Assessment of Generator Performance Standards.
• AEMO’s due diligence.
• Registration.
• Model use for AEMO operations, planning, and congestion/constraint applications assessments.
4
See http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Security_and_Reliability/System-Security-Market-Frameworks-Review/2018/Power_Systems_
Model_Guidelines_PUBLISHED.pdf.
5
See http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Security_and_Reliability/System-Security-Market-Frameworks-Review/2018/Power_System_
Design_and_Setting_Data_Sheets_PUBLISHED.xlsx.
6
See https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Network_Connections/Access-Standard-Assessment-Guide-20190131.pdf.

2. Model acceptance
principles
2.1 Scope
2.1.1 Model types
The model acceptance testing discussed in this document applies to:
• Dynamic PSS®E models, and
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models.
2.1.2 Scope of tests
Plant items
The scope of this Guideline covers each primary plant item for which dynamic models have been provided
independently. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to:
• For synchronous generating units (and synchronous condenser units where applicable), models and
settings of:
– Excitation system (automatic voltage regulator [AVR], exciter, power system stabilisers [PSS], and
limiters) derived from the actual plant information, using a generic (or user-specific, if provided)
synchronous machine model (with specific parameters).
– Governor system.
• For inverter-connected technologies (for example, wind farms, solar farms, and/or battery systems),
models and settings of:
– Aggregated equivalent wind turbine model including central park level controller.
– Aggregated equivalent solar inverter model including its park level controller.
– Aggregated equivalent battery system including its central park level controller.
– Equivalent aggregate generating system representation, if composed of various individual
technologies, including the overall generating system controller.
• For dynamic reactive support plant such as static Var compensator (SVC) and static synchronous
compensator (STATCOM), models and settings of:
– Main and auxiliary control systems for power electronic plant including its limiters and supplementary
controls such as power oscillation damper (POD) and phase balancing.
– Auxiliary control systems for any mechanically switched elements.
• For high voltage direct current (HVDC) links:
– If intended as interconnectors, the DC link model and its settings with a generic large (nearly infinite)
generating system connected at one end.
– If intended as embedded DC links with generating systems connected to one or both ends, the DC link
model with a generic (or specific, if provided) model of the generating system(s) at one end or both
ends (if applicable).
– If intended to interface islanded networks, for example DC-connected wind farms, the DC link model
with a specific model of the wind farm.

• For all transformer models, saturation parameters shall be included in the model together with the test
report (for example, type or factory tests)
For plant commonly used in combination with other plant (for example, specific wind turbine models and
dynamic reactive support devices, or in combination with photovoltaic [PV] solar or battery systems), model
testing would be used to assess potential model interactions (including the power system as well as model
compatibility issues with any of the existing models).
For plant with several control or operation modes, the model acceptance will encompass all modes. Included
in this category are, and not necessarily limited to:
• Central park level controller for wind, solar, and battery systems, which can provide multiple control
functions such as voltage control, frequency control, and power factor control.
• Generating units with a changeover function between the star and delta connection modes for various
power output levels.
Test application
The following model acceptance tests apply for models in line with AEMO’s required simulation platforms:
• Tests bounded by low and relatively high short circuit ratio (SCR)7 conditions defined in this Guideline.
• Tests bounded by low and relatively high X/R conditions defined in this Guideline.
• Tests for System Strength Conditions taking into consideration proposed Connection Point characteristics.
• Test with very low SCR.
• Balanced Undervoltage – Fault Conditions.
• Unbalanced 1 Phase to Ground, 2 Phase to Ground, and Line-to-Line faults for PSCADTM/EMTDCTM
models.
• Balanced Overvoltage Disturbances.
• Over and Under Frequency Injection Tests.
• Active Power Step (for example, Run-back), Voltage, and Power Factor (PF)/Reactive Power Step Tests.
• Step change to the input power source (for example, wind, irradiance)
• Voltage Step and Ramp tests.
• Dynamic response tests for abrupt voltage phase shifts.
• Test Run with a fault condition in large network for AEMO’s OPDMS PSS®E model and AEMO’s
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM Network Model (performed by AEMO in addition to PSS®E tests that the Generator
may be undertaking themselves using AEMO’s OPDMS data, see Table 1) to ensure no suspect states,
variables, satisfactory initial conditions, and no model interactions, as well as to test model adequacy for
real-time operational and planning purposes.
Table 1 DMAT due diligence and acceptance pathway
Scope of Tests Initial Screening and Assessment Final Assessment and Acceptance
All SMIB tests involving PSS®E model Proponent or NSP as agreed AEMO
and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM
PSS®E OPDMS wide area model test Proponent or NSP as agreed AEMO
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM Wide Area Network NSP AEMO

Model
7
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 megavolt amperes (MVA) to the nominal power at the PCC in megawatts.

2.2 Model documentation and structure
Proponents (that is, Generators or Connection Applicants) are required to submit the following items as part
of the model assessment submission. It is expected that all documentation provided will be consistent:
• Compiled model in PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM and associated libraries.
• Corresponding model source codes in PSS®E (FORTRAN).
• Corresponding transfer function block diagrams
• Complete list of settings/parameters for both PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models
• Instructions on how the model should be set up and used.
• Validation reports8 (for both PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM) validating the model’s fault ride-through
performance with the measurements for inverter based resource (IBR) technologies including:
– Low voltage ride-through (LVRT) validation, balanced and unbalanced faults (PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM
model validation for unbalanced faults and balanced faults, and, PSS®E model validation for balanced
faults).
– Multiple LVRT validation/confirmation of capability.
– Low SCR LVRT validation/confirmation of capability (for example, type test, Factory Acceptance Tests
(FAT), module test, Hardware in the Loop (HIL) test).
– High voltage ride-through (HVRT) validation.
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 model9.
• The model must meet the accuracy requirements specified in the Power System Model Guidelines. Prior to
commencing the DMAT, the model validation report must be provided or justification of the model
release by the vendor must be satisfactorily substantiated. Examples of the latter may include: Laboratory
tests, Hardware in the Loop (HiL) tests for converter modules and so on. Following the plant energisation,
the veracity of model accuracy for the site-specific settings must be verified through R2 testing including
staged tests and events which are monitored and models validated by Generators, including through
ongoing compliance obligations in consideration of power system events when they occur.
• The PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model responses are consistent for balanced events.
• 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 value.
• The use of complete black-box type representation is not acceptable, and the model must at the very least
show all primary design elements, their inputs and outputs, consistent with Power System Model
Guideline. As an example, for DFIG (and full scale converter) type wind turbines, the model is expected to
represent and have clear visibility of the machine, machine side converter, grid side converter, DC link,
chopper (where used), rotor (machine side) and stator (grid side) connections, transformer and so on.
• 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.
8
As agreed with AEMO and where alternative examples may include and not limited to: Laboratory tests, Hardware in the Loop (HiL) tests for converter
modules and specific functions and features, e.g. chopper limitations (ratings - temperature tests) for DFIG or FSFC type wind turbines in consideration of
MFRT and so on.
9
Included in this category are the central park level controllers that schedule active and reactive power across the IBR plant.

• Model parameter values that are intended to be (or can be) externally adjusted (those explicitly in PSS®E
dynamic data file) must be clearly identified in the model block diagram.
• The model block diagram and flow charts (where found reasonably applicable) must represent the
corresponding model source code10 and be verifiable.
• The model inputs and outputs shown in the transfer function block diagram representation must match
those indicated in the model datasheet tables.
• For PSS®E, the state variables shown in the transfer function block diagram representation must match
those indicated in the model datasheet tables.
• Model documentation and transfer function block diagram representation must be provided necessary to
derive the corresponding linear small-signal model of the equipment.
• Dynamic data must be provided as ‘per unit’ quantities on the machine megavolt amperes (MVA) base
unless otherwise agreed with AEMO.
• The maximum duration of the dynamic simulation run for which the model accuracy is proven must be
clearly stated.
• 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.
• For IBR technologies, parameters must be accessible in the main software interface for online monitoring
and possible changes during the simulation, as outlined in the Power System Model Guidelines. The
following signals, some which may be additional to the Power System Model Guidelines, shall be provided:
– Active power at LV and connection point terminals.
– Reactive power at LV and connection point terminals.
– Total current at LV and connection point terminals.
– Active current at LV terminals and connection point terminals 11.
– Reactive current at LV terminals and connection point terminals 11.
– Active current reference at LV terminals.
– Reactive current reference at LV terminals.
– Negative sequence voltage at LV and connection point terminals.
– Negative sequence current at LV and connection point terminals.
– Negative sequence current reference at LV terminals.
– RMS voltage at LV terminals.
– Active and reactive power, voltage for the DC Link
– All protection trip flags (output channels) including their settings.
– Applicable set-points including12:
○ Active power set-point.
○ Frequency set-point.
○ Voltage set-point.
10
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.
11
For the purpose of LVRT and HVRT assessment, the actual per unit converter current related to the connection point shall be used, and not the capability
established in S5.2.5.1 (which refers to operating voltage range of 90% to 110%). For IBR utilising d and q axis control quantities, d and q axis voltages and
currents shall be provided to verify the measured power quantities.
12
Set-points must be run-time settable without the need for the model to be re-compiled.

○ Reactive power set-point.
○ Power factor set-point.
– LVRT and HVRT activation/deactivation (flag if used).
– Reactive current injection during the fault.
– Additional requirements for wind turbines:
○ Pitch angle.
○ Wind speed.
○ Generator rotor speed.
○ Mechanical torque/power.
○ Aerodynamic torque/power.
– Output of phase lock loop (PLL) (measured frequency) where PLL is used13.
– Output of frequency measurement from the Plant Controller.
– For PSCADTM/EMTDCTM, the plant controller and converter controller model must have all applicable
settings available to AEMO as either, drop down selection of settings, or a separate user parameter file,
showing all parameters, allowing it to be linked during the simulation run. These (complete)
parameters files may be separated from the Releasable User Guide.
• The minimum design value of the SCR for inverter-based resources (IBR) must be documented, and
evidence provided to substantiate it. As the model will be assessed independent of specific connection
projects, the SCR must be defined at the equipment terminals (for example, medium voltage [MV]
terminals) rather than the point of common coupling (PCC). Statements defining dependence on external
electrical balance of plant design or defining SCR capability depending on the selection of parameters, will
not be accepted, unless evidence is provided to state the actual tested and validated equipment, including
characteristics of its failure modes under low SCR conditions (an example could be converter instability, in
which case the magnitude, nature, and severity of oscillations or responses is to be showcased to support
limitations of technology against low SCR conditions).
• The validation of Multiple Fault Ride-Through (MFRT) must be documented, and relevant protective
mechanisms provided in the model, together with the settings defining pick up levels, time delays, and
activations; for example, refer to Section 2.4.
• For IBR generation technologies, the model aggregation methodology proposed must be clearly specified.
– The aggregation method must not restrict access to the inverter terminals (LV side of the turbine
transformer).
– The use of full feeder representation for one or more feeders is not considered good industry practice
due to the accompanying computational burden. It should not be used unless agreed with AEMO to
be acceptable.
• 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:
– Execution of the DOCU command must show all model states, outputs, and constants that are
observable/adjustable externally. The output format of these commands must be consistent with the
format of dynamic data.
– Execution of dynamic data documentation commands must not result in model crashing.
13
PLL settings and outputs must be provided for all frequency (phase) measuring devices, especially where different frequency meters are used. Examples
include PLL use (frequency estimation) for protective functions, PLL use for control functions, PLL use on wind turbine models on a machine side as well as
the grid side converter. Where PLL is not used, a technology specific measurement and settings shall be provided and made available; for example, for –
grid forming technologies.

– The model representation of the actual plant does not have dummy buses (for example, for control or
flow monitoring purposes). The model controls are also consistent with the actual plant; for example, if
one plant controller is used onsite, then the model shall be based on one plant controller as well.
– Models which include calls into either of the CONEC or CONET subroutines are 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.
– Avoid using identical names for models of similar structure where the number of one of the CONs,
ICONs, VARs, or STATES is different between the two models.
– The model should comprise a single executable file for each physical plant. Use of auxiliary or linking
files is discouraged.
– The model should be initialised using load flow result (and AEMO’s system snapshot when the model is
used in the OPDMS production environment) as the initial condition, and not relying on scripts.
For PSCADTM/EMTDCTM, this would include:
– Model parameter values for PSCADTM/EMTDCTM must be provided in a file format that allows linking
(or use) for dynamic execution run without the need to recompile. Examples could include provision of
model parameters via drop down menus, settings configuration (or text files) file(s) called upon model
execution run.
– Change in model settings or re-build of the model in PSCADTM must not require manual effort to copy
additional configuration files into the Build folder.
– Model libraries must be project specific and not clash with any existing models (for example, from the
same vendor).
– Model definitions are desired to be embedded inside the project, instead of a separate library file.
– Models must be provided with Voltage (PF and/or Reactive Power), and Active Power References as
explicit data signals (variables, not constants).
– Model debug signals must be provided including the complete list, naming and purpose of these
signals.
– Specific feeders or parts of the plant which may be subject to disconnection from control schemes
must be modelled explicitly, unless otherwise agreed with AEMO.
– Models must not be provided with the following dependencies:
○ Predefined X/R or system strength MVA rating input into the plant controller.
○ Fixed frequency of the SLACK machine as the input to the controller or IBR (that is, the model must
take the actual frequency of the network or the system frequency should be computed by its
frequency estimator).
– Model structure is desired to be contained within its own module block including its plots.
– Model support files (for example, reference to DLL, FORTRAN, LIB) must be called via local file path
references rather than complete/absolute paths.
– Models must be provided with scalable transformer tap settings (for example, slider or similar)
including the max and min tap range limits. Where used, transformer AVR shall be provided with an
option to disable/enable its use including the setting for time delays and activation.
– Models must have a setting to allow the following without the user needing to manually apply changes:
○ Simulations with different number of inverters or generating units.
○ Change of base MVA (including reactive power base for the Plant controller or active power
controller).
– Model aggregate representation must be equivalent to the PSS®E representation of the same.

2.3 Model initialisation and dynamic simulation requirements
• Models must be initialised successfully for the entire intended plant operating range. The model operating
range must be consistent with the actual equipment design, in particular, with respect to the following:
– The entire range of active power.
– The entire range of reactive power/power factor (including limits of reactive power generation and
consumption).
– Operating range of connection point voltage between 90% and 110% which takes into account primary
equipment limitations.
• Currently AEMO applies and requires the model to support the following PSS®E solution parameters:
– Acceleration Factor 0.2.
– Tolerance 0.0001.
– Frequency Filter 0.008.
– Timestep (DELT) 0.001.
– Time step variation 0.001 to 0.01 s.
– ITER variation 250-600.
– Network Frequency Dependence.
• For PSS®E, the derivative of all state variables should be less than 0.0001 during initialisation.
• For PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models, steady state jitter (jitter is not an oscillatory response in a sustained way)
is tolerable in the range of less than 0.1% for both the single machine case and when integrated into the
wide area network model.
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models are desired to support 10 microseconds (or greater) simulation time step. In
cases where various other time steps may be used, the vendor must confirm validity/accuracy of the
model and evidence provided to substantiate it, i.e. where lower time steps are used, the vendor must
provide justification/evidence as to why higher simulation time steps cannot achieve the same level of
accuracy.
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must have snapshot capability and must initialise within 3 seconds of
simulation time14. The model must be able to run and be stable up to 5 minutes of simulation time as
outlined in the Power System Model Guidelines.
2.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation

Dynamic models provided must have the following characteristics:
• Voltage, frequency, and active and reactive power remain constant for dynamic simulation runs with no
disturbance.
• Models do not interfere with the operation of other dynamic models.
• Models are numerically robust for dynamic simulation runs of up to 5 minutes.
• 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
the Power System Model Guidelines.
• Time constants smaller than the minimum acceptable numerical integration time step should be avoided.
14
To meet initialisation times, availability of load flow conditions (for example voltage magnitude and phase angle) for the point of connection of the plant
may be assumed.

• Model outputs in terms of the voltage, frequency, and active and reactive power should be reasonably
constant and consistent when doubling and halving the recommended time step. Actual firmware time
step must be stated for all PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models, and differences between changes in simulation
time steps (if time step is below and different from the 10 micro-seconds required for PSCADTM/EMTDCTM
studies) must be documented together with evidence of model consistency or its limitations, in particular
for changes in references, LVRT, HVRT, or step/ramp/phase change applications required to be tested in
this Guideline.
• Must be numerically stable for a wide range of grid SCR and grid and fault X/R ratio.
• Must be numerically stable for unity, lagging, and leading power factors as well as the full range of active
power output (for example, to ensure all system snapshot conditions can be captured without such a
model numerically crashing or being unstable).
• When the simulated response exhibits unusual performance characteristics several seconds after removal
of the disturbance, provision of off-site test results (for example, hardware in the loop or type test) for
identical equipment is necessary to demonstrate that the actual equipment will perform the same way.
• Models must work for a range of the dynamic simulation parameters rather than for specific settings.
• Wind turbine models are required to include the main physical equipment details, such as the shaft,
inertia, stiffness, and mass(es) representation of the main rotor/generator, including any damper
activations during or in the post fault recovery periods. Equally, evidence of tower and electrical drive train
oscillations are required to substantiate the accuracy of the model.
• To avoid excessive simulation burden when integrating models into AEMO OPDMS (PSS®E) and Dynamic
Security Analysis (DSA) tools, the minimum permissible values of the numerical integration time step and
acceleration factors are 1 ms and 0.2 respectively. Currently AEMO applies 0.008 for the frequency filter
requirement and the model is expected to work from 0.008 up to an including the default setting of 0.04.
• Model benchmarking (and assessment against consistency and/or accuracy) is undertaken for the
following PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM modelled responses:
– 3 phase faults and voltage disturbances.
– Overvoltage events.
– Reference changes.
– Phase shifts15 and/or frequency responses.
– Application of ramps and step responses.
The acceptance criteria are based on demonstration of consistency in RMS responses and Power System
Model Guidelines accuracy requirements16 and:
• The Generator/model does not reduce total current delivered to the Grid during undervoltage, that is,
3 phase disturbance.
• The Generator/model maintains its active current injection as close as possible to the in-fault retained
voltage levels (that is, not blocking the inverter).
• The Generator model has no negative active power (driven by loss of control or poor modelling-
numerical artefacts) during the disturbance unless negative power swings apply to synchronous condenser
or synchronous generator systems for which detailed assessments, design and details of protective
15
Application of phase shifts is expected to meet accuracy/consistency requirements. Where differences are observed (and they may be expected with the
use of PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models vs PSS®E implementation), detailed control block diagrams (or the implemented source code) and applicable settings
(including the PLL implementation for IBR) shall be provided to substantiate inconsistencies.
16
Note that ‘oversimplification’ of control coded capabilities (for example, due to minimisation of coding effort with FORTRAN) in PSS®E software may not
be accepted if it is reasonably implementable otherwise.

elements must be considered and provided. Consideration is also given to equipment design ratings or
specifications of IBR17.
• The Generator model is numerically stable.
• The Generator/model appears reasonably tuned in its active and reactive current responses for POC SCR
and X/R conditions acknowledging that settings differences (and in turn the impact on performance
difference) could apply between strong and weaker connections.
Exceptions may be provided for fast transients on a case-by-case basis considering very short time periods
(for example, one half to one power frequency cycle) immediately following clearance of the disturbance,
taking into consideration that the magnitude and duration of deviation is reasonable, and results have
consistency between the RMS and electromagnetic transient (EMT) models.
For unbalanced faults, acceptance criteria are based on evaluation of performance for stability purposes,
taking into consideration negative sequence voltage and negative sequence current injection from the
Generator, as well as the ability to deliver required total current and reactive current injection with sufficient
rise and settling times. Observation of current and monitoring of all 3 phases individually is used to ensure
the Generator/model control functions:
• Do not materially affect the unfaulted phase(s).
• Do provide for negative sequence voltage reduction during an unbalanced event, and is able to maintain
total current during the fault.
• Control the in-fault active current in proportion to the retained voltage (also applicable to balanced 3
phase faults).
• Does not limit its current injection due to lack of negative sequence control functionality.
Considering various SCR and X/R conditions, certain responses may result in sub-synchronous oscillatory
instability indicating lack of control capability or control interaction. In these instances, while AEMO may
accept differences in PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM, such results will not be accepted unless it can be
determined which control system and which parameters influence the excitation or instability, or if such
responses are due to inadequacies of the model numerical performance itself or the actual limitations of the
firmware/plant.
When the simulated response exhibits unusual performance characteristics, for example, after removal of the
disturbance, provision of off-site test results (for example via hardware in the loop or type tests) for identical
equipment is necessary to demonstrate that the actual equipment will perform the same way.
• Modelled responses and evidence to justify change in control parameters are obtainable to resolve the
control responses, without compromising requirements for delivery of total active and reactive currents
during steady state and disturbance events (unless exempted).
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must have simulation speed of no worse than 90 (60 seconds or less is
preferrable) real time seconds per simulation second18.
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models initialise within required 3 seconds for all operating conditions including a
variety of SCR and X/R conditions.
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models are expected to fail (trip, without crashing the simulation) SCR test of 1.0 at full
power (unless evidence provided otherwise).
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models include all output channels as indicated in Table 4 of Power System Model
Guidelines and additional signals in this Guideline.
• Models have necessary protection elements (for example, in addition to overvoltage, undervoltage,
overfrequency, and underfrequency) for multiple fault ride-through assessment. Other protection aspects
17
For example, including IBR control – and controlled signal reference tracking capability, PLL capability including adequacy of settings, severity of the
contingency studied at inception, , during and on clearance of such, magnitude and duration of the response, LVRT type test validation report.
18
It is recommended to test simulation speed on a 2.8GHz processor or equivalent machine.

for single as well as multiple contingencies, for example, include rotor speed protection for wind turbines,
pole slip for synchronous machines, dump resistor heating monitoring (function of voltage and current,
dip, duration), Volt/hertz (Hz) relays, and reverse power protection.
• Models must work for a range of the dynamic simulation parameters rather than for specific settings (as
an example, this includes different time steps, iteration, and acceleration factors applicable in PSS®E
where only single DYR file is used and enables simulations runs with different simulation time steps).
2.5 Wrapper-based RMS models

Currently, AEMO accepts the source code in FORTRAN for PSS®E software. The use of other source code
formats, or wrapper-based models, is generally not feasible for several reasons, including, but not limited to:
• Incompatibility with systems, making it difficult or impossible for AEMO to meet its system security
responsibilities and regulatory obligations.
• Significant additional costs and resourcing involved in maintaining non-FORTRAN models.
• Prohibitive licensing requirements.
Proponents or vendors who still wish to use source codes written in other formats are advised to contact
AEMO to discuss feasibility at least 12 months before intended use in any model submission under the NER.
AEMO will consult with the proponent or vendor to determine whether a detailed feasibility assessment can
be undertaken in relation to the proposed model.
If AEMO agrees to conduct a feasibility assessment, this must be successfully completed before model
submission and DMAT could occur. The assessment stages are illustrated below in the Model Process Flow
Diagram.
Model Process Flow Diagram

A feasibility assessment for an alternative to FORTRAN source code will add delay and cost to your project,
and may ultimately be unsuccessful. Proponents and vendors should also note and carefully consider the
following19:
• C (or C++) codes (for example, machine generated by Matlab Coder) are not accepted as source code.
• Model assessments require provision of all source code information to AEMO. The proponent will be
responsible for the costs of any additional licences (toolboxes) AEMO needs for its assessment.
• The model must be integrable into a single NEM DLL file (with all other AEMO source code information)
where other models of such type may also be present. Use of additional and external executables, batch
files, C codes, python codes, etc. is not acceptable.
• Assessment timeframes cannot be guaranteed. As a guide, it may take up to 12 months from the time all
required information is complete and verified. AEMO fees will be charged at hourly rates plus cost
recovery for specialist resources.
• There can be no assurance that the assessment will result in acceptance of the model, or that it will
subsequently pass DMAT testing. This will necessitate re-coding of models into FORTRAN, requiring
repeat of all system studies, due diligence, benchmarking, RUGs etc., in addition to DMAT assessment,
with associated delay to project commitment.
• If the model is accepted, ongoing conditions will apply to ensure AEMO is kept whole for licensing costs
and additional resourcing associated with model maintenance.
2.6 Model Acceptance Test checklist including pre-requisite

information
To assist Generators (or Connection Applicants, Intending Participants) in the preparation for Model
Acceptance Testing:
• Appendix A1 includes a checklist of items and information required to be provided to AEMO with your
submission.
• Appendix A2 lists the minimum self-assessment tests to be completed prior to submission.
19
AEMO can provide an additional list of requirements for consideration.

3. Model Acceptance
Tests
3.1 Pre-requisite information
Prior to commencing MATs, pre-requisite information requirements must be satisfied.
3.2 Case studies for both IBR and synchronous plant

In summary, the general MATs required can be summarised as follows:
• Fault disturbance tests with:
– Three-phase-to-ground fault scenarios [PSS®E and PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM models].
– Single-phase-to-ground fault scenarios [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models].
– Two phase-to-ground fault scenarios [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models].
– Phase-to-phase (no ground) faults [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models].
– Multiple FRT disturbances [PSS®E and PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM models].
considering various factors such as:
– Grid SCR.
– Grid X/R ratio.
– Voltage dip with Fault Impedance.
– Fault duration.
– Pre-fault active power at the POC.
– Pre-fault reactive power at the POC.
– Application of Overvoltage disturbance [PSS®E and PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM models] including resilience to
phase shifts.
• Non-fault disturbance tests [PSS®E and PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM models]:
– Step response test on active power set-point [generating system-plant controller].
– Step response test on reactive power set-point and/or power factor [generating system-plant
controller].
– Step response test on voltage set-point [generating system-plant controller].
– Step response test on grid voltage magnitude.
– Ramp response test on grid voltage magnitude change.
– Rate of change of grid frequency test. (Note that for all cases the grid frequency is increased and
decreased to the extreme frequency excursion tolerance limits and restored to 50 Hz again.)
– Step response test on grid voltage angle equal to ±40° (and up to ±60°).

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 current.
• Active current reference (for IBR plant).
• Reactive current.
• Reactive current reference (for IBR plant).
• Negative sequence voltage.
• Negative sequence current.
• Negative sequence current reference (for asynchronous plant, where used).
• LVRT and HVRT activation and deactivation flag (where used).
• Total current.
• Active power.
• Reactive power.
• Rotor speed (excluding solar and battery systems).
• For Doubly Fed Generators (DFIG), both the generator (stator) and rotor quantities including the inverter
outputs where inverters are used.
• Magnitude of terminal voltage.
• Phase angle of terminal voltage.
• Per phase RMS voltage.
• Grid frequency (for example, computed by the plant controller, PLL output, generating unit terminals).
Additional plotting channels may be used or required for assessment of each specific type of equipment or
technology.
3.2.1 Application of faults – voltage dips via short circuit impedance – labelled
by Zf
The MATs that need to be carried out are outlined in this section.
As examples, the test circuits used for variable generation and synchronous generation technologies are
shown in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) respectively.
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. The substation transformer impedance shown in Figure 1(a) represents two parallel
connected transformers.
Ignoring the effect of the generating system current injection, referring to Equation (1), with the application of
a network fault the remaining voltage, U dip can be calculated as a function of fault impedance Z f, system
impedance Zs, and source voltage Vs based on a simple voltage divider circuit theory.
Equation (1) Zf
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:
Equation (2) U dip

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.
Figure 1 An example test circuit for model acceptance testing20
1. Wind farm model acceptance set-up

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
2. Synchronous generator 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
20
For tests in this DMAT, a value of d=1 applies (unless specified otherwise) where the value of Zf is varied to create different applied fault voltage levels at
Upcc – point of connection voltage, and in general this shall not limit the application of faults for different locations (different values of d) along the
transmission circuit. Depending on the connection point characteristics, application of grid faults may be carried out at an agreed location for which model
acceptance and benchmarking is carried out. Where subsets of tests appear (example tests 97-120, 149-152, 155-158 etc), these can be marked as tests “a”
to “c” and so on.

3.2.2 Required model performance time step
For DMATs referred to in this document, the model (including benchmarking) is required to perform within
accuracy bands specified in the Power System Model Guidelines, and the following time steps:
• 1 ms for PSS®E models.
• 10 microseconds or higher value for PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models is desired. Where smaller time steps are
used, the vendor shall provide justification/evidence as to why higher simulation time steps cannot
achieve the same level of accuracy.
3.2.3 Pre-requisite tests – single machine infinite bus (SMIB) flat run
[PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]
Table 2 Flat run, snapshot and initialisation test21
Test Test duration Purpose Comment SCR X/R Active Power

[pu]
0.1 300 seconds (s) Flat Run and memory leak 3 times consecutive flat POC POC 1
test run and results
(5 – (6 – optional
comparison without
(test performed with optional X/R)
disturbance
‘Store feed forward SCR)
signals’ enabled) (Results are to be
observed identical in all
cases)
0.2 300 seconds (s) Flat Run and memory leak 3 times consecutive flat POC POC 1
test run and results
comparison without
(test performed with optional X/R)
disturbance
‘Store feed forward SCR)
signals’ disabled) (Results are to be
observed identical in all
cases and with the test 0.1)
0.3 300 s Flat Run Test at lower than POC POC 0.05
maximum output
optional X/R)
SCR)
0.4 5s Snapshot and Initialisation Snapshot expected at 3 POC POC 1

Test seconds following
successful initialisation
optional X/R)
SCR)
0.5 5s Snapshot and Initialisation Snapshot expected at 3 POC POC 1

Test seconds following
successful initialisation
optional X/R)
SCR)
21
For relevance to the connection point, these tests are recommended to consider equivalent details of the connecting system impedance, whilst
maintaining optional tests for robustness purposes at different SCR and X/R ratios. Tests 0.4 and 0.5 are identical if same SCR and X/R values are used and
thus need not be repeated.

3.2.4 Balanced fault – large disturbance test cases [PSS®E and
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]
Note: The table below assumes lowest SCR value of 3. In the event the SCR values are expected to be lower at
the generating system’s connection point, then the expected SCR values for system normal and the most
severe credible contingency should be used22. (d=1 in all cases).
Table 3 Balanced fault – large disturbance test cases
Test Fault Fault type Fault impedance Zf [pu] SCR X/R Active Reactive
duration Power [pu] Power [pu]
[s]
1. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0
2. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 -0.3
3. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0.3
4. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 14 1 0
5. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 -0.3
6. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 0.3
7. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0
8. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 -0.3
9. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0.3
10. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 14 0.05 0
11. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 -0.3
12. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 0.3
13. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0
14. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 -0.3
15. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0.3
16. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 1 0
17. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 -0.3
18. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 0.3
19. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0
20. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 -0.3
21. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0.3
22. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 0.05 0
23. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 -0.3
24. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 0.3
22
These are model robustness tests. It is noted that the assumed SCR (and X/R) range may not be credible for certain parts of the network.

duration Power [pu] Power [pu]
[s]
25. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 1 0
26. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 1 -0.3
27. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 1 0.3
28. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 14 1 0
29. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 3 1 -0.3
30. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 3 1 0.3
31. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 0.05 0
32. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 0.05 -0.3
33. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 10 14 0.05 0.3
34. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 14 0.05 0
35. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 3 0.05 -0.3
36. 0.5 3PHG Zf=2xZs[Udip=~0.7pu] 3 3 0.05 0.3
3.2.5 Unbalanced fault – large disturbance test cases [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM

models]
Note: The table below assumes lowest SCR value of 3. In the event the SCR values are expected to be lower at
the generating system’s connection point, then the expected SCR values for system normal and the most
severe credible contingency should be used. (d=1 in all cases).
Table 4 Unbalanced fault – large disturbance test cases23
Test Fault Fault type Fault impedance SCR X/R Active Reactive
duration Zf [pu] Power [pu] Power [pu]
[s]
37. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0

[and POC SCR] [and POC X/R]
38. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 -0.3
39. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0.3
40. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 14 1 0
41. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 -0.3
42. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 0.3
43. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0

23
While not explicitly indicated, AEMO may undertake any of these tests at POC specific conditions taking into account different PF operating ranges. A
minimum set of POC tests is outlined to capture performance or limitations for different unbalanced faults and different active power levels. For line to line
faults, impedance values refer to ground.

[s]
44. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 -0.3
45. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0.3
46. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 14 0.05 0
47. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 -0.3
48. 0.43 2PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 0.3
49. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0

50. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 -0.3
51. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0.3
52. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 1 0
53. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 -0.3
54. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 0.3
55. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0

56. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 -0.3
57. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0.3
58. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 0.05 0
59. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 -0.3
60. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 0.3
61. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0

62. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 -0.3
63. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0.3
64. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 14 1 0
65. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 -0.3
66. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 0.3
67. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0

68. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 -0.3
69. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0.3
70. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 14 0.05 0
71. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 -0.3

[s]
72. 0.43 1PHG Zf=0 3 3 0.05 0.3
73. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0

74. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 -0.3
75. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 1 0.3
76. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 1 0
77. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 -0.3
78. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 1 0.3
79. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0

80. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 -0.3
81. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 10 14 0.05 0.3
82. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 14 0.05 0
83. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 -0.3
84. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Zs 3 3 0.05 0.3
85. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 1 0

86. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 1 -0.3
87. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 1 0.3
88. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 14 1 0
89. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 3 1 -0.3
90. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 3 1 0.3
91. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0

92. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 0.05 -0.3
93. 2 L-L Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0.3
94. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 14 0.05 0
95. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 3 0.05 -0.3
96. 2 L-L Zf=0 3 3 0.05 0.3
97. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 0

Ohm
98. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 -0.3

Ohm

[s]
99. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 0.3

Ohm
100. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 14 1 0

Ohm
101. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 1 -0.3

Ohm
102. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 1 0.3

Ohm
103. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 0

Ohm
104. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 -0.3

Ohm
105. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 0.3

Ohm
106. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 14 0.05 0

Ohm
107. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 0.05 -0.3

Ohm
108. 0.43 2PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 0.05 0.3

Ohm
109. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 0

Ohm
110. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 -0.3

Ohm
111. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 1 0.3

Ohm
112. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 14 1 0

Ohm
113. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 1 -0.3

Ohm
114. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 1 0.3

Ohm
115. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 0

Ohm
116. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 -0.3

Ohm
117. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 10 14 0.05 0.3

Ohm
118. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 14 0.05 0

Ohm

[s]
119. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 0.05 -0.3

Ohm
120. 0.43 1PHG Zf=Rf = 1, 5 and 10 3 3 0.05 0.3

Ohm

3.2.6 Multiple Fault Ride Through (MFRT) test [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]
Five test sequences will be tested on the basis of randomly generated events for the minimum SCR and
corresponding X/R applicable at POC24. Models are not required to ride through all tests. The purpose is to
test robustness and suitability including MFRT protective settings for the model itself.
Table 5 MFRT random event selection for EMTP model test
Sequence RANDOM (Fault Type) RANDOM (Fault RANDOM (Time RANDOM (Fault
Duration [ms]) between recurring Impedance)
events [s])
S2 to S5 6 x 1PHG, 7 x 2PHG, 2 x 8 x 120ms, 6 x 220ms, 1 0.01, 0.01, 0.2, 0.2, 0.5, 7 x Zf = 0

3PHG x 430ms 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 3, 5,
5 x Zf = 3 x Zs
7, 10
3 x Zf = 2 x Zs
duration [s] Power [pu] Power [pu]
121. Sequence S1* See note A Zf=0.25 x Zs POC POC 1 0
122. Sequence S2 S2 S2 POC POC 1 0
Note A. Sequence S1 includes application of a 3PHG fault at 5, 5.25, 5.5 seconds, followed by 2PHG fault at 8, 11 and 13 seconds. Each
fault is of 100ms duration. Sequence (S1) is a specific sequence whilst others (S2 to S4) are randomly generated.
3.2.7 MFRT Test [PSS®E models]

Five test sequences will be tested on the basis of randomly generated balanced fault events for the minimum
SCR and X/R applicable at POC.
Note: As events are of balanced type, this test may also include overlays against EMTP balanced case
application.
Table 6 MFRT random event selection for RMS model test
Sequence RANDOM (Fault RANDOM (Fault RANDOM (Time RANDOM (Fault

Type) Duration [ms]) between recurring Impedance)
events [s])
P1 to P5 15 x 3PHG 8 x 120ms, 6 x 220ms, 1 0.01, 0.01, 0.2, 0.2, 0.5, 2 x Zf = 0,

x 430ms 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2, 3, 5,
3 x Zf= 0.2xZs
7, 10
5 x Zf= 1xZs
3 x Zf= 2 x Zs
2 x Zf= 3.5 x Zs
24
The purpose of the test is to assess MFRT capability where models are adequately equipped with protective functions.

Test Fault Fault Type Fault Impedance Zf SCR X/R Active Reactive
Duration [s] [pu] Power Power [pu]
[pu]
126. Sequence P1 P1 P1 POC POC 1 0
3.2.8 Additional tests for MFRT

Unless protection trips are captured by MFRT tests, at least two additional tests shall be carried out to
explicitly confirm protection pick up and the trip.
3.2.9 Temporary Over-Voltage (TOV) Test [PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM

models]
Note: The test case is carried out via application of a switched shunt (capacitive) element at POC. The table
below assumes lowest SCR value of 3. If the SCR values are expected to be lower than 3 at the generating
system’s connection point, then the expected SCR values for system normal and the most severe credible
contingency should be used.
Table 7 TOV test case
131. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 10 14 1 0
132. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 10 14 1 -0.3
133. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 10 14 1 0.3
134. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 3 14 1 0
135. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 3 3 1 -0.3
136. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) 3 3 1 0.3
137. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) POC POC 1 0
138. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) POC POC 1 -0.3
139. 0.9 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.15pu) POC POC 1 0.3
140. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 10 14 1 0
141. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 10 14 1 -0.3
142. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 10 14 1 0.3
143. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 3 14 1 0
144. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 3 3 1 -0.3
145. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) 3 3 1 0.3

146. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) POC POC 1 0
147. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) POC POC 1 -0.3
148. 0.1 Yf = jXc (U_Ov = 1.2pu) POC POC 1 0.3
3.2.10 Voltage reference step change [PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]

Note: Voltage Reference is applied as a relative change (whereas the figure indicates an absolute change from
1.0 pu) from the starting voltage reference of the plant or generating unit controller, taking into account
system strength, reactive power flow and the droop functionality. The droop value (%) is assumed to be
smaller than the 5% applied voltage reference change, otherwise higher reference change is to be applied.
Reactive reference change test is performed with the PF and/or reactive power controller.
Table 8 Voltage and Reactive Power (and/or PF) control reference step change test
Test Event SCR X/R Active Power [pu] Reactive Power

[pu]
149. Relative voltage 10 14 and 3 1 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
150. Relative Voltage 10 14 and 3 0.05 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
151. Relative voltage 3* 14 and 3 1 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
152. Relative voltage 3* 14 and 3 0.05 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
153. Relative voltage POC POC 1 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
154. Relative voltage POC POC 0.05 0

reference change as
per Fig 2
155. Relative Voltage 10 14 and 3 1 0

step change as per
Fig 3
156. Relative Voltage 10 14 and 3 0.05 0

step change as per
Fig 3
157. Relative Voltage 3* 14 and 3 1 0

step change as per
Fig 3
158. Relative Voltage 3* 14 and 3 0.05 0

step change as per
Fig 3

[pu]
159. Relative Voltage POC POC 1 0

step change as per
Fig 3
160. Relative Voltage POC POC 0.05 0

step change as per
Fig 3
161. Reactive Power and 10 14 and 3 1 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
162. Reactive Power and 10 14 and 3 0.05 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
163. Reactive Power and 3* 14 and 3 1 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
164. Reactive Power and 3* 14 and 3 0.05 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
165. Reactive Power and POC POC 1 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
166. Reactive Power and POC POC 0.05 0

PF reference change
as per Fig 4
Figure 2 5% Voltage reference step test [pu]

Figure 3 5% Grid voltage step response test [pu]
Figure 4 Reactive Power (and/or PF) reference test [pu]
Note: For PF tests, appropriate PF control setpoint is to be issued to achieve (at least) targeted 0.3 pu change in the reactive power
output.
3.2.11 Active Power Controller Reference step change [PSS®E and

Note: Active Power Reference is applied as a relative change from the starting power reference of the plant or
generating unit controller, taking into account system strength and the droop functionality. The timing is
expected to be of sufficient duration to allow reduction to occur. AEMO needs to be aware of cases where
this is not possible, including evidence.
If the runback command is triggered through a binary signal rather than a reference change, this signal can
be substituted for the Active Power Reference figure and details of the control are to be provided to AEMO.

Table 9 Active Power Controller Reference step change test

[pu]
167. Active Power 10 14 1 0

controller reference
change as per Fig 5
168. Active Power 3* 14 1 0

change as per Fig 5
169. Active Power POC POC 1 0

change as per Fig 5
Figure 5 Active Power Reference [pu]
Acceptance criteria is based on the plant reaching the reference point before the next step is applied. In cases
where this is not possible, evidence must be provided to substantiate the shortfalls. This requirement must be
met by IBR.
3.2.12 Grid frequency – controller test [PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]

Note: The plant must have its protective frequency or frequency control functions modelled.
For overfrequency, the frequency controller deadband25 may be set to a range between +15 millihertz (mHz)
and +1 Hz. For underfrequency, Plant controller deadband is set to -15 mHz.
Table 10 Grid frequency controller test
Test Event SCR X/R Available Power Active Power [pu] Reactive Power
[%] [pu]
170. Grid Frequency POC POC 100% 1 0

change as per
Fig 6
25
Or use 0, if no deadband is applicable/used, for example, for reciprocating machine.

Test Event SCR X/R Available Power Active Power [pu] Reactive Power
[%] [pu]
171. Grid Frequency POC POC 100% 0.5 0

change as per
Fig 6

change as per
Fig 6

change as per
Fig 6
174. Grid Frequency POC POC 100% 1 0

change as per
Fig 7

change as per
Fig 7

change as per
Fig 7

change as per
Fig 7
Figure 6 Grid frequency test – overfrequency [Hz] (fast 4 Hz/sec (250 ms) ramp rate and frequency
reaching 52 Hz over 3 seconds)

Figure 7 Grid frequency test – underfrequency (fast 4 Hz/sec (250 ms) ramp rate and frequency change
of 1 Hz/second over 3 seconds)
3.2.13 Inertia – frequency control Model Acceptance Test

Plants/models with inertia controllers would be tested on case-by-case basis, taking into consideration,
for example:
• Stored energy.
• Inertia period/ underfrequency.
• The speed of the response.
• Activation deadband.
• Plant settings (for example, droop).
• Recovery characteristics.
3.2.14 Grid voltage change – response test [PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM

models]
Note: The magnitude of grid voltage change may be adjusted by AEMO to take into account losses across
the equivalent system impedance.
The model is required to maintain its active power output for ramp signals in Figure 8 without reliance on tap
changers.
The model may be expected to engage its FRT function (LVRT/HVRT) for step signals in Figure 9 and the
activation and deactivation flags shall be observed. No tap changer action is considered.

Table 11 Grid voltage response test

[pu]
178. Grid Voltage is 10 14 and 3 1 0

ramped/modulated as per Fig 8
179. Grid Voltage is 3* 14 and 3 1 0

180. Grid Voltage is POC POC 1 0

181. Grid Voltage is POC POC 0.5 0

182. Grid Voltage step as per Fig 9 10 14 and 3 1 0
183. Grid Voltage step as per Fig 9 3* 14 and 3 1 0
184. Grid Voltage step as per Fig 9 POC POC 1 0
185. Grid Voltage step as per Fig 9 POC POC 0.5 0
186. Grid Voltage is changed as per 10 14 and 3 1 0

Fig 10
187. Grid Voltage is changed as per 3* 14 and 3 1 0

Fig 10
188. Grid Voltage is changed as per POC POC 1 0

Fig 10
189. Grid Voltage is changed as per POC POC 0.5 0

Fig 10
Figure 8 Grid voltage ramp response test [pu] (voltage ramped over 6 seconds)

Figure 9 10% Grid voltage step response test [pu]
Figure 10 Extended dip grid voltage recovery test
Note: RED: 0.1 pu, BLUE: 0.5pu and GREEN: 0.8 pu voltage dip followed by 1 second ramped up recovery.
3.2.15 Grid Oscillation rejection test [PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]

This is a control and response sensitivity test. It is expected that plant models maintain stable operation for all
voltage modulated frequencies and for measured responses to be consistent with changes in current injection
references. The test is primarily focused on IBR by monitoring active and reactive current references together
with the resulting active and reactive current responses, however, the test is applied to all plant models.

Table 12 Grid oscillatory rejection test26

[pu]

modulated,
commencing at
modulation frequency
of 0.1Hz to 0.9Hz in
steps of 0.1Hz per each
simulation run. Tests are
performed in a similar
fashion as per Figure 11
with the exception of
frequency steps being
0.1Hz.

modulated,
commencing at
modulation frequency
of 1Hz to 45Hz in steps
of 1Hz per each
simulation run. Figure 11
provides an example of
the modulation signal at
1 and 10Hz.
192. 27 In addition to amplitude POC POC 1 0

modulation, at least 2
degree phase oscillation
shifts as a minimum
(sinusoidal signal
injection) shall be added
to the modulating
frequency amplitude.
Figure 11 Oscillatory rejection tests [ example of 1 Hz to 10 Hz in steps of 1 Hz per modulation]
26
The upper frequency at which tests would be conducted will depend on the control system bandwidth and may need to cover up to and including
nominal frequency. At least tests up to 20Hz shall be performed as a minimum in all circumstances.
27
Optional test where deemed necessary

3.2.16 Grid voltage phase angle change – response test [PSS®E and
The applied phase angle changes are permanent step changes. The model is not expected to lose control or
exacerbate the applied disturbance. Careful consideration, parameter tuning or redesign, including additional
balance of plant equipment, may need to occur when conducting connection assessment studies for which
transmission or distribution phase angle changes do occur, for example, typically on the application or
clearance of applied contingencies in the wide area power system model. In addition, such design will
typically consider the appropriate X/R ratio and the instance of the contingency inception which may create
additional complexities to remedy, for example, high DC offsets which could impact on the appropriate
control of IBR. At least 2 points on the instantaneous waveform shall be evaluated (Table 13), including the
maximum and zero crossing points. In addition, manufacturers are expected to provide evidence of the
biggest phase angle change that their equipment can withstand 28.
Table 13 Grid phase angle response test29

[pu]
193. Grid voltage angle 10 14 and 3 1 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
194. Grid voltage angle 10 14 and 3 0.05 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
195. Grid voltage angle 3* 14 and 3 1 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
196. Grid voltage angle 3* 14 and 3 0.05 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
197. Grid voltage angle POC POC 1 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
198. Grid voltage angle POC POC 0.05 0

change equal to
±40° and ±60°
3.2.17 POC SCR = 1 Active Power reference change test [PSS®E and
This test increases active power reference in gradual steps until the plant reaches its rated output under low
SCR conditions. Due to the low grid SCR, it is expected that the plant is unable to maintain stable operation at
100% output level. Active power ramp durations may be extended to meet the equipment maximum slew rate
limitation.
28
It is expected that IBR do not lose control for grid voltage angle change equal to ±40°. These tests do not supersede network connection and compliance
requirements where phase angle changes of different magnitude and duration may be present.
29
Tests 193 to 198 include subsets of tests for ±40° and ±60° phase angle changes, where each test covers +40°, -40°, +60° and -60° phase angle responses.
They could be done in a sequence (with sufficient time between step applications to allow settled responses) or treated as standalone steps.

Table 14 SCR = 1: Active power reference change test

[pu]
199. Active Power 1 14 and 3 Starting from PSCADTM 0

controller reference initialisation
change as per Fig 12
Figure 12 SCR = 1 Active power reference change test [pu]
3.2.18 POC SCR = 1 FRT Test [PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models]

This test assesses the impact of system strength on fault ride through performance where pre-disturbance
SCR conditions are lowered to SCR = 1. It is expected that the plant/model performance would not be able to
sustain operation at SCR = 1. In cases where this is possible, evidence (other than modelled results) would be
required to substantiate model ride through capability at SCR=1. (d=1 in all cases).
Table 15 SCR=1- FRT Test
Test Fault Fault Fault impedance Zf SCR SCR X/R Active Reactive
duration [s] type [pu] [pre- [post-fault] Power Power [pu]
fault] [pu]
200. 0.43 3PHG Zf=4xZs (Udip ~ 0.8pu) 3 1 14 and 3 1.0 0
203. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 1 14 and 3 1.0 0
204. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 1 14 and 3 0.5 0
205. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 1 14 and 3 0.05 0

3.2.19 FRT assessment for site-specific SCR and X/R [ PSS®E and
Note: SCR values for system normal and the most severe credible contingency should be used. (d=1 in all
cases).
Table 16 FRT Benchmarking for POC SCR and X/R Conditions
Test Fault Fault Fault Applied SCR X/R Active Reactive

duration [s] type impedance Zf Fault [post-fault] Power Power [pu]
[pu] Voltage [pu]
[pu]
206. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 0 POC POC 1 0
207. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.11 x Zs ~0.1 POC POC 1 0
208. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.25 x Zs ~0.2 POC POC 1 0
209. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.42 x Zs ~0.3 POC POC 1 0
210. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.66 x Zs ~0.4 POC POC 1 0
211. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs ~0.5 POC POC 1 0
212. 0.43 3PHG Zf=1.5 x Zs ~0.6 POC POC 1 0
213. 0.43 3PHG Zf=2.3 x Zs ~0.7 POC POC 1 0
214. 0.43 3PHG Zf=4 x Zs ~0.8 POC POC 1 0
215. 0.43 3PHG Zf=9 x Zs ~0.9 POC POC 1 0
216. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 0 POC POC 0.5 0
217. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.11 x Zs ~0.1 POC POC 0.5 0
218. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.25 x Zs ~0.2 POC POC 0.5 0
219. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.42 x Zs ~0.3 POC POC 0.5 0
220. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0.66 x Zs ~0.4 POC POC 0.5 0
221. 0.43 3PHG Zf=Zs ~0.5 POC POC 0.5 0
222. 0.43 3PHG Zf=1.5 x Zs ~0.6 POC POC 0.5 0
223. 0.43 3PHG Zf=2.3 x Zs ~0.7 POC POC 0.5 0
224. 0.43 3PHG Zf=4 x Zs ~0.8 POC POC 0.5 0
225. 0.43 3PHG Zf=9 x Zs ~0.9 POC POC 0.5 0
In addition, FRT Benchmarking may be done, if required or recommended, with:

• Reactive power values of QMAX (or near QMAX and agreed with AEMO) and QMIN (or near QMIN and
agreed with AEMO). In absence of specific levels, +0.3pu and -0.3pu could be used as a minimum where
positive values refer to export of reactive power and negative values refer to import of reactive power at
the point of connection (e.g. operation in under excited region)

Note: QMAX and QMIN in this Guideline refer to the maximum and minimum reactive power limits before
activation of limiters (if any). For IBR, this may also imply the steady state corner points of the relevant active-
reactive power capability chart.
3.2.20 Input power source step change test

Modelled responses are expected to conform to the input power step change test as well as to validly reach
the steady state value taking into consideration equipment mechanical or electrical controls- actuators,
limiters etc. As an example, for wind turbines, that would relate to the pitch angle, power - speed controller
and so on.
Table 17 Input power source step change (for example, wind speed, irradiance)

[pu]
226. Input source step POC POC 1 0

change by - 20%
from full output
227. Input source step POC POC 1 0

change by + 20%
from full output
228. Input source step POC POC 0.5 0

change by + 20%
from reduced
output levels
229. Input source step POC POC 0.5 0

change by - 20%
from reduced
output levels
3.3 Additional case studies for IBR generation technologies with

low and high voltage ride-through function
For IBR with LVRT and HVRT control (assuming the voltage threshold for activation of the LVRT or HVRT
control is k%), apply voltage step responses of (k+1)%, and (k-1) to ensure correct operation of the control
without any oscillatory behaviour.
For battery systems, this shall be tested in both charging and discharging regions.
3.4 Additional grid voltage tests for IBR operating at reduced

energy source inputs
Grid voltage step tests (Figure 3) shall be applied and evaluated for IBR with variable input source (for
example, wind or solar (irradiance)) considering the following:
• Maximum issued active power setpoint with IBR at unity power factor, QMAX, QMIN operation at the
connection point (in absence of a defined value, at least 0, -0.3pu and +0.3 pu reactive power is expected
to be applied)
• Input source set to 20% of maximum generation (for example, by adjusting the wind speed or irradiance)

• For IBR technologies requiring input energy source, commencing at 10% generation (e.g. corresponding
irradiance, wind speed) reduce input source availability below the cut-in point, hold for at least 10 seconds,
and then increase the input source availability to at least 10% generation levels. This is to check model
capability and functional implementation for the operational switchover impact between the stand-by and
the generation mode (examples could include reactive instabilities in PV solar farms due to oscillatory
compensation via DC links, transition to and from reactive power control mode at no wind or no
irradiance conditions, LVRT engagement of wind farms upon cut-in operation and so on).
Tests outcomes are expected to monitor DC bus voltage, active and reactive power in ensuring no material
reduction or that DC link collapse occurs.
3.5 Additional case studies to verify minimum declared SCR that

the IBR generation can sustain
Tests shall be carried out to verify the minimum stated SCR that the equipment can sustain and also
conditions for which the plant will trip and/or lose control.
Note: statements around equipment dependability on electrical balance of plant design or different
parameters that may affect low SCR capability will not be accepted.
Actual settings in question for the generating system as well as the SCR of the equipment itself (without
additional electrical balance of plant [eBoP] design, such as synchronous condensers) must be stated. If the
settings differ from the settings applied at the time of the type test, then type tested settings are to be
verified and the vendor shall inform AEMO of what settings changes are being considered for the generating
system in question for model acceptance testing (and the connection assessment)
For the defined SCR Limit, a test at such a limit or below the limit shall be used for verification (for example,
test at 5% or 10% lower than the stated limit). Tests are expected to include, as a minimum:
• Demonstration of capability to export maximum steady state power as well as demonstration of inability
to do so when operating at lower SCR value.
• Demonstrate the nature and conditions which cause instability (i.e. how is the loss of control or instability
manifesting itself, examples could include voltage collapse, loss of active or reactive current control, low or
high frequency oscillations, sustained or growing oscillations etc)
• Capability to satisfactorily perform FRT, overvoltage, voltage reference, and grid voltage changes. as well
as frequency disturbance responses, including demonstration of inability to do so when operating at lower
SCR value. These tests shall include balanced and unbalanced faults as well as phase angle jumps.
3.6 Additional case studies for synchronous generators and

synchronous condenser systems
In addition to PMAX, the minimum level of active power for synchronous generator test application shall be
set to PMIN, if PMIN is greater than the active power initial setpoint of 0.05 pu used throughout this
Guideline.
Note: PMIN in this Guideline refers to design minimum operating limit. For synchronous condensers, initial
active power of zero shall be applied.
3.6.1 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 the minimum and the maximum load:
• 5% step in Vref starting from within the Under-excitation limiter (UEL) and not operating into another
limiter.
• 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.
• 5% step in Vref starting from within the Over-excitation limiter (OEL) and not operating into another
limiter.
• 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.
Figure 13 Step response simulations without limiter operation

Active Power (P)
Full Load
UEL OEL
½ to ¾ Load
Minimum Load
Reactive Power (Q)
step start step final setting value step direction

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 in between. Step responses should be determined at
each loading level for (see Figure 14):
• 5% step in Vref, into the UEL.
• 5% step in Vref, into the OEL.
Limiter tests shall clearly indicate the response that engages and disengages the limiter action.
Figure 14 Step response simulations into UEL and OEL
Active Power (P)
Full Load
UEL OEL
½ to ¾ Load
Minimum Load
Reactive Power (Q)
step start return step limiter engaged step direction
3.6.2 Governor
To ensure there is no adverse interaction between the governor and PSS, the following case study is carried
out (for time domain studies, and not ruling out small signal assessment of the linearised model otherwise):
for operation at full load and unity power factor compare PSS performance with and without the governor
model (constant mechanical power applied to the synchronous generator model). The governor is not
expected to materially change the overall performance.
3.7 Additional case studies for dynamic reactive support plant

Similar tests presented in this Guideline apply. The only difference is that the device does not transfer any
active power in steady-state. The tests are therefore not repeated considering various active power levels.
When mode changes are involved within the operating range of the device – for example, changeover from
thyristor switched capacitor (TSC) mode to thyristor controlled reactor (TCR) for SVCs – the model acceptance
testing will be carried out in the vicinity of the changeover point to confirm correct operation when
changeover occurs.

3.8 Additional tests for IBRs with reactive power mode without
active power production
All tests in this guideline shall be undertaken with the exception that the active power output is zero.
3.9 Additional tests for battery-equipped systems

Similar tests apply, with battery power levels considering charging and discharging operating regions,
therefore additional tests are required for charging region, with active power levels at -0.05 pu, -0.5 pu,
and -1 pu.
3.10 Additional tests for South Australian Connections

For connections in South Australia, the following tests shall be undertaken and required to pass the MAT:
• Tests outlined in Tables 3 to 14, and Table 16, where the lower SCR ratio conditions are replaced with
specific requirements for South Australia, at equipment terminals:
– SCR of 1.5.
– X/R = 2.
3.11 Other technologies

To accommodate other technologies or model types, additional or separate tests may be required and would
be discussed and agreed with the vendor prior to progressing with the model testing.
3.12 Model integration into AEMO’s OPDMS and PSCADTM network

case
The model would be assessed against the following, and not necessarily limited to:
• Compilation test – to ensure the model compiles into a single (NEM) DSUSR.dll in any FORTRAN
(compiler, and, PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM ) version required by AEMO.
• Full NEM study case – to ensure the model has no issue being integrated into a complete NEM
snapshot30, there are no model interactions, and it responds to flat and fault conditions without crashing
and with an expected response.
– For PSS®E models31, the following 50 second initialisation tests shall be done to ensure no initialisation
issues:
○ The model should be tested with 4 sets of tuned full NEM snapshots – these can be obtained from
AEMO’s Data Request.
○ The model should be tested for each set of snapshots at 20% 40% 60% 80% and 100% of Real
Power capacity including at 0, -0.3pu and 0.3pu of reactive power.
○ If there is more than one unit, one set of snapshots should be tested with at least one of the units
switched out. The other unit/s should be at 20% and 80% of real power capacity.
○ ANGLE of PSS®E user models must be flat for the duration of the initialisation run in the SMIB and
the full network case
• To assess there is no major reduction in the simulation speed for AEMO’s application environment.
30
The model must be robust, initialise, run in a stable manner, and not crash for any operating conditions of the actual plant being snapped in OPDMS, e.g.
this may apply to solar farm models or wind farm models, at no sun or no wind conditions, respectively.
31
If there is a governor model that requires a waterway model it is expected to be of MINS (miscellaneous) model type.

A1. DMAT checklist
Table 18 Model source code, transfer function block diagrams, technical description, and complete
parameter list
Item Comment Checkbox
1. Encrypted (in addition to unencrypted) model in PSS®E See Note A Yes ☐ No ☐

(and DLL files compatible with AEMO’s PSS®E versions in
use at time of application for assessment).
2. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model compiled with Intel Visual Yes ☐ No ☐

FORTRAN Compiler, compatible with AEMO’s versions in
use at time of application for assessment.
3. The PSS®E model has the following information: Models with all control
features are required unless
• Generating unit model. Yes ☐ No ☐
exempt. Models which have
• Plant controller – Voltage Control. parts of the plant controller Yes ☐ No ☐
expected functions
• Plant Controller – Reactive Power control. Yes ☐ No ☐
implemented within the
• Plant Controller – PF Control. Generating unit, shall be Yes ☐ No ☐
• Plant Controller – Frequency Control. stated. For example, this
Yes ☐ No ☐
could relate to frequency or
• Plant Controller – Active Power Control. voltage Control of Yes ☐ No ☐
• MFRT protective mechanisms are implemented. synchronous generating
Yes ☐ No ☐
units.
4. The PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model has the following Models with all control
information: features are required unless
Yes ☐ No ☐
exempt. Models which have
• Generating unit model.
parts of the plant controller Yes ☐ No ☐
• Plant controller – Voltage Control. expected functions
Yes ☐ No ☐
implemented within the
• Plant Controller – Reactive Power control.
Generating unit, shall be Yes ☐ No ☐
• Plant Controller – PF Control. stated. For example, this
Yes ☐ No ☐
• Plant Controller – Frequency Control. could relate to frequency or
voltage Control of Yes ☐ No ☐
• Plant Controller – Active Power Control. synchronous generating
Yes ☐ No ☐
• MFRT protective mechanisms are implemented. units.
5. Corresponding model source codes. The model block diagram Yes ☐ No ☐

must represent the
corresponding model
source code, see Note B.
6. Transfer Function Block Diagram indicating all STATES, and For PSS®E – Generating Yes ☐ No ☐
CONS. Unit, see Note C.
7. Transfer Function Block Diagram indicating all STATES, and For PSS®E – Generating Yes ☐ No ☐
CONS. System Plant Controller, see
Note C.

8. For the PSCADTM model, if the transfer function diagram For the Plant Controller, and Yes ☐ No ☐
and parameters are different from the implemented version for the Generating Unit
in PSS®E, a PSCADTM specific transfer function diagram
shall be provided indicating the applicable settings and a
mapping file provided to substantiate parameter alignment
between the two software platforms and models. Examples
of such could be and not necessarily limited to, for example,
Simulink model or a detailed functional description
document with all control block diagram masks and values
provided.
9. For PSCADTM/EMTDCTM a complete list of all parameters See Note D. Yes ☐ No ☐

consistent with NER 5.2.5, S5.2.4, Power System Design
For example, for
Data Sheets and Power System Setting Data Sheets, and,
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM
the Power System Model Guidelines.
parameter list files may
Examples include settings for LVRT Logic, HVRT, Look Up include *.f or *.txt user
Tables or Gain – Current Charts (Active and Reactive configurable parameters
Current Control Settings, including all setting and limits for that are LINK-ed during the
control of balanced and unbalanced faults, PLL settings, PSCADTM/EMTDCTM runtime.
freeze times/states/thresholds and settings).
Plant Controller with all modes of operation [for example,
inputs, filtering, limiters, resetter, transport delays,
dispatched signal, gains and integrators].
All applicable protection settings.
A. Dynamic data must be provided as ‘per unit’ quantities on the machine MVA base.
B. 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 at time of Registration, although the parameter values might differ to reflect
particular connection point performance requirements. All parameter values must be included and shown, for example, as an Appendix.
C. The model inputs and outputs shown in the transfer function block diagram representation must match those indicated in the model
datasheet tables. The state variables shown in the transfer function block diagram representation must match those indicated in the
model datasheet tables. Model documentation and transfer function block diagram representation must be provided at the level of detail
required for AEMO and the network service providers to derive the corresponding linear small-signal model of the equipment.
D. Prior to undertaking MAT, AEMO may ask to sight the source code of the PSCADTM/EMTDCTM and a complete parameter file
applicable. In general, AEMO acknowledges that certain technologies may have an exhaustive list of values, some which may not be of
direct relevance for the intended purpose – in these cases a shortlist of relevant parameters could be agreed with AEMO.
Table 19 Evidence of type test (or otherwise, such as laboratory converter module test) FRT validation,
evidence of low SCR capability, evidence of multiple FRT testing and validation including
protective mechanisms

Yes ☐ No ☐
10. FRT Validation report comparing the model’s fault ride- The accuracy of the model
through performance with the measurements and must be clearly referenced
validation against: against the accuracy
requirements specified in the
• PSS®E model and measured results, and.
AEMO Power System Model
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM and measured results. Guidelines.
• Balanced faults validation (type test report and model
overlays).
• Unbalanced fault validation (type test report and
model overlay).

Yes ☐ No ☐
11. Confirmation that the model is fit for multi- disturbance Provision of Voltage and
application and evidence provided: Frequency protection limits
only are not regarded as
• Type tests (or laboratory tests, HIL test).
adequate for this purpose.
• Protective elements being included in the model for
this purpose for both: PSS®E and the
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models.
• Model validation for both.
Yes ☐ No ☐
12. Low SCR statement of capability and evidence provided Statement that behaviour
which shows when the technology is unable to perform under low SCR may be
under low SCR conditions: subject to eBoP design or
particular grid conditions
• Evidence must include either laboratory (module)
that need to be evaluated,
simulated/tested or actual tested results.
are not found acceptable.
• Evidence must include overlays with PSS®E and This also applies to
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM. statements quoting that non
default settings could be
optimised for low SCR
conditions.
The accuracy of the model
must be clearly mentioned
against the accuracy
AEMO’s Power System Model
Guidelines.
Yes ☐ No ☐
13. Overvoltage ride-through validation report comparing The accuracy of the model
the model’s fault ride-through performance with the must be clearly mentioned
measurements and validation against: against the accuracy
• PSS®E model and measured results, and
AEMO Power System Model
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM and measured results. Guidelines.

Table 20 Model documentation, layout, and run time capabilities – requirements (cross check)
14. PSS®E model is coded in FORTRAN completely and no Note: Wrapper based models Yes ☐ No ☐
wrapper files have been used. require special assessment by
AEMO. AEMO should be
contacted ahead of time to
determine the additional
requirements and assessments.
Refer to Section 2.5 and
Appendix A.2.
Attention: If you click “No”, the
DMAT process cannot
commence. In this instance,
and in the interest of
minimising any complications
for your project, it is advised
not to submit studies and
model information to AEMO
for assessment purposes and
not prior to AEMOs acceptance
of models coded in language
other than FORTAN.
15. PSS®E model supports the following dynamic Models are expected to work Yes ☐ No ☐
parameters (currently used by AEMO and AEMO reserves for a range of the dynamic
the right to change its run time data requirements for simulation parameters rather
operational purposes): than for specific settings.
• Acceleration Factor 0.2.
• Tolerance 0.0001.
• Frequency Filter 0.008.
• Timestep (DELT) 0.001.
• Time step variation 0.001 to 0.01 s.
• ITER variation 250-600.
• Network Frequency Dependence.
Note: In general, the frequency filter time constant
should be set to four times the integration time step (as a
minimum). AEMO currently uses 0.008 as the filter time
constant and requires models to conform to the latest
modelling requirements which are used in real time
production environment of OPDMS.
16. PSS®E model is a MINS type model. MINS models may be Yes ☐ No ☐
reviewed/accepted on a
(for information only)
case-by-case basis, however in
general found acceptable32.
17. For IBR, the PSS®E model is a user written model derived AEMO requires user written Yes ☐ No ☐
and validated from the actual equipment information models with all features and
(Type test or validation report provided) functions including settings
and controls as per the actual
firmware/controls.
32
MINS models may be used instead or USRMDLs for plant level control taking into account multiple aggregates within the plant (and removal of
dependency for CONEC calls).MINS models may be more advantageous to satisfy operational configuration validity requirement considering internal plant
conditions (e.g. outage of one or multiple parts of the aggregate plant representation).

18. For synchronous plant, the PSS®E/ PSCADTM/EMTDCTM Provision of evidence and/or Yes ☐ No ☐
models are sufficiently accurate representation of the model / setting mapping is
actual plant (planned or) installed at the specific site required, including frequency
under consideration. response, control block
diagrams etc. prior to
commencing model
acceptance tests/review.
19. For the PSS®E/ PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models: AEMO would advise of the Yes ☐ No ☐
need to change model naming
• Using identical names should be avoided for models of Yes: the model conflicts
as part of the assessment
similar structure to avoid e.g. linking problems, with the pre-existing
evaluation
definition conflicts and/or model dependencies for naming convention
wide area power system model integration.
20. For wind turbine models (the PSS®E/ PSCADTM / Yes ☐ No ☐

EMTDCTM ):
• The model includes electrical drive train, inertia and
shaft stiffness.
21. PSS®E model: Yes ☐ No ☐

• The model must be written and prepared using good
Yes: meets the
electricity industry practice and good model writing
requirements
practices for the relevant software. For PSS®E, this
would include:
– Execution of the DOCU command to show all model
states, outputs and constants that are
observable/adjustable externally. The output format
of these commands to be consistent with the format
of dynamic data.
– Execution of dynamic data documentation
commands do not result in model crashing.
– Models must not include calls into either of the
CONEC or CONET subroutines. 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.
– 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.
– The model should comprise a single executable file
for each physical plant. Use of auxiliary or linking
files is discouraged.
22. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model is the actual Firmware Yes ☐ No ☐

compiled code.
23. For inverter-connected plant, PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model Yes ☐ No ☐

is of switching type (i.e. not average type) that explicitly
models PWM switching.
24. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model allows time step of 10 micro - Yes ☐ No ☐

seconds and higher .
25. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM has simulation speed of 90 real time Yes ☐ No ☐

seconds per simulation second, or less (as a reference
taking into account 2.8 GHz processing unit).

26. Firmware version for the Model and Plant equipment is For the Converter. Yes ☐ No ☐
provided.33
Must be provided for IBR.
27. Firmware version for the Model and Plant equipment is For the Plant Controller. Yes ☐ No ☐
provided.
Must be provided for IBR.
Yes ☐ No ☐
28. Releasable User Guide must contain Instructions on how Equipment supplier
the model should be set up and used for: information may be sufficient
Yes: RUGs are provided
for this purpose initially,
• PSS®E models, and
however, it does not substitute
Yes ☐ No ☐
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models. a requirement and information
required for a Releasable User
Yes: OEM user guide is
Guide which must be a site-
provided
specific document.
29. The models of the controllers and items of plant must be Yes ☐ No ☐
easily identifiable.
30. Open loop gain and phase margin plot and data is Most IBRs are expected to have Yes ☐ No ☐
available and provided taking into account controller completed and know design
transfer function (i.e. impedance representation) coupled stability margins of their
with the equivalent network representation at POC34. equipment.
31. The interconnection of the different functional controllers This could be supported with Yes ☐ No ☐
and the items of plant must be clearly shown (examples an overlay of the substation
may relate to hybrid generating systems). primary design, indicating what
the measurement inputs and
signal exchanges between
different controllers and
generating units are.
In addition, all control modes
must be shown and how they
are switched from one mode to
another including the dispatch
logic.
32. Model parameter values that are intended to be (or can This could relate to Power Yes ☐ No ☐
be) externally adjusted (i.e., those explicitly in PSS®E and Reference or voltage reference,
PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must be clearly identified in as an example.
the model block diagram.
33
Firmware versions may not be available for new technology prototypes which are yet to be manufactured. In this instance the manufacturer/model owner
shall state on what basis has the model been released including evidence to substantiate its validation (e.g. type tests for a similar product, de-rated
product and so on). Other examples for when firmware declarations are readily available include IBRs undergoing the settings or firmware change
following the NER process.
34
This is an admittance or impedance based approach with values covering both low to high end frequencies (e.g. 0.1Hz to 2kHz if available). This
information is sought to support system studies and evaluation of stability margins. Discontinuity is expected at synchronous frequency due to positive
sequence current source control.

33. For IBR, the model aggregation methodology proposed Yes ☐ No ☐

must be clearly specified.
• The aggregation method must not restrict access to
the inverter terminals (LV side of the turbine
transformer).
• 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 unless there are requirements
otherwise.
Yes ☐ No ☐
34. For PSS®E models:
• The derivative of all state variables should be less than Yes, the model meets all
0.0001 during initialisation. the requirements.
• Models must be initialised successfully for the entire
intended plant operating range. The model operating
range must be consistent with the actual equipment
design in particular with respect to the following:
– The entire range of active power.
– The entire range of reactive power/power factor
(including limits of reactive power generation and
consumption).
• The use of scripts is not acceptable. Specific conditions
or any ‘corner points’ of the technical envelope must
be clearly explained, represented in the RUG and
corresponding documentation to enable the User of
the model to setup and execute the model simulation
run without reliance on any script. This could refer to
and not necessarily limited to (examples where scripts
are not acceptable): 1. Voltage control strategy and
applicable coordination of operating devices within the
plant, 2. Operating conditions which have active
power, reactive power and voltage dependencies, 3.
use and application of specific taps for different
operating ranges, 4. Specific dispatch of power or
reference signals, 5. Script for specific reactive power
value for initialisation of the model etc.
35. Models do not crash the software platform when Yes ☐ No ☐

model/plant is tripped or disconnected during the
dynamic run. Yes: model trips or
disconnections do not
result in numerically
unstable behaviour
causing the software
platform to crash
36. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must have snapshot Yes ☐ No ☐

capability.

37. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must initialise within 3 Models must be initialised Yes ☐ No ☐
seconds for strong and weak networks (where snapshot successfully for the entire
capability is not enabled). intended plant operating
range. The model operating
range must be consistent with
the actual equipment design in
particular with respect to the
following:
• The entire range of active
power.
• The entire range of reactive
power/power factor
(including limits of reactive
power generation and
consumption).
If acceleration factors are used
to aid the initialisation process,
they shall be clearly identified
and documented.
38. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models must allow stable initialisation The maximum duration of the Yes ☐ No ☐
and steady state run up to 5 minutes. dynamic simulation run for
which the model accuracy is
proven should be clearly
mentioned and evidence
provided to substantiate it.
39. PSCADTM/EMTDCTM transformer model includes Yes ☐ No ☐

transformer specific saturation data where available35
(and not default model library provided settings).
40. Shortest time constant (name, use and identifiable in the Yes ☐ No ☐
control block diagram) confirmed for both PSS®E
models and also PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models (for IBR
plant, this applies to both converter and the plant
controller).
41. PLL Settings and PLL Freeze/unfreeze setting values Yes ☐ No ☐

provided, including the control block diagram. PLL
settings and outputs must be provided for all frequency
measuring devices, especially where different frequency
meters are used. Examples include PLL use (frequency
estimation) for protective functions, PLL use for control
functions, PLL use on wind turbine models on a machine
side as well as the grid side converter. Where PLL is not
used, a technology specific measurement and settings
shall be provided and made available; for example, for
grid forming technologies.
The Power System Model Guidelines outline a range of model output quantities. The following quantities (in
Table 21) may be additional, and specifically related to IBR (and where mentioned synchronous) plant.
35
Where data is not available during system design stage (S and D data categories), certain tests may need to be repeated to cross check the influence of
transformer saturation. This may include and not limited to tests in section 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6 to 3.2.9, 3.2.19 and so on with the main emphasis on the
performance of the PSCADTM/EMTDCTM model. While it is understandable that factory tests or detailed data may not be available at time of DMAT
assessment, application of appropriate transformer saturation data has been found critical on numerous NEM projects and may impact the design basis of
affected plant and its performance acceptance. It is advised to collate this information earlier rather than later in the connection process.

Table 21 Required model output channels
42. ID reference and IQ reference. Converter/Generating Unit Yes ☐ No ☐

Terminals, output channel.
(or applicable signals used as control references if ID
and IQ references are not used. For example, for Grid If three phase control is used,
Forming Inverters, this could relate to voltage, power, then per phase ID and IQ
frequency/angle, active and reactive current references references must be provided.
where used)
Plants not utilising current
reference control may be exempt
from this requirement, for
example, synchronous
generators.
43. ID measured. Converter/Generating Unit Yes ☐ No ☐

IQ measured.
For synchronous plants, this
I total measured.
applies to both LV terminals and
Note: Note: The converter/generating unit current at Point of Connection.
and/or MVA base used to generate current signals
must be provided and explained.
For IBR where Vd and Vq axis components are used,
they shall be made available to aid verification
(together with Id and Iq) of active and reactive power
measurements.
44. ID measured. Point of Connection. Yes ☐ No ☐

IQ measured. [maximum per unit current of the
generating unit (converter) is
I total measured.
related to the connection point
voltage/location. Thus, the total
current may not be taken as
reactive power capability
‘negotiated’ in S5.2.5.1. which
may depend on adequacy and
design of capacitive reactive
plant or the main transformer tap
changer design, as an example].
45. Frequency measured. Converter/Generating Unit Yes ☐ No ☐

Applies to synchronous and IBR
plant.
46. Frequency measured. Point of Connection/ Plant Yes ☐ No ☐

Controller.
47. FRT (LVRT) Flag [ON/OFF status]. Converter and Plant Controller (if Yes ☐ No ☐
used).
Including FRT activation/deactivation for negative
sequence FRT.
48. HVRT Flag [ON/OFF status]. Converter and Plant Controller (if Yes ☐ No ☐
used).

49. Additional requirements for wind turbines: Yes ☐ No ☐

• Pitch angle.
• Wind speed.
• Generator rotor speed.
• Mechanical torque/power.
• Aerodynamic torque/power.
50. For synchronous machines (including synchronous Additional requirements may Yes ☐ No ☐
condenser): apply for MFRT assessments, for
example, pole slip protection
• Field current.
elements.
• Field voltage Limiter outputs.
• Mechanical power or torque Rotor angle.
• PSS output.
• Unit speed.
• AVR output.
• Exciter output.
• Valve position.
• Guide vane/needle positions.
• Governor control output.
• Set-point for active power.
• Set-point for voltage.
• External protection relay(s).
51. Negative sequence voltage and negative sequence Yes ☐ No ☐

current (provided as a calculated plot channel) at
generating unit and generating system terminals
including:
• Negative sequence current control reference at IBR
LV terminals
• Hysteresis for activation deactivation
• Current Limits
52. Protection Flags, pickup and activation times including All protection Flags (and Yes ☐ No ☐
settings for MFRT. description of each). Provision of
just one overall protection flag as
a summation of all internal flags
will not be sufficient.
Applies to synchronous and IBR
plant.
53. Self assessment is completed and all output files Report and output files. Yes ☐ No ☐
provided for review as per Appendix A.2 Table 22
Report must outline technical
reasoning for excluding other
tests contained within the
Guideline.

A2. Frequently asked
questions
Does DMAT apply to both PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM?
Yes, the DMAT consists of three parts in relation to models:
• PSS®E.
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM.
• Benchmarking between PSS®E and PSCADTM/EMTDCTM for balanced events and control
actions/performances for all tests in this DMAT other than unbalanced events.
Is the DMAT site-specific?

The DMAT is site-specific (and firmware-specific) and test outcomes are not re-usable from project to project.
Where does DMAT sit in the connection process?

This is a high-level outline of model acceptance stages during the connection process:
• Dynamic Model Acceptance Test

Stage 1
•Vendor is informed of the acceptance test outcomes or if further

model improvements are required to present the model "fit" for
Stage 2 application
•AEMO's Generator Performance Assessment – due dilligence

(commences once the model passes criteria from model
acceptance tests including model update or resubmission where
Stage 3
determined necessary)
•Registration (Requires settings from the plant to be confirmed and

cross checked against the model prior to generation)
Stage 4
•R1/R2 validation and ongoing compliance

Stage 5

As a Developer-Applicant, when should DMAT be performed, and what should I do if no preferred
supplier has been selected?
To minimise risks associated with multiple R1 data, and to mitigate potential mis-design assessment
associated with unchecked model and inconsistent setting information (RMS and EMTP models), AEMO
advises performing DMAT as soon as the following are achieved:
• The connection point is known, and the project development is mature enough to select the type of
technology and its generating system size/ once the shortlist of suppliers is known.
• Preliminary Impact Assessment is completed that supports the findings of the lowest applicable SCR at the
proposed connection point.
• All required pre-requisite information, included in the checklist, has been prepared and checked by the
Proponent or the vendor.
How long would it take to complete DMAT?

Completion of the DMAT is dependent on many factors emanating from the quality, due diligence, and
validation of information prepared by the vendor/proponent.
There are two important aspects to DMAT:
a. Obtaining the results and information, and
b. Interpreting the results.
AEMO uses various automation scripts to accelerate the delivery of results, however, from AEMO’s past
experience, DMAT delays are usually caused by inadequacies in the modelling, insufficient verification of
consistency or unvalidated performance, requiring additional time and effort to understand, settle and rectify.
Another common contributor to delays in the completion of performance evaluation is the lack of access to
expertise and/or reliance on answers from vendors’ overseas-based locations.
What happens if the generating system has multiple technologies, or if there are changes in the
plant design?
New plant may be added due to a need to overcome compliance shortfalls, or new equipment may be added
pre- or post-energisation. As an example, this could include:
a. Determining the size of STATCOM, SVC, or synchronous condenser, which would be feasible only after
the technical assessment studies are undertaken.
b. Addition of a battery storage system to an existing generating system.
c. Change in supplier or technology.
In these cases:
• A separate DMAT would be carried out for the additional plant on its own when such model information
becomes available.
• A DMAT would also be carried out for the combined generating system representation.
Therefore, the DMAT applies to the individual (technology-specific) plant components, as well as the
combined generating system representation – DMAT for each component is carried out first, and, thereafter,
for the combined generating system.
In a hybrid system, equipped with a combination of wind turbines, solar PV, and/or battery systems,
STATCOM, synchronous condensers, a combined DMAT would be carried out, for example:
• DMAT for the battery system (charging and discharging).
• DMAT for the wind turbine.
• DMAT for the solar PV.

• DMAT for the STATCOM and/or synchronous condenser.
• DMAT for the combined system (with battery charging and discharging).
Is the complete PSCADTM/EMTDCTM parameter list requested for the ‘Releasable User Guide’?
No, although the proponent/Generator could suggest these be included for AEMO’s review. The parameter
list would be embedded in the encrypted model itself. Otherwise, the “complete” parameter list is to be
provided to AEMO (nominated person) from the OEM owners Engineer or the Participant/Intending
Participant.
Is a type test or laboratory (converter module) test required?

Yes, a type test and validation of type test data against PSS®E and PSCADTM models is required.
AEMO acknowledges that certain technologies may be in the so-called “prototype” stages, and that a type
test report may not be available at time of the DMAT assessment. In this instance, AEMO would request and
require evidence from the vendor to explain the basis on which the supplied model can be used, how has it
been validated, and what quality checks have been done by the supplier to approve release of the model.
This applies to both synchronous (for example transfer function of the AVR/PSS system) and IBR technologies.
In absence of the type test, for inverter-based technologies, AEMO requires a laboratory test in consideration
of either total converter current rating or module test (for example, via Real Time Digital Simulator [RTDS] or
equivalent platform where real-time results can be validated).
Ultimately, use and application of non-validated models creates risk, associated with and not necessarily
limited to:
• Rejection of the model.
• Plant design or mis-design.
• Plant compliance/study evaluation (for example, Full Impact Assessment).
• Assessment of power system security and/or constraints that AEMO may invoke (or request the system
test under the NER at the cost of the Generator).
• Impact on studies progression, GPS, Registration, and operation (for example, during commissioning).
In cases where evidence is not available for the exact firmware version of the product, where reasonable, such
evidence may be supported by using tests for a similar type or size of the equipment. In general, stating that
the models and model parameters are a 1-to-1 match with the equipment would be insufficient to satisfy
validation requirements.
Is validation required which demonstrates the lowest SCR which the equipment can sustain?
Yes, AEMO requires a validation result to be provided, together with evidence (validated FRT responses from
the type test, FAT or HIL test) and reasoning including the settings for SCR limitations.
Is FRT validation for balanced and unbalanced faults/disturbances required?

Yes.
Is validation of multiple FRT required?

Yes, AEMO requires validation results to be provided, together with evidence (actual validated FRT responses
from the type test, FAT or HIL test) and reasoning for its multiple FRT limitations.
Do models need to have protective elements included for multiple FRT assessment?
Yes, as outlined in the Power System Model Guidelines.

Would AEMO accept a statement from the equipment supplier as an exemption from including
the protective mechanisms in the model?
In general, no. AEMO is aware that there may be aspects which may not be pragmatically implementable in
the model itself. This could be understood once necessary details are provided to AEMO for a review.
An example of an unacceptable response is the equipment supplier claiming capability which requires a few
seconds’ time between recurring events, when model evidence to support such a claim does not have
sufficient details to validate the technical foundation of such a statement.
Is there an implication if a vendor’s PSS®E model is not source coded in FORTRAN?

Yes – non-FORTRAN models cannot be accepted unless pre-approved by AEMO. Feasibility assessments may
be conducted by agreement, in advance of model submission, but will involve additional risk and cost.
Please refer to section 2.5 of this guideline, which contains important information and considerations for
proponents and vendors.
Would DMAT be required for an existing plant undergoing settings or plant change?
Yes, the entire DMAT or parts thereof would be undertaken as AEMO considers appropriate, depending on
the nature of the change. In the first instance, certain aspects of the DMAT could be covered by the
Proponent to ensure that changes are reflected across both PSS®E and PSCAD TM/EMTDCTM models and
checked for consistency and accuracy.
Use and application of control modes – what control mode shall be applied in the DMAT?
MATs shall be undertaken with the default control mode being the voltage control mode. If the plant is to
operate in a mode other that the voltage control mode, then the bulk of tests shall be undertaken with such
control mode unless tests specify otherwise.
Treatment of exemptions – would exemptions be allowed?

AEMO may agree to exemptions from the requirement to provide information or complete specific pre-
submission tests in appropriate circumstances, for example:
• The required information is not applicable to the type of technology in question.
• A repeat of a complete DMAT may not be required subject to the vendor or proponent satisfactorily
confirming changes (via suitable evidence), or updates to models or settings do not warrant repeat of the
entire DMAT or parts thereof.
• Provision of an FRT type test for a large Synchronous Generator where it is reasonably impractical to
achieve such prior to installation
• Provision of an FRT type test for a prototype wind turbine which is yet to be tested by the OEM. In this
instance, evidence for a similar type turbine must be provided, including evidence which substantiates the
model accuracy or methodology deployed to validate/approve the model prior to its use.
• The plant is exempt from model provision, for example, for ratings less than 1 MVA unless determined
otherwise, for example, the need to model and include details of DER devices.

FAQs added November 2021
Does the DMAT Guideline improve model quality?

The acceptance tests outlined in the DMAT Guideline are designed to verify that plant models are fit for
purpose. All NEM-connected plant should be able to be modelled reliably, consistently and accurately for the
full range of assessments and studies that AEMO or NSPs need to conduct to perform their functions. This
requires confirmation of (among other things): model robustness, numerical stability, initialisation, validity,
speed, levels of modelled information inclusion, applicable settings transparency, and requirements for
integration into OPDMS and PSCAD wide area network models.
If models do not meet these standards, there will be a negative impact on planning and operation of the
NEM and its component networks and generating system. This adversely impacts new investors, existing
participants and ultimately consumers, so it is fundamentally important to get modelling right. AEMO
appreciates the cooperation and commitment of proponents, vendors and NSPs to continuous improvement
of power system models.
Which part of the NER does the DMAT Guideline relate to?
The Power System Model Guidelines (PSMG), made under clause S5.5.7(a)(3) of the NER, outlines a number of
requirements that need to be met for model confirmation.
The DMAT Guideline has been developed to provide visibility of the specific model acceptance tests, and to
assist proponents and vendors’ understanding of:
• the specific criteria for a model to meet the PSMG requirements; and
• how to demonstrate the model meets those requirements.
When does the DMAT Guideline apply?

Any time a model, or updated model, is required to be provided to the NSP and AEMO in connection with a
process or obligation under the NER, it should be submitted to the NSP and AEMO for DMAT assessment
unless otherwise agreed with AEMO.
Do Proponents have to complete all the scenarios/tests in the DMAT Guideline?

No, the DMAT Guideline sets out the full list of scenarios and tests to be conducted. By itemising all of them,
the DMAT Guideline allows proponents to self assess their models and, if necessary, to fix both undesirable
and/or unexpected performance prior to being assessed by the NSP and AEMO.
AEMO and NSPs may assess all aspects of the DMAT that are relevant to the model submitted for
assessment. The Guideline does not require proponents to complete all the identified tests themselves prior
to submission, but it is the proponent’s responsibility to demonstrate that the model meets the PSMG
requirements. AEMO can reject a model if insufficient evidence is provided.
In the interests of efficiency, this Guideline therefore includes a minimum set of tests that must be performed
before submitting a model for DMAT assessment. However, AEMO (or NSPs) can always request the
proponent to complete more tests and provide results as needed to complete the DMAT assessment.
What is the benefit to Proponents in completing more tests?

The more tests proponents can conduct themselves, the more they will reduce the risk, delay and expense of
model issues being identified late in the connection process.
If not all tests, then which tests need to be completed and submitted?
AEMO has specified (Table 22) the minimum mandatory tests from the DMAT Guideline that we expect to be
conducted and reported by the proponent as part of its DMAT submission. It is expected that the tests in
Table 22 will be reviewed regularly and may be expanded or changed with the benefit of operational
experience.

AEMO cannot accept a model for DMAT assessment without inclusion of the results of these tests, at least.
AEMO may request the proponent to conduct and provide the results of additional or repeat DMAT tests,
and/or undertake them itself.
Proponents should carefully consider the potential risks of limiting their self-assessment to these minimum
requirements. The more tests proponents can conduct themselves, the more they will reduce the risk, delay
and expense of model issues being identified late in the connection process.
What if I decide not to complete all DMAT Guideline tests in my self-assessment?

Proponents must complete at least the minimum tests listed in Table 22, for AEMO to accept the model for
assessment.
If a proponent and/or their vendor decide not to complete the full suite of DMAT studies applicable to the
plant model (in addition to the minimum tests), the submission should include a technical report explaining
why the excluded tests were considered unnecessary or inapplicable. Considerations may include, without
limitation, network location, stability, plant design or configuration, size, whether initial tests indicated
oscillatory responses, etc.
What exactly do I need to submit with my model?

The DMAT checklist (Appendix A.1 of the DMAT Guideline) must be submitted by the proponent with all
supporting information.
Evidence of completion of self-assessment tests, including the minimum mandatory tests noted in Table 22, is
expected to be submitted as a report including all test results and respective output files36 on request.
It is important for the proponent to focus on engineering/model checks and rectification of model issues
including inconsistencies prior to providing information to AEMO to commence the review and model
acceptance testing. Appendix 3 outlines some of the typical model encountered issues that should be
rectified prior to provision of DMAT self-assessments and model information to AEMO.
Could DMAT results be repurposed or generalised?

It is possible to reuse DMAT results considering testing at different SCR and X/R values where generalised
tests are provided (e.g. at SCR of 3 and 10 and X/R or 3 and 14 as used throughout this Guideline). They can
be used to support site specific tests which must be done on a project specific basis, using project specific
SCR and X/R conditions. Verification would need to take place to establish that applied models remain
unchanged from their source and settings. Provision of models, controls and settings which have not been
verified, creates a need to expend more resources, additional due diligence and exposes projects to delays.
This is most often seen with model updates, e.g.:
• Updates to technology and ratings (e.g. new wind turbine prototypes, batteries, solar inverters)
• Updates in firmware and model source codes affecting the inverter and / or the plant controller (as an example)
• Updates to bug fixes and settings affecting the control system performance
• Update or enablement of specific control functions/settings
• Robustness of model differences (performance) subject to system strength/settings and numerical simulation
environment
To overcome the shortcomings of generalisation, this DMAT requires evaluation of POC specific conditions
and a range of SCR and X/R values taking into account the latest model releases. Therefore, generalisation of
the DMAT is not recommended considering the pace of change in the network topology, and constantly
changing and improving OEM features, functions and settings.
36
Output files allow use of adequate plotting tools and zoom in functionalities in improving legibility (e.g. from *.png or *.pdf plots that are typically
submitted to AEMOs or NSPs) and review of model behaviour.

Table 22 List of minimum mandatory tests for self assessment (Continuation of DMAT Checklist)
DMAT Test Number Comment Checkbox
54. 0.1 to 0.4 Flat run, snapshot and initialisation test at POC Yes ☐ No ☐
55. 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, Unbalanced fault – large disturbance test cases Yes ☐ No ☐
91
Performed at the Point of Connection, applicable SCR
level. As per DMAT- total current and its reduction (if
any) must be checked and presented including
settings. Manufacturer declared settings for treatment
of asymmetric events, negative sequence fault logic,
activations, deactivation, and (controlled current)
limitations must be provided prior to application of
unbalanced faults.
56. 121 – 122 MFRT random event selection for EMTP model test Yes ☐ No ☐
57. 126 – 127 MFRT random event selection for RMS model test Yes ☐ No ☐
58. 137, 146 TOV test case Yes ☐ No ☐
59. 153, 159, 165 Voltage and Reactive Power (and/or PF) control Yes ☐ No ☐
reference step change test
60. 169 Active Power Controller Reference step change test Yes ☐ No ☐
61. 170-177 Grid frequency controller test Yes ☐ No ☐
62. 180-181, 184-185, 188-189 Grid voltage response test Yes ☐ No ☐
63. 190, 191 (up to and including Grid oscillatory rejection test Yes ☐ No ☐
25Hz)
64. 197 Grid phase angle response test ( for ±40° ) Yes ☐ No ☐
65. 199 SCR = 1: Active power reference change test Yes ☐ No ☐
66. 200, 203 SCR=1- FRT Test Yes ☐ No ☐
67. 206 -225 FRT Benchmarking for POC SCR and X/R Conditions Yes ☐ No ☐
68. 226, 228 Input power source step change (for example, wind Yes ☐ No ☐
speed, irradiance)
69. 3.6.1 – case study 1 For synchronous generating systems only. Full load Yes ☐ No ☐
level and minimum load level
For synchronous generating systems only. Full load
3.6.2- case study 2 Yes ☐ No ☐
level, 5% Vref step into UEL and OEL
70. Full DMAT scope Any (other) tests or DMAT requirement that Yes ☐ No ☐
AEMO/NSP may find necessary for any specific project
Yes, other tests are
shall be provided or undertaken for assessment.
included.
No, other tests are not
included.

A3. Selected Examples
and Issues
This section lists some examples of unacceptable model responses including model related issues and lack of
information regarding the control system functions, limitations and applicable settings impacting consistency
between the models, numerical robustness and questionable validity of models. These anonymised examples
represent a small subset of actual issues AEMO has encountered in many reviews of power system model
information.
These do not represent the full spectrum of possible unacceptable model behaviour, and are intended only as
an indicative guide for proponents and vendors to highlight some of the more common issues and
deficiencies to be avoided or addressed prior to submission.
Figure 15 PSSE and PSCAD benchmarking inconsistency and instability in the DQ reference frame for an
IBR plant
Figure 15 shows an example of an issue observed for an IBR plant showcasing instability and inconsistency of
the model/plant. In this instance, the IBR model evaluation was done (consistent with one of the DMAT tests
in this Guideline) in a fairly robust part of the system with high short circuit influence represented via
simplified Thevenin equivalent source.

Figure 16 PSSE and PSCAD benchmarking results for one selected fault in this DMAT Guideline. D axis
current comparison. (The second plot shows zoomed in response of the “spike” signal)
Figure 16 provides an example of poorly coded MODE2/MODE3 aspects in PSSE exposing the
numerical/robustness integrity of the PSSE model provided to AEMO. In this instance active current spikes to
a value of nearly 6 pu in a single time step. These issues are solvable via adequate rectification and
improvement of the PSSE source code and are identified via application of tests in this Guideline.
Figure 17 Active and Reactive Power benchmarking inconsistency for RMS quantities
Figure 17 shows an example of inconsistent model behaviours during the FRT performance and balanced voltage
disturbance tests under this Guideline. It is important for models to be cross checked, validated and issues rectified prior
to provision to AEMO. To assist with these matters, a checklist of validations and LVRT tests are included in this Guideline
considering application of balanced and unbalanced disturbances.

Figure 18 PSCAD Example of the post fault response considering time step change in the proponent
provided model (existing connection in the NEM)
Figure 18 shows a difference in modelled responses using different proponent/vendor recommended time
steps for the model. The implications arising as a result of lack of evidence, confidence and sufficient work
(testing and validations by the vendors) in this area are likely to implicate system strength remediations both
technically and commercially, increase system security risks/uncertainties, impact interpretation of
compliance, operational outage planning assessments where Generators may be requested to disconnect and
so on. This DMAT includes a checklist of information for fundamental justifications of model validity, and
evidence to the effect of different time step requirements, recommendations or assumptions used, including
validation of tests for LVRT, low SCR, MFRT, frequency rejection tests, and tests at different SCR and X/R levels
to name a few.
Figure 19 An example of a modelled response for one unbalanced fault

Figure 19 shows an example of a 2 phase to ground [2PHG] fault application resulting in different responses
for the provided model; 2PHG fault in phases AB has different responses for a 2PHG fault in phases BC. While
this is a model/functional driven issue (also present in the real plant), it has also exposed the control system
integrity of undeclared settings, control systems and limitations that are present during unbalanced events.
These aspects must be declared to AEMO as well as reflected in the GPS. On this occasion, these responses
were not accepted, and equally, the tests in this DMAT don’t specifically capture this situation, demonstrating
that the DMAT defined tests do not, and should not restrict AEMO nor the proponent from undertaking
additional tests. The DMAT includes a variety of fundamental tests for unbalanced events and specific
requirement for information considering actions of control systems for asymmetrical or unbalanced faults,
negative sequence FRT logic or reduction factors that must be declared prior to model assessment and
acceptance of such functions/limitations/performances.
Other examples of deficient models:

• Models which do not meet AEMO’s requirements for initialisation and snapshot functionalities
• Models which draw excessive amount of MVARs for initialisation and thus collapsing the system
voltage in the vicinity of their connection
• Models which do not work and do not follow PREF targets
• Models resulting in non-convergences
• Models which use filtering (e.g. with excessive time constants) at connection point to smooth out the
“true” performance characteristics of the model/plant
• Models in PSSE which bounce between +1 and -1 PU active power during and following system SMIB
tests
• Models not provided to AEMO with all required files to enable execution/run time resulting in lost
hours
• PSCADTM/EMTDCTM models requiring manual copying of library files
• Models provided to AEMO with settings for a 60Hz system connections
• Models which have incorrect transformer winding voltages and vector group orientation
• Models which are oscillatory unstable, and despite which are still provided to AEMO for feedback.
• Models which use scripts
• Models which are based on wrapper files for PSSE
• Models which do not have protective functions implemented (even basic voltage and frequency
settings)
• Models which do not have reactive current limitations
• Models which do not conform to AEMO’s dynamic solution parameters
• Models which collapse on application of any fault on a SMIB
• Models which apply reductions in outputs due to asymmetrical events without settings and control
system declarations of such limitations.
Conformance to the PSMG and the information in this DMAT Guideline is critical for assessing and confirming
model acceptance. Many of the tests in the DMAT Guideline were developed by drawing on the experience of
these and other difficulties and successes across multiple projects.

Abbreviations
Abbreviation Term
AVR automatic voltage regulator
DER Distributed Energy Resource
DSA dynamic security assessment
EMT electromagnetic transient
EMTP electromagnetic transient program
FSFC Full scale frequency converter
FRT fault ride-through
HVDC high voltage direct current
HVRT High Voltage Ride Through
Hz Hertz
IBR Inverter based resources (inclusive of all asynchronous and grid forming network devices (other than
conventional synchronous machines)). This includes batteries, SVCs, STATCOMs, Wind Turbines and PV
solar systems, HVDC etc.
LVRT low voltage ride-through
MAT model acceptance test
MFRT multiple fault ride-through
mHz millihertz
ms Milliseconds
MVA megavolt amperes
NEM National Electricity Market
NER National Electricity Rules
NSP network service provider
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPDMS Operations and Planning Data Management System
PCC point of common coupling
PF power factor
PI proportional integral
PLL phase lock loop
POC point of connection

Abbreviation Term
POD power oscillation damper
PSS power system stabiliser
pu per unit
PV photovoltaic
RMS root mean square
SCR short circuit ratio
SMIB single machine infinite bus
STATCOM static synchronous compensator
SVC static Var compensator
TCR thyristor controlled reactor
TSC thyristor switched capacitor

Model Acceptance Test Guideline Nov 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Acceptance Test Guideline Nov 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Model Acceptance Test Guideline Nov 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Model Acceptance Test

© 2021 Australian Energy Market Operator Limited.

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 3

2. Model acceptance principles 9

3. Model Acceptance Tests 20

A1. DMAT checklist 49

A2. Frequently asked questions 59

A3. Selected Examples and Issues 66

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 4

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 5

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 6

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 7

1.3 Completion of Model Acceptance Tests

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 8

2.1.2 Scope of tests

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 9

Table 1 DMAT due diligence and acceptance pathway

PSCADTM/EMTDCTM Wide Area Network NSP AEMO

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 10

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 11

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 12

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 13

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 14

2.4 Acceptance criteria during dynamic simulation

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 15

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 16

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 17

2.5 Wrapper-based RMS models

Model Process Flow Diagram

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 18

2.6 Model Acceptance Test checklist including pre-requisite

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 19

3.2 Case studies for both IBR and synchronous plant

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 20

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 21

Equation (2) U dip

Figure 1 An example test circuit for model acceptance testing20

1. Wind farm model acceptance set-up

Y/D Ubus D/Y Upcc

R=1 e-5 ohm

2. Synchronous generator model acceptance set-up

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

R=1 e-5 ohm

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 22

Table 2 Flat run, snapshot and initialisation test21

Test Test duration Purpose Comment SCR X/R Active Power

0.4 5s Snapshot and Initialisation Snapshot expected at 3 POC POC 1

0.5 5s Snapshot and Initialisation Snapshot expected at 3 POC POC 1

© AEMO 2021 | Dynamic Model Acceptance Test Guideline 23

Table 3 Balanced fault – large disturbance test cases

1. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0

2. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 -0.3

3. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 1 0.3

4. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 14 1 0

5. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 -0.3

6. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 3 1 0.3

7. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0

8. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 -0.3

9. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 10 14 0.05 0.3

10. 0.43 3PHG Zf=0 3 14 0.05 0

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