Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Benchmark systems for ElectroMagnetic Transient (EMT) and Transient Stability (TS) hybrid simulation
IEEE PES General Meeting July 2017
Qiuhua (Tony) Huang
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, [email protected]
Liwei Wang, Xuekun Meng
University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, [email protected]
Shuqing Zhang, Yanan Zhu
Tsinghua UniversityBeijing, [email protected]
Need of benchmark systems
Comparison helps selection and improvementEMT vs EMT-TS hybrid simulation vs others ( e.g, TS, frequency shifting)Different interfacing (or network equivalent) models and interaction protocols in EMT-TS hybrid simulation area
Benchmarks systems are important for transparent, “apple-to-apple” comparison
Power flow, transient stability, small-signal stabilityHVDC CIGRE model
However, in EMT and EMT-TS hybrid simulation research areasIn most of previous publication, the developed approaches were tested on a “customized” test systems and compared with full EMT simulation Moreover, test systems were described at a relatively high level, not detailed enough for replicating the models and results.
A set of open, well-documented benchmark systems is needed
July 15, 2017 2
Considerations for selecting the benchmark systems
ApplicationsAC/DC power systems: LCC-HVDC, VSC-HVDC (MMC, 2-Level)Specific or detailed studies: single-phase motors and power electronic loads
Key issues of hybrid simulation
July 15, 2017 3
EMT‐TS
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Harmonic or frequency dependent effects
Fault (or voltage sag) point on
wave effects
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
What are included for one benchmark system
DocumentationOne-line-diagramBenchmark system raw data (simulation tool agnostic)
Benchmark system data in exiting tool formatsPower flow data (e.g., PSS/E raw format)Dynamic data (e.g., PSS/E dyr format)EMT data (e.g., PSCAD)Negative and zero sequence data (if available)
July 15, 2017 4
Benchmark systems in the first release
July 15, 2017 5
Benchmark systems
Key issues of hybrid simulation
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
Harmonics or frequency
dependent effects
Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave
effectIEEE 9‐bus system + single phase motor loads Y Y Y N Y YIEEE 14‐bus system + LCC HVDC system Y Y Y N N NIEEE 39‐bus system + MMC VSC‐HVDC system N Y Y N N NIEEE 39‐bus system + 2 Level VSC‐HVDC system Y Y Y N N N
Benchmark System # 1: IEEE 9-bus system (+ motor loads)
With (and without) motor loadsSingle-phase air-conditioner induction motor model [1].Fault point-on-wave (POW) and voltage sag ramping effects [2]Unbalanced faults in the external systemOriginal source [3]
July 15, 2017 6
EMT‐TS
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Harmonic or
frequency dependent effectsFault (or
voltage sag) point on wave effects
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
Detailed modeling of bus 5 including distribution system and detailed load models
Fault point‐on‐waveEffects [2]
Benchmark System # 2: IEEE 14-bus system + LCC HVDC system
The original AC line from bus 6 to bus 13 is replaced by a LCC HVDCThe LCC HVDC is a modified CIGRE HVDC model, with a smaller rating
July 15, 2017 7
EMT‐TS
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Harmonic or frequency dependent effects
Fault (or voltage sag) point on
wave effects
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
G
G
G
G
G
1
6
7
11 10 9
8
5 4
32
13
12
14
Benchmark System # 3: IEEE 39-bus system + MMC VSC-HVDC system
July 15, 2017 8
The MMC VSC‐HVDC System • Bus 6 and Bus 13 as interfacing terminals• Adapted from OPAL‐RT CPU based Half‐Bridge
MMC model• Switching‐based, 40 cells per arm• Original source [4]
EMT‐TS
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Harmonic or frequency dependent effects
Fault (or voltage sag) point on
wave effects
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
Benchmark System # 4: IEEE 39-bus system + 2-level VSC-HVDC system
Two-level VSC HVDC, PWM decoupled dq control (carrier frequency is 1980 Hz) Rectifier: constant active and reactive power controls Inverter: DC voltage control and an AC voltage controlSource [5]
July 15, 2017 9
A modified IEEE 39 bus system interfaced with a VSC-HVDC system
EMT‐TS
Boundary selection
Interfacing model
Harmonic or frequency dependent effects
Fault (or voltage sag) point on
wave effects
Interaction protocol
Simulation efficiency
Benchmark System # 5 ( release cycle-2)Large AC system + HVDC system
We are looking for such a benchmark system, and your contribution is welcome and much appreciated!
July 15, 2017 10
References
[1] Y. Liu, V. Vittal, J. Undrill, and J. H. Eto, "Transient Model of Air-Conditioner Compressor Single Phase Induction Motor," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 4528-4536, 2013.[2] B. Lesieutre. Simulation Models for Single Phase Compressor Motors. NERC FIDVR and Dynamic Load Modeling Workshop, September 30, 2015.[3] Q. Huang, V. Vittal, “Application of Electromagnetic Transient-Transient Stability Hybrid Simulation to FIDVR Study,” IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.31, issue 4, 2016[4] W. Li, J. Belanger, “An equivalent circuit method for modelling and simulation of modular multilevel converters in real-time HIL test bench”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31. No. 5, Oct. 2016.[5] Q. Huang and V. Vittal, "OpenHybridSim: An open source tool for EMT and phasor domain hybrid simulation,“ in Proc. of 2016 IEEE PES General Meeting, Boston, MA, 2016, pp. 1-5.
July 15, 2017 11
• The New England 10‐Gen 39‐Bus System
• Select Bus 6 and Bus 13 to be interfacing terminals
• Fault applied on Bus 3, fault cleared after 0.1 second
• Adapted from OPAL‐RT CPU based Half‐Bridge MMC model
• Switching‐Based• 40 cells per arm• PQ control in MMC station 1• VQ control in MMC station 2
• Operation
Time Action0.25 Pulse on at MMC1 and MMC2, Pref and Qref = 0
0.5 Step PQ at MMC1, Pref=0.1 Qref=‐0.1
at MMC2, Qref=0
1.2 Fault applied at bus 3 in AC system
1.3 Fault cleared
• Hardware and Software– CPU i5‐6300 HQ RAM 8.00GB– Matlab 2014b 64‐bits
• Bus 6, Terminal 1 • Bus 13, Terminal 2
• Bus 6, Terminal 1 • Bus 13, Terminal 2
