DOE Transmission Reliability ProgramPeer Review

 

                                        

WAMS Outreach Project:

WECC Model ValidationJohn F. Hauer for Ross Guttromson

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richland, WA 99352

Prepared for the Transmission Reliability Program – 2004 Program Peer Review, January 27-29, 2004, Washington, D.C.

Page 2

Project: WECC Model Validation

Objectives:

1. Assist reliability councils, system planners and transmission operators with in the development and use of advanced tools for the validation and refinement of planning models.

2. Facilitate the development and use of planning procedures that identify and accommodate modeling uncertainties which have not or cannot be eliminated.

Page 3

Deliverables: (established prior to August 14 Blackout)

1. Direct assistance to WECC technical groups in developing methods, technology, and practices to compare and calibrate planning models against observed power system behavior.

2. Direct assistance to WECC technical groups resolving model validation issues that are major impediments to reliability management in the western interconnection.

3. A white paper, based upon experience in the western interconnection, that describes generic issues and solutions in model validation for reliability management in large power systems.

Project: WECC Model Validation

Page 4

Progress in FY03: (Examples only)

1. DSI Toolbox interfaces for advanced post-processing of data from General Electric and PTI stability programs.

2. Hybrid simulation tool for playback of measured data into planning model simulations [1] . This tool is being incorporated into the General Electric PSLF/PSDS commercial dynamic simulation package.

3. New PSLF codes for load modeling.

4. Use of all above tools in WECC effort to assess and adjust planning models for generation, load, and overall system performance.

5. Liaison with WECC measurements community to install and operate addition monitors at key WECC facilities (esp. generation & load).

Project: WECC Model Validation

Page 5

[1] Interim Report on the Model Validation Tests of June 7, 2000 -- Part 1: Oscillatory Dynamics , principal investigator J. F. Hauer. WSCC Performance Validation Task Force (PVTF) of the Modeling and Validation Work Group, October 26, 2000 . Available from PNNL, or at web address http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/orgs/opi/Wide_Area/index.shtm.

[2] Effects of Governor Modeling Upon Oscillatory Dynamics in Simulation of the 750 Mw Grand Coulee Generation Trip on June 7, 2000, J. F. Hauer and Les Pereira. Report of the WSCC Modeling & Validation Work Group, August 1, 2002 . Available from PNNL, or as an appendix within [1].

[3] New Thermal Turbine Governor Modeling for the WECC, principal investigator Les Pereira. Report by the WECC Modeling and Validation Work Group, October 11, 2002. Available at web address http://www.wecc.biz/committees/PCC/TSS/MVWG/thermalgovernor.html

[4] "A new thermal governor modeling approach in the WECC," L. Pereira, J. Undrill, D. Kosterev, D. Davies, and S. Patterson, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 2 , pp. 819-829, May 2003.

[5] "Large-Scale Hybrid Dynamic Simulation Employing Field Measurements," Zhenyu Huang, R. T. Guttromson, and J. F. Hauer. Accepted for the IEEE PES General Meeting, Denver, CO, June 6-12, 2004.

[6] (Other materials available at http://www.wecc.biz/committees/PCC/)

Related Materials on Enhanced Modeling in the WECC

Page 6

Model Validity Elements..

.

Undermodeled

Agg

rega

ted REALISTIC

MODELING

Not

Mod

elab

le

Fic

tion

al!!

COMPUTERMODEL

REALITY

Page 7

Validation of System Performance & Modeling

Measurement process:

Determine actual system performance from tests or disturbances. This is an ongoing effort.

Calibration process:

Compare model against system. May require a wide range of time/frequency tools plus expertise in the mathematics of dynamic systems.

Adjust model to improve comparison. Presently an art that requires expert knowledge of planning practices. (Some automation may be feasible. )

Uncertainty Modeling:

Over time, determine & characterize errors in predictive modeling. This too is an ongoing effort.

Page 8

Behavior we cannot model we

probably don’t understand!

BUT

We cannot validate models for

behavior we do not measure.

Model Validation: Caveat #1

Page 9

Model refinement, based upon

direct analysis of power system

behavior, should be an ongoing

process within power system

planning.

Model Validation: Caveat #2

Page 10

Model Comparison:Staged 1250 MW NorthWest generatation trip on May 18, 2001

[1] "A new thermal governor modeling approach in the WECC," L. Pereira, J. Undrill, D. Kosterev, D. Davies, and S. Patterson, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 2 , pp. 819-829, May 2003.[extensive use of the WECC WAMS]

Page 11

Modeling Problems in the WSCC: Oscillations of August 4, 2000 (controller interaction?)

Graphics by D. N. Kosterev, for WSCC OCSG

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 1203100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

Time in Seconds

Pow

er [M

W]

Simulated COI Power (WSCC base case)

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

Pow

er [M

W]

Observed COI Power (Dittmer Control Center)

Page 12

Hybrid Modeling for Validating Model Subsets Against Measured System Behavior [1]

1. Record bus & line quantities for system disturbance

2. Perform simulation studies with recorded bus quantities applied to radial subsystem

3. Adjust simulation models to replicate measured line quantities

[1] "Large-Scale Hybrid Dynamic Simulation Employing Field Measurements," Zhenyu Huang, R. T. Guttromson, and J. F. Hauer. Accepted for the IEEE PES General Meeting, Denver, CO, June 6-12, 2004.

Remainder of

Power system Model

Measurements cutplane

Subsystem for hybrid modeling

Page 13

Information Sources for Validating Power System Performance & Modeling

output y(t)POWERSYSTEMinput noise u(t)

disturbance d(t)

probing signal r(t)

measurementnoise m(t)

+

+

topology changes

setpoint changes

Page 14

Frequency swings: Colstrip vs. BCH (detail)WECC system event on June 4, 2003

030604Osc_BPA&Canada_FqAng030604Osc_BPA&Canada_FqAng 10/08/03_08:09:13

WSN1 5L1 Williston Voltage DeOsc FreqL

COLS Colstrip Bus Voltage FreqL

590 592 594 596 598 600 602 604 606 608 61059.96

59.97

59.98

59.99

60

Time in Seconds since 04-Jun- 2003 11:15:00.900

030604NWosc_BPA&Canada

WSN1 5L1 Williston Voltage DeOsc FreqL

COLS Colstrip Bus Voltage FreqL

590 592 594 596 598 600 602 604 606 608 61059.96

59.97

59.98

59.99

60

Time in Seconds since 04 - Jun - 2003 11:15:00.900

BCH timestamp advanced 0.9 second

Page 15

Modeshape Analysis to Determine Key Generators for Modeling & Control

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6x 10

-3

Colstrip

Ingledow

Williston

BCH timestamp advanced 0.9 second

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6x 10

-3

Scaled Compass Plot for mode 0.58377922 Hz

Colstrip

Ingledow

Williston

BCH timestamp advanced 0.9 second

Page 16

NERC Standards for Disturbance Monitoring, 1997

S1. Requirements for the installation of disturbance monitoring equipment (e.g., sequence-of-event, fault recording, and dynamic disturbance recording equipment) that is necessary to ensure data is available to determine system performance and the causes of system disturbances shall be established on a Regional basis.

S2. Requirements for providing disturbance monitoring data for the purpose of developing, maintaining, and updating transmission system models shall be established on a Regional basis.

Approved by Engineering Committee: July 8, 1997Approved by Board of Trustees: September 16, 1997

Page 17

WSCC Validation of Performance & Modeling -- Summary of Activities

• Extensive performance validation tests– June 7, 2000 (oscillatory dynamics)

– May 18, 2001 (frequency responsive reserves)

– Summer 2003 (Extensive mid-level probing with Pacific HVDC Intertie)

• Rigorous examination of benchmark disturbances & oscillation incidents– Breakups of summer 1996

– Alberta separations of summer 2000

– Colstrip loss 090601 (2085 MW)

– NW generation trip 100802 (2900 MW +1400 MW brake)

– Oscillation incidents during summer of 2003

– Other disturbances & anomalous behavior

• Special monitoring for generators & loads

• Model calibration logic integrated into GE stability program

Page 18

DOE/CERTS WAMS Outreach -- Accomplishments Since Project Start in FY2000

• Information Systems Support for– policy & planning for comprehensive monitoring of the western power system (WSCC WAMS)

– technology development and direct support for operation of WSCC WAMS (DSI Toolbox, related products)

– requirements & certification of phasor instruments

• Performance Validation Support for– planning and performing major tests of main grid dynamics

– analysis & evaluation of system performance during tests, disturbances, and general conditions

– comparative analysis of model response vs. recorded system behavior

– major enhancements to WECC planning models

– integration of related systems analysis technology, methods, and practices into the WSCC planning process

Page 19

Background on WAMS Outreach:The Wide Area Measurements (WAMS) Effort

• WAMS was initiated as a Federal project by the US Department of Energy (DOE) to reinforce power system reliability during the transition to a deregulated electricity market.

• Builds upon DOE information technology & infrastructure pioneered by the Federal utilities with support by DOE laboratories and others.

• Very strong ties to assets management visions such as the Intelligent Energy System (IES) and the EPRI Flexible AC Transmission System (FACTS) program.

• Now receives critical DOE support via CERTS. Selected aspects of the WAMS effort are supported by stakeholders.

Page 20

Model Validation with Event Playback Application to Colstrip Plant

Henry Huang, Ph.DPacific Northwest National Laboratory

WECC Modeling and Validation Work Group MeetingSan Francisco, January 13-14, 2004

Recent Results for Hybrid Modeling in the WECC

Some Details of WECC

Model Validation

(RESERVE SLIDES FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS)

Page 22

020818 - Drop of Navajo units #2 & #3 (1500 MW )

1.0825

1.0835

1.0845

1.0855

1.0865

1.0875

1.0885

1.0895

1.0905

1.0915

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40t (s)

V (

p.u

.)

V_ref V_sim

-180

-130

-80

-30

20

70

120

170

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

t (s)

An

gle

(d

eg)

Ang_ref Ang_simPlots of V, : measured records

are successfully repeated at the boundary bus.

Plot of f: Generators’ speeds well match the recorded bus frequency.

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40t (s)

f (H

z)

f_ref f3_sim f4_sim

Page 23

-790

-785

-780

-775

-770

-765

-760

-755

-750

-745

-740

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

t (s)

P (

MW

)

P3_ref P3_sim

P4_ref P4_sim-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

t (s)

Q (

MW

)

Q3_ref Q3_sim

Q4_ref Q4_sim

Note 1. Measured P are similar for both G3 and G4, and P3_sim matches the measured record fairly well. However, the simulated P are different, even though the models and parameters are the same.

Note 2. Measured Q are very different for G3 and G4. This indicates their excitation models and/or parameters should NOT be same. The simulated Q match each other but not the measurements.

020818 - Drop of Navajo units #2 & #3 (1500 MW )

Page 24

Good Information: The key to managing complexity

Data generationenvironments

Planningenvironments

Operationalenvironments

modeled response

Power System Monitors(PSMs)

Power SystemModeling

Codes

Central DataSystems Planning

&

Analysis

Real TimeOperations

MethodsDevelopment

tools & practices

information

modeled response

Power System Monitors(PSMs)

Power SystemModeling

Codes

Central DataSystems

Central DataSystems Planning

&

Analysis

Real TimeOperations

MethodsDevelopment

MethodsDevelopment

tools & practices

information

Page 25

Validation of System Performance & Modeling

ModelData

EigenvalueAnalysis

Time-domainSimulation

MeasurementsData

DISTURBANCE

EnhancedResources& Practices

x

x

o

o

x

jEigenshape

A ssessm ent o f

P ow er System

P erform an ce

Time/FrequencyAnalysis

(DSI Toolbox)

Model Development

System Tests & Measurements

Model-Based Analysis

Measurement-Based Analysis

Page 26

Ringdown check on model quality

Time in Seconds

Test pulse

Excessive damping

Bad initialization

Powerflow offset

Unstable machine somewhere

Page 27

Key Benchmark for WECC Validation: Malin Ringdown Signatures for Dynamic Brake Insertions

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Brake041897

Brake041698

Brake042500B

Brake120299

Brake041000

Brake042799

RAS Brake 112903

Brake 050703

Brake #1,060700

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

20

180

120

Au

tos

pe

ctr

um

in

dB

Frequency in Hertz

(signals vertically offset for clarity. jfh)

AlbertaMode

N-SMode

Page 28

Comparing Models Against Historical Records for Malin Ringdown Signatures

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

30

40

50

60

70

8

90

10

P 5: MALN Round Mountain 1 Current MWcaseID=June7_BrakeSigsA casetime=03/07/01_09:24:36

Brake insertion at 1315 PDT on June 7, 2000(data collected on Dittmer PDC)

0

0Measured response

Operating case 4

Operating case 1

Kemano mode?

Alberta

N-S

Colstrip mode?

Au

tos

pe

ctr

um

in

dB

Frequency in Hertz

Page 29

Major control systems require,

and can provide, highly

competent windows into power

system dynamics .

Information Value of Major Control Systems

Page 30

A fully realistic model for wide area oscillation dynamics must, for all important modes, replicate and predict actual system behavior in the following respects:

a) Mode parameters (eigenvalues). Usually characterized in terms of frequency and damping.

b) Mode shape (eigenvectors). Usually characterized by the relative phasing of generator swings, for each mode. As used here, mode shape also includes the relative strengths of generator swings.

c) Interaction paths. The lines, buses, and controllers through which generators exchange energy during oscillatory behavior.

d) Response to control. Modification of oscillatory behavior due to control action, including changes to network parameters and load characteristics.

Modeling Criteria for Oscillatory Dynamics