PowerPoint PresentationGIC modeling: From the solar wind to power system impacts JL Gannon
Computational Physics, Inc.
NSF Hazards GMD Project
• NSF award 1520864, focus is on better understanding of GMD impacts on the power grid
• Interdisciplinary
• Strongly desire utility participation!
• One activity is the deployment of four magnetic and electric field monitors with one second resolution
• At Odessa TX, Univ. Illinois, two other TBD locations in US
Thank you: NSF, EarthScope, USGS, Carisma, McMac
NSF Project Team
Computational Physics, Inc. : Jennifer Gannon
Virginia Polytechnic University : Zhonghua Xu
Colorado School of Mines : Andrei Swidinsky, Stephen Cuttler
Advisors/Consultants : Chris Balch (NOAA-SWPC), David Boteler (NRCAN), Peter Fernberg, Michael Henderson (GICMagnetics)
GIC Impacts
Solar Wind
the solar wind drivers through direct system impacts.
Four project components: Geophysical Analysis,
Instrumentation, Predictive Studies, and System Modeling
Predictive Modeling
Two parallel projects: Virginia Tech and UIUC
1. Virginia Tech – Correlation studies between the solar wind and ground based magnetic field.
2. UIUC – Machine learning and advanced statistical techniques.
These independent projects complement and inform each other.
Predictive Modeling - UIUC
velocity from:
include:
• Geomagnetically induced current monitor
Routinely Measured
• Statistical Prediction Fills Measurement Record Gaps
• Currently available data is sparse • Sparse spatial coverage of magnetic field sensors
• Intense solar storms are rare
• Forecast geomagnetic storm impact by modulating geo- effective input to current conditions:
• Interplanetary magnetic field Bz • Earth axial tilt (season)
• Position within 11-year solar cycle • Storm intensity and other conditions
Solar wind and IMF
geomagnetic storms, for example
03-17.
ground.
magnetic field fluctuations vs.
sensors.
GIC Hazard and equipment
SHM 2: UIUC
SHM 3,4: TBD locations
Looking for utility (or other) partners for site 3 and 4, with
emphasis on filling operational gaps. Contact Jenn
Gannon (gannon@cpi.com) for more info.
1. Magnetic and electric field instruments
2. Installation will be on-site at utility partner location; ~100m from transformer assets.
3. Also performing secondary validation measurements at a very magnetically quiet site ~25
miles away; This will provide validation of measurements from primary installation, as well
as magnetotelluric (MT) information for conductivity models.
For access to this data, please contact Jennifer Gannon (gannon@cpi.com)
Potential issues:
1. We expect noise in the magnetic field time series due to proximity to transformers.
HydroQuebec has successfully placed magnetometers this close to substations, but it is not
for detailed or scientific level analysis. It is unknown how accurate the electric field
measurements will be this close to a substation.
2. There may be difficulties in the long-term deployment of electrodes in very dry locations.
For proper functioning and electrode contact with the soil, moisture is required. We will be
testing methods of maintaining proper conditions.
Geophysical Analysis Electric f eld maps and time series
Improving local accuracy for TPL-007-1 GIC analysis requirements
Electric f eld is estimated using magnetic f eld input and local conductivity estimates as input. Electric f eld and magnetic
f eld time series are calculated across the contiguous US and are presented as maps of electric f eld hazard. These can be
used for GIC hazard analysis at a particular locaton or to understand how GIC hazard varies across a region.
www.cpi.com/capabilities/gmd
Geophysical Analysis: Validation of Methods and Models
• How much does 3D conductivity contribute? Comparisons of electric field calculations using 1D, 2D and 3D conductivity models from increasingly complex geology, using historical magnetic storm data.
• Are the estimation methods for E equivalent? Comparisons of electric field calculation algorithms and methods (time domain, frequency domain, wavelet).
• Do estimates match reality? Validation using available and newly measured magnetic and electric field data.
System Models: Non-Uniform Electric Field Results
Contour
GICs
Results are for illustration only and not represent an actual GMD event
System Models: Geographic Data Views can Automatically Visualize Results
Airport
227.17Gaylord (CEC)
62. 32
55. 33
-46. 42
-203.05
-167.89 Chase
78. 96
159.76
-516.45
-199.76
Summerton
145.98 Lambton
-123.72
Dean
M arquet t e
Spaulding
Ricker t 17. 69
-95.03
-316.48 Tihar t
-28. 65Black River
Selkir k
-46. 62
Red Lake
M agpie Hydroelect r ic Generat ing St at ion
233.45
264.35
Quaker
-323.81Cody
Kip l ing
-60. 00
133.82
27. 59
Manic 3
249.29
Nipawin
-87.27
27. 91
-176.36
121.83
269.66
123.07
Cot eau Creek
M cAr t hur 30. 27
Chochrane Power
75. 76
-69. 18
Whit edog
-49. 08
N. Power
92.39
-90.00
-122.04
56. 55
25. 96
Rosser
-28. 38
M cPhillips
-19. 48 Ar lingt on -29. 87 Saguenay
385.17
-71. 98
W. H. Sherbrook
-104.63Edm ont on
Kir kland Lake Power
Calm Lake
-48. 06
Silver Falls
-84. 40
Rapide 2
-65. 94
Swift Current
62. 18
Riv. -Du-Loup
128.32
Wawa
268.91
Rapide-Des-Quinze
-193.75
-120.52
294.44
-573.42
-80. 16
-48. 36
177.68
Blaisdell
149.01 Syl Laskin
43. 80
Wilt on
-29. 77
Presque Isle
32. 47
480.55 21. 43
Winger Sub & Tower
Chalk River 27. 76
-48. 46
-78. 10
-16. 01
Laprair ie
-79. 65
Des Cantons
-83. 23
109.95
151.37
-113.10
Aqueduc -230.39
-153.59
Lanaudiere
-547.90
116.69
St. Lawrence
-430.55 Blackber r y 230/115 Kv Subst at ion
-370.84
Harvey
33. 81
Picker t
-39. 26
-26. 05
M oorhead - M HPSD
Shey enne
Be rl in
Cornell - UP 16. 70
M asonville 19. 98
-20. 18
Tower (WPSC)
-28. 12
Ar rowhead 230/115 Kv Subst at ion
-51. 87
Hiawatha
Farm er s Inn
M eaf ord -16. 31
St . Andre
-75. 57
M cNally
-24. 57
-241.36
Benton County
-54. 29
New Haven
-81. 42
Sist er Bay 17. 23Cr ivit z
36. 08 M enom inee
58. 36
Saco Valley
-61. 82
-20. 05
M or r is
86.20
Sherburne
-101.30
Holcom be -19. 71
Apple River 19. 76
Lit chf ield -32. 83
Aberdeen
Clair eville
-82. 32
Gardner Par k (Proposed)
Applet on -26. 76
52. 96
Teraulay
56. 43
Horner
-154.92
-160.99
-178.48
Pulliam
Cedar
Spr ing Creek
Kit chener
74. 04
Har r ison 17. 63
Wat er t own
Wreck Cove
43. 99
Sam sung
-49. 89
-97.11
- 27. 91 Horning
- 33. 47
Bellows Falls
-41. 89
Vansickle
122.10
Salisbury
Onslow
-111.62
Coleson Cove (TRPOIN)
24. 26
-25. 26
Lyon County
-25. 92
-59. 11
Vernon Rd (CVPS)
GL Wind 17. 87
Brookings
-169.77
Broadland
-36. 18
Edgeware 35. 01
Annapolis -26. 24
126.02
Coulee 21. 05
Deer f ield 5
Por t age
17. 65
97.73
Saukville
Prair ie Du Sac
-101.12
138.39
Surowiec
L ansing
Concord
-92.08Grangae
38. 64
-30. 25
Ger led
25. 98
-36. 28
206.99
-39. 23
Tur 30. 30
-53. 97
Lor
Eagle
128.90
43. 80
Rosco
47. 47
Avon Lake
-66. 05
Silver Lake
36. 76
Webst er
40. 69
W. Am esbury 19. 98
Elect r if arm 22. 09
Lit t le Sioux 32. 85
N. Lebanon -22. 09
Nor t h Kill
Sac -18. 67
M eyer
-76. 02
Byron (EXGEN)
Elr oy 18. 47
Nor t hwest
Cum ber land
-50. 10
My stic
M iddlet own Jct n. -39. 03
Crom by -16. 91
Chaf in -21. 36
-190.16
27. 90
140.07
Byber r y 25. 81
L St r eet 20. 75
Crawf ord (M IDGEN)
42. 83
18. 11
40. 41
77. 73
M cCook
61. 43
Bedford Pa rk
Fox
-30. 38
Twin Branch
33. 25
134.04
Ne lson
43. 10
M onona 17. 78
Face Rock 22. 99
Drager
Burnham
117.97
-53. 21
-95.03
Er ie Sout h
36. 33
-68. 43
Bedingt on
-73. 17
-97.12
-50. 69
-91.84
Gr innell
23. 28
Granit e
-60. 73
Read St . 18. 74
112.14
Pla inv i l le
117.62
-108.17
FRSQ
-56. 51 Dicker son
E. M oline
-126.57
Sewaren
M et uchen
71. 16
30. 60
54. 89
Cooper s Corner s
N. M eshoppen
68. 65
Rocky River (NEENERGY)
66. 22
Red Bank
42. 81
-53. 34
-41. 63 M or r isville -21. 37
Englisht own
21. 39
Ear lham
-47. 31
Freder icksburg -25. 04
86.36
24. 16
Bath County
Wood St .
50. 96
Mil lstone
North Anna
Ford
Reynolds
61. 43
Loganspor t -35. 21
Four River 21. 65
Bur lingt on (PSEGF)
-46. 12
36. 02
Bowline Point
Grays Fer r y Cogenerat ion Par t ner ship
76. 16
Passyunk
Low M oor
Norwa lk
Norwalk Harbor
Deepwat er (CONEC)
-63. 20
East view
65. 19
Huron 16. 16 Ont ar io 22. 65
Por t land (RRI)
Sout h Lynchburg
B. L. England Generat ing St at ion
60. 11
River side (CPS) 38. 37
Great Egg
44. 08
97.23
113.88
-362.63
Roseland 34. 23Whippany
NW 68t h & Holdrege
M ilf ord
62. 32
Tilt on
22. 11
Fall Creek
38. 77
Broadf ord
58. 64
- 55. 30
-53. 93
57. 52
Axt on
79. 03
At lant a
Vienna -34. 35
M ot ley
138t h St r eet
63. 38
-75. 20
72. 02
M eredosia -20. 06
Ocean Bay 17. 71
Dallm an 20. 24
Per son
-46. 76
Roxboro (CPLC)
-50. 86
29. 80
45. 15
Kansas
Pinnacle
Kincaid
-142.83
Pawnee
Sadler
Fair f ield
Phipps Bend (TVA)
Belews Creek -17. 78
Brunot I sland
92.51 Ar senal
187.28
Cham ois 19. 18
M it chell River
Neoga
Georget own -17. 39Taswell
Labadie
Sullivan
Collier
25. 31
N. Greensboro
Adam s
-25. 30
E. Durham
60. 90
Volunt eer
61. 25
-27. 38
Elbr idge
-24. 78
Pleasant Garden
84. 22
26. 78
Higby
Gr indst one 23. 67
M et hod 27. 89
Wak e
Osage (UNIEL)
-78. 46
M aywood -22. 72
-39. 73
Kingst on
-61. 48
Siler Cit y
26. 52
L e land Olds
-48. 56
Hardin Co.
-59. 13
31. 50
M ason
54. 36
-56. 15
77. 41
M ar shall (DUPC)
M organf ield
M ount Carm el 41. 16
Gibson (PSI)
M ar ion (SIPC) -20. 62
Turkey Hill
35. 79
West Gardner
-41. 76
Hat f ields Fer r y Power St at ion
-136.29
50. 87
-80. 98
Biscoe
68. 19
Taylor
-69. 37
40. 24
68. 16
Nant ahala -27. 44
-64. 80
Hiwassee 17. 78
-114.69
30. 09
Newpor t
-66. 05
17. 07
-93.74
M or ley 16. 09
Coosawat t e 17. 90 Car t er s 28. 87
Laurens 25. 62
Lit chf ield
223.73
West Nashville -17. 43
Essex Power Plant -36. 55
Plant Car l 15. 84
Sum m er -18. 15
Davidson
Dawsonville 17. 43
Rocky M ount ain
E. Cent er t on
61. 83
-27. 58 -16. 07
Walnut Ridge -16. 38
209.26
Lake M ur ray
Dyess
49. 64 Har r y D. M at t ison [Tont it own]
112.61
Bowen -211.53
S. Acwor t h-1 -21. 85
Conasauga
-88.77
Bet hlehem
-48. 92
Renf row
-41. 06
Nor cross 21. 11
-61. 07
Musk ogee
Klondike
I r v Sim m ons -16. 29
Spor t sm an -27. 66
Annist on
30. 55
48. 08
Chisho lm
Wallace Dam 23. 27
Madison
115.68
Tioga
-34. 42
Tat onga
40. 39
Nor t hwest -38. 44
Talbot Count y Energy
Rocky M ount
-16. 82
58. 49
Clint on -21. 66
Lake Cat her ine
Hot Spr ings
Goat Rock -18. 22
For t Randall
-21. 64
58. 53
90.76
Laur inburg 18. 17
Dequeen 20. 42
-45. 25 Lowndes -16. 29
Hugo (WEFA)
51. 78
Valliant OK
Healdt on
-25. 21
Or igin
-19. 28
Whit eville
32. 42
Indianola -19. 10
S. Bessem er
Red Bluf f
Hopkins
Pet t y
Leake -18. 71
-60. 73
Winnsboro
-77. 84
M eldr im -19. 97
M er idian NE -22. 40
Per r yville
Boulevard 18. 97
Diana -20. 57
Snowdoun 30. 55
Nor t h Am er icus -18. 59
Lakeover 18. 70
Alvin W. Vogt le
M ineola
-43. 20
Perdue
Rockhill 42. 28
Grand Gulf
- 51. 74
Gent lem an
Belleville
Opp
Concordia -25. 08
Rodem acher -18. 98
Thom asville 26. 84
Shady Oaks 18. 91
Bar r y (ALAP) -22. 38
M ill Cove
Avon Park 16. 04
Bit hlo 25. 54
Shady Hills -21. 96
Wilcox
Sheldon
Rivier a
53. 97
19. 67
Tenoroc
M iam i 20. 02
M ar t in (FLPL)
-65. 68
23. 40
-15. 89
-16. 77
Conesville
299.16
Bogalusa
-30. 56
Behrm an 20. 71
Willow Glen -16. 02
17. 83
-29. 70
So. BM T
Waver ly 15. 93
Sporn
92.50
32. 50 Am os
27. 54 Bellef ont e -23. 73
Zelda -16. 07
Gorgas -15. 94
Eddy Count y Int -40. 05
Ovals show
the substation
neutral GICs,
with size
ground)
Results are for illustration only and do not represent an actual GMD event
System Models: Wisconsin example
Earthscope impedance tensor
at one station.
impacts.
• Public data availability for hazard analysis
• Access to validation data
• Access to system models or test cases
• What does this really mean for the utilities and what can they do with the information?
Through this project, the following will be publicly available:
• Geophysical data from four SHM stations
• Results from validation efforts
Thank you.
Geophysical Analysis
Conductivity scaling factors derived from Earthscope data
System Models: GMD Synthetic Cases
• GMD software comparison is limited by the availability of public cases
• This is being address by a new ARPA-E project in which the goal is to create large-scale, geographic synthetic cases that can be freely distributed
• Below image shows a prototype 150 bus case
20