Report Regarding Studies Conducted With Owner's Validated Data

7/27/2019 Report Regarding Studies Conducted With Owner's Validated Data

1/31

REPORT REGARDING STUDIES

CONDUCTED WITH THE OWNERS'VALIDATED DATA FOR THE

NEW WECC THERMAL TURBINE-

GOVERNOR MODELING

Les Pereira (Chair, GMTF)

Donald Davies (Chair, MDTF)

Shawn Patterson (Chair, M&VWG)

Dmitry Kosterev, BPA

Mark Willis, CAISO

Governor Modeling Task Force

WECC Modeling & Validation Work Group

February 28, 2003


2/31

2

Report Regarding Studies Conducted With the Owners' Validated Data for the

New WECC Thermal Turbine-Governor Modeling

Executive Summary and Recommendations

This report includes details of simulations performed with validated governor datasubmitted by generator owners for the new thermal governor model developed by the

Governor Modeling Task Force (GMTF). The Modeling & Validation Work Group

(M&VWG) and the Technical Studies Subcommittee (TSS) have previously approved thenew thermal governor model, which was developed using approximated data.

The studies reported herein were conducted using the new dynamic database populated

with validated governor data from the owners. Study results clearly indicate that the newthermal governor model is more accurate than the existing thermal governor models. It is

not intended that these studies reproduce in exact detail the events themselves1. Rather it

is the intent of these studies to demonstrate that the new thermal governor model is

comparatively more accurate than the existing model as demonstrated by simulations forrandom and staged major generator trip disturbances. In these simulations, the existing

governor model has been seen to be consistently optimistic. The new model exhibits abetter match to frequency response, flows, and oscillations than with the existing

governor model. Most of the events studied occurred at WECC system loads of 90000 to

110000 MW. With higher load levels and flows, it is reasonable to expect that therelative improvement in results with the new model as compared to the old model will

become even more apparent.

While the new governor modeling is clearly more accurate than the existing modeling,the GMTF will continue its work to refine the governor modeling in the simulation of

responses after 20 to 30 seconds when other effects such as AGC need to be addressed.

Generator owners will likely refine their governor models as more disturbance data isobtained. Also, the introduction of Kaplan hydro turbine models and other modeling

improvements for both governors and exciters will improve simulation results. The need

for longer time simulations greater than 20 seconds has to be first established by theWECC. (An example would be the NERC requirements for frequency-responsive

reserves.) Modeling work will continue with criteria that includes more accurate

frequency response, generator pickup, oscillations and intertie flows.

Recommendations

Based on studies performed with validated governor data submitted by generator ownersfor the new thermal governor model, the GMTF recommends the use of the new thermal

governor model with generator owners new data in lieu of the existing model and

existing data for WECC studies for simulations up to 20 seconds.

1 This can only be possible if every generating unit and every load is accurately modeled dynamically, and

system voltages and flows are accurately initialized.


3/31

3

Background

The new thermal governor model was developed using assumed data based on theMay18, 2001 trip test. The GMTF presented the model to WECC in July 2002 after

extensive studies and a validation effort that included the May 18, 2001 Northwest and

Hoover generator trip tests, the June 7, 2000 trip test, and verification simulations ofthree other major system disturbances. A comprehensive report titled New Thermal

Turbine-Governor Modeling for the WECC (Report) was issued by the GMTF and is

available on the WECC web-site2.

The model was approved by the MVWG at Roseville on July 16, 2002 and was approved

by the TSS at Estes Park on August 28, 2002. These approvals were essentially for the

model, i.e. the ggov1 model and the load controller lcfb1 for the ieeeg1 thermal governormodel, with the understanding that validated data would be obtained from the generator

owners before use of the model by the WECC members for studies. Additionally,

presentations were made at the PCC, RITF and OSS at meetings between June and

October 2002. There was a wide distribution of the Report and the presentations at thevarious meetings.

Current WECC policy requires that all generation owners submit appropriate computer

model data to represent their machines and associated equipment along with recorded

data that validates the accuracy of the computer models. It was therefore required thatthe data for the new models be validated by comparing actual measured electrical power

output response data of each unit to the computer modeled simulation response.

To introduce the new governor model to owners and describe the requirements forobtaining validated data, a workshop was conducted by the GMTF at Salt Lake City on

August 19-20, 2002. To facilitate obtaining validated data for the new model from the

owners, the GMTF proposed the formation of a Model Data Task Force (MDTF) at thePCC meeting on October 25, 2002. The MDTF was formed with members comprising

generator owners, and control area and interconnection service provider representatives 3.

Guidelines for the selection and validation of the owner's governor model were published

by the GMTF and have been included in the Report. To assist in the selection of the

parameters of the new model, computer programs were developed that simulated the

governor performance for a frequency profile input of the May 18, 2001 test, and otherevents. These computer programs were available for use with the GE stability program.

Additionally, for those owners who did not have the GE program or access to it, a

spreadsheet simulation tool, based on a linearized version of a Matlab-Simulink programof the ggov1 model, was developed using the modeling technique of frequency profile

input of the May 18, 2001 test and the October 8, 2002 event. A PTI version of the

ggov1 model was also developed.

2 The reference url is http://www.wecc.biz/committees/PCC/TSS/MVWG/thermalgovernor.html3 A list of the MDTF members is given in Appendix 1.


4/31

4

The MDTF conducted an intensive program of assistance, including workshop meetings

and conference calls, to assist owners to select and validate their governor models by

January 15th 2003. Over 90% of generator owners responded with data for over 800generators. The MDTF has already released the 2003 Spring & Summer Operating cases

to WECC members with the new data.

MDTF Details of Validated Data Submittal from the Owners

The new governor modeling data were compiled from submittals by generator ownersand the Model Data Task Force members. The following statistics demonstrate the

significant effort that occurred. There are 828 thermal units generating at least 10 MW in

the 2003 HS4 operating case. Generator owners or control area/interconnection service

providers submitted information regarding new governor modeling for 765 of thosethermal units. The dynamic data collected by the MDTF includes 132 units with load

controllers (that are not base loaded) and 590 base-loaded units. For governors and

exciters that were not previously modeled, there are 400 new governor models and 100

new exciter models. The new governor models include 50 new hydro governor models.

The MDTF was formed by a November 7, 2002 letter from the PCC chair. There wasparticipation from Control Area Operators, Transmission Interconnection Service

Providers, Generator Owners, and the Governor Modeling Task Force members.

Although generator owners are responsible to provide model data for their generators, thetask force provides experts to assist generator owners in understanding what is needed for

simulation models and how to obtain and provide the needed information. The purpose

of the task force is to assist the generator owners as necessary so they can succeed in

providing the needed model data. The initial focus of the task force was to assist ownersto provide data for the new governor model. In the future, focus will be placed upon

improving data for other models such as the generator overexcitation limiters, adding

governor and exciter data for unmodeled generators, and improving load modeling data.

To complete the initial focus on populating data for new governor model by January 15,

2003 the task force conducted two meetings and several conference calls. The purpose ofthese meetings and calls was to train MDTF members regarding new governor model

data needs and to provide support to MDTF members so they could provide assistance to

the generator owners. Another important function of the MDTF task force is to provide

an avenue for identification of and communication with the generator ownersinterconnected to their systems.

Governor Model Studies of Generator Disturbances

Recordings of system frequency for the following underfrequency events were made

available from the WECC website and were used for governor data validation by theowners.

May 18, 2001 tests (NW and Hoover trips) - 1250 MW and 750 MW

respectively (10:40 and 10:20 PDT)


5/31

5

July 27, 2002 (19:19 PDT), Four Corners trip (2065 MW)

July 15, 2002 (13:04 and 15:12 PDT), NW RAS trip (2350 MW)

July 17, 2002 (15:41 PDT), NW RAS trip (2350 MW)

June 6, 2002 (13:47 PDT), PDCI loss (2800 MW)

October 8, 2002 (15.21 PDT), NW RAS (2900 MW)

Simulation studies of some of these events have been included in this report.

Results Comparison

The following sections of the report includes plots depicting a comparison in resultsbetween:

1) the present data files,2) the data files with the base load flag, load controller, and other changes submitted to

the MDTF, and

3) the actual system performance.

Note that the results with the new data files are significantly closer to the system

performance than are those with the old data files. Plots of flow changes on paths,frequency levels, and voltages were reviewed. Representative plots are included in the

following discussion.

The following table summarizes generation represented on line and frequency responsivefor the simulations (not base loaded, with active governors):

Event date PGEN TotalFrequencyresponsive PGEN

May 18, 2001 92168 MW 51149 MW

June 6, 2002 110202 MW 63325 MW

July 17, 2002 119713 MW 68415 MW

July 27, 2002 102174 MW 51705 MW

October 8, 2002 103435 MW 54712 MW

May 18, 2001 System Test NW RAS (1250 MW) Trip

On May 18, 2001, a WECC system test was performed. Separate tests were conductedincluding 1) Chief Joseph Brake insertion, 2) tripping of Hoover units (750 MW), and 3)

tripping of Northwest units (1250 MW). Notably, AGC was turned off during the tests tocapture the effect of the governors. Plots are included here for tripping of the Northwestgenerator units.

The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included thefollowing records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains

the time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow:


6/31

6

Switching Codes -

TG - Trip generator

TG 0.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "I "

TG 0.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "J "

TG 0.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "K "TG 0.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "M "

TG 0.0 "COULEE20" 15.0 "1 "

TG 0.0 "GMS G10 " 13.8 "1 "

Plots depicting frequency at Malin and flow on Malin-Round Mountain 500 kV line 1 are

included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green

provides actual traces from system monitors during the disturbance.

Effect of Governor Blocking

The M&VWG recommendation for the last several years has been to represent all

thermal generators larger than 150 MW that are loaded more than 90% with blockedgovernors for simulations. The new governor modeling replaces that approximation with

a more accurate representation of the individual generators. The following plots compareresults for the May 18 northwest generator trip between a representation with the old

M&VWG recommendation and the new representation. The turquoise plot provides

results for the simulation with no governor blocking.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.84

59.86

59.88

59.9

59.92

59.94

59.96

59.98

60

60.02MAY 18, 2001 1250 MW NW TRIP Malin Frequency

Time in Seconds

Frequency(Hz)

May 18th test recording

New thermal governor model

Existing governor model- without OCSG "blocking'- with OCSG 'blocking'


7/31

7

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Time in secs

Malin-RdMt#1Lineflow,

MW

May 18th 2001 NW 1250 MW Trip Test



Existing governor model- without OCSG "blocking'- with OCSG 'blocking'

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.085

1.09

1.095

1.1MAY 18, 2001 NWTRIP Malin Voltage dip

Time in Seconds

MalinVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.01

to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is alsooffset to facilitate comparison



Existing governor model

- without blocking- with recommended blocking


8/31

8

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

995

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025

1030

1035MAY 18, 2001 NWTRIP Cols-Brdvw flow

Time in Seconds

Cols-BrdvwFlow(MW)

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +40 to matchinitial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate

comparison.

Esisting governor model- without blocking

- with recommended blocking


May 18 test record

May 18, 2001 System Test Hoover (750 MW) Trip

On May 18, 2001, a WECC system test was performed. Separate tests were conductedincluding 1) Chief Joseph Brake insertion, 2) tripping of Hoover (750 MW) units, and 3)

tripping of Northwest (1250 MW) units. Plots are included here for tripping of the

Hoover generator units.

The switch deck used to perform the simulation with the alldyns.p epcl included the

following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column containsthe time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow:

Switching Codes -TG - Trip generator

TG 0.0 "HOVRA1A2" 16.5 "A1"

TG 0.0 "HOOVERA6" 16.5 "1 "TG 0.0 "HOOVERA7" 16.5 "1 "

TG 0.0 "HOVRN1N2" 16.5 "N2"TG 0.0 "HOVRN3N4" 16.5 "N3"TG 0.0 "HOVRN3N4" 16.5 "N4"

TG 0.0 "HOVRN5N6" 16.5 "N5"

Plots depicting frequency at Malin and flow on Malin-Round Mountain 500 kV line 1 are


provides actual traces from system monitors during the disturbance.


9/31

9

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.9

59.92

59.94

59.96

59.98

60

60.02MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Malin Frequency dip

Time in Seconds

Frequency(Hz)

Note: The simulated frequency is offset

by +0.01 to match initial actual frequency.Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.

May 18 test recording

Present governor model

New governor model

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Mln-RM flow

Time in Seconds

Malin-RM

Flow(MW)

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +20 tomatch initial actual flow. Initial time is also offset

to facilitate comparison.


10/31

10

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.09

1.091

1.092

1.093

1.094

1.095

1.096

1.097

1.098

1.099

1.1MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Malin Voltage

Time in Seconds

MalinVoltage(pu)

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

950

960

970

980

990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050MAY 18, 2001 Hoover trip Clstp-Brdvw flow

Time in Seconds

Clstp-BrdvwFlow(MW)


11/31

11

June 6, 2002 NW RAS operation

On June 6, 2002, the PDCI tripped, first one pole and then the other followed by

operation of the NW generator tripping RAS.


following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column containsthe time the switching occurred in cycles, and bus names, kV, unit ids, etc follow:

Switching Codes -DB - Delete bus

DL - Delete line

DDC - Delete DC line

TG - Trip generator

FL - Fault line

CC - comment

MBS - Modify shunt

CC DROP PDCI POLE 3

CCDDC 0.0 "CELILO3P" 500. "SYLMAR3P" 500.

DB 0.0 "CELILO1 " 500.

DB 0.0 "CELILO3 " 230.

DB 0.0 "SYLMAR1 " 230.

DB 0.0 "SYLMAR3 " 230.

CCCC AT 12.0 CYCLES INSERT FORT ROCK SERIES CAPS

CC

RC 12.0 "CAPTJACK" 500. "GRIZZLY " 500. "1 " 4

RC 12.0 "GRIZZLY " 500. "MALIN " 500. "1 " 4

RC 12.0 "PONDROSA" 500. "SUMMER L" 500. "1 " 4

CC

CC AT 90.0 CYCLES INSERT BOTH SHUNT CAPS AT MALIN 500CC

MBS 90.0 "MALIN " 500. "c1" "R"

MBS 90.0 "MALIN " 500. "c2" "R"CC

CC AT 12.45 SECONDS (747 CYCLES) DROP PDCI POLE 4

CC

DDC 747.0 "CELILO4P" 500. "SYLMAR4P" 500.

DB 747.0 "CELILO2 " 500.

DB 747.0 "CELILO4 " 230.

DB 747.0 "SYLMAR2 " 230.

DB 747.0 "SYLMAR4 " 230.CC

CC AT 16.85 SECONDS (1011 CYCLES) DROP FOLLOWING GEN

CC AT CHIEF JOSEPH, GRAND COULEE AND MCNARY

CC (CHIEF JO = 1735 MW, COULEE = 500 MW, MCNARY = 300 MW)

CC

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "I "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "J "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "K "TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "M "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "N "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O "


12/31

12

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T "TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "1 "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "2 "TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "3 "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "D "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "E "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "F "

TG 1011.0 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "G "

TG 1011.0 "COULEE14" 13.8 "1 "TG 1011.0 "COULEE15" 13.8 "1 "

TG 1011.0 "COULEE16" 13.8 "1 "

TG 1011.0 "COULEE17" 13.8 "1 "

TG 1011.0 "COULEE18" 13.8 "1 "

TG 1011.0 "MCNARY07" 13.8 "7 "

TG 1011.0 "MCNARY08" 13.8 "8 "

TG 1011.0 "MCNARY09" 13.8 "9 "

TG 1011.0 "MCNARY10" 13.8 "A "TG 1011.0 "MCNARY11" 13.8 "B "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are


provides traces from system monitors during the disturbance.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.65

59.7

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

60.05

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Malin Freq dip

Time in Seconds

MalinFrequency(Hz)

Note: The simulated frequency isoffset by -0.03 Hz to match initialactual frequency. Initial time is also

offset to facilitate comparison.


13/31

13

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Malin Volt dip

Time in Seconds

MalinVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by+0.02 pu to match actual initial voltages.Initial time is also offset to facilitate

comparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

220006 June 2002 PDCI Trip Mln-RM Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonMalin-RM

Line1


14/31

14

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

06 June 2002 PDCI Trip Midway-Vincent Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonMidway-VincentLine1


15/31

15

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

750

800

850

900

950

1000

105006 June 2002 PDCI Trip Palo Verde-Devers Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonPV-DeversLine

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +50 MWto match initial actual flow. Initial time is alsooffset t o facilitate comparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.99

1

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.06

1.07

1.0806 June 2002 PDCI Trip Vincent Volt dip

Time in Seconds

VincentVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offsetby -0.02 pu to match initial actual voltage.

Initial time is also offset to facilitatecomparison.


16/31

16

July 17, 2002 NW RAS operation

On July 17, 2002 the Northwest RAS operated tripping northwest generation.


following records. The switching code is in the first column, the second column contains


Switching Codes -DL - Delete line

TG - Trip generator

FL - Fault line

CC - comment

MBS - Modify shunt

DL 0.0 "MIN287 " 287 "KIT287 " 287 "1 "TG 0.0 "KMO G1 " 13.8 "1 "

TG 0.0 "KMO G2 " 13.8 "1 "

TG 0.0 "KMO G3 " 13.8 "1 "

CC fault p.u. clear clearCC imp. dist from to

CC time bus1_name bkv bus2_name bkv ckt sec r x from cl1 cl2

FL 276 "GRIZZLY " 500. "MALIN" 500. "1 " 1 0 0 1 279 280

CC 615 MW at Chief Joseph

TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O "

TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P "TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q "

TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R "

TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S "

TG 293 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T "

CC 324 MW at Chief Joseph */

TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "5 "

TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "6 "TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "7 "TG 293 "CHIEF J2" 13.8 "8 "

CC 386 MW at Chief Joseph */

TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "1 "

TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "2 "

TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "3 "

TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "D "

TG 293 "CHIEF JO" 13.8 "E "

CC 605 MW at Grand Coulee PH3 */TG 293 "COULEE21" 15.0 "1 "

CC 397 MW at Grand Coulee */TG 293 "COULEE06" 13.8 "1 "

TG 293 "COULEE07" 13.8 "1 "TG 293 "COULEE08" 13.8 "1 "

TG 293 "COULEE09" 13.8 "1 "

CC 170 MW at Wanapum */

TG 293 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "7 "

TG 293 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "9 "

CC 230 MW at Rocky Reach */TG 293 "ROCKY RH" 15.0 "7 "

TG 293 "RRCH8-11" 15.0 "A "

CC Insert Chief Joseph braking resistor */


17/31

17

MBS 293 "CHIEF JO" 230 "bB" "A" 14. 0.0

MBS 323 "CHIEF JO" 230 "bB" "D"

C

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths areincluded below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and green


-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.65

59.7

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

17July2002 NWRAS Malin Frequency dip

Time in Seconds

Frequency


18/31

18

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.06

1.07

1.08

1.09

1.1

1.11

1.1217July2002 NWRAS Malin Voltage dip

Time in Seconds

Voltage

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by 0.003to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also

offset to facilitate comparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

80017July2002 NWRAS Malin-Round Mountain Line 1 Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

Flow


19/31

19

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

40017July2002 NWRAS Midway-Vincent Line 1 Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

Flow

Note: The simulated flow is offset by -100 MWto match initial actual flow. Initial time is also

offset to facilitate comparison

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

100017July2002 NWRAS PV-Devers Line Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

Flow


20/31

20

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

56017July2002 NWRAS Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

Flow


21/31

21

July 27, 2002 Four Corners Plant trip

On July 27, 2002 all five units at the Four Corners generating station tripped.




Switching Codes -

TG - Trip generator

TG 0.0 "FCNGEN 1" 20.0 "1 "

TG 0.0 "FCNGEN 2" 20.0 "1 "TG 870. "FCNGEN 3" 20.0 "1 "

TG 870. "FCNGN4CC" 22.0 "4 "

TG 870. "FCNGN5CC" 22.0 "5 "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths areincluded below. In every plot, blue depicts the old model, red the new, and green


-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.8

59.82

59.84

59.86

59.88

59.9

59.92

59.94

59.96

59.98

60

27 July 2002 FCorn Trip Malin Freq dip

Time in Seconds

MalinFrequency(Hz)

Note: The simulated frequency is offset by -.015

to match initial actual frequency. Initial timeis also offset to facilitate comparison.


22/31

22

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.06

1.07

1.08

1.09

1.1

1.1127 July 2002 FCorn Trip Malin Volt dip

Time in Seconds

MalinVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.03 to matchinitial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitatecomparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

130027 July 2002 FCorn Trip Mln-RM Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonMalin-RMLine1


23/31

23

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

200

250

300

350

400

45027 July 2002 FCorn Trip Midway-Vincent Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonMidway-VincentLine1

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

80027 July 2002 FCorn Trip Palo Verde-Devers Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonPV-DeversLine

Note: The simulated flow is offset by -60 MW

to match initial actual flow. Initial time is alsooffset to facilitate comparison.


24/31

24

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

895

90027 July 2002 FCorn Trip Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonColstrip-BroadviewLine1

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.04

1.045

1.05

1.055

1.06

1.065

1.0727 July 2002 FCorn Trip Vincent Volt dip

Time in Seconds

VincentVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by -0.04to match initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offsetto facilitate comparison.


25/31

25

Oct 8, 2002 Line trip and NW RAS operation

On October 8, 2002 the Northwest RAS operated tripping northwest generation.




Switching Codes -

DL - Delete lineTG - Trip generator

CC - comment

DL 0.0 "PONDROSA" 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 "

DL 0.0 "MALIN " 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 "

DL 0.0 "BURNS " 500 "SUMMER L" 500 "1 "CC /* 677 MW at Chief Joseph */

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "N "

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "O "TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "P "

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "Q "

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "R "

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "S "

TG 17 "CHIEF J5" 13.8 "T "CC /* 520 MW at Grand Coulee */

TG 17 "COULEE01" 13.8 "1 "TG 17 "COULEE02" 13.8 "1 "

TG 17 "COULEE03" 13.8 "1 "

TG 17 "COULEE04" 13.8 "1 "

TG 17 "COULEE05" 13.8 "1 "

CC /* 307 MW at Grand Coulee */

TG 17 "COULEE06" 13.8 "1 "

TG 17 "COULEE07" 13.8 "1 "

TG 17 "COULEE08" 13.8 "1 "CC /* 490 MW at Grand Coulee #20 */

TG 17 "COULEE20" 15.0 "1 "

CC /* 551 MW at Grand Coulee #24 */

TG 17 "COULEE24" 15.0 "1 "

CC /* 167 MW at Wanapum */

TG 17 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "7 "

TG 17 "WANAPUM2" 13.8 "A "

CC /* 196 MW at Rocky Reach */TG 17 "ROCKY RH" 15.0 "7 "

TG 17 "RRCH8-11" 15.0 "B "

Plots depicting frequency and voltage at Malin and flows on several significant paths are

included below. In every plot, blue depicts the present model, red the new, and greenprovides traces from system monitors during the disturbance. Some of the plots below

also include a turquoise trace with PPSM monitor data. The other actual data (green) in

this report is from the PMU monitors.


26/31

26

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

59.6

59.65

59.7

59.75

59.8

59.85

59.9

59.95

60

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Malin Freq dip

Time in Seconds

MalinFrequency(Hz)

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.06

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

8 Oct 2002 NWRas Malin Volt dip

Time in Seconds

MalinVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by +.01 t omatch initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offsetto facilitate comparison.


27/31

27

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

11008 Oct 2002 NWRas Mln-RM Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonMalin-RMLine1

Note: The simulated flow is offset by -20 to matchinitial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate

comparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

14008 Oct 2002 NWRas Palo Verde-Devers Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonPV-DeversLine

Note: The simulated flow is offset by -20 to match initial

actual flow. Initial time is also offset to facilitate comparison.


28/31

28

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

880

900

920

940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

10808 Oct 2002 NWRas Colstrip-Broadview Line 1 Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonColstrip-BroadviewLine1

Note: The simulated flow is offset by +30 to matchinitial actual flow. Initial time is also offset to

facilitate comparison.

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.025

1.03

1.035

1.04

1.045

1.05

1.055

1.06

1.065

1.078 Oct 2002 NWRas Vincent Volt dip

Time in Seconds

VincentVoltage(pu)

Note: The simulated voltage is offset by -0.015 to match

initial actual voltage. Initial time is also offset to facilitate

comparison.


29/31

29

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

10008 Oct 2002 NWRas Custer-Ingledow Line Flow

Time in Seconds

MW

FlowonCuster-IngledowLine

Note: The simulated flow is offset by -40 to matchinitial actual flow. Initial time is also offset tofacilitate comparison.


30/31

30

APPENDIX 1

MODEL DATA TASK FORCE (MDTF) PARTICIPANTS

Baj Agrawal APS

Jeffrey Scott AVAKai C Lee BCHA

Barry Francis BEPC

Dmitry Kosterev BPATXavier Baldwin BURB

Alan Roth CALP

Mario Lara CFE

Bert E. Hoffman CHPDMark Willis CISO

Romulo F Barreno DENA

Ben Supremo DENA

Jerry Kyle DOPDDavid Tovar EPE

Wayne Kunkel GCPDDavid Barrajas IID

Mark Hanson IPC

John (Gang-Kung) Hu LDWPMike Kramer MID

Robert Jenkins MIR

Les Pereira NCPA

Helena Ho NEVPMarc A. Kodis NRG

John Cummings NWMT

Craig Quist PACBill Hall PAC

Mike Okapal PAC

Ashok Agarwal PASASherman Chen PG&E

Jon Eric Thalman PG&E

Richard J. Goddard PGE

Kenneth Dillon PGEGeorge Nail PNM

Bob Johnson PSC

Tom Green PSCJoe Seabrook PSE

John Phillips PSE

Joseph W. Milton REINam Nguyen SCE

Fred Ojima SCL

Abbas Abed SDGE

Dilip Mahendra SMUD


31/31

31

Zeina Randall SPP

John Hernandez SRP

John Kehler TAAKenneth Peck TEP

Chris Shultz TPWR

Vince Leung TSGTShawn Patterson USBR

John Greenlaw WACM

Doug Smith WAPADonald Davies (Chair) WECC

Andy Schuetzinger

Documents

Report Regarding Studies Conducted With Owner's Validated Data