benchmark systems for electromagnetic transient …benchmark systems for electromagnetic transient...
TRANSCRIPT
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