Writing and Testing GENQECU1 Model in PSS/E

— Presented at WECC MVWG Meeting

Sam Li, P. Eng.

Interconnection Planning
BC Hydro

November 2019
Driver for This Work

❑ The specification of GENQEC model has been approved in the

WECC MVWG Meeting August 2019.

❑ Previous work is on an individual-unit level. No system level

testing has been done.

❑ GENQEC model is not yet supported in any of the official

release of tools we use at BCH.

Need for a user-defined GENQECU1 model in PSS/E

2
 Scope of This Work

1. Write a PSS/E User Model — GENQECU1

2. Testing the Model in a SMIB Case

3. Testing the Model in the BCH Base Case

❑ Close-in faults

❑ Rotor angle stable & unstable cases

❑ Interarea oscillations

3
Writing a PSS/E User Model
for GENQECU1
 GENQECU1 Model Block Diagram

CONs Value Description

J 9.74 T'do
J+1 0.023 T"do
J+2 0.99 T'qo
J+3 0.035 T"qo
J+4 7.48 H
J+5 0 D
J+6 2.07 Xd
J+7 1.98 Xq
J+8 0.22 X'd
J+9 0.35 X'q
J+10 0.17 X"d
J+11 0.17 X"q
J+12 0.12 Xl
J+13 0.038 S1.0
J+14 0.104 S1.2
J+15 0.05 Kw

ICONs Value Description CONs

STATEs Value Description
M 1 Saturation Type: K Ψfd
0 – Exponential K+1 Ψ1d
1 – Scaled Quadratic
2 – Quadratic K+2 Ψ2q
K+3 Ψ1q
VARs Value Description K+4 ∆ω
L Internal VAR K+5 Angle (rad)
used for
saturation
calculation

5
 GENQECU1 Model Creation

Source File in *.for Format

Compile & Build DLL

6
 Implementation in PSS/E - Solution

What we wanted What is coded

Ra + j Xl Ra + j Xd” j (Xl - Xd”)

Zsorce

+ +
j ωФag j ωФag
- -

VTH

Norton Equivalence
in PSS/E
7
 Model Initialization — Simplified by GENQEC

Locate the Q axis is a key step in Initialization!

❑ GENTPJU1: Iteration required (guess θ -> correct -> retry…)

❑ GENQEC: direct calculation of rotor angle θ :

1. Calculate Air-Gap Flux (ψag) using Vt and It

2. Calculate Sat Fact and Xq-sat

3. Calculate Internal Voltage behind Xq-sat

8
Testing GENQECU1 in a Single-
Machine Infinite-Bus Case
Case 1: 526-MVA Unit with Static Exciter

MBASE = 526 MVA, PMAX = 500 MW

Static Exciter with ABB UNITROL 6800
Exciter Model: EXST1 (KA=340)

GENQEC:
GENTPJ:

• Manufacturer Design Data

• Manufacturer Design Data
• Kw = 0.05 (Typical)
• Kis = 0.08 (Typical)
• Sat Type = 1 (Scaled Quad)

To Ensure Fair Comparison — No Parameter Tweaking !

Case 1: 526-MVA Unit Responding to -9% VREF
Step (Full Speed No Load)
— Measured ---- Sim (GENQEC) ---- Sim (GENTPJ)

1.06
Key Findings:
1.04
ETERM (PU)

1.02
1 •Vt GENQEC model works better
0.98
ETRMwith
20[GMSvendor
13.8 16.000]1 data.
0.96
0.94 ETRM 20[GMS 13.8 16.000]1
0.92
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
• GENTPJ trends to be more
1.6
1.4
Axis Title oscillatory (e.g. IFD).
1.2
IFD (PU)

1
0.8 IFD
0.6 IFD 20[GMS 13.8 16.000]1
0.4
IFD 20[GMS 13.8 16.000]1
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
4
2 Axis Title
0
EFLD (PU)

-2
-4
EFD
-6
-8 EFD 20[GMS 13.8 16.000]1
-10
EFD 20[GMS 13.8 16.000]1
-12
-14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
11
Time in Seconds
Testing GENQECU1 in
BCH/WECC Base Case
Case Setup – BCH/WECC Base Case

Share by Numbers Share by MBASE

GENTPJ GENROU Other GENTPJ GENROU Other
1% 2%

37% 46%

62% 52%

GENTPJU1 represents approx. 135 GVA generation.

13
Case Setup – Two Dynamic Data Sets

Set 1: Existing Data Set Set 2: Tester Data Set

❑ 1200+ GENROU ❑ 1200+ GENROU

❑ 2000+ GENTPJU1 ❑ 2000+ GENQECU1

Key Assumptions:

❑ If Kis is zero, set Kw=0; otherwise, set Kw=0.05

❑ Set X”q = X”d (sub-transient saliency not allowed)

14
Case 2: 83-MVA Hydro Unit
GENTPJU1 GENQECU1
MBASE = 83 MVA
PMAX = 75 MW
VRATED = 13.8 kV Vendor Data Vendor Data

Other models:
• EXST1
• COMP
• PSS2A Kis = 0.06 Kw = 0.05
• PIDGOV Sat Type = 1
(Scaled Quad)
Case 2: 83-MVA Hydro Unit Responding to
a 345 kV Line Fault
1.2 3.5

3
1

2.5
ETERM (PU)

0.8

IFLD (PU)
2
0.6
ETERM-BR2G5 XADIFD-BR2G5
1.5
ETERM-BR2G5 XADIFD-BR2G5
0.4
1

0.2 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.6 0.015
Time in Seconds Time in Seconds
PELEC (1PU=100 MVA)

1.4
0.01
1.2

SPEED (PU)
1 0.005

0.8
0
0.6 PELEC-BR2G5 SPD-BR2G5

-0.005PELEC-BR2G5 SPD-BR2G5
0.4

0.2
-0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.2 -0.015
Time in Seconds 0 1 2 3 4
1 30 Time in 5Seconds 6 7 8 9 10
QELEC (1PU=100 MVA)

0.9
20
0.8
0.7
Anlge (Deg)
10
0.6
0.5 0
QELEC-BR2G5 ANGLE-BR2G5
0.4
QELEC-BR2G5 ANGLE-BR2G5
0.3 -10

0.2
-20
0.1
0 -30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time in Seconds Time in Seconds

16
Case 2: Zoom-In View on IFD
GENQECU1/ GENROU : Sudden Change in IFD during S.C.
GENTPJU1: No Sudden Change in IFD during S.C.

3.5

2.5
IFLD (PU)

2
XADIFD-BR2G
1.5 XADIFD-BR2G

1 XADIFD-BR2G

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time in Seconds

17
Case 2: Difference in Field Current (IFD)

GENQECU1
GENTPJU1

GENTPJU1 has no feedback loop for stator

current (Id) to directly interact with the rotor
winding flux (E’).
Key Findings:

GENQEC & GENROU has a more

realistic representation of the
armature reaction effect.

18
Case 3: an 526 MVA Hydro Unit
GENTPJU1 GENQECU1
MBASE = 526 MVA
PMAX = 500 MW
VRATED = 13.8 kV Same Data

Other models:
• EXST1
• COMP
• PSS2A Kw = 0
• PIDGOV Sat Type = 1
(Scaled-Quad)
 Case 3A: 526-MVA Hydro Unit Responding to
a 4-Cycle Fault at Generator Terminal
5
1.2
4.5
1 4

0.8 3.5
ETERM (PU)

IFLD (PU)
3
0.6
2.5 XADIFD-REVG3
ETERM-REVG3
0.4 2 XADIFD-REVG3
ETERM-REVG3
1.5 XADIFD-REVG3
0.2 ETERM-REVG3
1
0 0.5
0
-0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0.008 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
9 Time in Seconds
Time in Seconds
PELEC (1PU=100 MVA)

8 0.006
7
0.004

SPEED (PU)
6
5 0.002
SPD-REVG3
4 PELEC-REVG3
0 SPD-REVG3
3 PELEC-REVG3
-0.002PELEC-REVG3 SPD-REVG3
2
1 -0.004
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 -0.006
-1
Time in Seconds 0 1 2 3 4 Time in 5Seconds 6 7 8 9 10
0.5 50
QELEC (1PU=100 MVA)

0 45
40
-0.5
Anlge (Deg)

35
-1
30
-1.5 QELEC-REVG3
25 ANGLE-REVG3
MW_ING_5L51
20 ANGLE-REVG3
-2
QELEC-REVG3 ANGLE-REVG3
15
-2.5
10
-3
5
-3.5 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time in Seconds Time in Seconds

20
Case 3B: 526-MVA Hydro Unit Responding to
a (N-1-1) Contingency

21
Case 3B: Influence of Generator Models
on Critical Clearing Time (CCT)

GENTPJU1: CCT = 3.8 cycles

GENQECU1: CCT = 4.2 cycles

GENROU: CCT = 4.2 cycles

Key Findings:

• Impact of generator models on CCT is not significant.

• GENTPJU1 seems a slightly more pessimistic model.

22
Case 3: Impact on Intertie Oscillations

Path 3 from BC-to-BPA

Pre-ctg flow: 3000 MW (N-S)
Case 3: 5L52 Line Fault
1.4

1.2
ING 500 Volt (PU)

0.8

0.6 VOLT_ING500
VOLT_ING500
0.4

0.2

-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3500
Time in Seconds

3000
5L51 MW

2500
MW_ING_5L51
2000 MW_ING_5L51

1500

1000 Key Findings:

50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time in Seconds
0

-50
• No obvious impact on damping
5L51 Mvar

-100

-150 MVAR_ING_5L51
MVAR_ING_5L51
-200

-250

-300

-350
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time in Seconds

24
Summary

Wrote a user-defined GENQECU1 model in PSS/E.

When compared with GENTPJ model

o GENQEC works better with vendor’s data
o Similar steady-state accuracy

When compared with GENROU model

o GENQEC retains similar dynamic performance,
o Representative of armature reaction

Key Observations in Stability Study:

o GENTPJU1 is slightly more pessimistic than GENQEC & GENROU.
o No obvious impact on damping of interarea oscillations

25
Acknowledgement

Quincy Wang (BC Hydro) for Strong Support to the Work

Liam Segarty (BC Hydro) for Supplying Example Data

26