Modelling of The Power System of Gotland

MODELLING OF THE POWER SYSTEM OF GOTLAND IN
PSS/E WITH FOCUS ON HVDC LIGHT
Bild: ABB
Martin Brask
Master Thesis Report
XR-EE-ES 2008:006
Abstract
The purpose with this project is to develop a model of the whole power system of Gotland in
the power system simulation software PSS/E. A model of the whole power system of Gotland
has earlier been used in the power system simulation software Simpow but now there is a
need to develop a model in PSS/E.
In the power system of Gotland there are several components that need to be modelled such as
lines, loads, transformers, shunt impedances, synchronous machines, asynchronous machines,
an HVDC Classic link and an HVDC Light link. These components are modelled in the
Simpow model and needs to be converted to the PSS/E model. The aim is to develop a model
in PSS/E that is as equal as possible to the model in Simpow. Especially the HVDC Light link
at Gotland has been investigated in the project.
A problem with converting data from Simpow to PSS/E is that the models of several
components differ in Simpow and PSS/E. Lines and shunt impedances can be modelled in the
same way but the models for loads, transformers, synchronous machines, asynchronous
machines, the HVDC Classic link, and the HVDC Light link differ in Simpow and PSS/E.
The models in Simpow are converted to the models in PSS/E in an as equal way as possible.
The results in PSS/E are analyzed and compared with the Simpow model.
In the project we have also made a test of fault simulations in time-domain simulations in
PSS/E. The aim with this test is to verify the PSS/E calculations when a three-phase or a
single-phase fault is applied. The reason for that is that PSS/E only calculates using positive-
sequence components and therefore only is able to calculate exact during circumstances of
symmetrical loads and faults. The result shows that the calculations for both symmetrical and
unsymmetrical faults in PSS/E are correct concerning the positive-sequence components. A
drawback in PSS/E is, however, that we do not have any information concerning the negative-
and zero-sequence components, which results in that we cannot calculate the three phase-
quantities.
Sammanfattning
Syftet med detta projekt är att utveckla en modell av hela Gotlands elnät i
simuleringsprogrammet PSS/E. Tidigare har man använt en modell av hela Gotlands elnät i
simuleringsprogrammet Simpow men nu finns det även ett behov av att utveckla en modell i
PSS/E.
Flertalet komponenter i Gotlands elsystem behöver modelleras som exempelvis ledningar,

laster, transformatorer, shunt impedanser, synkronmaskiner, asynkronmaskiner, en klassisk
HVDC länk och en HVDC Light länk. Dessa komponenter är modellerade i modellen i
Simpow och behöver konverteras till modellen i PSS/E. Målet är att utveckla en modell i
PSS/E som är så lik modellen i Simpow som möjligt. Modellen av HVDC Light länken på
Gotland kommer att undersökas extra noga i detta projekt.
Ett problem med att konvertera data från Simpow till PSS/E är att modellerna av flertalet
komponenter skiljer sig från Simpow till PSS/E. Ledningar och shunt impedanser kan
modelleras på samma sätt i Simpow och PSS/E men modellerna av laster, transformatorer,
synkronmaskiner, asynkronmaskiner, den klassiska HVDC länken och HVDC Light länken
skiljer sig från Simpow till PSS/E. Modellerna i Simpow konverteras därför till modellen i
PSS/E på ett så likvärdigt sätt som möjligt. Resultatet i PSS/E analyseras och jämförs med
resultatet från Simpow.
I projektet har vi även gjort ett test av felsimuleringar i tidsdomänsimuleringar i PSS/E. Målet
med testet är att verifiera PSS/E:s beräkningar när ett trefasfel eller enfasfel simuleras.
Anledningen till detta är att PSS/E enbart utför beräkningar med plusföljdskomponenter och
därför enbart kan beräkna korrekt vid symmetriska fel och laster. Resultatet visar att
beräkningarna för både symmetriska och osymmetriska fel är korrekta beträffande
plusföljdskomponenterna. En nackdel i PSS/E är dock att vi inte har någon information
angående minusföljdskomponenterna och nollföljdskomponenterna vilket leder till att vi inte
kan beräkna trefasstorheterna.
Preface
This master thesis work was carried out at Vattenfall Research and Development AB and was
approved by the division of Electrical Power Systems at the school of Electrical Engineering
at the Royal Institute of Technology.
My supervisor at Vattenfall Research and Development AB was Jonas Persson. At KTH my

supervisor was Robert Eriksson and my examiner was Mehrdad Ghandhari.
I want to thank the following persons and companies;
• Jonas Persson for guidance, discussions, and availability for all my questions.
• Urban Axelsson for coordination of the project and discussions.
• Robert Eriksson for reviewing my report and comments.
• Mehrdad Ghandhari for coordination of the project and suggestions.
• Per-Erik Björklund for guidance and support.
• Vattenfall Research and Development AB for hosting my thesis work.
• ABB for letting me use their model of an HVDC Light link in PSS/E.
Table of Contents Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 The power system of Gotland 1
1.3 Purpose 3
1.4 The simulated case of Gotland 4
1.5 Problem 4
1.5.1 The HVDC Light link 4
1.6 Report structure 5
1.6.1 Chapter 2 6
1.6.2 Chapter 3 6
1.6.3 Chapter 4 6
1.6.4 Chapter 5 6
1.6.5 Chapter 6 6
1.6.6 Chapter 7 6
2 TEST OF FAULT SIMULATIONS IN PSS/E 7
2.1 Method 7
2.1.1 Initial test system 8
2.1.2 Final test system 9
2.1.3 The dynamic of the swing bus in PSS/E 9
2.1.4 The dynamic of the generator 10
2.1.5 Simulations of faults in PSS/E 11
2.1.6 Sequence components of the power line impedances 12
2.1.7 Sequence components of the generator impedance 13
2.2 Results 14
2.2.1 Power-flow simulation of the initial test system 14
2.2.2 Power-flow simulation of the final test system 15
2.2.3 Dynamic simulation without fault 16
2.2.4 Three-phase fault simulation 16
2.2.5 Single-phase fault simulation 21
2.3 Discussion about symmetrical components of voltages 30
2.4 Conclusions 32
3 POWER-FLOW SIMULATION OF GOTLAND 33
3.1 Setup 33
3.1.1 Grid structure 33
3.1.2 Transformers 35
3.1.3 Machines 37
3.1.4 Shunt impedances 37
3.1.5 Loads 37
3.1.6 “Standard PSS/E model” 41
3.1.7 “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” 45
3.1.8 Lines 46
3.1.9 The HVDC Classic link 46
3.2 Simulation 46
3.3 Conclusions 48
4 TEST OF THE DYNAMIC OF THE HVDC LIGHT LINK 51
4.1 Grid structure 51

4.2 Setup for the power-flow simulation 51
4.3 Setup for the dynamic simulations 52
4.3.1 The “Simpow model” 52
4.3.2 The “Standard PSS/E model” 53
4.3.3 “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” 54
4.4 Results 57
4.4.1 Power-flow calculation 57
4.4.2 Dynamic simulations 58
4.5 Conclusions 62
5 DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS OF GOTLAND 63
5.1 Setup 63
5.1.1 The HVDC Light link 63
5.1.2 The HVDC Classic link 63
5.1.3 Machines 63
5.1.4 Regulators 63
5.2 Setup of the loads 64
5.2.1 Voltage part 65
5.2.2 Frequency part 65
5.2.3 Example 66
5.3 Simulations 68
5.3.1 Basic simulation 68
5.3.2 Simulation with priority on active power in Simpow 75
5.3.3 Simulation with the default settings of the AC voltage regulators in
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” 76
5.3.4 Simulation of frequency regulation 78
5.4 Conclusions 78
6 CONCLUSIONS 81
6.1 Conclusions from the test of fault simulations in PSS/E 81

6.2 Conclusions from the simulations of Gotland 81
7 PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE WORK 85
8 REFERENCES 87
9 APPENDICES 89
9.1 Test of fault simulations in PSS/E 89

9.2 Power-flow simulation of Gotland 89
9.3 Test of the dynamic of the HVDC Light link 89
9.4 Dynamic simulations of Gotland 90
9.4.1 70 [kV] three-phase fault simulation 90
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Power systems are an important part of today’s society. A reliable electricity supply is
necessary for a large part of the society and a power cut can result in serious consequences.
To increase the reliability in the power system, reinforcements of the weakest parts of the grid
are needed. To locate the weaknesses in the power system, power system simulation software
are used. With a model of the power system, in a simulation software, we can locate the
weaknesses in the grid and investigate how different reinforcements should affect the power
system.
Simulation software are also used to investigate where new power plants are going to be built
and which capacity they can have. With a model of the power system, with the power plants
included, we can see how the power plants should affect the power system. We can also
investigate how different power plants should affect the power system and which part of the
power system that needs to be reinforced for different power plants.
1.2 The power system of Gotland

Gotland is an island located about 90 [km] east of the mainland of Sweden. The power system
of Gotland is isolated from the mainland except for an HVDC Classic link between Ygne
(close to Visby) at the island of Gotland and Västervik at the mainland of Sweden. Gotland
consists of voltage levels between 0.4 [kV] and 70 [kV] and there is also an HVDC Light link
installed between Bäcks (close to Visby) at the northern part of Gotland and Näs at the
southern part of Gotland, see Figure 1.2.1.
The largest loads in Gotland are the city Visby and the Cementa factory. The total power
consumption varies between 40 [MW] and 155 [MW]. The total electricity consumption for
one year is about 1 [TWh]. The power generation in Gotland consists today (December 14,
2007) mainly of 160 wind power plants. The wind power plants are located in the northern
part and in the southern part of the island with the largest wind farm situated in Näs (NAS),
see Figure 1.2.1. The maximum total power production from the wind power plants is 88.5
[MW] and the production for one year is about 200 [GWh], see GEAB Homepage [1]. The
HVDC Light link is installed to transmit power from the wind power plants in Näs to the
large load in Visby. In parallel with the HVDC Light link there is also a 70 [kV] AC power
line transmitting power from the south of Gotland to the load in Visby, see Figure 1.2.1.
In Gotland there is also a synchronous machine, which can produce up to 8 [MW], at the
Cementa factory and gas turbines are installed as reserve power plants in Slite. To get higher
inertia in the system, which results in a more stable grid, three synchronous machines are also
Page 1 (96)
installed without generation in Visby. It is necessary to have a rotating mass in the power
system of Gotland for the function of the HVDC Classic link.
A simplified scheme of thee 70 [kV] grid together with the HVDC Classic link and the HVDC
Light link is shown in Figure 1.2.1.
1.2
Figure 1.2.1 A simplified

ed scheme of the 70 [kV] grid at Gotland together with the HVDC Classic link
and the HVDC Light link.
Page 2 (96)
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this project is to develop a model of the whole power system of Gotland in the
power system simulation software PSS/E. A model of the whole power system of Gotland has
earlier been used in the power system simulation software Simpow but now there is a need to
develop a model in PSS/E.
In the power system of Gotland there are several components that need to be modelled such as
lines, loads, transformers, shunt impedances, synchronous machines, asynchronous machines,
an HVDC Classic link and an HVDC Light link. These components are modelled in the
Simpow model and needs to be converted to the PSS/E model. The aim is to develop a model
in PSS/E that is as equal as possible to the model in Simpow.
The focus of the project is the model of the HVDC Light link between Bäcks and Näs at
Gotland, see Figure 1.2.1. The model of the HVDC Light link in Simpow is detailed and
corresponds to the existing control system of the HVDC Light link at Gotland. In PSS/E there
are the following two models that we can choose between;
• The standard model of an HVDC Light link in PSS/E called “Voltage Source
Converter (VSC) Dc Line Data” in the power-flow setup and “VSCDCT” in the
dynamic setup, see PSS/E-manual [2], POM, 4-25 and PSS/E-manual [2], POM, L-41.
• ABB’s model of an HVDC Light link “HVDC Light Open model Version 1.1.3-3”
which can be imported into PSS/E, see Björklund [3].
In the rest of the report these models are called as following:
• The model of the HVDC Light link in Simpow is called “Simpow model”.
• The standard model of the HVDC Light link in PSS/E, called “Voltage Source
Converter (VSC) Dc Line Data” in the power-flow setup and “VSCDCT” in the
dynamic setup, is called “Standard PSS/E model”.
• ABB’s model of the HVDC Light link in PSS/E “HVDC Light Open model Version
1.1.3-3” is called “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
The “Standard PSS/E model” is based on version 0 of “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” and is not
recommended to be used by ABB, see Björklund [3], p.4 and Björklund [4]. “ABB’s Open
PSS/E model” is delivered together with their sold HVDC Light links today (March 13, 2008)
and is verified by comparison with identical test cases in PSCAD/EMTDC, see Björklund [3],
p.1. By comparing the two models in PSS/E with the model in Simpow we can investigate
how reliable the models are in PSS/E, concerning the HVDC Light link on Gotland.
In the project we start with a test of fault simulations in time-domain simulations in PSS/E.
The aim with this test is to verify the PSS/E calculations when a three-phase or a single-phase
fault is applied. The reason for that is that PSS/E only calculates using positive-sequence
components and therefore only is able to calculate exact during circumstances of symmetrical
loads and faults.
Page 3 (96)
1.4 The simulated case of Gotland
The studied model of the power system of Gotland in Simpow is a high load case and the total
power consumption is 155 [MW]. The 0.4 [kV] voltage level in the power system of Gotland
is not modelled and all loads are therefore modelled at the 10 [kV] voltage level.
The power production in the model is at its maximum level and the total power production
from the asynchronous machines (wind power plants) is 96 [MW]. One synchronous machine
is also producing 8 [MW] in the model.
The HVDC Light link in the model is transmitting 20 [MW] from Näs to Bäcks at Gotland
and the HVDC Classic link is transmitting 54 [MW] from the mainland of Sweden to Ygne at
Gotland, see Figure 1.2.1.
1.5 Problem
A problem with converting data from Simpow to PSS/E is that the models of several
components differ in Simpow and PSS/E. Lines and shunt impedances can be modelled in the
same way in Simpow and PSS/E but the models for loads, transformers, synchronous
machines, asynchronous machines, the HVDC Classic link, and the HVDC Light link differ in
Simpow and PSS/E and have to be treated with accuracy. The models in Simpow need to be
converted to the models in PSS/E in an as equal way as possible.
1.5.1 The HVDC Light link
The HVDC Light link consists of two AC/DC converters, two filters, two transformers, and
two DC cables, see Figure 1.5.1.
Figure 1.5.1 The HVDC Light link.
The converter in Näs controls the AC voltage on the AC-side in Näs and the active power
drawn from the 70 [kV] grid. The inverter in Bäcks controls the DC voltage on the DC cables
and the AC voltage on the AC-side in Bäcks. The two filters and the two transformers are not
included in the models of the HVDC Light link and have to be modelled separately both in
Simpow and in PSS/E.
Page 4 (96)
In the power-flow setup the “Simpow model” consists of two PWM converters and one DC
cable (this DC cable is representing the two DC cables in the HVDC Light link at Gotland).
The “Standard PSS/E model” consists of two voltage source converters and one DC cable
while “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” consists of two synchronous machines. We need to
investigate how the two synchronous machines in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” affect the
power-flow setup and if the differences between the three models affect the power-flow
simulation.
In the dynamic setup, the “Simpow model” includes two AC voltage regulators, one DC
voltage regulator, and one active power regulator. The active power regulator controls the
active power on the power line between Näs (NAS) and Stenbro (STEN), see Figure 1.2.1.
Both models in PSS/E include an active power regulator but we cannot control the active
power on a specific power line with any of the PSS/E models. All regulators in Simpow have
PI-regulator characteristic except for one special case; when the DC current becomes too
high, then a temporary blocking is included in the “Simpow model”, see Björklund [4]. The
“Simpow model” also includes a transient response, when the controlled AC voltages become
lower than 0.8 [p.u.], which results in that the reactive power output becomes 90 [%] of its
maximum value within 50 [ms], see Axelsson [5]. The transient response and the temporary
blocking are not included in any of the PSS/E models.
The “Standard PSS/E model” includes in the dynamic setup two AC voltage regulators and
one active power regulator. All regulators have PI-regulator characteristic but are not as
detailed as the regulators are in Simpow. Whether a DC voltage regulator is included in the
model is not stated in the manual but there are no parameters that can be chosen for a DC
voltage regulator in the model, see PSS/E-manual [2], POM, L-41.
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” includes two AC voltage regulators, one DC voltage regulator,
and one active power regulator in the dynamic setup. As for the “Standard PSS/E model” all
regulators have PI-regulator characteristic but are not as detailed as the regulators are in
Simpow. “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” is delivered with the source code, which results in that
we are able to make changes of parameters inside the code.
The task here is to investigate if any of the models in PSS/E can be used to simulate the
HVDC Light link at Gotland.
1.6 Report structure

The report is structured as shown below.
Page 5 (96)
1.6.1 Chapter 2
Chapter 2 contains the test of fault simulations in PSS/E.
1.6.2 Chapter 3
Chapter 3 contains the power-flow simulation of Gotland. The models of the HVDC Light
link in PSS/E are described in section 3.1.6 and section 3.1.7.
1.6.3 Chapter 4
Chapter 4 contains a test of the dynamic of the HVDC Light link. Both the “Standard PSS/E
model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” are included and compared with the “Simpow
model”.
1.6.4 Chapter 5
Chapter 5 contains dynamic simulations of Gotland. The results from the two models in
PSS/E are compared with the results from the model in Simpow.
1.6.5 Chapter 6
Chapter 6 contains conclusions from both the power-flow simulation and the dynamic
simulations.
1.6.6 Chapter 7
Chapter 7 contains proposal for future work.
Page 6 (96)
2 Test of fault simulations in PSS/E
2.1 Method
To simulate an unsymmetrical single-phase fault in a time-domain simulation, PSS/E makes
the following approximation: It calculates a Thévenin equivalent using the positive-,
negative-, and zero-sequence impedances seen from the node where the fault is applied and
then calculates the positive- sequence current and voltage, see PSS/E-manual [2], POM, 5.35.
The equivalent is equal to the positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence impedances in series
with three fault impedances, see Figure 2.1.1.
Figure 2.1.1 Thévenin equivalent for unsymmetrical fault.
In Figure 2.1.1, Z1, Z2, and Z0 are the positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence impedances
respectively and Zfault is the fault impedance. This equivalent is later used as a shunt which
aim is to model the unsymmetrical fault. Here we have to remember that we can only study
how the positive-sequence component is responding to the connection and disconnection of
the shunt, see section 2.1.5. The main task here is to investigate how good this approximation
is.
By comparing fault calculations in PSS/E with calculations in another software, which

includes negative- and zero-sequence components in time-domain simulations, we can see
how reliable the approximation is in PSS/E. Vattenfall Research and Development has long
experience in using Simpow and therefore Simpow is used as a reference. Unlike PSS/E,
Simpow makes calculations with all three sequences and we can assume that these
calculations are correct. Both types of faults can be simulated in Simpow and PSS/E, however
in Simpow the modelling includes negative- and zero-sequence components and how they
develop with time, which is not included in PSS/E.
By constructing the small power system in Figure 2.1.2, consisting of one generator, two
power lines, one generator bus, one load bus and one swing bus, we can compare the two
Page 7 (96)
power-system simulation software and investigate the modelling in PSS/E and Simpow. The
results will also be checked analytically.
Figure 2.1.2 The test system consisting of one single machine and one swing bus.
2.1.1 Initial test system
To verify our system we have initially used the same parameters, for power-flow calculations,
as in Kundur [6], p.732. The parameters are shown in Table 2.1.1 - Table 2.1.3.
Table 2.1.1 Data for the setup of the power-flow calculation of the initial test system. The elements in
the table marked as “-” are later calculated by the two software.
Bus Model Ubase [kV] Sbase [MVA] U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]
1 Generator bus 24 2220 1.0 - 0.9 -
2 Load bus 24 2220 - - 0 0
3 Swing bus 24 2220 0.995 0 - -
Table 2.1.2 Data for the lines in the initial test system.
Line From bus To bus R [p.u.] X [p.u.]

1 1 2 0 0.325
2 2 3 0 0.325
Table 2.1.3 Load-flow data for the generator in the initial test system.
Generator U [p.u.] PG [p.u.]

1 1 0.9
The system frequency is 50 [Hz]. In Kundur the system frequency is set to 60 [Hz]. The base
current and base impedance can be calculated according to Söder [7], p.44, see Equation 2.1.1
and Equation 2.1.2.
S base 2220 ⋅10 6

I base = = = 53.405 [ kA]
3U base 3 ⋅ 24 ⋅10 3
Equation 2.1.1 The equation for the base current.
Page 8 (96)
Z base
U2
= base =
(24 ⋅103 ) 2
= 0.25946 [Ω]
Sbase 2220 ⋅106
Equation 2.1.2 The equation for the base impedance.
The power-flow calculation of the initial test system can be found in section 2.2.1.
2.1.2 Final test system
The parameters in section 2.1.1 are not appropriate for dynamic simulations and therefore we
have decided to change the resistance of the lines, to 5 [%] of the reactance, in order to get
more damping in the power system. We have also changed the voltage at bus 1 to 1.04318
[p.u.], in order to get the same production of reactive power in the generator at bus 1. The
parameters for the final test system are shown in Table 2.1.4 - Table 2.1.6. For power-flow
calculation of the final test system, see section 2.2.2.
Table 2.1.4 Data for the setup of the power-flow calculation of the final test system. The elements in
the table marked as “-” are later calculated by the two software.
Bus Model Ubase [kV] Sbase [MVA] U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]
1 Generator bus 24 2220 1.04318 - 0.9 -
2 Load bus 24 2220 - - 0 0
3 Swing bus 24 2220 0.995 0 - -
Table 2.1.5 Data for the lines in the final test system.
Line From bus To bus R [p.u.] X [p.u.]

1 1 2 0.01625 0.325
2 2 3 0.01625 0.325
Table 2.1.6 Load-flow data for the generator in the final test system.
Generator U [p.u.] PG [p.u.]

1 1.04318 0.9
2.1.3 The dynamic of the swing bus in PSS/E
In PSS/E the swing bus in bus 3 have to be modelled as a synchronous machine with an
infinite inertia in the dynamic simulations, as shown in Figure 2.1.3.
Page 9 (96)
Figure 2.1.3 The test system in PSS/E with the swing bus in bus 3 modelled as a synchronous
machine.
The type of generator that is used in PSS/E for dynamic simulations for an infinite bus is the
classical generator model, “GENCLS”, with the settings shown in Table 2.1.7.
Table 2.1.7 Data for the infinite bus in the test system.
Swing generator U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.] H [p.u.]

1 0.995 0 - - ∞*
* This is carried out by putting H = 0 in the input data of PSS/E.
2.1.4 The dynamic of the generator
The dynamic model of the generator in bus 1 is modelled with a “Type 1A” model in Simpow
and a “GENROU” model in PSS/E, both models without saturation. These models are similar
and contain among others two accelerating equations, see Equation 2.1.3 and Equation 2.1.4.
1
∆ω& = (Tm − Te − D∆ω )
2H
Equation 2.1.3 The differential equation for the speed deviation.
δ& = ω 0 ∆ω
Equation 2.1.4 The differential equation for the machine angle derivative.
The models also contain two equations describing the field current and the time-derivative of
the flux in the field winding respectively. In addition to that, two damper windings are
included in the q-axis and one damper winding is included in the d-axis, see Johansson [8],
p.3-5. The two models contain in total six state variables. Nevertheless there are some
differences between the two models:
• In PSS/E the rotor speed have to be included in the stator voltage equation. This is not
the case in Simpow where it is possible to modify the generator model such that the
rotor speed is not included. However, in this research the speed is included in the
stator voltage equation in Simpow, as it is done in PSS/E.
Page 10 (96)
• The stator fluxes are calculated in different ways. In Simpow the fluxes are calculated
from the terminal voltage and the stator current but in PSS/E the fluxes are calculated
from the stator current and the exciter voltage, see Slootweg [9], p.4.
Comparisons between the two models have earlier been investigated in Slootweg [9]. The
settings of the generator in bus 1 are shown in Table 2.1.8.
Table 2.1.8 Dynamic parameters for the generator in bus 1 in the test system.
Parameters Value Unit Description

TD0’ 6.000 [s] D-axis transient open-circuit time constant.
TD0’’ 0.060 [s] D-axis subtransient open-circuit time constant.
TQ0’ 0.500 [s] Q-axis transient open-circuit time constant.
TQ0’’ 0.060 [s] Q-axis subtransient open-circuit time constant.
H 2.000 [MWs/MVA] Inertia constant.
D 0 [p.u.] Damping constant.
XD 1.000 [p.u.] D-axis synchronous reactance.
XQ 0.900 [p.u.] Q-axis synchronous reactance.
XD’ 0.300 [p.u.] D-axis transient reactance.
XQ’ 0.650 [p.u.] Q-axis transient reactance.
XD’’ = ZX 0.200 [p.u.] D-axis subtransient reactance. *
XQ’’ 0.200 [p.u.] Q-axis transient reactance. **
RA = ZR 0.003 [p.u.] Stator resistance. ***
XA = Xl 0.160 [p.u.] Stator reactance. ***
* Both parameters XD’’ and ZX are used in PSS/E but only XD’’ is used in Simpow, see Lindström [10].
** XQ’’ is only used in Simpow. XQ’’ is automatically set equal to XD’’ in PSS/E.
*** RA and XA is used in Simpow while ZR and Xl is used in PSS/E, see Lindström [10].
For dynamic simulation with no fault, see section 2.2.3.
2.1.5 Simulations of faults in PSS/E
In the system in Figure 2.1.3 we will simulate three-phase and single-phase faults at bus 2 and
then see if the results in PSS/E and Simpow are equal. One restriction in PSS/E is that only
one unsymmetrical fault can be calculated at one instant, see PSS/E-manual [2], POM, 5.35.
In order to investigate the approximation in PSS/E, we will simulate the single-phase fault in
Simpow in two ways. First we will make an exact calculation with all three sequences. Later
we will make the calculation as it is done in PSS/E, using the PSS/E-approximation.
We assume that the Thévenin equivalent used for the unsymmetrical one-phase fault in PSS/E
is
Page 11 (96)
Z Th = Z1 + Z 2 + Z 0 + 3Z fault
Equation 2.1.5 The equation for the Thévenin equivalent impedance.
where ZTh is the Thévenin-equivalent impedance, Z1, Z2, and Z0 are the positive-, negative-,
and zero-sequence impedances respectively and Zfault is the fault impedance. This equivalent
is mentioned in the PSS/E-manual [2], PAG, 10-40 and derived in Söder [7], p.133-134. The
equivalent is mentioned in the short-circuit-part of the PSS/E-manual but not in the time-
domain-part and therefore we assume this.
The equations for the sequence currents in the fault becomes according to Kundur [6], p.897
U fault
I fault1 = I fault 2 = I fault 0 =
ZTh
Equation 2.1.6 The equation for the sequence currents.
where Ifault1, Ifault2 and Ifault0 are the positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence currents
respectively and Ufault is the positive-sequence voltage in the node just before the fault is
applied.
The three-phase fault simulation can be found in section 2.2.4 and the single-phase fault
simulation can be found in section 2.2.5.
2.1.6 Sequence components of the power line impedances
To make an unsymmetrical fault simulation we need to include the negative- and zero-
sequence components for the two power lines. Both lines have the same values. Calculations
and values are shown in Table 2.1.9
Table 2.1.9 Calculations and values for sequence components of the two power lines.
Parameter [p.u.]
R1 = R2 = 0.01625
X 1 = X 2 = 0.32500
R0 = 3 ⋅ R1 = 0.04875
X 0 = 3 ⋅ X 1 = 0.97500
where R1, R2, R0, X1, X2, and X0 are the positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence resistances
and reactances respectively.
Page 12 (96)
2.1.7 Sequence components of the generator impedance
Calculations and values for sequence components for the generator in bus 1 are shown in
Table 2.1.10
Table 2.1.10 Sequence component data for the generator in bus 1.
Parameter [p.u.]
R1 = RA = 0.003
X 1 = XD′′ = 0.2
R2 = 10 ⋅ RA = 0.03
X 2 = XD′′ = 0.2
R0 = *
X 0 = 0.9 ⋅ XA = 0.144 **
* For calculation see Equation 2.1.7 and Equation 2.1.8.
** The value for XA can be found in Table 2.1.8.
where R1, R2, R0, X1, X2, and X0 are the positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence resistances
and reactances respectively, RA and XA are the stator resistance and reactance, and XD’’ is
the D-axis subtransient reactance.
Z0 is adjusted in Simpow so that the current I0 becomes 10 [A] when U0 is equal to 1 [p.u.]
according to Lindquist [11], see Equation 2.1.7 and Equation 2.1.8. The same setting is used
in PSS/E.
U0 1 1
Z0 = = = = 5340.5 [ p.u.]
I 0 10 10
I base 53405
Equation 2.1.7 The equation for the zero-sequence impedance.
R0 = Z 0 − X 02 = 5340.52 − 0.1442 = 5340.499998 [ p.u.]

2
Equation 2.1.8 The equation for the zero-sequence resistance.
In Equation 2.1.7 and Equation 2.1.8 U0 is the zero-sequence voltage, I0 is the zero-sequence
current, Z0 is the zero-sequence impedance, and Ibase is the base current.
Page 13 (96)
2.2 Results
2.2.1 Power-flow simulation of the initial test system
A power-flow simulation of the initial test system in PSS/E with a flat start1 generates the data
in Table 2.2.1 and Table 2.2.2. In the calculation only positive-sequence components are
used.
Table 2.2.1 Calculated variables for our initial test system with PSS/E.
Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

1 0.9998 36.019 0.9000 0.3000
2 0.9485 18.054 0 0
3 0.9950 0 -0.9000 0.2852
Table 2.2.2 Power-flow in our initial test system with PSS/E.
From bus To bus P [p.u.] Q [p.u.]

1 2 0.9000 0.3000
2 1 -0.9000 -0.0074
2 3 0.9000 0.0074
3 2 -0.9000 0.2852
A power-flow simulation in Simpow generates the data in Table 2.2.3 and Table 2.2.4.
Table 2.2.3 Calculated variables for our initial test system with Simpow.

1 0.9998 36.019 0.9000 0.3000
2 0.9485 18.054 0 0
3 0.9950 0 -0.9000 0.2852
Table 2.2.4 Power-flow in our initial test system with Simpow.

1 2 0.9000 0.3000
2 1 -0.9000 -0.0074
2 3 0.9000 0.0074
3 2 -0.9000 0.2852
1
Flat start is an initial state of the power-flow calculation, which is that all voltage magnitudes are
U = 1.0[ p.u.] and all voltage angles are ∠U = 0 [o ] .
Page 14 (96)
According to Kundur [6], p. 732 the power-flow calculations are correct. As can be seen, the
results are identical in PSS/E and Simpow. For values from Kundur see Table 2.2.5.
Table 2.2.5 Values from Kundur [6], p. 732. The element in the table marked as “-” is not calculated in
Kundur.

1 1.0 36 0.9 0.3
3 0.995 0 -0.9 -
2.2.2 Power-flow simulation of the final test system
A power-flow simulation of the final test system in PSS/E generates the data in Table 2.2.6
and Table 2.2.7.
Table 2.2.6 Calculated variables for our final test system with PSS/E.

1 1.0432 33.656 0.9000 0.3000
2 0.9755 17.238 0 0
3 0.9950 0 -0.8731 0.2376
Table 2.2.7 Power-flow in our final test system with PSS/E.

1 2 0.9000 0.3000
2 1 -0.8866 -0.0312
2 3 0.8866 0.0312
3 2 -0.8731 0.2376
A power-flow simulation in Simpow generates the data in Table 2.2.8 and Table 2.2.9.
Table 2.2.8 Calculated variables for our final test system with Simpow.

1 1.0432 33.656 0.9000 0.3000
2 0.9755 17.238 0 0
3 0.9950 0 -0.8731 0.2376
Page 15 (96)
Table 2.2.9 Power-flow in our final test system with Simpow.

1 2 0.9000 0.3000
2 1 -0.8866 -0.0312
2 3 0.8866 0.0312
3 2 -0.8731 0.2376
As can be seen in Table 2.2.6 - Table 2.2.9, the results are identical in PSS/E and Simpow.
2.2.3 Dynamic simulation without fault
A simulation of the final test system with dynamics included generates the data in Table
2.2.10 and Table 2.2.11.
Table 2.2.10 Dynamic data from the “GENROU” generator model simulated with PSS/E.
Generator δ [o] id [p.u.] iq [p.u.]

1 64.389 0.6881 0.5946
Table 2.2.11 Dynamic data from the “Type 1A” generator model simulated with Simpow.
Generator δ [o] id [p.u.] iq [p.u.]

1 64.389 0.6881 0.5946
In Table 2.2.10 and Table 2.2.11 we can see that the steady-state situation of the two models
is similar. Later in sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 we will see the dynamical behaviour of the two
models.
2.2.4 Three-phase fault simulation
A simulation of the system with a 0.1 seconds three-phase fault, applied in bus 2 after 0.1
second, generates the data in Figure 2.2.1 - Figure 2.2.8. The PSS/E simulation is done both
with 10 [ms] and 1 [ms] time steps, in order to see if it influences the result. In Simpow, the
actual time step is varied automatically during the simulation and adjusted according to the
behaviour of the system.
Page 16 (96)
Voltage bus 1
Simpow
1.05
PSS/E 10ms
1 PSS/E 1ms
0.95
0.9
Voltage [p.u.]
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.1 Voltage at bus 1 (positive-sequence) simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Voltage bus 2
1
Simpow
0.9 PSS/E 10ms
PSS/E 1ms
0.8
0.7
0.6
Voltage [p.u.]
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Page 17 (96)
Angle bus 1
120 Simpow
PSS/E 10ms
110 PSS/E 1ms
100
90
Angle [ o]
80
70
60
50
40
30
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.3 Angle at bus 1 (positive-sequence) simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Angle bus 2
45 Simpow
PSS/E 10ms
40 PSS/E 1ms
35
30
Angle [ o]
25
20
15
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Page 18 (96)
Generator angle
180
Simpow
PSS/E 10ms
160
PSS/E 1ms
140
120
Angle [o]
100
80
60
40
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.5 The generator angle simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Generator speed
1.025 Simpow
PSS/E 10ms
1.02 PSS/E 1ms
1.015
1.01
Speed [p.u.]
1.005
0.995
0.99
0.985
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.6 The generator speed simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Page 19 (96)
Generator angle
Simpow
130
PSS/E 10ms
120 PSS/E 1ms
110
100
90
Angle [o]
80
70
60
50
40
30
0 5 10 15
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.7 The generator angle simulated during 15 seconds with Simpow and PSS/E.
Generator speed
1.02 Simpow
PSS/E 10ms
1.015 PSS/E 1ms
1.01
1.005
Speed [p.u.]
0.995
0.99
0.985
0.98
0 5 10 15
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.8 The generator speed simulated during 15 seconds with Simpow and PSS/E.
Page 20 (96)
So far, the fault has been symmetrical which means that the approximation has not yet been
used. In Figure 2.2.1 - Figure 2.2.6 we can see that before, during and immediately after the
fault the simulations in PSS/E and Simpow correspond well to each other. This shows that the
software calculates equal during a symmetrical fault. The angle in bus 2 during the fault in
Figure 2.2.4 should not be analysed further since the voltage in bus 2 is equal to zero. After
the fault has been removed and when t > 0.5 [s] we can see that the Simpow curve and the
PSS/E curves begin to differ. This shows that the dynamical behaviours of the two models
differ, however in Figure 2.2.7 - Figure 2.2.8 we can see that both models return to the same
initial conditions.
If we compare the two simulations in PSS/E, with different time steps, we can see that there is
a small difference in Figure 2.2.1 - Figure 2.2.3 and Figure 2.2.6. The simulation with 1 [ms]
time steps becomes more correct. The difference is however negligible and do not result in
any difference in long-term simulations.
2.2.5 Single-phase fault simulation
A simulation of the system with a 0.1 seconds single-phase fault, applied in bus 2 after 0.1
second, generates the data in Figure 2.2.9 - Figure 2.2.18. In the simulation PSS/E calculates
only the positive-sequence components using the approximation described in section 2.1. By
reading the PSS/E-manual [8] we are not fully convinced about how this approximation is
applied. We have assumed that a shunt which we think represents the positive-, negative- and
zero-sequence impedances, is connected in the fault bus.
This shunt impedance consumes, according to PSS/E, S = 85.726 + i1742.3 [MVA] which is
the short-circuit power shown in the terminal window in PSS/E immediately after the fault
has been applied. With this data we can calculate an equivalent shunt impedance, see
Equation 2.2.1.
2
U fault 0.9755 2
Z shunt = = = 0.0595 + i1.209 [ p.u.]
*
S shunt (85.726 − i1742.3)
S base 2220
Equation 2.2.1 The equation for the equivalent shunt impedance.
In Equation 2.2.1 Zshunt is the shunt impedance, Ufault is the voltage at the faulted bus just
before the fault is applied, Sbase is the base power and Sshunt is the initial complex short-circuit
power through the shunt.
In order to run a Simpow simulation using the same approximation as in PSS/E, this shunt
will be connected in the fault bus in a Simpow simulation. Such Simpow simulation will be
Page 21 (96)
symmetrical as in PSS/E since the shunt is connected symmetrical, see the graphs marked as
“Simpow shunt” in the following figures.
However, in the Simpow simulations using Zshunt we have seen that the result not becomes as
the PSS/E simulation, see for instance Figure 2.2.15 where the blue graph indicates the
Simpow simulation using Zshunt. Therefore we have tried to calculate a new shunt to get as
close as possible to the PSS/E simulation. If we use the voltage and current in PSS/E and/or
“Simpow detailed” at the time just after the fault is applied (t = 0.1+ [s]) we can calculate the
shunt impedance Zown shunt in Equation 2.2.2.
U fault _ 0.1+ 0.8333(cos (17.174 ) + sin (17.174 ))

Z own shunt = = = 0.0619 + i1.1758 [ p.u.]
I fault _ 0.1+ 0.2442 − i 0.6642
Equation 2.2.2 The equation for the “self-calculated” shunt impedance.
In Equation 2.2.2 Zown shunt is a “self-calculated” shunt impedance, Ufault_0.1+ is the voltage at
the fault bus just after the fault is applied, and Ifault_0.1+ is the current in the fault just after the
fault is applied.
In the following result we can see the difference between the shunt impedance stated in PSS/E
Zshunt and our self-calculated shunt impedance Zown shunt. The graphs with our self-calculated
shunt impedance are marked as “Simpow own shunt” in the following figures.
In the following graphs we have made three Simpow simulations and two PSS/E simulations:
• “Simpow detailed”. A single-phase fault simulation in Simpow using all three
symmetrical components. Only the positive-sequence component is plotted.
• “Simpow shunt”. A symmetrical fault simulation in Simpow with the shunt impedance
Zshunt from Equation 2.2.1 modelled as a symmetrical load at the fault.
• “Simpow own shunt”. A symmetrical fault simulation in Simpow with the shunt
impedance Zown shunt from Equation 2.2.2 modelled as a symmetrical load at the fault.
• “PSS/E 10ms”. A single-phase fault simulation, with 10 [ms] time-steps, in PSS/E
using the approximation described in section 2.1.
• “PSS/E 1ms”. A single-phase fault simulation, with 1 [ms] time-steps, in PSS/E using
the approximation described in section 2.1.
The Simpow simulation with the correct value of the shunt should give the same result for the
positive sequence as the simulation with all three components. The PSS/E simulation is done
both with 10 [ms] and 1 [ms] time steps, in order to see if the time step influences the result.
Page 22 (96)
Voltage bus 1
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
Voltage [p.u.]
1.01
0.99
0.98 Simpow detailed

Simpow shunt
0.97 Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
0.96
PSS/E 1ms
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Voltage bus 2
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
Voltage [p.u.]
0.9
0.88
0.86
Simpow detailed
Simpow shunt
0.84
Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
0.82
PSS/E 1ms
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Page 23 (96)
Angle bus 1
39
38
37
36
Angle [o]
35
34
33 Simpow detailed
Simpow shunt
32 Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
PSS/E 1ms
31
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Angle bus 2
19.5
19
18.5
18
Angle [ o]
17.5
17
Simpow detailed
Simpow shunt
16.5
Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
16 PSS/E 1ms
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Page 24 (96)
Generator angle
70
68
66
Angle [ o]
64
Simpow detailed
62 Simpow shunt
Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
60 PSS/E 1ms
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.13 The generator angle simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Generator speed
1.0025
1.002
1.0015
1.001
Speed [p.u.]
1.0005
0.9995

Simpow shunt
0.9985
Simpow own shunt
0.998 PSS/E 10ms
PSS/E 1ms
0.9975
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.14 The generator speed simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Page 25 (96)
Real fault current

Simpow shunt
Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
0.2
PSS/E 1ms
Current [p.u.]
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.15 The real part of the fault current (positive-sequence) simulated with Simpow and PSS/E.
Imaginary fault current
-0.1
-0.2
Current [p.u.]
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5 Simpow detailed

Simpow shunt
Simpow own shunt
-0.6
PSS/E 10ms
PSS/E 1ms
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.16 The imaginary part of the fault current (positive-sequence) simulated with Simpow and
PSS/E.
Page 26 (96)
Generator angle
Simpow detailed
70 Simpow shunt
Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
68 PSS/E 1ms
66
Angle [o]
64
62
60
0 5 10 15
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.17 The generator angle simulated during 15 seconds with Simpow and PSS/E.
Generator speed

Simpow shunt
1.002 Simpow own shunt
PSS/E 10ms
1.0015
PSS/E 1ms
1.001
Speed [p.u.]
1.0005
0.9995
0.999
0.9985
0.998
0.9975
0 5 10 15
Time [s]
Figure 2.2.18 The generator speed simulated during 15 seconds with Simpow and PSS/E.
Page 27 (96)
As we can see in Figure 2.2.9 - Figure 2.2.16 the simulations in PSS/E and Simpow
corresponds well to each other except for the simulation with the shunt Zshunt stated in PSS/E.
Before, during, and immediately after the fault the curves are almost equal, except for
Simpow shunt. This means that the calculation in PSS/E, with the approximation, is correct
concerning the positive-sequence components, which is the only component we can study in
PSS/E. In Figure 2.2.17 and Figure 2.2.18 we can also in this simulation see that the dynamic
of the generators in PSS/E and Simpow differ but both simulations returns to the same initial
state. If we compare the two simulations in PSS/E, with different time steps, we can see that
there is a small difference in Figure 2.2.9 - Figure 2.2.14. The simulation with 1 [ms] time
steps becomes more correct. The difference is however negligible and do not result in any
difference in long-term simulations.
In the project we have not understood the complex power for the shunt stated in PSS/E. With
our own shunt Zown shunt the power should be as in Equation 2.2.3.
2
U fault ⋅ Sbase 0.97552 ⋅ 2220
Sown shunt = = = 94.295 + i1791.6 [ MVA]
*
Z own shunt 0.0619 − i1.1758
Equation 2.2.3 The equation for the initial complex short-circuit power in our “self-calculated” shunt.
In Equation 2.2.3 Sown shunt is the initial complex short-circuit power in the shunt, Ufault is the
voltage in the faulted bus just before the fault is applied, Zown shunt is our own calculated shunt
impedance, and Sbase is base power. With this value for the complex short-circuit power we
can calculate how erroneously the complex short-circuit power stated in PSS/E is, see
Equation 2.2.4.
Sown shunt 94.295 + i1791.6

Serror in PSS / E = = = 1.0285
S shunt 85.726 + i1742.3
Equation 2.2.4 The equation for the error in the stated initial complex short-circuit power in PSS/E.
In Equation 2.2.4 Sown shunt is our self-calculated initial complex short-circuit power in the
shunt, Sshunt is the initial complex short-circuit power in the shunt stated in PSS/E, and Serror in
PSS/E is the error in the stated initial complex short-circuit power in PSS/E. The initial complex
short-circuit power stated in PSS/E is therefore 2.85 [%] incorrect.
In order to check the result analytically we will here investigate the initial result when the
fault is applied. In order to do this we have to calculate the Thévenin equivalent. The
Thévenin-equivalent impedance for a single-phase fault in bus 2 in the test system can be
calculated with Equation 2.2.5 - Equation 2.2.8.
Page 28 (96)
Z L1 ( Z L1 + Z G1 ) (0.01625 + i 0.325 )(0.01625 + i 0.325 + 0.003 + i 0.2 )
Z1 = = = 0.0090 + i 0.2007 [ p.u.]
2 ⋅ Z L1 + Z G1 2(0.01625 + i 0.325 ) + 0.003 + i 0.2
Equation 2.2.5 The equation for the positive-sequence impedance.
Z L 2 ( Z L 2 + Z G 2 ) (0.01625 + i0.325)(0.01625 + i 0.325 + 0.03 + i 0.2)

Z2 = = = 0.0130 + i 0.2008 [ p.u.]
2 ⋅ Z L2 + ZG 2 2(0.01625 + i0.325) + 0.03 + i 0.2
Equation 2.2.6 The equation for the negative-sequence impedance.
Z L 0 ( Z L 0 + Z G 0 ) (0.04875 + i 0.975 )(0.04875 + i 0.975 + 5340.5 + i 0.144 )

Z0 = = = 0.0489 + i 0.9750 [ p.u.]
2 ⋅ Z L0 + Z G 0 2(0.04875 + i 0.975 ) + 5340 .5 + i 0.144
Equation 2.2.7 The equation for the zero-sequence impedance.
ZTh = Z1 + Z 2 + Z 0 = 0.0709 + i1.3765 [ p.u.]

Equation 2.2.8 The equation for the Thévenin-equivalent impedance.
In Equation 2.2.5 - Equation 2.2.8 ZL1, ZL2, and ZL0 are the sequence-component impedances
in Table 2.1.9 for the two power lines. ZG1, ZG2, and ZG0 are the sequence-component
impedances in Table 2.1.10 for the generator. Z1, Z2, and Z0 are the positive-, negative-, and
zero-sequence impedances respectively for the test system seen from the faulted bus and ZTh
is the Thévenin-equivalent impedance.
If we compare Equation 2.2.6 and Equation 2.2.7 with Equation 2.2.2 we can see that Zown shunt
in Equation 2.2.2 is equal to Z2 + Z0 in Equation 2.2.6 and Equation 2.2.7, see PSS/E-manual
[2], PAG, 10.54.
With the Thévenin impedance in Equation 2.2.8 we can calculate the initial fault current, see
Equation 2.2.9.
U fault 0.9755(cos(17.238) + i sin (17.238))

I fault = = = 0.2442 − i 0.6642 [ p.u.]
ZTh 0.0709 + i1.3765
Equation 2.2.9 The equation for the fault current.
In Equation 2.2.9 Ifault is the fault current and Ufault is the voltage in the node just before the
fault is applied.
As we can see in Figure 2.2.15 and Figure 2.2.16, for t = 0.1+ [s], the calculated initial fault
current is correct. It is the same as calculated in Simpow detailed, Simpow own shunt and in
the two PSS/E simulations. In the simulation “Simpow shunt” the current is not as calculated
Page 29 (96)
in Equation 2.2.9. The calculated current Ifault in Equation 2.2.9 is therefore the same as the
current Ifault_0.1+ earlier used in Equation 2.2.2.
2.3 Discussion about symmetrical components of voltages

As stated earlier, a drawback in PSS/E is that we do not have the information concerning the
negative- and zero-sequence components, which results in that we cannot calculate the correct
phase quantities. When we get the result from an unsymmetrical fault, the result appears as a
symmetrical fault in PSS/E and it is easy to misunderstand and think that the three phase-
quantities are equal to the result of the positive-sequence voltage. For example, the voltage in
the single-phase faulted bus in Figure 2.2.10 appears as a voltage in a three-phase fault. It is
therefore easy to think that the phase-voltages are equal to that result as shown in Figure
2.3.1. The voltages in Figure 2.3.1 are shown at the time just after the fault is applied (t = 0.1+
[s]).
Bus 2 fault voltage

1
0.5
Imaginary voltage [p.u.]
-0.5
-1
Ua
Ub
Uc
-1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Real voltage [p.u.]
Figure 2.3.1 Phase voltages as it appears in a single-phase fault in PSS/E.
Page 30 (96)
However, in Simpow2 we have full information about the negative- and zero-sequence
components and with all three symmetrical components we can calculate the correct phase
voltages as shown in Figure 2.3.2.
Bus 2 fault voltage
1
0.5
Imaginary voltage [p.u.]
Uc Ua=0
0
-0.5 Ub
Ua
Ub
-1 Uc
U1
U2
U0
-1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Real voltage [p.u.]
Figure 2.3.2 Phase-voltages and symmetrical component voltages for a single-phase fault in Simpow.
In Figure 2.3.2 Ua, Ub and, Uc are the phase-voltages at t = 0.1+ [s]. U1, U2 and U0 are the
positive-, negative-, and zero-sequence voltages respectively. The differences between Figure
2.3.1 and Figure 2.3.2 are that Ua is indeed equal to 0 in Figure 2.3.2 and we can also see that
the phase voltages Ub and Uc are having a larger magnitude and a phase shift ≠ 120o. With
the positive-sequence voltage and the voltage in phase c from Simpow we can calculate the
difference, if we think that the positive-sequence voltage is equal to the phase-voltage, see
Equation 2.3.1.
Uc − 1.2178 + i 0.4573
U difference = = = 1.6016
U1 − 0.6090 + i 0.5374
Equation 2.3.1 The equation for the difference between the positive-sequence voltage and the
voltage in phase c.
2
Here we mean the Simpow simulation indicated as “Simpow detailed”.
Page 31 (96)
In Equation 2.3.1 Uc is the voltage in phase c, U1 is the positive-sequence voltage, and
Udifference is the difference between the positive-sequence voltage and the voltage in phase c.
The difference in magnitude between the positive-sequence voltage and the voltage in phase c
is 60 [%].
This is only shown in the detailed Simpow simulation. In Figure 2.3.1 the result can be
misleading and it is easy to think that Ua ≠ 0 and that the phase-shift = 120 [o].
2.4 Conclusions
As we can see in section 2.2.4 and section 2.2.5 the simulations in PSS/E and Simpow
corresponds well to each other except for the simulation in Simpow with the shunt Zshunt
stated in PSS/E. The shunt is in our case 2.85 [%] incorrect. The remaining curves are before,
during, and immediately after the fault almost equal. This means that the calculations for both
symmetrical and unsymmetrical faults in PSS/E are correct concerning the positive-sequence
components. Later in the simulations we can see that the dynamical models in PSS/E and
Simpow differ. This dynamic is however not focused in this research. Both simulations return
to the same steady-state.
a small difference between the curves in some figures. The simulations with shorter time steps
becomes more correct but the difference is negligible and do not result in any difference in
long-term simulations.
A drawback in PSS/E is that we do not have any information concerning the negative- and
zero-sequence components in a time-domain simulation, which results in that we cannot
calculate the correct three phase-quantities. When we get the result from an unsymmetrical
fault, the result appears as a symmetrical fault in PSS/E and it is easy to think that the phase-
quantities are equal to the result of the positive-sequence voltage.
Page 32 (96)
3 Power-flow simulation of Gotland
3.1 Setup
3.1.1 Grid structure
The transmission network at Gotland consists of a 70 [kV] grid together with the HVDC
Classic link from the mainland of Sweden and the HVDC Light link. The HVDC Classic link
transmits power from the mainland of Sweden to Gotland and is connected to Västervik at the
mainland and to Visby at the island of Gotland. The HVDC Light link transmits power from
the wind power plants in the southern part of Gotland to the load in Visby at the northern part
of Gotland and is connected between Näs and Bäcks. A scheme of the 70 [kV] grid at Gotland
together with the HVDC Classic link and the HVDC Light link is shown in Figure 3.1.1. The
HVDC Light link is in Figure 3.1.1 modelled with the “Standard PSS/E model”.
Figure 3.1.1 A scheme of the 70 [kV] grid at Gotland together with the HVDC Classic link and the
HVDC Light link. Here, the HVDC Light link is modelled with the “Standard PSS/E model”.
The HVDC Light link contains the nodes BACKAC.78 and NASAC.78 where the base
voltage is 78.2 [kV]. To easily see a difference between the 78.2 [kV] nodes and the rest of
Page 33 (96)
the 70 [kV] network, which have 75 [kV] as base voltage, the 78.2 [kV] nodes have been
indicated as “.78”. The 70 [kV] grid in Gotland is connected via transformers to 30, 20, 10,
and 6 [kV] voltage levels, where all loads are connected. There are also two synchronous
machines installed at two other voltage levels, namely 13.8 and 12.4 [kV], in Ygne and one
synchronous machine is connected at 6 [kV] at the Cementa factory.
The distribution network is later transformed to a 0.6 [kV] voltage level where all wind power
plants are connected. There are also several shunt capacitors installed at 0.6 [kV]. The
transmission network and the distribution network together with the 0.6 [kV] voltage level in
the northern part of the power system are shown in Figure 3.1.2.
Figure 3.1.2 The northern part of the power system of Gotland.
The nodes in the power system of Gotland have been numbered to fit in the enumbering
standard of Svenska Kraftnät’s data bank. The number starts at 36900 and ends at 36999 with
the highest voltage level at the lowest number and the lowest voltage level at the highest
number. 4 free numbers are still available between 36906 and 36909 for future use.
The power system of the mainland of Sweden has been modelled with an equivalent
consisting of a 130 [kV] grid with among other things 3 swing buses, see Adielson [12], p.7.
All buses, except the swing buses are numbered according to Svenska Kraftnät’s data bank.
However, the values of the lines and loads are different compared to the complete model of
the mainland because of the calculated equivalent, see Figure 3.1.3. For example, the value of
the resistance for the line between Kimsta.130 and Farhul.130 is negative, i.e., the line is
producing active power. To not mistake any of the swing buses for being a bus in the Swedish
power system they have been numbered as 800001, 800002, and 800003, which are not used
in the data bank of Svenska Kraftnät. If we later would like to connect Gotland to the
Page 34 (96)
complete model of the mainland then we should remove the equivalent and connect the
mainland to node 34019, see Figure 3.1.3. A scheme of the equivalent
valent of the mainland of
Sweden used in the thesis together with the HVDC Classic link is shown in Figure 3.1.3.
Figure 3.1.3 The equivalent of the mainland of Sweden used in the thesis together with the HVDC
Classic link.
3.1.2 Transformers
There are a total of 63 transformers in the grid model. 62 transformers are two-winding
two
transformers and one transformer is a three-winding
three winding transformer. 29 transformers have a
voltage control function
on of which 2 transformers have been modelled with 17 steps and 27
transformers have been modelled with infinite number of steps. A problem with converting
the transformers with infinite number of steps is that the maximum number of steps in PSS/E
is 9999. This results in a small difference in the fourth decimal of the voltage in power-flow
power
calculations in PSS/E compared to the results from Simpow.
Simpow
Another difference between the transformer models in Simpow and PSS/E is that the tapside
is on different windings in the two software.
software. In Simpow the tapside is at the voltage-
voltage
controlled bus (second bus in the Simpow text file) but in PSS/E the tapside is at the
uncontrolled bus (first bus in the Simpow text file). Therefore the transformer sides have to be
exchanged
nged from Simpow to PSS/E, i.e., the transformer has to be turned around. The
parameters in the two programs are shown in Table 3.1.1 and Table 3.1.2 3.1 for one certain
transformer.
The parameters in Simpoww for the

th two-winding transformer between the nodes NASAC.78
and NAS.70 with stepped voltage regulation are shown in Table 3.1.1.
Page 35 (96)
Table 3.1.1 Data in Simpow for the two-winding transformer in Näs.
Parameter Value Unit Description

N NASAC.78 NAS.70 The first and second bus name
SN 70 [MVA] Base power
UN1 75 [kV] Nominal voltage at winding 1
UN2 75 [kV] Nominal voltage at winding 2
U 75 [kV] Voltage at the controlled bus
FI 0 [o] Phase shift angle
ER12 0 [p.u.] Resistance between bus 1 and bus 2
EX12 0.08 [p.u.] Reactance between bus 1 and bus 2
CNODE NAS.70 Voltage controlled bus
+NSTEP 16 Increasing steps
-NSTEP 0 Decreasing steps
STEP 0.01875 [p.u.] Tap step size
The parameters in PSS/E for the two-winding transformer between the nodes NASAC.78 and
NAS.70 with stepped voltage regulation are shown in Table 3.1.2.
Table 3.1.2 Data in PSS/E for the two-winding transformer in Näs.

I 36933 (NAS.70) Number of bus 1
J 36903 (NASAC.78) Number of bus 2
R1-2 0 [p.u.] Resistance between bus 1 and bus 2
X1-2 0.08 [p.u.] Reactance between bus 1 and bus 2
SBASE1-2 70 [MVA] Winding 1 to 2 base power
WINDV1 1 [p.u.] Winding 1 off-nominal turn ratio
NOMV1 75 [kV] Nominal voltage at winding 1
ANG1 0 [o] Phase shift angle
CONT1 36933 (NAS.70) Number of voltage controlled bus
RMI1 - RMA1 1 - 1.3 [p.u.] Turn ratio
VMI1 - VMA1 0.990625 – 1.009375 [p.u.] Voltage at the controlled bus
NTP1 17 Number of steps
WINDV2 0.959079 [p.u.] Winding 2 off-nominal turn ratio
NOMV2 75 [kV] Nominal voltage at winding 2
In the example above we can see that the first node in Simpow (NASAC.78) is bus number 2
in PSS/E.
Page 36 (96)
3.1.3 Machines
The total production from the generators in the model is 105 [MW]. There are about 160 wind
power plants in the power system, which have been modelled as 23 asynchronous machines in
Simpow. The asynchronous machines should control active power but not the voltage. The
reactive power of the machines should vary as a function of the active power. A problem with
this is that there is no such model for power-flow simulations in PSS/E. The generator model
in PSS/E has to control either voltage or reactive power. To get a correct power-flow
simulation we have therefore chosen to control the reactive power according to the result of
the power-flow simulation in Simpow3, see section 1.4.
There is also an asynchronous machine connected at the Cementa factory. This machine has
been modelled in Simpow as a mechanical load with a torque. The torque should vary as a
function of the frequency, which results in a varying power consumption. Also here there is
no corresponding model in PSS/E and we have therefore chosen to control the active and
reactive power according to the result in Simpow3, see section 1.4.
In Ygne there are two synchronous machines installed at the nodes NG.14 and NG.13 and at
the Cementa factory there is one synchronous machine installed at the node NG.11. NG.11
and NG.13 are generator nodes and the machines have fixed active and reactive power
production. NG.14 is a swing bus and the machine is controlling the voltage and angle. A
problem with the machine in node NG.14 is that in Simpow it is controlling the voltage in
another node namely YGNE.70. In PSS/E a machine in a swing bus has to control the voltage
in its own bus. To solve this problem the machine in NG.14 is controlling the voltage in
NG.14 according to the result of the power-flow simulation in Simpow, see section 1.4.
3.1.4 Shunt impedances
There are 47 shunt impedances included in the grid model. Most of them are installed at the
0.6 [kV] voltage level and close to wind farms to compensate the reactive power consumption
in the power plants. There are 3 shunt impedances installed at the 70 [kV] voltage level in
Gotland to compensate the reactive power consumption from the HVDC Classic link and at
the Cementa factory.
3.1.5 Loads
There are 45 loads in the grid model and the total power consumption is 155 [MW]. A
problem with converting the loads from Simpow to PSS/E is that the modelling of the loads
differs in Simpow and PSS/E. The model for a load in Simpow is shown in Equation 3.1.1.
3
Here it has to be emphasized that a disadvantage with these solutions is that if we want to make a change in the
network model, then it might lead to that we have to change the reactive power of all asynchronous machines in
the network model.
Page 37 (96)
S LS = P0 (U ) + jQ0 (U )
MP MQ
Equation 3.1.1 The model for a load in Simpow.
In Equation 3.1.1 SLS is the complex power for the load. P0 is the active power and Q0 is the
reactive power at 1 [p.u.] voltage. U is the voltage at the load in [p.u.] of the base voltage of
the node and MP and MQ are voltage exponents. MP and MQ do not have to be integers, they
can have any arbitrary value.
The model for a load in PSS/E is shown in Equation 3.1.2.
(
S LP = P1 + P2U + P3 (U ) + j Q1 + Q2U + Q3 (U )
2 2
)
Equation 3.1.2 The model for a load in PSS/E.
In Equation 3.1.2 SLP is the complex power for the load. The sum of P1, P2, and P3 is the
active power at 1 [p.u.] voltage and the sum of Q1, Q2, and Q3 is the reactive power at 1 [p.u.]
voltage. U is the voltage at the load in [p.u.] of the base voltage of the node.
To be able to convert the loads from Simpow to PSS/E we have to put SLS = SLP and then
identify P1, P2, P3, Q1, Q2, and Q3 to model the load in PSS/E. Since the voltage exponents in
Simpow do not have to be equal to any of the voltage exponents (0, 1, 2) in the PSS/E model,
the equation system, SLS = SLP, may be unsolvable. The solution to this problem is to solve the
equation system numerical. The numerical solution will not be absolutely correct but it will be
close to the correct solution in a chosen interval of voltages. We have here chosen the voltage
interval 0.8 < U < 1.2 [p.u.] since we do not have any voltages below 0.8 [p.u.] and over 1.2
[p.u.] in the power system of Gotland in the studied cases.
To make the numerical identification we have used Gaussian elimination in Matlab. To make
the Gaussian elimination we have to write our equation system on a matrix form, see Equation
3.1.3.
[A]⋅ [x] = [b]

Equation 3.1.3 Matrix form for doing Gaussian elimination of equation systems in Matlab.
In Equation 3.1.3 A is a matrix and x and b are vectors. The equation system for the active
power is shown in Equation 3.1.4.
Page 38 (96)
U 0 U 1 U 2   P0 ⋅ U MP 
   P1   
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅    
⋅  P2  =
⋅ 
 | | |   | 
   P3   
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅   ⋅ 
Equation 3.1.4 The equation system for the active power in matrix form.
In Equation 3.1.4 U is a vector with values between 0.8 [p.u.] and 1.2 [p.u.] so that the first
row of the A-matrix is 0.80 0.81 0.82 and the last row is 1.20 1.21 1.22. In Equation 3.1.4 it is
P1, P2, and P3 that shall be identified.
The equation system for the reactive power is written in the same way, see Equation 3.1.5.
U 0 U 1 U 2  Q0 ⋅ U MQ 
   1 
Q 
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅    
⋅ Q2 =
⋅ 
 | | |     | 
  Q3   
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅   ⋅ 
Equation 3.1.5 The equation system for the reactive power in matrix form.
The Gaussian elimination of the equation system is done with the command for Gaussian
elimination in Matlab, see Equation 3.1.6.
x = A\b
Equation 3.1.6 The command for solving a system of equations in Matlab with Gaussian elimination.
As an example we have here chosen load 1 at the node PILH.10 in the grid of Gotland. The
equation in Simpow for that load is shown in Equation 3.1.7.
S LS = 2(U ) + j 2(U ) [MVA]

0.58 1.9
Equation 3.1.7 The equation in Simpow for load 1 at node PILH.10.
The numerical solution for load 1 at the node PILH.10 is shown in Figure 3.1.4 and Figure
3.1.5 and the identified equation from Matlab to be used in PSS/E is shown in Equation 3.1.8.
The results are very similar between Simpow and PSS/E and therefore the blue graph is
behind the red graph in Figure 3.1.4 and Figure 3.1.5.
(
S LP = 0.5909 + 1.6552U − 0.2462(U ) + j − 0.0880 + 0.3774U + 1.7106(U ) [ MVA]
2 2
)
Equation 3.1.8 The equation in PSS/E for load 1 at node PILH.10.
Page 39 (96)
Active power in load
2.25
2.2
2.15
2.1
Active power [MW]
2.05
1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8 Simpow
PSS/E
1.75
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2
Voltage [p.u.]
Figure 3.1.4 Active power in load 1 at bus PILH.10.
Reactive power in load

3
2.8
2.6
Reactive power [Mvar]
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4 Simpow
PSS/E
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2

Voltage [p.u.]
Figure 3.1.5 Reactive power in load 1 at bus PILH.10.
Page 40 (96)
In these figures we can see that the load’s voltage dependence in PSS/E is almost equal to the
load’s voltage dependence in Simpow when the voltage is varied between 0.8 and 1.2 [p.u.]
Therefore the difference between the two models should not be a problem during simulations.
3.1.6 “Standard PSS/E model”
The “Standard PSS/E model” contains two converters and one DC cable in the power-flow
setup of the HVDC Light link. The converter in Näs controls the active power drawn from the
70 [kV] grid and the AC voltage in node NASVAC.78. The inverter in Bäcks controls the AC
voltage in node BACKVAC.78 and the DC voltage on the DC cable, see Figure 3.1.1.
There are the following three problems with converting data, for the HVDC Light link, from
the “Simpow model” to the “Standard PSS/E model”:
1. In the “Simpow model” the DC cable is modelled as a resistance and a capacitance but
in the “Standard PSS/E model” the DC cable can only be modelled as a pure
resistance. We have not found any solution to this problem, which not will affect the
power-flow simulation because of the constant voltage on the DC cable. However, the
capacitance could affect dynamic simulations in case of voltage variations on the DC
cable. The model of the DC cable in the “Simpow model” is shown in Figure 3.1.6.
Figure 3.1.6 The model of the DC cable in the “Simpow model”.
2. The models of the converters in the “Simpow model” and the “Standard PSS/E
model” are different. In the “Simpow model” the resistance and the reactance of the
converters are stated but this is not possible to do in the “Standard PSS/E model”. To
solve this problem we have inserted an additional line in PSS/E between the filters and
the converters with the impedance stated for the converters in the “Simpow model”.
This solution results in that we need to reduce the power demand for the converter in
Näs in the “Standard PSS/E model” because of that some internal losses in the
converter is transferred to the added line, see Figure 3.1.8. The model of the
converters in the “Simpow model” is shown in Figure 3.1.7. The same converter exists
in Näs (shown in Figure 3.1.7) and in Bäcks.
Page 41 (96)
Figure 3.1.7 The model of the converters in the “Simpow model”.
The model of how we have decided to model the converters in the “Standard PSS/E
model” is shown in Figure 3.1.8. The same converter exists in Näs (shown in Figure
3.1.8) and in Bäcks.
Figure 3.1.8 The model of the converters in the “Standard PSS/E model, with the added line.
3. The two filters between the transformers and the converters in the HVDC Light link
are modelled as a series reactance and a shunt impedance in Simpow, see Figure 3.1.9.
We can model the shunt impedance in PSS/E but there is no model in PSS/E for a
series reactance. This problem is solved by modelling the series reactance as a line
with the same impedance. The model of the filter in Simpow is shown in Figure 3.1.9.
The filter arrangement exists both in Näs (shown in Figure 3.1.9) and in Bäcks.
Figure 3.1.9 The model of the filters between the converters and the transformers in Simpow.
The parameters for the DC cable in the “Simpow model” are shown in Table 3.1.3.
Table 3.1.3 The parameters in the “Simpow model” for the DC cable.

R 13 [Ω] DC line resistance
C 11.5 [µF] DC line capacitance
The parameters for the DC cable in the “Standard PSS/E model” are shown in Table 3.1.4.
Page 42 (96)
Table 3.1.4 The parameters in the “Standard PSS/E model” for the DC cable.

RDC 13 [Ω] DC line resistance
The parameters in the “Simpow model” for the converter in Näs are shown in Table 3.1.5.
Table 3.1.5 The parameters in the “Simpow model” for the converter in Näs.

N NASVAC.78 Bus name
P -20 [MW] Power demand
U 72 [kV] AC voltage
CNODE NASVAC.78 Voltage controlled bus
R 0.012 [p.u.] Converter resistance
X 0.14 [p.u.] Converter reactance
The parameters in the “Standard PSS/E model” for the converter in Näs are shown in Table
3.1.6.
Table 3.1.6 The parameters in the “Standard PSS/E model” for the converter in Näs.

IBUS 36905 (NASVSC.78) Bus number
DCSET -19.89 [MW] Power demand
ACSET 0.920716 [p.u.] AC voltage*
REMOT 36904 (NASVAC.78) Voltage controlled bus
* The AC voltage is set to 72 [kV] and gets with the base voltage 78.2 [kV] 0.920716 [p.u.].
The parameters in PSS/E for the converter impedance in Näs modelled as a line are shown in
Table 3.1.7
Table 3.1.7 The parameters in PSS/E for the converter impedance in Näs modelled as a line.

I 36905 Bus 1
J 36904 Bus 2
R 0.1845 [p.u.] Line resistance*
X 2.1527 [p.u.] Line reactance*
* The reason for different values in Simpow (see Table 3.1.5) and PSS/E (see Table 3.1.7) is that the base power
is 65 [MVA] in Simpow while it is 1000 [MVA] in PSS/E.
Page 43 (96)
The parameters in the “Simpow model” for the inverter in Bäcks are shown in Table 3.1.8.
Table 3.1.8 The parameters in the “Simpow model” for the inverter in Bäcks.

N BACKVAC.78 Bus name
UD 121.5 [kV] DC voltage
U 71.2 [kV] AC voltage
CNODE BACKVAC.78 AC voltage controlled bus
R 0.012 [p.u.] Inverter resistance
X 0.14 [p.u.] Inverter reactance
The parameters in the “Standard PSS/E model” for the inverter in Bäcks are shown in Table
3.1.9.
Table 3.1.9 The parameters in the “Standard PSS/E model” for the inverter in Bäcks.

IBUS 36902 (BACKVSC.78) Bus number
DCSET 121.5 [kV] DC voltage
ACSET 0.910486 [p.u.] AC voltage*
REMOT 36901 (BACKVAC.78) AC Voltage controlled bus
* The AC voltage is set to 71.2 [kV] and gets with the base voltage 78.2 [kV] 0.910486 [p.u.].
The parameters for the inverter impedance in Bäcks modelled as a line in PSS/E are shown in
Table 3.1.10.
Table 3.1.10 The parameters in PSS/E for the inverter impedance in Bäcks modelled as a line.

I 36902 Bus 1
J 36901 Bus 2
R 0.1845 [p.u.] Line resistance*
X 2.1527 [p.u.] Line reactance*
* The reason for different values in Simpow (see Table 3.1.8) and PSS/E (see Table 3.1.10) is that the base
power is 65 [MVA] in Simpow while it is 1000 [MVA] in PSS/E.
Page 44 (96)
3.1.7 “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” contains two synchronous machines in the power-flow setup.
The synchronous machines represent the two converters in Figure 3.1.7 and the series
reactance in the filters in Figure 3.1.9 and are connected to the nodes NASAC.78 and
BACKAC.78. This setup results in that the nodes NASVSC.78, NASVAC.78, BACKVSC.78,
and BACKVAC.78 in the setup of the “Standard PSS/E model” have to be removed, see
Figure 3.1.1 and Figure 3.1.10. A scheme of the 70 [kV] grid in Gotland together with the
HVDC Classic link and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” is shown in Figure 3.1.10.
Figure 3.1.10 A scheme of the 70 [kV] grid in Gotland together with the HVDC Classic link and “ABB’s
Open PSS/E model”.
The impedances in the series reactors are included in the machines with the parameter
ZSOURCE. The machines control the active power and the voltages in their own nodes to the
result of the power-flow simulation in Simpow. Compared to the setup of the “Standard
PSS/E model” in section 3.1.6, this setup results in that all problems listed in section 3.1.6 are
omitted. The parameters for the synchronous machines are shown in Table 3.1.11 and Table
3.1.12.
Page 45 (96)
Table 3.1.11 The parameters for the synchronous machine in node BACKAC.78.

I 36900 (BACKAC.78) Bus number
PG 18.6675 [MW] Active power output
VS 0.910043 [p.u.] AC Voltage
ZX (ZSOURCE) 0.14 [p.u.] Complex machine impedance
Table 3.1.12 The parameters for the synchronous machine in node NASAC.78.

I 36903 (NASAC.78) Bus number
PG -20.8385 [MW] Active power output
VS 0.921204 [p.u.] AC Voltage
ZX (ZSOURCE) 0.14 [p.u.] Complex machine impedance
3.1.8 Lines
There are 54 lines in the model of the network of which 15 lines are on the mainland and 39
lines are on Gotland. Most of the lines on Gotland are at the 70 [kV] voltage level but there
are also lines at the 30, 10, and 6 [kV] voltage levels. Most of the lines are considered being
medium long lines. For medium long lines the shunt susceptance cannot be negligible and
therefore they have been modelled with the pi-equivalent model, see Söder [7], p.27. The pi-
equivalent model consists of a resistance connected in series with an inductive reactance
between two nodes and at the ends of the line a susceptance is connected to ground.
3.1.9 The HVDC Classic link
The HVDC Classic link between Ygne and Västervik consists of 2 poles and has been
imported from Kostina [13], appendix 2. The active power from the inverters in Ygne has
been changed according to the power-flow result of the Simpow simulation, see section 1.4.
3.2 Simulation
By including all the analysis from section 3.1 we have arrived to two power-flow simulations
in PSS/E, one with the “Standard PSS/E model” and one with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
These simulations in PSS/E are equal and almost the same as calculated in Simpow. This
shows that there is almost no difference between the “Standard PSS/E model” and “ABB’s
Open PSS/E model” in power-flow simulations. Therefore both models can be used in power-
flow simulations.
A small difference between the simulation in Simpow and the simulations in PSS/E is the
reactive power produced or consumed by the HVDC converters. This can depend on that the
Page 46 (96)
imported HVDC Classic model in PSS/E is not equal to the model used in Simpow. The two
power-flow simulations in PSS/E, which are equal, and the power-flow simulation in Simpow
for the HVDC converters are shown in Table 3.2.1. The power-flow simulation in Simpow is
marked with brackets. The converters in buses YGNE.70 and VVIK.130 are HVDC
converters of the HVDC Classic link.
Table 3.2.1 Power-flow in both PSS/E and Simpow for the HVDC converters. The simulation in
Simpow is marked with brackets.
Converter bus number P [MW] Q [Mvar]

BACKAC.78 18.7 (18.7) -2.9 (-2.6)
NASAC.78 -20.8 (-20.8) 4.3 (4.4)
YGNE.70 26.7 (26.7) -9.9 (-9.7)
YGNE.70 26.7 (26.7) -9.9 (-9.7)
VVIK.130 -26.8 (-26.9) -9.6 (-7.9)
VVIK.130 -26.8 (-26.9) -9.6 (-7.9)
The difference in the reactive power-flow from the HVDC converters results in a difference in
the voltage in the 130 [kV] buses, the 70 [kV] buses, and some parts of the lower voltage
levels where we do not have voltage-regulating transformers. Here we should also have in
mind that we cannot model a transformer with infinite number of steps in PSS/E and therefore
we can get a difference in the fourth decimal of the voltage in nodes where we have voltage-
regulating transformers. An example of this is the node SLIT.0.6, see Table 3.2.2.
The two power-flow simulations in PSS/E, which are equal, and the power-flow simulation in
Simpow for the nodes VVIK.130, FARHUL.130, YGNE.70, BACK.70, ROMA.70, NAS.70,
MART.0.6, and SLIT.0.6 are shown in Table 3.2.2. The power-flow simulation in Simpow is
marked with brackets.
Table 3.2.2 Power-flow result in both PSS/E and Simpow. The result from Simpow is marked with
brackets.
Bus U [p.u.] θ [o]

VVIK.130 1.0124 (1.0134) -35.7 (-35.7)
FARHUL.130 1.0126 (1.0133) -34.7 (-34.7)
YGNE.70 1.0008 (1.0000) -0.02 (0.00)
BACK.70 0.9978 (0.9973) -1.89 (-1.88)
ROMA.70 0.9935 (0.9929) -1.00 (-0.99)
NAS.70 1.0009 (1.0008) 2.68 (2.69)
MART.0.6 1.0000 (1.0000) -4.21 (-4.20)
SLIT.0.6 0.9997 (1.0000) -3.81 (-3.79)
Page 47 (96)
The difference in the reactive power-flow from the HVDC converters also results in a
difference in the reactive power production in the swing buses. The two power-flow
simulations in PSS/E, which are equal, and the power-flow simulation in Simpow for the
swing buses NG.14, FARHULI.130, ATVIDBI.130, and KIMSTAI.130 are shown in Table
3.2.3. The power-flow simulation in Simpow is marked with brackets.
Table 3.2.3 Power-flow result for the swing buses in both PSS/E and Simpow. The result from
Simpow is marked with brackets.
Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [MW] QG [Mvar]

NG.14 0.9999 (0.9999) 0.00 (0.00) 0.2 (0.0) -0.6 (-0.1)
FARHULI.130 1.0133 (1.0133) -32.00 (-32.00) 55.0 (55.2) -6.1 (-7.0)
ATVIDBI.130 0.9985 (0.9985) -36.90 (-36.90) -44.6 (-44.6) -1.0 (-1.2)
KIMSTAI.130 1.0370 (1.0370) -28.90 (-28.90) 149.6 (149.8) 22.0 (21.5)
3.3 Conclusions
The two power-flow simulations in PSS/E (one with the “Standard PSS/E model” and one
with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”) are equal and almost the same as calculated in Simpow.
This shows that there is almost no difference between the “Standard PSS/E model” and
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in power-flow simulations. Therefore both models can be used
in power-flow simulations.
The result from the two power-flow simulations in PSS/E is almost correct except for the
imported HVDC Classic model in PSS/E is not corresponding perfectly to the model in
Simpow. The difference in the reactive power flow from the HVDC converters results in a
difference in the voltage magnitudes in the 70 [kV] voltage level. This results also in a
difference in some parts of the lower voltage levels where we do not have voltage-regulating
transformers. Here we should also have in mind that we cannot model a transformer with
infinite number of steps in PSS/E and therefore we can get a difference in the fourth decimal
of the voltage in nodes where we have voltage-regulating transformers.
A disadvantage with the setup of the power-flow calculation is the control of the
asynchronous machines, i.e., their reactive power consumption. The asynchronous machines
should control active power but not voltage or angle and the reactive power of the machines
should vary as a function of the active power. In PSS/E there is no such model for power-flow
simulations. The generator model in PSS/E has to control either voltage or reactive power. To
get a correct power-flow calculation we have chosen to control the reactive power according
to the result of the power-flow calculation in Simpow. Here it has to be emphasized that the
problem with this solution is that if we want to make a change in the network model, then it
Page 48 (96)
might lead to that we have to change the reactive power consumption of all asynchronous
machines in the model.
Page 49 (96)
Page 50 (96)
4 Test of the dynamic of the HVDC Light link
4.1 Grid structure
To analyse the dynamic of the HVDC Light link we have created a small power system
consisting of a part of the 70 [kV] grid in Gotland together with the HVDC Light link, the
node STEN.10, and the swing bus NG.14, see Figure 4.1.1. In this test system we have
removed all voltage levels below 70 [kV] except for the node STEN.10 and the swing bus
NG.14. The susceptances for all power lines have also been removed. This resulted in that all
loads and asynchronous machines were disconnected. To get loads in the test system we
inserted one load in the bus STEN.70 and one load in the bus SLIT.70. Since we have got an
isolated AC network in Näs we had to insert the swing bus STNASI.70. STNASI.70 is
connected to the bus STNAS.70 with a power line that has the same characteristics as the
power line that connects the bus BACK.70 via the nodes SKRU.70 and PILH.70 to
YGNE.70. A scheme of the test system including the “Standard PSS/E model” of the HVDC
Light link is shown in Figure 4.1.1.
Figure 4.1.1 The test system for the HVDC Light link.
In this test system we can simulate the model of the HVDC Light link in Simpow (“Simpow
model”) and the two models of the HVDC Light link in PSS/E (“Standard PSS/E model” and
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model”). By comparing these simulations we can see how reliable the
models of the HVDC Light link are in PSS/E.
4.2 Setup for the power-flow simulation

In the setup for the power-flow simulation we have modelled the loads in the buses STEN.70
and SLIT.70 as constant power loads. The machine in the swing bus STNASI.70 is
Page 51 (96)
controlling the voltage amplitude to 1 [p.u.] and the angle to 0 [o] in its own bus. The machine
in the other swing bus NG.14 is modelled as in section 3.1.3. The “Standard PSS/E model” of
the HVDC Light link is modelled as in section 3.1.6 and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” of the
HVDC Light link is modelled as in section 3.1.7. The parameters for the loads are shown in
Table 4.2.1.
Table 4.2.1 The parameters for the loads.
Bus P [MW]
SLIT.70 20
STEN.70 18
The power-flow simulation can be found in section 4.4.1.
4.3 Setup for the dynamic simulations

The synchronous machine in the swing bus NG.14 is modelled as a “Type 2” model with
saturation only in the d-axis in Simpow. In PSS/E the machine has been modelled as a
“GENSAL” model, which is similar to the “Type 2” model in Simpow according to Persson
[14], p.12. To include dynamic for the swing bus STNASI.70 we have used a copy of the
machine data for the other swing bus NG.14 to the bus STNASI.70. The loads in STEN.70
and SLIT.70 are modelled as constant impedance loads in the dynamic simulations.
4.3.1 The “Simpow model”
The “Simpow model” of the HVDC Light link is a non-standard model in total and written in
the dynamic simulation language DSL in Simpow. The model includes two AC voltage
regulators, one DC voltage regulator, and one active power regulator. The inverter in Bäcks
controls the AC voltage in the node BACK.70 and the DC voltage on the DC cable, see
Figure 4.1.1. The converter in Näs controls the AC voltage in the node NAS.70 and the active
power drawn from the grid in the Näs area. The active power drawn from the grid is regulated
in order to keep the active power on the power line between the nodes NAS.70 and
STNAS.70 constant, see Figure 4.1.1.
All regulators in Simpow have PI-regulator characteristic except for one special case; when
the DC current becomes too high, then a temporary blocking is included in the “Simpow
model”, see Björklund [4]. The “Simpow model” also includes a transient response, when the
controlled AC voltages become lower than 0.8 [p.u.], which results in that the reactive power
output becomes 90 [%] of its maximum value within 50 [ms], see Axelsson [5].
The reactive power limits are as in the following for the two converters in the “Simpow
model”:
Page 52 (96)
• The minimum reactive power output for the converter in Näs is -48.75 [Mvar] and the
maximum reactive power output for the converter in Näs is 48.75 [Mvar].
• The minimum reactive power output for the converter in Bäcks is -65 [Mvar] and the
maximum reactive power output for the converter in Bäcks is 52 [Mvar].
The AC voltage regulators, the DC voltage regulator, and the active power regulator in the
“Simpow model” are based on an AC current control (in Swedish “inre strömregulator”). The
commands from the four regulators are realized via the AC current control, which generates
the three-phase voltage reference for the converter AC voltage, see Häfner [15], p.21.
4.3.2 The “Standard PSS/E model”
The “Standard PSS/E model” includes two AC voltage regulators and one active power
regulator. The inverter in Bäcks controls the AC voltage in the node BACK.70. The converter
in Näs controls the AC voltage in the node NAS.70 and the active power drawn from the grid.
All regulators have PI-regulator characteristic but are not as detailed as the regulators are in
the “Simpow model”. There are the following problems for the “Standard PSS/E model”:
1. There is no DC voltage regulator included in the model. It is, however, not clearly
stated in the manual that a DC voltage regulator is not included, but there are no
parameters that can be chosen for a DC voltage regulator in the model, see PSS/E-
manual [2], POM, L-41.
2. The minimum reactive power output from the converters in Bäcks and Näs cannot be
lower than -0.5 [p.u.] and the maximum reactive power output from the converters in
Bäcks and Näs cannot be higher than +0.5 [p.u.] in the model. In the “Simpow model”
the minimum reactive power output for the converter in Näs is -0.75 [p.u.] and the
maximum reactive power output for the converter in Näs is +0.75 [p.u.]. The
minimum reactive power output for the converter in Bäcks is -1 [p.u.] and the
maximum reactive power output for the converter in Bäcks is +0.8 [p.u.]. The base
power in the “Simpow model” is 65 [MVA]. In this work we have tried to solve this
problem by changing the base power for the “Standard PSS/E model” to 130 [MVA],
which results in that we can have the same limits in the “Standard PSS/E model” as in
the “Simpow model” for the reactive power output. This attempt to solution resulted,
however, in an unstable system in the dynamic simulations and therefore we have not
solved this problem.
3. The temporary blocking of the HVDC Light link, when the DC current becomes too
high, which is included in the “Simpow model”, is missing in the “Standard PSS/E
model”, see the second paragraph in section 4.3.1.
4. The transient response of the reactive power, which is included in the “Simpow
model”, is missing in the “Standard PSS/E model”, see the second paragraph in
section 4.3.1.
5. The active power regulator cannot regulate the active power in order to keep the active
power on the power line between NAS.70 and STNAS.70 constant, as in the “Simpow
Page 53 (96)
model”. The active power regulator regulates instead the active power in order to keep
the active power consumed by the converter in Näs constant.
4.3.3 “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” includes two AC voltage regulators, one DC voltage regulator,
and one active power regulator. The inverter in Bäcks controls the AC voltage in the node
BACK.70 and the DC voltage on the DC cable. The converter in Näs controls the AC voltage
in the node NAS.70 and the active power drawn from the grid. All regulators have PI-
regulator characteristic but are not as detailed as the regulators are in the “Simpow model”.
An advantage with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” is that we have the source code of the model.
This results in that we are able to make changes of the parameters in the code. There are,
however, the following problems for “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”:
1. The AC current control, that the two AC voltage regulators, the DC voltage regulator,
and the active power regulator are based on, in the “Simpow model”, is ideal in
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” according to Björklund [4].
2. The second problem is the same as problem number 2 in the list in section 4.3.2. We
have solved this problem by changing the base power for “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” to 100 [MVA] and changing the value for the parameter AcvcIntLim in the
source code from 0.6 to 1.6. The solution results in correct limits of the reactive
power output from the converter in Näs but we still have a small error in the limits of
the reactive power output from the converter in Bäcks. This depends on that we have
different limits of the reactive power output in the converter in Näs and in the
converter in Bäcks and at the same time we cannot have different base powers in the
two converters. We have not fully understood why we cannot have different base
powers in the converter in Näs and in the converter in Bäcks and why the limits of the
reactive power output are fixed to ±0.5 [p.u.].
3. The third problem is the same as problem number 3 in the list in section 4.3.2.
4. The fourth problem is the same as problem number 4 in the list in section 4.3.2.
5. The fifth problem is the same as problem number 5 in the list in section 4.3.2.
6. The increase of the reactive power output from the AC voltage regulators is to fast in
the model. We have solved this problem by changing the parameters for the AC
voltage regulators in the source code of “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” to the values of
similar parameters in the “Simpow model”. For the AC voltage regulator in Näs the
value of the gain AcvcKp has been changed from 0.6 to 0.9, the value of the
parameter AcvcIntLim has been changed from 0.6 to 1.6, and the value of the
parameter AcvcTi has been changed from 0.01 to 0.028. For the AC voltage regulator
in Bäcks the value of the parameter AcvcKp has been changed from 0.6 to 1.6, the
value of the parameter AcvcIntLim has been changed from 0.6 to 1.6, and the value
of the parameter AcvcTi has been changed from 0.01 to 0.013.
Page 54 (96)
7. The increase of the active power consumption from the active power regulator in Näs
is too slow in the model. For the active power regulator there are 10 parameters that
can be varied. However by doing sensitivity analysis it has been shown that only two
of them have an impact on the dynamic simulations. These are a gain Kp and a time
constant Ti. First we selected to change the time constant Ti to the value of 0.02 in
order to reach the same steady-state as in Simpow in a shorter time.
A simulation of the test system with a 0.8 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 0.5 +
j0.5 [Ω] in the fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the active power
consumed by the HVDC Light converter in Näs shown in Figure 4.3.1. “ABB’s Open
PSS/E model” has been simulated with both the default value of Ti (0.08) and Ti =
0.02. The results are compared with the results from the “Simpow model”.
Active power NAS.70 - NASAC.78

25
24
23
22
Active power [MW]
21
20
19
18
17
Simpow model
16 ABB's Open PSS/E model Ti=0.08 (default)
ABB's Open PSS/E model Ti=0.02
15
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
Figure 4.3.1 Active power consumed by the HVDC Light converter in Näs simulated
with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E.
Now we want to adjust Kp in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” to have a better matching
with the active power in the “Simpow model”. A simulation of the test system with a
0.8 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 0.5 + j0.5 [Ω] in the fault, applied in STEN.10
after 0.1 second, generates the active power consumed by the HVDC Light converter
in Näs shown in Figure 4.3.2. “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” has here been simulated
Page 55 (96)
with Ti = 0.02 and the following values of Kp; Kp = 0.3 (default), Kp = 1.5, Kp = 1.7,
and Kp = 1.9. The vertical axis in Figure 4.3.2 is focused compared to Figure 4.3.1.

22
21.5
21
Active power [MW]
20.5
20
19.5
19 Simpow model
ABB's Open PSS/E model Kp=0.3 (default)
ABB's Open PSS/E model Kp=1.5
18.5
18
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
Here we have chosen to use Kp = 1.7, which generates the simulation in PSS/E that is
closest to the results from the “Simpow model”. To verify that we have chosen the
most appropriate value of Ti (0.02), we have also changed the value of Ti to 0.015
and 0.025. A simulation of the test system with a 0.8 seconds three-phase fault with Z
= 0.5 + j0.5 [Ω] in the fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the active
power consumed by the HVDC Light converter in Näs shown in Figure 4.3.3.
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” has therefore been simulated with Kp = 1.7 and the
following values of Ti; Ti = 0.015, Ti = 0.020, and Ti = 0.025.
Page 56 (96)
22
21.5
21
Active power [MW]
20.5
20
19.5
19
Simpow model
18.5
18
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
In Figure 4.3.3 we can see that Ti = 0.02 generates the simulation in PSS/E that is
closest to the simulation in Simpow and therefore we have chosen to use Ti = 0.02 for
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Power-flow calculation
The power-flow calculation of the test system in Simpow and the two power-flow
calculations of the two test systems in PSS/E are equal and generate the data in Table 4.4.1.
Page 57 (96)
Table 4.4.1 Power-flow calculation of the test system in Simpow and the two calculations in PSS/E.
Bus U [p.u.] θ [o]

YGNE.70 1.0000 -0.13
BACK.70 1.0003 -0.22
NAS.70 0.9918 -3.25
STEN.70 0.9959 -2.25
BACKAC.78 0.9100 1.14
NASAC.78 0.9212 -4.74
4.4.2 Dynamic simulations
In this section we compare the dynamic simulations from the “Simpow model”, the “Standard
PSS/E model”, and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”. The parameters of “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” have been modified as described earlier in section 4.3.3.
A simulation of the test system with a 0.8 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 0.5 + j0.5 [Ω] in
the fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the data in Figure 4.4.1 - Figure
4.4.6.
Voltage NAS.70
1.2
Simpow model
Standard PSS/E model
1.15
ABB's Open PSS/E model
1.1
Voltage [p.u.]
1.05
0.95
0.9
0.85
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 4.4.1 Voltage at NAS.70 simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
Page 58 (96)
Reactive power NASAC.78 - NAS.70
90
Simpow model
80 Standard PSS/E model
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 4.4.2 Reactive power produced by the HVDC Light converter in Näs simulated
with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.

55
50
45
40
35
30 Simpow model
25
0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4
Time [s]
with Simpow and both models in PSS/E. Focused part of Figure 4.4.2.
Page 59 (96)
50
40
30
Active power [MW]
20
10
0 Simpow model
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]

25
24
23
22
Active power [MW]
21
20
19
18
17
Simpow model
15
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time [s]
Page 60 (96)
26
25
24
23
Active power [MW]
22
21
20
19
18
Simpow model
16
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
Time [s]
As we can see in Figure 4.4.1 the simulations with the “Simpow model” and “ABB’s Open
PSS/E model” correspond well to each other, for the controlled AC voltage, during the fault.
This depends on that the generated reactive power in Figure 4.4.2 is similar in the “Simpow
model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” during the fault. The “Standard PSS/E model”
cannot generate enough reactive power as shown in Figure 4.4.2, which results in that the AC
voltage shown in Figure 4.4.1 becomes too low. The reason for this is that the maximum
reactive power output from the converter in the “Standard PSS/E model” cannot be higher
than +0.5 [p.u.], see the second point in the list in section 4.3.2.
After the fault in Figure 4.4.2 we can see that we have a difference in the generated reactive
power in both the “Standard PSS/E model” and in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” compared to
the “Simpow model”. We have not fully understood what this depends on and we have not
found any solution to solve this problem.
In Figure 4.4.3 and Figure 4.4.6 we can see that we have a numerical error in the “Standard
PSS/E model”, see the red curve for 0.28 < t < 0.40 [s] in Figure 4.4.3 and the red curve for
0.85 < t < 0.92 [s] in Figure 4.4.6. The active power output and the reactive power output
from the “Standard PSS/E model” change for each time step and this results in the thick red
Page 61 (96)
line in Figure 4.4.2 for 0.28 < t < 0.90 [s] and the thick red line in Figure 4.4.4 for 0.28 < t <
0.90 [s]. We have not fully understood what causes this oscillation and we have not found any
solution to solve this problem.
In Figure 4.4.4, Figure 4.4.5, and Figure 4.4.6 we can see that we have a small deviation
during the transient in the consumed active power in both the “Standard PSS/E model” and in
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” compared to the “Simpow model”. The active power is
increasing too fast in the “Standard PSS/E model” and in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, just
after the fault is applied. Just after the fault is removed, the active power is decreasing too fast
in the “Standard PSS/E model” and in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”. All models consume,
however, almost constant active power during the simulation.
We intended to calculate the eigenvalues for the two test systems in PSS/E and the
eigenvalues for the test system in Simpow to analyze small-signal stability. We did, however,
not have access to the needed module in PSS/E and therefore we could not make these
calculations.
4.5 Conclusions
The simulations with the “Simpow model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” correspond well
to each other, for the controlled AC voltage in Näs, during the fault. This depends on that the
generated reactive power is similar in the “Simpow model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”
during the fault. There is a small deviation in the active power just after the fault is applied
and just after the fault is removed in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” compared to the “Simpow
model”. Both models transmit, however, almost constant power during the simulation. This
shows that “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” can be used to simulate the HVDC Light link at
Gotland in the test system. Two disadvantages with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” are that we
cannot simulate the temporary blocking or the transient response, which are included in the
Simpow model, see section 4.3.1.
The “Standard PSS/E model” cannot generate enough reactive power in the simulations,
which results in that the AC voltage becomes too low. The reason for this is that the
maximum reactive power output from the converter in the “Standard PSS/E model” cannot be
higher than 0.5 [p.u.]. We have also a small deviation in the active power, which is increasing
too fast just after the fault is applied and decreasing too fast just after the fault is removed in
the “Standard PSS/E model”. This shows that it is preferable to use “ABB’s Open model”
instead of the “Standard PSS/E model”.
Page 62 (96)
5 Dynamic simulations of Gotland
5.1 Setup
5.1.1 The HVDC Light link
The HVDC Light link is here modelled with both the “Standard PSS/E model” and “ABB’s
Open PSS/E model”. The setups of the models are the same as in section 4.3. The results are
compared with the “Simpow model”.
5.1.2 The HVDC Classic link
The model of the HVDC Classic link has been imported from appendix 3 in Kostina [13].
5.1.3 Machines
The synchronous machines in the nodes NG.14, NG.13, and NG.11 are modelled as “Type 2”
models with saturation only in the d-axis in Simpow. In PSS/E the machines have been
modelled as “GENSAL” models. The “GENSAL” model in PSS/E is similar to the “Type 2”
model in Simpow according to Persson [14], p.12.
The 24 asynchronous machines, which are representing the wind power units, are modelled
with “Asynchronous machine” models in the dynamic setup in Simpow. There is no
equivalent model in PSS/E to the “Asynchronous machine” model in Simpow and we have
instead chosen to use the induction generator model “CIMTR3” in PSS/E. The model
“CIMTR3” do not take the stator flux (dφ/dt) in consideration, which can result in differences
in the dynamic simulations in Simpow and PSS/E, see Öberg [16], p.2.
The asynchronous machines are equipped with over- and under-voltage as well as frequency
protection in Simpow. There is no model for over- and under-voltage protection in our
version of PSS/E (version 30) and therefore no over- and under-voltage protection model has
been used for the asynchronous machines. This problem is therefore solved by manually
disconnecting the asynchronous machines in the dynamic simulations in PSS/E according to
the result of the dynamic simulations in Simpow. In version 31 of PSS/E there are models for
over- and under-voltage protection, which needs to be included in future work, see Lindström
[10].
5.1.4 Regulators
The three synchronous machines in the nodes NG.14, NG.13, and NG.11 are equipped with
voltage regulators. The regulators for the machines in the nodes NG.14 and NG.13 are
modelled with “Type 15” models in Simpow. There is no equivalent model in PSS/E to the
Page 63 (96)
regulator model “Type 15” in Simpow but the model “BUDCZT” in PSS/E is similar to the
model in Simpow. Therefore the regulator model “BUDCZT” is used in PSS/E for the
synchronous machines in the nodes NG.14 and NG.13.
The regulator model for the machine in the node NG.11 in Simpow is written in the dynamic
simulation language DSL and called “”STEX”. There is no regulator model in PSS/E that is
equal or similar to the regulator model “STEX” in Simpow and therefore no regulator model
has been used for the machine in the node NG.11.
5.2 Setup of the loads

The characteristics of the loads in Gotland were detailed identified in a project described in
Adielson [12]. It is of a great interest to keep this detailed level of modelling the loads.
Therefore the following adaptation of the loads from Simpow to PSS/E has been made.
The dynamic model for a load in the dynamic setup in Simpow is shown in Equation 5.2.1.
NP NQ
 f   f 
S LS = P0 (U ) ⋅   + jQ0 (U ) ⋅  
MP MQ
 f0   f0 
Equation 5.2.1 The equation for a load in the dynamic simulations in Simpow.
In Equation 5.2.1 SLS is the complex power for the load. U is the actual voltage in [p.u.] of the
calculated voltage from the corresponding power-flow calculation. f is the actual frequency in
[Hz] and f0 is equal to 50 [Hz]. P0 and Q0 are the active and reactive power respectively from
the corresponding power-flow calculation. MP and MQ are voltage exponents and NP and
NQ are frequency exponents. MP, MQ, NP, and NQ do not have to be integers, they can have
any arbitrary value.
The dynamic model for a load in PSS/E that is as equal as possible to the dynamic load model
in Simpow is the model “IEELBL”. The model “IEELBL” is shown in Equation 5.2.2.
( ) ( )
S LP = PLoad a1v n1 + a2 v n2 + a3v n3 (1 + a7 ∆f ) + jQLoad a4 v n4 + a5v n5 + a6v n6 (1 + a8 ∆f )
Equation 5.2.2 The equation for the dynamic load model “IEELBL” in PSS/E.
In Equation 5.2.2 SLP is the complex power for the load. PLoad and QLoad are the active and
reactive power respectively from the corresponding power-flow calculation. v is the actual
voltage at the load in [p.u.] of the calculated voltage from the corresponding power-flow
calculation. ∆f is the frequency deviation in [Hz]. a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, n1, n2, n3, n4, n5,
and n6 are parameters that can have any arbitrary value.
Page 64 (96)
5.2.1 Voltage part
The voltage parts of the model of the load in Simpow (P0(U)MP and Q0(U)MQ in Equation
5.2.1) have already been converted to PSS/E-format in the power-flow setup, see section
3.1.3. This result in that we need to make the voltage part of Equation 5.2.2 equal to Equation
3.1.2 instead of equal to the voltage parts of Equation 5.2.1, see Equation 5.2.3.
( ) ( ) (
PLoad a1v n1 + a2 v n2 + a3v n3 + jQLoad a4 v n4 + a5v n5 + a6 v n6 = P1 + P2U + P3 (U ) + j Q1 + Q2U + Q3 (U )
2 2
)
Equation 5.2.3 The voltage parts of Equation 5.2.2 equal to Equation 3.1.2.
Because of that we can separate each load in Equation 3.1.2 into three loads P1+jQ1,
P2U+jQ2U, and P3(U)2+jQ3(U)2 we can make the voltage parts of Equation 5.2.2 equal to
Equation 3.1.2 by putting a1 and a4 equal to one (=1) and n1 and n4 equal to the voltage
exponents, see Equation 5.2.4, Equation 5.2.5, and Equation 5.2.6.
P1 + jQ1 = PLoad a1v n1 + jQLoad a4 v n4
Equation 5.2.4 The constant power part of the load as a separate load in PSS/E.
P2U + jQ2U = PLoad a1v n1 + jQLoad a4 v n4
Equation 5.2.5 The constant current part of the load as a separate load in PSS/E.
P3 (U ) + jQ3 (U ) = PLoad a1v n1 + jQLoad a4v n4

2 2
Equation 5.2.6 The constant impedance part of the load as a separate load in PSS/E.
5.2.2 Frequency part
The frequency parts of Equation 5.2.1 and Equation 5.2.2 are not possible to make equal. By
letting the straight lines of the frequency in Equation 5.2.2 be the derivatives of the frequency
parts of Equation 5.2.1, for the frequency 50 [Hz], we will have a solution in PSS/E with a
small difference to Simpow when the frequency is not equal to 50 [Hz]. For calculations see
Equation 5.2.7, Equation 5.2.8, and Equation 5.2.9. In Equation 5.2.7 and Equation 5.2.8 the
frequency derivatives at 50 [Hz] is calculated.
NP −1 NQ −1
  f  NP    f  NQ 
d     = NP f  d     = NQ f 
 f    f 0   f 
 0  f    f 0   f 
 0
d   d  
 f0   f0 
Equation 5.2.7 The derivatives of the frequency parts of Equation 5.2.1.
Page 65 (96)
NP −1 NQ −1
 50   50 
NP   = NP NQ   = NQ
 50   50 
Equation 5.2.8 The derivatives of active and reactive power when the frequency is 50 [Hz].
1 + a7 ∆f = 1 + NP∆f 1 + a8 ∆f = 1 + NQ∆f
Equation 5.2.9 The equations for the straight lines of the frequency in Equation 5.2.2 equal to the
derivatives of the frequency parts of Equation 5.2.1 when the frequency is 50 [Hz].
In Equation 5.2.9 we can identify the parameters a7 and a8 as a7 = NP and a8 = NQ.
5.2.3 Example
As an example we have here chosen load 1 at the node PILH.10. The equation in Simpow for
load 1 at the node PILH.10 is shown in Equation 5.2.10.
1.3 − 1.3
 f   f 
S LS = 2(U ) ⋅  + j 2(U ) ⋅ 
0.58 1.9
[ MVA]
 50   50 
Equation 5.2.10 The equation in Simpow for load 1 at node PILH.10.
The load in Simpow in Equation 5.2.10 is represented in PSS/E as the three loads in Equation
5.2.11, Equation 5.2.12, and Equation 5.2.13.
S LP = 0.5909(1 + 1.3∆f ) − j 0.0880(1 − 1.3∆f )[ MVA]

Equation 5.2.11 The constant power part of the load in Simpow as a separate load in PSS/E.
S LP = 1.6552U (1 + 1.3∆f ) + j 0.3774U (1 − 1.3∆f )[ MVA]

Equation 5.2.12 The constant current part of the load in Simpow as a separate load in PSS/E.
S LP = −0.2462(U ) (1 + 1.3∆f ) + j1.7106(U ) (1 − 1.3∆f )[ MVA]

2 2
Equation 5.2.13 The constant impedance part of the load in Simpow as a separate load in PSS/E.
The complex power for load 1 at the node PILH.10 with varying voltage was earlier shown in
Figure 3.1.4 and Figure 3.1.5. The complex power for load 1 at the node PILH.10 with
varying frequency is shown in Figure 5.2.1 and Figure 5.2.2. The voltage in Figure 5.2.1 and
Figure 5.2.2 is equal to 1 [p.u.].
Page 66 (96)
Active power in load
2.2
2.15
2.1
Active power [MW]
2.05
1.95
1.9
Simpow
PSS/E
1.85
47.5 48 48.5 49 49.5 50 50.5 51 51.5 52 52.5
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 5.2.1 Active power in load 1 at bus PILH.10.
Reactive power in load

2.2
Simpow
PSS/E
2.15
2.1
2.05
1.95
1.9
1.85
47.5 48 48.5 49 49.5 50 50.5 51 51.5 52 52.5
Frequency [Hz]
Figure 5.2.2 Reactive power in load 1 at bus PILH.10.
Page 67 (96)
5.3 Simulations
Here we perform simulations of the whole Gotland network.
5.3.1 Basic simulation
A simulation of the system with a 0.8 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 0.5 + j0.5 [Ω] in the
fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the data in Figure 5.3.1 – Figure 5.3.10.
Voltage BACK.70
1.1
Simpow model
1.08 Standard PSS/E model
1.06
1.04
Voltage [p.u.]
1.02
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.1 Voltage at BACK.70 simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
At t = 0.30 [s], t = 0.70 [s], and t = 0.71 [s] three asynchronous machines are disconnected
close to the fault. This can be observed in Figure 5.3.1 and Figure 5.3.2 where the voltage
increases at these instances.
At t = 0.39 [s] the tap-changer of the transformer in Bäcks in the HVDC Light link is
changing position. This can be seen in the “Simpow model” in Figure 5.3.1. At t = 1.00 [s] the
tap-changer of the transformer in Näs in the HVDC Light link is changing position. This can
be seen in the “Simpow model” in Figure 5.3.2. There are no dynamic models of tap-changers
included in PSS/E.
Page 68 (96)
Voltage NAS.70
1.2
Simpow model
1.15 Standard PSS/E model
1.1
1.05
Voltage [p.u.]
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.2 Voltage at NAS.70 simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.

60
50
40
Active power [MW]
30
20
10
0 Simpow model
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Page 69 (96)
25
24
23
22
Active power [MW]
21
20
19
18
17
Simpow model
15
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]

30
Simpow model
25
Active power [MW]
20
15
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05
Time [s]
Page 70 (96)
In Figure 5.3.3 and Figure 5.3.4 we can see that we have a difference in the active power,
consumed by the HVDC Light converter in Näs during the fault, in both models in PSS/E
compared to Simpow. The HVDC Light converter in Näs consumes almost constant active
power, during the fault, in both models in PSS/E while the HVDC Light converter in Simpow
is decreasing the consumed active power at the time t = 0.22 [s], see Figure 5.3.3 and Figure
5.3.4.
The “Simpow model” is decreasing the active power at the time (t = 0.22 [s]) when the
reactive power almost is at its maximum level, see Figure 5.3.4 and Figure 5.3.7. This
depends on that the “Simpow model” has priority on the reactive power. When the produced
reactive power is reaching its maximum level the “Simpow model” is decreasing the active
power to be able to produce a higher amount of reactive power. This have been verified by
changing the priority in the “Simpow model” to active power, see section 5.3.2.

90
Simpow model
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
For 0.0 < t < 0.1 [s] in Figure 5.3.6 we can see that we have different steady-states in Simpow
and PSS/E. The reason for this is that the steady-state changes in the pre-simulation in
Simpow. We have not found any solution to solve this problem.
Page 71 (96)
60
55
50
Simpow model
45
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time [s]
In Figure 5.3.6 we can see that the produced reactive power is decreasing during the fault in
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model”. It decreases from when the reactive power has reached its
maximum level until the fault has been removed, see the green curve in Figure 5.3.6 for 0.23
< t < 0.9 [s]. To verify that this problem do not depends on the changes of the AC voltage
regulators in the source code of “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” (see problem number 6 in
section 4.3.3) we have made a simulation with the default values of the AC voltage regulators
in the source code, see section 5.3.3.
The “Standard PSS/E model” cannot generate enough reactive power during the fault as
shown in Figure 5.3.6, which results in that the AC voltage shown in Figure 5.3.2 becomes
too low. The reason for this is that the maximum reactive power output from the converter in
the “Standard PSS/E model” cannot be higher than 0.5 [p.u.] of the rated power.
In Figure 5.3.5 and Figure 5.3.6 we can see that we have a numerical error in the “Standard
PSS/E model”, see the red curve for 0.9 < t < 0.95 [s] in Figure 5.3.5 and the red curve for 0.9
< t < 0.95 [s] in Figure 5.3.6. The active power output and the reactive power output from the
“Standard PSS/E model” change for each time step and this results in the thick red line in
Figure 5.3.3 for 0.9 < t < 0.95 [s]. We have not fully understood what causes this oscillation
and we have not found any solution to solve this problem.
Page 72 (96)
Voltage NNAS2A.0.6
1.15
1.1
1.05
Voltage [p.u]
0.95
0.9
0.85 Simpow model

0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.8 Voltage at the asynchronous machine node NNAS2A.0.6 simulated with
Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
Active power NNAS2A.0.6 - NNAS2A.10

16
15
14
Active power [MW]
13
12
11
10
Simpow model
9
8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.9 Active power produced by the asynchronous machine in node

NNAS2A.0.6 simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
Page 73 (96)
Reactive power NNAS2A.0.6 - NNAS2A.10
8
Simpow model
4
2
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.10 Reactive power produced by the asynchronous machine and the shunt
impedance in node NNAS2A.0.6 simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
The model of the asynchronous machines “CIMTR3” do not take the stator flux (dφ/dt) in
consideration, which can result in differences in the dynamic simulations in Simpow and
PSS/E, see section 5.1.3. In Figure 5.3.9 we can see the produced active power by the
asynchronous machine in the node NNAS2A.0.6 and in Figure 5.3.10 we can see the
produced reactive power by the asynchronous machine and the shunt impedance in the node
NNAS2A.0.6. The voltage at NNAS2A.0.6 is shown in Figure 5.3.8.
In Figure 5.3.9 and Figure 5.3.10 we can see that we have a difference in the active power and
the reactive power, produced by the machine in the node NNAS2A.0.6, with both models in
PSS/E compared to Simpow. We have not further investigated from where these differences
between the models occur, but what is most important here is that it is of major importance to
include a detailed model representing real installations of wind power units in PSS/E, as a
suggestion Chalmers induction generator model.
Differences in the dynamic simulations in PSS/E compared to Simpow in Figure 5.3.1 -

Figure 5.3.7 can also depend on the following;
1. The model of the HVDC Classic link to the mainland of Sweden in PSS/E has not
been verified, see section 5.1.2 and section 5.3.4.
Page 74 (96)
2. The regulator model for the machine in the node NG.11, called “STEX” in Simpow,
is missing in PSS/E, see section 5.1.4.
5.3.2 Simulation with priority on active power in Simpow
fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the data in Figure 5.3.11 and Figure
5.3.12. The “Simpow model” is now simulated with priority on active power.

60
50
40
Active power [MW]
30
20
10
0 Simpow model
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
with priority on active power in Simpow and both models in PSS/E.
Page 75 (96)
25
24
23
22
Active power [MW]
21
20
19
18
17
Simpow model
15
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Time [s]
with priority on active power in Simpow and both models in PSS/E. Focused part of
Figure 5.3.11.
By comparing Figure 5.3.11 and Figure 5.3.12 with Figure 5.3.3 and Figure 5.3.4 we can see
that the “Simpow model” is not decreasing the active power during the fault when the priority
is set to active power.
In both models of the HVDC Light link in PSS/E we have priority on active power which
results in that the active power stays at a constant level when the produced reactive power
reaches its maximum level, see Figure 5.3.4 and Figure 5.3.7. We are not able to change the
priority from active power to reactive power in any of the models in PSS/E and therefore we
have not found any solution to solve this problem and to have the same priority as in the
original “Simpow model”. However, when the “Simpow model” is changed, the results are as
in Figure 5.3.11 and Figure 5.3.12.
5.3.3 Simulation with the default settings of the AC voltage regulators in

“ABB’s Open PSS/E model”
In order to check if the behaviour of the reactive power in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in
section 5.3.1 is a result of our parameter settings, the network is here simulated with the
default settings of the AC voltage regulators in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, see problem
Page 76 (96)
number 7 in section 4.3.3. The “Simpow model” is here simulated with priority on the
reactive power.
fault, applied in STEN.10 after 0.1 second, generates the data in Figure 5.3.13. “ABB’s open
PSS/E model” is now simulated with the default values of the AC voltage regulator in the
source code.

90
Simpow model
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 5.3.13 Reactive power produced by the HVDC Light converter in Näs
simulated with Simpow and both models in PSS/E. “ABB’s open PSS/E model” is
simulated with the default values of the AC voltage regulator in the source code.
In Figure 5.3.13 we can see that the produced reactive power also here is decreasing, during
the fault in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, with the default values of the AC voltage regulators
in the source code. The reactive power is decreasing during the fault, from when it has
reached its maximum level until the fault is removed, see the green curve in Figure 5.3.13 for
0.15 < t < 0.9 [s]. The reason for this slow ramping in the reactive power in “ABB’s Open
PSS/E model” has not been found. This should be investigated further.
Page 77 (96)
5.3.4 Simulation of frequency regulation
In the model of the power system of Gotland in Simpow frequency regulation is included in
the model of the HVDC Classic link. In our model of the HVDC Classic link in PSS/E
frequency regulation is missing. The absence of frequency regulation in PSS/E results in that
our system becomes unstable after changes in the system. This can clearly be seen in
appendix 9.4.1 where we have simulated a 0.3 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 15 + j15
[Ω] in the fault, applied in STEN.70 after 0.1 second. In the simulations a majority of the
wind power units are disconnected in the Näs area. In Figure 9.4.11 and Figure 9.4.12 the
speed of the synchronous machine in the node NG.14 is plotted, which is the same as the
frequency at Gotland.
In Figure 9.4.11 and Figure 9.4.12 we can clearly see a difference in the frequency between
Simpow and PSS/E after the fault has been removed. The frequency simulated with the model
in Simpow is returning to 50 [Hz] while the frequency simulated with the model in PSS/E is
decreasing after the fault has been removed.
In Figure 9.4.9 and Figure 9.4.10 we can see that the active power in the HVDC Classic link
in PSS/E is constant while the active power in the HVDC Classic link in Simpow varies. This
variation of the active power in the HVDC Classic link in Simpow depends on the frequency
regulation that is included in the model of the HVDC Classic link in Simpow. The
disconnected power, which was produced by the wind power units in the Näs area and other
areas, is in Simpow replaced by a higher import to Gotland from the mainland in the HVDC
Classic link, see Figure 9.4.9 and Figure 9.4.10. In PSS/E this is not the case since the
imported power from the mainland is not regulated.
In our previous simulations in chapter 5 the absence of frequency regulation has not been seen
clearly since we have simulated a less powerful fault than in appendix 9.4.1.
5.4 Conclusions
In both the “Standard PSS/E model” and in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” we have a difference
in the transmitted active power during the fault compared to the “Simpow model”. This
depends on that the “Simpow model” has priority on the reactive power, which results in that
the model reduces the active power during the fault to be able to produce a higher amount of
reactive power. Both models in PSS/E have priority on active power which results in that the
transmitted active power almost is constant during the fault.
We have also a difference in the reactive power produced by the HVDC Light converter in
Näs in both models in PSS/E compared to Simpow. The “Standard PSS/E model” cannot
generate enough reactive power during the fault, which results in that the controlled AC
voltage becomes too low. The produced reactive power during the fault simulated with
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” is decreasing from when the reactive power has reached its
Page 78 (96)
maximum level until the fault is removed. This results in that the controlled AC voltage is
decreasing during the fault.
From the simulations shown in section 5.3 it is recommended to use “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” instead of the “Standard PSS/E model” of three reasons; a) “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” is possible to modify, b) there is a numerical error in the “Standard PSS/E model”,
and c) the results from “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” shows less deviation from the results
provided by the “Simpow model”.
Improvements are however recommended in the dynamic part of “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model”, see future work in section 7. Without the improvements, “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” should be used with a critical eye. In case of scepticism when analysing results from
PSS/E simulations, comparable Simpow simulations should be made in order to control the
results.
Page 79 (96)
Page 80 (96)
6 Conclusions
The conclusions are here separated in two subsections.
6.1 Conclusions from the test of fault simulations in PSS/E

In the test of fault simulations in PSS/E in chapter 2 the simulations in PSS/E and Simpow
corresponds well to each other. The curves in PSS/E and Simpow are before, during, and
immediately after the fault almost equal. This means that the calculations for both
symmetrical and unsymmetrical faults in PSS/E are correct concerning the positive-sequence
components.
A drawback in PSS/E is that we do not have any information concerning the negative- and
zero-sequence components in a time-domain simulation, which results in that we cannot
calculate the correct three phase-quantities. When we get the result from an unsymmetrical
fault, the result appears as a symmetrical fault in PSS/E and it is easy to think that the phase-
quantities are equal to the result of the positive-sequence voltage.
a small difference between the curves in some figures. The simulations with shorter time steps
becomes more correct but the difference is negligible and do not result in any difference in
long-term simulations.
6.2 Conclusions from the simulations of Gotland

In the power-flow simulation of Gotland in chapter 3 the two power-flow simulations in
PSS/E (one with the “Standard PSS/E model” and one with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”) are
equal and almost the same as calculated in Simpow. This shows that there is almost no
difference between the “Standard PSS/E model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in power-
flow simulations. Therefore both models can be used in power-flow simulations.
The result from the two power-flow simulations in PSS/E is almost correct except for the
imported HVDC Classic model in PSS/E is not corresponding perfectly to the model in
Simpow. The difference in the reactive power flow from the HVDC converters results in a
difference in the voltage magnitudes in the 70 [kV] voltage level. This results also in a
difference in some parts of the lower voltage levels where we do not have voltage-regulating
transformers. Here we should also have in mind that we cannot model a transformer with
infinite number of steps in PSS/E and therefore we can get a difference in the fourth decimal
of the voltage in nodes where we have voltage-regulating transformers when comparing the
calculations with Simpow.
Page 81 (96)
In the test of the dynamic of the HVDC Light link in chapter 4 the simulations with the
“Simpow model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” correspond well to each other, for the
controlled AC voltage, during the fault. This depends on that the generated reactive power is
similar in the “Simpow model” and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” during the fault. There is a
small difference in the active power just after the fault is applied and just after the fault is
removed in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” compared to the “Simpow model”. Both models
transmit, however, almost constant power during the simulation. This shows that “ABB’s
Open PSS/E model” can be used in the test system to simulate the HVDC Light link at
Gotland. Two disadvantages with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” are that we cannot simulate
the temporary blocking or the transient response, which are included in the Simpow model,
see section 4.3.1.
The “Standard PSS/E model” cannot generate enough reactive power in the simulations,
which results in that the AC voltage becomes too low. The reason for this is that the
maximum reactive power output from the converter in the “Standard PSS/E model” cannot be
higher than 0.5 [p.u.]. We have also a small deviation in the active power, which is increasing
too fast just after the fault is applied and decreasing too fast just after the fault is removed in
the “Standard PSS/E model”. This shows that it is preferable to use “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” to simulate the HVDC Light link at Gotland.
In the dynamic simulations in chapter 5 of the whole Gotland network we have a difference in
the transmitted active power during the fault compared to the “Simpow model” in both the
“Standard PSS/E model” and in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”. This depends on that the
“Simpow model” has priority on the reactive power, which results in that the model reduces
the active power during the fault to be able to produce a higher amount of reactive power.
Both models in PSS/E have priority on active power which results in that the transmitted
active power almost is constant during the fault.
We have also a difference in the reactive power produced by the HVDC Light converter in
Näs in both models in PSS/E compared to Simpow. The “Standard PSS/E model” cannot
generate enough reactive power during the fault, which results in that the controlled AC
voltage becomes too low. The produced reactive power during the fault simulated with
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” is decreasing from when the reactive power has reached its
maximum level until the fault is removed. This results in that the controlled AC voltage is
decreasing during the fault.
From the simulations shown in section 5.3 it is recommended to use “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” instead of the “Standard PSS/E model” of three reasons; a) “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” is possible to modify, b) there is a numerical error in the “Standard PSS/E model”,
and c) the results from “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” shows less deviation from the results
provided by the “Simpow model”.
Page 82 (96)
Improvements are however recommended in the dynamic part of “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model”, see future work in section 7. Without the improvements, “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” should be used with a critical eye. In case of scepticism when analysing results from
PSS/E simulations, comparable Simpow simulations should be made in order to control the
results.
Page 83 (96)
Page 84 (96)
7 Proposal for future work
1. The imported model of the HVDC Classic link in PSS/E, in both the power-flow setup
and the dynamic setup, needs to be investigated, see section 3.1.9 and section 5.1.2.
The imported model generates probably the differences in the power-flow simulations
in PSS/E compared to Simpow and contributes to differences in the dynamic
simulations of Gotland, see section 3.2 and section 5.3.
2. Frequency regulation needs to be included in the HVDC Classic model in PSS/E, see
section 5.3.4. Frequency regulation is missing in the dynamic setup of the HVDC
Classic link in PSS/E.
3. A model representing real installations of wind power units is needed, as a suggestion

Chalmers induction generator model. The model of the induction generator machines
in the dynamic setup in PSS/E “CIMTR3” contributes to differences in PSS/E
compared to Simpow in the dynamic simulations of Gotland, see section 5.1.3 and
section 5.3.1. The model “CIMTR3” do not take the stator flux (dφ/dt) in
consideration, which can result in differences in the dynamic simulations, see Öberg
[16], p.2.
4. A model of the voltage regulator for the synchronous machine in the node NG.11
needs to be developed in PSS/E. The voltage regulator for the synchronous machine in
the node NG.11, called “STEX” in Simpow, is missing in the dynamic setup in PSS/E,
see section 5.1.4.
5. Over- and under-voltage as well as frequency protection for the asynchronous

machines needs to be modelled in the dynamic setup in PSS/E. There is no model for
over- and under-voltage protection for machines in our version of PSS/E (version 30)
but there are models for over- and under-voltage protection for machines in version 31
of PSS/E. Therefore, the model of Gotland in PSS/E needs to be converted from
version 30 to version 31 of PSS/E and then the over- and under-voltage protections
needs to be modelled.
6. Tap-changers for the transformers in Bäcks and Näs in the HVDC Light link need to
be modelled in the dynamic setup in PSS/E. Tap-changers for the transformers in
Bäcks and Näs in the HVDC Light link are missing in the dynamic setup in PSS/E, see
section 5.3.1.
7. The priority of reactive power, which is included in the dynamic setup in the “Simpow
model”, needs to be developed in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, see section 5.3. The
transmitted active power is reduced in the “Simpow model” when the reactive power
production in the converter in Näs reaches its maximum level. This priority of reactive
power is missing in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
Page 85 (96)
8. The regulation of the active power on the power line between the nodes NAS.70 and
STNAS.70, which is included in the dynamic setup in the “Simpow model”, needs to
be developed in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, see section 4.3.1 and section 4.3.3. The
active power drawn from the grid in Näs is regulated in the “Simpow model” in order
to keep the active power on the power line between the nodes NAS.70 and STNAS.70
constant. This regulation is missing in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
9. The transient response, which is included in the dynamic setup in the “Simpow
model”, needs to be developed in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, see section 4.3.1 and
section 4.3.3. The transient response in the “Simpow model” is activated when the
controlled AC voltages become lower than 0.8 [p.u.] and results in that the reactive
power output becomes 90 [%] of its maximum value within 50 [ms]. This response is
missing in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”.
10. The temporary blocking of the HVDC Light link when the DC current becomes too
high, which is included in the dynamic setup in the “Simpow model”, is missing in
“ABB’s Open PSS/E model” and needs to be developed, see section 4.3.1 and section
4.3.3.
11. The limits of the reactive power in “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” need to be changed,
without changing the base power, in order to have the same base power as in the
dynamic setup in the “Simpow model”, see section 4.3.1 and section 4.3.3.
12. A blocking of the HVDC Light converter in Bäcks and its consequences need to be
simulated and analyzed according to Axelsson [5].
Page 86 (96)
8 References
1. GEAB Homepage, “Elnätet – ryggraden i din elanvändning”,
http://www.gotlandsenergi.se/elnat/index.php, December 14, 2007.
2. Shaw Power Technologies, Inc. “PSS/E 30 Manual”, Online documentation, 2004.
3. Per-Erik Björklund, “User guide for the PSS/E implementation of the HVDC Light
Open model Version 1.1.3-3”, ABB Power Technologies AB, Ludvika, Sweden, 2007.
4. Per-Erik Björklund, Discussion, ABB Power Technologies AB, Ludvika, Sweden,

2008.
5. Urban Axelsson, Discussion, Vattenfall Research and Development AB, Råcksta,

Sweden, 2008.
6. Phabha Kundur, “Power System Stability and Control”, The EPRI POWER System
Engineering Series, McGraw-Hill, Reprint ISBN: 7-5083-0817-4, 2001.
7. Lennart Söder, “Static Analysis of Power Systems”, Compendia used at Royal

Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
8. E. Johansson, J. Persson, L. Lindkvist, L. Söder, “Location of Eigenvalues Influenced

by Different Models of Synchronous Machines”, in Proceedings of the 6th IASTED
International Multi Conference on Power and Energy Systems, Paper 352-145, Marina
del Rey, USA 2002.
9. J.G. Slootweg, J. Persson, A.M. van Voorden, G.C. Paap, W.L. Kling, “A Study of the
Eigenvalue Analysis Capabilities of Power System Dynamics Simulation Software”,
in Proceedings of the 14th Power Systems Computation Conference 2002, Paper 26-3,
Sevilla, Spain 2002.
10. Per-Olof Lindström, Discussion, Vattenfall Power Consultant AB, Råcksta, Sweden,
2007.
11. Lars Lindquist, Discussion, STRI AB, Ludvika, Sweden, 2007.
12. Ture Adielson, “Analys av Elleveranssäkerhet för Gotland”, Vattenfall Transmission,

Råcksta, Sweden, 1989.
13. Natalja Kostina, “Modellering av Gotland Light i PSS/E”, Vattenfall Power

Consultant AB, Råcksta, Sweden, 2007.
Page 87 (96)
14. Jonas Persson, “Conversion of PSS/E-files to SIMPOW-format focusing on dynamic
models”, ABB Power Systems, Västerås, Sweden, 1999.
15. Ying Jiang Häfner, “Functional Description for HVDC Light Control – Gotland
Project”, ABB Power Systems, Ludvika, Sweden, 2001.
16. Öyvind Öberg, “Referat från PSS/E norden möte hos Birka Nät”, Vattenfall Sveanät
AB, Stockholm, 2002.
Page 88 (96)
9 Appendices
9.1 Test of fault simulations in PSS/E
1. Power-flow data file for the initial test system, Testsystem_initial.raw,
v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Testsystem\
2. Power-flow data file for the final test system, Testsystem.raw, v:\exjobb\Martin
Brask\PSSE filer\Testsystem\
3. Dynamic data file for the test system, Testsystem.dyr, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE
filer\Testsystem\
4. Sequence data file for the test system, Seqdata.txt, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE
filer\Testsystem\
9.2 Power-flow simulation of Gotland

5. Power-flow data file for the power system of Gotland with the “Standard PSS/E
model”, Gotland_Standard.raw, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
6. Power-flow data file for the power system of Gotland with “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model”, Gotland_Open_model.raw, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
9.3 Test of the dynamic of the HVDC Light link

7. Power-flow data file for the HVDC Light test system with the “Standard PSS/E
model”, HVDC Light test system Standard.raw, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE
filer\HVDC Light test system\
8. Dynamic data file for the HVDC Light test system with the “Standard PSS/E model”,
HVDC Light test system Standard.dyr, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\HVDC
Light test system\
9. Power-flow data file for the HVDC Light test system with “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model”, HVDC Light test system.raw, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\HVDC
Light test system\
10. Dynamic data file for the HVDC Light test system with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”,
HVDC Light test system.dyr, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\HVDC Light test
system\
Page 89 (96)
11. Dynamic data files for “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, chvdob_O-V1_1.obj,
chvdon_O_V1_1.obj, CONEC.OBJ, CONET.OBJ, dc_hl2_V1_1.obj, DSUSR.DLL,
DSUSR.exp, DSUSR.lib, DSUSR.MAP, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\HVDC
Light test system\
12. Source code for “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, chvdob_O-V1_1.f, chvdob_O-V1_1-
data-insert.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-declar-insert.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert.f,
chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert-AUTO.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert-Meta_AUTO.f,
chvdon_O-V1_1.f, chvdon_O-V1_1-data-insert.f, conec.flx, conet.flx, dc_hl2_V1_1.f,
dc_hl2_V1_1-logfile-insert.f, dc_hl2_V1_1-logfile-insert-AUTO.f, dc_hl2_V1_1-
logfile-insert-Meta_AUTO.f, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\HVDC Light test
system\
9.4 Dynamic simulations of Gotland

13. Dynamic data file for the power system of Gotland with the “Standard PSS/E model”,
Gotland_Standard.dyr, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
14. Dynamic data file for the power system of Gotland with “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”,
Gotland_Open_model.dyr, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
15. Dynamic data files for “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, chvdob_O-V1_1.obj,
chvdon_O_V1_1.obj, CONEC.OBJ, CONET.OBJ, dc_hl2_V1_1.obj, DSUSR.DLL,
DSUSR.exp, DSUSR.lib, DSUSR.MAP, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
16. Source code for “ABB’s Open PSS/E model”, chvdob_O-V1_1.f, chvdob_O-V1_1-
data-insert.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-declar-insert.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert.f,
chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert-AUTO.f, chvdol_O-V1_1-logfile-insert-Meta_AUTO.f,
chvdon_O-V1_1.f, chvdon_O-V1_1-data-insert.f, conec.flx, conet.flx, dc_hl2_V1_1.f,
dc_hl2_V1_1-logfile-insert.f, dc_hl2_V1_1-logfile-insert-AUTO.f, dc_hl2_V1_1-
logfile-insert-Meta_AUTO.f, v:\exjobb\Martin Brask\PSSE filer\Gotland\
9.4.1 70 [kV] three-phase fault simulation
A simulation of the system in chapter 5 with a 0.3 seconds three-phase fault with Z = 15 + j15
[Ω] in the fault, applied in STEN.70 after 0.1 second, generates the data in Figure 9.4.1 -
Figure 9.4.12. The simulation with the “Standard PSS/E model” resulted in a non-convergent
system and therefore the “Standard PSS/E model” is not included in the data.
Page 90 (96)
Voltage NAS.70
1.1
0.9
Voltage [p.u.]
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Simpow model
0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.1 Voltage at NAS.70 simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” in PSS/E.
Voltage NAS.70
1.2
1.1
1
Voltage [p.u.]
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Simpow model
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.2 Voltage at NAS.70 simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E
model” in PSS/E. Focused part of Figure 9.4.1.
Page 91 (96)
80
60
40
Active power [MW]
20
-20
-40
-60
Simpow model
-80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]

80
60
40
Active power [MW]
20
-20
-40
-60
Simpow model
-80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E. Focused part of Figure 9.4.3.
Page 92 (96)
80
Simpow model
60
40
20
-20
-40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]

80
Simpow model
70 ABB's Open PSS/E model
60
50
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E. Focused part of Figure 9.4.5.
Page 93 (96)
Active power NAS.70 - STNAS.70
80
Simpow model
40
20
Active power [MW]
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.7 Active power transmitted between the nodes NAS.70 and STNAS.70
simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E.
Active power NAS.70 - STNAS.70

80
Simpow model
40
20
Active power [MW]
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.8 Active power transmitted between the nodes NAS.70 and STNAS.70
simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E. Focused part of
Figure 9.4.7.
Page 94 (96)
Active power VVIK.130 - YGNE.70
250
Simpow model
200
150
Active power [MW]
100
50
-50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.9 Active power produced by both HVDC Classic converters in Ygne
simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E.
Active power VVIK.130 - YGNE.70

250
Simpow model
200
150
Active power [MW]
100
50
-50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.10 Active power produced by both HVDC Classic converters in Ygne
simulated with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E. Focused part of
Figure 9.4.9.
Page 95 (96)
Synchronous machine speed NG.14
50
Simpow model
46
44
42
Speed [Hz]
40
38
36
34
32
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.11 The speed of the synchronous machine in the node NG.14 simulated
Synchronous machine speed NG.14

50
Simpow model
49
48
47
Speed [Hz]
46
45
44
43
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time [s]
Figure 9.4.12 The speed of the synchronous machine in the node NG.14 simulated
with Simpow and “ABB’s Open PSS/E model” in PSS/E. Focused part of Figure
9.4.11.
Page 96 (96)

Modelling of The Power System of Gotland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelling of The Power System of Gotland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODELLING OF THE POWER SYSTEM OF GOTLAND IN

PSS/E WITH FOCUS ON HVDC LIGHT

Master Thesis Report

Flertalet komponenter i Gotlands elsystem behöver modelleras som exempelvis ledningar,

My supervisor at Vattenfall Research and Development AB was Jonas Persson. At KTH my

I want to thank the following persons and companies;

• Urban Axelsson for coordination of the project and discussions.

• Robert Eriksson for reviewing my report and comments.

• Mehrdad Ghandhari for coordination of the project and suggestions.

• Per-Erik Björklund for guidance and support.

• Vattenfall Research and Development AB for hosting my thesis work.

2 TEST OF FAULT SIMULATIONS IN PSS/E 7

3 POWER-FLOW SIMULATION OF GOTLAND 33

4 TEST OF THE DYNAMIC OF THE HVDC LIGHT LINK 51

4.1 Grid structure 51

5 DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS OF GOTLAND 63

6.1 Conclusions from the test of fault simulations in PSS/E 81

9.1 Test of fault simulations in PSS/E 89

1.2 The power system of Gotland

Figure 1.2.1 A simplified

1.5.1 The HVDC Light link

Figure 1.5.1 The HVDC Light link.

1.6 Report structure

Chapter 2 contains the test of fault simulations in PSS/E.

Chapter 7 contains proposal for future work.

Figure 2.1.1 Thévenin equivalent for unsymmetrical fault.

By comparing fault calculations in PSS/E with calculations in another software, which

2.1.1 Initial test system

Line From bus To bus R [p.u.] X [p.u.]

Generator U [p.u.] PG [p.u.]

S base 2220 ⋅10 6

Equation 2.1.1 The equation for the base current.

2.1.2 Final test system

Line From bus To bus R [p.u.] X [p.u.]

Generator U [p.u.] PG [p.u.]

2.1.3 The dynamic of the swing bus in PSS/E

Swing generator U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.] H [p.u.]

2.1.4 The dynamic of the generator

Parameters Value Unit Description

For dynamic simulation with no fault, see section 2.2.3.

2.1.5 Simulations of faults in PSS/E

Equation 2.1.5 The equation for the Thévenin equivalent impedance.

2.1.6 Sequence components of the power line impedances

Table 2.1.10 Sequence component data for the generator in bus 1.

R0 = Z 0 − X 02 = 5340.52 − 0.1442 = 5340.499998 [ p.u.]

Equation 2.1.8 The equation for the zero-sequence resistance.

2.2.1 Power-flow simulation of the initial test system

Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

Table 2.2.2 Power-flow in our initial test system with PSS/E.

From bus To bus P [p.u.] Q [p.u.]

Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

Table 2.2.4 Power-flow in our initial test system with Simpow.

From bus To bus P [p.u.] Q [p.u.]

Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

2.2.2 Power-flow simulation of the final test system

Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

Table 2.2.7 Power-flow in our final test system with PSS/E.

From bus To bus P [p.u.] Q [p.u.]

Bus U [p.u.] θ [o] PG [p.u.] QG [p.u.]

From bus To bus P [p.u.] Q [p.u.]

2.2.3 Dynamic simulation without fault

Generator δ [o] id [p.u.] iq [p.u.]

Generator δ [o] id [p.u.] iq [p.u.]