Benchmark systems for ElectroMagnetic Transient (EMT) and Transient Stability (TS) hybrid simulation

Transcription

1 Benchmark systems for ElectroMagnetic Transient (EMT) and Transient Stability (TS) hybrid simulation Qiuhua (Tony) Huang Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA Liwei Wang, Xuekun Meng University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, Canada Shuqing Zhang, Yanan Zhu Tsinghua University Beijing, China IEEE PES General Meeting July 2017

2 Need of benchmark systems Comparison helps selection and improvement EMT vs EMT-TS hybrid simulation vs others ( e.g, TS, frequency shifting) Different interfacing (or network equivalent) models and interaction protocols in EMT-TS hybrid simulation area Benchmarks systems are important for transparent, apple-to-apple comparison Power flow, transient stability, small-signal stability HVDC CIGRE model However, in EMT and EMT-TS hybrid simulation research areas In most of previous publication, the developed approaches were tested on a customized test systems and compared with full EMT simulation Moreover, test systems were described at a relatively high level, not detailed enough for replicating the models and results. A set of open, well-documented benchmark systems is needed July 15,

3 Considerations for selecting the benchmark systems Applications AC/DC power systems: LCC-HVDC, VSC-HVDC (MMC, 2-Level) Specific or detailed studies: single-phase motors and power electronic loads Key issues of hybrid simulation Boundary selection Simulation efficiency Interfacing model EMT TS Interaction protocol Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave effects Harmonic or frequency dependent effects July 15,

4 What are included for one benchmark system Documentation One-line-diagram Benchmark system raw data (simulation tool agnostic) Benchmark system data in exiting tool formats Power flow data (e.g., PSS/E raw format) Dynamic data (e.g., PSS/E dyr format) EMT data (e.g., PSCAD) Negative and zero sequence data (if available) July 15,

5 Benchmark systems in the first release Benchmark systems Boundary selection Interfacing model Key issues of hybrid simulation Interaction protocol Simulation efficiency Harmonics or Fault (or voltage frequency sag) point on wave dependent effects effect IEEE 9 bus system + single phase motor loads Y Y Y N Y Y IEEE 14 bus system + LCC HVDC system Y Y Y N N N IEEE 39 bus system + MMC VSC HVDC system N Y Y N N N IEEE 39 bus system + 2 Level VSC HVDC system Y Y Y N N N July 15,

6 Benchmark System # 1: IEEE 9-bus system (+ motor loads) Detailed modeling of bus 5 including distribution system and detailed load models Fault pointon wave Effects [2] With (and without) motor loads Single-phase air-conditioner induction motor model [1]. Simulation efficiency Boundary selection Interfacing model Fault point-on-wave (POW) and voltage sag ramping effects [2] Unbalanced faults in the external system Original source [3] Interaction protocol EMT TS Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave effects Harmonic or frequency dependent effects July 15,

7 Benchmark System # 2: IEEE 14-bus system + LCC HVDC system G 1 G G The original AC line from bus 6 to bus 13 is replaced by a LCC HVDC The LCC HVDC is a modified CIGRE HVDC model, with a smaller rating 8 G 7 Boundary selection G Simulation efficiency Interfacing model 12 EMT TS Interaction protocol Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave effects Harmonic or frequency dependent effects July 15,

8 Benchmark System # 3: IEEE 39-bus system + MMC VSC-HVDC system The MMC VSC HVDC System Bus 6 and Bus 13 as interfacing terminals Adapted from OPAL RT CPU based Half Bridge MMC model Switching based, 40 cells per arm Original source [4] Boundary selection Simulation efficiency Interfacing model Interaction protocol EMT TS Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave effects Harmonic or frequency dependent effects July 15,

9 Benchmark System # 4: IEEE 39-bus system + 2-level VSC-HVDC system Two-level VSC HVDC, PWM decoupled dq control (carrier frequency is 1980 Hz) Rectifier: constant active and reactive power controls Inverter: DC voltage control and an AC voltage control Source [5] Boundary selection A modified IEEE 39 bus system interfaced with a VSC-HVDC system Simulation efficiency EMT TS Interfacing model Interaction protocol Fault (or voltage sag) point on wave effects Harmonic or frequency dependent effects July 15,

10 Benchmark System # 5 ( release cycle-2) Large AC system + HVDC system We are looking for such a benchmark system, and your contribution is welcome and much appreciated! July 15,

11 References [1] Y. Liu, V. Vittal, J. Undrill, and J. H. Eto, "Transient Model of Air- Conditioner Compressor Single Phase Induction Motor," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp , [2] B. Lesieutre. Simulation Models for Single Phase Compressor Motors. NERC FIDVR and Dynamic Load Modeling Workshop, September 30, [3] Q. Huang, V. Vittal, Application of Electromagnetic Transient-Transient Stability Hybrid Simulation to FIDVR Study, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.31, issue 4, 2016 [4] W. Li, J. Belanger, An equivalent circuit method for modelling and simulation of modular multilevel converters in real-time HIL test bench, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31. No. 5, Oct [5] Q. Huang and V. Vittal, "OpenHybridSim: An open source tool for EMT and phasor domain hybrid simulation, in Proc. of 2016 IEEE PES General Meeting, Boston, MA, 2016, pp July 15,

12 The New England 10 Gen 39 Bus System Select Bus 6 and Bus 13 to be interfacing terminals Fault applied on Bus 3, fault cleared after 0.1 second Adapted from OPAL RT CPU based Half Bridge MMC model Switching Based 40 cells per arm PQ control in MMC station 1 VQ control in MMC station 2

13 Operation Time Action 0.25 Pulse on at MMC1 and MMC2, Pref and Qref = Step PQ at MMC1, Pref=0.1 Qref= 0.1 at MMC2, Qref=0 1.2 Fault applied at bus 3 in AC system 1.3 Fault cleared Hardware and Software CPU i HQ RAM 8.00GB Matlab 2014b 64 bits

14 Bus 6, Terminal 1 Bus 13, Terminal 2

15 Bus 6, Terminal 1 Bus 13, Terminal 2

16

17

18