c i f i c a P T N Co-Simulation E In Power Electronic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

c i f i c a P T N Co-Simulation E In Power Electronic Dominated Networks L I S g I D

c i f i c a The Issue of Power Electronic Dominated Networks P • Very fast controls (in comparison with synchronous machines) T • Mostly non-linear controls and manufacturer specific N • Typically grid-following controls, injecting P and Q against voltage magnitude and angle • Assumptions may be wrong if the connected networks are too weak E L I S  Concerns are raised that classical RMS-simulations may not be sufficient anymore. g I D 2 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Running a model in RMS or EMT? P RMS Simulation EMT Simulation T • Less modelling efforts • High modelling efforts N • Fast simulations • High performance impacts • Allows full-scale model simulations • Typically only parts of networks will be E represented • Less detailed results, which might not L • Full detail assessments are possible if show all consequences I detailed (manufacturer specific) models are S available g I D 3 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Co-Simulation as a solution to get the best of both worlds? P • Splitting up the network in multiple sub- T networks N • Allowing to consider different parts of the network to be considered in multiple time- E domains • Allowing to make use of multi-processor L architecture I S • Connecting multiple simulation instances (w/o different simulation tools) g I D 4 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Single- vs. Multiple Time Domain Simulation P Single Time Domain Multiple Time Domain T • All sub-networks are simulated in the • Sub-networks are considered in different N same time domain time domains: - - RMS (balanced)/RMS (balanced) RMS (balanced)/ RMS (unbalanced) - - RMS (unbalanced)/RMS (unbalanced) RMS (balanced)/ EMT E - - EMT/EMT RMS (unbalanced)/ EMT - RMS (balanced)/ RMS (unbalanced)/ EMT L • Used to make use of multiple processors • Used to split up the network according to I needs S • Also makes use of parallel processing g I D 5 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Single- vs Cross-Platform Co-Simulation P Single-platform simulation Cross-platform simulation T • Used on a single co-simulation tool • Different sub-networks are simulated in N multiple simulation tool instances: • Only uses a single computer PowerFactory – PowerFactory - PowerFactory – PSCAD • Makes use of the local resources - E • Implemented using the IEEE C37.118 L • Allows the use of multiple devices for I different sub-networks S • Avoids issues with software defined g simulation models I D 6 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Co-Simulation Methods P Implicit Method Explicit Method T • Exact simulation results • Approximate approach N • Using long wave traveling times on long • Does not require long lines lines • Creating dynamic equivalents for the E • Requires small step sizes according to the exchange of signals L traveling times • Might not be precise I • Might have a negative impact on the S performance if the lines are not long g enough I D 7 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Illustrative Study Case for Co-Simulation P • Synthetically created 2.000 bus example T • 432 running generation units N • Panhandle-Region includes only wind generation (627 MW) E • Four simulations have been considered: - Full RMS (balanced) L • 0.15 ms step size - Full RMS (unbalanced) I • 0.15 ms step size S - Full EMT • 0.05 ms step size - RMS (blanced)/EMT co-simulation g • 0.1 ms (RMS); 0.01 ms (EMT) I D 8 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Example Simulations on the test network P • 1) Line fault with line switching after T 100ms N • 2) Busbar fault with bubar switching after 100ms E • Voltages are recorded and shown for the L busbar indicated as 3) • EMT results are represented as RMS I S values g I D 9 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Results of the line fault 1) P • All simulations show a stable behavior T • Results show the same behavior for N balanced and unbalanced RMS simulations E • EMT and Co-Simulation results show a L similar behavior during and after the fault • A small time shift is observable, but the I S spikes are correctly represented g I D 10 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Results of the line fault 1) - Interpretation P • All simulations show a stable behavior T after fault clearing N • The spikes shown in the EMT-based simulation might be relevant for a detailed E analysis • The need for an EMT-based simulation is L limited I S • Co-simulation shows a good representation of the observed busbar g I D 11 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Results of the busbar fault 2) P • Results show the same behavior for T balanced and unbalanced RMS simulations N • EMT and Co-Simulation results show a E similar behavior during and after the fault • The EMT-based simulations are unstable L • A small difference in the peak of the I S voltages is observable g I D 12 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Results of the busbar 2) - Interpretation P • The EMT-based simulation show an T unstable oscillation above 1 kHz due to controller interactions N • The need for an EMT-based simulation is E shown in this example • The unstable behavior can be L represented using the co-simulation I S within PowerFactory g I D 13 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Comparison of relative simulation performance P 160 148,1 Simulation time relative to the RMS-balanced T 140 120 N 100 simulation E 79,9 80 L 60 I 40 S 15 13,7 20 1 1 g 0 RMS (balanced) RMS (unbalanced) EMT Line Fault Busbar Fault I D 14 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Comparison of relative simulation performance P 160 148,1 Simulation time relative to the RMS-balanced T 140 120 N 100 simulation E 79,9 80 L 60 I 40 23,5 S 18 15 13,7 20 1 1 g 0 RMS (balanced) RMS (unbalanced) EMT Co-Simulation Line Fault Busbar Fault I D 15 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a Conclusion P • The used test case shows that in some cases of PE-based simulations, an EMT-simulation T might be required to observe certain phenomena N • Co-simulation within PowerFactory can be used to observe such phenomena without the need to run a full model on EMT-basis E • The co-simulation however, can reduce the time required for a detailed EMT-simulation for L certain study regions • Co-simulation techniques can further be used for cross-platform simulations I S g I D 16 Co-Simulation in PE-dominated networks; Arne Ellerbrock

c i f i c a P T N Thank you! E L I S g I D