ECE 422 Power System Operations & Planning
Final Project: Contingency Ranking by Time Domain Simulations
Spring 2015
Instructor: Kai Sun
1
WECC 179‐bus System
2
Load Modeling
• Load Model #1 (default): – P load is represented as 100% Constant Current load; Q load is represented as 100% Constant Z; convert P load to 100% Constant Z when the bus voltage is lower than 0.7pu
• Load Model #2 (Constant Z): – All loads P and Q represented as Constant Impedance
• Load Model #3 (Constant I): – All loads P and Q represented at Constant Current
• Load Model #4 (Constant P/Q): – All loads P and Q represented at Constant Power
3
Requirements
•3‐4 students in each team
– You may decide who you want to work with and send me the names of your team members by 4/10
– After 4/10, I will assign the other students to groups
•Data and a more specific work scope will be given on 4/13
•Classes during 4/16‐4/23 are cancelled (the final exam is on 4/21)
•Each team gives a 8‐10 minutes presentation on 4/28
•A no more than 6 pages report due by 4/30. Use the IEEE paper template at http://www.ieee.org/conferences_events/conferences/publishing
/templates.html
7
Software – TSAT in Powertech DSA Tools
•Powertech DSA Tools are installed at server rd0.eecs.utk.edu •Please send ithelp@eecs.utk.edu a request for remote access of that server.
•If you need any help on learning TSAT, please contact GTA Denis
8
Create a Project in Powertech’s TSAT
1.
2.
3.
1
Create a new project
Select the powerflow file in PSS/E RAWD Rev. 30 (*.raw) or PSAT (*.pfb) format
Specify the dynamic data file in DSATools format (*.dat)
2
9
Monitor Data
1. Create a monitor data file
–
The reference generator may be the swing bus
2. Add generators, buses or branches for monitoring 1
2
10
Contingency Data
3
Automatically create a list of N‐1 contingencies (all 3 phase faults on 500KV lines)
1
2
4
5
11
Load Modeling
12
Load Modeling
13
Automatic CCT Calculation
14
Automatic Stability Margin Calculation
15
Conduct Basecase Analysis
16
Groups 1, 3 and 5
Groups 1, 3 and 5
Groups 2, 4 and 6
Groups 2, 4 and 6
17
Group
1
Ryne Joseph Huff Blake Layfield, Randall Lumpkins, Stefan Leitner
2
Robert Germick, Ed Palmer,
James Haney,
Rob Stow
3
Alex Asbury,
Derek Lusby,
Nathan Peck,
Jacob Woods
4
Tyler McGraw,
Brad Bowles,
Alex Joss,
Jacob Favory
5
Ben Mills,
Michael Honey,
Ryne Clinard
6
Somasundaram
Surendhar,
Christ Bruffey,
Faith Frye
Project (WECC 179‐bus system)
Data: System load: 61.4GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2.1: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 1‐A
Tasks 2.2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 1‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on the Top‐5 (ranked by CCTs) of those 10 contingencies in Zones 1‐A and 1‐B
Data: System load: 61.4GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2.1: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 2‐A
Tasks 2.2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 2‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on the Top‐5 (ranked by CCTs) of those 10 contingencies in Zones 2‐A and 2‐B
Data: System load: 52.1GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2.1: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 1‐A
Tasks 2.2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 1‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on the Top‐5 (ranked by CCTs) of those 10 contingencies in Zones 1‐A and 1‐B
Data: System load: 52.1GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2.1: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 2‐A
Tasks 2.2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zone 2‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on the Top‐5 (ranked by CCTs) of those 10 contingencies in Zones 2‐A and 2‐B
Data: System load: 46.9GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zones 1‐A and 1‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on the Top‐5 contingencies in Zones 1‐A and 1‐B
Data: System load: 46.9GW
Task 1: N‐1 contingencies ranking for all 500kV lines
Tasks 2: CCTs of Top‐5 contingencies in Zones 2‐A and 2‐B
Task 3: Load model comparison on those Top‐5 contingencies in Zones 2‐A and 2‐B
18