ANL/DIS-13/05 Review of Existing Hydroelectric Turbine-Governor Simulation Models Decision and Information Sciences About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357 The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439 For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov Availability of This Report This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bridge It is also available on paper to the U.S Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from: U.S Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone (865) 576-8401 fax (865) 576-5728 reports@adonis.osti.gov Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or UChicago Argonne, LLC This report is being disseminated by the Department of Energy As such, this document was prepared in compliance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Department of Energy Although this report does not constitute “influential” information, as that term is defined in DOE’s Information Quality Guidelines or the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the study was reviewed both internally and externally prior to publication For purposes of external review, the study benefited from the advice and comments of an advisory working group consisting of more than 30 experts from the industry, government, and research institutions ANL/DIS-13/05 Review of Existing Hydroelectric Turbine-Governor Simulation Models prepared for U.S Department of Energy – Wind and Water Power Technologies Office prepared by Vladimir Koritarov and Leah Guzowski Decision and Information Sciences, Argonne National Laboratory James Feltes, Yuriy Kazachkov, Baldwin Lam, Carlos Grande-Moran, Gary Thomann and Larry Eng Siemens PTI Bruno Trouille and Peter Donalek MWH Americas August 2013 This page intentionally left blank Preface This report is one of several reports developed during the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) study on the Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced Pumped Storage Hydropower in the United States The study was led by Argonne National Laboratory in collaboration with Siemens PTI, Energy Exemplar, MWH Americas, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Funding for the study was provided by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) through a program managed by the EERE’s Wind and Water Power Technologies Office (WWPTO) The scope of work for the study has two main components: (1) development of vendorneutral dynamic simulation models for advanced pumped storage hydro (PSH) technologies, and (2) production cost and revenue analyses to assess the value of PSH in the power system Throughout the study, the project team was supported and guided by an Advisory Working Group (AWG) consisting of more than 30 experts from a diverse group of organizations including the hydropower industry and equipment manufacturers, electric power utilities and regional electricity market operators, hydro engineering and consulting companies, national laboratories, universities and research institutions, hydropower industry associations, and government and regulatory agencies The development of vendor-neutral models was carried out by the Advanced Technology Modeling Task Force Group (TFG) and was led by experts from Siemens PTI with the participation of experts from other project team members First, the Advanced Technology Modeling TFG reviewed and prepared a summary of the existing dynamic models of hydro and PSH plants that are currently in use in the United States This is published in the report Review of Existing Hydroelectric Turbine-Governor Simulation Models The review served to determine the needs for improvements of existing models and for the development of new ones While it was found that the existing dynamic models for conventional hydro and PSH plants allow for accurate representation and modeling of these technologies, it was concluded that there is a need for the development of dynamic models for two PSH technologies for which there were no existing models available in the United States at the time of the study Those two technologies are (1) adjustable speed PSH plants employing doubly-fed induction machines (DFIM), and (2) ternary PSH units The Advanced Technology Modeling TFG developed vendor-neutral models of these two PSH technologies, which are published in two reports: (1) Modeling Adjustable Speed Pumped Storage Hydro Units Employing Doubly-Fed Induction Machines, and (2) Modeling Ternary Pumped Storage Units Extensive testing of newly developed models was performed using the Siemens PTI’s standard test cases for the Power System Simulator for Engineering (PSS®E) model as well as the Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s (WECC’s) modeling cases for Western Interconnection that were provided in PSS®E format The results of model iii testing are presented in the report Testing Dynamic Simulation Models for Different Types of Advanced Pumped Storage Hydro Units In addition to review by the project team members and the DOE, all these reports have been reviewed by members of the AWG, and their comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the final versions of the reports Parts of these reports will also be included in the final report for the entire study to illustrate the model development component of the work iv Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support and guidance provided to the project team by the staff and contractors of the DOE/EERE’s Wind and Water Power Technologies Office (WWPTO), including Michael Reed, Rajesh Dham, Charlton Clark, Rob Hovsapian, Patrick O’Connor, Richard Gilker, and others The authors are also grateful to the members of the Advisory Working Group for their excellent collaboration and efforts in advising the project team and guiding the study The Advisory Working Group included a broad spectrum of global pumped storage hydropower specialists including: Rajesh Dham, Charlton Clark, Rob Hovsapian, Patrick O'Connor, Richard Gilker DOE/EERE – Wind and Water Power Technologies Office (WWPTO) Rahim Amerkhail DOE – Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Michael Manwaring, Douglas Divine National Hydropower Association (NHA) Mark Jones, Elliot Mainzer Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Xiaobo Wang California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Zheng Zhou Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) Matt Hunsaker Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Tuan Bui California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) David Harpman Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Kyle L Jones U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Scott Flake, Greg Brownell Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Paul Jacobson, Stan Rosinski Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Alan Soneda Pacific Gas and Electric Co (PG&E) Osamu Nagura Hitachi Mitsubishi Hydro Teruyuki Ishizuki Toshiba Corp Rick Miller Rick Jones HDR Engineering Inc (HDR|DTA) Jiri Koutnik, Maximilian Manderla Voith Hydro Christophe Nicolet Power Vision Engineering (PVE) Peter McLaren Center for Advanced Power System (CAPS) Landis Kannberg Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Klaus Engels E.ON Wasserkraft GmbH Kim Johnson Riverbank Power Steve Aubert, Le Tang ABB Switzerland Ltd Ali Nourai DNV KEMA Rachna Handa v This page intentionally left blank vi Contents Preface i Acknowledgements iii Section Introduction 1-1 Section Power System Dynamic Overview 2-1 2.1 Interaction between Main Elements of Power Systems and their Controls 2-1 2.1.1 2.1.2 Excitation Systems 2-6 2.1.3 2.2 Generators .2-3 Governor and Prime Mover Controls .2-8 Hydroelectric Generating Plants 2-9 Section Hydro Turbine-Governor 3-1 3.1 Modeling Approach 3-1 3.2 Simulation Models in PSSE 3-5 3.2.1 HYGOV Model .3-5 3.2.2 HYGOV2 Model .3-7 3.2.3 HYGOVM Model 3-8 3.2.4 HYGOVT Model 3-13 3.2.5 IEEEG2 Model 3-16 3.2.6 IEEEG3 Model 3-17 3.2.7 PIDGOV Model 3-18 3.2.8 TURCZT Model 3-20 3.2.9 TWDM1T Model 3-21 3.2.10 TWDM2T Model 3-23 3.2.11 WEHGOV Model 3-25 3.2.12 WPIDHY Model 3-27 3.2.13 WSHYDD Model 3-28 3.2.14 WSHYPG Model 3-30 3.3 An Example of the Prevalence of the Hydro Models in a Large U.S Simulation Database Using the PSSE Software 3-32 Section PSLF Hydro Turbine-Governor Simulation Models 4-1 vii 4.1 Simulation Models in PSLF Version 18 4-1 4.1.1 GPWSCC Model .4-1 4.1.2 G2WSCC Model 4-4 4.1.3 HYG3 Model 4-6 4.1.4 HYGOV Model .4-8 4.1.5 HYGOV4 Model 4-10 4.1.6 HYGOVR Model 4-12 4.1.7 IEEEG3 Model 4-14 4.1.8 PIDGOV Model 4-16 4.1.9 HYPID Model 4-18 4.1.10 HYST1 Model 4-20 4.1.11 W2301 Model 4-22 4.1.12 HYGOV8 Model 4-24 4.2 An Example of the Prevalence of the Hydro Models in a WECC Region Database Using the PSLF Software 4-29 Section Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants 5-1 Section Bibliography 6-Error! Bookmark not defined viii PSLF Hydro Turbine-Governor Simulation Models Variable Description pgv22 Nonlinear gain point 3, p.u power gv32 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u gv pgv32 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u power gv42 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u gv pgv42 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u power gv52 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u gv pgv52 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u power Lookup table for nonlinear gain on Unit gv03 Nonlinear gain point 1, p.u gv pgv03 Nonlinear gain point 1, p.u power gv13 Nonlinear gain point 2, p.u gv pgv13 Nonlinear gain point 2, p.u power gv23 Nonlinear gain point 3, p.u gv pgv23 Nonlinear gain point 3, p.u power gv33 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u gv pgv33 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u power gv43 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u gv pgv43 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u power gv53 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u gv pgv53 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u power Lookup table for nonlinear gain on Unit gv04 Nonlinear gain point 1, p.u gv pgv04 Nonlinear gain point 1, p.u power gv14 Nonlinear gain point 2, p.u gv pgv14 Nonlinear gain point 2, p.u power gv24 Nonlinear gain point 3, p.u gv pgv24 Nonlinear gain point 3, p.u power gv34 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u gv pgv34 Nonlinear gain point 4, p.u power gv44 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u gv pgv44 Nonlinear gain point 5, p.u power gv54 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u gv pgv54 Nonlinear gain point 6, p.u power 4-28 PSLF Hydro Turbine-Governor Simulation Models 4.2 An Example of the Prevalence of the Hydro Models in a WECC Region Database Using the PSLF Software Section 4.1 showed that the PSLF software package has a wide variety of models to represent hydro units Some models are used much more often than others To illustrate this, a typical representation of the Western U.S power system was analyzed An official WECC PSLF power flow case named “17hw2a.sav,” dated April 26, 2012, and the corresponding dynamics data file named “17hw21.dyd” of the same date were obtained and examined to demonstrate the governor/turbine models that are being used to represent hydro machines in the Western Interconnection for stability studies Table 4-13 shows how often each hydro turbine-governor model is used Note that this table is provided for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed to imply that any model is better than another model or that the results shown here are typical of those from other systems Also note that some utilities may use more detailed models when studying dynamic phenomena associated with their particular plants The most commonly used hydro models in the Western Interconnection are the HYGOV, IEEEG3, HYG3, GPWSCC, and HYGOV4 models, all of which are used to represent more than 10% of the units Table 4-13 Governor/Turbine PSLF Models Used to Represent Hydroelectric Units in a Typical Western Interconnection Stability Database Number of Occurrences 133 % of Total 13.8 HYGOV and HYGOV4 257 26.7 HYGOV and HYGOV4 111 11.5 14 1.5 0.0 67 7.0 112 11.6 34 3.5 0.0 232 24.1 0.3 963 100.0 PSLF Model HYG3 Closest PSSE Model WSHYGP and WSHYDD HYGOV HYGOV4 HYGOVR HYST1 PIDGOV PIDGOV GPWSCC WSHYGP and WSHYDD G2WSCC WSHYDD HYPID IEEEG3 W2301 Total IEEEG3 4-29 PSLF Hydro Turbine-Governor Simulation Models This page intentionally left blank 4-30 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Section Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Conventional pumped storage hydro (CPSH) units have many similarities to conventional hydro plants The major difference is, of course, that the flow is bidirectional Usually, but not always, the same equipment is used for both generation and pumping; thus, the synchronous generator also operates as a motor, and the hydro turbine also operates as a pump Both components are therefore reversible in their functionality Some plants, particularly those with very high heads, may require separate turbines and pumps In practical applications, the transition from a generating to a pumping mode of operation (or vice versa) is performed by the operator and takes several minutes (i.e., it is usually not a subject of dynamic simulation studies, except possibly for those used in the initial design of the plant) Thus, in most simulation studies, the generating and pumping modes of operation for CPSH units are studied separately The system conditions being analyzed are appropriate for one mode or the other; for example, studies performed at peak load would model the units as generating while light load studies would model the units as pumping Although the following discussion is based on the PSSE platform, the approach is applicable to any commercial simulation software package Suppose we are studying a CPSH plant that has six units, as shown in Figure 5-1 5-1 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Figure 5-1 Electrical Configuration of the Plant Since studies of both generating and pumping modes of operation are necessary, the load flow representation is created to handle both modes It is convenient to represent each unit by two machines in the load flow and dynamic database, as shown in Figure 5-2 One machine represents the generating mode of operation, and the other machine represents the pumping mode Figure 5-2 Plant Model for Electrical Network Each of the machines is assigned a status parameter that allows the selection of either the generating or the pumping mode of operation One can thus establish a load flow model to represent the generating conditions by turning “on” the machines that represent generators and turning “off” the machines that represent pumps Using the opposite 5-2 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants status will result in a load flow model for pumping operation The dynamic simulation will recognize only the machines that are turned on in the load flow Of course, only one of these machines can be online in a particular load flow case In the generating mode, the representation in the load flow case is exactly the same as that of a conventional hydro plant During pumping, the electrical power consumed by the synchronous motor is negative in load flow The generator and pump can be represented by an identical set of generator and excitation system models In PSSE, the dynamic simulation models GENSAL, GENSAE, and GENTPJ are generally used to simulate the salient pole hydro machines As described in Section 1, there are many models available to represent the excitation system For the generating mode of operation, one of the available hydro turbine-governor models may be used The discussion in Section reveals different features of these models Sometimes the specific design of the plant may necessitate the modification of these existing standard models or the development of new, user-written models to represent pertinent details of this equipment For example, if several units share the same conduit, the model logic should be able to take into account that some of these units may be uncommitted for the system condition being analyzed To represent the hydro units in pumping operation, the “governor” model for the motor must be different from the governor model used when generating First, generally there is no speed regulation The operator opens and closes the gates under manual control, and the gate position remains fixed Second, the pump head is substituted in place of the static head The pump head is a function of the water flow, as shown in Figure 5-3 for a unit rotating at rated speed This pump characteristic can be characterized by a quadratic equation whose coefficients can be derived from pump characteristics provided in the specifications or determined by testing 5-3 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Figure 5-3 Pump Head Versus Water Flow If speed deviations during transient conditions are noticeable, the flow, head, and power of the pump should be adjusted The model allows adjustment per affinity laws proportionally to the speed, to the square of speed, and to the cube of speed, respectively, for flow, head, and power Mechanical power is calculated as the product of flow and head divided by efficiency If sufficient data are available, look-up tables of flow versus gate position and of mechanical power versus flow can be represented in the model An example of the pump model is shown in the block diagram of Figure 5-4 5-4 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Figure 5-4 Block Diagram of Pump Model The models and parameters for both the generating mode and the pumping mode of operation should be thoroughly tested Such tests can be used to demonstrate some of the characteristics of the model that was just described Regarding operation as a generator, one concern is the tuning of the speed governor Usually, during this test (by simulation – not a field test), the plant is isolated and carrying a local load During the governor test, the load is dropped by 5% to 10%, and mechanical power and speed responses are monitored The plots in Figure 5-5 illustrate the governor test for a hydro plant with three units sharing the same conduit for the conditions where one, two, and three units are online The difference in response is due to the difference in flows depending on the number of units that are committed, resulting in a change in the hydraulic characteristics Similar tests can be performed for an increase in load 5-5 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Figure 5-5 Comparison Plot for Different Plant Configuration for a 10% Step Change in Load In the pumping mode of operation, the features of the CPSH plant mentioned above (i.e., three units sharing a common tunnel) also result in some peculiarities The initial plant conditions for the test illustrated in Figures 5-6 and 5-7 were that one unit (Pump 1) was online at partial load and the second unit was also online as a synchronous condenser During the simulation, the gates for the second unit were opened with a ramp that reached the fully opened position in 10 seconds Pump experienced a drop in mechanical power and flow during the ramping of the gates of Pump The initial surge in the drop in flow and power for Pump was due to the initial increase in the flow of Pump Because of inertial effects, there was no immediate change in flow in the common tunnel The sudden drop in flow in Pump produced a higher pumped head, which partially restored the flow The flow in the common tunnel increased due to the increased pump pressure from both units After the gates for Pump stopped moving, the flows, gate positions, heads, and powers settled at steady-state values This illustrates that the models for the pumped storage unit can be used to represent a wide variety of operating conditions 5-6 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants Figure 5-6 Response of Pump during Startup of Pump Figure 5-7 Response of Pump during Startup of Pump 5-7 Modeling of Conventional Pumped Storage Hydro Plants This page intentionally left blank 5-8 Bibliography Bibliography Agnew, P.W., “The Governing of Francis Turbines,” Water Power, April 1974, pages 119–127 IEEE Committee Report, “Dynamic Models for Steam and Hydro Turbines in Power System Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume PAS-92, Issue 6, 1973, pages 1904–1915 Hagihara, S., Yokota, H., Goda, K., and Isaobe, K., “Stability of a Hydraulic Turbine Generating Unit Controlled by PID Governor,” Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume 97, No 6, Nov./Dec 1979, pages 2294–2298 Hannett, L.N., Feltes, J.W., Fardanesh, B., and Crean, W., “Modeling and Control Tuning of a Hydro Station with Units Sharing a Common Penstock Section,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 14, Issue 4, 1999, pages 1407–1414 Hannett, L.N., Lam, B.P., Prabhakara, F.S., Qiu Guofu, Ding Mincheng, and Bian Beilei, “Modeling of a Pumped Storage Hydro Plant for Power System Stability Studies,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Power System Technology, POWERCON '98, 1998, Volume 2, pages 1300–1304 IEEE Working Group Report, “Hydraulic Turbine and Turbine Control Models for System Dynamic Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 7, Issue 1, 1992, pages 167–179 IEEE Guide for the Application of Turbine Governing Systems for Hydroelectric Generating Units, IEEE Std 1207–2011 (Revision to IEEE Std 1207–2004), June 20, 2011 Kosterev, D., “Hydro Turbine-Governor Model Validation in the Pacific North West,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 19, No 2, May 2004, pages 1144– 1149 Kundur, P Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated,1994 10 Oldenburger, R., and Donelson, J., “Dynamic Response of a Hydroelectric Plant,” Transactions AIEE, Volume 81, Part III, 1962, pages 403–418 6-1 Bibliography 11 Ramey, D.G., and Skooglund, J.W., “Detailed Hydrogovernor Representation for System Stability Studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume PAS-89, Issue 1, 1970, pages 106–112 12 Sanathanan, C.K., “A Frequency Domain Based Method for Tuning Hydro Governors,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Volume 3, No 1, March 1988, pages 14–17 13 Schleif, F.R., and Wilbor, A.B., “The Coordination of Hydraulic Turbine Governors for Power System Operation,” Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume 85, July 1966, pages 750–758 14 Strah, B., Kuljaca, O., and Vukic, Z., “Speed and Active Power Control of a Hydro Turbine Unit,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Volume 20, No 2, June 2005, pages 424–434 15 U.S Army Corp of Engineers, Engineering and Design – Hydropower, Engineering Manual EM-1110-2-1701, December 1985 16 U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Selecting Hydraulic Reaction Turbines, Engineering Monograph EM20, 1976 17 Undrill, J.M., and Woodward, J.L., “Nonlinear Hydro Governing Model and Improved Calculation for Determining Temporary Droop,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume 86, No 4, 1967, pages 443–453 18 Vournas, C.D., and Papaioannou, G., “Modeling and Stability of a Hydro Plant with Surge Tanks,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Volume 10, No 2, June 1995, pages 368–375 19 Woodward, J.L., “Hydraulic – Turbine Transfer Function for Use in Governing Studies,” Proceedings IEEE, Volume 115, March 1968, pages 424–426 6-2 Decision and Information Sciences Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg 221 Argonne, IL 60439-4844 www.anl.gov Argonne National Laboratory is a U.S Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC ... the advice and comments of an advisory working group consisting of more than 30 experts from the industry, government, and research institutions ANL/ DIS- 13/ 05 Review of Existing Hydroelectric... dynamic models of hydro and PSH plants that are currently in use in the United States This is published in the report Review of Existing Hydroelectric Turbine-Governor Simulation Models The review. .. improvements of existing models and for the development of new ones While it was found that the existing dynamic models for conventional hydro and PSH plants allow for accurate representation and modeling