Preparation of Transient Simulation Data for PSCAD Relay

Case Study of Manitoba Hydro D72V Transient Relay Testing

Ding Lin Manitoba Hydro Abstract: This paper presents the procedure for efficiently preparing the data necessary to perform a PSCAD Relay [1] transient simulation study for relay testing. An existing 1300+ bus ASPEN Oneliner [2] phasor based system model was converted to an equivalent 4-bus PSCAD Relay model. A comparison of steady state 60 Hz results for both 3 phase and single line to ground faults verify that the transient and phasor system models are equivalent. The transient model can be used with confidence to generate transient fault waveforms simply not possible to develop with phasor based simulation method. Transient fault waveforms were used to investigate the operations of the forward and reverse ground directional overcurrent elements of the Nxtphase L-PRO line protection relay. Keywords Relay Testing, Transient Simulation, PSCAD Relay, System Equivalent, ASPEN Oneliner (ASPEN) 1. INTRODUCTION Randy Wachal Manitoba HVDC Research Centre transient PSCAD Relay model. A series of transient fault cases to represent various fault conditions and current flows are described. In general, transient testing allows a much more complete suite of cases to be used for testing, including such items like applications of the fault at any phase angle, variation in telecommunication and breaker operating times. A set of fault cases was utilized for transient testing of line protection for a new 230 kV transmission line (D72V) recently commissioned in Manitoba Hydro system. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEM MODEL

2.1 System Model PSCAD/Relay case for the system under investigation was developed from an ASPEN case. ASPEN is a fundamental frequency fault program, used routinely by Manitoba Hydro for protection studies. Manitoba Hydro maintains a relatively large (1300+ bus) system model in ASPEN. The conversion of a large system into a transient simulation can be a significant effort. For the D72V test program, the ASPEN system model was converted into a 4-bus PSCAD Relay case using equivalent voltage sources at each bus to represent the remaining system. A comparison between results from the PSCAD Relay case for three phase and single line to ground (SLG) faults at each bus and the ASPEN simulation was performed with matching results. This validation verified the system equivalence techniques used to reduce the system size and the system model conversion. 2.2 Procedure for ASPEN Equivalence Network and Conversion The Manitoba Hydro ASPEN system models consist of approximately 1300 busses. This system was converted to a 4-bus system including eight 3-phase transmission sections and three 6-phase transmission sections. A 6phase line section includes the mutual coupling effects when two 3-phase circuits share the same tower. The PSCAD Relay Case developed for this testing is shown in Figure 1. A step-by-step illustration of the process of developing equivalent sources at the 4 bus locations within the ASPEN program is described in details in its on-line help menu as well as its user manual (Reference 2: Appendix

Transient testing of protection relays with waveforms of the same quality and frequency response of the voltage and current waveforms the protection uses from the system PT and CT is becoming increasingly important [3]. This is true especially as the speed and complexity of the digital protection system increases. A form of dynamic testing has been developed based on the steady state phasor solutions. The pre-fault, fault and post fault steady state phasors would be calculated using a phasor based simulation program like ASPEN or PTI PSS/E. The prefault, fault and post fault phasors for voltage and current would be converted into time domain waveforms and then simply concatenated together to create a type of dynamic changing time domain waveforms. This dynamic STATE testing ignores any transient effects when the fault was applied or removed and works reasonable well there is a high level of filtering applied by the protection relay. A more accurate representation of the transient waveforms is to simulate the power system using a time domain simulation program to directly develop the transient fault waveforms. These waveforms include all of the transient effects. One of the difficulties encountered is developing the data necessary for time domain or PSCAD Relay simulation. In many utilities there is a large database of phasor based simulation models, which have been developed over a period of many years. This paper illustrates the process of converting and validating the existing phasor based ASPEN system model into a

-1-

G). This process is relative easy and would require less than an hour of time for any user with some familiarity of using the ASPEN program. Prior to proceeding to conversion to PSCAD, it is important to ensure the faults results generated in the full ASPEN system are the same as the same fault case in the equivalence or reduced ASPEN system Once the equivalent electrical system is developed and validated in ASPEN, this data is used to develop the PSCAD Relay case. It is possible to develop a PSCAD Relay case from a blank sheet but it is much quicker to select a base PSCAD Relay from the prepared examples. This example case is then modified into the study case. Additional Transmission lines, breakers and voltage sources can be added by copy and paste commands. The following steps illustrate the process. Step 1: Select the appropriate PSCAD Relay Example case. Step 2: Enter the Positive and zero sequence impedance for each voltage source. Add additional voltages sources as required. Step 3: Enter the transmission line data parameters either using the direct R, X, B values from the ASPEN model or if available, transmission tower geometry and conductor information in a PSCAD traveling transmission line traveling wave model. If mutual coupled transmission are utilized remember to input transmissions as 6 or more conductor elements.
Aspen4 Ridgeway 230 kV Bus 4

PSCAD supports mutual coupling of up to 20 conductors. Add additional transmission lines as required. Step 4:Add Coupled Pi branch sections to accommodate the fictitious branch data generated by the ASPEN Equivalence procedure. This data will have series R and X but no shunt B data. Step 5: Run the PSCAD solutions with no faults applied and adjust the voltage source magnitude and angle to give the desired prefault bus voltages and power flow. At this point the PSCAD Relay system model is ready for comparing steady state faults results with results from ASPEN case or to proceed with development of transient test waveforms. Permanent single and three-phase faults were applied and compared with steady state solutions with ASPEN results for the same case. 2.3 Validation of Transient System Model In order to compare PSCAD and ASPEN results it is important to remember ASPEN simulation results can be shown as phase or sequence quantities and that these results are steady state in nature. PSCAD provides a time domain voltage and current waveform similar to what can be measured on the power system. In order to compare ASPEN and PSCAD results, the time domain waveforms must be converted to a phasor equivalent. Within PSCAD there are RMS measurement blocks and 3 phase on-line
Rosser 230 KV Bus 3 Z1 = 43.05 [ohm] /_ 63.9 [] 100.0 [MVA] 230.0 [kV], 60.0 [Hz]

Ph Z1 = 109.05 [ohm] /_ 62.52 [] 100.0 [MVA] 230.0 [kV], 60.0 [Hz] 3 Phase RMS V6rms FT1 F1 16.41 km R23R 19.43 km R33V Aspen4 B5 3 Phase RMS V1rms St. Vital 230 kV Bus1 Z1 = 71.73 [ohm] /_ 47.39 [] 100.0 [MVA] 230.0 [kV], 60.0 [Hz] 19.40 km R32VD72V FT7 F7 -94.01 [MW] 27.16 [MVAR] 16.4 km D72V_1 V3 FT5 F5 3 Phase RMS FT2 F2 FT6 F6 95.48 [MW] -32.35 [MVAR] Z1 = 6.11 [ohm] /_ 84 [] 100.0 [MVA] 230.0 [kV], 60.0 [Hz] 20.07 km D36RD72V B2 B6 V2 3 Phase RMS V5rms -0.0001996 [MW] 0.005922 [MVAR] V6 B1 15 km D36R1 V1 3 Phase RMS FT8 F8 V2rms V5 FT3 F3 -150.7 [MW] 32.3 [MVAR] Ph V Aspen1

19.46 km D13RD16R

19.46 km D5R

Ph

0.001017 [MW] 0.01282 [MVAR]

151.2 [MW] -31.4 [MVAR]

B3

V3rms Aspen2 V4rms 3 Phase RMS

V4

B4 Ph V

Dorsey 230 kV FT4 F4 Bus 2

Figure 1: PSCAD Relay System

-2-

Voltage (V0) at: Bus 2 Dorsey Ridgeway Rosser St Vital Current (3I0): Bus 3 R33V Bus 2 D36R Bus 3 D72V Bus 2 D72V Bus 4 D36R Bus 2 D13R I1 I2 I3 I4 I7 I8 I fault Bus 4 Bus 1 Bus 3

SLG Fault at Dorsey Differenc e between ASPEN PSCAD* & ASPEN * PSCAD** 12.6 13.18 0.58 2.9 5.4 1.6 4.174 6.675 2.561 1.27 1.28 0.96

% Error between ASPEN & PSCAD* * 4.6% 43.9% 23.6% 60.1%

I1c XA I1a XB I1b XC

1 I1+

1 I1_0

Mag+ Mag- Mag0 1 (7) (7) (7) Ph+ (7) FFT Ph(7) F = 60.0 [Hz] dcA dcB Ph0 (7) 1 dcC I10ph

1 I1+ph

28 297 248 248 297 387 34114

17.54 412.9 298.6 296.4 414.5 424.9 36250

-10 116 51 48 118 38 2136

-37.4% 39.0% 20.4% 19.5% 39.6% 9.8% 6.3%

Figure 2: PSCAD FFT Block with Sequence Outputs

Table 1: Single Line to Ground Fault at Dorsey Bus

3 Phase Fault at Dorsey Difference between ASPEN & PSCAD PSCAD 0 36.8 24.5 45.77 0 0.7 1.1 0.67 % Error between Aspen & PSCAD 0.0% 1.9% 4.7% 1.5%

Voltage (V+) at: Dorsey Ridgeway Rosser St Vital Current (I+): Bus 3 R33V Bus 2 D36R Bus 3 D72V Bus 2 D72V Bus 1 R23R Bus 3 R32V Bus 4 D36R Bus 2 D13R I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I fault Bus 2 Bus 4 Bus 1 Bus 3

ASPEN 0 36.1 23.4 45.1

The results for comparison between the full (1300+ Bus) ASPEN and the reduced (4-bus) PSCAD system illustrate a close match for the positive and zero sequence voltages, branch currents and fault currents. Samples of results for a SLG and 3-phase fault are presented for a fault on Dorsey bus are presented in Table 1 and 2. Results are presented in both absolute value and % error. Care in interpreting results is required. For example, in the SLG fault case the zero sequence voltages at the non-faulted busses show a large percentage error, while the absolute values are within a very acceptable 1.3 volts. The minor differences can be attributed to the following: 1. Equivalence: Results for ASPEN system are 1300+ busses, while PSCAD are for the 4 bus system. Note: When a 4-bus ASPEN system was solved the results between ASPEN and PSCAD are within 1%. 2. Prefault load flow: ASPEN has fault calculations performed from a flat start position, while PSCAD solves the system. Even when the power flow is reduced to zero, or near zero, the effects of the transmission line charging are present. 3. Transmission lines are not identically modeled. ASPEN uses a coupled pi model with lumped R, X and B values. PSCAD calculates the traveling wave parameters for the line based on geometrical conductor configuration and conductor data. The 60 Hz lumped parameters calculated by PSCAD are close but not precisely the value used in ASPEN. 4. Mutual Coupling. The mutual coupling for some other transmission lines on the same right of way as D72V were not modeled in PSCAD but in ASPEN, because the geometry data for these lines was not readily available.

974 2177 1759 1759 1600 963 2177 2491 37484

963 2223 1779 1782 933 2221 2609 37150

-11 46 20 23 -30 44 118 -334

-1.1% 2.1% 1.1% 1.3% -3.1% 2.0% 4.7% -0.9%

Table 2: Three-Phase Fault at Dorsey Bus

FFT processing blocks that can provide positive, negative and zero sequence information. Figure 2 shows the PSCAD FFT block.

-3-

3. Development of Transient Test Cases 3.1 The Problem D72V is a new transmission line with portion of it constructed on the same towers of an existing line, and on the same right of way (ROW) with some additional existing lines. During state simulation testing of the relay, the directional ground overcurrent elements of the relay were giving some questionable results for some current reversal conditions due to mutual coupling effect. It was not clear whether the operation of these fast reacting elements is affected by the unrealistic simulation of the transition between states, or by different fault conditions such as fault inception angle or prefault line loading. The sensitivity of the forward and reverse ground overcurrent elements 67F and 67R of the Nxtphase L-PRO relay on the new D72V line was the focus of this transient testing program. 3.2 The Test Plan A number of PSCAD/Relay simulations were performed to generate the required testing waveforms. An A phase to ground fault was applied at the Ridgeway end of D36R, at Fault Location F3 on Figure 1, in order to produce a forward reverse current flow on D72V. The application of fault angle was modified from 0 to 180 degrees in 30degree steps; and the power flow from Dorsey to St. Vital on D72V was adjusted from 0, 100 and 200 MW. In addition, the telecommunications delay between line D36R

breaker opening at the Ridgeway, B1 shown in Figure 1, and the breaker opening at the Dorsey end, B2 shown in Figure 1, was selected at 30 or 100 msec. This set of tests was performed using the multiple run feature of PSCAD, generating a total of 42 test cases. Each test case generated the three voltage and three current signals required for transient testing of the Dorsey and St Vital D72V protection system. An example of the waveforms is shown in Figure 3. Initially 200 MW is flowing on D72V. A SLG fault is applied at Ridgeway end of the D36R line. The voltage and currents presented are recorded at the Dorsey end of D72V. When the fault is applied, the D72V relay at Dorsey end sees reverse current. The Ridgeway breaker opens 50 msec (3 cycles) after the fault, changing the direction of the current as seen at the Dorsey end of D72V. The breaker on D36R remote from the fault opens 30 msec after the local end (approximately 2 cycles) and removes the fault current flow from D72V. These faults waveforms were used for real time transient testing of the D72V. The overall development time for PSCAD Relay Case development, validation with ASPEN steady state and transient case study plan was a couple of days, with the bulk of effort in the validation testing. 3.3 Results of the Testing Program The transient waveforms were played into a Nxtphase LPRO relay configured with the appropriate setting D72V
DorseyD72V-2002-05-16_13.18.31.071 : 2002-05-16 08:18:31 .071 -- 51N Alarm

D72V Line Current A

Dorsey 2002/M ay/16 08:18:31.071181 Rosser

6.0

-10.0

D72V Line Current B

Dorsey 2002/M ay/16 08:18:31.071181 Rosser

4.0

-4.0

D729 Line Current C

Dorsey 2002/M ay/16 08:18:31.071181 Rosser

4.0

-4.0

3Io_M ain
Dorsey 2002/M ay/16 08:18:31.071181 Rosser

6.0

-5.0

P roLogic 1

L L L

P roLogic 2

Com m . Schem e Send

Figure 4: Sample Relay Recording at D72V Dorsey Figure 3: Sample Transient Test Waveforms Voltage and Current at D72V Dorsey

-4-

files. Figure 3 illustrates the transient waveforms generated by PSCAD Relay, which were played into the relay. Figure 4 shows a set of sample waveforms recorded by the L-PRO relay. The operation of the 67F and 67R elements was verified over a large number of cases during a one-day testing period. The transient testing program confirmed that the relay operation was not dependent on the prefault loading, fault inception angle or the protection telecommunication delay on the faulty line, but the level of positive sequence component of the fault current has an effect on the operation of the directional ground overcurrent elements. 4. CONCLUSIONS Transient simulation testing of protection offers many advantages over the more traditional methods. Since the transient waveforms produced represent realistic voltage and current waveforms that the protection sees in service, the overall confidence in the testing results is greatly increased. The process to develop a transient system simulation model from a phasor-based system is not difficult. With PSCAD/Relay, it was possible to develop a study system that produced the same results as a fundamental frequency program. Once the positive and zero sequence networks were confirmed, the development of particular study cases of interest was performed. These PSCAD/Relay generated waveforms were injected into the protection system using a real time transient playback system, allowing a thorough confirmation of the relay

performance. The development of a transient test plan can be performed within PSCAD Relay with minimum effort. These transient test waveforms can be used to verify the relay performance with confidence for either single or GPS based end-to-end testing. The operation of the Nxtphase L-PRO relay was verified over a large number of cases during a one-day laboratory testing period. 5. REFERENCE
[1]

[2] [3]

PSCAD/Relay Installation and Operations Manual, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre, Aug 2001. ASPEN Oneliner V2001 Users Manual M.S. Sachdev, T.S. Sidhu, P.G. McLaren, Issues and Opportunities for Testing Numerical Relays, IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Seattle, Washington, USA, 16 20 July 2000.

-5-