Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ii
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Task Force gratefully acknowledges the principal authors/contributors of the following
sections:
KEYWORDS
Grid Code, Generator, Synchronous Machine, Standard, Capability, Fault Ride Through,
Operational Flexibility
iii
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
2. THE PRESENT STATUS OF GRID CODES AND STANDARDS .............................. 3
3. DIFFERENT FACETS OF GRID CODES AND THE ENERGY TRANSITION ........... 5
3.1 Generator Capability Envelope and Design Challenges .................................... 5
3.1.1 Voltage-Frequency Operating Ranges ....................................................... 5
3.1.2 Reactive Power Capability ......................................................................... 8
3.1.3 Short-Circuit Ratio (SCR) ......................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations on Capability Envelope ................... 13
3.2 System Fault Related Requirements ............................................................... 15
3.2.1 Impacts of System Faults on Generators and Power Plant Response ...... 15
3.2.2 Single Fault Ride Through Capability ....................................................... 15
3.2.3 Multiple Fault Ride Through Capability ..................................................... 22
3.2.4 Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF) .................................................... 25
3.2.5 Auto Re-Closing ....................................................................................... 28
3.2.6 Maximum Power Output vs. Frequency.................................................... 30
3.2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations on Fault Related Issues .................. 33
3.3 Generator Excitation Systems......................................................................... 36
3.3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 36
3.3.2 Excitation System Power Equipment Design ............................................ 36
3.3.3 Excitation System Functional Design ....................................................... 45
3.3.4 Excitation System Grid Code Applicability & Acceptance Procedures ...... 55
3.3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations on Excitation Related Issues........... 57
3.4 Operating New and Existing Generators to Support the Energy Transition ..... 58
3.4.1 New Service Factor Requirements ........................................................... 58
3.4.2 New Duty Cycle Requirements ................................................................ 59
3.4.3 Existing Generators Flexibility Requirements in Grid Codes..................... 61
3.4.4 Possible damage scenarios ..................................................................... 61
3.4.4.1 The Effects of Frequent Starts and Stops ................................................. 61
3.4.4.2 The Effects of Load Ramps ...................................................................... 62
3.4.4.3 The Effects of Power Factor ..................................................................... 62
3.4.4.4 The Effects of Steady State Conditions .................................................... 62
iv
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
v
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
vi
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
1. INTRODUCTION
The recent energy transition towards large-scale integration of renewable energy sources
into the electrical supply system to combat global CO2 emissions across the world is
leading grid operators to specify more stringent operation and flexibility requirements for
generating equipment to safeguard the power grid operational integrity and stability. This
is causing a significant impact for generator owners and manufacturers and for those
responsible for designing generators and excitation systems. To avoid serious financial
consequences, these stakeholders need to ensure that equipment will be grid code
compliant and to ensure that equipment is not damaged by new modes of operation.
On considering those concerns, the IEEE PES Electric Machinery Committee (EMC)
established a task force to investigate and report on impacts of worldwide grid codes on
generator standards. This task force has reviewed over 30 diverse grid code documents
from around the world and has created this report to present key data, discussion and
recommendations resulting from that review.
The report mainly uses the term grid code to refer to legally imposed requirements on
generating units and their equipment. In many countries, grid codes are national laws. In
North America, NERC (North American Electric Reliability Corporation) develops
Reliability Standards; in the United States, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) facilitates the pro forma large and small generator interconnection
agreements (LGIA/SGIA); and in Europe ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission
System Operators for Electricity) is the entity authorized to develop network codes which
are issued as European Regulations that supersede national laws.
The task force also reviewed international equipment standards. Traditionally generators
have been designed according to IEEE standard C50.13 [1] and the IEC 60034 [2], [3]
standards which for many years have provided technical guidance to manufacturers and
purchasers of equipment to ensure that requirements and performance meet market needs.
In a deregulated electricity market, different interests of the market players have required
clearly defined connection requirements to ensure the stability of supply, as stipulated in
national grid codes. A comprehensive survey of grid codes by CIGRE [5] has shown that
they all extend or diverge from the technical requirements of equipment as specified by
standards. Furthermore, the requirements in the various national grid codes are not
harmonized, leading to many generator design modifications and challenges to fulfill the
needs of each national market.
Machines designed strictly in accordance with the afore-mentioned technical standards
may not be able to meet the most recent grid code requirements without additional studies,
and possibly post development or project specific adaptation. Therefore, the task force
considered recommending enhancements to these standards with the aim of using the
standards to more easily accommodate diverse grid code requirements.
It is important to understand that the energy transition is not only driving changes to grid
1
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
2
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
3
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
connection requirements for generators that must be complied with to operate in the power
system. These typical grid code requirements include:
4
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Generators must also be capable of operation within the ranges of ±5% in voltage and
+3%/–5% in frequency as defined by the outer dashed boundary in Fig. 2 but should be
limited in extent, duration and frequency to minimize the reduction of life.
However, the majority of grid code requirements extend beyond the voltage-frequency
operating range presented in Fig. 2. An example of the requirement [7], the Nordic grid
code is shown in Fig. 3 indicated by the rectangular boundaries.
5
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 3. Example of IEC/IEEE requirements vs. requirements of the Nordic grid code.
A further example is the requirement from the new EU Network Code Requirements for
generators [10] as shown in Fig. 4.
6
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
7
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
8
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 6. Specification of reactive power capability at the connection point and at the
generator terminals.
9
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 7. European Network Code reactive power capability requirements versus generator
capability with step-up transformer
10
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Unrealistic grid code requirements such as operating the generator at rated load and 0.85
overexcited power factor when the grid voltage is at its uppermost limit may cause
excessive generator voltages. Similarly, operating the generator at rated load and 0.95
under-excited power factor when the grid voltage is at its lower most limit may lead to
excessive armature currents. In such instances, as shown in Fig. 7, it is not possible to
meet the reactive power requirements with conventionally designed synchronous
machines if no on-load tap changing (OLTC) transformer is used. The alternative is to
use an oversized and more expensive generator for such unlikely operating conditions.
3.1.3 Short-Circuit Ratio (SCR)
IEEE C50.13 [1] and IEC600034-3 [3] specify the value of the short-circuit ratio shall be
not less than 0.35. The SCR (Kc), as defined in IEC600034-4 [4], is determined from the
no-load saturation and three-phase sustained short-circuit characteristics as a quotient of
the excitation current corresponding to the rated voltage on the no-load saturation curve
and the excitation current corresponding to the rated current on the short-circuit curve.
if o
SCR = Kc =
if k
i f o = field current at no-load & rated terminal voltage
i f k = field current at 3-phase short-circuit & rated stator current
Despite the SCR specified in the standards, most generators in the past were designed to
have a SCR > 0.45. However, there is an increasing trend that grid codes are specifying a
value of SCR ≥ 0.5. It is generally believed that a generator with a high SCR will contribute
to improved grid stability. Investigations [11] show that the effect of a ±10% variation of
the SCR on the critical fault clearing time of the generator equipped with a modern, fast,
and high gain excitation system is only marginal. Furthermore, increasing the SCR to
improve grid stability can only be effective for certain grid configuration at the connection
point. (For leading power factor operation and high external reactance.)
11
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• Power output reduces with about the same percentage as SCR increases.
For example, when the SCR of 0.45 is increased to 0.5, the MVA rating is
reduced from 1 p.u to 0.9 p.u.
• The generator weight increase amounts to about 0.6 times the percentage of the
SCR increase. For example, when the SCR of 0.45 is increased to 0.5, the weight
of the unit will increase from 100% to 107%. This weight increase has a
corresponding cost effect.
Fig. 8 shows visually the size impact of increasing the SCR by de-rating the unit.
12
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• The generator weight increase amounts to about 0.35 times the SCR increase
(e.g., SCR: 0.45 → 0.5 Weight [corresponding cost effect]: 100% → 104%);
see Fig. 9
For the same rotor, the rated field current increases with the air gap and leads to higher
temperature and lower efficiency.
Fig. 9. Generator with a standard SCR (left) and an increased SCR (right with an
increased air gap)
13
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
14
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
An important aspect of fault ride‐through studies is determining the critical fault clearing
time. This means considering the possibility that by the time that the fault has cleared, the
rotor could have accelerated such that synchronism with the power system is lost. If loss
of synchronism occurs, the generator must be disconnected from the grid to avoid machine
damage. Loss of synchronism can be detected by out-of-step and over-frequency
protection.
Power plant auxiliaries can trip on low AC voltage, AC voltage contactor dropout, and
stalling of induction motors loads that drive power plant auxiliary equipment (typically
pumps, compressors, fans, etc.). Motor stalling is detected by bus under-voltage protections
and motor over-current protections.
High electromechanical stresses can be caused by system short-circuits accompanied by
switching operation of a transmission line to remove the fault. Such line auto re-closing
operation can induce torques on the shaft of the machine that are even higher than stresses
caused by three phase short-circuits or out of phase synchronization and hence poses a
safety issue if the shaft is damaged.
Grid Code requirements on the ability of the generator to withstand system faults is defined
in different ways. The European and the North American grid code are discussed with
regards to fault ride through capability because they consider different formulations of the
requirement.
occurs at the generator HV bus, if the generator is connected to an infinite grid through the
step-up transformer and a transmission line (external reactance) as shown in Fig. 11. The
transient variation of the HV bus can be separated into two periods. The first period
corresponds to the fault period: and an abrupt voltage change due to the fault, and the
second period corresponds to the post-fault period. The transient variation of the HV bus
voltage is determined by the generator transient response and the generator connecting
impedance (sum of the step-up transformer and transmission line impedances).
In North America NERC Reliability Standard PRC-024-2 [19] (developed by NERC),
defines how voltage and frequency protective relays must be set to withstand specified
voltage-against-time duration curves. Each Generator Owner that has generator voltage
protective relaying activated to trip its applicable generating unit(s) shall set its protective
relaying such that the voltage protective relaying does not trip because of a voltage
excursion (at the point of interconnection) caused by an event on the transmission system
external to the generating plant. In Fig. 12, the horizontal axis is required time duration for
a specified voltage. It is applied to both “over” and “under” voltage protective relaying. It
must be emphasized that no generator stability requirement is imposed by NERC PRC-
024-2.
16
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
SG
Fault
V
Fig. 12. NERC low and high voltage ride through capability.
Consider a simulation model of a generator connected to the infinite grid through a step-
up transformer and external reactance between the step-up transformer and the infinite grid
from Fig. 11. A bus-fed static excitation system supplies the generator excitation. The
excitation system incorporates a speed deviation power system stabilizer. A key parameter
that affects synchronous machine transient stability is rotor inertia: higher rotor inertia
results in the ability to withstand longer faults. The inertia constant of the selected generator
(6.5 s) is in the upper range of synchronous generator inertia. The active power supplied
by the generator is 0.85 pu on the machine MVA base, whereas the reactive power
consumed by the generator depends on the reactive power requirements imposed by each
grid code. The extreme leading operating point has been chosen as the most demanding
operating point. As a short circuit capacity is not specified by the EU Network Code, this
study has assumed that it is 20 times the generator MVA base (which corresponds to a line
reactance equal to 0.05 pu).
Fig. 13 shows the voltage variation at the connection point and the generator terminals
compared to EU NC requirement in the case of lowest available choice of maximum fault
17
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
duration (140 ms). The generator is stable and the voltage at the connection point is over
the required voltage. Fig. 14 shows the voltage variation at the connection point and the
generator terminals compared to EU NC requirement in the case of maximum fault duration
(250 ms). The generator is unstable in this case. Generator terminal voltage shows
generator instability due to the loss of synchronism more clearly than connection point
voltage.
Fig. 13. Generator response in the event of 140 ms three-phase fault: voltage variation at
the connection point and at generator terminals compared to EU NC requirement.
Fig. 14. Generator response in the event of 250 ms three-phase fault: voltage variation at
the connection point and at generator terminals compared to EU NC requirement
The sensitivity of the critical clearing time (maximum fault duration) with respect to the
operating point and the impedance of the transmission line (external impedance) is
investigated. Fig. 15 shows the variation of the critical clearing time when external
18
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
impedance varies from 0.05 pu to 0.5 pu in cases of extreme leading, unity and extreme
lagging power factor operating points of the EU NC reactive power requirements.
In the case of the extreme lagging operating point, the selected generator would fulfill the
EU NC maximum fault duration requirement even if the external reactance was high (0.25
pu). However, in the case of the extreme leading operating point and for a low external
reactance (0.05 pu), the critical clearing time is 200 ms, which is between the minimum
fault duration (140 ms) and the maximum fault duration (250 ms). The response of a
generator also depends on several parameters: rotor inertia (H), short circuit ratio (SCR),
and excitation system ceiling factor (CF).
Fig. 16 shows the variation of critical clearing time when external reactance varies from
0.05 pu to 0.5 pu in the case of the extreme leading operating point of the EU NC reactive
power requirement when the generator inertia constant takes four different values (3.5, 5,
6.5 and 8 s), which covers a wide range of technologies. The rotor inertia constant of the
typical generator was 6.5 s. Rotor inertia depends on the prime mover type (hydro, steam,
gas or Combined Cycle Gas Turbine). Even a generator driven by a single shaft CCGT
whose inertia constant is very high (8 s) does not satisfy the EU NC most demanding
requirement (250 ms), combined with extreme and unlikely national choice of initial study
conditions. Lower rotor inertia results in lower critical clearing time. If rotor inertia
constant is 3.5 s, the critical clearing in the case of a 0.05 pu external reactance is 150 ms.
SCR is a key parameter of synchronous machine design. Fig. 17 shows the variation of
critical clearing time when external impedance varies from 0.05 pu to 0.5 pu in the case of
the extreme leading operating point of the EU NC reactive power requirement for three
values of SCR. The SCR of the typical generator used in this study was 0.63 pu. The effect
of ±10% variation of the SCR on critical clearing time is small.
On the other hand, ceiling factor (CF) is a key parameter of excitation system design. Fig.
18 shows the variation of critical clearing time when external impedance varies from 0.05
pu to 0.5 pu in the case of the extreme leading operating point of the EU NC reactive power
requirement for three values of CF. The base CF of the generator used in the investigation
was 3 pu. The effect of ±20% variation of CF on the critical clearing time is very small.
This is due to the fact that the field voltage during the fault period is mostly determined by
the terminal voltage instead of by CF since the generator is equipped with a bus fed static
excitation system.
19
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
400
Extreme Lagging
Unity
350
Extreme Leading
300
Critical Clearing Time (ms)
250
200
150
100
50
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
External Reactance (pu)
Fig. 15. Sensitivity of critical clearing time with respect to generator power factor.
400
H = 3.5 s
H = 5.0 s
350
H = 6.5 s
H = 8.0 s
300
Critical Clearing Time (ms)
250
200
150
100
50
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
External Reactance (pu)
Fig. 16. Sensitivity of critical clearing time with respect to generator inertia.
400
SCR=0.69
SCR=0.63
350
SCR=0.57
300
Critical Clearing Time (ms)
250
200
150
100
50
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
External Reactance (pu)
Fig. 17. Sensitivity of critical clearing time with respect to generator SCR.
20
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
400
CF=2.4
CF=3
350
CF=3.6
300
Critical Clearing Time (ms)
250
200
150
100
50
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
External Reactance (pu)
Fig. 18. Sensitivity critical clearing time with respect to generator ceiling factor.
A high excitation voltage CF may impose additional duty on the generator rotor winding
insulation system. Rotor insulation systems are crucial to the reliability of a generator. For
large generators, a high excitation voltage CF may mean exceeding the insulation design
voltage limits. Fig. 19 depicts the excitation field voltage acting on the rotor circuit causing
stress on the rotor insulation in the rotor slot. The field winding will be exposed to full AC
voltage levels with switching spikes (see Fig. 20) that reach the field ceiling voltage several
times per cycle. For a unit with high voltage CF, these spikes may exceed the allowable
voltage level of the rotor winding insulation.
21
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 20. Measured waveforms of the DC output voltage of the excitation unit and
corresponding AC input voltage.
22
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 21. RMS connection point voltages over time for multiple faults.
In the Australian National Electricity Rules (NER) [16], the Minimum Access Standard for
multiple voltage disturbance ride-through capability requires a synchronous generating
system and each of its generating units to remain in continuous uninterrupted operation for
a series of up to 6 disturbances within any five-minute period caused by any combination
of events. Reference [17] provides the results of a simulation carried out to show
compliance. Assessment criteria are:
a) An accumulated disturbance duration (Δt).
b) A total number of disturbances within pre-defined sliding time windows.
c) Sum of changes in voltage by the duration of the disturbance (ΔV x Δt).
An example taken from [17] of the multiple disturbance sequence and the connection point
voltage profile is shown in Fig 22. It shows a combination of multiple 2 phase faults
including a circuit breaker failure followed by unsuccessful single-phase line auto-
reclosing.
23
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig 22 RMS connection point voltages over time for multiple faults.
The above examples of multiple fault ride-through capability requirements clearly indicate
that gaps between grid code requirements and standards are increasing without
understanding the consequences or the impact on synchronous generator design. It is also
unclear for the case of the Australian NER rule changes, what type of disturbances must
be investigated to ensure a generating unit can meet the requirements. To withstand such
multiple fault events, project specific design studies must be carried out on the generating
plant including interconnected adjacent substations and generating plants. Whether it is
within the scope of equipment design standards to recommend design measures to ensure
multiple fault ride-through withstand capability, is an issue that needs to be agreed within
the standards and grid code communities.
Challenges from the generator OEM point of view are:
24
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
25
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 24. 1 Hz/s frequency drop with subsequent fast recovery resulting in over-frequency
representative trace
A subject study [7] provided analyses of RoCoF impact on generator dynamic behavior.
Frequency changes with a constant gradient will result in an immediate active power step
request at the generator terminal. Table 2 shows an example of a gas turbine driven
generator responding with active power steps for different RoCoF values. The power step
can represent either the deceleration or acceleration power for the entire turbine-generator
shaft line. For instance, a frequency gradient of 1.0 Hz/s may mean a power step at the
generator terminals of 35%.
Table 2. RoCoF and the Corresponding Impact on Power Step
Fig. 25 shows the power step for a negative frequency gradient RoCoF event. A negative
RoCoF results in an increase of exported power and consequently an increase of generator
load angle. A new power balance may occur or if the load angle exceeds its stability limits
26
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
for a certain duration this may lead to generator pole slip and a loss of synchronism with
the grid. The consequence of pole slipping is that severe duty will be placed on the unit
(large stator currents, high mechanical stresses, high induced voltages and currents in the
rotor).
Fig. 25. A negative frequency gradient RoCoF event and the resulting Delta-power step
change.
The study [7] also investigated the impact of increasing the automatic voltage regulator’s
ceiling voltage. It was found that such a solution has only limited effect on RoCoF
withstand capability. It was further determined that increasing voltage ceiling factors in the
range of 2.5 to.3.0 resulted in no significant increase of the maximum RoCoF withstand
capability. Fig. 26 depicts this latter analysis for both frequency decrease and frequency
increase RoCoF events.
27
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• Rapid reclosure (successful & unsuccessful) results in shaft torques which are
statistical in nature and could lead to cumulative fatigue damage to shafts;
• Generalized torsional stress requirements to design the equipment are not possible;
• Unit-specific study is recommended to be performed.
In addition to faster higher-ceiling excitation systems, high-speed reclosing of generation
lines could also improve the critical clearing times and therefore increase the fault-ride-
through / stability margins. In European grids [10], generating units shall be capable of
remaining connected to the network during single-phase or three- phase auto-reclosures.
Fig. 27 shows a typical grid configuration with auto-reclosing on the transmission lines.
stiffness, cross-section) and should be the scope of a unit-specific study. Fig. 28 shows the
generator’s air gap torques during a short circuit and the subsequent line auto-reclosing
sequence. Fig. 29 shows the rotor dynamic assessment on the shaft line to determine the
mechanical stresses against design limits.
29
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
showed that the shaft mechanical damping was limited and that the torque transient
created by three phase reclosing could cause excessive loss of shaft life. Because of this
risk, the conclusion was reached that three phase reclosing was a hazardous practice. In
the light of these findings, three phase reclosing should only be attempted after careful
and detailed study to preclude the possibility of causing severe machine damage.
The torques associated with single phase reclosing are less severe, but there are other
problems that need to be addressed, such as guaranteeing the extinction of the secondary
arc that is energized by capacitive coupling to the healthy phases.
30
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
31
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
32
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• The need to “de-rate” units to provide headroom for a possibly never occurring
event.
• Higher capital costs for dead capacity and loss of optimal efficiency. The total
economic impact (for the European market) is estimated at 0.5 B€.
• The need to develop and install compensation mechanisms with inherent activation
delay times, leading to an estimated economic impact of 0.1 B€.
• Risk to system stability. System may fully collapse if those compensation
mechanisms fail and hence also a risk of black out. The latter risk may be in the
order of several B€.
• The imposition of requirements for maintaining unit output during underfrequency
conditions does not eliminate the need for underfrequency load shedding, such as
was implemented in North America after 1965.
3.2.7 Conclusions and Recommendations on Fault Related Issues
Generators designed to IEEE C50.13 [1] or IEC 60034 [2][3] standards to withstand sudden
short-circuits do not automatically comply with the fault-ride-through requirements. It
would be helpful if the standards provide design guidelines related to fulfilling single FRT
requirements.
Investigations carried out have shown that FRT withstand capability depends not only on
generator characteristics but also on external factors such as:
As such, FRT withstand capability is a system issue and not just a generator equipment
issue. Solutions to meeting diverse and extreme FRT requirements must therefore also
consider optimizing performance of all affected power plant equipment as well as the grid
system parameters and operational procedures.
On the issue of multiple fault ride-through capability, many of the conclusions and
recommendations discussed for single FRT capability are also valid for the multiple FRT
capability. Since the latter requirements are relative new and place additional severe duty
cycles on the generator, it is difficult to ascertain the impact and risks on generator design.
It also appears multiple fault events are non-exhaustive and site specific so the probability
of not being able to capture a worst-case event sequence can be high.
In the opinion of this task force, only detailed electro-mechanical investigations on a
project specific plant design can determine the impact of multiple fault-ride through events
on the mechanical and electrical design of the generator. These analyses have to be carried
out including the impact of adjacent power system, resulting in a significant effort to carry
out such investigations.
The RoCoF investigations carried out by OEMs, have provided further insight on how grid
codes could better define the RoCoF withstand capability requirements.
As a minimum grid codes should define:
Grid operators should understand the consequence and impact of auto re-closing on the
generator turbine shaft-line. If stresses during auto re-closing are too high, there is risk of
catastrophic mechanical damage to the unit. To allow for unit-specific study, grid operators
should provide all the relevant inputs for carrying out such studies or should undertake this
responsibility themselves.
Due to the statistical character of re-closing events, the “worst” case may not be known nor
covered by design. To reduce the risk of high mechanical stresses on the generating unit,
it is recommended that line auto re-closing schemes should include supervision by synchro-
check relays to avoid re-closing onto a fault. Machine shaft integrity shall be considered
the top priority to ensure grid reliability and availability.
On the issue of maximum power capability reduction with falling frequency, IEEE C50.13
[1] and the IEC 60034 [2][3] standards specify that generators shall be capable of
continuous operation over the frequency range of ±2%. For the frequency range of +3%/–
5%, operation should be limited in extent, duration and frequency. It should be noted that
some prime movers, such as steam turbines have resonance points that can result in rapid,
cumulative damage that may require their immediate tripping.
Many grid codes require that the power-generating module shall be capable to maintain
constant output at its target active power value regardless of changes in frequency.
The consequence of such requirements on gas-fired power plants are:
• The need to “de-rate” units to provide headroom for an event which may never
occur.
• Higher cost /kW Capex for dead capacity, losing best efficiency, with cost
impacts measured in the hundreds of millions of Euros (dollars).
• The need to develop and install compensation mechanisms with inherent
activation delay times, again with cost impacts measured in the hundreds of
millions of Euros.
• Risk on system stability. System may fully collapse if those compensation
mechanisms fail and hence also a risk of black out. The latter risk may be in the
order of several billion Euros.
Grid codes should in future also include the duration and ambient temperature conditions
for this requirement.
An alternative solution would be to replace the requirement by intrinsic gas turbine
behavior only (manufacturers to provide the unit specific maximum power versus
frequency curves). Additionally, the load shedding schemes should be adjusted through
simulations.
The installation of storage devices (e.g. battery energy storage system), with a capacity
ranging between 1 and 5 % of the rated power of the plant (e.g. 1 MVA for a 100 MVA
power plant) could increase its flexibility. Those devices may also provide ancillary
services to the grid.
35
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
36
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
37
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
38
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• Ceiling voltage: “The maximum direct voltage that the excitation system is
designed to supply from its terminals under defined conditions. Note: The ceiling
voltage under load is determined with the excitation system supplying
synchronous machine rated field current.”
• Excitation system voltage response time: “The time in seconds for the excitation
voltage to attain 95% of the difference between ceiling voltage and rated field
voltage under specified conditions.”
• High Initial response (HIR): “An excitation system capable of attaining 95% of
the difference between ceiling voltage & rated load field voltage in 0.1seconds or
less under specified conditions.”
• Specified Conditions: Described in IEEE Standard 421.2: “To permit maximum
flexibility in the design, manufacture, and application of excitation systems, some
of the performance criteria are defined under “specified conditions”. The
applicable conditions are specified by equipment purchaser to meet applicable
reliability or interconnection requirements. Care must be exercised that the “under
specified conditions” clauses are written and interpreted in a manner consistent
with the application.”
Excitation speed of response requirements are frequently more challenging than HIR
requirements, with required response times sometimes being as low as 33ms. (i.e. 3 times
faster than HIR).
Requirements that include a short response time, or HIR, can present challenges for
equipment purchasers and manufacturers who need to select equipment components and
compare the costs of alternative systems. As such, it is very important to identify the
requirements for HIR systems in detail early in an excitation project, before the design is
finalized.
The complete generator and excitation system package should be considered to ensure that
the essential technical requirements for the application can be achieved with the most cost-
effective product configuration.
It is also important to consider that simply installing a fast response or HIR system can
have negative consequences.
39
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
For example, HIR requirements imply fast responses of a voltage regulator to changes in
the actual value of terminal voltage to benefit transient stability issues of the power system.
But the high dynamic response of the excitation system might unintentionally excite
turbine-rotor torsional oscillation modes as shown on Fig. 36. It may be necessary to
attempt to implement countermeasures to ensure that the frequency range of torsional
oscillations are not excited. It should be recognized that when countermeasures are not
effective it may not be possible to achieve the specified response. Similar interactions may
also occur with reciprocating engine prime movers with fast response excitation.
It is also well known that while a fast dynamic response of the voltage control loop has
transient stability benefits, it can also have a destabilizing impact to the local mode of the
generator. As a result, the requirement of an HIR excitation system usually implies
application of a Power System Stabilizer (PSS), even if not explicitly mentioned in the grid
code.
It is important to note that there is an inconsistency in the definition of ceiling voltage used
by grid codes, which refers to ceiling voltage in terms of rated operating conditions,
whereas simulation modelling standards such as IEEE Std 421.5 and most power system
simulation programs define one per unit generator field current as “that current required to
produce rated synchronous machine terminal voltage on the air-gap line” and one pu field
voltage as “the corresponding field voltage.” As a result, for the same ceiling requirement,
the numerical value of ceiling for voltage and current will be different for the simulation
and the machine rating specified by the grid code.
40
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
1.2
0.8
Field V
(pu)
0.4
0
-0.4
1.0005
Speed
1.0000
(pu)
0.9995
0.9990
0.56
0.55
Active P
0.54
(pu)
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.02
PSS Output
0.01
(pu)
0
-0.01
-0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (seconds)
when describing considerations for static excitation systems, IEEE Std. 421.2-2014 [59]
suggests that “….a ceiling voltage of 150% of the synchronous machine rated field voltage
is considered to be a minimum requirement.”)
As equipment satisfying HIR requirements can cause increased design and manufacturing
work compared to a more standard design then it is often useful to understand how close a
particular generator and excitation system design is to satisfying HIR requirements. A
generator manufacturer will be able to identify the associated ceiling voltage along with
the excitation system voltage response time of any particular generator design and this
information can be used to evaluate whether fully satisfying HIR requirements with a
particular ceiling voltage is really necessary or whether the more standard generator is
actually sufficient for the true needs of the power system. Frequently, HIR systems have
been initially specified without a detailed review of the costs and benefits but then re-
specified without the HIR requirement after a thorough cost benefit review of the
requirement has been completed.
A further consideration when specifying high ceiling factors is that with a thyristor bridge
typically used for such systems during normal operation, the firing angle for rated operation
of the generator would result in high losses in the snubber circuits of the thyristor rectifier.
These extra losses need to be carefully managed.
A combination of high ceiling factor and generators with a high rated output with a static
excitation system can sometimes lead to an AC input voltage greater than 1000V for the
thyristor bridge. This has to be considered by the design of the complete power part of the
excitation system including the excitation power transformer, power cables, thyristor
rectifier, de-excitation circuit and finally the rotor winding. Additionally, IEEE 421.3 [61]
and 421.4 [60] standards for medium voltage equipment must be taken into account.
The discussion above recognizes that vendors have standardized generator and excitation
systems, most of which were not designed to meet the ceiling levels associated with many
HIR specifications. Therefore, relative to these standard designs, an oversized and
therefore a more expensive exciter may be required which, for brushless systems, could
mean that a shaft mounted PMG becomes difficult or impossible to fit and therefore an
alternative means of providing the supply is likely to be needed.
Generally, many grid code or Transmission Operator connection requirements for fast
response or HIR excitation systems have been developed with very large generator units in
mind and these requirements frequently do not provide any significant benefit for smaller
units. In many cases a site-specific study can provide much greater benefits than simply
following blanket requirements for HIR from a grid code. This report supports the opinion
expressed by Hurley and Baldwin [62] that use of HIR systems should be limited to units
where there is a demonstrated need based on specific system studies and consideration of
alternative methods of stability improvement. Some grid codes do allow exemptions using
a waiver process depending upon size of machine, frequently using a study to show stability
margin is acceptable without the need for fast response or HIR, and this report encourages
that approach.
42
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
need to be specified from a protection relaying perspective. Note that primary protection
typically operates in less than 5 cycles and backup protection operates in less than 2 s.
275
Fast OEL
250 IEEE C50.13 Limit, below 10s
200
175
150
SCC Required
125
100
0
2
4
6
8
20
46
10
12
14
16
18
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
Time (seconds)
excitation system, the excitation voltage waveform applied to the main generator field is
likely to include high harmonic content and the effect on the rotor insulation of the
associated rate of change of voltage needs to be carefully considered.
Other possible grid code requirement conflicts that need careful consideration when
retrofitting are:
manual constant field voltage control, because constant PF or reactive power control will
reduce unit excitation and hence reactive support during system low voltage events,
exacerbating the disturbance. Because this is (usually) a control mode and not a hardware
design issue, even legacy generators must comply with this rule immediately.
b) Functional Design: Power System Stabilizer (PSS) Requirements
Stability is a power system issue. System operators are tasked by grid codes with
calculating load, voltage, frequency and stability limits and ensuring that operation is
maintained within those limits. Generator owners on the other hand, are tasked with
providing and operating equipment to allow stable operation, but usually they do not have
the mandate nor the tools and information to perform stability studies. Instead, stability
requirements include acceptance criteria which may, or may not, be easily evaluated by the
generator and equipment vendor.
Typically grid codes require that a PSS must be provided and be in service when the
generating unit is on line. An example grid code requires that the stabilizer design must
match that shown in IEEE recommended practice 421.5 [57] type PSS2C with two inputs:
electrical power and speed or compensated frequency. The detailed PSS requirements are
typically as follows: The positive and negative output limits not less than ±5% of generator
terminal voltage reference. The stabilizer output must be an input of the automatic voltage
regulator. The stabilizer tunable phase compensation must be within 30° of the required
closed-loop phase lag of the automatic voltage regulator with the unit on line at no load
and with the PSS out of service over a range of 0.2 and 2.0 Hz frequency. Sufficient gain
must be in service to provide a damping ratio above 0.1 or as limited by exciter modes of
oscillation.
In the preceding example, the design of the PSS is specified by reference to a standard.
However, the nature of tuning and testing to prove compliance is typically left to the
generator owner or vendor. A range of frequencies has been provided in order to capture
higher-frequency local modes and lower frequency inter-area oscillation modes. Some
jurisdictions only make specific requirements for inter-area modes, as local mode stability
is observable and part of equipment commissioning and testing (a unit that is not local
mode stable could not be operated).
The figure below shows a common test as described in the example above. The unit has
been synchronized and kept at low load. Its AVR has been tuned to meet transient
performance requirements listed in another part of the grid code. The unit is tested by
injecting a varying frequency signal (white noise, swept frequency, or discrete frequencies
depending upon grid code requirement) at the point where the PSS would be connected,
and the resulting phase lag (inverted in the plot), is shown by the circles. The PSS settings
are then selected to produce the dashed line phase compensation to be within the required
30-degree margin over the mandated frequency range. Should the unit’s local mode of
oscillation be greater than 2 Hz, the PSS tuning would have to be adjusted accordingly.
46
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
100
measured phase lead requirement
selected PSS compensation
75
Phase (degrees)
50
25
0
0.1 1 10
Frequency (Hz)
47
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
0.95
(pu)
0.90
0.85
0.010
0.005
delta speed
0
(%)
-0.005
-0.010
-0.015
0.010
0.005
PSS
(pu)
-0.005
-0.010
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (seconds)
damping frequency response with activated and deactivated or reduced gain PSS. When
the PSS is activated, the amplitude of the measured transfer function must be smaller than
with the deactivated PSS in the frequency range of interest, which depends upon grid code
requirements (typically 0.2 Hz to 2 Hz). It is crucial to asses not only damping at local
mode oscillation (which is easily checked by step-response tests), but also the performance
at inter-area oscillation frequencies, which may be achieved by the presented validation
procedure.
In order to measure the power damping frequency response, a signal is injected to the AVR
summing point and this signal as well as electrical power and other signals are measured.
The test setup is indicated in Fig. 40.
Data
logger
Vinj, measured PT
Vinj + Grid
AVR EFD GEN
VT
PSS = OFF
resp.
PSS = ON
Fig. 40: Determination of the power damping frequency response with PSS activated and
deactivated
The theory of PSS tuning requires that determination of phase compensation is performed
with the generator operating on line at as near as possible to zero electrical power output
as described by Heffron and Phillips [68] and de Mello and Concordia [69].
After the required phase compensation has been determined and PSS tuning has been
completed grid codes frequently require PSS performance to be demonstrated, also using
signal injection, but this time at nominal active power and typically with near unity power
factor.
The reasons why in practice this test is executed at nominal operating point are as follows:
In order to perform this test on site, sinusoidal or white-noise signals or a pseudo random
binary sequence signal [70] is injected to the AVR and added on the AVR summing point.
Therefore, the AVR needs to have the capability to accept this signal. When injecting the
signal, care has to be taken that no resonance frequency is excited, that the machine remains
within its safe operating area and that the amplitude of the active power oscillations
remains within its allowed limits. With a weighted band-limited white noise signal or
PRBS injection, this risk is minimized. In case of weight band-limited white noise or PRBS
injection, Fourier analysis of the injected signal at the AVR summing point and the
measured electrical output power signal yields the requested transfer function. When using
a weighted band-limited white noise signal, typically a higher gain is used for low
frequency signals to ensure sufficient signal level. Washout filters are used to cancel out
DC components. The amplitude of white noise used at high frequencies is low to avoid
excitation of resonance frequencies.
For all methods (sinusoidal as well as white noise or PRBS injection), it is recommended
to feedback the injected signal through the AVR and use it for the calculation of the transfer
function in order to account for the effects of filtering. (Compare Fig. 40.) The injected
signals as well as the measured output signals need to be supervised to avoid too high
oscillation amplitudes and to ensure safe operation.
The trace of gain (compare Fig. 41) of the resulting transfer function indicates the damping
effect of the PSS over the requested frequency range with the PSS typically providing a
positive influence between 0.2 Hz and 2 Hz. The selected PSS parameters, as well as the
frequency measurement signal which is used as PSS input, have a major influence on the
PSS damping which is achieved. Oscillations at the lower frequencies in the above-
mentioned range are influenced considerably by the PSS input frequency measurement
(e.g. for the IEEE PSS2C [57] structure see comparison in [71]).
ΔPT / Δ Vinj,measured
System without PSS
30 Decent tuning /
frequency meas.
Magnitude (dB)
20 Poor tuning /
frequency meas.
10
-10
typical range of optimization
-1 0 1
10 10 Frequency (Hz) 10
Fig. 41: Example comparison of power damping frequency response with deactivated PSS
versus activated PSS
50
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
An example interaction between the PSS and reactive power is shown in Fig. 42. for an
inter-area mode disturbance initiated by a line switching test. The PSS is providing
damping of both local and inter area modes. The resulting terminal voltage and reactive
power variations may be seen in the figure. This test was not performed to satisfy a grid
code requirement; rather the PSS was designed and tuned specifically for this common
event which, without a PSS, resulted in line and customer load trips.
0.88
0.86
Active Power
0.84
(pu)
0.82
0.80
0.78
0.08
Reactive Power
0.06
0.04
(pu)
0.02
0
-0.02
1.00
0.99
Terminal V
(pu)
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.04
PSS Output
0.02
(pu)
-0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (seconds)
Fig. 42: PSS action on inter-area mode disturbance initiated by a line switching
Other aspects of tuning and commissioning are also important when applying a PSS, such
as mitigating the effect of fast load ramping or mechanical turbulence in hydro units, but
these are not discussed here.
51
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
52
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
R1.1 Assuming AVR operation, regulating generator stator voltage. Manual, fixed field
control is not allowed by NERC VAR-002 [66]. Thus, no traditional SSSL is to be shown
based on constant field voltage assumptions.
R1.1.1 - The in-service limiters always act before the protection systems.
R1.1.2 - Protection systems must limit the extent of damage when operating conditions
exceed equipment capabilities or stability limits.
Thus, it is conceivable that some protection elements are set beyond the equipment
capability and, thus, the unit would operate for a certain period of time beyond its steady
state capability or stability limit. If the risk of damage is considered acceptable by the
equipment owner, the requirement from NERC PRC-019-2 [65] is met.
For brushless exciters, there is an additional complication in that the over excitation limiter
works through the main exciter field. As a result, coordination with the generator rotor
heating limits of IEEE C50.13 [1] requires knowing the main exciter saturation
characteristics, since the generator field quantities cannot directly be measured. For retrofit
voltage regulators, the original main exciter equipment saturation curves must be provided
by the generator owner. Even for new equipment, this information may be difficult or
impossible to obtain.
It is critical that all limiters be coordinated with the generator's capability and the protective
relay settings, allowing the excitation system to exploit the full generator capability to
support power system requirements.
53
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Table 3 summarizes the types of limiters that are available as options on many excitation
systems and the associated protective relay functions and equipment limitations.
Some digital excitation systems are now also providing some protective functions that may
duplicate those that are implemented externally with standalone relays. It is important to
remember that if these functions have been enabled, they must be included as part of the
coordination exercise and their settings documented.
54
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
• field winding short-term thermal Over Excitation Limiter • O/C (50/51) on excitation
capability (e.g. ANSI C50.13 for (OEL) / Maximum transformers
cylindrical rotor) Excitation or Field • dc O/C or O/V timed relays (exciter)
• excitation system current rating Over Current Limiter
55
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Most grid codes have an enforcement date with a period of time in which a generator owner
must bring all of its applicable facilities into compliance with the requirements, (e.g. over
a 10 year period ending “date”, the generator owner must bring 100% of its applicable
facilities into compliance with 40% within 4 years, 60% within 6 years, 80% within 8 years
and 100% by 10 years).
The technical requirements are usually dependent on the output of the plant, typically
expressed as units greater than a threshold in MVA and/or plants greater than a larger
threshold in MVA.
The applicability may also depend on connection point, usually specified in terms of the
transmission voltage at the high side of the generator step-up transformer. In North
America, plants or units connected at greater than 100 kV transmission voltage are
considered as connected to the bulk grid. In this case, some grid code requirements may
apply even if the unit or plant MVA ratings are below those thresholds.
Finally, applicability may depend on the in-service date of the equipment compared with
the grid code approval date.
b) Existing Equipment
In the simplest cases, a new generator installed after the approval of a grid code must
necessarily meet all the applicable requirements at the time of installation. Conversely, a
facility which pre-dates the grid code may be “grandfathered” into the system and not have
to meet any performance requirements. Frequently there will still be simulation modeling
and data validation requirements in this case, but it is not necessary to alter or replace the
equipment in an older plant in order to meet requirements which came into effect after the
plant was built.
Some requirements may include older units if the requirements are related to modes of
control or reporting or equipment which is considered to be routinely adjusted and
calibrated. For instance, in North America it is required that all units connected to the bulk
electric system be operated with their excitation in automatic voltage regulator mode
controlling stator voltage, and not in power factor or reactive power set point modes.
Should the operator’s control mode be one of these prohibited modes, it would be required
to change it to meet the voltage control requirement. Similarly, it may be required to change
56
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
protective relay and/or excitation limiter coordination to meet reactive power, voltage or
frequency ride through requirements.
57
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
testing group and regulatory group as to whether the intent of the requirement has been
met. Standards groups such as IEEE and IEC, have useful task force papers and guidelines
which most test and modeling groups reference in the absence of specifics in the grid codes,
for example IEEE Std 115 [74], Std 421.2 [59] and Std 1110 [73].
3.3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations on Excitation Related Issues
•Site-specific studies may reveal cost-effective excitation options that maintain system
stability.
•Grid codes alone do not provide enough information to specify the design, studies, and
testing requirements for excitation systems. Also, existing technical standards do not
fully address the information gaps.
•The information required to evaluate excitation system design, functions, and settings
involves details about the generator unit, turbine, controls and protective functions and
analysis by many parties.
•Studies, guidelines, and additional information are required prior to issuing a request for
quotation (RFQ) for new excitation systems.
58
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 43: Changes in operating mode of 32 power plant units over the period from 2008 to
2012 in southwestern Europe due to the deployment of renewable power generation [25]
With this spread in service factors, generators are also experiencing intensifying
intermittency of operation. Even units with ratings in excess of 400MW now experience
on-off-on-off duty in a day, and multiple large-scale load swings when on-line.
59
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 44: Changing speed, power and reactive power in typical daily demand profile [25]
The sample load profile Fig. 44 of one subject generating station exhibits the several start-
stops / day, depending on renewable energy production, as well as fast and frequent steps
in MW to balance weather dependent renewable energy. Further, there is continuous
MVAR variation to stabilize fluctuating grid conditions.
Treatment of such duty cycles is quite limited in today’s machine standards. The IEEE
C50.13[1] standard for round rotor synchronous machines does not address duty cycles at
all. The IEC standard 60034-1[2] declares that it is the responsibility of the purchaser to
declare the duty. The purchaser may describe the duty by several methods, and IEC 60034-
1 provides a series (S1-S10) of idealized duty cycles. By default, the duty cycle is assumed
to be S1, which is a steady fixed load equal to the unit rating, as this is considered to be a
worst case, at least from a thermal aging perspective. However, this ignores the differential
thermal expansion that results from load swings that can impact unit life. Indeed, none of
the available duty cycles in the IEC60034-1 reflect anything like the example shown above.
Clearly the equipment standards need to either develop new idealized duty cycles, or
operators will need to provide real or simulated load profiles, if manufacturers are to
explicitly consider the duty. Ideally, the treatment of duty cycle will be done in a
harmonized manner through the cooperation of Cigre, IEC & IEEE.
Extending considerations beyond the impact of duty cycle, consider the impact of variable
loading on other specified generator characteristics, such as efficiency. This may be of
particular interest and concern in cases when the generator is being specified for
replacement of an existing unit, independent of the prime mover, for example. In such
cases, comparison of generator efficiencies explicitly may weigh on the equipment
selection, whereas for most cases in which both the prime-mover and generator are
supplied as a package, the combined efficiency is of primary consideration.
60
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Color coding is used to indicate the percentage of time spent in each “bin” of about 3%
MVA range. Red dots mean a lot of time spent at that load point, blue means less time.
Consider a sample load duty cycle, reflective of a unit with the following characteristics:
• High number of stop-start cycles
• Operation over the load range, but infrequently at rated load
• High share of reactive power for grid stabilization
• Full use of the under-excitation capability
61
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
62
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
63
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
acceleration and induction motors will deal with slip increase and voltage drop,
remaining stable as they reach new post fault operating conditions[39]. Additional power
plant components and aspects should be considered, like boiler feed water, circulating
cooling water, turbine generator lube and seal oil, fuel delivery systems, protection
systems, automatic bus transfers, etc.[40], [42].
Generators designed per standards IEEE C50.13 or IEC 60034-3 do not automatically
comply with the fault-ride-through requirements [23] and the issue may be far more
troublesome in case they are imposed retroactively on an existing power plant. Long
fault-ride-through times up to 250 ms may induce significant high torsional stress at turbo
set shaft and risk of material cracks at rotor flanges [22].
65
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Fig. 46: Efficiency variation with constant and varied H2 over pressure
66
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
68
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Rotor winding
High magnetic flux
Over-voltage
density
69
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Qualifying in-service turbine generators for the new conditions stipulated by grid codes is
more difficult (sometimes even impossible) than doing so on a new unit design.
Operating old units in new grid code conditions can jeopardize the generators and affect
their remaining lifetime. The risks should be deeply assessed and suitable measures
should be implemented. In some cases, such adaptations cannot be possible without
major refurbishment (if worthwhile) or even equipment replacement.
71
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
ii. Add definitions for operating conditions and requirements for duration and
frequency of occurrence of excursions from standard requirements.
iii. Permit the use of on load tap changers (OLTCs) where appropriate to support
system voltage and reactive power requirements.
iv. Harmonize short circuit ratio (SCR) requirements across grid codes worldwide
where power systems have similar grid topology.
ii. Include a recognition that fault ride through (FRT) capability depends upon
additional factors and not just the synchronous generator itself.
72
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
iii. Create mechanisms to assign the ability to maintain maximum power output in
case of frequency deviations.
4.1.3 Excitation Systems
i. Permit site-specific studies to determine suitable parameters such as excitation
speed of response and ceiling and which may reveal cost-effective options that
maintain system security.
ii. Include an evaluation guide for life time consumption resulting from voltage /
frequency excursions.
iii. Consider extending the allowed voltage variation from ±5% to ±7.5%
ii. Add informative text to explain that wider scope considerations are needed to
comply with system FRT requirements including pre-fault conditions, turbine
inertia, fault location etc.
iii. Add guidelines on auto re-closing to IEC60034. (Unit studies are already in
C50.13)
73
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
ii. Enhance existing standards for generators, excitation and protection systems to
include optionally expanded value ranges and allowed times for stator and rotor
current.
74
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
It is important to be aware that it may not be possible to use standard generator designs
when there is a requirement to comply with diverse voltage-time curves in grid codes.
With increasingly frequent reports of existing generators experiencing extreme system
faults as a result of the energy transition it is important that owners and operators carefully
undertake post fault reviews of equipment after such events. It is very likely that damage,
which may be latent, will follow a multiple FRT event, an extreme excitation forcing event
or an event where output voltage is maintained during a severe underfrequency. Therefore
such events should always be followed by rigorous inspection.
With FRT events becoming more probable it makes sense for owners to consider
installation of synch-check relay supervision for auto re-closing systems.
High RoCoF withstand capability requirements shall need in-depth investigations to
determine the impact not only on the synchronous machine but all the power plant
equipment (control systems, turbines, transformers, auxiliary systems etc.).
Similarly, when line auto-reclosing systems are installed near a power plant, the impact of
such systems on the power plant should be fully investigated to determine the impact on
the mechanical integrity of the turbine-generator shaft-line. If high risks of damage to the
shaft-line have been identified, mitigation means must be implemented to ensure the safety
of plant personnel.
4.3.3 Excitation Systems
When writing requests for quotations (RFQs) wording such as “the equipment shall meet
all applicable local and national requirements” should be avoided as this is not possible for
the equipment vendor alone. Rather, requirements need to be explicitly stated based upon
the technical and regulatory needs.
When referring to requirements it is important to understand that some performance
requirements either inherently require or inherently prohibit the use of certain technical
solutions. For some new build projects, depending upon the project timetable, such
requirements may be adjusted according to the technical solution preferred by the parties
involved. For example, speed of response is specified as a range rather than an absolute
requirement in the UK grid code with the absolute value being specified after a system
study as part of the bilateral connection agreement.
Grid codes should allow site-specific studies which may reveal cost-effective options
which maintain system security.
It is always important to specify and to be clear about the conditions under which excitation
ceiling, ceiling time and response time apply.
It is always important to ensure that division of responsibilities for coordination of AVR,
PSS, excitation limiters and protection settings and required stability studies are well
communicated and understood to ensure stress free project delivery. A multi-disciplinary
team is usually required to combine the diverse requirements.
75
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
Stakeholders should be alert to conflicts between generator and protection standards and
some grid codes which require higher levels of stator and rotor current than equipment
design standards allow.
Grid codes should include the necessary test conditions and acceptance criteria for each
requirement, including confirmation of compliance for unusual system conditions not
normally feasible to directly confirm by tests.
76
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Figures appearing in this report were provided by the organizations listed below and the
task force gratefully acknowledges their contributions:
ABB Switzerland Ltd. Fig. 40
Brush Electrical Machines Ltd. Fig. 32, Fig. 33, Fig. 34, Fig. 35, Fig. 37
General Electric Company Inc. Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Fig. 20, Fig. 27
Kestrel Power Engineering Ltd. Fig. 36, Fig. 38, Fig. 39, Fig. 41, Fig. 42
Siemens A.G. Fig. 43, Fig. 45, Fig. 46, Fig. 47, Fig. 48
77
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
6. REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Standard for Cylindrical-Rotor 50 and 60 Hz Synchronous Generators Rated 10
MVA and Above, IEEE standard C50.13-2005.
[2] IEC 60034-1: Rotating Electric Machines – Part 1: Rating and Performance, Revision
11, 2004.
[3] IEC 60034-3: Rotating Electric Machines – Part 3: Specific Requirements for
Cylindrical Rotor Synchronous Machines, Revision 6, 2007
[4] IEC 60034-4: Rotating Electric Machines – Part 4: Methods for determining
synchronous machines quantities from tests, Revision 3, 2008
[5] Guide on new generator-grid interaction requirements, CIGRE Technical Brochure
743, September 2018.
[6] System Operability Framework 2014, National Grid, UK, 2014
[7] K. Chan, J. Haldemann, J. Oesterheld, K. D. Walli, Challenges of recent grid code
requirements for turbogenerators, CIGRE A1 Meeting and Colloquium Rotating
Electrical Machines: Requirements, Operation & Maintenance, 2015.
[8] C. E. Stephan, Z. Baba, Specifying a turbogenerator’s electrical parameters guided by
standards and grid codes, IEEE Electric Machines and Drives Conference, 2001.
[9] K. Mayor, L. Montgomery, K. Hattori, J. Yagielski, Grid code impact on electrical
machine design, IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012.
[10] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/631 of 14 April 2016 establishing a
network code on requirements for grid connection of generators, The European
Commission, 2016.
[11] L. Díez-Maroto, L. Rouco, F. Fernández-Bernal, Fault Ride Through Capability of
Synchronous Generators; Review, Analysis and Discussion of European Grid Code
Requirements, Electric Power Systems Research, 2016.
[12] L. Rouco, K. Chan, S. Keller, J. Oesterheld, “Recent Evolution of European Grid
Code Requirements and its Impact on Turbogenerator Design”, IEEE PES meeting
San Diego, July 2012.
[13] L. Rouco, C. Ginet, K. Chan, K. Mayor, O. Malcher, L. Díez-Maroto, R.Cherkaoui,
“Voltage ride through capability of synchronous generators: Grid code
requirements and sensitivity with respect to their parameters” CIGRE Study
Committee A1 Meeting, Sydney (Australia), 21-24 September 2009.
[14] Vorabversion der VDE-AR-N 4130 Technische Regeln für den Anschluss von
Kundenanlagen an das Höchstspannungsnetz und deren Betrieb (TAR
Höchstspannung), May 17 2018.
[15] FGW, Technical Guidelines for Power Generating Units and Systems PART 4 (TG
4), Demands on Modelling and Validating Simulation Models of the Electrical
Characteristics of Power Generating Units and Systems, Revision 09, May 17 2018.
[16] National Electricity Rules, NER Rules Version 113, 5 October 2018.
[17] AEMO, National Electricity Amendment (Generator Technical Performance
Standards) Rule 2018, 27 September 2018
[18] Ireland RoCoF Generator Studies Project Study Cases for Electrical Dynamic
Simulations, EIRGRID, SONI, 23/12/2014.
[19] Reliability Standards for the Bulk Electric Systems of North America, PRC-024-2,
NERC January 2017.
78
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
[20] IEEE Guide for the Preparation of Excitation System Specifications, IEEE Standard
421.4-2014.
[21] Automatic Reclosing of Transmission Lines. IEEE Transaction on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. PAS-103, No. 2, February 1984.
[22] J. R. Weidner, Diagnostic tests to preserve generator long-term reliability at highly
flexible grid conditions, presented on Steam Turbine and Generator User Group
Meeting, 2014.
[23] K. Mayor, L. Montgomery, K. Hattori, J. Yagielski, Grid code impact on electrical
machine design, presented on IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting,
2012.
[24] J. R. Weidner, Implications of new European grid code on generator reliability and
life time, presented on EPRI European Generator Workshop, 2015,.
[25] A. Joswig, H. Steins, J. R. Weidner, Impact of new flexible load operation and grid
codes on turbine generators with a focus on end windings, presented on Power Gen
Europe, 2015.
[26] E. Kakaras, T. De Lotte, P. Clerens, G. Stein-Brzozowska, M. Agraniotis, Future role
of fossil generation in Europe, VGB Power Tech, issue 1 / 2 2016, pp. 25-28.
[27] A. Pickard, G. Meinecke, The future role of fossil power generation, published by
Siemens Energy, 2011.
[28] N. Stamatelopoulos, A. Pickard, T. Schneider, Economic operation of fossil fueled
power plants to ensure security of supply, presented on VGB Kongress, 2012.
[29] Flexibility in the power system - Danish and European experiences, published by
Danish Energy Agency, 2015.
[30] C. Ruchti, H. Olia, K. Franitza, A. Ehrsam, W. Bauver, Combined cycle power plants
as ideal solution to balance grid fluctuations - fast start-up capabilities, presented
on Kraftwerkstechnisches Kolloquium, 2011.
[31] C. Bima, S. Zanier, Steam turbine operation in flexible combined cycle, presented on
Power Gen Europe, 2014.
[32] B. Marini, The duck pond a look at non-renewable generation on grids with a lot of
renewable resources, vol.120, issue 3, 2016, pp. 44-49.
[33] M. Ladwig, M. Stevens, KA26 combined cycle power plant as ideal solution to
balance load fluctuations, Power Plant Technology Forum, 2011.
[34] R. J. Nelson, Conflicting requirements for turbogenerators from grid codes and
relevant generator standards, presented on IEEE Electric Machines and Drives
Conference, 2001.
[35] C. E. Stephan, Z. Baba, Specifying a turbogenerator’s electrical parameters guided by
standards and grid codes, presented on IEEE Electric Machines and Drives
Conference, 2001.
[36] B. Gott, Report to CIGRE Working Group A1.01 on Questionnaire: Grid Code
Comparison Study, 2004.
[37] R. Hirvonen, R. Beune, L. Mogridge, R. Martinez, K. Roudén, O. Vatshelle, Is there
market for reactive power services - possibilities and problems, presented on
CIGRE Session, 2000.
[38] K. Sedlazeck, IEEE C50.13, IEC 34 and CIGRE grid-code questionnaire -
comparison from the viewpoint of IEC 34, 2004.
79
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-97, No. 5, pp. 1965-
1977, September/October 1978.
[56] Jabonka G., and Ramey, D., Turbine-Generator Shaft Torsional Response to
Electrical System Disturbances pp. 7-1-7-9
[57] IEEE Std 421.5 2016 Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for
Power System Stability Studies
[58] IEEE Std 421.1 2007 Standard Definitions for Excitation Systems for Synchronous
Machines
[59] IEEE Std 421.2 2014 Guide for Identification, Testing and Evaluation of the Dynamic
Performance of Excitation Control Systems
[60] IEEE Std 421.4 2014 Guide for the Preparation of Excitation System Specifications
[61] IEEE Std 421.3 2015 Standard for High-Potential Test Requirements for Excitation
Systems for Synchronous Machines
[62] Hurley, J.D., Baldwin, M.S., High Response Excitation Systems on Turbine
Generators: A Stability Assessment
[63] EU Turbines (European Association of Gas and Steam Turbine Manufacturers),
Presentation “EUTurbines’ views on NC Requirements for Generators”, Brussels,
23rd April 2013
[64] Russian Federation Interstate Standard, GOST 533-2000, Rotating Electrical
Machinery Turbogenerators
[65] NERC Standard PRC-019-2 — Coordination of Generating Unit or Plant Capabilities,
Voltage Regulating Controls, and Protection, Atlanta, GA, May 2015.
[66] NERC Standard VAR-002-4 — Generator Operation for Maintaining Network
Voltage Schedules
[67] IEEE 1547 2018 Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed
Energy Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces
[68] Heffron, W.G., and Phillips, R.A., Effect of a Modern Amplidyne Voltage Regulator
on Underexcited Operation of Large Turbine Generators, AIEE PAS Transactions,
Vol 71, Iss 3, August 1952
[69] de Mello, F.P.; Concordia, Charles, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as
Affected by Excitation Control," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol.PAS-88, no.4, pp.316,329, April 1969
[70] Seeger, U., Verification and Testing of New PSS Model PSS6C by Means of PRBS
Injection, IEEE PES GM, July 2017
[71] Baechle, M., Knazkins, V., Larsson, M., Korba, P., Improved rotor angular speed
measurement — A key for proper power grid stabilization, IEEE PES GM, July
2014
[72] IEEE Standard C37.102-2006 - IEEE Guide for AC Generator Protection
[73] IEEE Std 1110 2003 IEEE Guide for Synchronous Generator Modeling Practices and
Applications in Power System Stability Analyses
[74] IEEE Std 115 2009 Guide for Test Procedures for Synchronous Machines
[75] IEEE Std C50.12 Standard for 50 Hz and 60 Hz Synchronous Generators and
Generator/Motors Coupled to Hydraulic Turbines and Rated 5 MVA and Above
[76] NERC Review of Selected 1996 Electric System Disturbances in North America
81
TR-69 — Grid Code Impacts on Generator Standards
[77] Hurley, J.D., Bize, L.N., Mummert, C.R., “The Adverse Effects of Excitation System
Var and Power Factor Controllers”, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion
paper PE-387-EC-0-12-1997
[78] IAEA Technical Meeting, Integrid: Impact of the New Grid Codes on the Local
Distribution Network of Nuclear Power Plants, Amsterdam, 21-23 June 2016
[79] CIGRE Technical Brochure 517 “Guide for the Prevention of Overfluxing of
Generators”, 2012
82