Sensitivity Studies

Northern California

Irina Green
California ISO

For Modeling and Validation

Workshop, November 2006
 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS
• Operational case of July 29, 2003
• Three-phase faults followed by opening of
the transmission lines in Northern
California
• Used BPA epcl. Added distribution
feeders and transformers
• Load – 1 induction motor, resistive, and
constant power
• All loads throughout WECC modeled the
same way
 OUTAGES STUDIED

1. 230 kV line with a 6 cycle 3-phase fault at the

most heavily loaded bus (Elk Grove-Rancho
Seco).
2. Heavily loaded 230 kV line with a 6 cycle 3-
phase fault in an area that has an underline 60
kV system with long feeders (Tesla-Newark).
3. The most heavily loaded 230 kV line with a 6
cycle three-phase fault (Newark-Ravenswood).
4. Heavily loaded 500 kV line with a 5 cycle
three-phase fault (Table Mountain-Vaca
Dixon).
• Which outage is the worst?
 Induction Motor Parameters
Component Description XS XP TP H RS
Resid. Central Air Cond. or heat pump 2.476 0.135 0.136 0.28 0.033
Resid. Room Air Cond. 1.900 0.158 0.055 0.28 0.1
Resid. Refrigerator & Freezer 2.487 0.164 0.124 0.28 0.056
Resid. Dishwasher 2.940 0.199 0.069 0.28 0.11
Resid. Clothes Washer 2.120 0.242 0.051 0.69 0.11
Resid. Clothes Dryer 2.050 0.280 0.042 0.11 0.12
Comm. Central Air Cond. or heat pump 2.023 0.151 0.148 0.28 0.053
Comm. Pumps, Fans & other Motors 3.320 0.236 0.169 0.7 0.079
Ind. Heavy-Sm. Ind. Motors (5-200HP) 3.300 0.270 0.498 0.7 0.031
Ind. Heavy-Lg. Ind. Motors (200-UP HP) 3.867 0.230 1.170 1.5 0.013
Agricul. Pumping for Irrigation 3.288 0.249 0.559 0.8 0.025
Power Plant Auxiliaries 2.540 0.254 0.742 1.5 0.013
Res AC 2.476 0.135 0.136 0.28 0.033
1 ph motor 2.530 0.262 0.061 0.3 0.11
Comerc AC 2.023 0.151 0.148 0.28 0.053
3ph motor 3.480 0.251 0.949 1 0.2
 Sensitivity to Percentage of Motor Load

a - 5% feeder voltage drop, 100% resistive load

b - 5% feeder voltage drop, 60% resistive load, 40% constant power
c- 5% feeder voltage drop, 30% motor load, other static
d- 5% feeder voltage drop, 60% motor load, other static worst case
e- 3% feeder voltage drop, 60% motor load, other static
f-1% feeder voltage drop, 60% motor load, other static
 Sensitivity to Motor Inertia
Case comparison (stalled motor)
A – H=0.1, b- H = 0.25, c- H = 0.3, d – H = 0.7, e – H = 1.5

Motor parameters in the original case.

Ls = 3.1 L’ = 0.2 Ra = 0.025 T’0 = 0.33
H = 0.3 D=3
Sensitivity to inertia constant.
1) H= 0.1, 2) H=0.25, 3) H = 0.3, 4) H= 0.7, 5) H = 1.5
 Sensitivity to Motor Inertia
Case comparison (recovered motor)
A – H=0.1, b- H = 0.25, c- H = 0.3, d – H = 0.7, e – H = 1.5

Motor parameters in the original case.

Ls = 3.1 L’ = 0.2 Ra = 0.025 T’0 = 0.33
H = 0.3 D=3
Sensitivity to inertia constant.
1) H= 0.1, 2) H=0.25, 3) H = 0.3, 4) H= 0.7, 5) H = 1.5
 Sensitivity to Time Constant
Case comparison

a)T’ = 0.1 b)T’ = 0.33 (base case) c)T’ = 0.4 d)T’ = 0.5 e)T’ = 1

Motor parameters as in the original case, but different time constants.

Ls = 3.1 L’ = 0.2 Ra = 0.025 T’0 = 0.33
H = 0.3 D=3
 Sensitivity to Motor-Driven Load
Case comparison
a) D= 0.5 b) D=1 c) D=2, d) D= 3 (base case) e) D=4

IMPACT OF DAMPING
a) D= 0.5 b) D=1 c) D=2, d) D= 3 (base case) e) D=4
 Sensitivity to Transient Reactance
Case comparison
a) L’ = 0.1 b) L’= 0.2 (base case) c) L’ = 0.25 d) L’ = 0.3

Motor parameters as in the original case, but different L’:

Ls = 3.1 L’ = 0.2 Ra = 0.025 T’0 = 0.33
H = 0.3 D=3
 Sensitivity to Synchronous Reactance
Case comparison
a) Ls=1 b) Ls = 2 c) Ls = 2.5 d) Ls = 3.1 (base case) e) Ls = 4

Motor parameters as in the original case, but different Ls.

Ls = 3.1 L’ = 0.2 Ra = 0.025 T’0 = 0.33
H = 0.3 D=3
 DO MOTORS RECOVER?
H=0.1, Ls = 3.1, L’ = 0.2, Ra = 0.025
T’0 = 0.33 D = 3
 DO MOTORS RECOVER?
H=0.3, Ls = 3.1, L’ = 0.2, Ra = 0.025
T’0 = 0.33 D = 1
FREQUENCY WHEN MOTORS STALL
H=0.3, Ls = 3.1, L’ = 0.2, Ra = 0.025
T’0 = 0.33 D = 1
 Conclusions
1. System dynamic stability performance appeared to be very
sensitive to induction motor load parameters. This
sensitivity was especially critical for severe disturbances.
The most critical parameters appeared to be percentage of
induction motor load, damping coefficient, motor inertia and
rotor resistance.
2. The faults that were close to the load appeared to be more
critical than the faults on the 500 kV system and outages of
500 kV lines. The system performance was worse for the
outages and faults in the area of long lower voltage lines
and mesh networks.
3. Only motor-driven load (constant torque) showed the motors
that completely stalled. Other critical parameters (low
inertia, low rotor resistance) showed significant slowing
down of the motors and depressed voltage, but the voltage
and motor speed later recovered.
(next page)
 Conclusions– cont’d
4. Mix of commercial and industrial motors appeared to be more
prone to stall than other motors due to their low rotor
resistance and low inertia.

5. The study showed that the system frequency might go up

when induction motors stall, even if some generators that
go-out-of-step are tripped, because the motor load
becomes very low.

6. It is important to obtain accurate load models because the

system dynamic stability performance is extremely sensitive
to the motor parameters.