Revision history [back]

Most governor models in the library, like IEESGO, are speed droop models, which means a primary frequency control. The purpose of those models is to stop the frequency drop and stabilise the frequency on a new level. The frequency will not be brought back to 50/60 Hz by those models.

A generator trip will lead to permanent underfrequency and vice versa at load trip or increased power injection.

So, there is nothing wrong with your results (I assume you are changing the power injection from BESS during the simulation).

Most governor models in the library, like IEESGO, are speed droop models, which means a primary frequency control. The purpose of those models is to stop the frequency drop and stabilise the frequency on a new level. The frequency will not be brought back to 50/60 Hz by those models.

A generator trip will lead to permanent underfrequency and vice versa at load trip or increased power injection.

So, there is nothing wrong with your results (I assume you are changing the power injection from BESS during the simulation).

    R         T1       VMAX      VMIN       T2        T3        DT
  0.050     0.500     1.000     0.000     2.000     7.000     0.000

Most governor models in the library, like IEESGO, are speed droop models, which means a primary frequency control. The purpose of those models is to stop the frequency drop and stabilise the frequency on a new level. The frequency will not be brought back to 50/60 Hz by those models.

A generator trip will lead to permanent underfrequency and vice versa at load trip or increased power injection.

So, there is nothing wrong with your results (I assume you are changing the power injection from BESS during the simulation).

EDIT:

There is a fatal problem with the governor model used. Where did you find it?

With the chosen parameter that model (IEESGO) is unstable when using long simulation times. I recommend to use a stable model, like TGOV1, with the following parameters:

    R         T1       VMAX      VMIN       T2        T3        DT
  0.050     0.500     1.000     0.000     2.000     7.000     0.000

    T1    T2     T3    T4    T5    T6    K1    K2    K3   PMAX  PMIN
   0.20  0.00  0.100 0.250  7.00  0.40  20.0  0.40  0.30  0.95  0.00

Most governor models in the library, like IEESGO, are speed droop models, which means a primary frequency control. The purpose of those models is to stop the frequency drop and stabilise the frequency on a new level. The frequency will not be brought back to 50/60 Hz by those models.

A generator trip will lead to permanent underfrequency and vice versa at load trip or increased power injection.

So, there is nothing wrong with your results (I assume you are changing the power injection from BESS during the simulation).

EDIT:

There is a fatal problem with the governor model used. Where did you find it?

With the chosen parameter that model (IEESGO) is unstable when using long simulation times. I recommend to use a stable model, like TGOV1, with the following parameters:

    R         T1       VMAX      VMIN       T2        T3        DT
  0.050     0.500     1.000     0.000     2.000     7.000     0.000

EDIT 2:

I found some typical parameters- parameters for IEESGO: (https://www.phasetophase.nl/pdf/SynchronousMachineTurbineGoverningSystems.pdf):

    T1    T2     T3    T4    T5    T6    K1    K2    K3   PMAX  PMIN
   0.20  0.00  0.100 0.250  7.00  0.40  20.0  0.40  0.30  0.95  0.00

Here I assume cos-phi 0.95, hence PMAX=0.95.