Revision history [back]

Thank you, Jconto, for your answer.

First, I’d like to explain what I’m trying to simulate with my model. It’s a solar park modeled using generic models: REPCAU1 for the PPC and REECAU1/REGCAU1 for the converters. I’ve also modeled the equivalent collector system (cables, padmount transformer, and the main power transformer). The voltage is controlled on the secondary of the 138/34.5 kV transformer.

I’m measuring the frequency on the high voltage side. I’ve modeled a generator connected to the POI and used a playback PLBVFU1. I used a plf file with the average value of the three phases from meausrements and the forced frequency. No transmission line has been modeled.

The Qg measurement is not completely flat; it does respond to disturbances. In another simulation, i adjusted the voltage reference, and the plant reacted by absorbing or injecting reactive power. All recorded data comes from the PMU. Pg and Qg remain flat when there’s no disturbance.

I tried a few things to address the issue:

I deactivated the network frequency dependence (NETFRQ), which I had previously set to 1 in my Python script. I think this has an impact especially when there's is only renewables models and lines are modeled...

I used an acceleration factor of 1.0 instead of 0.5.

The new results are somewhat closer to what I’m expecting from the simulation : https://*ibb.co/hmRng7x

I believe the model still needs some fine-tuning to get even more accurate results. I’m not sure how to do that yet, but if you have any suggestions, they’d be greatly appreciated.

By the way, what is an ERUN test? I have no idea what that is.

Thank you, Jconto, for your answer.

First, I’d like to explain what I’m trying to simulate with my model. It’s a solar park modeled using generic models: REPCAU1 for the PPC and REECAU1/REGCAU1 for the converters. I’ve also modeled the equivalent collector system (cables, padmount transformer, and the main power transformer). The voltage is controlled on the secondary of the 138/34.5 kV transformer.

I’m measuring the frequency on the high voltage side. I’ve modeled a generator connected to the POI and used a playback PLBVFU1. I used a plf file with the average value of the three phases from meausrements and the forced frequency. No transmission line has been modeled.

The Qg measurement is not completely flat; it does respond to disturbances. In another simulation, i adjusted the voltage reference, and the plant reacted by absorbing or injecting reactive power. All recorded data comes from the PMU. Pg and Qg remain flat when there’s no disturbance.

I tried a few things to address the issue:

I deactivated the network frequency dependence (NETFRQ), which I had previously set to 1 in my Python script. I think this has an impact especially when there's is only renewables models and lines are modeled...

I used an acceleration factor of 1.0 instead of 0.5.

The new results are somewhat closer to what I’m expecting from the simulation : https://*ibb.co/hmRng7xhttps://*ibb.co/hmRng7x (delete *)

I believe the model still needs some fine-tuning to get even more accurate results. I’m not sure how to do that yet, but if you have any suggestions, they’d be greatly appreciated.

By the way, what is an ERUN test? I have no idea what that is.

Thank you, Jconto, for your answer.

First, I’d like to explain what I’m trying to simulate with my model. It’s a solar park modeled using generic models: REPCAU1 for the PPC and REECAU1/REGCAU1 for the converters. I’ve also modeled the equivalent collector system (cables, padmount transformer, and the main power transformer). The voltage is controlled on the secondary of the 138/34.5 kV transformer.

I’m measuring the frequency on the high voltage side. I’ve modeled a generator connected to the POI and used a playback PLBVFU1. I used a plf file with the average value of the three phases from meausrements and the forced frequency. No transmission line has been modeled.

The Qg measurement is not completely flat; it does respond to disturbances. In another simulation, i adjusted the voltage reference, and the plant reacted by absorbing or injecting reactive power. All recorded data comes from the PMU. Pg and Qg remain flat when there’s no disturbance.

I tried a few things to address the issue:

I deactivated the network frequency dependence (NETFRQ), which I had previously set to 1 in my Python script. I think this has an impact especially when there's is only renewables models and lines are not modeled...

I used an acceleration factor of 1.0 instead of 0.5.

The new results are somewhat closer to what I’m expecting from the simulation : https://*ibb.co/hmRng7x (delete *)

I believe the model still needs some fine-tuning to get even more accurate results. I’m not sure how to do that yet, but if you have any suggestions, they’d be greatly appreciated.

By the way, what is an ERUN test? I have no idea what that is.

Thank you, Jconto, for your answer.

First, I’d like to explain what I’m trying to simulate with my model. It’s a solar park modeled using generic models: REPCAU1 for the PPC and REECAU1/REGCAU1 for the converters. I’ve also modeled the equivalent collector system (cables, padmount transformer, and the main power transformer). The voltage is controlled on the secondary of the 138/34.5 kV transformer.

I’m measuring the frequency on the high voltage side. I’ve modeled a generator connected to the POI and used a playback PLBVFU1. I used a plf plb file with the average value of the three phases from meausrements and the forced frequency. No transmission line has been modeled.

The Qg measurement is not completely flat; it does respond to disturbances. In another simulation, i adjusted the voltage reference, and the plant reacted by absorbing or injecting reactive power. All recorded data comes from the PMU. Pg and Qg remain flat when there’s no disturbance.

I tried a few things to address the issue:

I deactivated the network frequency dependence (NETFRQ), which I had previously set to 1 in my Python script. I think this has an impact especially when there's is only renewables models and lines are not modeled...

I used an acceleration factor of 1.0 instead of 0.5.

The new results are somewhat closer to what I’m expecting from the simulation : https://*ibb.co/hmRng7x (delete *)

I believe the model still needs some fine-tuning to get even more accurate results. I’m not sure how to do that yet, but if you have any suggestions, they’d be greatly appreciated.

By the way, what is an ERUN test? I have no idea what that is.