Tuning of Power System Parameters for Dynamical

Response Study
1. Introduction
In power system analysis and calculations, the accuracy of power system component
models directly affects the correctness of analysis and calculation results. In other hand,
the parameter precision of power system models also affects the quality of power system
analysis and calculations. Particularly, the dynamical models of power system require the
parameters more accurate than the static models. The modern power system industries
request not only the qualitative solutions but also the quantitative solutions for an
analysis case. For instance, the operators want the exact values of the current, voltage or
frequency at a special moment after a disturbance so as to determine the relays or control
devices settings. According to the experiences in practices, the erroneous of parameters
can severely impact the quality of analysis solutions. Once the model of a actual power
system is established, the verification and validation process of system model parameters
are indispensable before conduct case analysis. Generally, the parameters of system
models are obtained from manufacture data, measured data and estimated data. These
data may bring different types of errors on the parameters, such as: the manufacture data
may not be suitable to the complexities of models or the simplified models; the measured
data are subject to errors of metering system; and the estimated data may not be accurate.
In this presentation, a technology to tune up power system model parameters will be
illustrated, specially, about the tuning dynamical model parameters using site test record
data.
2. Verification and Validation of Power System Model Parameters
Power system models generally are classified as static-state models, like transmission
line, transformer and static load model, sand dynamical models, like generator,
turbine/governor, exciter/AVR and motor models. The parameters of static-state models,
like transmission line and transformer impedances, can be easily verified and validated
by comparing load flow analysis results against measured voltage, current and power data
at any time moment. But it is not so simple for the verification and validation of
dynamical model parameters, like governor and exciter transfer function time constants
and gains. First, these parameters do not have apparent one to one relationships with the
measurable data. Second, the response of a model to be matched with measured data is
not only a single point instead of a whole process corresponding to a system event such
as a load shed or a bus faulted. The shape and character of a response curve for a
dynamical model during an event reflect merely the group effects of the model
parameters. So it is difficult to quantitatively determine the individual parameter in a
model according to a response curve. However, under some conditions may a parameter
dominate certain character of the response curve, such as oscillation frequency,
overshooting magnitude, raising and falling rates. This characteristic of a dynamical
model can be utilized to tune the parameters of the power system dynamical models in
accordance with the measured responses of frequency, voltage and so on. The next

section will investigate the relationship between a parameter of a mode and the model
response process for some typical transfer function models.

3. Tuning of Power System Dynamical Model Parameters

A power system dynamical device usually consists of different types of elements. These
elements can be mathematically presented by some typical dynamical components or
transfer functions. The following describes a number of typical dynamical components in
power system dynamical models, and illustrates how the responses of these components
are affected by varying their parameters. Also, a simplified model of a single generator
power system is investigated in this section.
Inertial Components: Its transfer function is shown as Figure 3.1. The inertial
component is usually used to model the regulator amplifier, governor relay, or
electric/hydraulic converter. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 display the responses of this component
when applying a step input with different time constant and gain values. As can be seen
from Figure 3.1, the raising rate of response will increase with reducing time constant
value. But the settle down value of response would not be affected by varying time
constant value. When increasing gain value, as shown in Figure 3.2, both the raising rate
and settle down value of response will be increased.

Figure 3.1 Inertial Component Responses for Changing

Time Constant

Figure 3.2 Inertial Component Responses for

Changing Gain
Integrate Components: Its transfer function is shown as Figure 3.3. The governor pilot
servo is an example of integrate component. Figure 3.3 displays the responses of this
component when applying a step input with different time constant value. As can be seen
from Figure 3.3, the raising rate and output value of response will increase with reducing
time constant value.

Figure 3.3 Integrator Component Responses for

Changing Time Constant

Inertial-differential Components: Its transfer function is shown as Figure 3.4. The

inertial-differential component can be used to model the regulator feedback stabilizer, or
governor buffer. Figure 3.4 and 3.5 display the responses of this component when
applying a step input with different time constant and gain values. As can be seen from

Figure 3.4, when increasing time constant value, the raising rate and overshooting
magnitude of response will increase, but the falling rate during the decay segment will be
decreased, thus, the settle down time of response would last longer. When increasing gain
value, as shown in Figure 3.5, the raising rate and overshooting magnitude of response
also will increase, but the falling rate would not be changed.

Figure 3.4 Inertial-Differential Component Responses for

Changing Time Constant

Figure 3.5 Inertial-Differential Component Responses for

Changing Gain

Single Generator Power System Model: Figure 3.6 shows a simplified model of a
single generator power system. The block Ks and Kd are defined as system synchronizing

coefficient and system damping coefficient, respectively. These two coefficients

represent the equivalent effects of generator, AVR, governor, loads and other system
components. Figures from 3.7 to 3.12 display the power angle and speed responses of the
power system model when a load shed is applied with different model parameters. As can
be seen from Figure 3.7 and 3.8, when increasing damping coefficient Kd, the oscillation
magnitudes of power angle and speed responses will be reduced, but the oscillation
frequency of them is not changed. When increasing synchronizing coefficient Ks, as
shown in Figure 3.9 and 3.10, the oscillation magnitudes of power angle and speed
responses will be reduced and the oscillation frequency of them will be increased. Also, it
is found that the initial power angle becomes smaller with increasing Ks. When reducing
generator inertial coefficient H, as shown in Figure 3.11 and 3.12, the raising rate,
overshooting magnitude and oscillation frequency of speed response will be increased,
but settle down time becomes shorter. For the power angle response, its falling rate, and
oscillation frequency will be increased, but its undershooting magnitude will be
decreased and settle down time also becomes shorter.

Figure 3.6 Simplified Single Generator Power System Model

Figure 3.7 Generator Speed Responses for Changing

Damping Coefficient

Figure 3.8 Generator Power Angle Responses for Changing

Damping Coefficient

Figure 3.9 Generator Speed Responses for Changing

Synchronizing Coefficient

Figure 3.10 Generator Power Angle Responses for Changing

Synchronizing Coefficient

Figure 3.11 Generator Speed Responses for Changing

Inertial Coefficient

Figure 3.12 Generator Power Angle Responses for Changing

Inertial Coefficient

4. Examples of Tuning Power System Dynamical Model Parameters

In this section, some examples are presented to illustrate how to tune the parameters of
power system dynamical models utilizing the site test or system incidence recording data,
so as to make the responses of dynamical model match the real recording data.
4.1 Generator Start-up Case
This is a real test case. The test system, as shown in Figure 4.1, is a Hydro Generation
Station as the backup power system of a Nuclear Power Plant. The test process includes:

first start a generator unit, at the same time flash the generator field winding, when
generator terminal voltage reaches approximately 70% to 90% of rated output voltage,
then a voltage relay trips the appropriate circuit breakers and connect the emergency load
from the nuclear generation plant to the generator. The generator AVR and governor
models are shown as Figure 4.2 and 4.3. The typical parameters of the models are listed
in Table 4.1 and 4.2. When using the typical parameters in simulation study, as can be
seen from Figures 4.4, 4.6, 4.8 and 4.10, the responses of generator speed, voltage, power
and field voltage do not match the site test results. By investigating the response curves,
obviously, some transfer function time constants and gains of both AVR and governor
models and the generator damping and inertial coefficients need to be tuned up properly.
A set of modified model parameters are listed in Table 4.1 and 4.2. The responses of the
system corresponding to the parameter modifications show a very good match to the site
test results as displayed in Figures 4.5, 4.7, 4.9 and 4.11. In this project study, it is
discovered that the response of the motor start simulation will not correctly express the
real situation if the formula coefficients of motor load model are not presented properly.
The formula coefficients of motor load model usually can be obtained by using curve
fitting technology based on the load torque curve. In most cases, the manufacturers only
provide the load torque curves under the speed range from 0 to 100%. It is no problem to
simulate the motor start if the system frequency within this speed range. Otherwise, the
simulation results will not truly reflect the actual situations. In this test case, the generator
speed ever overshoots to 120% of rated speed at a period of time. Figure 4.13 shows the
response of a motor electrical power during start up have big discrepancy against the site
test result when using the load model with the speed range from 0 to 100%. When
remodeling the load torque curve covered the speed range to 120% as given in Figure
4.12, the response of the motor electrical power corresponding to the modified load
model shows a very good match to site test results as shown in Figure 4.14.

KGEN 1

KGEN 2

W/OMod#2

13.2kV Ke o#2

13.2kV Ke o#1

NO

Underground

CT4

U3 4kV bu s13

4kV B1TS

4kV B2TS

NO

3TD /E-3B1 T

3TC/D/E-3B2T

3TC/D/E-3B1T

B2TS-3B2T

B1TS-3B1T

NO

3TE-3B1T

3TC-3B2T
3TE-3B2T

3TD-3B2T

3TD-3B1T

3TC-3B1T

3TD /E-3B2 T

4k V 3T E

4k V 3T D

4k V 3T C

3PTD3

3PTC3

3PTE3

3E PTD1 3

3E PTE1 2

3E PTC1 3
HP IP-3 A
600 H P

LP IP-3 A
400 H P

RB SP-3 A
250 H P

LPSWP-3A
600 H P

TX-3X 4

TX-3X 8

TX-3X 9

TX-3X 5
EFDWP-3A
600 H P

600V LC 3X4

3X4 Test 1 3X4 Test 2

600V LC 3X8

MCC 3XS1

3X8 Test 1

3X8 Test 2

HP IP-3 C
600 H P

LP IP-3 B
400 H P

RB SP-3 B
250 H P

3X5 Test 2

EFDWP-3B
600 H P

LPSWP-3B
600 H P

600V LC 3X9

600V LC 3X5

3X5 Test 1

TX-3X 6

3X9 Test 1

3X9 Test 2

MCC 3XS2

TX -3X1 0
HP IP-3 B
600 H P

600V LC 3X6

3X6 Test 1

3X6 Test 2

Figure 4.1 Test System for Generator Start-up

Figure 4.2 Exciter/AVR Model Diagram of Hydraulic Generator

600V LC 3 X10

MCC 3XS3

Parameter
RC
XC
TR
TC
TB
KA
TA
KF
TF
KC
VVLR
KVL
TVL
KVF
TH
VImax
VImin
VRmax
VRmin
Vdc
Rf
VHZ
TD
Vfb
Ifb
Vref

Typical
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
0.02
0.5
0.5
0.1
1.07
120.0
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.17
-0.17
3.66
0.0
125
0.15
0.74
2.5
87.5
585
1.025

Tuned
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
70
0.02
0.12
0.8
0.1
1.07
120.0
0.05
1.0
0.05
0.17
-0.17
3.66
0.0
125
0.06
0.74
2.5
87.5
585
1.025

Table 4.1 Typical and Tuned Parameters of Exciter Model

Figure 4.3 Governor Model Diagram of Hydraulic Generator

Parameter
Typical
Tuned

TP
0.04
0.04

Q
1
1

GC
2.5
2.5

TG
1
1.41

RP
0.02
0.02

RT
0.4
0.4

TR
5.5
7.5

H
7
4.94

Table 4.2 Typical and Tuned Parameters of Governor Model

D
2
1.1

Figure 4.4 Comparison between Simulated Generator Speed Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Speed

Figure 4.5 Comparison between Simulated Generator Speed Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Speed

Figure 4.6 Comparison between Simulated Generator Voltage Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Voltage

Figure 4.7 Comparison between Simulated Generator Voltage Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Voltage

Figure 4.8 Comparison between Simulated Generator Electrical Power Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Electrical Power

Figure 4.9 Comparison between Simulated Generator Electrical Power Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Electrical Power

Figure 4.10 Comparison between Simulated Generator Field Voltage Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Field Voltage

Figure 4.11 Comparison between Simulated Generator Field Voltage Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Field Voltage

Figure 4.12 Induction Motor Load Torque Curve Fitting

Figure 4.13 Comparison between Simulated Induction Motor Electrical Power

Response (Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Electrical Power

Figure 4.14 Comparison between Simulated Induction Motor Electrical Power

Response (Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Electrical Power

4.2 Diesel Generator Load Acceptance Test Case

This is a real test case about a diesel generator starting an induction motor. The test
system and the exciter and governor models of the diesel generator are shown in Figure
4.15, 4.16 and 4.17. The Figure 4.18 and 4.20 display the responses of a bus frequency
and voltage when using the typical parameters as listed in Table 4.3 and 4.4 for the
exciter and governor models. It is found from the response curves that the simulation
system has less damping torque and too much inertial moment. Through the tuning of
system model parameters, the responses of the bus frequency and voltage using the
modified parameters as listed in Table 4.3 and 4.4 show a perfect match to the site test
results as displayed in Figure 4.19 and 4.21.
40 00 k W
DG-2A

2* EPC6 A

2E TA

NO

FP CP-2 A
200 H P

NO

NO

NS WP-2 A
10 00 H P

AF WP-2 A
500 H P

4. 16 k V

NO

NO

NO

CCHRGP- 2A SIP-2 A
600 H P
400 H P

NO

NO

RH RP-2 A
400 H P

CSP-2 A
400 H P

NO

CC P-2A 2
200 H P

CC P-2A 1
200 H P

2*EPE537

2*EPE538

2*EPE536

TX-2ELXE
1500 kVA

TX-2ELXA

TX-2ELXC
1500 kVA

1500 kVA
NO

NO
2ELXA

0.6 k V

2ELXC

NO

MCC-2EM XE

MCC-BPH 2A

MCC -2EMXA 2

MCC-2EM XA

2ET AGenlo s
42.3 kVA

MCC-2EM XC

0.6 k V

2ETAXlos
0.031 M VA

Figure 4.15 Test System for Diesel Generator Load Shed

Figure 4.16 Exciter Model Diagram of Diesel Generator

Parameter
KA
KC
KE
KF
KI
KP
TA
TE
TF
TR
Vrmax
Vrmin

Typical
156
0.001
0.08
0.1
9
0.08
0.05
1.0
3.0
0.005
17.5
-15.5

Tuned
240
0.001
0.08
0.27
9
0.08
0.05
4
3.0
0.005
17.5
-15.5

Table 4.3 Typical and Tuned Parameters of Exciter Model

Figure 4.17 Governor Model Diagram of Diesel Generator

Parameter
Droop
ThetaMax
ThetaMin
Alpha
Beta
Rho
K1
Tau
T1
T2
H
D

Typical
5.0
60.0
4.0
0.04
0.02
0.1
128
0.1
0.15
0.12
1.9
4.0

Tuned
5.0
60.0
4.0
0.027
0.0192
0.3
119
0.09
0.151
0.12
1.69
7.0

Table 4.4 Typical and Tuned Parameters of Governor Model

Figure 4.18 Comparison between Simulated Generator Frequency Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Frequency

Figure 4.19 Comparison between Simulated Generator Frequency Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Frequency

Figure 4.20 Comparison between Simulated Generator Voltage Response

(Using Typical Parameters) and Site Measured Voltage

Figure 4.21 Comparison between Simulated Generator Voltage Response

(Using Tuned Parameters) and Site Measured Voltage

4.3 Network Short-Circuit Fault Test Case

This test case is to simulate a system response when a short-circuit fault occurred on a
bus. The test system is shown in Figure 4.22. The simulation events include: short-circuit
fault occurs at MCC feeder Bus3, voltage relay trips some load at Bus-A and Bus-B when
voltage drops to 50% during the fault, in 0.38 seconds the circuit breaker 52GH is tripped
to disconnect fault point, in 0.8 seconds the circuit breaker 52B4 is tripped to disconnect
the tie link to utility. The actual measured current and voltage of generator G4 and
current at branch 52B4 are displayed in Figure 4.23. The simulation responses of the
system current and voltage for using typical generator parameters listed in Table 4.5 and
using tuned parameters listed in Table 4.5 are shown as Figure 4.24 and 4.25,

respectively. As can be seen from Figure 4.25, the response of the system current and
voltage using tuned parameters are very close to the actual measured data.
Power Grid

Bu s1
65 kV
T3
12.5 MVA

CB4
Bu s2

Bus-B
3.3 kV

3.3 kV

CB6

LUMP2
LUMP4
10.75 MVA 10.75 MVA

52 B4

Bus-A
3.3 kV

CB5
52 GH

LUMP3
LUMP1
4.458 MVA 5.848 MVA
Bu s3

Bu s4

3.3 kV

3.3 kV

pump5
345 kW

pump4
pump3
83.175 kW 937 kW

pump2
pump1
G4
73.936 kW73.936 kW 15.111 MW

Figure 4.22 Test System for Short-Circuit Fault

Parameter
Xd
Xq
Xd
Xq
Xd
Xq
Td0
Tq0
Td0
Tq0
H
D

Typical
1.48
1.48
0.215
0.45
0.136
0.136
7.05
1.0
0.042
0.18
5.4
5

Tuned
0.75
0.74
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.13
7.05
1.0
0.042
0.18
8
1

Table 4.5 Typical and Tuned Parameters of Generator

Figure 4.23 Site Voltage and Current Recordings During

Short-Circuit Fault

Figure 4.24 Simulated Generator Voltage and Current Responses

(Using Typical Parameters)

Figure 4.25 Simulated Generator Voltage and Current Responses

(Using Tuned Parameters)