PMU Error Impact on Measurement-Based

Applications

Jiecheng Zhao, Joe Gracia, Paul Ewing, Yilu Liu

University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

March 26, 2015

Outline

Introduction
Methodology
Impact Analysis
Conclusion

2
Introduction

PMU applications for this study

Event Oscillation Islanding Dynamic Line

Location Detection Detection Rating

3
PMU Measurement Error

PMU Error
IEEE Std C37.118.1-2011, C37.118.1a-2014
Phase angle: 0.57 based on 1% TVE
Frequency error = 0.005 Hz
Instrumental Channel Error
PT, CT , Cable combined error
-0.2 to -1.0 for most cases

4
Methodology

Assumption
Frequency error: 0.005 Hz
Angle error
o PMU part : 0.6
o Instrumental channels -1.0(maximum)
Approach
Assume the maximum error
Find the worst case

5
Event Location: A Brief Introduction

Angle-Based Event Location

2010/01/03 13:03:43(UTC) Generation Trip CaMbWinnipeg665
70 UsCtDanbury666
UsFlUfl663
UsIlChicago620
60
UsMaBoston684
UsMaNeiso682
50 UsMiCalvin679
UsMiWayneState621
UsMoKansasCity616
Angle (degree)

40 UsMoMst624
UsMsMissi662
UsNjNerc678
30 UsNyLeroy667
UsOhChillicothe670
UsOhColumbus687
20
UsTxTexasTech683
UsVaAri661
10 UsVaBlacksburg656
UsVaNewportNews668
UsVaRichmond601
0 UsVaRvcs686
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UsWiMadison649
Time (s)
UsWvCharleston688

6
Event Location: A Brief Introduction

Angle-Based Event Location

7
 How Error Impact

An example
2010/03/12 09:02:35(UTC) Generation Trip 2010/03/12 09:02:35(UTC) Generation Trip
4.2 4.2

4 4

3.8 3.8

3.6 3.6

Angle (degree)
Angle (degree)

3.4
0.6 error
3.4

3.2 3.2

3 3
UsWvCharleston688 UsWvCharleston688
2.8 UsVaBlacksburg656 2.8 UsVaBlacksburg656
UsVaRvcs686 UsVaRvcs686
2.6 2.6
UsVaRichmond601 UsVaRichmond601
UsOhColumbus687 2.4 UsOhColumbus687
2.4
UsOhChillicothe670 UsOhChillicothe670
2.2 2.2
5 5.5 6 5.5 6
Time (s)
Time (s)

8
How Error Impact

An example

9
Most Scenarios Unaffected

10
Oscillation Detection: Approach

Phasor angle based two-threshold method

|A(max)-A(min)|>Th2

5S

Th1

11
 Impact of Error depends on thresholds

Angle based method

Angle
Angle

Time Time

Failed Detection False Alarm

12
Islanding Detection: Frequency based

60

59.9

59.8
Frequency(Hz)

59.7

59.6
Islanding
59.5 TakingUnit
Islanding
Place
On Grid Unit 1
59.4 On Grid Unit 2
On Grid Unit 3
59.3 On Grid Unit 4

5 10
Time(min)

13
 Impact of Error

Error may decrease the frequency difference

60.5 60.14
UsMiHoughton923
60.4 60.12 UsMnDodgeCenter877
UsNJSussex940
60.3 60.1 UsVtJohnson881

Frequency(Hz)
Frequency(Hz)

60.2 60.08

60.1 0.005 Hz error 60.06

60 60.04

UsMiHoughton923 60.02
59.9
UsMnDodgeCenter877
UsNJSussex940 60
59.8
UsVtJohnson881
59.7 59.98
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Time(min) Time(min)

14
Impact of Error

Tested on different detection time:

30s, 4s, and 2s and error does not influence
the detection accuracy
Error may affect accuracy if shorter detection
time is required

15
Dynamic Line Rating

Find the highest current a line can transfer

safely dynamically
PMUs provide V and I on both ends
Consider only angle error in V, I

16
Error Impact

17
Weather Dependence

Summer Winter
Errmax:45.87% Errmax:22.87%

18
Different Factors

Wind speed

Temperature

Solar heat

19
Conclusion
Extent of
Application Effect
Significance
Most cases there is no impact,
Event location but for some it is sensitive to the Minor
error

Oscillation Possible to cause failed detection Threshold

detection or false alarm dependent

Detection
Islanding Not likely to be influenced by
time
detection error above 2 seconds
dependent
Dynamic line
Able to cause large errors Major
rating
20
 Thank You!

Questions/Comments?