Transcript
1
Internship Presentation
2015 Sudarshana Hore –
EMS Intern
EDUCATION: Master of Science - Michigan Technological UniversityDepartment- Electrical & Computer Engineering
Internship:Manager- Jay R. DondetiMentor - CharlesDepartment- EMS Engineering
3
OVERVIEW Roles of EMS Engineer EMS Applications Significance of Mvar Project: Mvar State Estimator Solution Improvement
• Tasks Accomplished• Voltage/Var Performance• XF Tap Change Case Study• Tap Estimation
Concerns Future Work Suggestions & Questions
4
ROLES OF EMS ENGINEERING
Maintain/operate State Estimator and Real Time Contingency Analysis applications
24*7 monitoring and resolving solution issues
Model Issues
Resolve Application Issues: Working with other teams in MISO and vendor (ALSTOM)
Application Enhancement
5
EMS APPLICATIONS
SCADA State Estimator (SE)
Real-time Contingency
Analysis (RTCA)
Loss Sensitivity Calculator (LOSSES)
Constraint Activity Logger
(CLOGGER)
Unit Dispatch System (UDS)
Unit OutputBreaker Status
Loss sensitivities
Constraint list andsensitivities
Constraint list andsensitivities
AnalogsStatuses
Real-time Model
Automatic Generation Control
(AGC)
Island
Network Topology
6
APPARENT POWERBeer: Full glassElectricity: Available from utility
REACTIVE POWER (MVAR)Beer: FoamElectricity: Unable to do work
REAL POWER (MW)Beer: DrinkableElectricity: Able to do work
It is the Active Power that contributes to the energy consumed, or transmitted. Reactive Power does not contribute to the energy. It is an inherent part of the ‘‘total power’’ which is often referred as “Useless Power”.
SIGNIFICANCE OF Mvar
7
Benefits
Improves system power factor
Reduces network losses Avoid penalty charges from
utilities for excessive consumption of reactive power
Reduces cost and generates higher revenue for the customer
Increases system capacity and saves cost on new installations
Improves voltage regulation in the network
Increases power availability
8
9
Tasks Accomplished
1
• Analyzing the data and getting a statistics of tap positions of the transformers for each of the companies/ areas
2• Evaluating the performance measurement for
various cases
3• Analyzing the transformers having the highest
residuals and thus contributing to a high PM
4• Analyzing effect of tap estimation in
Performance measurement
10
5• Highlighting the areas of concerns, issues
such as model issues, measurement issues etc.
6• Automated the process by writing few
jython scripts so that can be reused in future
7
• Provided valid data points with charts, bar graphs and excel documents, so that can be shared with concerned teams to take necessary actions for the concerned areas
Tasks Accomplished
11
Voltage/Var Performance
WeightFootprint CA Weight )20)5.04.1(20))5Resedual()50Resedual()50ResidualX((
0.01Mismatch KV BS of Sum 40BS meteredper Residual KV Avg.0.01MismatchVar UNof Sum 40 UNmeteredper ResidualVar Avg.
0.005Residual XF of Sum 3XF meteredper ResidualVar Avg.(Measure ePerformanc
orSEkvvBSswithSEkBSsUNsFsSum
Performance Measure for each individual CA is calculated as (Proposed):
12
PM Comparison for Different Companies
13
AECIBase Case: Tap is already at nominal 0 (min=-16 and max=16) Residuals = 45.94
All nom case: Tap is already at nominal 0 (min=-16 and max=16) Residuals = 45.94
14
AECI
Sign is flipped: Residuals dropped down PM becomes 103.12
15
ALTWBase Case: Tap is -3(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 92.84
All nom Case: Tap is =-1(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 119.27
16
ALTW“Tap set to 0”(min=-16; nom=-1; max=16) Residuals = 23.7
PM became 30.21
17
LESBase Case: Tap is 7(min=-16; nom=0; max=16) Residuals = 78.33
18
LESAll Nom Case: Tap is 7(XF is on tap estimation) Residuals = 97.91
Tap is set to 0(nominal) PM=33.28 Residuals = 21.37
19
EESBase Case: Tap is 3(min=-1; nom=3; max=5) Residuals = 67.32
Only min to nom Case : Tap is 3 Residuals = 67.20
20
EESAll nom Case : Tap is 3 Residuals = 29.08
Flipped the sign Residuals = 19.57
PM doesn’t improve!!!
21
NELSON_E (T1)Base Case : Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 38.77
Only min to nom Case: Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 29.32
22
EES
All nom Case: Tap is 3(nom=3;min=1;max=5) Residuals = 87.66
RBEHV (AT1_500): Residual shoots upto 74.54 from 41.24 for all nominal case
23
TAP ESTIMATION: ONTBase Case: Tap is 2(nom=11;min=1;max=21) Residuals = 360.97
All nom Case: Tap is 2(nom=11;min=1;max=21) Residuals = 93.91
24
TAP ESTIMATION: ONT
All nom Case: Tap is 9(nom=11;min=1;max=21) Residuals = 26.50
Flag is checked for Tap Estimation
25
TAP ESTIMATION: TVABase Case: Tap is 15(nom=12;min=1;max=23) Residuals = 218.26
All nom Case: Tap is 15(nom=12;min=1;max=23) Residuals = 229.57
26
Tap is 12(nom=12;min=1;max=23) Residuals = 188.77
Flag is checked for Tap Estimation
Tap is 19 Residuals = 296.75
27
ALTE
AMIL
BREC
CLEC
CWLD
DPC
EES HE
LAFA
MEC
MHEB
MPW
NSP
SIGE
SME
SPS
WEC 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
BaseCase_PMOnly min_PMAll Nom_PMTap Estimation_PM
Internal Areas: Comparison with Tap Estimation
28
AECI
AEP CE
CSWS
DEOK
EDE EEI
FE
KCPL
LGEE
MPS
NPPD
ONT
OKGE
OPPD
SOCO
SPA
SPC
TVA
WR 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
BaseCase_PMOnly min_PMAll Nom_PMTap Estimation_PM
First Tier: Comparison with Tap Estimation
29
AP
DEWO
DLCO
DPL
EKPC
GRDA
INDN
IPRV
KACY
MIDW
NYISO
OPPD (S)
OTP
OVEC
PJMC
PSEG
SECI
SPRM
SPS
VAP
WAUE
WEC
WFEC
WPS
WR 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
BaseCase_PMOnly min_PMAll Nom_PMTap Estimation_PM
External: Comparison with Tap Estimation
30
CARMEL_C
BREC HE AMIL AMMO
CIN CWLD CWLP IPL OVEC SIGE SIPC 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
No of Observable TapsTotal no of transformers
1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80
100
120
BREC HE AMIL
PM Comparison
31ALTE CONS UPPC NIPS DECO MGE WEC WPS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
No of Observable TapsTotal no of transformers
CARMEL_E
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450ALTE
CONS
UPPC
NIPS
PM Comparison
32
CLEC LAFA EAI EES LAGN SME 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
No of Observable TapsTotal no of transformers
SOUTH
0
20
40
60
80
100
120CLEC LAFA
PM Comparison
33
ALTW DPC MDU MHEB NSP MPW GRE MEC MP OTP SMP 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
No of Observable TapsTotal no of transformers
ST PAUL
34
High no. of Observable Taps:
Better PM with Tap Estimation
Low no. of Observable Taps:
Worse PM with Tap Estimation
High no. of Observable Taps:
Worse PM with Tap Estimation
Low no. of Observable Taps:
Better PM with Tap Estimation
35
ConcernsModel Issues:
• Nominal tap is not set to proper value• No taps assigned
Measurement Issues: Flipped measurements
Tap estimation: Low observability
36
Future Work
Sharing the data with modelling team and discussing about action points
Implementing the suggested changes to get a better Mvar Solution
37
Learned How the EMS System works Implementation of Theoretical Ideas Exposure to Alstom EMS Automated the process for future use Improvement of analytical and coding
skills Made new friends
SUMMARY
38
Jay Dondeti
Charles
Joanna
Sandeep Yeleti
Dustin J. Vandeventer
Carol & Brandy
Recruiting & HR Team
Toastmaster Group Members
All the Summer Interns
39
40
top related