Etap Validation Cases and Comparison Results: Load Flow

ETAP Validation Cases and Comparison Results
ETAP is Verified and Validated (V&V) against field results, real system measurements, published cases, other programs, and hand calculations in order to ensure its technical accuracy. Prior to each release, to encompass the V&V of new features and capabilities, the ETAP Test Group adds new test cases to the existing battery of scenarios. In addition, the Test Group re-runs all existing test cases, as part of our extensive and comprehensive V&V process. In accordance with OTI's Quality Assurance Program, all procedures and activities related to the quality of ETAP software are subject to internal and external audits, including nuclear clients and ISO 9001:2000 certification assessments. Test cases are reviewed during the audit process. This document includes: Load Flow Load Flow Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results against a Published Textbook Example Load Flow Comparison Case #2 Comparison of Load Flow Results against a Published Example Load Flow Comparison Case #3 Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results against Published Textbook Examples Short-Circuit Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case #1 Comparison of Short-Circuit Results against Hand Calculations based on Application Engineering Information Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case #2 Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Short-Circuit Calculations against a Published Example Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case #3 Comparison of ETAP 3-Phase Duty Short-Circuit Calculations against Published IEEE Std 399-1997 Example Short-Circuit IEC Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Short-Circuit IEC Calculations against Published Example Arc Flash Arc Flash Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Arc Flash Results against hand calculated results based on IEEE Standards Arc Flash Comparison Case #2 Verification of ETAP Arc Flash NFPA 70E results against Hand Calculations
Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 1 of 66
No part of this documentation may be reproduced or transmitted without prior written permission of OTI. For information on obtaining permissions, contact [email protected]. The Licensee may copy portions of this documentation for their exclusive use, as long as all reproductions include the OTI copyright notice. Copies shall not be distributed to other persons or entities, including translating into another language. Certain names and/or logos in this document may constitute trademarks, service marks, or trade names of OTI or other entities.
Motor Acceleration Motor Acceleration Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration with Torque Control Against Hand Calculated Results Motor Acceleration Comparison Case #2 Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration Results Against Transient Stability Unbalanced Load Flow Unbalanced Load Flow Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow Results against a Published IEEE 13-Bus Feeder System Harmonics Harmonic Analysis Comparison Case #1 Comparison of ETAP Harmonic Analysis Results Against IEEE Example Transient Stability Transient Stability Comparison Case #1 Comparison with Field Measurement Data for Generator Start-Up Condition Transient Stability Comparison Case #2 Comparison with I.E.E. Japan (IEEJ) Electrical Power System Standard Benchmark Transient Stability Comparison Case #3 Comparison with Field Measurements from a Digital Fault Recorder Transient Stability Comparison Case #4 Comparison with 9-Bus Multi-Machine System Benchmark Transient Stability Comparison Case #5 Comparison with PTI PSS/E Simulation Results
Page 2 of 66
ETAP Load Flow

The ETAP V&V process for the Load Flow program has over 1500 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following case samples are from the Load Flow Solutions & Methods category.
Load Flow Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results against a Published Textbook Example
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-LF-006)

Highlights Comparison between ETAP Load Flow (LF) results against those published in the textbook Computer Aided Power System Operation and Analysis by R.N Dhar, page 89. Comparison of results for the Newton Rhapson Method. Comparison of results for the Accelerated Gauss Seidel Method. Comparison of results for the Fast Decoupled Method. Study includes generation, motor loads, transformers and cables. Considers line impedance and admittance. Comparisons are made against generation schedule, bus voltages and power flows in per-unit. The difference in the results is less than 1% for all bus voltages and power flows. System Description This is a six-bus system that is composed of lines, cables, transformers, generators and utility. The line impedance and charging effects are considered. The schedule of generation and loading for each bus were taken as described in Table 6.2 of the published example.
Page 3 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in the textbook example. Please notice that the percent difference for all branch flows and bus voltages is less than 1%.
COMPARISON BETWEEN ETAP AND REFERENCE FOR LOAD FLOW ETAP
BUS
1 2 3 4 5 6
REFERENCE % Mag. Ang. 105 0 110 100.08 92.98 91.98 91.92 -3.34 -12.78 -9.84 -12.33 -12.3
AGS % Mag. 105 110 100.08 92.97 91.98 91.92 Ang. 0 -3.3 -12.8 -9.8 -12.3 -12.2 % Diff Mag 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 % Mag. 105 110 100.08 92.97 91.98 91.92
NR Ang. 0 -3.3 -12.8 -9.8 -12.3 -12.2 % Diff Mag 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 % Mag. 105 110 100.08 92.97 91.98 91.92
FD Ang. 0 -3.3 -12.8 -9.8 -12.3 -12.2 % Diff Mag 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Table 1: Bus Voltage Comparison for all three Load Flow methods against published results.
COMPARISON BETWEEN ETAP AND REFERENCE FOR LOAD FLOW From To BUS BUS ETAP REFERENCE MW 50.907 44.3 17.183 32.832 -15.419 -39.58 -48.497 8.916 Mvar 25.339 17.913 -0.01 18.446 2.582 -15.57 -17.15 -0.824 MW 50.91 44.3 17.18 32.82 -15.42 -39.58 -48.5 8.92 AGS % Diff Mvar MW 25.34 -0.01 17.92 -0.01 18.45 2.57 -15.57 -17.15 -0.83 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 NR %Diff Mvar MW 0.00 50.91 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.46 -0.01 -0.02 -0.73 44.3 17.18 32.82 -15.42 -39.58 -48.5 8.92 Mvar 25.34 17.92 -0.01 18.45 2.57 -15.57 -17.15 -0.83 % Diff MW -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 %Diff Mvar 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.46 -0.01 -0.02 -0.73 MW 50.91 44.3 17.18 32.82 -15.42 -39.59 -48.5 8.92 FD Mvar 25.34 17.92 -0.01 18.45 2.57 -15.57 -17.15 -0.83 % Diff %Diff MW Mvar -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 0.46 -0.01 -0.02 -0.73
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
4 6 3 5 2 4 1 6
Table 2: Power Flow Comparison for all three Load Flow methods against published results.
Reference
1. Computer Aided Power System Operation and Analysis, R.N Dhar, page 89. 2. ETAP Load Flow V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-LF-006.
Page 4 of 66
Load Flow Comparison Case # 2

Comparison of Load Flow Results against a Published Example

Highlights Comparison between ETAP Load Flow (LF) results against those published in the textbook Power System Control and Stability by P.M. Anderson and A.A. Fouad, page 38. Comparison of prefault load flow results (steady state initial load flow conditions for a Transient Stability Study). Nine bus system with multiple machines and generators. Simulation includes the three Load Flow methods. The difference in the results is less than 1% for all bus voltages and power flows. System Description This is a nine-bus system that is composed multiple machines including induction motors and synchronous generators.
Page 5 of 66
Comparison of Results
The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in the textbook example. Please notice that the percent difference for all branch flows and bus voltages is less than 1%.
ETAP BUS # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 REFERENCE % Mag. 104 102.5 102.5 102.6 99.6 101.3 102.6 101.6 103.2 Ang. 0 9.3 4.7 27.8 26 26.3 33.7 30.7 32 % Mag. 104 102.5 102.5 102.58 99.56 101.26 102.58 101.59 103.23 AGS Ang. 0 9.3 4.7 27.8 26 26.3 33.7 30.7 32 % Diff Mag 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Mag. 104 102.5 102.5 102.58 99.56 101.26 102.58 101.59 103.23 NR Ang. 0 9.3 4.7 27.8 26 26.3 33.7 30.7 32 % Diff Mag 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Mag. 104 102.5 102.5 102.58 99.56 101.26 102.58 101.59 103.23 FD Ang. 0 9.3 4.7 27.8 26 26.3 33.7 30.7 32 % Diff Mag 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 3: Comparison of ETAP Bus Voltage Results against those published in the Textbook Example.
From BUS # 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 7 8 9 To REFERENCE BUS # 4 7 9 5 6 9 5 8 9 8 MW 71.6 163 85 40.9 30.7 -59.5 86.6 76.4 -24.1 24.2 Mvar 27 6.7 -10.9 22.9 1.03 -13.5 -8.4 -0.8 -24.3 3.12 MW 71.64 163 85 40.49 30.7 -59.46 86.62 76.38 -24.1 24.18 Mvar 27.05 6.65 -10.86 22.89 1.03 -13.46 -8.38 -0.8 -24.3 3.12 AGS % Diff MW -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 %Diff Mvar -0.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 MW 71.64 163 85 40.49 30.7 -59.46 86.62 76.38 -24.1 24.18 Mvar 27.05 6.65 -10.9 22.89 1.03 -13.5 -8.38 -0.8 -24.3 3.12 ETAP NR % Diff MW -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 %Diff Mvar -0.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 MW 71.64 163 85 40.49 30.7 -59.46 86.62 76.38 -24.1 24.18 Mvar 27.05 6.65 -10.86 22.89 1.03 -13.46 -8.38 -0.8 -24.3 3.12 FD % Diff MW -0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 %Diff Mvar -0.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 4: Comparison of ETAP LF Power Flows against published Textbook Results.

Reference 1. Power System Control and Stability, P.M. Anderson and A.A. Fouad, page 38. 2. ETAP Load Flow V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-LF-008.
Page 6 of 66
Load Flow Comparison Case #3

Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results against Published Textbook Examples

Highlights Comparison between ETAP Load Flow (LF) results against those published in IEEE Std. 399-1997, Brown Book, pages 151-161. Comparison of results for the Newton Rhapson Method, Accelerated Gauss-Seidel and Fast-Decoupled methods. Forty-four bus systems with multiple loads and generators and types of branches. Considers line impedance and admittance. Comparisons are made against bus voltage magnitude and angle and power flows (MW and Mvar flows). The difference in the results is less than 0.001% for all bus voltages and 0.34% for all power flows (for all three LF methods). System Description This is a forty-four bus system that is composed of lines, cables, transformers, generators, and a utility connection. The line impedance and charging effects are considered. The schedule of generation and loading for each bus was taken as described in Figures 6-5 through 6-7 of the published example. Only the base load flow case was compared in this test case.
Page 7 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP results and those published in the textbook example. The difference in the results is less than 0.001 % for all bus voltages and less than 0.34 % for all power flows (for all three LF methods).
Bus 1: 69-1 2: 69-2 3: MILL-1 4: MILL-2 5: FDR F 6: FDR H 7: FDR 71/72 8: FDR L
Reference % Mag 100.02 99.93 99.77 100 99.74 99.72 100 99.95 Ang(deg) 0.1 -0.1 0.9 -1.8 0.9 0.9 -1.8 -1.8
ETAP % Mag 100.02 99.93 99.77 100 99.74 99.72 100 99.95 Ang (deg) 0.1 -0.1 0.9 -1.8 0.9 0.9 -1.8 -1.8
% Diff Mag. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
% Diff Ang. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Table 1: Bus Voltage Comparison for Load Flow method against published results
From Bus 1: 69-1 3: MILL-1 3: MILL-1 4: MILL-2 4: MILL-2 5: FDR F 5: FDR F 6: FDR H 6: FDR H 7: FDR 71/72
To Bus 3: MILL-1 5: FDR F 50: Gen1 2: 69-2 24: FDR M 39: T3 SEC 49: RECT 11: T4 SEC 19: T7 SEC 16: T9 PRI
Reference MW Mvar -2.667 0.649 2.217 1.341 -10.503 -4.277 -5.562 0.534 2.445 1.530 1.246 0.776 0.971 0.565 0.354 0.206 2.662 1.646 0.425 0.304
ETAP MW Mvar -2.669 0.649 2.217 1.341 -10.504 -4.277 -5.56 0.534 2.448 1.532 1.246 0.776 0.97 0.565 0.354 0.206 2.662 1.646 0.425 0.303
% Diff MW Mvar 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Table 2: Power Flow Comparison for Load Flow method against published results
Page 8 of 66
ETAP ANSI Short-Circuit

The ETAP V&V process for the ANSI Short-Circuit program has over 1700 test cases scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Short-Circuit ANSI 3-phase and unbalanced short-circuit results.
Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of Short-Circuit Results against Hand Calculations based on Application Engineering Information
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-005)

Highlights Comparison of ETAP 3-phase Short-Circuit results against hand calculations. The test case is based on a published power system from Short-Circuit Current Calculations for industrial and Commercial Power Systems, published by General Electric, Section III, Examples of AC Short-Circuit. Comparison of Momentary Short-circuit currents. Comparison of MF based on separate R&X networks per ANSI standards. Calculation of %V away from the faulted bus. System Description Typical industrial system with 5 MVA transformers, reactors, cables and induction motors. The available MVAsc rating of the utility is 250. X/R = 15. There is a lumped 19,900 HP of induction motor load at 2.4 kV and 800 HP at 0.480 kV.
Page 9 of 66
Comparison of Results
The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in the General Electric document. Please notice that the maximum deviation in the results is about 1 %.
For a fault at Bus # 5
Momentary Duty
%
Interrupting Duty
% Diff
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hand Calc Mom. Symm. Current (kA) X/R (separate R&X networks) MF (separate R&X networks) Iasy (separate R/X networks) MF (ANSI method)
25.264 4.106 1.197 30.243 1.600
ETAP.
25.264 4.100 1.197 30.243 1.600
Hand Calc
18.947 5.578 -
ETAP.
18.947 5.600 -
Diff
0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Contribution from Bus 2 (kA) 22.526 22.526 17.272 17.271 0.0 0.0 X/R from Bus 2 3.265 3.300 4.421 4.400 1.0 0.5 %V of Bus 2 29.155 29.160 22.354 22.350 0.0 0.0 Table 5: Comparison of ETAP SC 3-phase results against hand calculation results based on the Application Engineering document. Reference
1. Short-Circuit Current Calculations for industrial and Commercial Power Systems, General Electric, Section III, Examples of AC Short-Circuit. 2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-005.
Page 10 of 66

Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Short-Circuit Calculations against a Published Example

Highlights Comparison of ETAP unbalanced fault results against published results in Faulted Power System Analysis by Paul Anderson, 1973, page 38-40. Comparison of total fault current (IA or 3*IO). Comparison of phase voltages (VA, VB and VC). Comparison of sequence voltages (V1, V2, V0). System Description This is a four-bus radial system that consists of a generator, transformer, transmission line, load transformer and load. The fault is located at Bus C. The generator is rated as 25MVA, 10 kV and its Subtransient Reactance is 12.5%.
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in Paul Andersons book for an unbalanced LG fault. Please notice that the maximum deviation in the results is less than 0.5%.
Ia (3*Io) (kA) Va (%) Vb (%) Vc (%) V1 (%) V2 (%) V0 (%)
Example 1.35 46.02 98.08 99.09 77.42 25.61 22.22
ETAP 1.35 46.1 97.83 98.78 77.53 25.5 22.12
% Diff 0.0 -0.2 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.4 0.5
Table 6: Comparison of ETAP unbalanced fault results against textbook example Reference 1. Faulted Power System Analysis by Paul Anderson, 1973, pages 38-40. 2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-105.
Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 11 of 66

Comparison of ETAP 3-Phase Duty Short-Circuit Calculations against Published IEEE Std 399-1997 Example

Highlights Comparison of ETAP 3-phase Duty Short-circuit results against a published 44-bus example from the IEEE Std. 399-1997, Section 7.7, pages 187-205. Comparison of Momentary fault currents. Comparison of Interrupting currents. Comparison of ANSI C37.010, C37.05 1979 Multiplying factors. Comparison of calculated individual current contributions and calculated voltages away from the faulted bus. Comparison of motor contributions determined according to the Reactance Values specified in Table 72 of IEEE Std. 399-1997. Comparison of Asymmetrical currents. Comparison of Peak currents. Comparison of element per-unit impedance representation for motors, generators, cables and lines. System Description This is a 44 Bus system as modeled in ETAP. The system has a utility tie and in-plant generators. Both the utility tie and the generators are in service and supplying power to the plant. The system rotating-load is typical of a system operating near to full capacity. The system contains both induction and synchronous motors. The utility is operating at 69 kV and the generators at 13.8 kV. Several motors that are rated less than 50 HP are modeled as composite motors in ETAP. Medium size machines (rated higher than 50 Hp) are modeled individually.
Page 12 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in Tables 7-5 and 7-6 of IEEE Std. 399-1997. The result difference in all cases is less than or equal to 0.1%. Please note that the results have rounded-off and compared to the appropriate number of significant figures.
For a fault at Bus 19: T7SEC Prefault Voltage (kV) Voltage to Ground (at fault location) (%) Total Mom Fault Current (kA) X/R ratio Asymmetrical Momentary Current (kA) Peak Current (kA) Contribution from Bus 6:FDR-H2 (kA) Voltage to Ground (at Bus 6 ) (%) Contribution from Motor M-T7-1 (kA) Contribution from Motor M-T7-2 (kA) IEEE Std 399-1997 Example 2.4 0 18.449 13.7 27.765 46.879 13.418 82 1.619 3.414 ETAP 2.4 0 18.453 13.7 27.762 46.838 13.422 82 1.619 3.414 % Diff 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 7: Comparison of ETAP Momentary Short-circuit results against published IEEE Std 399-1997 Section 7.7 Example results for a fault at Bus 19: T7SEC.
For a fault at Bus 10: EMERG Prefault Voltage (kV) Voltage to Ground (at fault location) (%) Total Mom Fault Current (kA) X/R ratio MF (ANSI Std C37.010 1979) Adjusted Asymmetrical Current (kA) Peak Current (kA) Contribution from Bus 13:T6 PRI (kA) Voltage to Ground (at Bus 13 ) (%) Contribution from Bus 27:T12 PRI (kA) Voltage to Ground (at Bus 27 ) (%)
IEEE Std 399-1997 Example 13.8 0 11.616 8.95 1 11.619 46.879 0.04 0.0 11.577 4.0
ETAP 13.8 0 11.616 8.938 1 11.616 46.838 0.04 0.0 11.576 4.0
% Diff 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 8: Comparison of ETAP Interrupting Short-circuit results against published IEEE Std 399-1997 Section 7.7 Example results for a fault at Bus 10: EMERG.
Reference
1. IEEE Brown Book: IEEE Std. 399-1997, Section 7.7, page 187-205. 2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-162.
Page 13 of 66
ETAP IEC Short-Circuit

The ETAP V&V process for the IEC Short-Circuit program has over 1100 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Short-Circuit IEC 3-phase and unbalanced shortcircuit results.
Short-Circuit IEC Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Short-Circuit IEC Calculations against Published Example
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SCIEC-082)

Highlights Comparison of ETAP unbalanced fault results against published results in IEC Standard 60909-4 2000 Example 4. Compares system results for high and medium voltage systems. Compares the initial symmetrical current (Ik). Compares the peak current (Ip) for both method B and C. Compares the maximum steady state current value (Ik max). Compares both balanced 3-phase and unbalanced LG results. System Description This is 3-phase system operating at 50Hz. The Utility connection is operating at 380 kV. The utility connection transformers are two 350 MVA (primary winding rating) with 350 MVA 120 kV secondary and 50 MVA 30 kV tertiary windings. The system has two PowerStation units. One is operating at 21 kV and is rated for 150 MVA. The second unit is operating at 10.5 kV and is rated for 100 MVA.
Page 14 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP Results and those published in the IEC Standard example. Please note that the percent difference for the initial symmetrical current (Ik) is less than 0.002 % in most cases. The difference in the peak current values is less than 0.5% in most cases.
IEC ETAP I"k IEC %Diff Ip(b) (kA) 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 100.577 80.8249 45.8249 36.8041 83.6266 99.191 59.094 36.9201 ETAP Ip(b) 100.5783 80.50905 45.82378 36.80346 83.62118 99.19047 59.09395 36.92002 %Diff 0.0 -0.4 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 IEC Ip ETAP Ip %Diff 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.4 -0.6 IEC Ib 40.645 31.57 ETAP Ib 40.64 31.576 %Diff -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 IEC Ik (kA) 40.635 31.663 19.623 16.196 32.997 34.356 22.276 13.573 ETAP Ik 40.635 31.662 19.623 16.195 32.995 34.356 22.276 13.573 %Diff 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 -0.0
Bus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I"K (kA)
40.6447 40.6449 31.7831 31.7817 19.673 19.6724
100.568 100.576 80.6079 80.6963 45.8111 45.9764 36.8427 37.0397 83.4033 83.5906 98.1434 99.2752 51.6899 51.8932 36.9227 36.6847
19.388 19.398 16.017 16.015 32.795 32.807 34.028 34.166 23.212 23.305 13.578 13.578
16.2277 16.2273 33.1894 33.1873 37.5629 37.5626 25.5895 25.5893 13.5778 13.5777
Table 9: Comparison of ETAP 3-phase short-circuit IEC results against IEC Standard example for Ik, Ip and Ik.
IEC Bus 2 3 4 5 I"K LG 15.9722 10.4106 9.0498 17.0452
ETAP I"K LG 15.972 10.41 9.049 17.045 %Diff -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
IEC Ip LG 40.5086 24.2424 20.5463 42.8337
ETAP Ip LG 40.553 24.33 20.655 42.931 %Diff 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2
Table 10: Comparison of ETAP unbalanced short-circuit IEC results against IEC Standard example for Ik and Ip.
Reference
1. IEC Standard 60909-4 2000, Example 4. 2. ETAP Short Circuit IEC V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SCIEC-082.
Page 15 of 66
ETAP Arc Flash Analysis

The ETAP V&V process for the Arc Flash program has over 900 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Arc Flash V&V documentation.
Arc Flash Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Arc Flash Results against hand calculated results based on IEEE Standards

Highlights Comparison of ETAP Arc Flash analysis results against hand calculated results based on the equations listed in IEEE standard 1584 2002. The calculations include both open air and enclosed equipment. The calculation results are within the specified range of validity of the IEEE 1584 Equations. The hand calculated results were developed based on a program developed in Matlab version 6.5.0 Release 13.0.1. ETAP results and the Matlab hand calculated results have a percent difference less than 0.001% in all cases. System Description The Arc Flash calculation in ETAP for different bus voltages and input parameters was entered into different Buses in the program. Each bus had a different type of equipment as described in the IEEE standard. The following types of equipment were described for each bus at different voltage levels. MCC Switchgear Switchboard Switchrack Panelboard Cable Bus Open Air Typical Gaps and X-factors were used for the calculation. The Incident energy and the Flash Protection Boundary were calculated based on a Fault Clearing Time (arc fault clearing time) of 0.1 seconds.
Page 16 of 66
Comparison of Results The following table of comparison shows the differences between ETAP Results and those calculated by Hand using the Matlab program. The difference in all cases is smaller than 0.001%.
Page 17 of 66
Hand Calculated (Matlab) Bus kV 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 0.480 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 Type Other MCC Switchgear Switchboard Switchrack Panelboard Cable Bus Open Air MCC Switchgear Switchboard Switchrack Panelboard Cable Bus Open Air Other Cable Bus Open Air MCC Switchgear Switchboard Switchrack Panelboard Other Cable Bus Open Air MCC Switchgear Switchboard Switchrack Panelboard Other Ia (kA) 7.027 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 5.534 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 E (Cal/cm^2) 0.780 2.658 2.532 2.532 2.532 2.658 2.947 1.486 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.715 1.573 1.694 2.174 1.192 2.973 2.490 3.294 4.207 3.294 2.174 81.541 36.241 18.787 13.047 81.541 23.718 92.776 8.350 FPB (ft) Level 1.212 2.441 2.497 2.497 2.497 2.441 2.356 1.672 4.645 4.645 4.645 4.645 4.645 3.015 2.295 2.381 4.046 3.080 8.505 8.505 8.505 8.505 8.505 4.046 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 Ia (kA) 7.027 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 6.295 5.534 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 14.456 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 23.888 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737 71.737
ETAP results (Editors) E (Cal/cm^2) FPB (ft) Level 0.780 2.658 2.532 2.532 2.532 2.658 2.947 1.486 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.713 2.715 1.573 1.694 2.174 1.192 2.973 2.490 3.294 4.207 3.294 2.174 81.541 36.241 18.787 13.047 81.541 23.718 92.776 8.350 1.212 2.441 2.497 2.497 2.497 2.441 2.356 1.672 4.645 4.645 4.645 4.645 4.645 3.015 2.295 2.381 4.046 3.080 8.505 8.505 8.505 8.505 8.505 4.046 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 33.040 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3
%Diff (Hand Calcs vs. ETAP) Ia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FPB 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Level 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 11: Comparison of Arc Flash results between ETAP and Hand Calculations developed based on IEEE 1584 2002 standards for different voltage levels and types of equipment. Note that incident energy is calculated based on a fault clearing time of 0.1 sec.
Reference
1. IEEE Standard 1584 2002 pages 4-13. 2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-120.
Page 18 of 66
Arc Flash Comparison Case # 2

Verification of ETAP Arc Flash NFPA 70E results against Hand Calculations

Highlights Comparison of ETAP Arc Flash results for Open-air Systems rated higher than 600 Volts against hand calculated values based on equations listed in Standard NFPA 70E 2004. The incident energy results and Flash Protection Boundaries have been determined based several working distances and Fault clearing times. The hand calculations were created based on the equations shown in the standard with the help of a calculation program called MathCAD Professional version 2000. In all cases the percent difference between hand calculations and ETAP results is less than 0.001% System Description The systems consist of multiple faulted buses that are configured to test all the situations that are related to a 600 Volt system. Each faulted bus tests a different situation, which includes open-air systems rated at 600 Volts, above or below. In all cases, the buses are energized by Power Grids.
The following is a sample of the MathCAD calculations for a fault at Bus2 based on ANSI short-circuit calculations.
Page 19 of 66
Page 20 of 66
Comparison of Results The following table of comparison shows the differences between ETAP Results and those calculated by hand using the MathCAD program for the NFPA 70E Arc Flash method. The difference in all cases is smaller than 1%.
Hand Calculations Arc Duration (Cycles) 0.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0.456 0.645 1.29 1.58 1.824 2.04 2.234 2.58 2.884 4.996 5.769 6.45 7.065 7.631 8.158 8.653 0.111 0.222 0.887 1.331 1.774 2.218 2.662 3.549 4.436 13.309 17.745 22.181 26.617 31.053 35.49 39.926 Incident Energy (Cal/ cm ) 0.062 0.125 0.499 0.749 0.998 1.248 1.497 1.996 2.495 7.486 9.981 12.477 14.972 17.467 19.963 22.458 0.04 0.08 0.319 0.479 0.639 0.799 0.958 1.278 1.597 4.791 6.388 7.985 9.582 11.179 12.776 14.373 0.028 0.055 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.555 0.665 0.887 1.109 3.327 4.436 5.545 6.654 7.763 8.872 9.981 0.0156 0.031 0.125 0.187 0.25 0.312 0.374 0.499 0.624 1.872 2.495 3.119 3.743 4.367 4.991 5.615 0.456 0.645 1.29 1.58 1.824 2.04 2.234 2.58 2.884 4.996 5.769 6.45 7.065 7.631 8.158 8.653 0.111 0.222 0.887 1.331 1.775 2.218 2.662 3.549 4.436 13.309 17.745 22.181 26.618 31.054 35.49 39.926
2
ETAP Results Incident Energy (Cal/cm ) 0.062 0.125 0.499 0.749 0.998 1.248 1.497 1.996 2.495 7.486 9.982 12.477 14.972 17.468 19.963 22.459 0.04 0.08 0.319 0.479 0.639 0.799 0.958 1.278 1.597 4.791 6.388 7.985 9.582 11.179 12.776 14.374 0.028 0.055 0.222 0.333 0.444 0.555 0.665 0.887 1.109 3.327 4.436 5.545 6.654 7.763 8.873 9.982 0.0156 0.031 0.125 0.187 0.25 0.312 0.374 0.499 0.624 1.872 2.495 3.119 3.743 4.367 4.991 5.615
2
FPB (ft) E 18 in. E 24 in. E 30 in. E 36 in. E 48 in. FPB (ft) E 18 in. E 24 in. E 30 in. E 36 in. E 48 in.
Table 12: ETAP Arc Flash NFPA 70E Results and Hand Calculated results
Arc Duration (Cycles) 0.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
% Difference between ETAP and Hand Calcs FPB (ft) E 18 in. E 24 in. E 30 in. E 36 in. E 48 in.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 -0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.6 0.2 -0.1 0.2 0 -0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table13: Comparison of ETAP Arc Flash results against Hand Calculated values based on Section D.7 of NFPA 70E 2004. Reference
1. Standard NFPA 70E 2004 Section D.7
2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-157.
Page 22 of 66
ETAP Motor Acceleration Analysis

The ETAP V&V process for the Motor Acceleration program has over 1600 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Motor Starting V&V documentation.
Motor Acceleration Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration with Torque Control Against Hand Calculated Results
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-MS-149)

Highlights Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration results against Hand Calculations. Torque Control Solid-State Motor Starting Device is used to start the motor. Single1, Single2, Double1 and Double2 CKT models are used in the hand calculation. Motor is rated at 500 HP at 4 kV, RPM = 1800, %PF = 89.85 and %Eff = 94.14. The compared results include the motor Power Output, Reactive Power Input, Motor Current, Terminal Voltage and Power Factor at different Slip values. Hand Calculations were accomplished using MathCAD version 2000. The equations for the motor modeling were obtained from different sources. The same system was used for the different motor CKT models. System Description This is a 3-Phase system that consists of three induction motors. One of the induction motors at the 0.480 kV bus is being started at t = 0 sec. The CKT model parameters are as shown on the Model page. The motor being started is 50St100Ld-1.
Page 23 of 66
The following is a sample of the hand calculations that were performed for each motor model.
Hand Calc's
Single2 Model: MotorkV := 4 MotorMVA := 0.4408 ZB := MotorkV
2
MotorMVA
ZB = 36.29764
B R2LR := 0.0123Z R2FL := 0.0152Z B X2LR := 0.093 ZB B X2FL := 0.1167Z
R2LR = 0.44646 R2FL = 0.55172 X2LR = 3.37568 X2FL = 4.23593
R1 := 0.0383Z B B X1 := 0.1029Z Xm := 3.652 ZB
Find rated slip using trial and error until current (I1) is satisfied: s rated := 0.0155022 R2 := ( R2FL R2LR) ( 1 s rated) + R2LR X2 := ( X2FL X2LR) ( 1 s rated) + X2LR
1 1 1 + Xmi R2 + X2 i s rated
R2 = 0.55009 X2 = 4.2226
Zeq := R1 + X1i +
Zeq = 32.61631+ 15.92816i
MotorkV 1000
I1 :=
Zeq
I1 = 63.62373
Calculate the relationship (K) between Pout and Pag to compensate for rotational losses: PF := cos ( arg ( Zeq ) ) Pag := 3 MotorkV I1 PF Pconv := ( 1 s rated) Pag Pout rated := 500 0.7457 Kga := Pag Pout rated PF = 0.89858 Pag = 379.20791 Pconv = 373.32935 Pout rated = 372.85 Kga = 1.01705
(3I
R1
1000
Page 24 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparisons illustrate the comparisons made between ETAP Motor Acceleration and the MathCAD hand calculations. Please note that in all cases, the % difference for all the compared parameters is less than 0.1%.
Single2 Model: S (pu) 0.899978 0.699989 0.689957 0.670009 0.62994 0.55019 0.250022 0.013967 t (s) 0.876 2.362 2.416 2.517 2.722 3.237 4.417 10 Benchmark P (kW) Q (kvar) 7.45864 1558.67 32.1615 1605.76 35.0731 1634.12 41.2157 1684.88 47.4067 1647.67 58.7214 1542.35 332.613 1749.12 336.174 179.364 ETAP P (kW) 7.45861 32.1615 35.0731 41.2158 47.4068 58.7214 332.525 336.174 Q (kvar) 1558.58 1605.66 1634.02 1684.78 1647.57 1542.26 1749 179.312 % Diff P (%) Q (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Double1 Model: S(pu) 0.900043 0.749985 0.739948 0.720057 0.690032 0.619981 0.499961 0.249992 0.003514 t (s) 1.369 2.831 2.911 3.072 3.331 4.126 5.21 7.744 10 Benchmark P (kW) Q (kvar) 5.59035 2332.06 17.7119 2400.7 18.7474 2405.82 20.8734 2414.29 23.6091 2389.87 29.7549 2299.64 73.4686 2829.61 215.571 2794.31 344.09 168.2 ETAP P (kW) 5.59033 17.7119 18.7473 20.8734 23.6091 29.7549 73.4686 215.571 344.09 Q (kvar) 2332.38 2401.03 2406.15 2414.61 2390.19 2299.95 2829.61 2794.69 168.321 % Diff P (%) Q (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Double2 Model: S(pu) 0.89999 0.749945 0.739993 0.720021 0.689995 0.620011 0.499838 0.249964 0.003522 t (s) 1.364 2.82 2.899 3.06 3.318 4.109 4.515 4.677 10 Benchmark P (kW) Q (kvar) 5.5933 1072.45 17.716 1136.02 18.7427 1141.19 20.8773 1151.11 23.6125 1149.11 29.7526 1132.15 408.839 3357.97 578.276 2995.05 344.084 164.803 ETAP P (kW) 5.5933 17.716 18.7426 20.8773 23.6126 29.7526 408.84 578.275 344.084 Q (kvar) 1072.48 1136.06 1141.23 1151.15 1149.14 1132.19 3358.07 2995.15 164.83 % Diff P (%) Q (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 14: Comparison of ETAP Motor Starting Results with a Torque Control Starting Device against Hand Calculations at various Motor Slip points.
Page 25 of 66
Single1 Model: S (pu) 0.900008 0.699987 0.690051 0.66996 0.629982 0.550047 0.249183 0.01304 t (s) 0.835 2.252 2.303 2.4 2.595 3.086 3.67 10 Benchmark P (kW) Q (kvar) 7.4564 1473.97 32.1621 1555.32 35.0452 1585.36 41.2247 1640.66 47.4 1610.61 58.7177 1518.09 1209.53 3005.72 336.877 174.338 ETAP P (kW) Q (kvar) 7.45639 1473.88 32.162 1555.22 35.0451 1585.26 41.2247 1640.55 47.4 1610.5 58.7177 1518 1209.53 3005.72 336.877 174.495 % Diff P (%) Q (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Table 15: Comparison of ETAP Motor Starting Results with a Torque Control Starting Device against Hand Calculations at various Motor Slip points.
Characteristic Model: S (pu) 0.900083 0.689961 0.67999 0.599963 0.500036 0.013515 t (s) 0.838 2.354 2.407 2.822 3.645 10 V (%) 72.2158 76.409 77.88 78.7452 72.5149 99.9902 Benchmark I (%) PF (%) 359.635 25.803 373.631 27.883 380.351 28.024 380.733 29.146 344.736 31.038 144.196 82.498 ETAP I (%) PF (%) 359.664 25.79 373.627 27.872 380.353 28.012 380.735 29.14 344.72 31.03 144.195 82.49391 % Diff PF (%) -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q (kvar) 1557.5 1609.15 1636.17 1633.47 1480.61 359.303
S (pu) 0.900083 0.689961 0.67999 0.599963 0.500036 0.013515
t (s) 0.838 2.354 2.407 2.822 3.645 10
V (%) 72.2145 76.4068 77.8787 78.7406 72.5145 100.008
Q (kvar) 1557.54 1609.03 1636.07 1633.38 1480.44 359.351
S (pu) 0.900083 0.689961 0.67999 0.599963 0.500036 0.013515
t (s) 0.838 2.354 2.407 2.822 3.645 10
V (%) -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.0
I (%) 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0
Q (kvar) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 16: Comparison of ETAP Motor Starting Results with a Torque Control Starting Device against Hand Calculations at various Motor Slip points. Reference
1. ETAP Motor Acceleration V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-MS-149.
2.
Motor Acceleration Comparison Case # 2
Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration Results Against Transient Stability
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-MS-083)

Highlights Comparison of ETAP Motor Acceleration results against Transient Stability results that have been validated against field measured data and hand calculations. Motor is rated at 200 HP at 0.46 kV. RPM = 1800. %PF = 91.71 and %Eff = 92.75. Motor CKT model is a Single (Single-cage with deep bars). The mechanical load model (Torque) is represented by the following polynomial equation T = 100 * (constant slope ramping load). The compared results include the motor current, motor real and reactive power demand and the motor slip. Please note that the Motor Starting study is able to predict the acceleration time very accurately. Refer to cases 1 to 5 published in http://www.etap.com/qa_tsvvcasedocs.htm for some TS validation results. System Description This is 3-Phase system that consists of three induction motors. One of the induction motors at the 0.480 kV bus is being started at t = 0 sec. The CKT model parameters are as shown on the Model page. The motor being started is 50St100Ld-1.
Comparison of Results The following plots show the similarity between motor acceleration results obtained using ETAP Motor Acceleration and those obtained using ETAP Transient Stability. The TS model has been validated against hand calculations and field measured results as shown in the TS Verification & Validation Test Cases published on the ETAP Web site. The compared plots are the Motor Current (Amps), Motor Electrical Power Demand (MW), Motor Reactive Power Demand (Mvar) and the Motor Slip (%).
Motor Current in TS and MS (Amps)

1600 1400 1200 Amperes 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 1 2 3 Time (sec) 4 5 6 Current (TS) Current (MS)
Motor Electrical Power in TS vs MS (MW)

0.4 0.35 0.3 Power (MW) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 Time (sec) 4 5 6 MW (TS) MW (MS)
Page 28 of 66
Motor Reactive Power in TS vs MS (Mvar)

1.2 1 Power (Mvar) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 2 4 6 Mvar (TS) MVAR (MS)
Time (sec)
Motor Slip in TS vs MS (%)

120 100 80
Slip (%)
60 40 20 0 -20 0 1 2 3
Time (sec)
Slip (%) TS Slip (%) MS
Reference 1. ETAP Motor Acceleration V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-MS-083.
Page 29 of 66
ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow

The ETAP V&V process for the Unbalanced Load Flow program has over 550 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Unbalanced Load Flow V&V documentation.
Unbalanced Load Flow Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow Results against a Published IEEE 13-Bus Feeder System
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-ULF-002)

Highlights Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow (ULF) results against those published in Radial Test Feeders - IEEE Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee for an IEEE 13-bus feeder system found on http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders.html. Comparison of bus voltages and angles on each phase. Comparison of current flows and angles on each phase. The difference in the results is less than 1% for all bus voltages and power flows. System Description To model the unbalanced distribution thirteen-bus system found in the web site above, an equivalent system (as shown in Figure 1) was designed in ETAP with the following conditions: 1. This case covers only the portion below Node 632 due to the same ETAP transformer tap for three phases. 2. The portion above Node 632 is modeled using the internal impedances of the utility. 3. Cables are modeled using impedances. 4. The distributed load is modeled using two lumped loads at both line terminals. 5. The single phase load of constant current is modeled using an approximate lumped load.
Page 30 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP results and those published on the IEEE 13-bus feeder. Please notice that the percent difference for all branch flows and bus voltages is less than 1%. Any missing fields in the tables below were not provided in the IEEE benchmark results; however, the corresponding ETAP results have been included. Voltage (in per unit) Phase A Phase B Phase C BUS IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff 1.021 1.021 0.0 1.042 1.042 0.0 1.017 1.017 0.0 632 1.018 1.018 0.0 1.04 1.04 0.0 1.015 1.014 0.1 633 634 (XF13) 0.994 0.994 0.0 1.022 1.022 0.0 0.996 0.996 0.0 1.033 1.032 0.0 1.015 1.015 0.0 645 1.031 1.031 0.0 1.013 1.013 0.0 646 0.99 0.989 0.0 1.053 1.053 0.0 0.978 0.976 0.0 671 0.99 0.989 0.0 1.053 1.053 0.0 0.978 0.976 0.0 680 0.988 0.987 0.0 0.976 0.974 0.0 684 0.974 0.972 0.0 611 0.982 0.981 0.0 652 0.99 0.989 0.0 1.053 1.053 0.0 0.978 0.976 0.0 692 0.983 0.982 0.0 1.055 1.055 0.0 0.976 0.974 0.0 675 Table 17: Bus Voltage Magnitude Comparison Angle (in degrees) Phase A Phase B Phase C BUS IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff -2.49 -2.49 0.0 -121.7 -121.7 0.0 117.83 117.83 0.0 632 -2.56 -2.55 0.4 -121.8 -121.8 0.01 117.82 117.83 0.01 633 634 (XF13) -3.23 -3.22 0.0 -122.2 -122.2 0.0 117.35 117.35 0.0 -121.9 -121.9 0.0 117.86 117.87 0.0 645 -122 -122 0.0 117.9 117.93 0.0 646 -5.3 -5.29 -122.3 -122.3 0.0 116.02 116.07 0.0 671 -5.3 -5.29 -122.3 -122.3 0.0 116.02 116.07 0.0 680 -5.32 -5.31 115.92 115.96 0.0 684 115.78 115.81 0.0 611 -5.25 -5.24 0.0 652 -5.31 -5.29 0.0 -122.3 -122.3 0.0 116.02 116.07 0.0 692 -5.56 -5.55 0.0 -122.5 -122.5 0.0 116.03 116.08 0.0 675 Table 18: Bus Voltage Angle Comparison
Page 31 of 66
To model the distributed load along node Bus632 to node Bus671, the loading is equally connected at each end of the line segment (Line601_22), i.e. Lump9 and Lump7. Therefore, the current flows going from Bus632 to Bus671 and vice-versa are the following: 632-671: Phase A: 474.6 + 4 = 478.6 Phase B: 200.6 + 15.1 = 215.7 Phase C: 448.7+ 28.9 = 477.6 671 - 632 Phase A: 474.6 - 4.2 = 470.4 Phase B: 200.6 - 15.1 = 184.9 Phase C: 448.7 - 28.9 = 419.8
Current Flow (Amps)
BUS
611 632 - RG60 -633 -645 -671 633 - 632 -634 634 - 633 645-632 -646 646 - 645 652 - 684 671 - 632 -680 -684 -692 675 - 692 680 - 671 684 - 671 -611 -652 692 - 671 -675
Phase A Phase B Phase C IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff IEEE ETAP % Diff 71.2 71.2 0.0 558.4 414.9 586.6 81.3 81.2 61.1 61.1 62.7 62.7 0.2 0 0.0 143 143 65.2 65.1 0 0.1 478.2 478.1 215.1 215.6 0.2 475.5 475.9 0.1 0 81.3 81.3 61.1 61.1 62.7 62.7 0.1 0 0.0 81.3 81.3 61.1 61.1 62.7 62.7 0.1 0 0.0 704.8 704.8 0.0 529.7 529.7 543.5 543.7 0.0 0 143 143 65.2 65.1 0 0.1 65.2 65.1 65.2 65.1 0.1 0.1 65.2 65.1 65.2 65.1 0.1 0.1 63 63 0.0 470.2 470 0.0 186.4 185.3 0.6 420.6 419.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 71.2 71.2 0.0 0.0 229.1 229.1 0.0 69.6 69.6 0.0 178.4 178.5 0.1 205.3 205.4 0.0 69.6 69.6 0.0 124.1 124.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 71.2 71.2 0.0 0.0 71.2 71.2 0.0 63 63 0.0 229.1 229.1 0.0 69.6 69.6 0.0 178.4 178.3 0.1 205.3 205.4 0.0 69.6 69.6 0.0 124.1 124.1 0.0 Table 19: Current Flow Magnitude Comparison
Reference
1. IEEE Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee for an IEEE 13-bus feeder system found on http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders.html. 2. ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-ULF-002.
Page 32 of 66
ETAP Harmonic Analysis

The ETAP V&V process for the Harmonic Analysis program has over 1300 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Harmonic Analysis V&V documentation.
Harmonic Analysis Comparison Case # 1

Comparison of ETAP Harmonic Analysis Results Against IEEE Example
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-HA-001)

Highlights Comparison between ETAP Harmonic Analysis (HA) results against those published on IEEE Standard 519-1992 Example 13.1 page. 89-92. Comparison of Current Total and Individual Harmonic Distortion. Comparison of Voltage Total and Individual Harmonic Distortion. Comparison of voltage and current RMS, ASUM, THD, and TIF. System Description This is a large industrial plant system furnished at utility transmission voltage. The system is composed of multiple transformers, induction motors, variable frequency drives (as harmonic sources) and utility.
Page 33 of 66
Comparison of Results The following tables of comparison show the differences between ETAP results and those published in the textbook example. Please notice that the percent difference for all branch flows and bus voltages is less than 1%.
HARMONIC CURRENT (A) HARMONIC VOLTAGE (%) (from Bus 3 to Bus 100) (Bus 100) STD 519 ETAP % Diff STD 519 ETAP % Diff 5 2.4 2.4 0.12 0.12 0 0.0 7 1.65 1.64 0.12 0.12 0.0 0.0 11 9.12 9.07 1 1 0.1 0.0 13 7.12 7.18 0.92 0.93 -0.1 -0.0 17 0.44 0.38 0.08 0.07 0.1 0.0 19 0.34 0.38 0.06 0.06 -0.0 0.0 23 2.51 2.52 0.57 0.57 -0.0 0.0 25 2 2.01 0.5 0.5 -0.0 0.0 29 0.17 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.0 0.0 31 0.15 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.0 0.0 35 1.37 1.39 0.48 0.48 -0.0 0.0 Table 20: Comparison between ETAP and IEEE STD 519 for Harmonic Load Flow HARM ORDER Note: 1. The harmonic currents listed in Table 13.1 of IEEE Std. 519, for the Static Power Converter (SPC) harmonic source have errors. The correct values used by ETAP are given below: Harmonic PU Value Harmonic PU Value Harmonic PU Value 1 1 19 0.0027 37 0.01 5 0.0192 23 0.02 41 0.0009 7 0.0132 25 0.016 43 0.0008 11 0.073 29 0.00136 47 0.008 13 0.057 31 0.0012 49 0.007 17 0.0035 35 0.011 2. Errors results are given in absolute value due to small results values and insufficient number of digits. 3. ETAP gives branch harmonic currents in percentage of fundamental current. 4. The larger discrepancy in harmonic voltage values between the ETAP calculated and IEEE Std 519 values is due to insufficient number of digits in ETAP output. In the ETAP output, the harmonic voltage components are reported to second digit after the decimal point.
Page 34 of 66
Below you can find tables of comparison between voltage and current on bus 100 and branch TR1 for RMS, ASUM, THD, and TIF in ETAP against hand calculated values and reported errors for this comparison. Parameter to be Hand Calculation ETAP % Diff Compared (in MathCad) RMS 100.02 100.02 0.0 ASUM 105.40 105.40 0.0 THD 1.83 1.83 0.0 TIF 108.35 108.44 -0.1 Table 21: Comparison on bus 100 for voltage RMS, ASUM, THD and TIF
Parameter to be Hand Calculation (in compared MathCad) ETAP % Diff RMS 126.63 127.05 -0.3 ASUM 156.62 157.16 -0.3 THD 9.99 10.00 -0.1 TIF 346.55 345.16 0.4 Table 22: Comparison on TR1 for current RMS, ASUM, THD and TIF
Reference
1. IEEE Standard 519-1992 Example 13.1, page 89-92. 2. ETAP Harmonic Analysis V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-HA-001.
Page 35 of 66
ETAP Transient Stability

The following test cases are specific to the Transient Stability program (including Generator Start-Up and User-Defined Dynamic Model modules) and are indicative of the type of tests performed for this analysis. Note that all of these cases indicate a very close correlation between ETAP simulated results and field measurements or other programs.
Transient Stability Comparison Case # 1

Generator Start-Up Simulation Comparison with Field Measurement Data
Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-TS-143)

Highlights Comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability/Generator Start-Up simulation results and field measurement data Special study of the emergency generator start-up for a nuclear generation plant ETAP built-in frequency dependent synchronous generator, induction machine, and network models ETAP built-in IEEE Standard 2.1 synchronous machine model ETAP built-in hydro turbine and speed governor/gate control model, including water tunnel system ETAP built-in IEEE ST1D excitation and AVR model, including DC flashing and V/Hz switching control ETAP built-in double-cage induction machine model Multiple voltage levels, multiple substations, and multiple loads Comparisons include starting generator frequency, voltage, output current and power, starting motor voltage, current and input power Excellent correlation between ETAP simulation results and the field measurements data Accepted report by the client and NRC (Nuclear Regulation Commission) Published paper in IEEE IAS Transaction (see reference)
System Description The studied hydro generation station shown in Figure 1 is a backup power source for a nuclear power generation plant. Under emergency conditions, hydro generators of the station must be started as a black start source to pick up the auxiliary loads of the nuclear generation plant. In this study, the generator is dynamically modeled with ETAP IEEE Standard 2.1 type. The Exciter/AVR and Turbine/Governor are modeled with ETAP built-in exciter STD1 type and governor HYDR type. The induction motors in the system are dynamically molded with ETAP double-cage independent bars type. The system including generator, motor, and network is flagged using frequency-dependent model.
Page 36 of 66
W/OMod#2
KGEN 2
13.2kV Keo#2 ACB 04
J-CT4/B1,2TS
NO
B1T-05 4kV B1TS B1T-07
B2T-09 4kV B2TS NO B2T-07
3TC-14 3TD-14 3TC-01 3TC-03 3TC-08 3TC-09 4kV 3TC 3TC-10 3TC-11 3TC-13 4kV 3TD 3TD-00 3TD-03 3TD-09 3TD-01 3TD-10 3TD-11 3TD-12 3TD-13 3TE-00 3TE-03 3TE-14 3TE-01 4kV 3TE 3TE-09 3TE-12
3X4-04A
HPIP-3A LPIP-3A 600V LC 3X4
EFDWP-3A RBSP-3A LPSWP-3A 3X8-04A 600V LC 3X8 3X8-05A
HPIP-3C 3X5-04A 600V LC 3X5
LPIP-3B RBSP-3B LPSWP-3B 3X9-04A 600V LC 3X9
EFDWP-3B
HPIP-3B 3X6-04A 600V LC 3X6 600V LC 3X10
3X9-05A
Fig. 1. Hydro Generation Station System One-Line Diagram
Simulation Events The simulation events on the study are set up exactly the same as the site test procedures, which are as follows: Start generator, with the exciter running in field flushing mode and governor in start control mode, @ t = 0 second The voltage-per-hertz switch continuously checks the generator terminal V/Hz value Exciter will switch to AVR mode when it reaches 74% V/Hz The voltage relay checks the generator terminal voltage, if it reaches 76% V, it will trip to close the main feeder circuit breakers A sequence loading will follow by starting-up motors and adding loads by closing individual circuit breaker
Page 37 of 66
Simulation Result Comparisons with the Site Measurement Data The following plots (Figures 2 to 17) show some of the comparisons between the simulation results and field measurements for the starting generator and some starting induction motors.
Fig. 2. Generator Frequency/Speed In Figure 2, the measurement spikes at the start-up (up to 8 seconds) are noise related. The simulated result at the more critical portion of the curve (generator speed above 50% of its rated value) has a very close correlation with the field measurement data.
Fig. 3. Generator Terminal Voltage Similar to the speed response, the generator voltage response in Figure 3 from the simulation also closely correlates the field measurement, in particular in the region more critical (voltage above 50% of its nominal value).
Page 38 of 66
Fig. 4. Generator Current The generator current from the ETAP simulation and the field measurement in Figure 4 shows almost identical results in the final settle down time and final values. The difference at the beginning (initial transient in the generator current) may be due to an error with the measuring device, i.e., difficulty with recording fast changing singles.
Fig. 5. Generator Electrical Power The comparison for generator electrical power response in Figure 5 shows close correlation for the major parameters, including the peak of oscillation, settle down time, and final values. The difference in the initial high-speed transient is probably due to the responding time of the measuring equipment.
Page 39 of 66
Fig. 6. Motor LPSW-3B Terminal Voltage The motor voltage response for motor LPSW-3B in Figure 6 from the simulation very closely agrees to the measured data.
Fig. 7. Motor LPSW-3B Current The motor current response for motor LPSW-3B in Figure 7 from the simulation also very closely agrees to the measured current curve.
Page 40 of 66
Fig. 8. Motor LPSW-3B Electrical Power The motor electrical power response for motor LPSW-3B in Figure 8 from the simulation closely agrees to the measured electrical power curve. In particular, the motor starting time (duration of the inrush time) and the full load power both are identical between the simulation and the measurement.
Fig. 9. Motor HPI-3B Terminal Voltage
Page 41 of 66
Fig. 10. Motor HPI-3B Current
Fig. 11. Motor HPI-3B Electrical Power Figures 9-11 show motor voltage, current, and electrical power comparison for motor HPI-3B. Simulation results also very closely agree to the measured data.
Page 42 of 66
Fig. 12. Motor MDEFW-3B Terminal Voltage
Fig. 13. Motor MDEFW-3B Current
Page 43 of 66
Fig. 14. Motor MDEFW-3B Electrical Power Similar results and conclusions can be reached for another starting motor MDEFW-3B as seen in Figures 12-14.
Fig. 15. Motor RBS-3B Terminal Voltage
Page 44 of 66
Fig. 16. Motor RBS-3B Current
Fig. 17. Motor RBS-3B Electrical Power The results and conclusions for comparison of the accelerating motor RBS-3B in Figures 15-17 are the same as for the other motors in the previous figures.
Page 45 of 66
Conclusions In this comparison case, a nuclear generation plant emergency backup generator start-up condition is studied. The actual generator start in the real system is performed and all the key variable responses are recorded. ETAP Transient Stability/Generator Start-Up program is used to simulate the real system and the results are compared to the field measurements. A close examination shows the ETAP simulation results closely correlate to all the field measurement data that have been compared. Note that some of the dynamic parameters for the generator and motors (including inertia constants and shaft damping constants) are estimated due to lack of actual data. These factors have direct effect on the motor acceleration times.
Reference 1. JJ Dai, Di Xiao, Farrokh Shokooh, Christopher Schaeffer, and Aldean Benge, Emergency Generator Start-Up Study of a Hydro Turbine Unit for a Nuclear Generation Facility, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 40, pp.1191-1199, September 2004. 2. ETAP Transient Stability V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-TS-143, 2005.
Page 46 of 66

Synchronous Generator Response to a Fault Comparison with I.E.E Japan (IEEJ) Benchmark

Highlights Comparison between ETAP Transient Stability Simulation Results and I.E.E. Japan (IEEJ) Electrical Power System Standard Benchmark A 100 MW generator oscillation and stability with respect to a power grid Long transmission line network with large charging capacitance 3-phase fault in the middle of a transmission line ETAP built-in salient-pole subtransient synchronous machine model ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) for the IEEJ thermal and nuclear LPT-1 type turbine/governor model ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) for the IEEJ LAT-1 type excitation/AVR model Very close correlation between ETAP results and the benchmark Accepted and published results by IEEJ
System Description The system to be modeled is an IEEJ Electrical Power System Standard Model (reference: 2001 National Convention Record I.E.E. Japan). This system includes a generator connected to a power system through transmission lines, as shown in Figure 1. The generator is rated in 100 MW and modeled in ETAP as a subtransient salient-pole type. IEEJ Thermal and Nuclear LPT-1 type Turbine/Governor model and IEEJ LAT-1 type Exciter/AVR model are used, and modeled using ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) module, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Bus2 Line1 CB1 CB2
Bus3
Gen1
Bus1
T1
T2
Bus4
Utility
Line2 CB3 CB4
3LG
Fig. 1. IEEJ Electrical Power System Standard Benchmark
Page 47 of 66
Fig. 2. ETAP UDM Model for IEEJ LAT-1 Type Exciter/AVR
Fig. 3. ETAP UDM Model for IEEJ LPT-1 Type Turbine/Governor
Page 48 of 66
Simulation Events The simulation events on this system are set up as follows: 3-phase fault on the middle of Line2 @ t = 1.00 second Clear fault and open CB3 and CB4 @ t = 1.07 second Re-close CB3 and CB4@ t = 2.07 second Simulation Result Comparisons with IEEJ Y-Method In this study, the generator rotor angle, electrical power, and terminal voltage response behaviors by ETAP simulation will be checked against those by IEEJ Y-Method. Comparison of the results is shown in Figure 4.
Rotor Angle (degree)
Active Power (pu)
Terminal Voltage (pu)
(a) IEEJ Y-Method
(b) ETAP
Fig. 4. Result Comparison between IEEJ Y-Method and ETAP As shown in the above figures, peak values, settle down time, final stable values, oscillation frequency, and general response curve shapes are sufficiently equal between the two programs for the generator rotor angle, active power, and terminal voltage. It is noted that the ETAP results show a slightly larger sub-oscillations than IEEJ Y-Method during the settle down time for the rotor angle and active power. This is due to the generatordamping coefficient used in the IEEJ Y-Method, which is not available and a typical value is used in the ETAP simulation. Conclusions As shown from the generator output response comparison curves, simulation results produced by Y-Method and ETAP are sufficiently equal to each other.
Page 49 of 66
Reference 1. Hiroyuki Iki, et al, Activities of ETAP PowerStation (User Group Japan) Analysis and Simulation by ETAP PowerStation, 2001 National Convention Record I.E.E. Japan (IEEJ), 2001. 2. IEEJ: Electrical Power System Standard Models, Technical Report No. 754, 1999. 3. ETAP Transient Stability V&V Documents, Test Case Number TCS-TS-238, 2005.
Page 50 of 66

Post-Fault System Transient Response Comparison with Field Measurements from a Fault Recorder
Highlights Comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and actual fault-recorder measurements before and after a three-phase fault in an industrial system A post-fault system transient response simulation study for a real industrial power system Simulation of 3-phase fault, followed by fault isolation and then a generator trip System includes multiple voltage levels, a power grid connection, on-site generators, motors, and lumped loads ETAP built-in round-rotor subtransient synchronous machine model ETAP built-in IEEE ST type turbine/governor model ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) for client excitation/AVR model ETAP Transient Stability simulation results compared to the filed fault recorded instantaneous waveforms including generator current and voltage, and a feeder fault current
System Description The modeled system, shown in Figure 1, is an actual industrial power system located in Japan. This system has four generators, five large pumps, and one utility connection. All other loads are modeled as lumped loads. In this study, generators Gen-A, Gen-B, and Gen-C are out of service. Generator Gen-M is modeled in ETAP as a round-rotor type with ETAP IEEE Standard ST type Turbine/Governor model. The Exciter/AVR model, shown in Figure 2, was modeled with a User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM).
Page 51 of 66
Power Grid
Bus1
T3 CB4 Z5 Bus-B Bus2 CB6 Bus3 CB3 Bus7 LUMP2 LUMP4 Bus-A Z10 52-2 Z6 Bus10 Bus17 LUMP3 LUMP1 Gen-A Z1 CB5 52-1 VR1
T2
T1
Z2
Z3 Bus4
CB1 CB2 Bus6 Bus5
Z4
Z12
Z11
Gen-B
Gen-C
pump5 pump4
pump3
pump2
pump1
Gen-M
Fig. 1. Short-Circuit Fault Simulation Study System
Fig. 2. ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) for Client Exciter/AVR Model Simulation Events The simulation events in this study are set the same as the recorded events from the fault recorder, which are as follows: 3-phase fault at Bus10 @ t = 0.12 second Open CB 52-2 @ t = 0.5 second Open CB 52-1 @ t = 0.92
Simulation Result Comparisons with the Field Measured Data In this study, the instantaneous values of the generator current contribution to the fault and its terminal voltage, and the fault current from the feeder upstream to the fault (through CB 52-1) are compared against the fieldmeasured data which is obtained from a digital fault recorder (DFR), as shown in Figure 3. For the comparison, RMS value results from ETAP are converted to the corresponding instantaneous values based on the RMS magnitude, frequency, and phase angles of the currents and voltages. The ETAP results are shown in Figures 4 and 6.
Fig. 3. Field Measurement Data from a Fault Recorder
Fig. 4. Generator Gen-M Instantaneous Current by ETAP
Fig. 5. CB 52-1 Instantaneous Current by ETAP
Fig. 6. Generator Gen-M Instantaneous Voltage by ETAP

From the comparison, the generator current and voltage responses as well as the feeder fault current response demonstrate a very close agreement with the field recorded data. A slight difference in generator and feeder currents during a short period of time immediately after opening CB 52-1 can be attributed to the fact that the actual model of the turbine/governor and parameters for the exciter/AVR model are not available and typical models and parameters are assumed in the ETAP simulation. Additionally, the pre-fault and post-fault loadings of the real system were not given and estimated loads are used for the simulation study.
Conclusions As shown from the comparison plots, a very close agreement is clearly demonstrated between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and the field measurements for the generator voltage and current, and the feeder fault current. Reference 1. ETAP Transient Stability V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-TS-295.
Page 54 of 66

9-Bus Multi-Machine System Benchmark Comparison with Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad

Highlights Comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and a 9-Bus Multi-Machine System Benchmark (Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad) Rotor angle stability study in a multi-machine transmission system 9-bus 3-machine benchmark system End of transmission line fault and fault isolation simulation Synchronous generator rotor angle post-fault response study ETAP built-in synchronous machine dynamic model ETAP built-in excitation/AVR model Comparison of generator relative and absolute rotor angle responses Nearly identical results in terms of the initial rotor angles, maximum rotor angles, oscillation frequency, and the overall curves of the rotor angle swing System Description A 9-bus 3-machine system transient stability study is applied in this validation case. The system is documented in Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad. The system includes three generator and three large equivalent loads connected in a meshed transmission network through transmission lines as shown in Figure 1. The generators are dynamically modeled with the classical equivalent model.
G2
163.2 MW
Bus 2
18 kV
Bus 7 T2 CB17
230 kV
Bus 8
230 kV
Bus 9
230 kV
Bus 3 T3
13.8 kV
G3
108.8 M
Line6 CB16 Load C CB11

102.637 MVA
Line5 CB15 CB13 CB14 CB12 CB20 CB21 CB1
CB19
CB18
3LG
CB9 Bus 5
230 kV
Line3
CB10 Bus 6
230 kV
CB5
Line1
CB6
Line2
Line4
Load A
135.532 MVA
Load B
92.449 MVA
CB7 Bus 4
230 kV
CB8
CB4 T1
CB3 Bus 1
16.5 kV
CB2
G1
247.5 MW
Fig. 1. 9-Bus Multi-Machine Benchmark System

Simulation Events Simulation events for this system are set up as follows: 3-phase fault at the end of Line3 (near Bus7) @ t = 0 Clear fault @ t = 0.083 second and open CB9 and CB11 @ t = 0.084 second Simulation Result Comparisons with the 9-Bus Multi-Machine Benchmark System In this study, the generator relative rotor angle and absolute rotor angle response behaviors will be investigated following the simulation events. The following plots (Figures 2-5) show the generator relative rotor angle and absolute rotor angle simulation results by ETAP and the 9-Bus Benchmark System as published in Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad.
Fig. 2. Generator Relative Rotor Angle Responses for the 9-Bus Multi-Machine System
Page 56 of 66
Fig. 3. Generator Relative Rotor Angle Responses by ETAP
Page 57 of 66
Fig. 4. Generator Absolute Rotor Angle Responses for the 9-Bus Multi-Machine System
Fig. 5. Generator Absolute Rotor Angle Responses by ETAP
Page 58 of 66
From the above figures, the initial generator relative rotor angles, relative rotor angle oscillation frequencies, maximum relative rotor angles, maximum absolute rotor angles, and the overall response curve shapes for both relative and absolute rotor angles are compared. Note that a very close correlation between ETAP results and the benchmark are noticed. The slight difference for G2 maximum relative rotor angle and the difference in the final values of the absolute angles may be due to the fact that the generator damping coefficients are not available in the publication and typical values are used in the ETAP simulation.
Conclusions In this study, the ETAP Transient Stability generated simulation results for both the generator relative and absolute angle response behaviors, including their initial values, maximum values, oscillation frequencies, and overall shapes are all almost identical to the benchmark results.
Reference 1. P.M. Anderson and A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability, Vol. 1, The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, 1977. 2. ETAP Transient Stability V&V Documents, Test Case Number TCS-TS-126, 2005.
Page 59 of 66

Sequential Motor Dynamic Acceleration Simulation Comparison with PTI PSS/E Simulation Results

Highlights Comparison of simulation results between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and PTI PSS/E program Sequential motor dynamic acceleration study involving six motors An islanded system with no power grid support ETAP built-in salient-pole subtransient synchronous generator model ETAP built-in IEEE ST2 excitation/AVR model ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) for Woodward Diesel engine/governor model ETAP built-in double-cage induction machine model ETAP Transient Stability program simulation results compared to the PSS/E results Comparison includes generator real, reactive and mechanical power, exciter voltage, generator speed, and induction motor terminal voltage and slip Nearly identical results from ETAP and PSS/E System Description The system includes a generator and a group of induction motors as shown in Figure 1. The diesel unit generator is rated in 1.87 MW, and modeled in ETAP with Subtransient salient-pole type. Exciter/AVR is modeled with ETAP built-in IEEE Standard ST2 type, and Turbine/Governor is modeled with ETAP User-Defined Dynamic Model (UDM) Woodward Diesel type, shown in Figure 2. The induction motors ratings are ranged from 225 to 400 HP, and dynamically modeled with ETAP double-cage integrated bars type.
1.87 MW
DG31
CB20
BUS 2A
0.48 kV
BUS 3A
0.48 kV
CB6 Z8
CB5 Z7
CB1 Z5
CB7 Z9 RHRP31
0.46 kV
CB8 Z10 CRF34

0.44 kV
CB9 Z11
CB10 Z6
MCC 36C
0.48 kV
SIP32
0.44 kV
CRF32
0.44 kV
SWP35
0.44 kV
AFWP31
0.44 kV
Load3
112 kVA
SIP 32
400 HP
CRF 32
225 HP
RHRP 31
400 HP
CRF 34
225 HP
SWP 35
350 HP
AFWP 31
400 HP
Fig. 1. Sequence Motor Dynamic Acceleration Simulation Study System

Fig. 2. ETAP UDM Woodward Diesel Turbine/Governor Model
Simulation Events The simulation events on this system are scheduled to start-up one-by-one all six induction motors with 5 second intervals between each starting. Simulation Result Comparisons with PTI PSS/E In this study, the generator and motor simulation results, including generator real, reactive and mechanical power, generator speed deviation, exciter voltage, motor voltages and slips are compared with the results by PTI PSS/E. The following plots (Figures 3-10) show the result comparisons between ETAP and PSS/E.
Fig. 3. Generator Real, Reactive, and Mechanical Power by PSS/E
Page 61 of 66
Fig. 4-1. Generator Real, Reactive, and Mechanical Power by ETAP Simulation results for generator real and reactive power outputs and mechanical power input in Figures 3 and 41 show a very close agreement between the two simulations in terms of their peak values, final values, rising time, and overall response shapes. Note that the PSS/E results show a spike-like motor inrush in the generator reactive power curve at the beginning of each motor acceleration, which are not present in the ETAP results. In the ETAP simulation results, these motor inrush values are present for each individual motor reactive power demand (Figure 4-2), but not for the generator since the overall demand on the generator includes the combined effects of the starting motor inrush and the normal reactive power demand of all of the previously started motors, which are running.
Fig. 4-2. Motor Reactive Power by ETAP

Fig. 5. Generator Exciter Voltage and Speed by PSS/E
Fig. 6. Generator Exciter Voltage and Speed by ETAP Figures 5 and 6 show a comparison for generator exciter voltage and speed responses. No significant difference is noticed between the two simulation results. It is pointed out that the initial load flow condition is not stable in the PSS/E simulation results.
Page 63 of 66
Fig. 7. Induction Motor Terminal Voltages by PSS/E
Fig. 8. Induction Motor Terminal Voltages by ETAP The motor terminal voltage responses for all six accelerating motor buses display the same patterns and values in both simulation, shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Page 64 of 66
Fig. 9. Induction Motor Speed Slips by PSS/E
Fig. 10. Induction Motor Speed Slips by ETAP The motor slip response curve comparison in Figures 9 and 10 shows the motor acceleration time and final slips for all six accelerating motors are almost identical. Note that the motor slip is defined here as (mtr - sys)/ sys, which is normally defined as (sys - mtr)/ sys.
Page 65 of 66
Conclusions A comprehensive comparison between ETAP and PSS/E results clearly show that both programs provide almost identical results. Reference 1. ETAP Transient Stability V&V Documents, Test Case Number TCS-TS-181, 2005.
Page 66 of 66

Etap Validation Cases and Comparison Results: Load Flow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etap Validation Cases and Comparison Results: Load Flow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etap Validation Cases and Comparison Results: Load Flow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETAP Validation Cases and Comparison Results

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ETAP Load Flow

Load Flow Comparison Case # 1

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-LF-006)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Load Flow Comparison Case # 2

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-LF-008)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Table 4: Comparison of ETAP LF Power Flows against published Textbook Results.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Load Flow Comparison Case #3

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-LF-150)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ETAP ANSI Short-Circuit

Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case # 1

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-005)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

For a fault at Bus # 5

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case # 2

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-105)

Ia (3*Io) (kA) Va (%) Vb (%) Vc (%) V1 (%) V2 (%) V0 (%)

Example 1.35 46.02 98.08 99.09 77.42 25.61 22.22

ETAP 1.35 46.1 97.83 98.78 77.53 25.5 22.12

% Diff 0.0 -0.2 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.4 0.5

Short-Circuit ANSI Comparison Case # 3

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-162)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ETAP IEC Short-Circuit

Short-Circuit IEC Comparison Case # 1

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SCIEC-082)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

40.6447 40.6449 31.7831 31.7817 19.673 19.6724

IEC Bus 2 3 4 5 I"K LG 15.9722 10.4106 9.0498 17.0452

IEC Ip LG 40.5086 24.2424 20.5463 42.8337

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ETAP Arc Flash Analysis

Arc Flash Comparison Case # 1

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-120)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Arc Flash Comparison Case # 2

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-SC-157)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

2. ETAP Short Circuit ANSI V&V Documents, Case Number TCS-SC-157.

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ETAP Motor Acceleration Analysis

Motor Acceleration Comparison Case # 1

Excerpts from Validation Cases and Comparison Results (TCS-MS-149)

Copyright 2005 Operation Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

B R2LR := 0.0123Z R2FL := 0.0152Z B X2LR := 0.093 ZB B X2FL := 0.1167Z

R2LR = 0.44646 R2FL = 0.55172 X2LR = 3.37568 X2FL = 4.23593