Power Plant Model Validation for Achieving
Reliability Standard Requirements Based on
Recorded On-Line Disturbance Data
Pouyan Pourbeik, Christopher Pink and Ron Bisbee
Abstract—This paper describes a novel approach for
automated synchronous generator parameter derivation using
disturbance data. Instead of traditional off-line testing, this
process supports validation of dynamic models for generators
and their governor, excitation, and stabilizer systems using
data gathered while the units are on-line. The approach is
based on using digitally recorded unit responses to system
disturbances. Continued model validation is necessary to
ensure generating units are simulated correctly. Model
validation is imminently to be mandated by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) through
its modeling, data, and analysis standards. The benefits of the
model validation method presented here are explained when
compared to traditional techniques, which typically include
collecting data from a series of mostly off-line staged tests.
The comprehensive process of model validation and a review
of the key-limitations of this process are also discussed.
Lastly, the paper presents the successful application of this
technique to three large thermal units for the purpose of
WECC generator model validation and certification. Key
results of the case studies are reported together with fruitful
insight into the limitations of some of the models available for
power plant modeling in planning studies.
Index Terms—Generator Model Validation, Power Plant
Modeling, Power Plant Model Validation
I. INTRODUCTION
The practice of using power system simulation models for
performing system wide planning and operational studies
has been well established since the 1970’s. System planners
and operators rely on power system models of varying
complexity for analyzing the power system. While there
have been large amounts of new generation technologies
integrated into the power system, generating facilities
utilizing conventional synchronous generators still
dominate most regions.
Forthcoming NERC Modeling, Data, and Analysis (MOD)
standards MOD-026-1 and MOD-027-1 will require routine
validation of models used in planning studies
(www.nerc.com). The first standard, MOD-026-1, deals
with the generator excitation system (and implicitly the
Corresponding author: Pouyan Pourbeik
EPRI, Knoxville TN, USA
Ph: (919) 794 7204
Email: ppourbeik@epri.com or
pouyan@ieee.org
978-1-61284-788-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
electrical generator itself). MOD-027-1 deals with turbine-
governor response. The Western Electricity Coordinating
Council (WECC) has had mandated generator model
validation requirements since 1997 [1]. With the imminent
NERC standards, the volume of such model validation will
increase tremendously. There is, therefore, a need to
consider new ways to address model validation, which was
the impetus behind the research presented in this paper.
The aim was to achieve model validation by utilizing useful
disturbance recordings from unplanned system wide events.
Useful events must result in significant perturbations of the
generating unit under study, without causing the unit to trip
or go unstable. Such disturbances include, for example,
remote transmission faults, loss of generation elsewhere in
the interconnected system, sudden changes in system
voltage (e.g. switching of large shunt devices or loss of
load etc.) and other similar type events.
There are well established methods to perform synchronous
generator power plant model validation using staged tests.
Generally, these methods mainly involve off-line tests or at
least some form of planned maneuvering of the unit, during
which the unit is removed from normal operation [2 – 8].
Such methods involve giving access to the power plant to
testing staff, allowing them to connect their testing
equipment/monitoring devices to the generator controls,
and then maneuvering the unit through a series of off-line
and on-line tests to extract the necessary data. This process
is prudent initially or upon commissioning of new
equipment in order to establish a baseline model. However,
for revalidation of models this process clearly takes time
and expense to achieve. The costs to larger thermal power
plants can be particularly significant when the opportunity
loss for sale of power is included. Furthermore, many
eastern-US utilities are still concerned with the risk of
damage to the unit during such tests, particularly for large
thermal and nuclear power plants. It should be noted that
this type of staged testing work has been ongoing in the
WECC for over a decade, with hundreds of units tested,
and to the knowledge of the authors, there has been no
reported damage to units as a consequence of tests – thus,
the risk of damage is very low when tests are conducted by
properly trained staff.
The aim of this research was to identify a practical
methodology to validate the models associated with power
plants, while reducing some of the cost and risks associated
with repeated staged testing. One important caveat is that a
baseline set of tests (whether during commissioning, or
scheduled maintenance outages) in most cases will still be
required. However, the methodology and work presented
enables the routine revalidation of the models, without
service interruptions, in order to meet the imminent NERC
(and existing WECC) reliability standards. Thus, this
reduces the burden of cost and some of the potential risks
associated with routine retesting through staged tests.
Another tangible benefit of model validation using
disturbance monitoring is that the models are validated
against “actual” system events. In the end this is exactly
what the models are used for. That is, system planners use
these models to attempt to predict plant response to
potential system events in order to plan the system for
possible future scenarios. Thus, through this method the Figure 1: The model for parameter fitting.
models are being validated against real life events rather
than being tested under light load conditions and “staged”
tests that do not necessarily reflect actual events.
Section II provides an outline of the methodology. Section
III details the type of data collection required. Section IV
presents results from a few case studies, and Section V
concludes with a summary and recommended further work.
A stand alone executable tool was developed (using
MATLAB® and the MATLAB® Compiler), with a graphic
user interface that can be easily used to achieve model
validation and parameter estimation from the recorded
disturbance data. The work presented here is follow-on
work from a previous research project [9, 15].
II. THE ON-LINE DISTURBANCE MONITORING BASED
METHODOLOGY
The general concept is as follows:
1. The terminal voltage, current, real and reactive
power, speed, and field quantities (field voltage Figure 2: Connection diagram for recording equipment.
and current) of a synchronous generator are
recorded by a digital fault recorder (DFR) during a
system event.
2. Following the event the data is extracted from the
recording device.
3. Using an automated iterative simulation tool, the
power plant is appropriately modeled and the
generator, governor, and excitation system model
parameters are optimized to match the recorded
response.
Figure 1 shows the block diagram structure of the models
used. Figure 2 shows the typical connection diagram for
the recording device. Figure 3 depicts the flow of the
process.
A. Modeling
The modeling of the plant is done using standard methods
for modeling synchronous generators, excitation systems, Figure 3: Flow-chart of the parameter estimation process.
and turbine-governors [10 – 14]. The differential and B. The Validation and Optimization Process
algebraic equations defining each device were developed
The model validation and optimization is done in three
and coded in MATLAB®.
steps:
Step 1 – The “base-line data” for the unit is collected. This
includes the known equipment control structure, equipment
ratings, and the originally provided manufacturer model
structures and parameters.
Step 2 – If necessary, convert the captured data into ASSCI
or COMTRADE format and per unitize the data into RMS,
positive sequence quantities.
Step 3 – Port the data into and run the software tool. The
models are then validated through an optimization routine.
The details of the actual optimization method and algorithm
are described in [15]. Here for completeness a quick
summary is provided.
The power plant can be divided into four subsystems for
validation separately. As shown in Figure 1, the
subsystems include: the generator (block 1), the excitation
system (block 2), the unit shaft dynamics, for verifying
inertia (block 3) and the turbine-governor (block 4).
The goal for model validation is to confirm that the models
for a power plant adequately represent the actual plant
dynamics, and if not, what parameters appear to be
inappropriate and to optimize those parameters so that it
does. It is not feasible to attempt to optimize all the plant
model parameters simultaneously. Also, if a parameter
appears to be significantly out of range, further
investigation at the plant may be warranted.
For example, to validate the generator subsystem model,
the disturbance recordings of field voltage, stator current
(Id, Iq) and speed are fed into the model. The resulting
simulated unit field current and stator voltage are then
generated by the software tool and are compared to the
measured quantities. If the fit is acceptable, the process
ends and the model can be considered validated. If the fit
is not within the set tolerances, it can still be optimized
within user defined bounds through a least-square
algorithm. Prudent judgment is used to decide which
parameters to optimization around. Typically, only those
parameters that have the greatest uncertainty are optimized
(e.g. field time constant which can vary as a function of
rotor temperature). The optimization tool can then be used
to derive values for the selected parameters so that model
performance closely matches the DFR measured
performance.
For more details on the algorithm and optimization method,
please refer to [15].
The tool is called the Power Plant Parameter Derivation
tool [16].
III. THE DATA COLLECTION
Data is collected at the generator terminals and on the
generator field (for a brushless unit one would collect data
from the exciter field) using a dedicated Digital Fault
Recorder (DFR) installed in the plant. For the case study
discussed in the next section two dedicated DFRs exist in
the plant, one collects data for two of the generator units
and the third unit has its own dedicated DFR.
The DFRs are typically configured to trigger on voltage
and/or frequency deviations. The triggers used for the case
study were:
• Frequency: - 80 mHz, or + 60 mHz .
• Vrms: ± 5% over one cycle.
Once an event is captured, the data must be extracted in
COMTRADE or ASCII format and then per unitized.
The DFRs were set up to record all 3-phase stator voltages,
all 3-phase stator currents and the field voltage and current.
Internally the DFR calculated 3-phase unit megawatts and
megavars and also terminal voltage frequency. This was all
calibrated and checked. This data is then captured at two
sampling rates when an event occurs (i) a fast kilo-hertz
rate (which is not used for the analysis here) and (ii) in
RMS format at a sampling rate of 60 samples per second
for many tens of seconds. The DFR can also calculate the
positive and negative sequence components of voltage for
unbalance events. The DFRs are capable of storing up to
1000 such events and the events can be extracted remotely
through the internet. Figure 4 shows a picture of one of
these DFRs.
It should be noted that the sampling rate of the recording
device should be adequate to preventing aliasing,
particularly for the field quantities.
DFR
Figure 4: One of the DFRs in the plant.
IV. CASE STUDY – THERMAL POWER PLANT
This work was done for three large steam-turbine
generating units rated at 496 MVA each.
Baseline data was available for all three units based on
detailed original equipment manufacturer datasheets and
data from a recent commissioning test several years ago for
one of the units where the excitation system was retrofitted.
Thus, two of the units are nominally identical, while the
third unit has a modern digital excitation system that was
installed in 2005.
Data was capture over a period of seventeen (17) months –
from May 2008 to September 2009). During this period a
total of seven events of adequate magnitude were captured
for model validation. This is shown in Table 1 below.
Event data through 2008 was also available in the historic
database, however, prior to the commencement of this work
the DFRs were never used for model validation. Thus,
field voltage and field current were not previously
monitored by the DFRs. With the commencement of this
work, those additional quantities were added to the
recording channels of the DFRs. The field voltage and
current measurements were added to unit 1 & 2 in
November 2008 and to unit 3 in August 2009.
Table 1: Event recording description.
the bounds on the others appropriately. For example, if one
knows (such as in this case) the gain setting of an exciter
(e.g. from the digital controls etc.) then it should be used as
the initial estimate and fixed or tightly bound around that
value. The key here is the automated algorithm simplifies
the parameter fitting exercise and saves considerable
engineering time.
It is not possible to show all of the results here. Model
validation was conducted for all three units over the
multiple events captured. Thus, we were able to show that
the same models and model parameters for the generator,
exciter and PSS could be used to simulate the various
system events captured. Here only a few samples of the
results are presented.

Event Event Date
Number
1 9/20/2009
2 8/13/2009
3 6/10/09
4 11/7/2008
5 9/16/2008
6 6/11/2008
7 5/20/2008
Event Description Figure 5 below shows a case were the inertia of the unit has
been reconfirmed through the observed speed transient of
System wide event; loss of the unit to nearby faults.
generation in WECC,
followed by a nearby fault
Nearby transmission fault
System wide event; loss of
generation in WECC
System wide event; loss of
generation in WECC
System wide event; loss of
generation in WECC
System wide event; loss of
generation in WECC
System wide event; loss of
generation in WECC

All three units are round rotor 3600 rpm generators. Two
of the units have static excitation system that can be
represented by the IEEE ST3A model, while the third unit
was retrofitted with a modern digital static excitation
system that can be represented by the IEEE ST4B model.
The units fitted with the old static exciters both have
frequency input power system stabilizers (PSS), while the
third unit is fitted with a modern dual-input PSS2A.
The PSS parameters were fixed (i.e. not allowed to vary in
the optimization process) since these are known tuned field
settings1. The generator electrical parameters were also
fixed, since good manufacturer data was available and there
had been no material change made to the unit since the last
field test.
Parameter optimization and validation was performed on
the excitation system parameters for three events. One item
needs to be emphasized. An optimization process will find
multiple solutions to the problem. The key to identifying
the “right” solution – that is a meaningful solution that
properly represents the physical equipment – is to know
what the correct model structure is (e.g. static excitation
system versus brushless, etc.), what the physically
meaningful range of each parameter is, fixing (or tightly
bounding) those parameters one already knows and setting
1
A PSS should be tuned with well known and established parameters
for the purpose of providing damping.
Figure 5: Comparison of measured and simulate speed response of a
generating unit to nearby faults.
As shown in Figure 6, the fitted and measured responses
match quite well for the electrical response of the units. In
all cases the fitted response was achieve with parameter
very close to the OEM data – thus we kept the OEM data as
the validated models and model parameters.
Figure 7 and 8 show similarly good fits achieved for
unbalanced fault events – in these cases the fit was done
against the positive sequence component of unit terminal
voltage.
A few pertinent remarks about the curve fitting are:
1. For the unbalanced fault events we could still achieve a
reasonable fit by extracting the positive sequence
component of stator voltage and fitting to it.
2. In all cases, there was a steady-state error between
measured and simulated field current. This was true for all
three units. This discrepancy could be due to residual flux,
measurement error (e.g. biases on these signals in
transducers measuring field current/voltage or in the DFR
device) or errors in the estimated unit saturation curve (i.e.
Ifdbase or S10/S12). The relative error was in the order of
4% and thus well within the realm of measurement errors.
 a) Unit 1 Figure 7: Comparison of measured and simulated response for an
unbalanced fault (Event 1).

b) Unit 2
Figure 8: Comparison of measured and simulated response for an
unbalanced fault (Event 2).

The units all draw their mechanical power from triple

pressure steam-turbines. There was no prior model
provided for the turbines. Based research of the OEM data,
the power fractions for the turbines were identified and so
we could establish an initial reasonable model using the
IEEEG1 model an outer loop load-controller (see Figure
11). Based on events 5, 6 and 7 reasonable fits were
achieved – Figure 9 shows some examples.
These units are typically either base-loaded or run on outer-
loop MW control, as can be seen from the various event
recordings.
c) Unit 3
There is some significant difference in a few of the
parameters between events – namely the droop and load
controller gain. The reason for this is the simplicity of our
models as compared to the complexity of the turbine
controls; e.g. the initial MW is quite different between
cases, which would easily lead to different initial steam
pressure/temperature and our models do not represent this.
Thus an average model was recommended.

d) System frequency
Figure 6: Comparison of measured and simulated response for a WECC
system wide (Event 1).
 inception of the event is a 0.4 Hz oscillation showing
clearly the participation of this unit in the WECC inter-area
electromechanical mode of rotor oscillation system wide.

a) Event 5

a) Unit 2, Event 6: MW response

b) Event 6

b) Event 6, Frequency
Figure 10: The MW response of Unit 2 during Event 6.

V. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND FURTHER WORK

A new and novel automated methodology for fitting
parameters to, and thus validating the models of, power
plant equipment based on recorded on-line system
disturbances has been presented. The method has been
successfully applied to three steam-turbine generators for
the purpose of WECC generator model validation and
c) Event 7
certification.
There are a few key conclusions and insights from this
work:
1. Power plant model validation based on
disturbance recording, while the unit is on-line, is
feasible and valuable.
2. The power plant models can be validated by
recording the response of the unit at its terminals.
With the approach presented here, there is no need
for knowing either what the disturbance was or the
condition of the power system. The recorder
d) Frequency for Events 5, 6 & 7. terminal response of the generating unit is
sufficient data for validating the models, since
Figure 9: Turbine-governor response for unit 3 for multiple events.
some of the recorder variables (i.e. real and
Figure 10 shows clearly the MW capability of these units. reactive power) as uses as inputs to our simulation
As shown, when the unit is at 456 MW, even for a major tool and the others (i.e. voltage and field
frequency event there is no more MW capability left in the quantities) are use as outputs for comparison and
unit to increase its output. The interesting observation in confirmation of model validity.
this case is that the perturbations in electrical power at the
 3. In previous work [15], it was assumed that the
recorded disturbance needs to be a balanced event
to facilitate a convincing exercise of model
validation. However, by extracting the positive
sequence component of terminal voltage it has
been demonstrated here that unbalanced events
(such as an unbalanced fault) can also be used for
model validation.
4. It is important for this type of model validation to
have dedicated recording of the generator terminal
voltage, current and field voltage and field current,
at a minimum. Speed can be reasonably
calculated from the frequency of the voltage
waveform, and real and reactive power can be
calculated from the voltage and current
measurements. These calculations can be done
internally with most modern DFRs. Sampling
intervals of 20 ms or lower are adequate (these
higher sampling rates are particularly important
for validating the excitation system response). At
least twenty to thirty seconds of data should be
captured for each event, especially for the purpose
of validating the turbine-governor response. For
validating the turbine-governor response,
sampling as slow as 1 sample per second may be
adequate.
Perhaps the most important benefits of this approach are:
1. The ability to validate models against actual
events that are often looked at in planning studies,
rather than against staged tests, which do not
necessarily represent the actual behavior of control
systems when the unit is on-line (e.g. the influence
of load or megawatt controllers on the turbine-
governor can only truly be observed for a system
disturbance).
2. There is effort and cost involved in collecting the
initial baseline data and setting up the DFRs, to
collect the data event data. However, this is a one-
time process for a given unit. Thus, the process of
continual revalidation becomes markedly less
costly and time consuming as compared to staged
testing in which case routine re-testing requires
unit down-time, connecting monitoring equipment
and hiring outside consultants.
3. The DFRs also provide other benefits for
monitoring and diagnostic efforts for the
generating unit.
4. For the Western US power system, to which the
units studied here are connected, we observed
during the course of this work an event frequency
of roughly one system event per 2.5 months.
Thus, re-validation is practical on a relatively
frequent basis2.
2
At the time of submitting this paper for publication several recent
system events were captured and used to reconfirm the plant models. The
time taken from downloading the data from the DFR to validating the
5. For large thermal power plants, there is
considerable lost-opportunity cost for the duration
of the staged tests for model re-validation (i.e. the
tests take four to six hours typically, that is time
the units could have been selling power but did
not). Also, some utilities believe that there may
be some (thought very low) risk of damage to the
unit due to undue stress during tests such as load
rejection tests. Such costs and risks are totally
avoided by using on-line monitoring.
Finally, with the imminent NERC requirements for
generator model validation through the modeling, data and
analysis (MOD) standards, a pragmatic approach for testing
and validation in North America (on a routine basis) will
be:
1. To test a unit thoroughly once (on commissioning
for new units) using staged tests or a similar
approach.
2. The above step will allow one to set the models,
model structures and parameters based on actual
observed equipment settings and equipment
performance. This will form the “baseline model”.
3. Now moving forward collect disturbance data (e.g.
using digital fault recorders as illustrated here) on
an on-going basis.
4. Use the DFR collected data, and an automated tool
such as the one described here to re-validate the
models periodically. If one sees a huge divergence
between the model and field recorded response,
flag and pursue further investigation of the plant –
there may have been a retrofit or retuning of
controls, which may require more detailed testing
(step 1) or simply to identify the changes and work
those changes into the model structures and
established thought the disturbance based method
that the new models are valid.
For nuclear units, and other large thermal units, there is, in
some regions of North America more than others, still
concern with respect to field testing the units for model
validation. For these units in particular, the approach
presented here offers a welcome approach for routine
model revalidation. However, the two key factors
emphasized throughout this paper should not be forgotten:
(i) that the generating unit must have an adequate DFR (or
similar) device in place to capture the necessary data
during system disturbances, and (ii) that adequate baseline
data must be available (e.g. detailed manufacturer supplied
models and data sheets that represent the actual field
equipment or such data backed by field tests during
commissioning). If adequate recoding is not available at
the plant, a DFR can perhaps be installed during a schedule
maintenance outage.
One final comment is that the method proposed here may
not be appropriate for peaking units or units that are in-
excitation system models through the software tool was roughly 30
minutes.
service for limited time during the year thereby reducing
the probability of capturing system events. In this case,
however, on could for example inject a small voltage
reference step into the unit’s voltage regulator while the
unit is on-line and capture such an “emulated event” for
model validation.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The primary author wishes to thank Tri-State Generation
and Transmission Associate Inc. co-sponsored this research
work and volunteered their power plant for the purpose of
this research project.
We are grateful to Mr. Gary Preslan who played a key role
in the initial stages of extracting data and helping to set-up
the triggers for the in-plant digital fault recorders; and to
Mr. Mark Graham and Mr. Sam Reed for the many fruitful
discussion and support during this work.
We are also grateful to all utility members of the Grid,
Operations and Planning Program 40 and the Steam
Turbine, Generators, and Balance-of-Plant Program 65,
who funded the development of the Power Plant Parameter
Derivation tool developed by EPRI and used in this work.
VII. REFERENCES:
[1] WSCC Control Work Group and Modeling & Validation Work
Group, “Test Guidelines for Synchronous Unit Dynamic Testing and
Model Validation”, February 1997. (www.wecc.biz)
[2] IEEE Task Force on Generator Model Validation Testing,
“Guidelines for Generator Stability Model Validation Testing”,
Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, Tampa, FL, June
2007.
[3] L. N. Hannett and J. W. Feltes, “Derivation of Generator, Excitation
System and Turbine Governor Parameters from Tests,” presented at
the CIGRÉ Colloquium on Power System Dynamic Performance,
Florianópolis, Brazil, 1993.
[4] L. M. Hajagos and G. R. Berube, “Utility Experience with Gas
Turbine Testing and Modeling”, Proceedings of the IEEE PES
Winter Power Meeting, January 2001.
[5] J. Undrill, “Testing of Generating Unit Dynamic Behavior – Notes
on Proposed NERC Testing Requirements”, Presented at SERC
Generator Testing Workshop, Atlanta, GA, December 2000.
[6] J. Undrill and A. Murdoch, “Power Plant Dynamic Performance
Issues in Relation to Grid Interconnection Codes”, CIGRE Session
2002, paper 39-206.
[7] P. Pourbeik and F. Modau, “Model Development and Field Testing
of a Heavy-Duty Gas-Turbine Generator”, IEEE Trans. PWRS, May,
2008.
[8] P. L. Dandeno, H. C. Karmaker, C. Azuaje, M. Glinkowski, I.
Kamwa, S. J. Salon, R. M. Saunders and S. Umans, “Experience
with Standstill Frequency Response (SSFR) Testing and Analysis of
Salient Pole Synchronous Machines”, IEEE Trans. on Energy
Conversion, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1209-1217, December 1999.
[9] P. Pourbeik, “Automated Parameter Derivation for Power Plant
Models Based on Staged Tests”, Proceedings of the IEEE PSCE,
Seattle, WA, March, 2009.
[10] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[11] IEEE 421.5-2005, Recommended Practice for Excitation System
Models for Power System Stability Studies, April 2006.
[12] L. Pereira, J. Undrill, D. Kosterev, D. Davies, and S. Patterson, “A
New Thermal Governor Modeling Approach in the WECC”, IEEE
Trans. PWRS, May 2003, pp 819-829.
[13] L. Pereira, D. Kosterev, D. Davies and S. Patterson, “New thermal
governor model selection and validation in the WECC”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, Volume 19, Issue 1, Feb. 2004
Page(s):517 – 523.
[14] CIGRE Technical Brochure 238, Modeling of Gas Turbines and
Steam Turbines in Combined-Cycle Power Plants, Prepared by
CIGRE TF C4.02.25, December 2003.
[15] P. Pourbeik, “Automated Parameter Derivation for Power Plant
Models From System Disturbance Data”, Proceedings of the IEEE
PES General Meeting, Calgary, Canada, July 2009.
[16] Power Plant Parameter Derivation (PPPD) Software User’s Manual:
Version 2.0, Software Product ID 1017803, Software Manual, May
2009 (wwww.epri.com).
Pouyan Pourbeik (M’1993, SM’2002, F’2010) received his BE and PhD
in Electrical Engineering from the University of Adelaide, Australia in
1993 and 1997, respectively. From 1997 to 2000 he was with GE Power
Systems. From 2000 to 2006 he was with ABB Inc. In June 2006 he
joined EPRI Solutions Inc. In 2007 EPRI Solutions Inc. became part of
EPRI. Throughout his career he has been involved in and led studies
related to many aspects of power systems modeling, dynamics and control.
He has also conducted field testing on a total of more than sixty turbine-
generator units. He is presently Chairman of the IEEE PES Power System
Stability Subcommittee and Secretary of CIGRE Study Committee C4 –
System Technical Performance. He has authored/co-authored over fifty
technical publications on power systems modeling and analysis. He is a
registered professional engineer in the state of North Carolina, USA.
Christopher Pink (S’02–M’03) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
He is currently a Senior Planning Engineer at Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association where he is involved with dynamic modeling
and validation of generator facilities. Previous occupations have included
Research Engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO, where he was involved in research and modeling of advanced systems
to interconnect both renewable and conventional distributed generation
systems to the utility grid. He has also been engaged in designing,
installing, and commissioning protective relay, controls, and distribution
systems.
Ron Bisbee (S’00–M’01) received the B.S. degree in electrical
engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology,
Rapid City, SD. He is employed by Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Westminster, CO. He is currently a Senior
Generation Engineer and is responsible for supporting maintenance,
reliability improvements and testing for Tri-State’s generation facilities.
Prior to this position he was a Senior Engineer Power Plant also for Tri-
State G&T where he was involved in the operation and maintenance of
Tri-State’s Craig Station power plant. He is a member of IEEE PES.
 speed

+ 1.0
Irmax
Prefo
Kp fb
emax
+
+
+ Irmax +
Pmwset
db
_
Ki
s 1
1 + sTpelec
-Irmax

-Irmax Pe

+ + +
Pm
+ + +

K1 K3 K5 K7
Uo
Pmax
+
dbd1 _
+ K (1 + sT2) 1 1 1 1 1 1
speed
1 + sT1 T3 s 1 + sT4 1 + sT5 1 + sT6 1 + sT7
_ _

Pmin
1.0 Uc

Figure 11: Steam-Turbine model. This is a model developed by combining the standard IEEEG1 steam-turbine model with an outer-loop MW-controller (the
lcfb1 model in GE PLSF®)