Team Members: Adam Wroblaski Jared Kline Mark Reisinger Yu Chan. Advisor: Dr. Chen-Ching Liu Client: General Electric

Transcription

1 Team Members: Adam Wroblaski Jared Kline Mark Reisinger Yu Chan Advisor: Dr. Chen-Ching Liu Client: General Electric April 25, 2007

2 Overview of Presentation Acknowledgements Definitions Introduction Project Activities Resources and Schedules Closing Materials

3 Acknowledgements Faculty Advisor Dr. Chen-Ching Liu General Electric Support Staff Doug Welsh Primary Contact Juan Sanchez Machine Modeling Expert Dan Leonard Machine Testing Expert

4 Definitions Exciter System that generates the rotor currents needed to produce electric flux Fault Short circuit on a power system Genrou Round rotor General Electric generator model Gensal Salient pole General Electric generator model GUIDE Graphical User Interface Development Environment Matlab Toolbox for developing graphical user interfaces Load Rejection Opening a generator s main circuit breakers Parameter A constant that is specific to the generator or the test being performed PSLF (Positive Sequence Load Flow) Load flow software Simulink A Matlab toolbox that allows users to build and analyze block diagrams Voltage Step A small increase in the generator s terminal voltage

5 Power System Dynamics Study of the response of the power grid to disturbances including: Faults Changes in system loading Loss of equipment One or more of the following may occur: Oscillations Voltages Transmission line flows Voltage collapse Frequency collapse Possible loss of equipment, cascading

6 Machine Modeling for Stability Studies Computer simulation is necessary Accurate machine models are required Where do they come from? Manufacturer s data Close, but often inaccurate Machine testing Nondestructive tests do not translate directly to parameters No good system exists to translate test results into parameters Existing system is very time consuming

7 Previous System Field testing, record: Terminal voltage Field voltage Field Current Frequency Simulate field tests Plot simulation and test results together Adjust parameters in PSLF model Re-simulate

8 Problem Statement General Problem Statement PSLF is used to determine generator parameters Process is very time consuming General Problem Solution Stream line process Allow user to: Run simulations View test and simulation results together

9 Operating Environment Windows XP computer with: Resolution at least 1024x768 Matlab 2006a/b with Simulink

10 Intended Users and Uses Users General Electric engineers with understanding of: Generators Machine testing process Uses Run simulations Compare test data and simulation data

11 Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions: Client provides models Client s version of Matlab is compatible User is an expert in machine modeling Limitations Must use Simulink and Matlab Slider bars Reduce process time to 4 hours Easy addition of models

12 End Product and Deliverables End Product: Parameter identification system Deliverables: Source code User guide outlining: Basic usage Maintenance

13 Present Accomplishments Completed GUI Integrated generator models Integrated generator tests Added supplemental features Completed testing Fixed bugs Completed User Manual

14 Approaches Considered and Used Model Creation Project team develop Simulink models General Electric provides Simulink models Graphical Interface Language Matlab Java C# Starting Point GUIDE Start from scratch

15 Scope of Work The client provided: 6 models Ranges for all parameters The project team provided: A graphical user interface that: Interacts with Simulink Displays simulation results and test data together User friendly Interactive Final report User manual

16 General Project Specifications Utilize the current algorithm Process time less than 4 hours 5 or more models Provide GUI Utilize client s models

17 GUI Specifications User friendly Slider bars Edit boxes Interact with Simulink Display simulation and test data together Capable of simulating different scenarios Any number of parameters Any number of simulation plots

18 Model Specifications Models created in Simulink Models handle multiple tests

19 Model Implementation Research Model research Referenced several textbooks Created basic models Results: Unable to create realistic models Models developed by GE

20 Algorithm

21 Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages: What the client wanted Current testing procedure is maintained Utilizes expertise of GE engineers Disadvantages: Not automated Requires more time

22 Implementation Activities Required Features Simulation Graphs Edit Box Slider Bar Undo/Redo Actions Save Session Load Session Zoom In/Out Interface With Simulink Import Excel Handle Multiple Models Handle Multiple Tests

23 Implementation Activities Supplemental Features Pan Graphs Save as.jpg Save as Excel Disable Parameters Batch Simulation Hold Zoom Graph Previous Visual Separation of Parameters

24 Prototype Design

25 Import Excel Data Feature

26 Save Figure/Excel Feature

27 Test Feature

28 Visual Separation Feature

29 Disabled Parameter Feature

30 Model Selection Window

31 Graph Previous Feature

32 Batch Simulation Feature

33 Zoom and Pan Features

34 Progress Bar Feature

35 Final Design

36

37 Testing Activities Part of development process Evaluate product quality Make needed improvements Identify defects The testing was divided into 2 main parts: Model testing Functional testing

38 Model testing Validate accuracy of models Simulation data compared to: PSLF simulation results Field data Results: High level of agreement with PSLF and field data

39 Functional Testing Verification of functional requirements Identification of defects and problems Approach: Against specifications Against user expectations Tested entire system for bugs Normal conditions Extreme conditions Result: Functions work as intended Process time is 3-4 hours

40 Resources 1/2 Final Personnel Efforts (Hours) Yu 239 Mark 243 Jared 299 Adam 268

41 Resources 2/2 Resource Binding & Shipping Poster Subtotal $10/hr Mark Adam Jared Yu Total Actual Cost $54 $12 $66 $66 Cost With Labor $54 $12 $66 $2430 $2680 $2990 $2390 $10556

42 Fall 2006 Schedule Schedule 1/2

43 Spring 2007 Schedule Schedule 2/2

44 Project Evaluation 1/2 Milestone Relative Importance Evaluation Score Resultant Score Problem Definition 10% 90% 9% Research 8% 85% 6.8% Technology Selection 7% 100% 7% Prototype Design 15% 100% 15% End-Product Implementation 25% 100% 25% End-Product Testing 15% 90% 13.5% End-Product Documentation 5% 90% 4.5% Project Reviews 7% 85% 5.95% End-Product Demo 8% 100% 8% Overall 100% 94.75%

45 Project Evaluation 2/2 Function Parameter Variability Simulink Interface Graphs of Simulation and Test Data Data Importing Multiple Models and Tests Zoom, Undo, Redo Load and Save Session Parameter Disabling Export Graph Batch Simulation Compile as Standalone Program Overall Requirement Required Required Required Required Required Required Required Supplemental Supplemental Supplemental Supplemental Evaluation Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Fully Met Exceeded Not Attempted Fully Met

46 Commercialization Possibilities Designed for use by GE engineers High level understanding needed Commercialization not likely

47 Recommendations for Additional Work Compile program as standalone Develop wizard to add new models Enable whole session saving and loading Automate process

48 Lessons Learned 1/4 What went well Excellent coordination with client Library system Second semester implementation

49 Lessons Learned 2/4 What did not go well Research into model development Lost time Unable to build models Initial interface design was unorganized

50 Lessons Learned 3/4 Knowledge Gained Technical Matlab programming skills GUIDE toolset Simulink/Matlab data passing Knowledge of machine models and basic stability considerations Non-Technical User manual development Team coordination with conflicting schedules Overcoming interpersonal difficulties

51 Lessons Learned 4/4 What we would do differently Evaluate team s knowledge of machine modeling early Create top-level program flow charts early Determine required features up front

52 Risks and Risk Management 1/2 Anticipated Risks and Possible Mitigation Matlab lacking in interface requirements Research other potential programming languages Simulink unable to replicate accurate simulations Acquire PSLF and compare data sets Software versions cause program failure Ensure program will function at least on client s version Team unable to agree on action plans Seek outside mediation to disputes

53 Risks and Risk Management 2/2 Risks encountered Anticipated Matlab version caused errors Team disputes were resolved with faculty advisor Unanticipated Team unable to create models Management change due to unanticipated risks Ensured that tasks were within team s capabilities

54 Summary The project was a success Process time down to 3-4 hours from 3 days Possible IEEE paper based on the project Team gained knowledge that will be invaluable in future projects

55 Questions and Comments? Thank you for your time

56 Program Demonstration