Consultancy · study

PSCAD consultancy & EMT studies

When converter controls, protection or a weak grid decide whether a connection works, RMS models are not enough. We build, validate and run PSCAD models with the vendors' own equipment models, and write it up so the operator's reviewer can follow every step.

Discuss a project Read the case study

Model check · fault at the connection pointIllustrative

Grid strength (SCR)

Dampingof the recovery–%at least 5%

RMS missespeak difference–%limit 10%

Settlingback within 2%– slimit 1.0 s

When it's needed

When you need it.

The plant is converter-based: batteries, solar, wind, HVDC or STATCOMs.
The connection point is weak, or close to other converters.
The operator has asked for EMT evidence: ride-through, fast fault current or control stability.
The effect you care about is subsynchronous, harmonic or in the waveform itself.

Results

What the waveforms show.

Choose a case to see the result.

Phase voltages · fault at the connection pointIllustrative

Phase A at 0.12 pu

All phases at 0.25 pu

Recovery rings at 14 Hz

A single-phase fault: phase A collapses while B and C swell slightly.A three-phase fault: all three phases collapse together, the hardest case for ride-through.On a weak grid the recovery rings: behaviour only an EMT model shows.

Method

How we run it.

01
Scope
Agree the question, the connection point and the code or spec that applies.
02
Build
Assemble the network equivalent, the plant and the vendor control models.
03
Validate
Check the model against the expected steady state and known responses first.
04
Run
Pick the scenarios that could decide the result, then run them.
05
Report
Read the waveforms against the criteria and write down what we assumed.

Tools and scenarios

Every scenario through every study.

PSCADMain EMT tool
PowerFactory · PSS®ERMS context, model exchange
Python automationBatch runs

Ride-throughFast fault currentControl stabilityHarmonicsProtection

Strong grid

Weak grid (SCR below 3)

Single-phase faults

Three-phase faults

Outages (N-1)

Vendor control updates

Weak grid (SCR below 3) · Control stabilityAt SCR 2 the plant’s voltage control rings at 9 Hz. A lower gain and a slower PLL settle it.Single-phase faults · Fast fault currentIn single-phase faults the plant injected too little negative-sequence current. A setting change fixes it.Three-phase faults · ProtectionFault current from the converters was too low for the distance protection to see. New settings cover it.Vendor control updates · Ride-throughA new firmware release changed the fault response. We reran the ride-through set before it went to site.

24 checks · 4 led to a change · every case scripted and rerunnable

Deliverables

What you get.

ModelValidated PSCAD model files and a model quality statement
MethodMethod, assumptions and scenario list, written down
ResultsResult waveforms, read against each criterion
ReportA report ready for the operator's independent review

How we check it

Every conclusion traces back to a validated model and a documented scenario. We record tool versions, model sources and assumptions, so the work can be rerun and challenged.

Selected work

Related case studies.

Case 02 · EMT modellingGenerator EMT model checked against site measurementsA full PSCAD model with excitation, stabiliser and protection, validated on site.Case 03 · SSO and compliance40 MW battery: SSO screening and NESO complianceImpedance scan, Nyquist, voltage injection, FRT and FFCI from one model.

FAQ

Questions engineers ask.

When do I actually need EMT rather than RMS?

When the question depends on fast converter controls, fault ride-through, fast fault-current injection, harmonics, or sub-/super-synchronous interactions. RMS remains fine for steady-state, load-flow and slower dynamics; many projects use RMS for breadth and EMT for the cases that govern the result.

Can you work from a vendor's black-box model?

Yes. Most IBR and HVDC studies use the manufacturer's encrypted control model in PSCAD. We integrate and validate it within the network model; where a detailed model is available, we can use that instead.

What makes an EMT model “credible” to an operator?

A documented validation against expected behaviour, clearly stated assumptions, the right scenarios, and an evidence trail (model sources, tool versions, settings) that a reviewer can reproduce.

Next step

Have a study like this coming up?

Discuss a project [email protected]