Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Satish Natti

Publications and source records attributed to Satish Natti.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

EMT Assessment of SCR and X/R Effects on Current-Priority-Dependent LVRT Response of a Grid-Following BESS

Low-voltage ride-through (LVRT) forces a grid-following inverter to allocate finite converter current between active- and reactive-current objectives. This paper uses a PSCAD electromagnetic-transient (EMT) representation of an aggregated battery energy storage system (BESS) to quantify how short-circuit ratio (SCR) and grid impedance X/R ratio alter that tradeoff. Active-current priority and reactive-current priority are compared for five paired grid conditions under the same 150-ms balanced three-phase fault, with pre-fault active power approximately 0.84 pu, POI reactive-power exchange near 0 pu, and a 1.0-pu dq-current limit. Fundamental positive-sequence voltage and power are reconstructed from 100-$μ$s three-phase EMT outputs. Across the fixed-fault SCR sweep, the Q-priority late-fault voltage advantage increases from 0.046 pu in the strongest tested grid to 0.129 pu in the weakest; the weakest P-priority case also shows active-power reversal and a pronounced controller-frequency excursion. At fixed SCR, changing X/R produces a smaller increase from 0.092 to 0.112 pu, mainly through reduced P-priority voltage support. Because the common physical fault also deepens the passive retained-voltage condition as SCR decreases, the SCR result is interpreted as a fixed-fault grid-strength sensitivity rather than a constant-sag comparison. Grid strength is the larger sensitivity in the tested matrix, while X/R remains an additional modifier under the studied fault conditions.

eess.SY↗

Control-Layer Interpretation of Reactive Power Recovery Limits in EMT-RMS Model Benchmarking of Inverter-Based Resources

EMT--RMS benchmarking is widely used to verify cross-platform consistency of inverter-based resource (IBR) dynamic models. This paper examines a 200 MW anonymized IBR represented in PSCAD and PSS/E. The EMT model separates inverter electrical capability from a plant-level power plant controller (PPC) recovery target, whereas the RMS model represents these functions through REECC and REPCA parameters. Directly assigning the PPC target of $\pm 0.2764$ pu to REPCA hard reactive limits is initialization-inconsistent at the original lagging operating point because the initial reactive command is 0.396273 pu. A second, near-unity-power-factor operating point initializes successfully with the same diagnostic limit, demonstrating that the conflict is operating-point dependent. Using the non-conflicting capability mapping removes the original hard-limit conflict, but the benchmark still shows 18.5--30.2 MVAr post-event POI reactive-power differences from PSCAD. A one-at-a-time REPCA $K_c$ sensitivity under matched benchmark initial conditions further shows that RMS recovery is parameter- and limit-dependent: at $K_c=0.05$ and 0.10 the aggregate machine reactive output reaches the configured capability bounds, while $K_c=0.15$ moves VDOWN, VUP, and HVRT off those bounds and changes their settled POI reactive power by 8.94, 18.00, and 3.17 MVAr, respectively. Machine-to-POI accounting further shows why machine-side saturation need not reproduce the POI-level PPC recovery magnitude. The results distinguish initialization feasibility from recovery equivalence and provide a control-layer diagnostic workflow beyond waveform comparison.

eess.SY↗