Independent Power Engineers Never Trust the Machine, trust the engineer!

Product ETAP™,

Manufacturer OTI™ (Operation Technology Inc),

Version ETAP: 4,5,6,7.0,7.1, 7.5, 11, 11.1, 12.0,12.5,12.6, 14, 14.1,16.0 and especially 16.1

Revision All Versions/Revisions

Operating system Windows 8 / 64 Bit

System properties CPU @1.80GHz RAM: 8.00GB

ETAP CASE-0243

Who are we? IPE (Independent Power Engineers) is a nonprofit organization passionate about the

power engineering industry. Our main mandate is to test and expose the different

issues and dysfunctions of different power system simulation softwares. Please note

that all of our tests are made available also on YouTube for transparency. Look for

Independent Power Engineers on YouTube to get access to our latest videos.

Analysis Transient Stability

Analysis detail Transient Stability, Initial Load Flow, Adaptive Newton Raphson Precision= 0.00001 ,Max

No. of Iteration =9999,

Events Short circuit in an Overhead Line, Wrong Angle of Generator

Issue IEEE 9 Buses , Test Cases results in ETAP software does not match with validation cases ETAP

is published in It’s website

Reason OTI/ETAP company has cheated in preparing validation Test Cases

Proposed solution No

ETAP CASE-0243 Overview:

This case has been one of the analysis sample for evaluating ETAP software from version 4 to version 16.1.

Open IEEE 9 bus bar benchmark network from: C:\ETAP 1611\Example-Other\IEEE9BUS

Figure 1: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System

Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad

Independent Power Engineers Never Trust the Machine, trust the engineer!

Figure 2: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has shown in

Validation Test Cases document is published in ETAP website

Independent Power Engineers Never Trust the Machine, trust the engineer!

Figure 3: Power Angle (Relative) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient

stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.1)

ETAP CASE-0243 Explanation1:

Power Angle (Relative) of Generator G2 in Anderson and Fouad book benchmark:

88.5 Degree

Power Angle (Relative) of Generator of Generator G2 in ETAP Validation Case No.4 document published in ETAP

Website: 89.8 Degree

Power Angle (Relative) of Generator of Generator G2 when we run same network in ETAP software from version

4.0 to ETAP 14.1: 110.1 Degree

This clearly proves that OTI/ETAP Company has cheated to show that results of ETAP transient stability software and

Anderson and Fouad book benchmark are matching?!

But actually ETAP software results and transient stability benchmark results has (110.1 -88.5) 12.6 Degree difference

in results, but ETAP company has cheated to show that the difference is only (88.9 -88.5) 1.3 degree

Independent Power Engineers Never Trust the Machine, trust the engineer!

Figure 4: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, Power System Control

and Stability by Anderson and Fouad

Figure 5: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Multi Generator Benchmark, What ETAP has

Independent Power Engineers Never Trust the Machine, trust the engineer!

Figure 6: Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators for Multi Generator Benchmark, Running ETAP Transient

stability Software from version 4.0 to 16.1(This PICTURE is results of ETAP 16.1)

ETAP CASE-0243 Explanation2:

Power Angle (Absolute) of Generators in Anderson and Fouad book benchmark: fully matches and converge to

identical Degree at t=2 seconds

Power Angle (Absolute) of Generator G2 in ETAP Validation Case No.4 document published in ETAP Website: ETAP

website tries to shows that angles of generators are converging at t=2 seconds

Power Angle (Absolute) of Generator G2 when we run same network in ETAP software from version 4.0 to ETAP

16.1: ETAP software, generators angles still does not converge or match at 120 cycle (2 seconds)

This clearly proves that OTI/ETAP Company has cheated to show that results of ETAP transient stability software

and Anderson and Fouad book benchmark are matching?!

But actually ETAP software results and transient stability benchmark results are showing totally different angles at

120 cycle (2 seconds), but ETAP Company has cheated to show that the difference is negligible and the angles are

converging at 120 cycle (2 seconds)

We just have a question? How ETAP Company can compensate damages and loss of projects due to

inaccurate results of ETAP software in last 15 years???

We hereby questioning the integrity of engineering teams of companies has done auditing on ETAP software, we mean

what has been announced in ETAP website at https://etap.com/software/quality-assurance/qa-audits, unfortunately

we are seeing a number of big organizations has done quality auditing of ETAP software and none of them has notices

such big mistakes and holes in ETAP Transient Stability Algorithm from version 4.0 to 16.1 or may the situation is worst,

they these problems in ETPA software , but because of their relation with ETAP/OTI company they hide it?????????????