🛒 Your basket is empty
🛒{{ model.NumberOfItems }} item(s): {{ model.Total }}
Integrated AC & DC Design & Analysis
Model-Driven SCADA, EMS, PMS, ADMS & SAS
A Unified Digital Twin PlatformDesign, Operation, and Automation
ETAP is Verified and Validated (V&V) against field results, real system measurements, established programs, and hand calculations in order to ensure its technical accuracy.
Each release of ETAP undergoes a complete V&V process using hundreds of test cases for each and every calculation module.
The following are test cases which provides a sample of the type of tests performed for each analysis. Note that all of these cases indicate a very close correlation between ETAP simulated results and field measurements or other programs.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Arc-Flash Results Against IEEE Std. 1584-2018™ Published Results This document provides an ETAP validation case. This is just one of many test case scenarios for Arc-Flash Analysis (AF) which are part of ETAP V&V program. This case is a validation case based on comparisons against published IEEE Standards on AF analysis.Case No. 2Comparison of ETAP Arc-Flash Results Against IEEE C2-2023 (NESC) This document is an example of an ETAP validation test case. This case is just one of many test case scenarios for Arc-Flash Analysis (AF) which are part of the ETAP V&V program. This case is based on comparisons of ETAP ArcFault™ against published IEEE/NESC Standards. Case No. 3Comparison of AC Arc flash results against Hand Calculations based on DGUV Information 203-077This VV case compares ETAP arc energy results against those published in DGUV-I 203-077 example 5.1. The comparisons include key results such as arc energy, arc power, short-circuit power and PPE levels of protection evaluation.Case No.4Comparison of ETAP Arc-Flash Results Against IEEE Publication This document is an example of an ETAP validation test case. This case is just one of many test case scenarios for Arc-Flash Analysis (AF) which are part of the ETAP V&V program. This case is based on comparisons of ETAP ArcFaultTM against published IEEE publications.
Case No. 1Comparison of DC Arc flash results against Hand Calculations based on DGUV Information 203-077This VV case compares ETAP arc energy results against those published in DGUV-I 203-077 example 5.8. The comparisons include key results such as dc arc energy, dc arc power, dc short-circuit power and PPE levels of protection evaluation.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Harmonic Analysis Results Against IEEE Example This VV case compares ETAP Harmonic Load Flow results against those published in IEEE Standard 519-1992 Example 13.1, page 89-92. The comparison also includes results for harmonic indices such as RMS, ASUM, THD, TIF and TPF which were validated against hand calculations.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results Against a Published Textbook ExampleThis document provides a comparison of ETAP Load Flow results against published results in "Power System Control and Stability” by P. Anderson and A. Fouad.
Case No. 2Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results Against a Published ExampleThis document provides a comparison of ETAP Load Flow results against published results in “Computer Aided Power System Operation and Analysis” by R.N Dhar.Case No. 3Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results Against a Published Textbook ExampleThis document provides a comparison of ETAP Load Flow results against published results in IEEE Standard 399-1997 “Recommended Practice for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Analysis”.Case No. 4Comparison of ETAP Load Flow Results Against a Published Textbook ExampleThis document provides a comparison of ETAP Load Flow results against published results in IEEE Standard 3002.2-2008 “IEEE Recommended Practice for Conducting Load-Flow Studies and Analysis of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems”.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Motor Starting with Torque Control Against Hand Calculated ResultsThe ETAP V&V process for the Motor Starting program has over 1600 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Motor Starting V&V documentation.
Case No. 2Comparison of ETAP Motor Starting Results Against Transient StabilityComparison of ETAP Motor acceleration (MS) results against ETAP Transient Stability (TS) results which were validated against field measurements and hand calculations.
Case No. 1Comparison of Short-Circuit Results against Hand Calculations based on Application Engineering InformationComparison of ETAP 3-phase Short-Circuit results against published results in “Short-Circuit Current Calculations for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems” published by General Electric.Case No. 2Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Short-Circuit results against Published valuesComparison of ETAP unbalanced fault results against published results in “Faulted Power System Analysis” by Paul Anderson, 1973, page 38-40.
Case No. 3Comparison of ETAP 3-Phase Duty Short-Circuit Calculations against Published IEEE Std 399-1997 ExampleComparison of ETAP 3-phase Duty Short-circuit results against a published 44-bus example from the IEEE Std. 399-1997, Section 7.7, pages 187-205.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Short-Circuit IEC Calculations against Published ExampleThe ETAP V&V process for the IEC Short-Circuit program has over 1100 test case scenarios that are run before each ETAP release. The following cases are excerpts from the Short-Circuit IEC 3-phase and unbalanced short circuit results
Case No. 2Comparison of ETAP Short-Circuit IEC Calculations against Published ExampleThis document provides an ETAP validation case. This is just one of many test case scenarios for IEC Short Circuit (SCIEC) which are part of ETAP V&V program. This case is a validation case based on comparisons against published results in the IEC TR 60909-4:2021 document for Short-Circuit analysis.
Case No. 1Comparison with Field Measurement Data for Generator Start-Up ConditionsThis document provides a comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability/Generator Start-Up simulation results and field measurement data.Case No. 2Comparison with I.E.E. Japan (IEEJ) Electrical Power System Standard BenchmarkThis document provides a comparison between ETAP Transient Stability Simulation Results and I.E.E. Japan (IEEJ) Electrical Power System Standard Benchmark. Case No. 3Comparison with Field Measurements from a Digital Fault RecordersThis document provides a comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and actual fault-recorder measurements before and after a three-phase fault in an industrial system. Case No. 4Comparison with 9-Bus Multi-Machine System BenchmarksThis document provides a comparison between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and a 9-Bus Multi-Machine System Benchmark (Power System Control and Stability by Anderson and Fouad). Case No. 5Comparison with PTI PSS/E Simulation ResultsThis document provides a comparison of simulation results between the ETAP Transient Stability simulation results and PTI PSS/E program.
Case No. 1Comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Load Flow Results Against a Published IEEE 13-Bus Feeder SystemThis document provides a comparison of ETAP Unbalanced Network Load Flow results against published results of IEEE 13 Node Test Feeder system.
ETAP Quality Assurance | (949) 900-1000 | qa@etap.com