Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Small disturbance voltage stability assessment of power systems by modal analysis and dynamic simulation
Nima Amjady *, Mohammad Reza Ansari
Department of Electrical Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The introduction of liberalized electricity markets in many countries has resulted in more highly stressed power systems. On the other hand, operating points of a power system are acceptable in the feasible region, which is surrounded by the borders of different stabilities. Power system instability is critical for all participants of the electricity market. Determination of different stability margins can result in the optimum utilization of power system with minimum risk. This paper focuses on the small disturbance voltage stability, which is an important subset of the power system global stability. This kind of voltage stability is usually evaluated by static analysis tools such as continuation power ow, while it essentially has dynamic nature. Besides, a combination of linear and nonlinear analysis tools is required to correctly analyze it. In this paper, a hybrid evaluation method composed of static, dynamic, linear, and nonlinear analysis tools is proposed for this purpose. Effect of load scenario, generation pattern, branch and generator contingency on the small disturbance voltage stability are evaluated by the hybrid method. The test results are given for New England and IEEE68 bus test systems. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 9 September 2007 Accepted 13 April 2008 Available online 5 June 2008 Keywords: Voltage stability Voltage collapse Dynamic simulation Eigenvalue analysis

1. Introduction Nowadays, in many countries, the introduction of competitive supply and corresponding organizational separation of supply, transmission, and system operation has resulted in more highly stressed and unpredictable operating conditions and more vulnerable networks [1]. These conditions, brought on by natural load growth with a signicant increase in long-distance transmission usage, often result in heavy transmission circuit loadings, depressed bus voltage magnitudes, and closer proximity to voltage instability. Many power system blackouts all over the world have been reported where the reason for the blackout has been voltage instability [2,3]. Power system stability is an essential requirement for all participants of an electricity market. So, voltage stability can appear as a main limiting factor for transmission system loading. Thus, it is required to have a clear understanding of the problem. Power system stability is the ability of an electric power system, for a given initial operating condition, to regain a state of operating equilibrium after being subjected to a physical disturbance, with most system variables bounded so that practically the entire system remains intact [4]. Analysis of stability, including identifying key factors that contribute to instability and devising methods of improving stable operation, is greatly facilitated by classication of stability into appropriate categories. Power system stability
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 021 88797174; fax: +98 021 88880098. E-mail address: amjady@tavanir.org.ir (N. Amjady). 0196-8904/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.04.010

can be categorized to rotor angle, frequency and voltage stabilities [4]. Voltage stability refers to the ability of a power system to maintain steady voltages at all buses in the system after being subjected to a disturbance from a given initial operating condition [4]. Voltage instability stems from the attempt of load dynamics to restore power consumption beyond the capability of the combined transmission and generation system [5]. A possible outcome of voltage instability is loss of load in an area, or tripping of transmission lines and other elements by their protective systems leading to cascading outages. Voltage collapse is the catastrophic result of a sequence of events leading to a low voltage prole suddenly in a major part of the power system [2]. Voltage stability can be further classied to small disturbance, large disturbance, short term, and long term categories [2]. Small disturbance voltage stability considers the power systems ability to control voltages after small disturbances, e.g. changes in load [6]. Large-disturbance voltage stability refers to the systems ability to maintain steady voltages following large disturbances such as system faults, loss of generation, or circuit contingencies. Besides, the time frame of interest for voltage stability problems may vary from a few seconds to tens of minutes. Therefore, voltage stability may be either a short-term or a long-term phenomenon. Short term voltage stability is characterized by components such as induction motors, excitation of synchronous generators, and electronically controlled devices such as HVDC and static VAR compensator [5]. The study period of interest is in the order of several seconds, and analysis requires solution of appropriate

2630

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

system differential equations; this is similar to analysis of rotor angle stability [4]. The dynamics of the long term time scale last for several minutes. The long term voltage stability is characterized by scenarios such as load recovery by the action of on-load tap changer or through load self restoration, delayed corrective control actions such as shunt compensation switching or load shedding. The long term dynamics such as response of power plant controls, boiler dynamics and automatic generation control also affect long term voltage stability [5]. This paper focuses on the small disturbance voltage stability, which is a major concern of today power systems [2,3,7]. This concept is useful in determining, at any instant, how the system voltages will respond to small system changes. With appropriate assumptions, system equations can be linearized for analysis thereby allowing computation of valuable sensitivity information useful in identifying factors inuencing stability. This linearization, however, cannot account for nonlinear effects such as tap changer controls (deadbands, discrete tap steps, and time delays) [4]. Therefore, in this work, a combination of linear and nonlinear analyzes is used in a complementary manner. Besides, previous works proposed static analysis tools (like power ow based methods) to solve small disturbance voltage stability [2,810]. Even we adopted this procedure in our some previous works [3,7]. However, this kind of stability is also inuenced by the dynamic characteristics of the system such as those of generators, controllers and loads. So, we consider a combination of static and dynamic analysis tools in our evaluation. The main contribution of this paper is analysis of various aspects of small disturbance voltage stability. Effect of load scenario, generation scenario, generator contingency and branch contingency on the status of this stability is evaluated and its illcondition and well-condition behaviors are introduced. Especially, we found more nonlinear behaviors of the stability than those mentioned in the previous works. Besides, drivers of small disturbance voltage stability and their sensitivities with respect to various system variables are presented, which is another contribution of this paper. The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows. In Section 2, characteristics of small disturbance voltage stability problem are described. Then, the proposed method, composed of static, dynamic, linear and nonlinear analysis tools, to evaluate this problem is introduced. In Section 3 or the main section of the paper, detailed numerical results for New England and IEEE68 test systems are presented and discussed. Important conclusions based on the results for this kind of stability are derived. A brief review of the paper and the future research are in Section 4.

Fig. 1. Sample execution of the proposed method in the form of PV curve for the IEEE 16-machine, 68-bus test system.

2. The proposed method Limitations of steady state power system studies (algebraic equations) are associated with stability of nonlinear dynamic systems. In dynamic analysis the transition itself is of interest and it checks that the transition will lead to an acceptable operating condition. The small disturbance voltage stability is a dynamic phenomenon by nature, but the use of steady state analysis tools can provide useful information about it. In steady state voltage stability studies based on the load ow equations it is assumed that all dynamics are died out and all controllers have done their duty. Steady state voltage stability studies investigate long term voltage stability [2]. The advantage of using algebraic equations compared to differential equations of dynamic studies is the computation speed. However, the stability of the power system cannot be fully guaranteed with steady state studies. Especially, when the voltage instability occurs in the transient period of disturbance, i.e. Hopf bifurcation [11], the voltage stability margin obtained by the dynamic method can be considerably less than that of the static

method. The time domain simulations capture the events and chronology leading to voltage instability. This approach provides the most accurate response of the actual dynamics of voltage instability when appropriate modeling is included [2]. Considering the above explanations, a combination of static and dynamic analyzes based on the voltage continuation curve is proposed for small disturbance voltage stability evaluation. At each point of the continuation curve (e.g. PV curve), at rst, the steady state conditions of the power system are analyzed by the load ow equations. Then a small perturbation in the form of load increment is applied to the equilibrium point (EP) of the power system. Response of the system to this perturbation is found by the dynamic simulation, which can determine actual dynamic status of small disturbance voltage stability. Then, our analysis method proceeds by one step ahead, i.e. the post disturbance equilibrium point of the power system (with incremented load) is determined by the load ow equations. This procedure is successively repeated for the points of the continuation curve until both dynamic load margin (DLM) and static load margin (SLM) are determined. If in a point of the continuation curve, emergence of oscillatory instability or Hopf bifurcation in response to the perturbation is detected, voltage stability is dynamically lost at that point (DLM). On the other hand, SLM is the maximum loading level beyond which steady state solutions cannot be obtained for the system [12]. Saddlenode and limit-induced bifurcations basically consist of loss of system equilibrium, which is typically correlated with the lack of power ow solutions. In the case of saddle-node bifurcations, a singularity of a system Jacobian and/or state matrix results in the disappearance of such static solutions, whereas in the case of limit-induced bifurcations, the lack of steady state solutions are due to system controls reaching limits (e.g. generator reactive power limits) [11]. For instance, an execution of the proposed method for IEEE 16machine, 68-bus test system is shown in Fig. 1. In this gure Hopf bifurcation point (at the end of blue1 curve), indicating DLM, is shown. SLM, associated with saddle node bifurcation, is at the end of green curve. Saddle node bifurcation for constant power loads usually appears on the nose of the PV curves, and is quite often associated with the voltage collapse in power systems. Between DLM and SLM on the green curve, power system has EPs obtained by the steady state analysis. However, each of these

1 For interpretation of color in Fig. 1, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

2631

EPs will be lost by a small perturbation, representing unstable equilibrium point (UEP). EPs before Hopf bifurcation are stable equilibrium points (SEP). Voltage stability is a nonlinear phenomenon. However, valuable sensitivity information useful in identifying factors inuencing small disturbance voltage stability can be obtained by linearization of the system at the equilibrium point [4]. The obtained Jacobian matrix describes the linear system which best approximates the nonlinear equations close to the equilibrium. In that case the stability of the nonlinear system can be studied like the stability of linear systems in the neighborhood of operating equilibrium [2]. Besides, we use from bifurcation theory to study the actual behavior of the system. Bifurcation analysis deals with the problem of loss of stability of a nonlinear dynamic system under changing parameter values [13]. Bifurcation theory assumes that power system parameters vary slowly and predicts how a power system becomes unstable. The change of parameters moves the system slowly from one equilibrium to another until it reaches the collapse point [5]. Bifurcation points where change from stable to unstable occurs, from stationary to oscillatory, or from order to chaos, are the most interesting points in voltage stability studies. In [5] it has been mentioned that usually one parameter, e.g. load demand, is changed at once (which is also the case considered here), in which case there is a possibility to achieve either saddle node or Hopf bifurcation, e.g. Fig. 1. The proposed analysis method at each equilibrium point along the continuation curve calculates eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix and evaluates possibility of occurrence of different bifurcations. For a better illustration of the performance of the method we begin with the dynamic model of the voltage stability problem, which can be presented in the form of parameter dependent differential algebraic equations (DAE) [14]: _ x fx;y;p ; 0 g x;y;p ; x 2 X  Rn ; f : Rnmq ! Rn g : Rnmq ! Rm y 2 Y  Rm ; p 2 P  Rq 1 2 3

an EP of the DAE model for a given p depends on the eigenvalues of the reduced Jacobian matrix Jr [17]. Through tracing the eigenvalues of matrix Jr, we can study the local dynamic stability of the power system [6,17]. There are two steps involved to identify the dynamic stability of the power system as the parameter p slowly changes. First, solve and trace the EP along the path (i.e. the continuation curve, as discussed in the previous paragraphs), which is dened by a scheduled system operating strategy. Then, form reduced Jacobian matrix and analyze the eigenvalues at each EP [16,17]. We discussed about the bifurcation points from the viewpoint of static and dynamic analyzes. Now, a better viewpoint for this matter can be presented based on the eigenvalue analysis. For a structural stability problem, there are three different kinds of bifurcation points. Saddle-node bifurcation (SNB) point is where two EPs coalesce and then disappear. At this point the reduced Jacobian has a zero eigenvalue. Hopf bifurcation (HB) point is where there is an emergence of oscillatory instability. At this point, two complex conjugate eigenvalues of reduced Jacobian cross the imaginary axis. At singularity induced bifurcation (SIB) point, gy becomes singular. Through (6), we know that the inverse of gy will become innity, which is called singularity induced innity, where it is not easy to compute and analyze the stability of the system. These three bifurcation sets usually are the boundary of the feasible region of the DAE model (1) and (2) [13,16]. When one EP passes through the boundary, the system will lose its stability [5,16]. There are also other types of bifurcations in the DAE models such as focus node transition where two complex eigenvalues coalesce and change to real ones [18]. However, this transition of eigenvalues does not impact the stability properties of a power system, but is usually a prelude to other bifurcations, more signicant ones described above. Now the proposed analysis method can be summarized as the following step by step algorithm: (1) Dene the set of parameters p including power system conguration, load pattern (consist of load level and distribution), and generation pattern, which determine the base case conditions or initial point of the continuation curve. (2) Determine EP by the load ow solution. In obtaining this solution, controller limits (such as reactive power limits of the generators) and on-load tap changers (OLTC) are considered. (3) Form reduced Jacobian at the EP and calculate its eigenvalues. Evaluate occurrence of HB or SNB based on the behavior of eigenvalues. (4) Change the load and generation patterns of the power system by one step (apply the small perturbation) according to the scheduled system operating strategy or the predened security assessment scenario. For instance, changing the load and generation patterns may be simply in the form of linearly increasing consumption of a load bus and accordingly increasing the generation of slack bus, respectively [18]. (5) Determine dynamic response of the power system to the step change by time domain simulation. Dynamic models of the power system components considered in our time domain simulation are described in Appendix and more details can be found in [19]. (6) If emergence of oscillatory instability or Hopf bifurcation in the dynamic response is detected, voltage stability is dynamically lost at that point, which indicates DLM. Hopf bifurcation determined by the eigenvalue analysis (step 3) and time domain simulation should be the same so that we can judge about its occurrence. (7) Determine post-disturbance EP (with changed load and generation patterns) as described in step 2. If no solution can be found, saddle node or limit induced bifurcation, indicating

where the parameter p denes specic system congurations and operation conditions, such as loads, generation, voltage setting points, etc. The dynamic state variables x (slow modes), dened by (1), describe the generation dynamics of power systems, such as exciter control systems. The instantaneous variables y (fast modes) satises algebraic constraints (2), such as power ow equations, which is implicitly assumed to have an instantaneously converging transient. More details about the above DAE model can be found in [1,14]. For xed values of p parameters, an EP is a solution of the system: ( fx;y;p 0 _ 0) x 4 g x;y;p 0 To determine the stability margin of the EP, by means of linearization, the above model can be represented as " #     _ fx fy Dx Dx ; Ju Ju 5 gx gy Dy 0 where Ju is called the unreduced Jacobian, augmented Jacobian, or augmented system state matrix [1416]. Matrix fx is the partial Jacobian, the partial derivative of vector f with respect to vector x. Similarly, the other components of Ju are partial Jacobians. Assuming gy is nonsingular, (5) can be reduced to ordinary state space equations by eliminating Dy: _ Dx fx fy g 1 g x Dx J r Dx y 6

where Jr is called reduced Jacobian or reduced system matrix; gy is called algebraic Jacobian or static Jacobian [1416]. The stability of

2632

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

SLM, has been occurred. Occurrence of saddle node bifurcation should be also detected by the eigenvalue analysis. (8) The procedure described from step 2 to step 7 is repeated until both DLM and SLM be found (e.g. Fig. 1). As seen, the above algorithm mainly focus on the HB and SNB. SIB occurs in a DAE system when the equilibrium point is placed at a singularity manifold of the algebraic subsystem. The constraint manifold g(x,y,p) = 0 is divided into the voltage causal regions where gy is not singular separated by the singularity manifold at which gy is singular [18]. At the SIB point, at least one eigenvalue of reduced Jacobian matrix Jr will change from negative innity to positive

innity. At singular point, determinant of Jr also goes to innity. At SIB, in the unreduced Jacobian matrix Ju, only one eigenvalue changes the sign, and the stability of the system will change [16]. 3. Numerical results We examined the proposed method (the step by step algorithm) on the IEEE14, IEEE30, New England and IEEE68 test systems, frequently considered in the voltage stability studies [912,18,20], where their data can be found in [21,22]. For the sake of conciseness only the results of the larger ones, i.e. New England and IEEE68 test systems are presented. Similar results have been obtained for the other ones. Single line diagram of the New England test system with 10 machines and 39 buses and IEEE68 test system with 16 machines and 68 bus are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Dynamic models of these test systems are as described in Appendix. In [12], different load models have been evaluated and it is concluded that from the voltage stability viewpoint, the constant power load usually create the most stress in the system. So, this kind of load model is considered for the load buses in most examinations of this paper to better illustrate the bifurcation points (constant power factor is also assumed). However, sample results for the other load models, e.g. constant current and constant impedance, are also presented for comparison. We evaluate effect of load and generation scenarios, and generator and branch contingencies on different aspects of small disturbance voltage stability by the proposed method. 3.1. Load scenario We examined many load scenarios including increasing load of a single bus, group of buses and all buses, respectively. Sample

Fig. 2. Single line diagram of the New England test system.

Fig. 3. Single line diagram of IEEE68 bus test system.

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

2633

results for the New England test system are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, where load of a single bus 18, indicated by load(18), and all buses are increased, respectively. In Fig. 5, L is the load growth factor of all buses. It is noted that from the dominant eigenvalue(s) in the current operating point, we mean the closest one(s) to the imaginary axis in the complex plane, which are the best candidate(s) for HB in that operating point. Critical eigenvalues are those which nally cross the imaginary axis and cause HB. Dominant or critical eigenvalue(s) can be a single real one or a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues. In Figs. 4 and 5, locus of eigenvalues of the reduced Jacobian Jr close to imaginary axis, i.e. in the range [1,0], are shown. The nonlinear behavior of the dominant eigenvalues of the algebraic Jacobian gy with respect to the load variation has been discussed in the previous works [1,23], where the dominant eigenvalues in the current operating point may be different from the critical ones. Here, a similar situation is seen for the reduced Jacobian Jr where the closest eigenvalues to the imaginary axis are changed by the load variation. For instance, in the rst two parts of Fig. 4, the critical eigenvalues (indicated by the arrows) appear after three other ones. By increasing load(18), the critical eigenvalues appear

in the second place after only one eigenvalue in the third and fourth parts of Fig. 4. By further increasing load(18), the critical eigenvalues proceed the rst one, cross the imaginary axis and cause HB, indicated in the fth and sixth parts of Fig. 4. A similar situation is seen in Fig. 5. Besides, another aspect of nonlinearity can be seen in the behavior of critical eigenvalues. By increasing load(18) or L, instead of monotonically approaching the imaginary axis, they goes farther at rst and then rapidly return and cross the imaginary axis. In spite of these nonlinear behaviors, some interesting results can be also seen. The critical eigenvalues are the same in Figs. 4 and 5 owning completely different load scenarios. Indeed the same critical eigenvalues were observed in all various examined load scenarios. However, DLM and SLM of the power system are sensitive to the load scenario. For a better illustration of this matter, PV curve for two different load scenarios are shown in Fig. 6, where load of a single bus 8 and a single bus 23 has been separately increased, respectively, resulting in different DLMs and SLMs. Although the critical eigenvalues are xed with respect to load scenario, but the velocity by which these eigenvalues approach to the imaginary axis are dependent on the load scenario.

Fig. 4. Eigenvalue locus for increasing load of bus 18 in the New England test system.

2634

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

Fig. 5. Eigenvalue locus for increasing load of all buses in the New England test system.

Table 1 Participation factors for load scenarios of Figs. 4 and 5 (HB point) Load(18) = 1540 + 308i, HB point Factor 1 0.917 0.806 0.757 0.717 0.678 0.636 0.559 0.556 0.467 State K+3 K+3 K+3 K K+3 K K K+2 K K+2 Model ESDC1A ESDC1A ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU Bus 33 36 37 36 32 37 33 33 32 36 L = 1.25233, HB point Factor 1 0.717 0.627 0.608 0.603 0.559 0.518 0.475 0.473 0.347 State K+3 K+3 K K+3 K K+3 K+2 K K K+3 Model ESDC1A ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU GENROU GENROU ESDC1A Bus 33 37 33 32 37 36 33 36 32 38

Fig. 6. PV curve for two load scenarios in the New England test system.

In Table 1, participation factors for examinations of Figs. 4 and 5 are shown in columns 1 and 5, respectively. Parameters of this

table are described in Appendix. The participation factors represent contribution of each state of the power system in the critical modes [15,24]. In this Table, 10 states with the largest participation factors (normalized with respect to their maximum) at HB point are sorted. For instance, state K + 3 of the model ESDC1A of bus 33 (which according to Table 7 of Appendix is exciter output EFD) has the largest participation factor in the critical modes

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

2635

in the both load scenarios. As seen, in spite of different load scenarios considered, the selected states except the last one are the same and only their rank and participation factor are somewhat different. Another interesting point can be seen from Table 2, where results of Table 1 are presented for the initial point of the load scenarios. As seen, 7 and 8 out of 10 states of Tables 1 and 2 are the same for the rst and second load scenarios, respectively, but with different ranks and participation factors (especially the rst one is the same). In other words, load level and load scenario (direction of loading) can change participation factors in the critical eigenvalues, but the main participating states are relatively constant. So, another dimension of nonlinearity is observed in the behavior of drivers of critical eigenvalues. 3.2. Generation scenario In all load scenarios of the previous subsection, generation of the slack bus (bus 39 in the New England test system) is increased accordingly to supply the required active load to obtain EP of the

Table 2 Participation factors for the initial point of the load scenarios Factor State Model ESDC1A GENROU GENROU ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU GENROU Bus 33 33 33 37 37 32 32 38 38 38

Load(18) = 150 + 30i or L = 1, initial point 1 K+3 0.627 K 0.439 K+2 0.301 K+3 0.259 K 0.190 K+3 0.152 K 0.142 K+3 0.115 K 0.089 K+3

power system (step 2 of the step by step algorithm). In supplying reactive load in the load ow solution, all generators participate based on their AVR (automatic voltage regulator) setting and reactive power limits. To obtain dynamic response of the system to the small perturbation (step 5 of the step by step algorithm) all generators participate according to their dynamic characteristics [19]. Eigenvalue locus when slack bus is changed to bus 32 and load of bus 8 is increased are shown in Fig. 7. Although in this examination, a different load scenario and more importantly a different generation scenario have been applied, but critical eigenvalues are the same. However, these eigenvalues show a different behavior here. In spite of Figs. 4 and 5, by increasing load in Fig. 7, the critical eigenvalues monotonically approaches the imaginary axis. So, DLM and SLM also change with variation of generation scenario as shown in Fig. 8. State variables owning the highest participation factors in the critical eigenvalues at HB point are shown in Table 3. Between results of Table 3 and two examinations of Table 1, 8 and 9 common states are seen, respectively, although both load and generation scenarios are changed. It is seen that the set of the most participating states in the critical modes have low sensitivity with respect to both load and generation scenarios, but their rank and especially participation factor may be changed. We examined other generation scenarios. In addition to changing the slack bus in the step by step algorithm, we also changed the framework. In the new framework, a set of step load increases are applied to the initial EP and response of the power system to the step changes is dynamically found by the time domain simulation without midway load ow solutions. In this framework, when dynamic response to a step change approximately reaches to EP, the next step is applied and this cycle is repeated until the HB point be found. In the previous works, PV curve is usually constructed by successive load ow solutions [3,712]. However, the new framework can be also seen in practice, where the PV curve is constructed by tracing EPs of the successive dynamic responses. For instance, Irans power network feeds large iron foundries owning

Fig. 7. Eigenvalue locus when bus 32 is slack bus.

2636

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

several furnaces (e.g. 10 65 MW). These furnaces are successively red with a small time difference among them imposing the set of step load changes to the power system. Obtained results for load scenario load(18) within this framework are shown in Fig. 9 and Table 4, like Fig. 7 and Table 3, respectively. It is noted that the same critical eigenvalues are seen in Fig. 9. Between Tables 3 and 4 (with different load and generation scenarios) 9 out of 10 states are common but with different ranks and participation factors. On the other hand, DLM in Fig. 9 is completely different from DLM in Fig. 4, although both have the same load scenario. Similar results (e.g. xed critical eigenvalues, relatively xed main participating states and variable DLM, SLM, and participation factors) were obtained in all examined generation scenarios.

3.3. Generator contingency

Fig. 8. PV curve for two different generation scenarios in response to load(8).

We discussed about different kinds of generator and branch contingencies in [1]. Eigenvalue locus for increasing load of bus 1

Table 3 Participation factors when bus 32 is slack bus (HB point) Factor State Model ESDC1A GENROU GENROU ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU Bus 33 33 33 37 37 38 36 38 32 36

Table 4 Participation factors in the new framework (HB point) Factor State Model ESDC1A ESDC1A ESDC1A ESDC1A ESDC1A GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU Bus 36 37 33 32 38 36 37 38 32 33

Load(8) = 900 + 300i, HB point 1 K+3 0.609 K 0.459 K+2 0.421 K+3 0.353 K 0.186 K+3 0.155 K+3 0.151 K 0.148 K+3 0.144 K

Load(18) = 854 + 170.8i, HB point 1 K+3 0.959 K+3 0.946 K+3 0.878 K+3 0.861 K+3 0.859 K 0.781 K 0.734 K 0.690 K 0.574 K+2

Fig. 9. Eigenvalue locus in the new framework.

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

2637

of IEEE68 test system is shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 11 shows this locus with the same load scenario when generator of bus 67, i.e. G15, is disconnected. As seen, although load scenario is the same, however the generator contingency changes critical modes (not seen in the

previous examinations) due to variation of dynamic characteristics of the power system. In other words, the DAE model of the system is changed. Participation factors at HB point of Figs. 10 and 11 are shown in Table 5. Only 4 out of 10 states are common between the

Fig. 10. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system without contingency.

Fig. 11. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system when G15 is disconnected.

2638

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

Table 5 Participation factors at HB point of Figs. 10 and 11 Without contingency (base case) Factor 1 0.995 0.937 0.936 0.761 0.758 0.286 0.285 0.249 0.178 State K+5 K+4 K+5 K+4 K+5 K+4 K+5 K+4 K K+3 Model GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU ESDC1A Bus 66 66 65 65 67 67 68 68 68 68 With generator contingency Factor 1 0.997 0.290 0.289 0.177 0.150 0.094 0.087 0.055 0.054 State K+5 K+4 K+5 K+4 K K+3 K K+3 K+5 K+4 Model GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU ESDC1A GENROU ESDC1A GENROU GENROU Bus 66 66 65 65 65 65 63 63 64 64

two cases (compare it with 9 common states between two cases of Table 1). Besides, larger differences among the participation factors of the two cases of Table 5 are also seen. By further comparing Tables 1 and 5, it is observed that the main participating states of the IEEE68 are mostly from the mechanical part equations of the generators (e.g. rotor angle and speed) while those of the New England are mostly from the exciters (e.g. exciter output EFD) or electrical part equations of the generators (e.g. Eq) [19] indicating different dynamic characteristics of these two test systems. 3.4. Branch contingency Fig. 12 shows Eigenvalue locus for IEEE68 when transmission line 4142 is disconnected. Considering Figs. 10 and 12 it can be seen that with the same load scenario, branch contingency changes the critical eigenvalues. Pair of critical eigenvalues of IEEE68 in the base case, i.e. Fig. 10, with the generator contingency, i.e. Fig. 11, and with the branch contingency, i.e. Fig. 12, are (87, 88), (76, 77), and (95, 96), respectively. It is noted that severe generator and branch contingencies are intentionally selected in the previous

and current examinations, respectively, to illustrate effect of these contingencies on critical eigenvalues. However this is not the case for all contingencies. For instance, if in this test system transmission line 147 be disconnected, the critical eigenvalues do not change. In other words, severe generator or branch contingencies can change the critical modes. Participation factors for the critical modes of Fig. 12 at HB point are shown in Table 6. Only 5 out of 10 states are common between Table 6 and the base case of Table 5. Large differences among the participation factors of these two cases are also seen. Comparing Figs. 1012 reveals that the generator contingency increases DLM but the branch contingency greatly decreases it. In the generator contingency a weak generator owning high participation factors in the critical modes (base case of Table 5) is eliminated, but in the branch contingency a main transmission line with signicant effect on the stability margin is disconnected [1]. In the mentioned examinations, results of the time domain simulation were in accordance with the modal analysis as indicated in the step 6 of the step by step algorithm. For instance, in the load scenario shown in Fig. 10, a small perturbation at load(1) =

Fig. 12. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system when transmission line 4142 is disconnected.

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641 Table 6 Participation factors at HB point of Fig. 12 Factor State Model GENROU GENROU GENROU ESDC1A GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU ESDC1A GENROU Bus 66 66 53 53 62 66 68 68 66 65

2639

Load(1) = 500 + 250i, HB point 1 K+5 0.986 K+4 0.065 K 0.052 K+3 0.043 K 0.037 K 0.034 K+5 0.033 K+4 0.030 K+3 0.029 K+5

Fig. 14. Response to a small perturbation in load of bus 1 of the IEEE68 test system with PSS at load(1) = 2440 + 1220i.

Fig. 13. Response to a small perturbation in load of bus 1 of the IEEE68 test system without PSS at load(1) = 2000 + 1000i (step change is applied at 5 s).

2000 + 1000i (i.e. slightly after the HB), is applied to load of bus 1. Variation of voltage of bus 1 in response to this perturbation is shown in Fig. 13, indicating emergence of the oscillatory instability. To enhance DLM of the power system, we placed four power system stabilizers (PSS) on the generator buses 65, 66, 67, and 68 of the IEEE68 test system. The applied stabilizers are speed sensitive units with ESTAB1 model, which its block diagram is presented in the Appendix and more details can be found in [24]. With the installed stabilizers, variation of voltage of bus 1 in response to the same perturbation at load(1) = 2440 + 1220i (considerably larger load level) is shown in Fig. 14. In spite of Fig. 13, the oscillations are well damped here. Indeed, with the mentioned stabilizers, DLM of the power system was increased from 1966 + 983i (HB in Fig. 10) to 2470 + 1235i. The PSS can shift the critical eigenvalues toward the left hand side of the complex plane and so can increase DLM. In some cases, by adjustment of PSS parameters, we can even increase DLM of the power system up to its SLM (HB is eliminated). However, Fig. 14 shows that the SLM does not change with addition of PSS. Small-disturbance (or small-signal) rotor angle stability is concerned with the ability of the power system to maintain synchronism under small disturbances. Instability that may result can be of two forms: (i) increase in rotor angle through a nonoscillatory or aperiodic mode due to lack of synchronizing torque, or (ii) rotor oscillations of increasing amplitude due to lack of sufcient damping torque. However, in todays power systems, small-disturbance rotor angle stability problem is usually associated with insufcient

damping of oscillations [4]. Some researchers work on the PSS and its parameter tuning to enhance the angle stability [20,25]. On the other hand, small-disturbance voltage stability refers to the systems ability to maintain steady voltages when subjected to small perturbations such as incremental changes in system load [4]. By comparing Figs. 13 and 14, effectiveness of PSS for improving small disturbance voltage stability is also seen, which is another consequence of this paper. In the previously mentioned examinations, the load buses have constant power load model. As a comparison, PV curve and eigenvalue locus of the New England test system with constant impedance model for the load buses are shown in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively. The same load and generation scenarios of Fig. 4 are considered here. However, no HB or oscillatory instability is observed in this case. Eigenvalue locus in Fig. 16 conrms this result. Although some eigenvalues approach to the imaginary axis, but do not cross it. In spite of Fig. 4, there is no dominant eigenvalue here. Besides, it can be seen that the trace of SEPs continues after the nose point to the lower part of the PV curve until no EP can be found. However, EPs on the lower curve are typically not viable, mostly because of too low bus voltage for operation. A system

Fig. 15. PV curve of the New England test system with constant impedance load model.

2640

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

Fig. 16. Eigenvalue locus of the New England test system with constant impedance load model.

Table 7 State variables of the dynamic models GENROU and ESDC1A GENROU model for generators States K K+1 K+2 K+3 K+4 K+5 Description E0q E0d WKd Wkq D Speed Angle ESDC1A model for excitation system States K K+1 K+2 K+3 K+4 Description Sensed VT Lead lag Regulator output VR Exciter output EFD Rate feedback integrator

4. Conclusion In this paper a more deeper evaluation of the small disturbance voltage stability, an important subset of power system global stability, is presented by a combination of static, dynamic, linear and nonlinear analysis tools. Effect of load and generation scenarios, and generator and branch contingencies on the critical eigenvalues and dynamic and static stability margins are evaluated. The ill-condition and well-condition behaviors of this stability are introduced. Especially, we found more nonlinear behaviors of the stability than previous works. Besides, drivers of the small disturbance voltage stability and their sensitivities with respect to power system states under various conditions are presented and discussed. Effect of PSS to enhance DLM of this stability is also shown. Important conclusions are drawn giving a better insight to both operators and planners of the power system about small disturbance voltage stability. The research work is under way in order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the stability boundaries with more dynamic models (e.g. dynamic load). Besides, assessment of small disturbance voltage and angle stabilities in a unied framework can be considered as a matter of the future research.

break up by selective protection will follow. Similar results have been obtained for constant current load model. Numerical results of this paper have been obtained by the software package PSS/E 25.4, product of PTI company. Although results of this paper are presented for the IEEE test systems, however we frequently observed occurrence of HB and SNB in practice. For instance, voltage swings and even occurrence of oscillatory instability is the major concern in the southern part of Irans power system network [14].

Fig. 17. Block diagram of the ESTAB1 model for PSS.

N. Amjady, M.R. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 26292641

2641

List of symbols p parameters of system conguration and operation condition x dynamic state variables (slow modes) y instantaneous variables (fast modes) Ju unreduced Jacobian partial derivative of vector f with respect to vector x fx Jr reduced Jacobian gy algebraic Jacobian

Appendix In our time domain simulation, the generator is modeled by 6th order differential equations (GENROU model). Model of the excitation systems is IEEE type DC1 (ESDC1A). State variables of the dynamic models GENROU and ESDC1A are represented in Table 7. Block diagram of the ESTAB1 model for PSS is shown in Fig. 17. More details can be found in [24]. References
[1] Amjady N, Esmaili M. Application of a new sensitivity analysis framework for voltage contingency ranking. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;20:97383. [2] Repo S. On-linevoltage stability assessment ofpower systems an approach of black box modeling. Tampere University of Technology Publications 344; 2001. [3] Amjady N, Esmaili M. Voltage security assessment and vulnerable bus ranking of power systems. Electric Power Syst Res 2003;64:22737. [4] Kundur P, Paserba J, Ajjarapu V, Anderson G, Bose A, Canizares C. Denition and classication of power system stability. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004;19: 1387401. [5] Cutsem TV, Vournas C. Voltage stability of electric power systems. Boston/ USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998. [6] Kundur P. Power system stability and control. The EPRI power system engineering series. McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1994. [7] Amjady N, Esmaili M. Improving voltage security assessment and ranking vulnerable bus with consideration of power system limits. Int J Elect Power Energy Syst 2003;25:70515.

[8] Conejo AJ, Milano F, Bertrand RG. Congestion management ensuring voltage stability. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;21:35764. [9] Zarate LAL, Castro CA, Ramos JLM, Ramos ER. Fast computation of voltage stability security margins using nonlinear programming techniques. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006;21:1927. [10] Yorino N, Li HQ, Harada S, Ohta A, Sasaki H. A method of voltage stability evaluation for branch and generator outage contingencies. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004;19:2529. [11] Mithulananthan N, Canizares CA, Reeve J. Indices to detect Hopf bifurcations in power systems. In: Proc of NAPS, vol. 1; 2000. p. 1523. [12] Kodsi SKM, Canizares CA. Modeling and simulation of IEEE 14bus system with facts controllers. Technical Report 2003 3, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 2003. [13] Chen H, Wang Y, Zhou R. Transient and voltage stability enhancement via coordinated excitation and UPFC control. IEE Proc Gener Transm Distrib 2001;148:2018. [14] Amjady N. A framework of reliability assessment with consideration effect of transient and voltage stabilities. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004;19:100514. [15] Nam HK, Kim YK, Shim KS, Lee KY. A new Eigen-sensitivity theory of augmented matrix and its applications to power system stability analysis. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2000;15:3639. [16] Huang GM, Zhao L, Song X. A new bifurcation analysis for power system dynamic voltage stability studies. In: Proc IEEE power eng. soc winter meeting, vol. 2; 2002. p. 8827. [17] Sauer PW, Pai MA. Power system dynamics and stability. NJ/USA: PrenticeHall; 1998. [18] Marszalek W, Trzaska ZW. Singularity-induced bifurcations in electrical power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2005;20:31220. [19] Amjady N. Dynamic voltage security assessment by a neural network based method. Electric Power Syst Res 2003;66:21526. [20] Hongesombut K, Mitani Y Tsuji K. Power system stabilizer tuning in multimachine power system based on a minimum phase control loop method and genetic algorithm. In: 14th PSCC, Sevilla, vol. 1; 2002. p. 17. [21] Pai MA. Energy function analysis for power system stability. Boston/ USA: Kluwer; 1989. [22] http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/. [23] Zambroni AC. Identifying a vanishing eigenvalue in voltage collapse analysis with consideration of limits. Proc Inst Elect Eng Gen Trans Distrib 2001;148: 2637. [24] PSS/E 25.4 Program application guide vol. II. Power Technologies, Inc., USA; 1997. [25] Milanovic JV, Serrano Duque AC. Identication of electromechanical modes and placement of PSSs using relative gain array. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004;19:4107.