Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641

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 flow, 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. Ó 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 significant 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 classification 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 Ó 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 profile suddenly in a major part of the power system [2]. Voltage stability can be further classified to small disturbance, large disturbance, short term, and long term categories [2]. Small disturbance voltage stability considers the power system’s ability to control voltages after small disturbances, e.g. changes in load [6]. Large-disturbance voltage stability refers to the system’s 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

generation scenario. in this work. is shown. this is similar to analysis of rotor angle stability [4].e. which is typically correlated with the lack of power flow solutions. composed of static. Then. Then. associated with saddle node bifurcation. This linearization. This approach provides the most accurate response of the actual dynamics of voltage instability when appropriate modeling is included [2]. each of these 1 For interpretation of color in Fig. the stability of the power system cannot be fully guaranteed with steady state studies. and is quite often associated with the voltage collapse in power systems. the voltage stability margin obtained by the dynamic method can be considerably less than that of the static method. Saddlenode and limit-induced bifurcations basically consist of loss of system equilibrium.3. Hopf bifurcation [11]. . at first. emergence of oscillatory instability or Hopf bifurcation in response to the perturbation is detected. i. system equations can be linearized for analysis thereby allowing computation of valuable sensitivity information useful in identifying factors influencing stability. The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows. Sample execution of the proposed method in the form of PV curve for the IEEE 16-machine. Therefore. detailed numerical results for New England and IEEE68 test systems are presented and discussed. SLM is the maximum loading level beyond which steady state solutions cannot be obtained for the system [12]. drivers of small disturbance voltage stability and their sensitivities with respect to various system variables are presented. Even we adopted this procedure in our some previous works [3.7]. 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. but the use of steady state analysis tools can provide useful information about it. which can determine actual dynamic status of small disturbance voltage stability. However.2630 N. M. an execution of the proposed method for IEEE 16machine. the lack of steady state solutions are due to system controls reaching limits (e. In Section 2. Saddle node bifurcation for constant power loads usually appears on the nose of the PV curves. The long term dynamics such as response of power plant controls. is at the end of green curve. So.7]. power system has EPs obtained by the steady state analysis. Steady state voltage stability studies investigate long term voltage stability [2]. In this figure Hopf bifurcation point (at the end of blue1 curve). boiler dynamics and automatic generation control also affect long term voltage stability [5]. In dynamic analysis the transition itself is of interest and it checks that the transition will lead to an acceptable operating condition. to evaluate this problem is introduced. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 system differential equations. a combination of linear and nonlinear analyzes is used in a complementary manner. Between DLM and SLM on the green curve. 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. This paper focuses on the small disturbance voltage stability. our analysis method proceeds by one step ahead. However. Besides. In Section 3 or the main section of the paper. which is another contribution of this paper. we found more nonlinear behaviors of the stability than those mentioned in the previous works. controllers and loads. and time delays) [4]. Especially. At each point of the continuation curve (e. how the system voltages will respond to small system changes. The main contribution of this paper is analysis of various aspects of small disturbance voltage stability. Effect of load scenario. at any instant. The dynamics of the long term time scale last for several minutes. Amjady. The advantage of using algebraic equations compared to differential equations of dynamic studies is the computation speed.e. The time domain simulations capture the events and chronology leading to voltage instability. Important conclusions based on the results for this kind of stability are derived. Considering the above explanations. when the voltage instability occurs in the transient period of disturbance. indicating DLM. generator contingency and branch contingency on the status of this stability is evaluated and its illcondition and well-condition behaviors are introduced. whereas in the case of limit-induced bifurcations. this kind of stability is also influenced by the dynamic characteristics of the system such as those of generators. If in a point of the continuation curve. characteristics of small disturbance voltage stability problem are described. the post disturbance equilibrium point of the power system (with incremented load) is determined by the load flow equations. however. On the other hand. a singularity of a system Jacobian and/or state matrix results in the disappearance of such static solutions. voltage stability is dynamically lost at that point (DLM). The small disturbance voltage stability is a dynamic phenomenon by nature.8–10]. SLM. The proposed method Limitations of steady state power system studies (algebraic equations) are associated with stability of nonlinear dynamic systems. previous works proposed static analysis tools (like power flow based methods) to solve small disturbance voltage stability [2. 1. Besides. the proposed method. PV curve). 1. i. 2. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. For instance. Then a small perturbation in the form of load increment is applied to the equilibrium point (EP) of the power system. cannot account for nonlinear effects such as tap changer controls (deadbands. the steady state conditions of the power system are analyzed by the load flow equations. linear and nonlinear analysis tools. 1. Fig. 68-bus test system is shown in Fig.R. In the case of saddle-node bifurcations. Especially. This concept is useful in determining. 68-bus test system. a combination of static and dynamic analyzes based on the voltage continuation curve is proposed for small disturbance voltage stability evaluation. which is a major concern of today power systems [2. Response of the system to this perturbation is found by the dynamic simulation. discrete tap steps. A brief review of the paper and the future research are in Section 4. With appropriate assumptions. delayed corrective control actions such as shunt compensation switching or load shedding. dynamic. we consider a combination of static and dynamic analysis tools in our evaluation. However.g. generator reactive power limits) [11]. In steady state voltage stability studies based on the load flow equations it is assumed that all dynamics are died out and all controllers have done their duty.g.

Bifurcation theory assumes that power system parameters vary slowly and predicts how a power system becomes unstable. is changed at once (which is also the case considered here).y. Amjady. When one EP passes through the boundary. Voltage stability is a nonlinear phenomenon. The obtained Jacobian matrix describes the linear system which best approximates the nonlinear equations close to the equilibrium. and generation pattern. At this point. e. Bifurcation points where change from stable to unstable occurs. Bifurcation analysis deals with the problem of loss of stability of a nonlinear dynamic system under changing parameter values [13]. At this point the reduced Jacobian has a zero eigenvalue. 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. representing unstable equilibrium point (UEP). 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. The instantaneous variables y (fast modes) satisfies algebraic constraints (2). form reduced Jacobian matrix and analyze the eigenvalues at each EP [16. a better viewpoint for this matter can be presented based on the eigenvalue analysis. indicating where the parameter p defines specific system configurations and operation conditions. Now. which is defined by a scheduled system operating strategy. We discussed about the bifurcation points from the viewpoint of static and dynamic analyzes. The dynamic state variables x (slow modes). we use from bifurcation theory to study the actual behavior of the system. 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]. valuable sensitivity information useful in identifying factors influencing small disturbance voltage stability can be obtained by linearization of the system at the equilibrium point [4]. (6) If emergence of oscillatory instability or Hopf bifurcation in the dynamic response is detected. For fixed values of p parameters. (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 predefined security assessment scenario. load pattern (consist of load level and distribution). For a structural stability problem. there are three different kinds of bifurcation points.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]. from stationary to oscillatory. such as power flow equations. the other components of Ju are partial Jacobians. more significant ones described above. which determine the base case conditions or initial point of the continuation curve.N. load demand. More details about the above DAE model can be found in [1. Saddle-node bifurcation (SNB) point is where two EPs coalesce and then disappear. Now the proposed analysis method can be summarized as the following step by step algorithm: (1) Define the set of parameters p including power system configuration. describe the generation dynamics of power systems. which is called ‘‘singularity induced infinity”. These three bifurcation sets usually are the boundary of the feasible region of the DAE model (1) and (2) [13. in which case there is a possibility to achieve either saddle node or Hopf bifurcation. by means of linearization. such as exciter control systems. solve and trace the EP along the path (i. (3) Form reduced Jacobian at the EP and calculate its eigenvalues. this transition of eigenvalues does not impact the stability properties of a power system. Ju ¼ ¼ Ju ð5Þ gx gy Dy 0 where Ju is called the unreduced Jacobian. 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]. The change of parameters moves the system slowly from one equilibrium to another until it reaches the collapse point [5]. Similarly.g. or from order to chaos. Then. but is usually a prelude to other bifurcations. gy becomes singular. defined by (1). 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. etc.y. voltage setting points. or augmented system state matrix [14–16]. p 2 P  Rq ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ an EP of the DAE model for a given p depends on the eigenvalues of the reduced Jacobian matrix Jr [17]. we know that the inverse of gy will become infinity. Matrix fx is the partial Jacobian.14]. However. two complex conjugate eigenvalues of reduced Jacobian cross the imaginary axis. For a better illustration of the performance of the method we begin with the dynamic model of the voltage stability problem. M. Assuming gy is nonsingular. the partial derivative of vector f with respect to vector x. For instance.pÞ ¼ 0 To determine the stability margin of the EP. voltage stability is dynamically lost at that point.y.pÞ . respectively [18]. 1.pÞ ¼ 0 _ ¼0) x ð4Þ g ðx. are the most interesting points in voltage stability studies.y. The stability of . which is implicitly assumed to have an instantaneously converging transient. an EP is a solution of the system: ( fðx. Hopf bifurcation (HB) point is where there is an emergence of oscillatory instability. At singularity induced bifurcation (SIB) point.17]. generation. controller limits (such as reactive power limits of the generators) and on-load tap changers (OLTC) are considered. the above model can be represented as " #     _ fx fy Dx Dx . which can be presented in the form of parameter dependent differential algebraic equations (DAE) [14]: _ x ¼ fðx. EPs before Hopf bifurcation are stable equilibrium points (SEP).17]. Through tracing the eigenvalues of matrix Jr. (2) Determine EP by the load flow solution. 0 ¼ g ðx. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 2631 EPs will be lost by a small perturbation. x 2 X  Rn . the system will lose its stability [5. Through (6). (5) Determine dynamic response of the power system to the step change by time domain simulation. If no solution can be found. which indicates DLM.pÞ . There are two steps involved to identify the dynamic stability of the power system as the parameter p slowly changes. Evaluate occurrence of HB or SNB based on the behavior of eigenvalues. augmented Jacobian.16]. such as loads. First.g.R. Fig.e. In obtaining this solution. In [5] it has been mentioned that usually one parameter. f : Rnþmþq ! Rn g : Rnþmþq ! Rm y 2 Y  Rm . where it is not easy to compute and analyze the stability of the system. e. saddle node or limit induced bifurcation. Besides. we can study the local dynamic stability of the power system [6. the continuation curve. as discussed in the previous paragraphs). (7) Determine post-disturbance EP (with changed load and generation patterns) as described in step 2. However. (5) can be reduced to ordinary state space equations by eliminating Dy: _ Dx ¼ ½fx À fy g À1 g x ŠDx ¼ J r Dx y ð6Þ where Jr is called reduced Jacobian or reduced system matrix. gy is called algebraic Jacobian or static Jacobian [14–16].

3.20]. where their data can be found in [21. and the stability of the system will change [16]. We evaluate effect of load and generation scenarios. respectively.2632 N. So. Dynamic models of these test systems are as described in Appendix. 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. 2 and 3. and generator and branch contingencies on different aspects of small disturbance voltage stability by the proposed method. At SIB. Single line diagram of the New England test system. Numerical results We examined the proposed method (the step by step algorithm) on the IEEE14.g.22]. the above algorithm mainly focus on the HB and SNB.g.R. determinant of Jr also goes to infinity. At the SIB point. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 SLM. As seen.e. Sample Fig. 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). 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. e. Occurrence of saddle node bifurcation should be also detected by the eigenvalue analysis. Amjady. 3.18. only one eigenvalue changes the sign. New England and IEEE68 test systems. 1). Fig. Single line diagram of IEEE68 bus test system. sample results for the other load models. Similar results have been obtained for the other ones. IEEE30.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]. Fig. At singular point.y. i. frequently considered in the voltage stability studies [9–12. has been occurred. (8) The procedure described from step 2 to step 7 is repeated until both DLM and SLM be found (e. New England and IEEE68 test systems are presented. respectively. group of buses and all buses. are also presented for comparison. M. constant current and constant impedance. the constant power load usually create the most stress in the system. at least one eigenvalue of reduced Jacobian matrix Jr will change from negative infinity to positive infinity.1. 2. For the sake of conciseness only the results of the larger ones. in the unreduced Jacobian matrix Ju. However. different load models have been evaluated and it is concluded that from the voltage stability viewpoint. 3. Load scenario We examined many load scenarios including increasing load of a single bus. In [12].

the critical eigenvalues (indicated by the arrows) appear after three other ones. some interesting results can be also seen. indicated by load(18). In Figs. For a better illustration of this matter. but the velocity by which these eigenvalues approach to the imaginary axis are dependent on the load scenario. where load of a single bus 8 and a single bus 23 has been separately increased. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 2633 results for the New England test system are shown in Figs.N. 6. Dominant or critical eigenvalue(s) can be a single real one or a pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues.0]. 4 and 5. 4. By increasing load(18). 4. 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. Here. where the dominant eigenvalues in the current operating point may be different from the critical ones. locus of eigenvalues of the reduced Jacobian Jr close to imaginary axis. DLM and SLM of the power system are sensitive to the load scenario. 4 and 5 owning completely different load scenarios.R. Indeed the same critical eigenvalues were observed in all various examined load scenarios. 4. instead of monotonically approaching the imaginary axis. respectively. A similar situation is seen in Fig. By further increasing load(18). . 5. For instance. Fig. 5. they goes farther at first and then rapidly return and cross the imaginary axis. another aspect of nonlinearity can be seen in the behavior of critical eigenvalues. 4. and all buses are increased. In spite of these nonlinear behaviors. Besides. L is the load growth factor of all buses. The critical eigenvalues are the same in Figs. in the first two parts of Fig. However.23]. where load of a single bus 18. M. PV curve for two different load scenarios are shown in Fig. are shown. In Fig. we mean the closest one(s) to the imaginary axis in the complex plane. respectively. in the range [À1. By increasing load(18) or L. a similar situation is seen for the reduced Jacobian Jr where the closest eigenvalues to the imaginary axis are changed by the load variation. indicated in the fifth and sixth parts of Fig. the critical eigenvalues appear in the second place after only one eigenvalue in the third and fourth parts of Fig. which are the best candidate(s) for HB in that operating point. Although the critical eigenvalues are fixed with respect to load scenario. cross the imaginary axis and cause HB. Critical eigenvalues are those which finally cross the imaginary axis and cause HB. Amjady. resulting in different DLMs and SLMs. the critical eigenvalues proceed the first one. i.e. Eigenvalue locus for increasing load of bus 18 in the New England test system. 4 and 5. It is noted that from the dominant eigenvalue(s) in the current operating point.

717 0. 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 .556 0.559 0. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 Fig.806 0.473 0.2634 N.636 0.608 0. The participation factors represent contribution of each state of the power system in the critical modes [15.627 0. Table 1 Participation factors for load scenarios of Figs.603 0.25233. participation factors for examinations of Figs. HB point Factor 1 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. For instance. 4 and 5 (HB point) Load(18) = 1540 + 308i.917 0. Parameters of this table are described in Appendix. PV curve for two load scenarios in the New England test system.678 0.559 0. In Table 1. 10 states with the largest participation factors (normalized with respect to their maximum) at HB point are sorted. Eigenvalue locus for increasing load of all buses in the New England test system. Amjady.717 0. In this Table. 5. respectively. HB point Factor 1 0. 4 and 5 are shown in columns 1 and 5. M.475 0.R.24]. 6.757 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 = 1.518 0.

we also changed the framework. Although in this examination. the next step is applied and this cycle is repeated until the HB point be found. M.2. but their rank and especially participation factor may be changed. all generators participate based on their AVR (automatic voltage regulator) setting and reactive power limits. In the previous works.142 K+3 0. 4 and 5. 7. 7. where the PV curve is constructed by tracing EPs of the successive dynamic responses. by increasing load in Fig. In supplying reactive load in the load flow solution. initial point 1 K+3 0.301 K+3 0. For instance. So. a different load scenario and more importantly a different generation scenario have been applied. Amjady. PV curve is usually constructed by successive load flow solutions [3.089 K+3 power system (step 2 of the step by step algorithm). So. In addition to changing the slack bus in the step by step algorithm.152 K 0. Between results of Table 3 and two examinations of Table 1. 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]. 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.439 K+2 0. As seen. the selected states except the last one are the same and only their rank and participation factor are somewhat different. We examined other generation scenarios. 7. 7 and 8 out of 10 states of Tables 1 and 2 are the same for the first and second load scenarios.R. in spite of different load scenarios considered. DLM and SLM also change with variation of generation scenario as shown in Fig. but with different ranks and participation factors (especially the first one is the same). Generation scenario In all load scenarios of the previous subsection. respectively. However. As seen. the new framework can be also seen in practice. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 2635 in the both load scenarios. load level and load scenario (direction of loading) can change participation factors in the critical eigenvalues.115 K 0. Another interesting point can be seen from Table 2. although both load and generation scenarios are changed. However. 8. the critical eigenvalues monotonically approaches the imaginary axis. 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 flow solutions. In spite of Figs. In the new framework. State variables owning the highest participation factors in the critical eigenvalues at HB point are shown in Table 3.190 K+3 0. 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. .7–12]. In other words. Iran’s power network feeds large iron foundries owning Fig.N. Eigenvalue locus when slack bus is changed to bus 32 and load of bus 8 is increased are shown in Fig. where results of Table 1 are presented for the initial point of the load scenarios. when dynamic response to a step change approximately reaches to EP.627 K 0. respectively. Eigenvalue locus when bus 32 is slack bus. another dimension of nonlinearity is observed in the behavior of drivers of critical eigenvalues. 8 and 9 common states are seen. In this framework. but the main participating states are relatively constant.259 K 0. 3. but critical eigenvalues are the same. these eigenvalues show a different behavior here.

7 and Table 3.2636 N.R. relatively fixed main participating states and variable DLM. 9.859 K 0.353 K 0. HB point 1 K+3 0.690 K 0. fixed critical eigenvalues. It is noted that the same critical eigenvalues are seen in Fig. Eigenvalue locus in the new framework.144 K Load(18) = 854 + 170.959 K+3 0. .459 K+2 0.g. SLM. 8. 4.878 K+3 0. like Fig. respectively. 9 and Table 4. We discussed about different kinds of generator and branch contingencies in [1]. 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.155 K+3 0. M.734 K 0.g.781 K 0. On the other hand. 3. Amjady. Obtained results for load scenario load(18) within this framework are shown in Fig.151 K 0. Generator contingency Fig. 9 is completely different from DLM in Fig. 10 Â 65 MW). 9.8i.609 K 0. DLM in Fig.148 K+3 0.946 K+3 0. These furnaces are successively fired with a small time difference among them imposing the set of step load changes to the power system. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 several furnaces (e.421 K+3 0. HB point 1 K+3 0. Similar results (e. and participation factors) were obtained in all examined generation scenarios. although both have the same load scenario. 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. PV curve for two different generation scenarios in response to load(8).3.861 K+3 0.186 K+3 0.574 K+2 Fig.

the DAE model of the system is changed. Fig. Participation factors at HB point of Figs. Fig. Only 4 out of 10 states are common between the Fig. 11. M. 10 and 11 are shown in Table 5. 11 shows this locus with the same load scenario when generator of bus 67. is disconnected. As seen. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 2637 of IEEE68 test system is shown in Fig.e. G15. . Amjady. however the generator contingency changes critical modes (not seen in the previous examinations) due to variation of dynamic characteristics of the power system. 10.R. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system when G15 is disconnected. 10.N. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system without contingency. In other words. i. although load scenario is the same.

4. Comparing Figs. For instance.2638 N.g. 88).R.094 0.e. 3.290 0. In the generator contingency a weak generator owning high participation factors in the critical modes (base case of Table 5) is eliminated.177 0. with the generator contingency. but in the branch contingency a main transmission line with significant effect on the stability margin is disconnected [1]. 12 at HB point are shown in Table 6. severe generator or branch contingencies can change the critical modes.289 0. it is observed that the main participating states of the IEEE68 are mostly from the mechanical part equations of the generators (e. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 Table 5 Participation factors at HB point of Figs. Large differences among the participation factors of these two cases are also seen.758 0. in the load scenario shown in Fig. i.995 0. and (95. Participation factors for the critical modes of Fig. 12 shows Eigenvalue locus for IEEE68 when transmission line 41–42 is disconnected. Amjady. (76. 10–12 reveals that the generator contingency increases DLM but the branch contingency greatly decreases it. Besides. larger differences among the participation factors of the two cases of Table 5 are also seen. 11. if in this test system transmission line 1–47 be disconnected.285 0. 96). are (87. to illustrate effect of these contingencies on critical eigenvalues.997 0.e. In other words.g. Branch contingency Fig. i. a small perturbation at load(1) = Fig. In the mentioned examinations. M. However this is not the case for all contingencies. i. the critical eigenvalues do not change. For instance. respectively. exciter output EFD) or electrical part equations of the generators (e.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).937 0. Only 5 out of 10 states are common between Table 6 and the base case of Table 5. 10. Fig.761 0. 10.055 0. and with the branch contingency.g. 12. 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. respectively. 10 and 12 it can be seen that with the same load scenario.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. Considering Figs. Fig.936 0. Pair of critical eigenvalues of IEEE68 in the base case.087 0. Eq) [19] indicating different dynamic characteristics of these two test systems. .e. By further comparing Tables 1 and 5. 77). 12. 10 and 11 Without contingency (base case) Factor 1 0. Eigenvalue locus for the IEEE68 test system when transmission line 41–42 is disconnected.150 0. rotor angle and speed) while those of the New England are mostly from the exciters (e.249 0. Fig. branch contingency changes the critical eigenvalues.286 0. It is noted that severe generator and branch contingencies are intentionally selected in the previous and current examinations.

67. which its block diagram is presented in the Appendix and more details can be found in [24]. Response to a small perturbation in load of bus 1 of the IEEE68 test system with PSS at load(1) = 2440 + 1220i. small-disturbance voltage stability refers to the system’s ability to maintain steady voltages when subjected to small perturbations such as incremental changes in system load [4].065 K 0.25]. By comparing Figs. no HB or oscillatory instability is observed in this case.033 K+4 0. 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. Fig. The PSS can shift the critical eigenvalues toward the left hand side of the complex plane and so can increase DLM. Some researchers work on the PSS and its parameter tuning to enhance the angle stability [20. However.052 K+3 0. Amjady. In some cases. As a comparison. 13. EPs on the lower curve are typically not viable. The applied stabilizers are speed sensitive units with ESTAB1 model. in today’s power systems. Small-disturbance (or small-signal) rotor angle stability is concerned with the ability of the power system to maintain synchronism under small disturbances. DLM of the power system was increased from 1966 + 983i (HB in Fig. respectively.029 K+5 Fig. In spite of Fig.e. To enhance DLM of the power system.043 K 0. In spite of Fig. 4 are considered here.R. A system Fig. The same load and generation scenarios of Fig. 2000 + 1000i (i. Fig. 14.986 K+4 0.030 K+3 0. . Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 Table 6 Participation factors at HB point of Fig. 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). 10) to 2470 + 1235i. 15 and 16. Indeed. In the previously mentioned examinations. Although some eigenvalues approach to the imaginary axis. 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. we can even increase DLM of the power system up to its SLM (HB is eliminated). Variation of voltage of bus 1 in response to this perturbation is shown in Fig. small-disturbance rotor angle stability problem is usually associated with insufficient damping of oscillations [4]. and 68 of the IEEE68 test system. 13 and 14. effectiveness of PSS for improving small disturbance voltage stability is also seen. On the other hand. 15. is applied to load of bus 1. However. 16 confirms this result.034 K+5 0. 13. 66. 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. by adjustment of PSS parameters. with the mentioned stabilizers. mostly because of too low bus voltage for operation. PV curve and eigenvalue locus of the New England test system with constant impedance model for the load buses are shown in Figs. Besides. 4. indicating emergence of the oscillatory instability. but do not cross it. 14. 13. However. slightly after the HB). or (ii) rotor oscillations of increasing amplitude due to lack of sufficient damping torque. 14 shows that the SLM does not change with addition of PSS. the load buses have constant power load model. M. we placed four power system stabilizers (PSS) on the generator buses 65. there is no dominant eigenvalue here. 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. With the installed stabilizers. PV curve of the New England test system with constant impedance load model. HB point 1 K+5 0. the oscillations are well damped here. Eigenvalue locus in Fig.037 K 0. which is another consequence of this paper.N.

Although results of this paper are presented for the IEEE test systems. Especially. For instance. Similar results have been obtained for constant current load model.R. Effect of PSS to enhance DLM of this stability is also shown. dynamic. Important conclusions are drawn giving a better insight to both operators and planners of the power system about small disturbance voltage stability. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 Fig. voltage swings and even occurrence of oscillatory instability is the major concern in the southern part of Iran’s power system network [14]. M. Eigenvalue locus of the New England test system with constant impedance load model. assessment of small disturbance voltage and angle stabilities in a unified framework can be considered as a matter of the future research. The ill-condition and well-condition behaviors of this stability are introduced.4.g. Besides. break up by selective protection will follow. Conclusion In this paper a more deeper evaluation of the small disturbance voltage stability. an important subset of power system global stability. linear and nonlinear analysis tools. we found more nonlinear behaviors of the stability than previous works. Effect of load and generation scenarios. 16. Amjady. Fig. Numerical results of this paper have been obtained by the software package PSS/E 25. 17. drivers of the small disturbance voltage stability and their sensitivities with respect to power system states under various conditions are presented and discussed. The research work is under way in order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the stability boundaries with more dynamic models (e. is presented by a combination of static.2640 N. 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. dynamic load). Block diagram of the ESTAB1 model for PSS. Besides. and generator and branch contingencies on the critical eigenvalues and dynamic and static stability margins are evaluated. . product of PTI company. however we frequently observed occurrence of HB and SNB in practice.

Dynamic voltage security assessment by a neural network based method. Serrano Duque AC. ON. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2005. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004. More details can be found in [24]. Congestion management ensuring voltage stability. [14] Amjady N. [11] Mithulananthan N. Li HQ. Modeling and simulation of IEEE 14bus system with facts controllers. Definition and classification of power system stability. Sasaki H. A new Eigen-sensitivity theory of augmented matrix and its applications to power system stability analysis. Canizares C. NJ/USA: PrenticeHall. A new bifurcation analysis for power system dynamic voltage stability studies. the generator is modeled by 6th order differential equations (GENROU model). State variables of the dynamic models GENROU and ESDC1A are represented in Table 7. Ansari / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2629–2641 2641 List of symbols p parameters of system configuration 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.20:312–20. Vournas C. Trzaska ZW. [13] Chen H.washington. Proc Inst Elect Eng Gen Trans Distrib 2001. USA. Reeve J. 2002. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006. Zhao L. Inc.148:201–8. Harada S. Esmaili M.ee. Identification of electromechanical modes and placement of PSSs using relative gain array. 2002.21:19–27.21:357–64. [16] Huang GM. . IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004. 2003. Canizares CA.148: 263–7. Electric Power Syst Res 2003. A method of voltage stability evaluation for branch and generator outage contingencies. Technical Report 2003 – 3. References [1] Amjady N. vol. A framework of reliability assessment with consideration effect of transient and voltage stabilities. Int J Elect Power Energy Syst 2003. [12] Kodsi SKM. Canizares CA.edu/research/pstca/. [3] Amjady N.19:1005–14. 15–23.25:705–15. Milano F. Application of a new sensitivity analysis framework for voltage contingency ranking.. Ajjarapu V. Amjady. Energy function analysis for power system stability. [2] Repo S. Pai MA. Improving voltage security assessment and ranking vulnerable bus with consideration of power system limits.20:973–83.R. In: 14th PSCC. [22] http://www. 1. Boston/ USA: Kluwer. [19] Amjady N. Singularity-induced bifurcations in electrical power systems.4 Program application guide – vol. [8] Conejo AJ. II. Power Technologies. [20] Hongesombut K. Transient and voltage stability enhancement via coordinated excitation and UPFC control. [21] Pai MA. University of Waterloo. 1998. 17. 1994. Boston/ USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fast computation of voltage stability security margins using nonlinear programming techniques. Paserba J. [10] Yorino N. Canada. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2000. 1989.64:227–37. In: Proc of NAPS. Zhou R. 2000. McGraw-Hill.19: 1387–401. [25] Milanovic JV. 1–7. 1. 1998. Tampere University of Technology Publications 344. Esmaili M.19:252–9. Identifying a vanishing eigenvalue in voltage collapse analysis with consideration of limits. Kim YK. Mitani Y Tsuji K. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006. p. 2001. Voltage stability of electric power systems. [15] Nam HK. [18] Marszalek W.66:215–26.19:410–7.15:363–9. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004. [4] Kundur P. Song X. Bose A.. [17] Sauer PW. [6] Kundur P. M. [24] PSS/E 25. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2006. IEE Proc Gener Transm Distrib 2001. Power system stabilizer tuning in multimachine power system based on a minimum phase control loop method and genetic algorithm. Waterloo. Power system dynamics and stability. Lee KY. 2.N. p. Ramos JLM. soc winter meeting. Electric Power Syst Res 2003. Bertrand RG. Anderson G. Wang Y. Sevilla. Shim KS. 1997. vol. [23] Zambroni AC. Ramos ER. Ohta A. [7] Amjady N. [5] Cutsem TV. p. 882–7. [9] Zarate LAL. Esmaili M. The EPRI power system engineering series. Indices to detect Hopf bifurcations in power systems. On-linevoltage stability assessment ofpower systems – an approach of black box modeling. vol. Inc. Block diagram of the ESTAB1 model for PSS is shown in Fig. In: Proc IEEE power eng. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2004. Model of the excitation systems is IEEE type DC1 (ESDC1A). Power system stability and control. Voltage security assessment and vulnerable bus ranking of power systems. Castro CA.