You are on page 1of 9

Transient stability margin prediction using equal-area criterion

Y. Dong H.R. Pota

Indexing terms: Power system protection, Transient stability analysis

Abstract: The paper presents an extension of the equal-area criterion for multimachine systems and applies it to the determination of the transient stability margin (TSM) of critically disturbed machines, for a given contingency, for real-time applications. This can be considered as a continuation of the transient stability assessment which normally does not report the TSM quantitatively. The method has been tested on several standard test systems and the obtained results are compared with the benchmark results. The simulation results show that the method can provide reliable, precise, and quick information about the transient stability margin of a power system.

Introduction

Power system networks are equipped with automatic protection devices, with fixed settings, which sense electric faults and clear the faulted sections of the network. One of the main aims of the transient stability analysis is to compute CCT (critical clearing time) for given fault conditions. If the time needed by relay equipment to clear the fault is greater than the calculated CCT, the system will lose its synchronism, and some precaution for either adjusting the relay equipment or adjusting system loads and generations, aimed at increasing the system stability margin, is necessary. If the operating time of the relay equipment is shorter than the CCT, the system has some extra stability margin which might allow the operator to rearrange the generation with a view to achieving an optimal and secure dispatch. In this paper we basically discuss the following situation. Given initial system operation data and the protection device operating time, we ask the question: for a given fault, what increment or decrement in the critical machines output will make the system marginally stable? Formally speaking, let Po be the mechanical input power of the critical machine (the sum of input powers in the case of a group of critical machines) during normal operation, and let the input mechanical power, such that the system is marginally stable, for a given fault clearing time (with the same system contingency) be P ; then the TSM is defined as ( P - Po).
Paper 8975C (Pll),first received 2nd July 1991 and in revised form 8th May 1992 The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Campbell ACT 2600, Australia 96

Transient stability margin (TSM) is an important concept for dynamic security assessment which quantifies stability margin for a power system. Often it is of interest to know if we can increase the output of a given machine and yet operate the system within safe operating limits. Owing to economic or other reasons, some machines tend to be heavily loaded, and in the event of a fault, these machines form a coherent group which tends to separate from the rest of the system; in many cases, this group comprises just one machine. In this paper, we refer to this group of machines as a set of critical machines, and the TSM is discussed in relation to these critical machines. Identification of the critical machines is normally obvious from a transient stability run and we will assume that we have identified the critical machines before we begin to calculate the TSM. How do we calculate this TSM (it might be positive or negative) for realtime applications? Few papers in the literature have reported on this very important and practical issue. A traditional way of dealing with the problem is to run load-flow and transient stability analysis programs alternately, each time making a correction for the mismatch in the predicted CCT and the relay settings, and finally obtain proper operating conditions. This procedure is long and expensive to run unless we have a definite way of modifying the generator output as a function of the mismatch between the CCT and the given clearing time. Reference 1 reports a method based on EEAC (extend equal-area criterion) to obtain the sensitivity of the CCT with respect to the generator output variation. The method first divides the system into an equivalent two-machine aggregated system on the assumption of the system separating into two clusters, and secondly reduces the two-machine system into a onemachine infinite-bus (OMIB) system. Then finally the well-known equal-area criterion is used for the sensitivity analysis. Reference 1 also shows some promising and significant results which could be useful for real-time applications. The sensitivity analysis method which is based on the OMIB system assumption is valid up to the second-order sensitivity coefficients. However, it does depend on the accuracy, reliability, and feasibility of the procedure for obtaining the OMIB from the multimachine system. Generally speaking, the equivalent OMIB system will not represent the dynamics of the original system accurately, except for the case where both the critical machine group and the remaining machine group are coherent (see Fig. 1). Obviously, these conditions are very rigorous. In the method proposed here, there is no need to derive the OMIB system, but only to know the set of critical machines. After carefully studying the results of numerous power system simulations, the authors made the following
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, N o . 2, M A R C H 1993

important observation. The change in CCT due to the change in the critical machines input mechanical power is not very sensitive to the distribution of this excess generation among various load and generation buses, and other conditions such as increasing (decreasing) loads and generation at other buses which in turn will change the distribution profile of the system, make, within certain limits, a negligible impact. This observation along with an extension of the equal-area criterion lead the authors to build a simplified method for quickly determining the TSM of critical machines. In this paper, we propose a fast method of determining the TSM of critical machines for a given clearing time. We use the classical power system model given below to illustrate this method but the method itself is not limited to the classical model.
, durina
DOSt

(iii) Make corrections to the critical machine generations (as given by step (i)), according to step (ii) when necessary (to remove the inaccuracies of the extended equal-area criterion).
2
Assumption and its validity

Fig. 1

One-machine infinite-bus assumption

In a classical model [2, 31, generators are modelled as a constant voltage behind the reactance xf ; loads are modelled as a constant impedance; and mechanical inputs are assumed to be constant for the duration of the transients. The swing equation for the ith machine of an n-machine system in the centre-of-angle (COA) reference frame is

where, for the ith generator Bi = rotor angle in the COA reference frame wi = angular frequency in the COA reference frame Pmi = input mechanical power pii = output electrical power M i = inertia constant
n
n

M,

=
i= 1

Mi, and PCoA=


i=l

Pmi -

1 Pii
i=l

To estimate the TSM, we start from the point where we know the CCT (for a given fault), the initial conditions, and other relevant system information. The method consists of three basic steps: (i) For a given clearing time, apply the extended equalarea criterion (as developed in this paper) to the multimachine system, and predict the critical machines maximum output (i.e. the output which makes the system marginally stable), for the given contingency and clearing time. (ii) Check if the maximal output predicted by step (i) is correct or not (this step basically requires running the entire time simulation, but it can be performed very quickly based on a simplifying assumption to be discussed in Section 2).
IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, NO. 2, M A R C H 1993

The first step in most of the methods for fast transient stability assessment is to form the so-called reduced system [3]. The system reduction process consists in eliminating all the load buses by treating loads as constant impedances and leaving only the generator buses in the system description. Before performing this system reduction, we need to obtain the system operating conditions using the load-flow program. This means that for every new load or generation, we first need to obtain a valid load-flow and then perform a system reduction. To obtain the TSM, we need to change the generation in small steps and run the transient stability program repeatedly until we arrive at the marginal generation; this is a computation-intensive job. If we intend to use the TSM for on-line assistance in system operation, we need a method capable of much faster execution. Towards this end we propose some simplifications in the standard method. These simplifications are based on careful observations made after simulating numerous faulted power systems. For severe faults the first swing of the trajectory of the critical machines is not significantly affected by changes in the initial conditions (of the node voltages and node angles). This is a very important observation. It means that if we have some error in the initial conditions, e.g. if we approximate the initial conditions, and then start the numerical integration of the system dynamic (eqns. 1, 2), then the difference between the trajectory generated by this simulation and the simulation starting from exact initial conditions is not significant as far as the first swing is concerned. This is owing to the fact that for severe faults, the difference between the input mechanical power and the output electrical power during the fault-on period is so large that the difference in the initial condition turns out to be insignificant compared to the actual machine swing. These comments apply only to the severely disturbed generators; the less disturbed generators, which are geographically removed from the fault location, may be substantially affected by the changed initial conditions but then their contribution to the first swing of the critical mchines is very small. We make use of the above observations quantitatively as illustrated by various examples in Tables 1 to 3. Note that the approximation gives valid results even for large changes in the critical machines output. In Tables 1 to 3 the first row gives the CCT for the given fault condition and the initial conditions which are obtained from the standard load flow. The following row entries are for the modified system operating conditions. To enable a comparison between the proposed method and the conventional method, we calculate the CCT in two different ways and call them the benchmark CCT* (the standard method) and the simplified CCT (from the simple method of this paper). Procedures for evaluating CCT* and CCT are given below. Benchmark C C T : The benchmark CCT, written as CCT*, is obtained by following the standard procedure, i.e. (i) Whenever generation or loads change, run the loadflow program to find the initial conditions.
97

(ii) Form the reduced system. (iii) Solve system dynamic eqns. 1,2 by numerical stepby-step integration.

Simplijed C C T : The. simplified CCT, written as CCT, is obtained in the following way.

(i) Balance the changes in generation or loads by assigning the total mismatch between generation and load to the swing bus and leave all the other initial conditions (such as all the node voltages and voltage angles) unchanged, i.e. as given by the initial load flow. For example, if

APg4= 100 MW, APL5= 50 MW

Table 1 : Validity of assumption for four-generator system


Fault bus Cleared line Cases Load-flow condition (MW) CCT CCT* Error
(Oh)

10

8-1 0

0 1 2 3 4 5

initial

0.096 0.100 AP,, = 20, APL5= 20 0.100 AP,, = 20, AP,, = 20 0.101 = 5 0.099 AP,, = 20, AP,, = AP,, = APL8
=

AP,,

20

AP,, = 20, AP,, = 20

0.157 0.103 0.103 0.104 0.106 0.104

-6.8 -2.9 -3.8 -4.7 -4.8

average (1 to 5)

0.099 0.104 -4.8

Table 2: Validitv of assumption for IEEE 17-machine system


Fault bus Cleared line
~~ ~~ ~

Cases Load-flow condition (MW)

CCT

CCT*

Error (Yo)

372

193-372

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

initial AP,, = 280 AP,, = 280, AP,,,

AP,,
initial

= 280,

AP,,,

= 200 = 200

0.193 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.141 0.203 0.152 0.150 0.152 0.151 0.152 0,151 0.152 0.151 0.356 0.256 0.254 0.256 0.257 0.254 0.254 0.255 0.255 0.212 0.166 0.165 0.165 0.1 65 0.1 65 0.165 0.165 0.165

0.0 0.0 0.0

average (1 to 3)

0.0
1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

436

771-436

APg,,=160 AP,,,=160, AP,,, =150 AP,,, = 160, AP,,, = 160

average (1 to 3)

773

773-779

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
~

initial

AP,,,=140 AP,, = 140, APLl AP,,, = 140, AP,,,

= 140 = -140

average (1 to 3)

6-439

initial

AP,,=200 AP,, = 200, APL13 = 200 APo,= 200, AP,6 2 = 200

~~~~

average (1 to 3)

0.0

Table 3: Validity of assumption for IEEE 20-machine system


Fault bus Cleared line Cases Load-flow condition (MW) CCT CCT* Error (%)

40

66-49

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
~

initial

AP,,,= 120 AP,,, = 120, APLU5 = AP,,,


AP,,,=120, AP,,,=-lOO

= 50

0.322 0.222 0.217 2.3 0.224 0.223 0.5 0.224 0.217 3.2 0.223 0.219 1.8 0.259 0.182 0.177 2.8 0.182 0.180 1.1 0.183 0.177 2.8 0.182 0.178 2.2 0.418 0.274 0.264 3.8 0.271 0.268 1.1 0.271 0.264 2.7 0.272 0.265 2.6 0.340 0.224 0.214 4.7 0.218 0.214 1.9 0.220 0.218 0.9 0.221 0.215 2.8

average (1 to 3)

25

26-25

initial

AP,,=lOO AP,,=100,AP,,=-100 AP,, = 100, AP,, = -1 00

average (1 to 3)
~~~

59

63-59

0 1 2 3

initial

APg, , = 100, AP,,, AP-,, = 100, AP,,


initial

AP,,

, = 100

= AP,,, = 50 = -100

averaae (I to 3)

65

66-65

0
1

2 3

APg,3=200 APgl3=200, AP,,,=AP,,,= APL15=APL11 =lo0

-100

average (1 to 3) 98

I E E PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, No. 2, M A R C H 1993

then

APgI = AP,, - APLS

50 MW

93

new generation or load as discussed in step (i) above and then calculating the changed initial condition for the affected machines only.) Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the effect of making this assumption on three test systems. The three chosen test systems are: four-generator 11-busbar test system (Fig. 2) [4], IEEE 17-machine system, commonly known as the 4 ] , and IEEE 20-machine Iowa reduced system, (Fig. 3) [ system (Fig. 4) [SI. Only three-phase short-circuit faults are simulated in this paper. The faults simulated are also the ones commonly chosen in the literature. The initial operating conditions for the test systems are listed in the references given above. For each of the faults, three different conditions are simulated (i) Only the commitment of the critical machine is changed. (ii) Besides the critical machine, a bus electrically and geographically near the critical machine bus is chosen, at which the load (generation) is increased (decreased). (iii) Similar to (ii) but a busbar far away from the critical machine busbar is chosen. These three test situations simulate extreme cases and should provide a good representation of the power system operation. Observations to note from the results given in Tables 1 to 3 are (i) By comparing the results in the same column in each table, for a given fault, the system transient stability (i.e. CCT) is mostly decided by the critical machines mechanical input. Other conditions, such as increasing

--

Fig. 2

Four-generator test system

Fig. 3
~

I E E E 17-machine system
345kV
~~~~

230 kV

.. .. .. .

161 or 115 kV

equivalent lines generator 1

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, N O . 2, M A R C H 1993

99

(ii) By comparing the results in the same row in each Table, the simplified procedure can give an answer within an acceptable tolerance margin.

rew
(Pmi - Pi!) dei = 0
JOi(ti)

(4)

Fig. 4

I E E E 20-machine system

As far as the TSM of the critical machine is concerned, the assumption amounts to this: if the critical machine's input power is increased (decreased), we can simply decrease (increase) the slack machine's input power and

That is

Wtc)

(Pmi- P:{) dei = -

&(to)

&(tu)

(Pmi - P$) dei

(5)

WtC)

3.2 Prediction of TSM Tkara in R A anolytioal anlution nf eqn 5 for P multi. machine system. However, the equal-area criterion does give us a good explanation of the physical phenomena.

easily read from the initial transient stability run. But what will be the rotor swing during the same time t if APmi # O? We denote this extra rotor angle movement, due to APmi,as AOi, (9: = 0:' + AOi). Obviously

AOi =

f fA& dt2
10

io

If we ignore the other changes in the system owing to the - P:i, from eqn. 2 we mechanical increment APmi = Pmi have ABi = APmJMi and then eqn. 8 has an explicit algebraic expression

1 APmi A e . = - -t2 ' 2 Mi

(9)

* e
Fig. 5

e: = e:' + A % ~
Substituting eqn. 9 into eqn. 7, we have

(10)

Equal-area criterion

Now let us consider how to predict the TSM using the equal-area criterion for a multimachine system. Suppose the ith machine original mechanical input power is P:i, and with the given contingency the critical clearing angle is 6. Let us assume that when the input power is increased to Pmi , the critical clearing angle is e:, with the same contingency. The changes in the acceleration area and the deceleration area, for the two different inputs, are (see Fig. 6 )

APmi =

ey - e; + ( ( ~ g ( t , + -)~ ; { ( t , _ ) ) / ( 2 ~ , ) ) t ~

(P$(t,+) - P;{(t,-))(e

- el)

(1 1)

APmi is a prediction of TSM of the critical machine i, for the clearing time t.
3.2.1 Remarks 1. Eqn. 11 is an approximate expression. We whould point out that for the real multimachine system, when the input (output) changes, %y, 6 : as well as the curves P$(t,+) and P:{(t, - ) will change for different mechanical inputs. 2. The post-fault and the fault-on electric powers, P$(t) and are approximated by the constants P$(t,+) and P;{(t,-) respectively, for the duration { t , , t } , to simplify the calculations. 3. In fact eqn. 11 results from some sort of onemachine infinite bus system approximation, because it assumes that when the mechanical input of the ith machine changes, nothing in the system changes, except for the ith machine. 4. Practically, the value

AA,,, AAd,,
Let

= (pmi =

pzi)(e:- e:)
6:)

(P:~ - p;{)(e: - e:)


(pmi - P:,)(ey
-

s, - s,
-

= (p$ - Pmi)(ef =s 3 -

6:)

s,

c{(t),

AAacc then
or

s, - s, = s3 s,
-

s, + s, + s, = s3 + s, + s,
That is

APZi = APmi(l - Mi/MT)-,

(12)

(7) If 0: is known, the TSM, i.e. the mechanical input increment APmi = Pmi - P:i, can be calculated from eqn. 7. Now let us discuss the calculation of 0:. Let the rotor swing to angle 0:' (which is not shown in Fig. 6 ) at the clearing time t when AP,, = 0. Note that this can be

(pmi - p:i)(ey - e: ) = (zyqe,) - ~ y ( e , ) ~e ;e:)

gives a better prediction. 5. If t > t,, there is no information about 0:' from the original fault trajectory. The extrapolation method or Taylor series method is suggested for calculating Of. For example, if we use the three-point extrapolation formula, we can choose three different points Of(t,), Of(t,) and eXt3), where (0 d t , d t , d t 3 d t,), available from the original trajectory and compute 9:' as

6. If there are k (k > 1 and k E K ) critical machines swinging coherently, the following modifications may be used

+
e
Fig. 6

T S M prediction
101

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, N o . 2, M A R C H 1993

where

M x=
isK

Mi

8,

=MZ
iEK

BiMi

3.3 Determination of TSM Basically three steps are involved in the determination of the TSM.

Prediction: Predict the TSM (APmi) using eqns. 11 and 12 for a given CCT (in practice, it might be a fault-clearing time set by a protection device). Conjirmation: Modify the mechanical input of the critical machines, by adding the TSM predicted by the previous step, and balance the system generation and load by assigning the net mismatch to the slack machine. These modified values of the generation are taken as the prefault balanced load-flow data; therefore, a calculation of the new internal voltage behind the direct-axis transient reactance, to obtain the correct output electrical power from the modified generators, is performed next. Then we run the transient stability program, using the original reduced system and the modifications as suggested by step (i), to obtain a CCT which is called the first predicted CCT in Tables 4 to 6. Correction: Usually the CCT first predicted by the previous confirmation step is different from the expected CCT. Repeat the prediction step, with the results of the confirmation step as the initial data, to obtain a better estimate of the TSM. The algebraic sum of the two predicted TSMs is the corrected TSM. When we solve a set of nonlinear algebraic equations, for instance the load-flow equations, we usually linearise the equations around an operating point first and obtain a constant coefficient matrix known as the Jacobian matrix. In many practical situations this constant coeficient matrix can be kept unchanged during iterations.

Not changing the reduced system here is something similar to that process. The method of determining the TSM can be considered as a continuation of the transient stability analysis for most of the fast transient stability assessment utilities, such as a continuation of the transient stability analysis for most of the fast transient stability assessment utilities, such as the TEF using UEP (unstable equilibrium point), PEBS (potential equilibrium boundary surface) and numerical methods of truncated Taylor series [SI, and large step-size integration [SI. In all of these methods, information on O0, e", Of, &, P d f ( t , - ) , and P P f ( t , + )etc. is available. Therefore there should be no extra difficulty in finding the TSM using the method presented in this paper. Because there is no need to recompute the so-called reduced system, the CPU time needed for this procedure is certainly much less than for a normal CCT calculation.
4

Simulation results

In this Section, we present the results of simulation performed on three test systems. Various contingencies on these systems have been studied. For each of the cases we choose the expected CCTs such that some are larger than the initial CCT and others are smaller than the initial CCT. To see how well the first step (prediction) works and to compare the prediction and the correction, we list all these figures in Tables 4-6. In all cases, the modified generation of the critical machines is simply balanced by the slack machine. The simplified CCT and benchmark CCT* are calculated for all the contingencies to test the method for evaluating the TSM. Here the benchmark CCT is obtained in the standard way, as discussed in Section 2 and the simplified CCT (CCT*) is calculated after omitting step (ii) of the definition given in Section 2. The error is computed from
% error =

(expected C C T ) - (CCT*) x loo (expected C C T )

(13)

Table 4: TSM mediction for the 17-machine system


Initial data: fault bus 773, cleared line 772-779, original CCT* 0.356 s, critical machine 16 and its original power input 455 MW Expected CCT TSM (MW) 0.200 0.300 0.400 230 72 -49 First prediction CCT 0.210 0.298 0.408 CCT* error (%) Corrected prediction TSM (MW) 249 68 -41 CCT CCT* error (%) 1.0 -0.3 0.0

5.0 0.210 0.297 -1.0 2.3 0.409

0.202 0.202 0.300 0.299 0.400 0.400

Initial data: fault bus 6, cleared line 439-6, original CCT* 0.220 s, critical machine 2 and its original power input 794 MW 0.1 50 0.250 0.300 21 5 -83 -201 0.163 0.162 0.246 0.247 0.290 0.294 8.0 -1.2 -2.0 254 -93 -219 0.154 0.154 0.250 0.250 0.296 0.298 2.7 0.0 -0.7

Initial data: fault bus 372, cleared line 372-1 93, original CCT* 0.193 s, critical machine 6 and its original power input 1066 MW 0.1 50 0.250 0.300 243 -255 -421 0.147 0.147 0.256 0.259 0.310 0.316 -2.0 3.6 5.3 232 -236 -398 0.150 0.149 0.250 0.253 0.301 0.307 -0.7 1.2 2.3

Initial data: fault bus 436, cleared line 771436, original CCT* 0.203 s, critical machine 12 and its original power input 620 MW 0.1 50 0.250 0.300
102

166 -121 -218

0.150 0.149 -0.7 2.0 0.253 0.255 2.7 0.304 0.308

168 -116 -212

0.150 0.149 -0.7 0.250 0.252 0.8 0.300 0.304 1.3

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, NO. 2, M A R C H 1993

Table 5: T S M prediction f o r N e w England 10-machine system Initial data: fault bus 5,cleared line none, original CCT* 0.229s, critical machine 5 and its original power input 508 MW Expected CCT TSM (MW) First prediction CCT CCT* error ( Y o ) TSM (MW) Corrected prediction CCT CCT* error (%)

0.150 0.300 0.400

111 -92 -196

0.168 0.168 12 0.290 0.301 0.3 0.410 0.428 7.0

143 - 95 -186

0.154 0.152 0.300 0.304 0.399 0.412

1.3 1.3 3.0

Initial data: fault bus 2,cleared line none, original CCT* 0.239s, critical machine 2 and its original power input 563 MW

0.150 0.300 0.400

147 -90 -209

0.170 0.171 14 0.295 0.297 -1.0 0.400 0.408 2.0

184
- 98

-208

0.156 0.157 0.301 0.304 0.400 0.408

4.7 1.3 2.0

Initial data: fault bus 15,cleared line 15-16,original CCT* 0.236 s. critical machines (4 5 6 7) and their original power inputs (632 508 650 560) MW

0.150 0.300 0.400

(56 5 1 70 52) 0.156 0.170 13 ( 4 1 37 5 1 38) 0.302 0.293 2.3 -(94 85 117 86) 0.375 0.363 -9.3

(60 54 74 55) 0.150 0.168 8.0 0.300 0.291 3.0 -(40 36 49 37) -(lo5 95 130 97) 0.395 0.379 -5.3

Initial data: fault bus 35,cleared line 11-35,original CCT* 0.230 s, critical machines (2 3 ) and their original power inputs (563 650) MW

0.150 0.300 0.400

(125 150) ( 9 1 109) -{187 225)

0.152 0.155 0.300 0.302 0.402 0.409

3.3 0.7 2.3

(1 28 153) -(90 108) -{186 223)

0.150 0.153 0.300 0.302 0.400 0.407

2.0 0.7 1.8

Initial data: fault bus 39,cleared line 13-39,original CCT* 0.232s, critical machines (2 3) and their original power inputs (563 650) MW

0.150 0.300 0.400

(109 131) -(79 95) -Cl67 200)

0.153 0.158 5.3 0.299 0.300 0.0 0.393 0.394 -1.5

(113 135) -(80 95) -Cl71 2051

0.150 0.156 4.0 0.300 0.300 0.0 0.399 0.399 -0.3

Initial data: fault bus 26,cleared line 26-27,original CCT* 0.132 s, critical machine 9 and its original power input 830 M W
~~~

0.100 0.150 0.300

60 -36 -306
~~~~

0.102 0.107 7.0 0.151 0.150 0.0 0.348 0.359 20


~

63
- 34

-252

0.100 0.105 0.150 0.150 0.295 0.300

5.0 0.0 0.0

Table 6: T S M prediction for 20-machine system Initial data: fault bus 49,cleared line 66-49,original CCT* 0.322s, critical machine 10 and its original power input 204 MW Expected CCT First prediction Corrected prediction error (%) TSM (MW) CCT CCT* error (%)

TSM (MW)
~~ ~

CCT

CCT*

0.200 0.250 0.400

137 7 1 -51
_ _

0.213 0.206 3.0 0.257 0.253 1.2 0.368 0.371 -9.7


_ _
~

154 79 -67
~ ~

0.203 0.136 -2.0 0.250 0.247 -1.2 0.383 0.386 -4.7


~ ~

Initial data: fault bus 25,cleared line 26-25,original CCT* 0.259s, critical machine 4 and its original power input 220 M W

0.150 0.200 0.350

97 50 -61

0.185 0.179 19 0.218 0.214 7.0 0.333 0.340 -2.9

130 67 -68

0.164 0.158 0.204 0.200 0.343 0.352

5.3 0.0 0.6

Initial data: fault bus 59,cleared line 63-59,original CCT* 0.41 8 s, critical machine 1 1 and its original power input 155 M W

0.200 0.300 0.500

186 78 -33

0.201 0.191 -4.5 0.293 0.289 -3.7 0.511 0.512 2.4

187 7 1 -30

0.200 0.191 -4.5 0,301 0.297 -1.0 0.499 0.501 0.2

Initial data: fault bus 65,cleared line 66-65,original CCT* 0.340s, critical machine 13 and its original power input 391 M W

0.200 0.300 0.400

253 58 -69

0.194 0.193 -3.5 0.294 0.293 -2.3 0.422 0.423 5.8

240 49 -49

0.200 0.197 -1.5 0.300 0.300 0.0 0.395 0.395 -1.3

Initial data: fault bus 61,cleared line 64-61, original CCT* 0.458s, critical machine 12 and its original power input 160 MW

0.250 0.350 0.500


~~~~

140 59 -16

0.254 0.248 -0.8 0.346 0.343 -2.0 0.504 0.503 0.6

145 56 -15

0.250 0.244 -2.4 0.350 0.348 -0.6 0.499 0.500 0.0


103

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, N O . 2, M A R C H 1993

The entry -{...} inside the braces.

means the negative of all the terms

4.1 IEEE 17-machine system

The IEEE 17-machine system [4], also known as the iowa reduced system, is one of the standard systems for transient stability studies recommended by IEEE. In Table 4 we present the results for this system.
4.2 New England IO-machine system

This system [SI is also one of the test systems commonly chosen for transient stability studies. Although from its size it cannot be ranked as large scale, but because of its relatively heavy load level, the machines swing violently for some contingencies and this makes the system an interesting test system. For example, when a three-phase short circuit occurs at bus 15, and the fault is cleared by tripping out line 15-16, four machines will tend to separate from rest of the system. Results for this system are shown in Table 5.

4.3 IEEE 20-machine system IEEE 20-machine system [SI is another commonly chosen test system; the simulation results are reported in Table 6.
5

TSM of a critical group of machines within a power system, for a given contingency and a given fault-clearing time. In Section 4 we report all the results obtained from the first step in using the equal-area criterion as well as from the whole procedure. In fact, according to the simulations, although the first step is so simple, it can perform fairly well. For most of cases, the accuracy of the firststep prediction is above 90%; only in a few cases is the accuracy beyond this range. The authors believe that if a particular system is well understood and a modification formula is set up, it is possible to use a first-step prediction alone to save CPU time. The methodology advanced here, which uses a simple, well-known, and universally-accepted criterion, yields very good results. Not only can it predict positive or negative TSM, but it can also predict the TSM for one critical machine or a group of critical machines. It can be considered as a continuation of the transient stability assessment which normally does not report the TSM quantitatively. Several standard systems have been tested and the results are compared with the benchmark. Some important issues such as the TSM with detailed machine models, the transmission limits of tie lines, etc. are under investigation.
6
References
XUE, Y., CUTSEM, T., and PAVELLA, M.: Real-time analytic sensitivity method for transient security assessment and preventive control, I E E Proc. C , Gener. Transm. Distrih., 1988, 135, pp. 107-1 17 PAI, M.A.: Energy function analysis for power system stability (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1989) PAI, M.A.: Power system stability - analysis by the direct method of Lyapunov (North-Holland Publishing Company, New York, 1981) FOUAD, A.A. (Principal Investigator): Transient stability margin as a tool for dynamic security assessment, Final Report for EPRI Project, No. RP1355-3, March 1981 HAQUE, M.H., and RAHIM, A.H.M.A.: Determination of first swing stability limit of multimachine power systems through Taylor series expansions, I E E Proc. C, Gener. Transm. Distrih., 1989, 136, pp. 313-319 DONG, Y., and POTA, H.R.: First swing stability analysis of power system through large-size step in time domain, IEE Proc. C , Gener. Transm. Distrih., 1991, 138, pp. 317-383

Conclusions

This paper makes two practical contributions. First, it extends the well-known equal-area criterion to approximately predict the TSM and secondly it suggests a simple method for performing the transient stability run, for changing load conditions, to verify the results of the extended equal-area criterion. This method is similar to the determination of first-swing stability except that there is no need to form the reduced system repeatedly. The reason for not having to form the reduced system again is that within certain limits, the system transient stability (i.e. CCT) mostly depends upon the mechanical input of the critical machines, and other conditions make very little difference to the CCT. These two steps together form a very fast method of accurately determining the

104

IEE PROCEEDINGS-C, Vol. 140, N O .2, M A R C H 1993