Dynamic IEEE Test Systems for Transient

Analysis
Panayiotis Demetriou, Student Member, IEEE, Markos Asprou, Student Member, IEEE,
Jairo Quiros-Tortos, Member, IEEE, Elias Kyriakides, Senior Member, IEEE

 𝑇′𝑞0 q axis transient open circuit time constant in s

Abstract— Transient stability analysis is performed to assess 𝑇′′𝑑0 d axis subtransient open circuit time constant in s
the power system’s condition after a severe contingency and is
𝑇′′𝑞0 q axis subtransient open circuit time constant in s
carried out using simulations. To adequately assess the system’s
transient stability, the correct dynamic models for the machines 𝑆(1.0) Machine saturation at 1.0 p.u. voltage in p.u.
(i.e., generators, condensers, and motors) along with their 𝑆(1.2) Machine saturation at 1.2 p.u. voltage in p.u.
dynamic parameters must be defined. The IEEE test systems 𝑇𝑟 Regulator input filter time constant in s
contain the data required for steady-state studies. However,
neither the dynamic model of the machines nor their specific 𝐾𝑎 Regulator gain (continuous acting regulator) in p.u.
parameters have been established for transient studies. As a 𝑇𝑎 Regulator time constant in s
result, there is a demand for test bed systems suitable for Maximum regulator output, starting at full load field
𝑉𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥
transient analysis. This paper defines dynamic machine models voltage in p.u.
along with their parameters for each IEEE test bed system, thus Minimum regulator output, starting at full load field
𝑉𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛
producing full dynamic models for all test systems. It is voltage in p.u.
important to mention that the parameters of the proposed 𝐾𝑒 Exciter self-excitation at full load field voltage in p.u.
dynamic models are based on typical data. The test systems are 𝑇𝑒 Exciter time constant in s
subjected to large disturbances and a case study for each test 𝐾𝑓 Regulator stabilizing circuit gain in p.u.
system, which examines the frequency, angle, and voltage
stability is presented. Further, the proposed dynamic IEEE test 𝑇𝑓 Regulator stabilizing circuit time constant in s
systems, implemented in PowerWorld, are available online. 𝐸1 Field voltage value,1 in p.u.
𝑆𝐸(𝐸1 ) Saturation factor at E1
Index Terms— Dynamic machine models, exciters, governors,
𝐸2 Field voltage value,2 in p.u.
IEEE test systems, transient stability analysis.
𝑆𝐸(𝐸2 ) Saturation factor at E2
I. NOMENCLATURE 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum turbine output in p.u.

Rated MVA Machine-rated MVA; base MVA for impedances
Machine-rated terminal voltage in kV; base kV for
Rated kV
impedances
𝐻 Inertia constant in s
𝐷 Machine load damping coefficient
𝑟𝑎 Armature resistance in p.u.
𝑥𝑑 Unsaturated d axis synchronous reactance in p.u.
𝑥𝑞 Unsaturated q axis synchronous reactance in p.u.
𝑥′𝑑 Unsaturated d axis transient reactance in p.u.
𝑥′𝑞 Unsaturated q axis transient reactance in p.u.
𝑥′′𝑑
𝑥′′𝑞
Unsaturated d axis subtransient reactance in p.u.
Unsaturated q axis subtransient reactance in p.u.
𝑥𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑥𝑝 Leakage or Potier reactance in p.u.
𝑇′𝑑0 d axis transient open circuit time constant in s
Manuscript received October 10, 2014. This work was co-funded by the
European Regional Development Fund and the Republic of Cyprus through
the Research Promotion Foundation (Project ΤΠΕ/ΟΡΙΖΟ/0311/20)”.
P. Demetriou, M. Asprou, and E. Kyriakides are with the KIOS Research
Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks and the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. (e-mail:
demetriou.k.panayiotis@ucy.ac.cy, asprou.markos@ucy.ac.cy,
elias@ucy.ac.cy).
J. Q. Tortos is with both The University of Manchester and the University
of Costa Rica. (e-mail: jairoquirostortos@ieee.org).
𝑅 Turbine steady-state regulation setting or droop in p.u.
𝑇1 Control time constant (governor delay) in s
𝑇2 Hydro reset time constant in s
𝑇3 Servo time constant in s
𝑇4 Steam valve bowl time constant in s
𝑇5 Steam reheat time constant in s
𝐹 Shaft output ahead of reheater in p.u.
II. INTRODUCTION
E LECTRIC power systems are being operated close to their
stability limits in an attempt by the electric utilities to
satisfy the ever-increasing electricity demand and to remain
competitive in the deregulated electricity market. Therefore,
power systems are vulnerable to severe contingencies that can
propagate to a large portion of the power system leading in
many cases to power system instabilities. More specifically,
the power system becomes transient unstable when it fails to
retain the synchronism of the electric machines after the
occurrence of a severe disturbance. In such a case, the
synchronism between a synchronous generator or a group of
generators with the rest of the power system is lost, leading to
a partial or complete blackout unless appropriate protection
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
and/or control measures are taken [1].
The stability of the power system can be categorized into
the angle and voltage stability [2]. In the case of the angle
stability, the power system should be able to maintain
synchronism between the generators and the rest of the system
after a severe disturbance, while in the voltage stability the
system voltage level after the disturbance should be preserved
as in the steady state. In any of the two cases, the loss of
stability could lead to devastating consequences.
In order to prevent such situations, power system operators
assess the stability condition of the power system by
examining several scenarios offline. The transient analysis that
is usually used in the power system control center enhances
the situational awareness of the power system operators by
providing a visualization of the generator rotor angles, bus
voltages, and system frequency during a large contingency
based on the current operating condition of the power system.
Therefore, operators can plan a set of remedial measures to
maintain the stability of the system.
In general, for running transient stability analysis both the
type and the parameters of the dynamic model for the power
system components should be available. On one hand, each
electric utility has its own dynamic parameters and models for
its power system. On the other hand, the several IEEE test bed
systems available for steady state analysis, whose topology
and power flow data can be found in [3], are lacking of
dynamic models.
In the literature, a few test bed systems that can be used in
transient analysis were proposed [4]-[6]. However, since the
IEEE test bed systems are widely used by the research
community, there are several cases where researchers are
forced to choose dynamic models and their parameters for the
IEEE systems in order to build their own dynamic systems
[7]-[8]. In this case, there is a lack of consistency and
uniformity among the different dynamic test systems.
Furthermore, there is a common desire among the research
community for dynamic test bed systems that can be used for
assessing methodologies based on dynamic simulations.
In this paper, the IEEE test bed systems available in the
literature for steady-state studies (14, 30, 39, 57, and 118 bus
systems) are extended and modified to consider dynamic data
for time-domain simulations. The dynamic parameters for a
sixth order full machine model (i.e., machine, exciter, and
governor) are defined for each generator in the IEEE test
systems. Dynamic parameters are also determined for the
condensers and motors. It is to be noted that the dynamic
parameters are based on typical dynamic models provided in
[9]. Particularly in [9], the dynamic parameters for fossil fuel
generators are according to their rated power. For each
generator the dynamic parameters for its exciter and governor
are also available. Therefore, knowing the rated power of each
generator in the IEEE test systems (available from their steady
state data) the appropriate dynamic model from [9] is selected
(including the exciter and the governor). The same procedure
is followed for choosing dynamic parameters for the
condensers and the motors in the IEEE test systems.
The aim of Section IV of this paper is to test the proposed
1
dynamic test bed systems under transient conditions. As it is
aforementioned, there are no default responses of the IEEE
systems for specific contingencies; hence, the validation of the
proposed dynamic models and parameters accommodated to
the test bed systems cannot be performed. A criterion for the
reliability of the proposed dynamic models and parameters is
to show that the dynamic behavior of the IEEE dynamic
models is reasonable and is similar to dynamic responses of
real systems.
The proposed modified IEEE test systems are implemented
in the PowerWorld software [10]. Using the transient analysis
of the software, the transient behavior of each dynamic system
can be obtained. In particular, a single case study for each test
system is examined and the transient analysis results are
presented in Section IV. The paper concludes in Section V. It
is of course possible to run the test systems in other software
that support dynamic analysis.
III. DYNAMIC MODELS AND PARAMETERS FOR IEEE SYSTEMS
In this Section, the dynamic models and parameters for each
generator, condenser, and motor in the IEEE 14 bus system
are provided based on real data [9]. The full dynamic data for
the IEEE 30, 39, 57, and 118 bus systems are available online
in open access (www.kios.ucy.ac.cy/testsystems). In the case of
the generators, both the associated exciter and governor
parameters are given, while in the case of the condensers and
motors only exciter parameters are given. The excitation and
governor system models used for the implementation of the
IEEE dynamic test systems in the Powerworld software were
the IEEE Type1 excitation model (exciter IEEET1) and
WSCC Type G governor model (governor BPA_GG)
respectively. The block diagrams of both models are presented
in Figs. 1 and 2. It is important to mention that the IEEE
Type1 excitation model corresponds to the Type DC1A
excitation system model of the IEEE Standard 421.5 (2005)
[12], which is the currently accepted IEEE standard for
excitation system models for power system stability studies.
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the IEEET1 excitation system model [11]
It is important to notice that the rated voltage of the
machines (generators, motors, and condensers), as indicated in
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 2

[9], is much smaller than the voltage levels of the IEEE test synchronous machines with IEEE type-1 exciters, 3 of which
systems. In order to comply with the voltage levels of the are synchronous compensators used only for reactive power
generators as provided in [9], and thus build more realistic support. There are 19 buses, 17 transmission lines, 8
dynamic test bed systems, the machines are connected through transformers and 11 constant impedance loads. The total load
an ideal transformer. Thus, it is necessary to add an additional demand is 259 MW and 73.5 MVAr.
bus having the same voltage level as the machine models In the default topology of the IEEE 14-bus test system (Fig.
given in [9]. 4), the generators and the condensers are connected to high
voltage buses (132 kV or 220 kV) [3]. In the case of the IEEE
14-bus modified test system (Fig. 5), the generators and the
condensers with their dynamic models are attached to the new
buses added to the extended system, as explained earlier.
Tables I to III provide the system data for the IEEE 14-bus
modified test system. The numbers shown in the Tables for the
bus numbers correspond to the default test system and the
modified system (in parenthesis) respectively.
132 kV 13
132 kV 14
slack

132 kV 12
15 22 kV
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the WSCC Type G governor [11] 132 kV 11
10 132 kV
{model [11]
1 220 kV
132 kV 6
default default
new 132 kV 9
V bus Vbus V bus 132 kV 13.8 kV

13.8 kV 19
7 8 18
5 132 kV
220 kV

PV-bus PV-bus 220 kV 2

or system
or
Vnew : Vdefault system
220 kV 4

Slack-bus Slack-bus (ideal Tx)

13.8 kV 16
220 kV 3
Fig. 3. Extension and modification of an existing system
13.8 kV 17
Performing this modification (Fig. 3), the IEEE test systems
topology is effectively not changed, and at the same time,
Fig. 5. IEEE 14-bus modified test system
there is no change in the operating conditions of the systems
since the power flows are not affected. This can be concluded TABLE I
by comparing the total power losses of the systems before and IEEE 14-BUS MODIFIED TEST SYSTEM MACHINE DATA
after the modification, as shown in the case studies. The data Type GENROU GENROU GENROU GENROU
of the transmission lines, existing transformers, voltage levels Operation Sync. Gen. Sync. Gen. Condenser Condenser
and other steady-state data are considered the same as those Default Unit no.
1(15) 2(16) 3(17) 6(19), 8(18)
presented in [3]. Due to this modification, hereafter the IEEE (New Unit no.)
test bed systems will be called as “modified IEEE systems”. In Rated power (MVA) 448 100 40 25
order to better illustrate the modification to the IEEE dynamic Rated voltage (kV) 22 13.8 13.8 13.8
test systems, the IEEE 14-bus test system before and after the 𝐻 (s) 2.656 4.985 1.520 1.200
modification is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. 𝐷 2.000 2.000 0.000 0.000

132 kV 13
𝑟𝑎 (p.u) 0.0043 0.0035 0.000 0.0025
132 kV 14
𝑥𝑑 (p.u) 1.670 1.180 2.373 1.769
132 kV 12
𝑥𝑞 (p.u) 1.600 1.050 1.172 0.855
slack 132 kV 11
10 132 kV
𝑥′𝑑 (p.u) 0.265 0.220 0.343 0.304
1 220 kV
𝑥′𝑞 (p.u) 0.460 0.380 1.172 0.5795
132 kV 6
132 kV 9
𝑥′′𝑑 (p.u) 0.205 0.145 0.231 0.2035
132 kV
𝑥′′𝑞 (p.u) 0.205 0.145 0.231 0.2035
7 8
220 kV 5 132 kV 𝑥𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑥𝑝 (p.u) 0.150 0.075 0.132 0.1045
220 kV 2 𝑇′𝑑0 (s) 0.5871 1.100 11.600 8.000
220 kV 4
𝑇′𝑞0 (s) 0.1351 0.1086 0.159 0.008
220 kV 3
𝑇′′𝑑0 (s) 0.0248 0.0277 0.058 0.0525
𝑇′′𝑞0 (s) 0.0267 0.0351 0.201 0.0151
Fig. 4. IEEE 14-bus test system-default topology 𝑆(1.0) 0.091 0.0933 0.295 0.304
𝑆(1.2) 0.400 0.4044 0.776 0.666
The IEEE 14-bus modified test system consists of 5
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

TABLE II angle for selected generators (with full machine models) is

IEEE 14-BUS MODIFIED TEST SYSTEM EXCITER DATA
obtained to check their dynamic response during
Type IEEET1 IEEET1 IEEET1 IEEET1 contingencies. It is important to mention that a comparison
Default Unit no. 6(19), between the total power losses of each system before and after
1(15) 2(16) 3(17)
(New Unit no.) 8(18)
Rated power (MVA) 448 100 40 25
the modification (in steady state operation) is also performed
to verify that the power flows are not affected. This is shown
Rated voltage (kV) 22 13.8 13.8 13.8
in Tables IV to VIII.
𝑇𝑟 (s) 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.000
𝐾𝑎 (p.u) 50 25 400 400 A. IEEE 14-Bus Modified Test System
𝑇𝑎 (s) 0.060 0.200 0.050 0.050 In order to assess the stability condition of the IEEE 14-bus
𝑉𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑥 (p.u) 1.000 1.000 6.630 4.407 modified test system during transient analysis, a single load
𝑉𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 (p.u) -1.000 -1.000 -6.630 -4.407
event is considered. At time t = 1 s, the value of loads at buses
3, 4 and 9 is increased by 20% (total step change of 34.3
𝐾𝑒 (p.u) -0.0465 -0.0582 -0.170 -0.170
MW). The IEEE 14-bus modified test system response under
𝑇𝑒 (s) 0.520 0.6544 0.950 0.950
this event is given in Figs. 6-11.
𝐾𝑓 (p.u) 0.0832 0.105 0.040 0.040
𝑇𝑓 (s) 1.000 0.350 1.000 1.000
50
𝐸1 (p.u) 3.240 2.5785 6.375 4.2375 with governors
without governors
𝑆𝐸(𝐸1 ) 0.072 0.0889 0.2174 0.2174

frequency (Hz)
𝐸2 (p.u) 4.320 3.438 8.500 5.650 49.5
𝑆𝐸(𝐸2 ) 0.2821 0.3468 0.9388 0.9386

TABLE III 49
IEEE 14-BUS MODIFIED TEST SYSTEM GOVERNOR DATA
Type BPA_GG BPA_GG
Default Unit no. 48.5
1(15) 2(16)
(New Unit no.)
Rated power (MVA) 448 100
Rated voltage (kV) 22 13.8 0 5 10 15 20
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 (p.u) 0.870 1.050 time (s)
𝑅 (p.u) 0.011 0.050 Fig. 6. System frequency in the IEEE 14-bus modified test
system with and without governor models
𝑇1 (s) 0.100 0.090
𝑇2 (s) 0.000 0.000
40
𝑇3 (s) 0.300 0.200 40
𝑇4 (s) 0.050 0.300
rotor angles (deg)

30
rotor angles (deg)

𝑇5 (s) 10.000 0.000

30
𝐹 0.250 1.000 GenGen15
15
20 GenGen16
16

IV. CASE STUDIES 20

10
In this Section the proposed IEEE 14, 30, 39, 57 and 118
modified dynamic test systems are tested in order to evaluate 10 0
their behavior after large disturbances. For each case study, 0 2 4 6 8 10
the angle, frequency, and voltage stability are examined. Thus, time (s)
0
a depiction of the generator rotor angle, bus voltage, and 0 2 4 6 8 10
system frequency during transient conditions is obtained. time (s)
More specifically, for evaluating the proposed dynamic
Fig. 7. Generator rotor angle for the machines in the IEEE
governor models and their parameters, the system frequency is 14-bus modified test system
obtained for two cases. In the first case, generators are
equipped with governor models, while in the second case no TABLE IV
governor models were considered (for both cases machine and REAL POWER LOSSES IN IEEE 14-BUS SYSTEM
exciter dynamic models are available). Moreover, to evaluate Losses in default topology Modified topology
the proposed exciter models and their parameters, voltage (MW) (MW)
magnitudes and angles for selected buses are presented for the 15.2 15.2
case where system generators are equipped with exciter
models and without exciter models (for both cases machine
and governor dynamic models are available). Finally, the rotor
 voltage magnitudes (p.u.)
1.06
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1.06 1.04
Bus3
-6 Bus6
1.04 1.02
Bus 3 Bus 9 Bus3 BusBus9
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)
Bus 6 Bus 12 Bus 3 9
1.08 1 Bus 6 Bus6 BusBus12
12
1.02

voltage angles (deg)

-8 Bus9
1.06 0.98 Bus12
1
0 5 10 15 20
1.04 -10 time (s)
0.98
0 5 10 15 20
1.02 time (s)
-12
1
-14
0.98
0.96 -16
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
time (s) time (s)
Fig. 8. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE Fig. 11. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE
14-bus modified test system with exciter models 14-bus modified test system without exciter models

1.08 B. IEEE 30-Bus Modified Test System

Bus 3 Bus 9
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1.06 Bus 6 Bus 12 The IEEE 30-bus modified test system has 6 synchronous
machines with IEEE type-1 exciters (4 of which are
1.04 synchronous compensators), 36 buses, 37 transmission lines,
10 transformers and 21 constant impedance loads (with a total
1.02 consumption of 283.4 MW and 126.2 MVAr).

1
50.6 with governors
0.98 without governors
50.5
frequency (Hz)

0.96
50.4
0 5 10 15 20
50.3
time (s)
Fig. 9. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE 50.2
14-bus modified test system without exciter models
50.1
-6
Bus 3 Bus 9
Bus 6 Bus 12
50
voltage angles (deg)

-8 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
-10 Fig. 12. System frequency in the IEEE 30-bus modified
test system with and without governor models

-12 -13.8

-14
-14
rotor angles (deg)

-14.2
-13.8
-16
0 5 10 15 20 -14.4 -14
rotor angles (deg)

time (s) -14.2

Fig. 10. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE -14.6 -14.4
14-bus modified test system with exciter models GenGen33
33
-14.8 -14.6 GenGen35
35
-14.8 Gen 36
Gen36
-15 -15
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6time (s) 8 10
time (s)
Fig. 13. Generator rotor angle for selected machines in the
IEEE 30-bus modified test system
 1.04

voltage magnitudes
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
1.04 5
1.02 Bus7
1.06
Bus10

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

At time t = 1 s, both ends of the transmission lines 1.02 Bus 26Bus7 BusBus15
7
connecting 1.06
buses 14-12 and 14-15 are opened and thus bus 14 -12 1
Bus 15Bus10 Bus 10
1.04 Bus26
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

voltage angles (deg)

is isolated from the rest of the power system. The ability of the
1 Bus15
IEEE 30-bus modified test system to return to stable condition -13 0 5 10 15 20
1.04 Bus26
and maintain its synchronism
1.02 is evaluated in Figs. 12-17. time (s)
Bus7
0 5 10 15 20
Bus10 -14 time (s)
1.06 1.02 Bus 26Bus7 Bus Bus15
7
1
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus 15Bus10 Bus Bus26

10
1.05 -15
1 Bus15
0 5 10 15 20
1.04 Bus26
time (s) -16
0 5 10 15 20
1.03 time (s)
0 5 10 15 20
1.02 time (s)
1.01 Fig. 17. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE
30-bus modified test system without exciter models
1 1.06
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

TABLE V
01.06 5 10 15 20 REAL POWER LOSSES IN IEEE 30-BUS SYSTEM
1.04
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

time (s) Losses in default topology Modified topology

Fig. 14. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
1.04 (MW) (MW)
30-bus modified
1.02 test system with exciter models 17.5 17.5
Bus7
Bus10
1.02 Bus7 Bus15
Bus 26 Bus 7 C. IEEE 39-Bus Modified Test System
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1
Bus 15Bus10 Bus 10
1.06 Bus26 The IEEE 39-bus modified test system contains 49 buses,
1 Bus15
0 5 10 15 20 32 transmission lines, 24 transformers and 10 generators. It
Bus26
time (s) has 19 constant impedance loads totaling 6097.1 MW and
1.04 0 5 10 15 20 1408.9 MVAr. All the generators are equipped with an IEEE
time (s) type-1 exciter and a simple turbine governor, except generator
39 which is an aggregation of a large number of generators
1.02
and is considered not to have a governor. The behavior of the
IEEE 39-bus modified test system during transient analysis is
1 evaluated by considering a single load event. At time t = 1 s,
1.06 the value of loads at buses 3, 4, 7, 8, 25 and 39 is increased by
0
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

5 10 15 20 10% (total step change of 290.58 MW). Figures 18-23 show

1.06 time (s) the response of the corresponding system during the event.
1.04
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Fig. 15. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE

30-bus modified test system without exciter models
1.04 50
1.02 Bus7
50 with
with governors
governors
without governors
without governors
frequency (Hz)

Bus10 49.9 49.5

1.02
frequency (Hz)

-12 1 Bus 26Bus7 BusBus15

7
Bus 15Bus10 BusBus26
10
49.8
voltage angles (deg)

49
1 Bus15
-13 0 5 10 15 20
Bus26 49.7
time (s)
48.5
0 5 10 15 20 49.6
-14 time (s)
0 5 10 15 20
49.5 time (s)
-15
49.4
0 5 10 15 20
-16
time (s)
0 5 10 15 20 Fig. 18. System frequency in the IEEE 39-bus modified
test system with and without governor models
time (s)
Fig. 16. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE
30-bus modified test system with exciter models
 voltage angles (deg)
-48 -50

voltage angles (deg)

-50 -52
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6
Bus1
-52 -54
Bus11
-46 -54 -56 Bus 1 Bus1 BusBus21
21
-2 Bus 11 Bus11 BusBus31
31

voltage angles (deg)

-48 -56 Bus21
rotor angles (deg)
0 5 10 15 20
Bus31
-1 time (s)
-4 -2 -50 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)

rotor angles (deg)

-3
-52
-4
-6 -5
Gen 42 -54
-6 Gen42
Gen 44
-7 Gen44 -56
Gen 49
-8 -8 Gen49

0 -484 2 46 6 8 10
-58
0 2 8 10 0 5 -48 10 15 20
time (s)
voltage angles (deg)

-50 time (s) time (s)

voltage angles (deg)

-48
-48 -50
voltage angles (deg)

Fig. 19.-50
Generator rotor
-52 angle for selected machines in the Fig. 22. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE

voltage angles (deg)

IEEE 39-bus modified test system -50 modified
39-bus -52test system with exciter models
`
Bus1
-52 -54 Bus1
Bus11 -52 -54
-54 -56 Bus 1 Bus1 Bus Bus21
21 -46 Bus11
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus 11 Bus11 Bus Bus31

31 -54 -56 Bus 1 Bus1 BusBus21
21
1.04 Bus21 -48
Bus 11 Bus11 BusBus31
31
-56

voltage angles (deg)

0 5 10 15 20 Bus21
Bus31 -56 0 5 10 15 20
time (s) Bus31
time (s)
1.02 0 5 10 15 20 -50 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
time (s)
-52
1
-54
0.98
-56
0.96 -58
-48
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
voltage angles (deg)

-48 -50 time (s) time (s)

Fig. 20. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
voltage angles (deg)

-50 -52 Fig. 23. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE
39-bus modified test system with exciter models 39-bus modified test system without exciter models
Bus1
-52 -54
Bus11
-54 -56 Bus 1 Bus1 Bus Bus21
21 In addition, the stability condition of the IEEE 39-bus
1.04
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus 11 Bus11 Bus Bus31

31 modified test system during transient analysis is further
-56 Bus21
0 5 10 15 20 assessed by considering a worst case scenario. At time t = 1 s,
Bus31
time (s) a balanced three phase fault is applied at bus 39 and is cleared
1.02
0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
at t=1.2 s. As shown in Fig. 24, if the system generators are
not equipped with governor models, then the system will
1
collapse.

0.98 52
51
w ithout governors
0.96 50
51
(Hz)
frequency (Hz)

0 5 10 15 20 49
frequency

time (s) 50
48
Fig. 21. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
39-bus modified test system without exciter models 49
47
TABLE VI 46
REAL POWER LOSSES IN IEEE 39-BUS SYSTEM 48
Losses in default topology Modified topology 45
(MW) (MW) 00 5 5 10 10 15
42.8 42.8 time (s)
(s)
Fig. 24. System frequency in the IEEE 39-bus modified test
system without governor models
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 7

52 46
51
51
with
w ith governors
governors 44
50
50 46

rotor angles (deg)

51
(Hz)
frequency (Hz)
(Hz)

42 44
49
49

rotor angles (deg)

42
50
frequency
frequency

40
48
48 40
38 GenGen58
58
49 38
47
47 GenGen59
59
36 Gen 60
36 Gen60
46
46
48 0 2 4 6 8 10
34 time (s)
45
45 0 2 4 6 8 10
000 105
10 10
20
20 15
30
30 20
40 time (s)
time(s)
time
time (s)
(s) 1.02

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Fig. 25. System frequency in the IEEE 39-bus modified test Fig. 27. Generator rotor angle for selected machines in the
system with governor models IEEE 1.01
57-bus modified test system
1.02

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus5
1.01 1 Bus16
In particular, when the speed limits of a generator are
Bus 5 Bus5 Bus Bus36
36
violated (in this case the speed drops below 48 Hz or exceeds 0.99

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1.02 1 Bus 16 Bus16 Bus Bus54
54
52 Hz), auxiliary corrective measures are applied (e.g., 0.98 Bus36
0.99
under/over frequency control), and the corresponding 1.01 Bus54
0.98 0.97
generator is tripped. Consequently, since the system 0 5 10 15 20
generators are not equipped with any governor models, a 1 time (s)
0.97
0 5 10 15 20
sequence of generator trips ensues leading to system collapse. 0.99 time (s)
However, if the system generators are equipped with governor
models, a generator trip through an under/over frequency 0.98
control scheme does not lead to more generator trips, since the
0.97
governors maintain the speed of each generator close to the
nominal speed. As a result, the system can withstand the fault 0.96
and it can maintain its synchronism, as shown in Fig. 25. 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
D. IEEE 57-Bus Modified Test System 1.02
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Fig. 28. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE

The IEEE 57-bus modified test system has 7 synchronous 57-bus modified test system with exciter models
1.01
1.02
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

machines with IEEE type-1 exciters (3 of which are Bus5

1 Bus16
synchronous compensators), 64 buses, 65 transmission lines, 1.02 1.01
22 transformers and 42 constant impedance loads (with a total Bus 5 Bus5 Bus Bus36
36
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1 0.99
1.01 Bus 16 Bus16 Bus Bus54
54
of 1250.8 MW and 336.4 MVAr). The stability condition of 0.98 Bus36
0.99
the IEEE 57-bus modified test system is assessed through a Bus54
1 0.97
single load event. At time t = 1 s, the value of loads at buses 1, 0.98 0 5 10 15 20
2, 12, 16 and 17 is increased by 10% (total step change of 52 0.99 0.97
time (s)
MW). The IEEE 57-bus modified test system response under 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
this event is given in Figs 26-31. 0.98

50 50 0.97
withwith governors
governors
without governors
without governors
0.96
frequency (Hz)

49.5
49.8
frequency (Hz)

0 5 10 15 20
49 time (s)
49.6
Fig. 29. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
48.5 57-bus modified test system without exciter models
49.4
0 5 10 15 20 TABLE VII
time (s) REAL POWER LOSSES IN IEEE 57-BUS SYSTEM
49.2 Losses in default topology Modified topology
0 5 10 15 20 (MW) (MW)
time (s) 27.9 27.9
Fig. 26. System frequency in the IEEE 57-bus modified
test system with and without governor models
 1.02

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 8
1.02 1.01 68

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus5 Gen119
1 66 Gen122

rotor angles (deg)

1.01 Bus16 68
Bus 5 Bus5 BusBus36
36 64 Gen 119 Gen119 GenGen128
128
1 0.99 70 66 Gen 122 Gen122 GenGen134
134
Bus 16 Bus16 BusBus54
54

rotor angles (deg)

62
voltage angles (deg)

Gen128

rotor angles (deg)

0.98 Bus36 64
-8 0.99 60 Gen134
Bus54
0.97 65 62
0.98 0 5 10 15 20 58
60
-10 time (s) 56
0.97
0 5 10 15 20 58
0 2 4 6 8 10
time (s) 60 56 time (s)
-12 0 2 4 6 8 10
time (s)
55
-14
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
1.02 time (s) time (s)
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Fig. 30. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE Fig. 33. Generator rotor angle for selected machines in the
1.01 test system with exciter models
57-bus modified
1.02 1.02 modified test system
IEEE 118-bus
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus5 Bus22
1 Bus16 1.01 Bus92
1.01 1.02
1.02

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus 5 Bus5 BusBus36
36 1 Bus 22Bus22 BusBus110
110

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1 0.99 1.01
Bus 16 Bus16 BusBus54
54 Bus 92Bus92 BusBus124
124
voltage angles (deg)

-8 0.98 Bus36 1.01 0.99 Bus110

0.99 1
Bus54 Bus124
0.98
0.98 0.97 1 0.99
0 5 10 15 20
-10 0.97
time (s) 0.98
0.97
0 5 10 15 20 0.99 0.96
time (s) 0.97 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
-12 0.98 0.96
0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
0.97
-14
0 5 10 15 20 0.96
0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
Fig. 31. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE time (s)
57-bus modified test system without exciter models
Fig. 34. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
E. IEEE 118-Bus Modified Test System 118-bus modified
1.02test system with exciter models
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus22
The IEEE 118-bus modified test system consists of 54 1.01 Bus92
1.02
synchronous machines with IEEE type-1 exciters, 20 of which
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1 Bus 22Bus22 BusBus110

110
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

are synchronous compensators used only for reactive power 1.01 Bus 92Bus92 BusBus124
124
1.02 0.99 Bus110
support and 15 of which are motors. There are 172 buses, 185 1
Bus124
transmission lines, 76 transformers and 91 constant impedance 0.99
0.98
loads, which consume in total 3668 MW and 1438 MVAr. To 0.97
0.98
evaluate the behavior of the IEEE 118-bus modified test 1
0.96
system during transient analysis, a switch event is considered. 0.97 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
0.96
0.98 0 5 10 15 20
50.5 50
with governors time (s)
with governors
without governors
without governors
50.4
frequency (Hz)

49.5
0.96
frequency (Hz)

0 5 10 15 20
50.3 49 time (s)
Fig. 35. Voltage magnitudes for selected buses in the IEEE
50.2 48.5 118-bus modified test system without exciter models
`
50.1 0 5 10 15 20 At time t = 1 s, both ends of transmission lines connecting
time (s) buses 13-11, 13-15, 14-12 and 14-15 are opened (bus 13 and
50 14 are isolated) creating a transient instability into the system.
0 5 10 15 20 The ability of this system to return to stable condition and
time (s) maintain its synchronism is evaluated in Figs. 32-37.
Fig. 32. System frequency in the IEEE 118-bus modified
test system with and without governor models
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH
1.02
YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 9

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus22
1.01 Bus92
1.02
proposed governor models play a crucial role in the

voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1 Bus 22Bus22 BusBus110
110
voltage angles (deg)
-12 1.01 Bus 92Bus92 BusBus124
124 maintenance of the system frequency, even under severe
1
0.99 Bus110 faults. Moreover, the voltage magnitudes of the buses for all
0.98 Bus124 the test systems are preserved close to their pre-fault values in
-14 0.99
the presence of the proposed exciter models. In the case of the
0.97
0.98 rotor angle stability, it is obvious that the generators maintain
-16 0.96 synchronism between them after the occurrence of a fault.
0.97 0 5 10 15 20
time (s)
-18 0.96
0 5 10 15 20 REFERENCES
time (s) [1] P. Kundur and C. Taylor, “Blackout experiences and lessons, best
-20 practices for system dynamic performance, and the role of new
technologies,” IEEE Task Force Report 2007.
0 5 10 15 20 [2] P. Kundur, Power system stability and control, New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1994.
time (s) [3] R. Christie, “Power system test archive,” Aug. 1999. [Online].
Fig. 36. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE Available: http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca.
118-bus modified1.02
test system with exciter models [4] IEEE Committee Report, “Transient Stability Test Systems for Direct
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

Bus22
1.01 Stability Methods,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 1,
1.02 Bus92 pp.37-44, Feb. 1992.
voltage magnitudes (p.u.)

1 Bus 22Bus22 BusBus110

110 [5] “Bulk power systems models,” Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan
-12 1.01 Bus 92Bus92 BusBus124
124 (IEEJ), Available:
voltage angles (deg)

0.99 Bus110 http://www2.iee.or.jp/ver2/pes/23-st_model/english/index020.html.

-14
-16
-18
-20
0 5
Fig. 37. Voltage angles for selected buses in the IEEE
118-bus modified test system without exciter models
TABLE VIII
REAL POWER LOSSES IN IEEE 118-BUS SYSTEM
Losses in default topology Modified topology
(MW) (MW)
122.3 122.3
In this paper the dynamic models and the dynamic
parameters for sixth order full machine models (i.e., machine,
exciter, and governor) as well as for the condensers and
motors contained in the IEEE 14, 30, 39, 57, and 118 bus
systems are defined based on typical data provided in [9]. The
topology of the proposed dynamic IEEE test bed systems was
slightly altered from the default one by adding new buses with
a lower voltage level for the generators, condensers, and
motors, in order to be compliant with the rated voltage level of
the dynamic models provided in [9]. The procedure followed
in this paper for including dynamic models into a system can
be generalized for several systems, assuming that the rated
power of the generators, motors, and condensers are known.
The dynamic test systems complement the existing steady
state systems. Based on the simulation results, it can be
concluded that the dynamic models with the proposed typical
parameters are reliable since the dynamic response of the
IEEE modified test systems follows the expected behavior of
actual systems under contingencies. It is shown that the
1
0.98 Bus124 [6] G.Rogers, Power system oscillations, Springer Science + Business
0.99 Media, 2000.
0.97 [7] R. Shah, N. Mithulananthan, and T. Saha, “Development of a
0.98
Comprehensive Power System Simulation Laboratory (PSS-L) at the
0.96 University of Queensland,” Test System Report, pp. 1-28, Apr. 2011.
0.97 0 5 10 15 20
time (s) http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/pssl/drupal7_with_innTheme/?q=node/374
0.96
0 5 10 15 20
[8] Illinois Center for a Smarter Electric grid (ICSEG), “Power Cases,”
[Online]. Available: http://publish.illinois.edu/smartergrid/power-cases.
time (s)
[9] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power system control and stability,
Wiley: New Delhi.
[10] PowerWorld Corporation,[Online]. Available: http://powerworld.com.
10 15 20 [11] http://www.powerworld.com/files/Block-Diagrams-18.pdf
[12] IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for Power
time (s) System Stability Studies, IEEE Standard 421.5, 2005
Panayiotis Demetriou (S’09) obtained the BSc in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Cyprus, in 2011. In 2012, he obtained the M.Sc. in
Power Systems Engineering with distinction from The University of
Manchester. Currently, he is a Ph.D. student at the University of Cyprus
working on intelligent controlled islanding for power system and power
system restoration.
Markos Asprou (S’09) obtained the B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering
from the University of Cyprus in 2009. Currently he is a Ph.D. candidate in
the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of
V. CONCLUSIONS Cyprus. His research interests include monitoring and state estimation of
power systems using synchronized measurements
Jairo Quiros-Tortos (S’08, M’14) received the B.Sc. and Licentiate degree
with honors in Electrical Engineering from the University of Costa Rica,
Costa Rica, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in Electrical
Engineering from The University of Manchester, U.K., in 2014. Currently, he
is a Post Doctoral Research Associate at The University of Manchester,
working on network integration of electric vehicles.
Elias Kyriakides (S’00, M’04, SM’09) is from Nicosia, Cyprus. He received
the B.Sc. degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, Illinois
in 2000, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Arizona State University in
Tempe, Arizona in 2001 and 2003 respectively, all in Electrical Engineering.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at the University of Cyprus, and a founding member of
the KIOS Research Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks. He served as
the Action Chair of the ESF-COST Action IC0806 “Intelligent Monitoring,
Control, and Security of Critical Infrastructure Systems” (IntelliCIS) (2009-
2013). His research interests include synchronized measurements in power
systems, security and reliability of the power system network, optimization of
power system operation techniques, and renewable energy sources.

View publication stats