1
Hydro-Québec’s challenges and experiences in
on-line DSA applications
L. Loud1, Member, IEEE, S. Guillon2, Senior Member, IEEE, G. Vanier1, Member, IEEE,
J.A. Huang1, L. Riverin2, D. Lefebvre2 and J-C. Rizzi1
Abstract-- Hydro-Québec has a long interest in on-line
dynamic security assessment (DSA) necessitated by its
challenging power network dynamics (transient, fast and slow
voltage collapse). We are presently using off-line calculated
security indicators and an on-line monitoring system approach.
Every 5 seconds our system provides dynamic security limits, the
impact of each out-of-service component, simple guidelines to aid
in preventive/corrective control and security-margins which
modulate certain special protection systems. These limits are
extensively used off-line in the operating and planning
environments to ensure security-result coherency for
maintenance planning, day-ahead scheduling and ATC
calculations. These security indicators are based on topological
data and operating conditions.
In this context of this high-performance mission-critical
system, this paper discusses the practical challenges and
experiences of our implemented DSA system as well other
specific components including: state estimation, soft knowledge,
contingency analysis, performance, equipment limit sensitivity,
reliability, responsibility and on-line/off-line coherency.
Index Terms-- Dynamic security assessment, Power system
security, Power system stability.
I. INTRODUCTION
H ydro-Québec (HQ) has a long interest in on-line real-time
security based monitoring. Since the 1980’s the
transmission network has been operated based on transmission
limits which are refreshed every few seconds to provide its
operators with up-to-date information on the security of its
current power system. Like other utilities, there is a strong
trend to increase transfer limits, increase network flexibility
and reduce operating costs.
Operation planning is responsible to develop secure off-
line strategies to optimize network utilization. The
methodology to determine these strategies is the cumulative
result of years of expertise and engineering development.
Network complexity and variability restrict the amount of
possible off-line optimization. In this context, HQ continues
improve its on-line DSA to complement its off-line analysis.
Since the mid 1990’s, HQ has focused a significant
research effort on the following subjects:
1. L. Loud, J.A. Huang, G. Vanier and J-C. Rizzi are with Hydro-Quebec
Research Institute, Varennes, QC, Canada
(e-mail:loud.lester@ireq.ca)
2. S. Guillon, D. Lefebvre and L. Riverin are with Hydro-Quebec Operation
Planning Department, Montreal, QC, Canada
978-1-4244-6551-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
• Speed-up of stability simulations (new algorithms,
variable time step, models and tools, use of a massive
multi-cpu environment).
• Contingency selection development and evaluation [13].
• Multi-dimensional dynamic-transfer-limit searches and
optimization techniques [5].
• Conversion of EMS data to study data [2].
• Defining a DSA architecture [1],[2]
• Developing and testing integrated environments in real-
time and near-to-real-time [5].
Our orientation and focus has and continues to change over
the years as we adapt to a changing network and engineering
strategies, new company requirements, advances in algorithms
and computational hardware [9].
The purpose of this paper is to summarize our present
planning and operating practices focused around our on-line
DSA system in the context of our current research efforts and
future implementations. The challenges arising from
exceeding the capacities of our existing tools and practices
will be discussed as well as our experiences during this
journey. The focus of this paper avoids static-security-
assessment topics, such as on-line post-contingency power
flow or identification of thermal overloading, all mature tools
and an integral part of HQ’s existing on-line security tools.
The next section of the paper introduces the HQ network
and its modeling and analytical challenges, followed by a brief
summary of the existing methodology used calculate, store
and apply on-line transfer limits. The characteristics and usage
of HQ’s existing security assessments system is then
summarized. In this context, our experience and challenges
posed by meeting and surpassing the existing functionality
with conventional 1on-line DSA are then discussed.
Challenges of using HQ’s existing DSA system are also
examined in light of our recent and current research activities.
II. POWER NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS
The Hydro-Quebec transmission network consists of
mainly radial 735 kV, series compensated transmission lines,
20 static var compensators (SVC) and synchronous
condensers (SC), and a multi-terminal +/- 450 kV DC line.
Figure 1 shows the main grid of the Hydro-Quebec
transmission network. Most of power generation is hydro-
1
In this paper, conventional on-line DSA is, “… a snapshot of the actual
system condition is taken and the system security for this operating condition
is computed in near-real-time…”[3] p.2-5

electric and located in the North. The main load centers are
1000 km away in the South. The peak load is approximately
38000 MW.
To meet the ever increasing demands placed on its
transmission network, since 1990 HQ has been installing more
series compensation as well as automatic controls and fast
protection systems rendering the network much more robust.
Since HQ is not synchronized with neighbouring utilities, it
does not have a strong inertia like that of the NPCC system,
and therefore it has higher frequency sensitivity. HQ is
connected with its neighbours with 5 DC ties.
Security
limit points
Figure 1. Hydro-Québec’s main transmission network
III. DYNAMIC TRANSFER LIMIT DETERMINATION
HQ has been assessing the static and dynamic security
conditions as well as providing mission-critical2 security
margins in real-time to their operators since the 1980’s. These
limits are determined and structured by the operations
planning department. The processes to calculate these limits
and the database tool used to determine these limits for a
specific network configuration, LIMSEL (LIMit SELection),
is continually evolving to maximize the network capacity
while ensuring its security. LIMSEL performs a variety of
functions and is used as a core tool including real-time
operations, maintenance planning and operation scheduling.
See Figure 2.
The principle objective of the dynamic power transfer limit
and their associated operating strategies is to ensure a secure
operation of the power network with limited frequency
deviation and adequate voltage control. Since the severity of
2 3
Mission critical in the sense that its unavailability would potentially put
the network at serious risk. See categorization of DSA reliability in [10].
2
the contingencies is directly related to the power transfer, the
operation strategy is based on a set of power limits allowed in
the 5 main corridors of the HQ network. (See Figure 1).
The dynamic power transfer limits and their corresponding
operating strategies are calculated using off-line studies for a
set of predetermined power network configurations necessary
to operate the network. These include normal, maintenance
and voltage-control network configurations. Each
configuration is then augmented by the additional outage of
any one power line. By performing extensive and thorough
time-domain stability studies and a subsequent synthesis,
dynamic transfer limits can be extracted.
Typical study networks contain 1000 buses and 350
machines. Due to the DC interconnections, simplified
neighboring models can be used to represent its relative
electrical isolation. This moderately small system model
enables extensive and rigorous simulation and understanding.
Due to the highly capacitive nature of the 735 kV transmission
lines, 330 Mvar switched shunt banks coupled with SVC and
SC and are used extensively for voltage control. The effect of
the automatic switched shunt inductors and static var
production limitation results in very non-linear voltage
stability simulations. PTI’s PSSe and quasi-steady state3
(QSS) [11] simulation programs are used to performed the
transient and voltage stability time-domain simulations
respectively.
Time-domain simulations require a full network
representation and full detailed modelling. Dynamic and
system models are refined using data providing from real
operating conditions. The simulation duration ranges from 10
to 30 seconds for transient stability and 300 to 600 seconds for
voltage stability simulations.
The robustness of the network is qualified in terms of its
dynamic response to disturbances. It varies depending on the
electrical conditions prior to disturbance and the severity and
location of the disturbance. These conditions, called elements,
consist of in-service equipment, power transfer, generation
patterns, voltage level, load demand, load model, use of
automatic control, threat of extreme climatic conditions, etc. A
collection of element conditions form a configuration. Three
types of stability transients are observed in our security
studies: Transient stability, fast and slow voltage collapses. In
the north, near most of the generation, the network stability is
limited mainly by first swing or classical transient stability. In
the middle of the HQ network there is a mix of transient
stability, fast voltage collapse and long-term voltage stability.
In the south, the predominant phenomenon is long-term
voltage stability. The main limiting factors are not only angle
and voltage stability but also quality criteria on voltage and
frequency.
Once the stability limits have been determined for each
configuration, the sensitivity and impact of specific network
elements on the dynamic transfer limits must be studied and
understood. This is important information to enable an
HQ’s QSS version is a partnership between Université de Liège and the
Hydro-Quebec Research Institute.

REAL-TIME
Study model
State Estimator
generator
System operator
SCADA
LimitsWhat-if scenarios
LIMSEL
SPS modulation
(Limit Select)
ATI – Substation
OASIS topology analysis
ATC
Load model
estimation (Np)
Figure 2. DSA and limit usage architecture
engineer to construct optimized and readily usable limit tables.
Gleaning this knowledge is not trivial and is usually obtained
from exploratory stability studies.
These limits and element sensitivities are subsequently
integrated into LIMSEL which stores this information in
compact forms of decision tables. To a specific power system
configuration there is a corresponding set of transmission
limits. Each transfer limit is the summation of a base value
and other element-dependent values which increase or
decrease the limit [4], [5].
To show the complexity of the information stored in
LIMSEL, an example of a simple transient-stability decision-
table for a 5-line Northern James-Bay (NJB) transfer (Figure
1) configuration is used. This decision table contains limits for
1760 NBJ regional operating conditions. LIMSEL contains
hundreds of other such tables.
IV. CHARACTERISTICS AND USAGE OF HQ’S EXISTING
SECURITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
LIMSEL’s existing on-line DSA functionality is critical to
our network operation and is established as a minimal
performance reference for any future DSA developments.
Future upgrades or improvements must not in any way
degrade or decrease this existing functionality and
performance but will need to augment them. Any conventional
HQ-DSA project must at least maintain this performance.
The key characteristics and contexts of utilization of
LIMSEL are summarized in the following subsections: the
scope of the limits, a detailed limit description, the study
complexity, real-time substation topology analysis, real-time
load models, soft influences, quality control and
responsibility, coherent, consistent and predictable limits,
speed of limit calculations, study model generator and on-line
corrective SPS action.
A. Scope of limits
At each execution of our DSA system, LIMSEL
simultaneously calculates multi-dimensional limits for 5 main
3
STUDY
Event studies
Maintenance
scheduling
(daily to yearly)
Interchange scheduling
Supply-load Generation plan
balancing
Load forecasting
and a few minor transfer corridors [5]. Limits are also
provided for all DC links. Each limit calculation takes into
consideration each of the details described in section IV. B. ,
if it is relevant to the specific study, resulting in about 30
multi-dimensional stability limits. The final limit displayed to
the operator for each corridor is the most restrictive of all the
limits analyzed.
LIMSEL also provides basic guidelines and indicators to
aid in optimal network operation and preventive/corrective
control in conditions of network congestion. Examples are:
optimal generation balance and utilization strategies of shunt
inductors. Due to the highly radial configuration of the HQ
network, many actions are directly related to corridor flows.
These guidelines are based on simulations as well as
engineering experience and can differ depending on the
congestion situation considered.
Intermediate limit values, however, are used to modulate
various Special Protection Systems (SPS) [8]. For example,
forest fire limit reduction will not impact the load shedding
and generation tripping settings of a SPS.
LIMSEL supports other user specified modes such as
emergency (only 3-phase faults) or others (permitting certain
SPS’s) each of which requires a different calculation
methodology.
B. Detailed limit description
LIMSEL has a user friendly interface, allowing fast access
to not only the limits but also to a summary of the sensitive
elements and their impact on the limits or operating strategies.
The breakdown of each limit is represented by:
• separate results for each of the following relevant limit
analysis:
o steady-state voltage
o transient stability (TR)
o long-term voltage stability (LT)
o impact of circuit breaker unavailability (CBU) CBU-
TR, CBU-LT
o impact of loss of DC line

o thermal post-contingency
• element influence or sensitivity (line, SVC, CS and other
equipment status; dependent corridor flows; etc.)
• contingency type (3 phase, single phase and single phase
with stuck breaker) and its consequences (such as loss of
a DC convertor)
The breakdown or sensitivity of each element is used to
explain why a limit has changed and determine the impact of
what-if scenarios (future scheduled outages, operation guides,
…). Elements chosen are, either easily controlled (flows,
voltage level, elements status, etc.) or monitored (temperature
for load model type, etc.). See [4] for further information.
C. Study complexity
As shown in the previous section, power-limit calculations
and optimization are complicated by the complex interaction
of the many network elements, as observed by their impact on
stability related behavior. The impact of each of these
elements has to be determined in order to set secure operation
ranges. The challenge is to maintain modeling accuracy and
system security, yet capture these results in a relatively simple
limit strategy that is valid and optimized for a large range of
operating conditions.
HQ engineers presently use their experience and creativity
to synthesize and simplify the dynamic transfer limits
problem. System responses change, in the HQ network,
depending on the location of contingencies and each location
has its own particularities and specificities. Limit evaluations
are usually customized for each location, as general rules do
not result in optimized, secure limits. Other considerations
such as the correlation between various transfer corridors,
global optimization, network placement and of high
importance, the operability of the produced strategies are also
taken into account. Accurately capturing and automating this
knowledge and methodology is not a trivial task.
D. Real-time substation topology analysis (ATI)
HQ’s real-time substation-topology-analysis software ATI
is executed every 5 seconds. ATI evaluates the impact of
potential faults on degraded substations. In these conditions, a
single fault may result in multiple equipment (line, generator,
load, ..) losses causing significant loss of transmission
capacity. Each potential consequence is identified and a
synthesis is provided to LIMSEL as well as to the operators.
LIMSEL uses this information to determine the impact (CBU-
TR and BCU-LT) on the dynamic transfer limit. ATI is also
used off-line to minimize the impact of breaker maintenance.
E. Real-time load model
The load model, which depends on the meteorological
conditions, has an important impact on voltage and transient
stability and therefore on dynamic power transfer capacity.
Since 1991, HQ derives its load model in real time using a
global exponential factor Np4. This factor is calculated using
4
Np : This is the exponent found in the following equation :
P = P0*(V/ V0)Np where P is the power and V is the voltage of the load.
4
the proportion of base, heating, lighting and air conditioning
loads in the forecast total demand. This method results in
more stable hour-to-hour changes in this factor than the
previous temperature-based model and better grounds the
global Np factor on the type of consumption [14]. The
dynamic transfer limits stored in LIMSEL reflect the influence
of this load model.
F. Soft influences
More heuristic or soft types of restrictions are also
included in the limit calculations and render them more
complex. These include environmental conditions such as
magnetic and ice storms as well as forest fires. These
restrictions rely heavily on engineering experience and
company practices and are much harder to quantify directly.
G. Quality control and responsibility
The operation planning department is responsible for
providing optimal, secure operating limits. These limits,
determined and certified by licensed, professional engineers,
are stored in a pier reviewed report containing methodology,
assumptions and results. Using the information in these signed
reports, control center personnel implement the new limits in
LIMSEL and a final validation is performed by both operation
and operation planning engineers. All working documents
paper trails, and data necessary to reproduce these limits must
be kept for 10 years.
H. Coherent, consistent and predictable limits
Day-to-day operations of the network necessitate a tight
integration and coordination of the operation and planning
environments. These activities include maintenance planning,
generation plan integration, load forecasting, interchanges
with neighboring networks and system controls. The
integration is achieved using LIMSEL which is utilized in
both real-time operations and planning contexts. See Figure 2.
It is also important that the limits be predictable for similar
network conditions. This is achieved by removing the limit
impact of various less important and highly variable elements
and using representative scenarios. An example would be
taking the most restrictive reasonable load distribution or
feeder line configurations for a given network. The judicious
choice of these elements and understanding network operation
results in consistent limits and enables the operator to predict
the effect of major system elements and better understand the
key elements in the network.
Representative scenarios and element impact thresholds are
chosen to provide necessary dead-bands which avoid
continuous, meaningless changes in limits. This results in a
slight loss of optimality but is more than compensated by the
smoothing effect on limits for similar network conditions.
This makes the limits more predictable. Operators find it very
unsettling when limits change when no actions or events have
occurred.

I. Speed of limit calculations
Limits are presently being used in the control centre and
throughout the operations and planning processes at HQ. Both
real-time and off-line environments require rapid limit
calculations.
Speed in real-time environments is necessary to provide
instantaneous information to the operators to assess the
situation or problem, consider LIMSEL guidelines and then
validate a variety of potential what-if scenarios. Operators
have 20 minutes to place the network into a secure state and
thus require information as soon as possible.
Rapid response time is also necessary as limits are used to
modulate, in real-time, the SPS’s strategies.
Off-line usages also require rapid limit determination due
to the quantity of cases tested and the required response time.
LIMSEL is used in determining maintenance scheduling
(daily, weekly, monthly, yearly), ATC posting, supply-load
balancing (hourly over 24 hours) and analysis of what-if
scenarios. See Figure 2.
One of the intensive off-line usages of LIMSEL is for
operation planning studies. These studies are performed with a
one year look-ahead period, and seek to optimize the use of
the system. They must anticipate a wide range of operating
situations, respect the operating reserve all the while
considering the withdrawal of equipment for maintenance, in
order to enable power transactions and production
management.
To meet these computational requirements, LIMSEL
presently recalculates new limits for a given system state in
less than 5 seconds.
J. Study model generator
Since 1994, HQ has stored all its historical state-estimator
snap-shot data every 5 minutes and more recently every
minute. The study model generator augments the state
estimation data, using rules, by the inclusion and adjustment
of non-observable portions, dynamic model adjustment, bad
data detection and simplified correction, etc. This real-time
data is accessible for off-line stability studies and is presently
used as an occasional-use application [1].
K. On-line corrective SPS action
HQ uses SPS for extreme contingencies. Coordinated
generation rejection and load shedding actions are based on
the type of event. In real time the settings are adjusted taking
into account the actual real-time operating conditions and
level of real power transfer margin calculated from LIMSEL.
The underlying principle is to include the network robustness
in the amplitude of the SPS action. Rejection settings are
determined in each LIMSEL calculation, and are always in
service. Each 735 kV substation has its own set of modulated
rules. For example, one substation has 56 rules and varies the
number of units between 10 to 0 for the simultaneous loss of
two power lines. Modulating rules are also used for load
shedding [8].
5
V. EXPERIENCES AND CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT DSA
PROCESS
Based on years of practical experience and for different
implementations, and considering the current HQ DSA and
limits determination process, some questions and challenges
still remain. This section examines several of HQ’s
experiences and challenges related to the usage and
integration of both a conventional and HQ’s current on-line
DSA system. These aspects relate specifically to HQ’s
environment and needs but certainly concern other power
network operation preoccupations.
A. Conventional on-line DSA
Even though HQ has only parts of a functioning
conventional on-line DSA system, we have gleaned a lot of
experience through years of operation of our existing on-line
system as well as evaluation tests. The subjects discussed
related to conventional DSA include: State estimator
performance and conversion to simulation data, knowledge
encapsulation, performance issues, usage in on-line and off-
line environments, quality control and responsibility and
finally reliability.
1) State estimator reliability and accuracy
The state estimator is a critical and challenging part of a
conventional DSA system. Many papers have been written
concerning common problems including topology errors,
model inaccuracies, measurement weights, measurement
system (dead bands, biases, time skews) and solution qualities.
HQ has put a lot of effort into understanding and detecting
these problems [6][7]. It has been observed that active power
is much more reliability predicted than reactive power. The
HQ network’s behaviour, however, is highly dependent on
reactive power. Studies using thousands of networks
snapshots [8] have shown the necessity of judiciously
selecting study cases.
The effect of the state estimator’s results and the network
representation differences are key challenges that still require
much effort and work to ensure robust and reliable real-time
estimates.
2) Data conversion for simulation and validation
The study model generator described in section IV. J. has
worked well over the years and has continued to evolved with
the network and state estimator. It requires rigorous
maintenance to ensure the equivalent and dynamic models
remain up-to-date and follow changes in the network. We are
presently undergoing a complete reworking of the software.
Work has also been done to compare the network study
models used in off-line analysis with those produced by the
study model generator to identify modelling differences and
their effect on dynamic transfer limits. Differences have been
observed and require further investigation.
3) Cognitive capacity and implicit knowledge used in
defining dynamic transfer limit studies
Defining a limit calculation methodology is not a trivial
task. (See section IV. C. ). There are many considerations
which can be dependent on the operating conditions. Much of

this understanding relies on the engineer’s experience and
previously network studies. Many counter-intuitive
phenomena when stressing the network have been observed
during in-depth studies. Capturing and exploiting this
knowledge to ensure secure but optimal usage of the network
remains a great challenge. HQ has made progress in defining
models to represent these studies based on engineering
experience and is presently being implemented [5].
Other challenges lie in rapidly defining key indicators or
system elements to determine the validity of a calculated limit.
This problem is accentuated during crisis situations such as
the loss of 13 fallen lines due to ice loading in 1998.
Maintaining a coherent and secure methodology to determine
dynamic transfer limits during extreme conditions remains a
challenge.
4) Computational speed
The computational speed of the conventional DSA presents
an enormous challenge for HQ due to existing tools. LIMSEL
determines all information detailed in sections IV. A. , B. in
less than 5 seconds. For conventional DSA, this is difficult to
match especially given the urgency to redispatch the network
following a major event. The calculation delay after major
events is an important preoccupation.
Conventional on-line DSA calculations determine one-
dimensional limits typically in a 10-30 minute horizon [10].
These methods are heavily based on contingency analysis,
early termination criteria or simplified modelling, which can
be problematic for the HQ system. The HQ system requires
full time-domain stability simulations for all plausible events
during limit searches.
Predictive methods to determine probable ranges of
operating states can be considered to deal with the 10-30
minute calculation delay. This, however, increases the
problem formulation size due to the uncertainty in predicted
network parameter changes.
Such time delays are too long to provide what-if scenarios
for operators and sensitivity and corrective/preventive control
calculations just exacerbate the problem.
New improved DSA limits may not be compatible with the
existing SPS settings. It remains to be seen if these settings
need to be updated given the new security context, in this
which renders the problem much more complex.
Ever increasing computer performance and decreasing
clustering prices can help. We also have promising
preliminary results in using decision trees to encapsulate off-
line dynamic transfer limits for a wide range of network
conditions [9].
a) Contingency selection
Over the past decade, we have evaluated and tested several
major techniques on the HQ network to determine the
performance of various contingency analysis methods. This
discussion is focused on their performance especially for the
HQ system. Our tests show that there is no single method
which can perform well to rank the severity of various
contingencies. Testing was based on security and efficiency
demonstrated by the discrimination and ranking of insecure
6
and secure contingencies. The performance of these
techniques seems to be based on the type of stability
phenomena being investigated.
Most of these techniques work well for transient stability
phenomena (contingencies applied predominantly in the north
of the Hydro-Quebec network) and were able to reliably
classify severity for 3-phase faults.
When applying contingencies in the middle of the Hydro-
Quebec network, there is a mix of transient stability, fast
voltage collapse and long-term voltage stability. In this
changing region, no methods performed adequately. WASI
[12][13] method provides better results but was found to be
slow as it requires time-domain simulations. It could predict
somewhat fast voltage collapse by sacrificing ranking
accuracy (many stable cases being ranked unstable).
For the contingencies in the south, the predominant
phenomena are long-term voltage stability problems. Due to
the nonlinear effect of switched-shunt protection devices,
none of the tested methods was able to reliably predict the
most severe contingencies.
The performance of these contingency analysis methods
was further degraded when limit searches were performed and
voltage and frequency performance quality criteria were
introduced. The rank of severe contingencies can change
places during the search, therefore, requiring the contingency
analysis to be performed at each limit-search iteration.
In conclusion we:
• abandoned all fast ranking methods and use a fixed list
of contingencies with on-the-fly re-ordering [5].
• found the contingency selection maintenance (tuning,
model maintenance and robustness for any network
configuration) was not justified by the results.
• are considering some early termination algorithms
[12][13].
• are using fast QSS algorithms to calculate voltage
stability [11].
• simulate the final limit point for all important
contingencies to ensure security.
b) Multi-core speed up
Multi-contingency time-domain transient-stability
simulations are well suited for distributed computing as each
contingency can be run on a separator core. Performance tests
we have performed can significantly, and almost linearly,
reduce the computational time all the while retaining the same
models as off-line. Despite this potential for improvement, the
challenge still remains to provide an acceptable performance
for the usages described of LIMSEL.
5) Integration in on-line and off-line environments
Another challenge is meeting the need of off-line dynamic
transfer limits for a several applications. (See maintenance
scheduling and supply-load balancing in Figure 2). These
transfer limits are obtained using several key network
indicators and a power flow solution is not required. For
example, the supply-load balancing application uses a
simplified transportation models with dynamic transfer limit
constraints supplied by LIMSEL.

Moreover, coherency and predictability is required between
the off-line and on-line transfer limits. Therefore limits used
for planning will be the same for system operations.
As calls to LIMSEL are integrated into several off-line
tools, adequate performance and building credible data models
are not trivial tasks. Dynamic transfer limits are determined
for families of network conditions which permits this
generalized usage. This is not easily automated without
including engineering expertise.
6) Quality control and responsibility
The consequences of erroneous DSA limits could be
catastrophic in the network operation. There is a real
administrative challenge in transferring the responsibility and
review process from power system engineers to a software
package which has adequately and conservatively
encapsulated their implicit and explicit knowledge.
At HQ, automating various aspects in determining dynamic
transfer limits has been accepted as long as the engineer is in
control and can understand the process. The challenge remains
in finding the right balance between their limit predictability,
knowledge encapsulation, carefully circumscribing the scope
of validity, rigorous testing and official method approbation.
This remains a key element in implementing DSA.
7) Availability and reliability
LIMSEL must respect the reliability criteria of software
being implemented in a control centre. LIMSEL runs on
redundant fail-over servers and has run without incident for
over 20 years. This type of reliability and robustness for this
mission-critical analysis is another challenge to be met by
complex DSA software suits.
B. Off-line dynamic transfer limits
Considering the non-trivial challenges remaining at HQ to
integrate a conventional DSA in the operations environment,
other avenues are being explored to increase dynamic transfer
limits presently being stored in LIMSEL and leverage this
knowledge to improve the performance of a future
conventional on-line DSA implementation. The subjects
discussed are related to off-line dynamic transfer limits: limit
accuracy, optimizing limit tables and predicting limits using
data mining techniques.
1) Improve limit accuracy
Simulation methods and techniques used in either off-line
or in conventional on-line DSA studies are in constant
evolution. Even through different emphasis (accuracy,
performance and efficiency) is placed on each environment,
many of the advancements can be mutually beneficial. An
example is shown to improve limit accuracy by reducing the
engineering time required to calculate the limits off-line.
These limits are constantly being updated which requires a
significant effort. Projects are currently underway to
implement some DSA techniques to help the engineers reduce
this time [5].
Calculating Np on-line resulted in an improvement in limit
accuracy, but there still remains much work to do in
improving the system, load models and the effect of induction
motors on the load model.
7
2) Optimize limit tables off-line
One specific limit table is calculated based on extensive
engineering knowledge and several hundred limit searches.
With today’s computer clusters we can generate huge amounts
and variety of cases but the challenge is to analyse and
synthesize them. Optimisation techniques we have tested are
capable of transforming the results of 10’s of thousands of
limit searches into dynamic transfer limits and identify the key
indicators to capture this information.
3) Using data mining techniques to predict dynamic
transfer limits from off-line studies
Section III. demonstrated the difficulty and importance of
understanding the sensitivity and impact of specific network
elements on the transfer limits. HQ is presently evaluating the
possibility of systematically generating transfer limits from
10’s of thousands of realistic cases representing a wide range
of system configuration variations. Data mining techniques
are subsequently used to build regression trees on this huge
database to find the relationship between the transfer limits
and parameter variations.
Subsequently, the regression trees are used to rapidly
predict transfer limits for new configurations in order to avoid
lengthy time-domain simulations. It has been demonstrated
that basic data-mining techniques are proficient in
automatically synthesizing these results and even deducing
limits for topologies not explicitly studied with a reasonable
degree of accuracy [9]. Rapid access to these limits and the
sensitivities of the status of specific elements can potentially
be foreseen to: 1) aid planning engineers in the planning and
execution steps of limit calculations and 2) be used to
determine limits in real-time.
4) Predicting dynamic transfer limits from a single
simulation
We have noticed a certain degree of error when using
decision trees to predict transfer limits. The information
available from a single simulation coupled with neural
networks can significantly reduce this error and also
accelerate a limit search used in conventional DSA.
VI. CONCLUSION
Hydro-Québec has a long interest in on-line DSA. Much
effort has been placed on optimizing the network and
providing secure and consistent operating strategies
throughout the operations planning and operations
environments. Due to system size and electrical isolation, the
numerous phenomena to be studied and the challenging
voltage control issues, determining transfer limits is not a
trivial task. To meet these challenges, HQ has put in place a
variety of powerful tools and focuses a lot of effort to develop
new tools. Given this mature environment, replacement of
these tools by conventional DSA approaches presents many
challenges. Many of these challenges are outlined in this paper
and much work still remains before the complete functionality
of our existing tools and methodology could be replaced. It is
important to include many of these challenges as DSA
research goes forward towards meeting such goals.

Given HQ’s desire to continually meet the new challenges
of its expanding network, to better understand, optimize and
operate its network, HQ has ongoing research and
development activities to implement of a number of DSA and
security assessment tools, such as:
• Optimize security indicators to relieve specific close-to-
real-time congestion problems [5].
• Improve overall security assessment calculations and
indicators.
• Augment conventional DSA approaches with automatic
learning [9].
• Improve the quality of real-time state-estimator and
dynamic data model [6][7].
• Use massive simulation (super computers) to
characterize and understand system responses [9].
• Use massive simulation to optimize off-line limit
determination
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
the operation planning and operation teams at HQ
TransÉnergie in the realization of work described in this
paper.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] L. Riverin, J.A. Huang, A. Valette, F. Lafrance, “Basic Requirements for
a System of On-Line Stability Limit Analysis at Hydro-Quebec”,
Proceedings of IEEE and CSEE International Conference on Power
System Technology, Beijing, China, October 18-21 1994, pp. 865-868.
[2] L. Riverin, A. Valette,"Automation of Security Assessment for Hydro-
Quebec’s Power System in Short-Term and Real-Time Modes", paper
39-103, CIGRÉ September 1998, Paris.
[3] CIGRE Technical Report « Review of On-line Dynamic Security
Assessment Tools and Techniques », Working Group 01, Advisory
Group 6 of Study Committee C4, December 2006
[4] P. Doyle, R. Mailhot, H. Horisberger, E. Aboumrad, J. Gauthier, G.
Versailles, “LIMSEL: An efficient software for power system reliability
monitoring and control”, paper C2-204, CIGRE 2004, Paris
[5] A. Valette, J. Huang, S. Guillon, L. Loud, G. Vanier, F. Lévesque, L.
Riverin, J-C. Rizzi, F. Guillemette, “An Integrated Approach for
Optimizing Dynamic Transfer Limits at Hydro-Quebec”, IEEE PES, Vol
24, Aug. 2009, pp. 1310-1317.
[6] S. Lefebvre, J. Prévost, H. Horisberger, B. Lambert, “On the accuracy of
state estimation,” IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting,
18-22 June 2006.
[7] S. Lefebvre, J. Prévost, J.C. Rizzi, P. Ye, B. Lambert, H. Horisberger,
“Operational experience with state estimation at Hydro-Québec,” IEEE
Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 20-24 June 2008.
[8] J. Huang, S. Harrison, G. Vanier, A. Valette, L. Wehenkel, “Application
of data mining techniques for automat settings in emergency control at
Hydro-Québec”, IEEE PES, Vol 4, Jul.. 2003, pp. 2037-2044.
[9] J. Huang, G. Vanier, L. Loud, S. Guillon, J-C. Rizzi, F. Guillemette, ”
Data Mining to Find Dynamic Power Transfer Limits and Their
Sensitivities Based on Topology Information for Hydro-Quebec’s
Network”, 2009 International Conference on UHV Transmission
Proceedings, Beijing, China, May 20-22, 2009.
[10] S. Savulescu, “Real-time stability assessment in modern power system
control centers”, Wiley-IEEE Press, New York, 2009.
[11] T. Van Cutsem, R. Mailhot, “Validation of a Fast Voltage Stability
Analysis Method on the Hydro-Québec System”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, February 1997, pp. 282-292.
[12] I. Kamwa, Grondin, R., and Loud, L., "Time-varying contingency
screening for dynamic security assessment using intelligent-systems
techniques," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 16, no. 3, pp.
526-536, 2001.
8
[13] I. Kamwa, Grondin, R., Henniche, A., Trudel, G., Riverin, L., "Rapid
Stability Assessment of Extreme Contingencies Based on Wide-Area
Severity Indices," CIGRE/IEEE International Symposium on Quality
and Security of Electric Power Delivery Systems, Montreal, Canada,
Oct. 7-10, 2003.
[14] G. Grenier, J. Gagnon, C. Mercier, J. Richard, “Short-Term Load
Forecasting at Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie”, IEEE Power Engineering
Society General Meeting, 2006.
IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Lester Loud (M’97) received, in electrical engineering, the B.Eng. and
M.Eng.degrees from Concordia University in 1985 and 1988, respectively,
and the Ph.D. degree from McGill University in 1996. He has been with
Hydro-Quebec research institute, IREQ, since 1994, where he is involved with
dynamic and voltage security assessment and congestion management.
Sébastien Guillon (M’03, SM’07) graduated from Ecole Polytechnique de
Montréal, Canada, in Engineering Physics and received a M. Sc. In
Theoretical Physics from Concordia University. His experience is mainly with
the operation planning department of Hydro-Quebec TransÉnergie.
Guy Vanier (M’99) obtained his B.Eng. in electrical engineering at
Sherbrooke University in 1991. He first worked at Hydro-Quebec on the
system security analyses and operating control. After a year at CAE electronic
on the EMS, he jointed the Hydro-Quebec’s research Institute (IREQ) in 1995.
He works on the automation and acceleration of the dynamic and voltage
stability assessment. His interest includes also the determination of ATC-
TTCs and the probabilistic approach applied to power system analyses.
Jin An Huang obtained his B.Eng. and M.Sc. at Shanghai Jiao Tong
University, China, in 1982 and 1984 respectively. In 1992 he received his
Ph.D at McGill University, Canada. He spent a couple of years at Pacific Gas
and Electric Company in the planning department, San Francisco. Joining
Hydro-Quebec’s Research Institute (IREQ) in 1991, he has been working in
system restoration, transient stability analysis and dynamic security
assessment.
Daniel Lefebvre received his B. Eng in electrical engineering from the École
Polytechnique, Montréal, in 1985. Since then he has been working in the field
of electrical system simulation and system security analysis. He is presently a
team leader for a group of engineers responsible for operations and planning
at TransÉnergie.
Laval Riverin received his B.Eng. at University of Quebec, Chicoutimi,
Canada in 1973. From 1977-78, he followed power system engineering
courses at General Electric Co., Schenectady, N.Y., USA. In 1974, he jointed
Hydro-Quebec and has worked for the system operation planning department
on the system security analysis and operating strategies. Presently, he is
interested in dynamic security assessment and real-time stability simulations.
Jean-Claude Rizzi received his B.Eng from McGill University (Canada) in
1976 and his MScA from École Polytechnique de Montréal (Canada) in 1995.
He has served Hydro-Quebec since 1993, and he joined the Hydro-Quebec
Research Institute (IREQ) in 2006. He is presently a researcher in the Network
Analysis and Management Unit. His research interests are in the fields of
dynamic security assessment and real-time simulation.