Project: Stability of A Multi-Machine Electrical Power Systems

Power System Anaylisis using DIgSILENT PowerFactory
Project: Stability of a Multi-machine Electrical Power Systems

Test system and scenarios
The test system that is choosed for this study is IEEE 39-bus system. For more information about the system and the models that are
utilized, the reader can refer to the documentation included in DIgSILENT power factory example.
The IEEE 34-bus system has been divided to three geographic areas:
- North: G8, G9, G10.

- West: G1.
- South: G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7.
The following scenarios will be considered in this study:
Table 1. Scenarios dicribtion.
West North South

Scenario1 Low Low Low
Scenario2 Normal Normal Low
Scenario3 Normal Low Low
Scenario4 Low Normal Low
Scenario5 Low Low Normal
Scenario6 Normal Low Normal
- Normal inertia: inertia is kept at its normal value provided in PowerFactory project (H 0).
- Low inertia: the inertia is reduce to 50% (Hfinal=0.5H) of the orginal value (H0), considering five steps (e.g. 0.9 H0, 0.8 H0, 0.7
H0, 0.6 H0, 0.5 H0).
Task 1.1
Introduction
In this task critical clearing time(CCT) is calculated after applying three phase bolted fault to all transmission lines one by one based
on scenarios explained above. The fault is placed on 50% of each transmission line. Classical model is used for all the generators and
inertia constant is set for them according to scenarios described above. After placing fault on 50% of each line, the script named
“Critical Clearing Fault Scrinig” is executed to calculate the CCT. Setting the inertia parameters based on scenarios, applying fault on
the lines manualy, and then executing the script for all the lines is time consuming. Therefore, we developed a script which applies all
needed settings to the test system like what is mentioned in scenarios. Our new script is added to “Critical Clearing Fault Scrinig”
which calculates CCTs for all scenarios and saves it to notepad and excel file. The script was excecuted for test system and results
was saved in excel file named “CCTresult-Task 1.1 and Task 1.2”.
Results and discussion for task 1.1

The results saved in in excel file named “CCTresult-Task 1.1 and Task 1.2” have been plotted and evaluated in this section. To assess
impact of decreasing inertia constant on CCT, results of each scenario is shown in three-dimension bar plot in MATLAB software.
For example the results for scenario no. 1 is shown in Fig. 1. Each bar in the plot is dedicated to fault at a specific line and a specific
H in the scenario. The axis x demonstrates the coefficient which was multiplied to H 0 of each generator based on scenario no. 1. This
axis is candidate of inertia constant of those generators that are changed. Ploting the results versus H of each generator will get messy,
we choosed this format to show impact of changing H on CCT.
Because the place of occurring fault in the system has impact on CCT value, the axis y is dedicated to define the fault is on which
transmission line. In Fig. 1 to Fig. 12, the axis y shows the codes assigned to each line. As there is a limit in space of each axis, it is
impossible to write the name of all lines near each other in axis y. Therefore, we assigned a code to each line according table 2 that
axis y refers to these codes. The axis z demonstrates the critical cleaing time values.
Table 2. the assigned code for each line

Line 28 – 29
Line 26 - 29
Line 26 - 28
Line 26 - 27
Line 25 - 26
Line 23 - 24
Line 22 - 23
Line 21 - 22
Line 17 - 27
Line 17 - 18
Line 16 - 24
Line 16 - 21
Line 16 - 19
Line 16 - 17
Line 15 - 16
Line 14 - 15
Line 13 - 14
Line 10 - 13
Line 10 - 11
Line 09 - 39
Line 08 - 09
Line 07 - 08
Line 06 - 11
Line 06 - 07
Line 05 - 08
Line 05 - 06
Line 04 - 14
Line 04 - 05
Line 03 - 18
Line 03 - 04
Line 02 - 25
Line 02 - 03
Line 01 - 39
Line 01 - 02
Group 4 522130124.docx Page 1 of 23

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The result of executing script for scenario no. 1 is shown in Fig. 1. As results shows decreasing the H for all generators will lead to
declining of CCT of the fault occurred in most of the transmission lines. The changes do not impact on CCT of the fault occurred in
the line 01-02, line 01-39, line 02-03, line 03-04, line 03-18, line 08-09, line 09-39, line 14-15, line 17-27, line 23-24 and line 25-26.
For those lines CCT remained equal to 1 s for all values of H. This result shows that the 34-bus power system is properly stable
against the three phase bolted fault at menthoned lines.
Fig. 2 demonstrates total decline in CCT when the parameter is decreased from 0.9H 0 to 0.5H0. This figure also shows the sensitivity
of CCT to place of fault when H is decreased. It can be seen that there is a significant decrease in CCTs when fault is applied to line
04-14 and line 07-08.
An other important outcome of Fig.1 is that faults in which lines should be cleared faster. For instance, the CCT in line 06-11 has the
lowest CCT and the fault removing action must be taken in short time be missing the synchronism.
0.9
0.8
0.7
Critical Clearing Time (s)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0.9
0.8
0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.5
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Transmission Lines Code
Figure 1. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 1: inertia constant is changed for all generators.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0
Total change in CCT value (%)
-20
-40
-60
-80
Figure 2. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 1: inertia constant is decreased for all generators.
Results of executing script for scenario no. 2 are shown in Fig. no 3. As figure shows, the CCT remained equal to 1 s for the faults
occurred in the line 01-02, line 01-39, line 02-03, line 03-04, line 03-18, line 08-09, line 09-39, line 14-15, line 17-27, line 17-18, line
23-24 and line 25-26. Looking at the results for other scenarios, it can be seen that for the mensioned lines similarly the CCT is 1 s.
Changes in H according scenario 2 has a considerable impact on declining CCT of faults placed on the line 7-8 and line 04-14. If we
look at Fig. 6 and Fig. 8, the similar conclusion is true for scenario 3 and 4. Therefore, it can be said that CCT of faults placed on the
line 7-8 and line 04-14 are the most sensitive to the inertia changes in different areas.

Fig. 9 and Fig. 11 show the results of executing scenario 5 and 6. The notable point is that cutting down the H for G8, G9 and G10 has
considerable impact on declining the CCT of line 28-29, line 26-29, line 26-28, line 26-27, line 02-25. By contrast, for other lines the
alterations are zero or even in some of them the CCT numbers increased.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0.9
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 0.7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0.6
14 15 16 17 18 0.5
19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32
33 34 35
Figure 3. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 2: inertia constant is changed for G2, G3, …, G7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
Figure 4. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 2: inertia constant is decreased for G2, G3, …, G7.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2 3 4 0.9
5 6 7 0.8
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 0.7
15 16 17
18 19 20 0.6
21 22 23
24 25 26 0.5
27 28 29
30 31 32
33 34 35
Figure 5. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 3: inertia constant is changed for G2, G3, …, G10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
Figure 6. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 3: inertia constant is decreased for G2, G3, …, G10.

0. 9
0. 8
0. 7
0. 6
0. 5
0. 4
0. 3
0. 2
0. 1
nt of H
0 0. 9
0. 8
0.7
Coefficie
0 1 2 3 4 5 0. 6
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 0. 5
19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34
35
Figure 7. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 4: inertia constant is changed just for G1, G2, G3, G4, G5,
G6, G7.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
Figure 8. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 4: inertia constant is decreased for G1, G2, G3, G4,
G5, G6, G7.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0.9
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 0.7
5 6 7 8 9 0.6
10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 0.5
20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34
35
Figure 9. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 5: inertia constant is changed for G1, G8, G9, G10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
10
-10
-20
-30
Figure 10. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 5: inertia constant is decreased for G1, G8, G9,
G10.

0.9
0.8
Critical Clearing Time (s) 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.9
0 1 2 3 4 0.8
5 6 7 8 9 0.7
10 11 12 13 14 0.6
15 16 17 18 19 0.5
20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34
35
Figure 11. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 6: inertia constant is changed for G8, G9, G10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
10
-10
-20
-30
Figure 12. Total change in CCT applying classical model and scenario no. 6: inertia constant is decreased for G8, G9, G10.
Task 1.2
Introduction
In task 1.2 all the calculation similar to the previous task is down, but the difference is that the standard model is set for all the
generators. The setting of each scenario is down and then by applying three phase bolted fault on each transmission line, the CCT is
calculated. The calculation was down by executing the developed script and the results automatically was saved in a notepad and
excel formate. The result file named “CCTresult-Task 1.1 and Task 1.2” have attached to the project’s files. Bar charts was plotted
for all the scenarios by using the gained results in the following section.

The results saved in in excel file named “CCTresult-Task 1.1 and Task 1.2” have been plotted and evaluated in this section. Like the
previous section, to assess impact of decreasing inertia constant on CCT, results of each scenario is shown in three-dimension bar plot
in MATLAB software. In all the three-dimension bar plots the height of bar demonstrates the CCT of specific calculation. The three-
dimension bar plot lonely doesn’t show the CCT changes in each line. Therefore, another bar chart is ploted which shows total
changes in CCT number for each line when the H is decreased from 0.9H0 to 0.5H0.
Taking into consideration the Fig. 13, Fig. 14 … Fig. 24, the following discussion can be presented:
The results show that CCT values are considerably small for all the lines except line 09-39 and line 01-39. Therefore, when three
phase bolted faults must be clear as fast as possible, otherwise it will lead to missing the synchronism. Amoung the lines, the line 28-
29, line 21-22 and line 02-25 have the smallest value of CCT that we must take them into consideration when transient stability is
studied for this power system. For the line 09-39 and line 01-39, the CCT are significantly heigh which give more time to breaker to
remove the faulty line.

Evaluating the results it can be seen that increasing the H in all the scenarios (except scenarion 5) have caused cutting down on CCT
in almost all the transmission lines. In scenario 5, the CCT trend is upward for most of the lines, although the CCT is decreased for
most of the some of the lines.
Looking at the bar charts of total changes, it is clear that CCT of the line 09-39 and line 01-39 have largest decrease. It means that
when H is cut down in five steps, the CCT of the line 09-39 and line 01-39 have profound decline compare to the other line.
Consequently, the sensivity of the CCT of the line 09-39 and line 01-39 to decreasing of H is hiegher than other lines.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2
3 4 5 6 0.9
7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 0.8
16 17 18 0.7
19 20 21 0.6
22 23 24 25
26 27 28 0.5
29 30 31 32
33 34 35
Figure 13. CCT results applying standard model and scenario no. 1: inertia constant is changed for all generators.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure 14. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 1: inertia constant is decreased for all generators.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.9
0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.7
6 7 8 9 10 11 0.6
12 13 14 15 16 17 0.5
18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34
35
Figure 15. CCT results applying standard model and scenario no. 2: inertia constant is changed for G2, G3, …, G7.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure 16. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 2: inertia constant is decreased for G2, G3, …, G7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2 3 4 0.9
5 6 7 8 0.8
9 10 11 12 13 0.7
14 15 16 17 18 0.6
19 20 21 22 23 24 0.5
25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33
34 35

Figure 17. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 3: inertia constant is changed for G2, G3, …, G10.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
0

-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Figure 18. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 3: inertia constant is decreased for G2, G3, …,
G10.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 0.9
8 9 10 11 0.8
12 13 14 15 16 0.7
17 18 19 20 0.6
21 22 23 24 0.5
25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32
33 34 35
Figure 19. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 4: inertia constant is changed just for G1, G2, G3, G4, G5,
G6, G7.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
5
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Figure 20. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 4: inertia constant is decreased for G1, G2, G3, G4,
G5, G6, G7.

0.9
0.8
0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 0.9
8 9 10 11 0.8
12 13 14 15 16 0.7
17 18 19 20 0.6
21 22 23
24 25 26 27 0.5
28 29 30 31
32 33 34 35
Figure 21. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 5: inertia constant is changed for G1, G8, G9, G10.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
5
-5
-10
Figure 22. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 5: inertia constant is decreased for G1, G8, G9,
G10.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.9
0 1 2 3 0.8
4 5 6 7 8 0.7
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 0.6
18 19 20 21 22 0.5
23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 32
33 34 35
Figure 23. CCT results applying classical model and scenario no. 6: inertia constant is changed for G8, G9, G10.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
5

0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Figure 24. Total change in CCT applying standard model and scenario no. 6: inertia constant is decreased for G8, G9, G10.
Task 1.3
Comparing the results for classical and standard model we can claim that:
- Considering standard model, the CCT of almost all the lines changes in the case of applying all the scenarios, while
regarding the classical model the CCT of lots of the lines remaind constant without changes.
- CCT results from classical model have larger values comparing to resuls for standard model. In many lines, the values of
CCT are equal 1 s in classical medel, while CCT from standard model in all the lines except line 09-39 and line 01-39 are
considerably small in all the scenarios. For line 09-39 and line 01-39, the CCT is equal to 1 s in case of some scenarios.
- If we compare total changes is bar charts, it is apparent that sensitivity of CCT in line 09-39 and line 01-39 is considerably
greater in most of scenarios for standard model. For calassical model, the most sensetive CCTs belong to line 07-08 and line
04-14 in most of scenarios.
- For both classical and standard model, decreasing the H values of generators in north and west areas (according to scenario
no. 5) have led to increasing of the CCT in lots of the lines.
Task 2.1
Introduction
Small signal stability is the ability of the system to maintain synchronis when subjected to small disturbances [2]. The system state
matrix gives eigenvalues of the system which helps to determine small signal stability margin of the system.
The system state matrix is given by,
−K D −K s
[
A= 2 H
ω0
2H
0 ]
The eigenvalues are given by,
λ i=σ i ± j ωi
Where, j=√ 1 and λ i is the ith mode of the system.

The real component of the eigenvalues give the damping and the imaginary component gives the frequency of oscillation.
The damping frequency in Hz is given by,

ω
f=
2π
The damping ration is given by,
−σ
ζ=
√σ 2+ ω2
The classical model is the simplest model of the synchronous generator which is also called the constant voltage behine the transient
reactance model [3].

For all six scenarios increasing the value of rotational inertia from half of its original value to nearly equal to the original value do not
effect in the stability of the system as all the conjugate pairs of eigenvalues have negative real part. For scenarios 1,5 and 6 number of
modes obtained are 38 and minimum value of real part is around -12 as the rotational inertia increased in all the generators whereas in
the scenarios 2, 3 and 4 modes are 117 with minimum value nearly -43.
Damping frequency of the system depends on the imaginary part of the eigenvalues. The damping frequency is zero when there is no
oscillation in the system i.e imaginary part zero. The damping frequency is highest for the lowest value i.e 50% of original value of
rotational inertia and low for 90% of original value in case of six scenarios because the synchronous generator with lower inertia i.e
mass can oscillate at higher frequencies as compared to the generators with higher inertia. For all scenarios as the system oscillates the
damping frequency fluctuates and reach to the zero at the final point. The figures 1 to 6 represents the plot of damping frequency
against rotational inertia.
Damping ratio depends on both real and imaginary part of the complex eigenvalues of the system. In all scenarios as the values of
rotational inertia increase, the damping ratio is around zero at the starting point that mean the system is vulnerable to the disturbances
at beginning however as the system osciallates the ratio of damping also fluctuates finally reaching to the higehes point i.e 1. Hence
changing the values of rotational inertia from 50% to 90% of its original values according to the given 6 scenarios, damping ratio is
positive as all the modes are stable and ratio mostly starts with minimum value and ends with 1 escpeically for the moeds having
imaginary part zero.
Damping frequecy versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 classical model

3
Da m p in g freq u en c y [H z ]
2.5
2
0.5H
0.6H
1.5
0.7H
0.8H
1 0.9H
0.5
no. of modes
Figure 25. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 1

3
D a m p i n g fre q u e n c y [H z ]
2.5
2
0.5H
0.6H
1.5
0.7H
0.8H
1 0.9H
0.5
no. of modes


7
D a m p in g fre q u e n c y [H z ] 6
5
0.5H
4
0.6H
0.7H
3
0.8H
0.9H
2
0
λ1 λ8 λ15 λ22 λ29 λ36 λ43 λ50 λ57 λ64 λ71 λ78 λ85 λ92 λ99 λ106 λ113
no. of modes

7
6
Damp in g frequen cy [Hz]
5
0.5H
4
0.6H
0.7H
3
0.8H
0.9H
2
0
λ1 λ8 λ15 λ22 λ29 λ36 λ43 λ50 λ57 λ64 λ71 λ78 λ85 λ92 λ99 λ106 λ113
no. of modes

0.5H
Damping frequency versus rotational inertia for scenario 5 classical model 0.6H
D a m p i n g fre q u e n c y [H z ]
3 0.7H
0.8H
2.5 0.9H
1.5
0.5
no. of modes

0.5H
Damping frequency versus rotational inertia for scenario 6 classical model 0.6H
3 0.7H
0.8H
0.9H
D am p in g fr eq u en cy [H z]
2.5
1.5
0.5
no. of modes
Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 classical model

1.1
1
0.9
0.8
D a m p in g ra t i o
0.7 0.5H
0.6 0.6H
0.5 0.7H
0.8H
0.4
0.9H
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
no. of modes
Figure 31. Plot of Damping ratio for scenario 1
0.5H
Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 2 classical model 0.6H
1.2 0.7H
0.8H
1 0.9H
D a m p i n g ra t i o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
no.of modes


1.2
0.8 0.5
Damping ratio
H
0.6
0.6
H
0.7
0.4 H
0.2
0
λ1 λ7 λ13 λ19 λ25 λ31 λ37 λ43 λ49 λ55 λ61 λ67 λ73 λ79 λ85 λ91 λ97 λ103 λ109 λ115
no.of modes

1.2
1
Dam p in g ratio
0.8 0.5H
0.6H
0.6
0.7H
0.4 0.8H
0.9H
0.2
0
no.of modes


1.2
0.8
Da m p in g ra tio
0.5H
0.6
0.6H
0.4 0.7H
0.8H
0.2
0.9H
0
no.of modes
Figure 35. Plot of Damping ratio of scenario 5

1.2
0.8
Da m p in g ra tio
0.6 0.5H
0.6H
0.4
0.7H
0.2
0.8H
0 0.9H
no.of modes
Figure 36. Plot of Damping ratio of scenario 6
Task 2.2
Introduction
The standard model of the synchronous generator is complex model which enables the modification of parameter such as inertia,
stator parameters, rotor type, transient and sub-transient time constants. The equations for eigenvalues, damping frequency and
damping ratio is same as in task 2.1.

When the values of rotational inertia is changed according to the given scenarios in all 10 generators number of modes varies in the
power system giving all complex conjugate eigenvalues with negative real part. That mean the system doesn’t lose its synchronism
when when rotational inertia is increased form 50% to 90% of its original values. For scenarios 1, 5 and 6 total 77 number of modes
are obtained meanwhile scenarios 2,3 and 4 yield 177 modes.
The damping frequency of the system decreases with increase in the rotational inertia of the system for all 6 scenarios. At first
frequency starts with value around zero then varies with different modes finally settling in zero. Thus from the figures 13 to 18, it
clear that the frequencies changes through out the modes and there is little difference in frequencies as the inertia increased from 50%
to 90% of original inertia for all scenarios.
The damping ratio of the modes gives the small signal stability margin of the power system which depends on eigenvalues. The
damping ratio is higher for the higher value of inertia i.e 90% of original inertia and the ratio dceraces as the inertia decreases. This

variation on the damping ratio happens because the reduction in the rotational inertia makes the system less capable to attenuate the
oscillation.
0.5H
Damping frequency versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 standard model
D a m p i n g F re q u e n c y [H z ]
0.6H
2.5 0.7H
0.8H
2 0.9H
1.5
0.5
no. of modes

2.5
D a m p in g F re q u e n c y [H z ]
2 0.5
H
0.6
1.5 H
0.7
H
1 0.8
H
0.9
0.5 H
no. of modes

D a m p i n g F re q u e n c y [H z ] Damping frequency versus rotational inertia for scenario 3 standard model

7
0.5H
6
0.6H
5 0.7H
4 0.8H
3 0.9H
0
no. of modes

6
0.5
H
Dam p in g Freq u en cy [Hz]
5 0.6
H
0.7
4 H
0.8
3 H
0
no. of modes
0.5H
Damping frequency versus rotational inertia for scenario 5 standard model 0.6H
2.5 0.7H
0.8H
0.9H
D a m p in g fre q u e n c y
1.5
0.5
no. of modes
Figure 41. Plot of Damping frequency for scenaro 5

Damping frequecny versus rotational inertia for scenario 6 standard model
2.5
0.5
H
D a m p in g fre q u e n c y [H z ]
2 0.6
H
0.7
1.5 H
0.8
H
1
0.5
no.of modes
Figure 42. Plot of Damping frequency for scenaro 6
Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 Standard model

1.2
1
D a m p in g ra t io
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
no. of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H

1.2
0.8
Dam p in g ratio
0.6
0.4
0.2
no. of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H


1.2
1
Dam p in g ratio
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
no. of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H

1.2
1
D a m p in g ra tio
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
no. of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H
Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 5 standard model
1.2
1
D a m p i n g ra ti o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
no. of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 6 standard model
1.2
1
D a m p in g ra tio
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
no.of modes
0.5H 0.6H 0.7H 0.8H 0.9H
Figure 48. Plot of Damping ratio for Scenario 6
Task 2.3
According to the task 2.1 and 2.2 the number of modes are higher in case of standard model compared to classical model. Eigenvalues
of both modesl are in conjugate pairs and all have negative real part indicating the system is in stable condition.
In both classical and standard model of the power system follows same pattern for damping frequency and damping ratio.. As the
rotational inertia changed form lower value to the higher value, damping frequency declines from highest to lowest where as damping
ratio rises with increase of rotational inertia. The damping frequency of each mode is proportional to the imaginary part of the
eigenvalues which corresponds to oscillations while the damping ratio depends on real and imaginary part of eigenvalues related to
each mode.
Task 2.4
Considering the classical model and standard model in case:
(i) AVR OUT of service, Governor OUT of service

(ii) AVR IN service, Governor OUT of service
(iii) AVR IN service, Governor IN service
(iv) AVR OUT of service, Governor IN service
All results of main indicators of above cases are exported to MS Excel file.
The results obtained from Power Factory for all 4 scenerios with classical and standard models is different in number of modes as
well as in eigen values
Both the classical as well as standard models with AVR and Governor in service have more number of modes as compared to others
The main purpose of automatic voltage regulator AVR is to stabalize and maintain the constant level of voltages supplied to system
for same load. It regulates the voltage variations to diliver constant, reliable power supply.
The constant speed of the generator is controlled by the Govoernor of generator. When load is added to generator the speed dip occurs
and with out Governor the generator would slow down and probably stall.
So the speed of generator and frequency is maintained by GOV while thr output voltages are stabalized by AVR.
The peak-peak of electrical torque without governor is higher than with governor and it takes a long time to make the torque become
stable while with governor the actuation torque oscillates with small deviation in amplitude and bring the torque to be stable quickly.

References
[1] Prof F. Gonzalez-Longatt, “Electrical Power Systems Project: Stability of a Multi-machine Electrical Power Systems.” 2021.
[2] P. Kundur, “Power System Stability and Control.” Electric Power Research Institute, Power System Engineering Series,
McGraw-Hill Inc, 1994.
[3] P. W. Sauer, M. A. Pai. “Power System Dynamics and Stability.” Prentice Hall, 1998.
[4] Urmila Agrawal, James O’Brien, Abhishek Somani, Thomas Mosier, Jeff Dagle, “A Study of the Impact of Reduced Inertia
in Power Systems.” 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2020.
[5] Andreas Ulbig, Theodor S. Borsche, Goran Andersson, “Impact of Low Rotational Inertia on Power System Stability and
Operation.” Power Systems Laboratory, ETH Zurich, 2014

Project: Stability of A Multi-Machine Electrical Power Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project: Stability of A Multi-Machine Electrical Power Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power System Anaylisis using DIgSILENT PowerFactory

Project: Stability of a Multi-machine Electrical Power Systems

- North: G8, G9, G10.

The following scenarios will be considered in this study:

Table 1. Scenarios dicribtion.

West North South

Results and discussion for task 1.1

Table 2. the assigned code for each line

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 1 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 2 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 3 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 4 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 5 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 6 of 23

Critical Clearing Time (s) 0.7

Transmission Lines Code

Results and discussion for task 1.2

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 7 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 8 of 23

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 9 of 23

Transmission Lines Code

Total change in CCT value (%)

Transmission Lines Code

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 10 of 23

Critical Clearing Time (s)

Total change in CCT value (%)

The system state matrix is given by,

Where, j=√ 1 and λ i is the ith mode of the system.

The damping frequency in Hz is given by,

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 12 of 23

Damping frequecy versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 classical model

Figure 25. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 1

Damping frequecy versus rotational inertia for scenario 2 classical model

Figure 26. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 2

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 13 of 23

Damping frequecy versus rotational inertia for scenario 3 classical model

Figure 27. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 3

Damping frequecy versus rotational inertia for scenario 4 classical model

Figure 28. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 4

Figure 29. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 5

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 14 of 23

Figure 30. Plot of Damping frequency for scenario 6

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 1 classical model

Figure 31. Plot of Damping ratio for scenario 1

Figure 32. Plot of Damping ratio for scenario 2

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 15 of 23

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 3 classical model

Figure 33. Plot of Damping ratio for scenario 3

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 4 classical model

Figure 34. Plot of Damping ratio for scenario 4

Group 4 522130124.docx Page 16 of 23

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 5 classical model

Figure 35. Plot of Damping ratio of scenario 5

Damping ratio versus rotational inertia for scenario 6 classical model

Figure 36. Plot of Damping ratio of scenario 6

Results and discussion for task 2.2