Proc. 2001 IEEE-PES Summer Meeting, Vancouver, BC, July 2001.
Effects of Limits in Small Signal Stability
Analysis of Power Systems
André A. P. Lerm Claudio A. Cañizares
MIEEE
E&ARQ School
Universidade Católica de Pelotas
Pelotas, RS, 96010-000, Brazil
alerm@atlas.ucpel.tche.br
Abstract This paper concentrates in demonstrating and
analyzing the effects of limits on power system eigenvalue
computations when system parameters change. A 3-bus system
is used to illustrate and analyze the effect that limits and their
modeling have on the system eigenvalues. The results obtained
for the simple test system using a classical eigenvalue
computational tool versus those obtained using a tool that
adequately models the effects of limits on the eigenvalue
computations are compared and discussed, based on time
domain simulations to confirm the validity of the various results
presented here.
Keywords: Small signal stability analysis, control limit
modeling, bifurcation theory, power flow.
I. INTRODUCTION
Modern power systems are operating increasingly closer
to their control and operational limits, such as those imposed
by generator Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR) or other
devices. In general, this scenario has originated on the
increase in demand for electric energy coupled with
economic and environmental restrictions on power system
expansion. Since stressed conditions can lead a system to
unstable conditions, it has become necessary to properly
model the effect of such limits on the system.
It is recognized in the literature that gradual system
parameter variations such as load increase, combined with
contingencies, lead to system instabilities. In large-
disturbance stability analysis, the problem is usually studied
through time domain simulations. The inclusion and
modeling of limits in software tools used to perform these
types of analyses is well known [1], [2], [3], and is accurately
performed by most commercial software packages currently
available. On the other hand, from the authors’ experience
and tests, which form the core of this paper, there is a need to
improve the representation and handling of limits on
computational packages designed to perform Small Signal
Stability analysis (SSSA).
In SSSA, systems are studied using the eigenvalues of the
linearization around an operating point of the differential-
algebraic equations (DAE) used to model the systems.
Although this type of analysis had been widely performed on
power systems since the 1960’s, new insight has been gained
into the problem from the application of bifurcation theory to
power system stability analysis since the 1990’s [4]. From
the point of view of bifurcation theory, local bifurcations and
hence system stability are studied through the determination
of a series of system eigenvalues associated with the gradual
Nadarajah Mithulananthan
SMIEEE SIEEE
E&CE Department
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON, N2L-3G1, Canada
c.canizares@ece.uwaterloo.ca
evolution of certain system parameters (e.g., load demand
changes) [5], [6]. Local bifurcations having a significant
effect on the stability of the system and most studied in the
literature are the saddle-node (one of the eigenvalues
becomes zero) and the Hopf bifurcations (a pair of complex
eigenvalues cross the imaginary axes of the complex plane).
The inclusion of limits, however, brings up a new type of
bifurcation usually referred to as limit induced bifurcation,
which corresponds to eigenvalues undergoing instantaneous
changes that may affect the stability of the system, such as
stable eigenvalues turned into unstable ones [4], [7], [8].
Several methodologies have been discussed in the
literature for the accurate modeling of control limits in power
system analysis. The authors in [9] study the problem using
the solution of the differential equations representing the
power system as a reference to evaluate inherent
approximations employed in the conventional load flow
programs. In [10], the problem is analyzed using the actual
equilibrium point of the DAE power system model. A model
for generator reactive power and voltage dynamics is
incorporated in the load flow problem in [11], where the
generator voltage variations are accounted for in the
calculation of the limits. In [12], the authors present a static
model for the synchronous generators with voltage dependent
reactive power limits. This generator model is included in an
ordinary power flow program; however, it uses a simplified
model of the generator disregarding the voltage regulator. In
[8], a detailed analysis of hard limits in nonlinear dynamic
systems is presented in state and parameter space. The static
and dynamic aspects of voltage collapse associated with
generator reactive power limits are studied using bifurcation
theory in [7]. This work considers that, when a generator
reaches its field voltage limit, the generator internal voltage
can be treated as a constant value; the dynamics of the
voltage regulator are not modeled in this case. In [13], the
limits are represented by hyperbolic functions that allow to
obtain an analytic formulation for the nonlinear equations.
This paper addresses the modeling of generator field
voltage limits in SSSA. The main aim is to discuss the effect
that these limits have on the system eigenvalues. Thus, a
methodology is first proposed to properly represent these
limits in a conventional power flow, so that initial conditions
coherent with the modeling of the limits in modal analysis
and time domain simulations are obtained. Second, a
technique to adequately model hard-limits in a linearized
system model is presented and discussed. Finally, the
proposed methodologies are tested in a simple 3-bus system,
1
comparing the results obtained with different eigenvalue
computation programs; time domain simulations of the test
system are used to validate the proposed modeling
techniques.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II presents a
brief overview of eigenvalue computation in power systems
from the point of view of nonlinear system theory, discussing
as well the main issues associated with the proper modeling
of control limits. Section III discusses the modeling of hard-
limits in a power flow program for the determination of
proper initial conditions for dynamic analyses, and the proper
modeling of these limits in modal analysis. Section IV
presents the numerical results obtained for a simple 3-bus
system, confirming the importance of proper limit modeling
in SSSA. Finally, Section V summarizes the main results
presented in this paper.
II. EQUILIBRIA AND EIGENVALUE COMPUTATION
The stability analysis of power system uses models with a
set of differential and algebraic equations (DAE) of the form
x& = f ( x, y, µ )
(1)
0 = g ( x, y , µ )
where x∈ℜn typically stands for state variables corresponding
to various system elements, such as generators and their
controls; µ∈ℜl stands for slow varying parameters over
which operators have no direct control, such as changing
loading levels,; f:ℜn×ℜm×ℜl→ℜn corresponds to the
nonlinear vector field directly associated with the state
variables x; and the vector y∈ℜm represents the set of
algebraic variables defined by the nonlinear algebraic
function g:ℜn×ℜm×ℜl→ℜm, which typically correspond to
load bus voltages and angles, depending on the load models
used.
The stability of DAE systems is thoroughly discussed in
[14], where is shown that if Dyg(x,y,µ) can be guaranteed to
be nonsingular along system trajectories of interest, the
behavior of system (1) along these trajectories is primarily
determined by the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix
A = D x f |o −( D y f |o [ D y g |o ]−1 D x g |o ) (2)
The smoothness of the system (1) is destroyed when
limits are incorporated in its model. Although limits can be
classified as windup, nonwindup and relay limits [8], the
present work addresses only the inclusion of windup limits,
such as those usually imposed on generator field voltages.
A windup limiter applied to a first order control block is
depicted in Fig. 1. Since this type of hard-limit does not
affect directly the associated state variable, there is no change
in the order n of the system when a limit value is reached.
The inclusion of windup limits in (1) leads to
x& = f ( x, y, z , µ )
0 = g ( x, y , z , µ ) (3)
z = h ( x, y , µ )
2
Z max
u K v z
1+sT
Z min
Fig. 1. Control block with a windup limiter.
where z∈ℜ represents the variables on which the windup
p
limiters operate, and h :ℜn×ℜm×ℜl→ℜp is the nonlinear
algebraic function which represents the windup limiters as
follows:
 zi for hi ( x, y, µ ) ≤ z i min
 min
hi ( x, y, µ ) = hi ( x, y , µ ) for z i min < hi ( x, y, µ ) < z i max (4)
z for hi ( x, y, µ ) ≥ z i max
 i max i
where h:ℜn×ℜm×ℜl→ℜp is a smooth algebraic function (Cq,
q≥1).
By considering that the inclusion of windup limits does
not affect the order n of the differential equations, the system
(3)-(4) can be simplified and rewritten, without loss of
generality, as
x& = f ( x, y, µ )
(5)
0 = g ( x, y , µ )
where the vector field f and the algebraic function g
include implicitly the actuation variables z.
A. Equilibria and Steady-state Operating Points
In SSSA, the equilibrium points used as initial conditions
for the linearization process are obtained usually from a
power flow analysis. Hence, the typical procedure is to first
solve the power flow equations and then, based on the
corresponding solutions, find equilibrium points of the
dynamic model before proceeding with stability analysis of
the full dynamic system (1). If one is interested in analyzing
the system behavior with respect to changes in a given system
parameter (e.g., load demand), a set of equilibrium points can
be obtained and depicted in the form of nose curves (e.g., PV
or VQ curves) [4], [15].
If there are no limits included in the analysis, the system
can be modeled using (1), with the resulting nose curves
having a “smooth” shape. With the inclusion of limits, these
curves remain continuos but with “sharp” edges at the points
where limits become active.
B. Eigenvalues
After the computation of the system equilibria and the
related initial conditions, the local dynamic characteristics of
the system can be analyzed using the eigenvalues of the
Jacobian matrix (2) to assist in its analysis and/or design.
These types of studies are usually performed to improve the
damping of system oscillations, and more recently to analyze
voltage collapse problems.
The system dynamic behavior is affected by parameter
changes, resulting in changes to the stability characteristics of
equilibrium points, which can be depicted on the resulting PV
curve. Points of interest on these PV curve are those
associated with changes in the structural stability of the
system, which correspond to bifurcation points [16], [17].
For system (1), instabilities occur generally via saddle-
node or Hopf bifurcations. Saddle-node bifurcations are
characterized by a couple of equilibrium points merging at
the bifurcation point and then locally disappearing as the
slow varying parameters µ change. These bifurcations have
been associated with voltage collapse problems [4], and
correspond to an equilibrium point (xo,yo,µo) where the
system Jacobian A (2) has a unique zero eigenvalue (certain
transversality conditions are also met at this point,
distinguishing it from other types of “singular” bifurcations
[18]). Hopf bifurcations are characterized by a complex
conjugate pair of eigenvalues crossing the imaginary axes of
the complex plane from left to right, or vice versa, as the µ
parameters slowly change. These types of bifurcations have
been associated with a variety of oscillatory phenomena in
power systems [18], [19], and are typical precursors of
chaotic motions [5], [6].
The inclusion of limits leads to the appearance of limit-
induced bifurcations [8]. These bifurcations correspond to
equilibrium points where system limits are reached as the
parameters µ slowly change, with the corresponding
eigenvalues undergoing instantaneous changes that may
affect the stability status of the system, such as stable
eigenvalues turning into unstable ones [7], [8]. A rich set of
new phenomena directly associated with windup limits can be
encountered, ranging from annihilation of equilibria to
emergence of oscillations.
III. LIMIT MODELING
The inclusion of limits in the small signal stability
analysis brings up two important points:
1. In the determination of an equilibrium point, which
involves the solution of a power flow and the solution of
(5) for x& = 0 , control limits must be represented in the
power flow and DAE problems in a coherent way.
2. The control limits in (5) must be properly modeled to
ensure that the system Jacobian can be adequately
computed.
These two issues are addressed in the following sections.
C. Inclusion of Efd Limits in a Conventional Power Flow Program
If hard-limits are present, as in the case of the DAE set
(5), these must be considered in an adequate manner in the
subset of equations used for power flow analysis.
Specifically, generator limits are typically modeled as
constant reactive power limits. However, this is an over
simplification, as these limits change with the active power
dispatch and the generator terminal voltage; a realistic
representation of the generator reactive power limits requires
the determination of the capability curve of the machine [2],
[3], which depend on power factor, mechanical power, and
field and armature current limits. In this paper, the reactive
3
power limits are determined considering only the maximum
and minimum field voltage Efd.
An analytic expression that relates the minimum and
maximum reactive power as a function of the field voltage
limits is difficult to obtain. Therefore a numerical procedure
which searches for the reactive power values corresponding
to the Efd limits imposed by the voltage regulator is used here.
Thus, assuming that the values of active power dispatched PG
and terminal voltage Vt are known, the maximum reactive
power value QGmax can be determined using the algorithm
depicted in Fig. 2; this algorithm can be readily adapted in
order to determine the value of QGmin.
1. Determine Efdmax based on the voltage regulator equations
for given values of PG and Vt.
2. Choose an initial guess for QG (with a value that yields the
correct search direction).
3. Determine Efd, using the generator equations and QG and
Vt values.
4. If Efd max-Efd < ε, make QGmax = QG and stop the searching
process. Otherwise, increase QG and go to step 3.
Fig. 2. Algorithm for QG limits determination.
The proposed methodology is used to compute the
reactive power limits at each iteration of the power flow
program. This methodology ensures a minimum
modification of the conventional power flow program,
making the generator reactive power limits coherent with the
corresponding AVR field voltage limits used in the modal
analysis and time domain simulations.
D. Inclusion of Windup Limits in a Linearized Model
Since the SSSA is based on the linearization of DAE
system (5), the correct treatment of hard-limits requires not
only an accurate determination of the equilibrium points
based on solution of the power flow equations, but also the
proper modeling of these limits in the linearized model.
Zmax z=h(
1
dz/dv
v
Zmin
Fig. 3. Relationship between variables for the windup limiter.
The relationship between the input and output variables v
and z, respectively, of the windup limiter of Fig. 1 are
illustrated in Fig. 3, which is a graphical representation of
equation (4). Observe that within the limits, z = v; hence, the
linearization procedure yields
dh(v)
∆z = ∆v (6)
dv
where
  0 for h(v) ≤ z min equilibrium points, obtained from the power flow program,
dh(v)  consistent with the AVR field voltage limits.
:=  1 for z min < h(v) < z max (7) 140
dv  0 for h(v) ≥ z
 max
138

IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS X

A
136

This section presents the results of applying the

134 B

Qgen 2 (MVAR)
previously discussed concepts to the simple three-bus system
of Fig. 4. In this system, one of the generators is assumed to 132
be an infinite bus, and the other generator is modeled using 5
differential equations (2 for the mechanical dynamics, 3 for 130
the transient dynamics), a simple AVR modeled using the X − gen 2 reaches limits
first order dynamic model depicted in Fig. 1, and no 128 A − limitation with Qgen max fixed
governor. The infinite bus picks up changes in the active B − limitation with Efd max fixed
power demand. The data for this system is shown in Table I. 126

1 2 124
1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95
IB G µ
Fig. 5. Generator reactive power for limits based on (A) constant maximum
reactive power and (B) constant maximum field voltage.

3 2.46

L 2.44
Fig. 4. Three-bus sample system.
2.42 A
TABLE I
P.U. DATA FOR 3-BUS SAMPLE SYSTEM (100.0 MVA BASE). X
Efd gen 2 (p.u.)

2.4
H 10.0 s τ’do 8.5 s Plo 0.8 B
Xd 0.9 τ”do 0.03 s Qlo 0.6 2.38
Xq 0.8 τ”qo 0.9 s Vt1 1.02
2.36
X’d 0.12 Pm 1.0 Vt2 1.0
X − gen 2 reaches limits
X”d 0.08 KAVR 1000.0 Efd2max 2.4 2.34 A − limitation with Qgen max fixed
X”q 0.08 TAVR 2.0 s Xlines 0.2 B − limitation with Efd max fixed
2.32

A. Equilibrium Points
2.3
1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95
The first set of results illustrates different ways to µ
represent generator limits in the determination of initial Fig. 6. Generator field voltage for limits based on (A) constant maximum
reactive power and (B) constant maximum field voltage.
conditions based on a conventional power flow program.
These results were obtained increasing the load on bus 3 by
changing the load parameter µ, as PL = PLo(1+µ) and QL =
QLo(1+µ), where PLo and QLo are the initial load values.
The generator at bus 2 reached its maximum field voltage
limit at µ = 1.772 (point X on Figs. 5, 6 and 7). This
occurred at QG2max = 136.1 MVAR, for Efd2max = 2.4 p.u. and
Vt2 = 1.0 p.u. If the generator limits are treated in the
conventional way, i.e., keeping the reactive power constant
after the maximum limit is reached, curves A on Figs. 5 and 6
are obtained. In this case, the field voltage Efd must increase
in order to keep the generator reactive power constant, since
the terminal voltage decreases as the load increases (Fig. 6).
Hence, the equilibrium points are not coherent with the field
voltage limits represented in (5). Curves B on Figs. 5 and 6
show the generator characteristics when a constant maximum
field voltage is used; observe that the generator reactive
power decreases as the load increases. This would yield Fig. 7. Voltage profile at bus 3, depicting Hopf bifurcation points obtained
from two different eigenvalue programs for constant reactive power limits.

4
 TABLE II
TEST SYSTEM EIGENVALUES
µ Program 1 with limits SSSP
0.0 -39.60; -1.994 -39.532; -1.999
-1.127 ± j 8.365 -1.035 ± j 8.4
-0.543 ± j 5.523 –0.9118 ± j 5.458
1.75 -38.68; -2.545 -39.36 ; -2.149
-1.206 ± j 8.568 -1.141 ± j 8.495
-0.079 ± j 6.060 -0.7293 ± j 5.620
1.772 -37.69; -2.841 -38.39 -2.561
-1.184 ± j 8.735 -1.151 ± j 8.57
-0.5; -0.305 -0.4665 ± j 6.077
1.849 -37.23; -2.862 -37.94; -2.609
-1.166 ± j 8.602 -1.128 ± j 8.388
-0.5; -0.281 -0.4453 ± j 6.290
1.939 -33.11; -2.689 -34.15; -2.717
-1.082 ± j 8.235 -1.519 ± j 7.83
-0.5; 0.000 0.4357 ± j 7.975
B. Stability Analysis
Several bifurcation points for the test system are depicted
on the PV curve of Fig. 7 for the voltage at bus 3. The
bifurcation points were obtained from two different programs
designed for the computation of eigenvalues in power
systems. The first program is based on the well know
EISPACK package, and implements the linearization of both
Fig. 8. Time domain simulation for µ = 1.75 (load increased by 1% at 5 s).
equations (1) and (5) [1], [2], [3]. The second program used
was the software package SSSP [20]. Equilibrium points
were obtained using a standard power flow program that
models generator limits as constant reactive power limits,
defining the limits based on the technique illustrated in Fig. 2.
Three bifurcation points are depicted on the PV curve of
Fig. 7. The first program yields the Hopf HP1 at µ = 1.849
when no limits are neglected, while the second program
MASS yields the Hopf HP2 at µ = 1.933. A limit-induced
bifurcation point X is obtained at µ = 1.75 with the first
program when the AVR limits are properly considered in the
computation process; this program also yields a saddle-node
bifurcation at the maximum loading point µ = 1.939.
Table II shows the eigenvalues obtained with the two
different programs. Observe that when limits are properly
model, the system presents a stable limit-induced bifurcation
when the limits become active at µ = 1.75, as a complex pair
of eigenvalues become real. The second program fails to
detect this structural change, yielding results that indicate that
the effect of limits is not considered in the linearization
process. Also, at the maximum loading point µ = 1.939, the
first program yields a zero eigenvalue, suggesting the
presence of a saddle-node bifurcation, while the second one
implies that the system has gone through a Hopf bifurcation.
To determine which of the two eigenvalue programs is
correct, time domain simulations were carried out using the Fig. 9. Time domain simulation for µ = 1.93 (load increased by 1% at 5 s).
transient stability program ETMSP [21]. A sudden 1 % load bus 2 for µ = 1.75 and µ = 1.93, respectively. Observe the
change was applied to the system at 5 s for different initial small voltage and speed change in the first case. On the other
values of µ. Figures 8 and 9 show the time trajectories for hand, the voltage collapses for the second value of load,
the load voltage at bus 3 as well as the generator frequency at confirming the results obtained with the first program (the
system does not completely collapses, as the load model is

5
automatically switched by the program from a constant power
to a constant impedance model when the load voltage is
below a certain threshold); no system oscillations are
observed here, contradicting the results obtained with the
SSSP. It must be noticed that in the maximum filed voltage
value Efd2max was increased from 2.4 to 2.4289 for µ=1.93, to
be consistent with the initial conditions computed using a
power flow program based on constant generator reactive
power limits.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The paper analyses the effects of control limits on SSSA,
demonstrating the importance of correctly modeling these
limits in the determination of equilibrium points and in the
linearization process. A methodology is proposed to properly
include generator control limits in the conventional power
flow in order to obtain initial conditions coherent with the
dynamic models used in modal analysis and time domain
simulations. A thorough discussion on how to model windup
limits for inclusion in a linearized model is also presented.
As power systems are operating under more stressed
conditions, adequate representation of limits in SSSA is
important to obtain reliable and realistic simulation results.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Arrillaga and C.P. Arnold, Computer Modelling of
Electrical Power Systems, John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
[2] P.M. Anderson and A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and
Stability, The Iowa State University Press, 1977.
[3] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, Mc Graw-
Hill, 1994.
[4] C. A. Cañizares, editor, “Voltage Stability Assessment,
Procedures and Guides,” IEEE/PES Power System Stability
Subcommittee Special Publication, Final Draft, January 2001.
[5] J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, Nonlinear Oscillations,
Dynamical Systems and Bifurcation of Vector Fields, Applied
Mathematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
[6] R. Seydel, Practical Bifurcation and Stability Analysis-From
Equilibrium to Chaos, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1994.
[7] I. Dobson and L. Lu, “Voltage collapse precipitated by the
immediate change in stability when generator reactive power
limits are encountered,” IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems,
vol. 39, no. 9, 1992, pp. 762-766.
[8] V. Venkatasubramanian, H. Schättler, J. Zaborsky, “Dynamics
of large constrained nonlinear systemsA taxonomy theory,”
Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Nonlinear
Phenomena in Power Systems, vol. 83, no. 11, Nov. 1995, pp.
1530-1561.
[9] R.J. O’Keefe, R.P. Schulz, and N.B. Bhatt, “Improved
representation of generator and load dynamics in the study of
voltage limited power system operations,” IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, vo. 12, no. 1, Feb. 1997, pp. 304-314.
[10] R.A. Schlueter and I-P. Hu, “Types of voltage instability and
the associated modelling for transient/mid-term stability
simulation,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 29, 1994,
pp. 131-145.
[11] S. Jovanovic and B. Fox, “Dynamic load flow including
generator voltage variation,” Int. J. of Electrical Power &
Energy Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, 1994, pp.6-9.
[12] P.A. Löf, G. Andersson, and D.J. Hill, “Voltage dependent
reactive power limits for voltage stability studies,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, 1995, pp. 220-228.
[13] K.N. Srivastava and S.C. Srivastava, “Application of Hopf
bifurcation theory for determining critical values of a
generator control or load parameter,” Int. J. of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 17, no. 5, 1995, pp. 347-354.
[14] D.J. Hill and I.M.Y. Mareels, “Stability Theory for
Differential/Algebraic Systems with Application to Power
Systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems, vol. 37, no. 11,
Nov. 1990, pp. 1416-1423.
[15] C. Rajagopalan, B. Lesieutre, P.W. Sauer, and M.A. Pai,
“Dynamic aspects of voltage/power characteristics,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, 1992, pp. 990-1000.
[16] B.C. Lesieutre, P.W. Sauer, and M.A. Pai, “Why
Power/Voltage Curves Are Not Necessarily Bifurcation
Diagrams,” Proc. North American Power Symposium,
Washington, Oct. 1993, pp. 30-37.
[17] A.A.P. Lerm, C.A. Cañizares, F.A.B. Lemos, and A.S. Silva,
“Multi-parameter Bifurcation Analysis of Power Systems,”
Proc. North American Power Symposium, Cleveland, Oct.
1998.
[18] C.A. Cañizares and S. Hranilovic, “Transcritical and Hopf
Bifurcations in AC/DC Systems,” Proc. Bulk Power System
Voltage Phenomena III–Voltage Stability and Security, ECC
Inc., Aug. 1994, pp. 105-114.
[19] N. Mithulananthan, C. A. Cañizares, and J. Reeve, “Hopf
Bifurcation Control in Power Systems Using Power System
Stabilizers and Static Var Compensators,” Proc. North
American Power Symposium (NAPS), San Luis Obispo,
October 1999, pp. 155-162.
[20] “Small Signal Stability Analysis Program (SSSP): Version
2.1Vol. 2: User’s Manual,” EPRI TR-101850-V2R1, Final
Report, May 1994.
[21] “Extended Transient-Midterm Stability Program (ETMSP):
Version 3.1Vol. 3: Application Guide,” EPRI TR-102004-
V3R1, Final Report, 1994.
André Arthur Perleberg Lerm (M’2000) received his degree in Electrical
Engineering from Universidade Católica de Pelotas, Brazil in 1986, and the
M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil in 1995 and 2000, respectively. Since 1987
and 1988, he has been with Universidade Católica de Pelotas and Centro
Federal de Educação Tecnológica-RS, respectively. His main research
interests are in the area of power systems dynamics, voltage stability and
systems modeling.
Claudio A. Cañizares received the Electrical Engineer diploma (1984) from
the Escuela Politécnica Nacional (EPN), Quito-Ecuador, where he held
different positions from 1983 to 1993. His M.Sc. (1988) and Ph.D. (1991)
degrees in Electrical Engineering are from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. Dr. Cañizares is currently an Associate Professor at the University
of Waterloo and his research activities are mostly concentrated on the study
of computational, modeling, and stability issues in ac/dc/FACTS power
systems.
Nadarajah Mithulananthan was born in Sri Lanka. He received his B.Sc.
(Eng.) and M.Eng. degrees from the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, and
the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, in May 1993 and August 1997,
respectively. Mr. Mithulananthan has worked as an Electrical Engineer at
the Generation Planning Branch of the Ceylon Electricity Board, and as a
Researcher at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. He is currently a full
time Ph.D. student at the University of Waterloo working on applications and
control design of FACTS controllers.