This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
1

On the Accuracy of the Online Static Security

Assessment under Different Models:
Assessment and Basis
Meng-yu Ruan, Hsiao-Dong Chiang, Fellow, IEEE

system consequences before they arise and alarm the operators,

Abstract--Static security assessment (SSA) has been regularly whether condition (iii) is satisfied or not.
performed using the power flow (PF) model for decades. It plays There is a conflict between the accuracy of the model used
an important role in ensuring power system security. This paper and the speed required for Online-SSA [1], [3]. To meet the fast
numerically shows that, as the loading condition of a power system
speed requirement for Online-SSA, there are (at least) three
increases, the differences between the PF solution and the steady-
state of the corresponding time-domain (TD) solution also increase. schemes proposed in the literature (see, for example, [2]). (1)
The striking differences raise serious concern regarding the Perform SSA with approximate but fast algorithms. The DC
accuracy of PF-based SSA under heavy loading conditions. power flow methods, the distribution factor method, iterative
Physical explanations for misclassifications by PF-based SSA are linear ac PF methods [2], and improved fast approximate
provided. We then evaluate the accuracy of performing SSA with methods [4]-[7] were adopted. (2) Use the three-stage method:
the quasi steady-state (QSS) model, especially during heavy
the stages of screening and ranking serve to identify important
loading conditions. By using the steady-states of post-contingency
TD trajectories as the benchmark, this paper presents analytical cases for further detailed analysis. Significant efforts have been
results verifying the accuracy of QSS-based SSA. In this paper, devoted to the development of screening schemes for
numerical evaluations are presented on the IEEE 6-bus, 14-bus, computational saving (see, for example, [8]-[12]). (3) Use high-
30-bus, and 145-bus systems. performance computers with multiple or vector processors to
achieve the online requirement. The availability of Graphics
Index Terms--Misclassifications, online static security Processing Units (GPUs), parallel computing, and distributed
assessment, power flow model, quasi steady-state model, voltage
and apparent power differences.
computing have been applied to accelerate the calculation speed
of the SSA (see, for example, [13], [14]). Several energy
I. INTRODUCTION management centers run AC real-time contingency analysis to
identify voltage violations and overload every 4-5 minutes [15].
N ERC defines power system security as the ability to However, with the increasing penetration of intermittent
prevent cascading outages when the bulk power grid is energy resources (wind, PV), the aging infrastructure, and the
subjected to severe disturbances. The specific criteria that must restructuring of electricity markets as well as the need for cost
be met are set by individual reliability councils. Each council reduction [12], modern electric power systems are seeking to
establishes the types of disturbances that its system must capitalize on their existing facilities, gradually pushing the
withstand without cascading outages. The following conditions, system closer to its operating limits and security boundaries
although conservative in nature, can ensure that cascading [11]. This paper aims to show that the current practice of
outages will not occur: (i) when any of a specified set of performing PF-based SSA gives incorrect assessment results
disturbances occurs, the system will survive the ensuing during heavy loading conditions.
transient and move into a steady-state condition; (ii) no bus Taking the steady-state of the time-domain (TD) model as
voltage magnitudes during transients must move outside their the benchmark, this paper numerically shows that as the loading
permissible ranges; and (iii) in the new steady-state condition, condition of a power system increases, the difference between
no equipment, transmission lines, or control devices are the PF solutions and the benchmark also increases. Because of
overloaded and no bus voltage magnitudes may come to rest the striking differences, PF-based SSA may misclassify
outside their permissible ranges (say, within 5% of nominal) [1]. insecure contingencies as secure ones (very undesirable) and
Moreover, contingencies occurring in a power system can cause secure contingencies as being insecure (false alarm). These
serious consequences within such a short time period that misclassifications raise the need to re-examine the adequacy of
operators cannot take action fast enough, once the process has PF-based SSA under heavy loading conditions. To this end, we
started [2]. Because of this aspect of system operation, static provide physical explanations for the appearance of
security assessment (SSA) is adopted to examine possible

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation of Meng-yu Ruan is with the School of Electrical and Information Engineering,
China (51577092) and the National Science Foundation (USA) under award Tianjin University, Tianjin, China (e-mail: alice_ruanmy@tju.edu.cn). Hsiao-
#1508986. Dong Chiang is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA (e-mail: hc63@cornell.edu).

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
2

misclassifications and propose using the QSS or hybrid QSS 1

power flow post-contingency solution
model when performing SSA.
time-domain dynamic trajectory

voltage of the bus 4(p.u.)

It has been shown that the QSS model provides an accurate lower voltage limit
0.98
approximation of the TD model in terms of trajectory and the
ω-limit set, based on the work developed in [16], [17]. This
provides an analytical basis for the suitability of using the QSS 0.96
model for Online-SSA evaluation under both light and heavy
loading conditions, meeting the accuracy requirement.
0.94
It is suggested that the contributions of this paper be viewed
as follows: (I) it numerically shows that as the loading condition
of a power system increases, the difference between the PF 0.92
0 50 100 150 200
solutions and the steady-state of the corresponding TD model
time/s
also increases, raising serious concern regarding the accuracy Fig. 1. A comparison between the PF solution and the TD trajectory
of PF-based SSA under heavy loading conditions; (II) it in the IEEE 14-bus system.
presents physical explanations for misclassifications of PF-
based SSA; (III) it provides a theoretical foundation for the We study the IEEE 14-bus system under a heavy loading
accuracy of using the QSS model in performing SSA; (IV) it condition λ=1.1 and examine the base case with a line 1-5
numerically shows that as the loading condition of a power outage as an example. The corresponding post-contingency PF
system increases, there is a small difference between the QSS solution and the simulated time-domain trajectory at bus4 are
solutions and the steady-state of the corresponding TD model; shown in Fig. 1. It is observed that there is a considerable
and (V) it proposes using the PF-based load margin to the difference in the voltage behavior of bus4 between the solutions
steady-state stability limit as a norm to classify operating of these two models; in particular, according to the TD model,
conditions as a light or heavy loading condition. the contingency will cause a violation in voltage while it is
classified as secure according to the PF solution. Hence, a
II. SSA OVERVIEW AND COUNTEREXAMPLE misclassification in SSA occurs in the PF-based approach.
We further examine the accuracy of the PF-based SSA on a
In this section, we will give a brief overview of SSA and modified IEEE 14-bus system and on a modified IEEE 145-bus
then present counterexamples to show that PF-based SSA may system. For the 14-bus system, the voltage band of load buses
not produce accurate results, even though this model has been is set between 0. 94p.u and 1.06p.u. For the 145-bus system, the
used in the power industry for several decades. voltage band of most load buses is set between 0. 90p.u and
Static security assessment (SSA) detects whether all the 1.10p.u.
relevant static constraints of a post-contingency steady-state are
satisfied within their limits, such as any voltage violation or TABLE I
PF-BASED SSA DURING DIFFERENT LOADING CONDITIONS
overload of a branch, following a list of credible contingencies
[1]-[3]. A contingency is an unplanned outage in one or more 14-bus system 145-bus system
devices, such as transmission lines, generators, and Number of Number of Number of Number of
transformers, or abrupt changes in loads. Given a contingency, Loading Voltage Overload Voltage Overload
Misclass- Misclass- Misclass- Misclass-
it is common to perform AC PF on the post-contingency system,
ifications ifications ifications ifications
aiming to ‘capture’ the steady-state of the post-contingency
Light 1 0 7 5
system to detect any violations in voltage and in branch flow. In Base case 1 1 8 6
some studies, a set of simplified power flow equations is Heavy 2 4 12 8
employed to achieve fast analysis results at the expense of
accuracy [2]. For each of the three loading conditions (light loading, base
If the post-contingency system steady-state has a violation case, and heavy loading), we perform the SSA on a total of 20
in voltage or a branch flow, then the contingency is classified contingencies on the IEEE 14-bus system and a total of 453
as an insecure contingency. An appropriate preventive control contingencies on the IEEE 145-bus system, using the PF model
should be developed for the base case system such that the and the TD model, respectively. For each loading condition, the
contingency becomes a secure one [1]-[3]. total number of misclassifications in voltage violations and in
The TD model is used in the power industry to simulate thermal limit violations by the PF-based method is summarized
power system dynamic behaviors (for example, see [18], [19]). in Table I. As the loading condition increases,
The steady-state of the ensuing post-contingency TD trajectory misclassifications in PF-based SSA become more severe,
can accurately capture the system post-contingency steady-state. especially during heavy loading conditions, with a considerable
We hence use the steady-state of the ensuing trajectory of the number of misclassifications revealing that the PF model is not
TD model as the benchmark to examine the accuracy of PF- acceptable for performing SSA under such conditions. A valid
based SSA. model should be used to perform SSA for heavy loading power
systems, which will be presented in the next section.
Generally speaking, there are 2 types of misclassifications:
missed-alarm and false-alarm [20]. The most undesirable one is

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
3

a Missed Alarm (MA) (i.e., an insecure contingency is classified exponential recovery loads, over-excitation limiters (OXLs),
as secure). Conversely, a False Alarm (FA) indicates that a and turbine governors (TGs), and (4) describes the long-term
secure contingency is classified as insecure. We point out that discrete events like load tap changers (LTCs). zc and zd are the
there is another situation in which both the PF model and the continuous and discrete long-term state variables, respectively.
TD model classify a contingency as insecure, while the PF τ=εt and 1/ε are the maximum time constants among devices.
model may miss some violations or falsely give out some The QSS model is derived from time-scale decomposition
violations. We term this situation as a Missed/False Violation and aims to offer an appropriate tradeoff between speed and
(MFV), the third type of misclassification. To provide detailed accuracy in simulating trajectories. If the short-term dynamics
insight into misclassification, Table II presents detailed results are stable and settle down infinitely fast in the long-term time
on the 14-bus system during light and heavy loading conditions. scale, then the corresponding equilibrium equations take the
place of (2) and we have the following QSS model [21]:
TABLE II
DETAILED ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE IEEE 14-BUS SYSTEM 0 = g ( x, y, z c , z d ) (5)
DURING LIGHT AND HEAVY LOADING CONDITIONS 0 = f ( x, y, z c , z d ) (6)
dz c
Line
Light loading Heavy loading = h c ( x, y, z c , z d ) (7)
outage PF TD PF TD d
model model model model z d (k + 1) = h d ( x, y, z c , z d (k )) . (8)
V12 V11-14 V11-14
S9-10 On the other hand, the PF model only focuses on the power
violation violation violation
5-6 overload
S9-10 S9-10/ S9-14 S9-10/ S9-14 flow balance under static network constraints, described by the
(MFV)
overload overload overload
power flow equation:
V14 violation
9-14 secure secure
(FA)
secure 0 = g ( y) . (9)
V4/V5 The PF model captures the power flow balance, ignoring
secure violation
1-5 secure secure dynamic behaviors and the internal constraints of short-term
(MA) S2-5
overload and long-term state variables. Overlooking the countereffects
secure S1-5 between dynamic devices makes the PF model too simplified to
2-4 secure secure
(MA) overload
S1-5/S2-4/S3-4
reflect the real power system steady-state after a contingency.
S1-5/S2-4 Therefore, considerable differences between the solutions of
2-3 secure secure Overload
overload
(MFV) the PF model and those of the TD model can exist.
secure S2-4
4-5 secure secure
(MA) overload B. Analytical Basis for QSS-based SSA
It was shown in [16] that the QSS model provides an
III. QUASI STEADY-STATE MODEL-BASED SSA accurate approximation of the TD model in terms of the ω-limit
In this section, the QSS model and the TD model are set under a minor set of assumptions described below:
reviewed. We then present theoretical foundations for the S1. Neither the TD model nor the QSS model meets the
accuracy of the QSS model in performing SSA. singularity points.
S2. The trajectories of the TD model, the QSS model, and
A. Power System Models
the transient stability models with specified initial conditions
The general dynamic power system model for stability exist and are unique. Additionally, Dzc is compact.
analysis can be described as a set of nonlinear differential S3. The equilibrium point of the transient stability model is
algebraic equations (DAE) with continuous and discreet continuous in zc when zd are fixed as parameters.
variables:
0 = g ( x, y, z c , z d ) (1) Definition: ω-Limit Set:  (t , x) is the system trajectory
dx starting at initial state x at time t=0. A point s is said to be the
= f ( x, y, z c , z d ) (2)
dt ω-limit point of x if, corresponding to each ε>0 and T>0, there
dz c
= h c ( x, y, z c , z d ) (3) is a t>T with the property that  (t , x) − s   . Equivalently,
d
there is a sequence ti in  , for ti →+∞, with the property that
z d (k + 1) = h d ( x, y, z c , z d (k )) (4)
s = lim  (t i , x) . The set of all ω-limit points for x is defined as
where g, f, and hc are continuous functions and hd is a discrete t i →+

function; g in (1) represents system network algebraic functions its ω-limit set [16].
and describes the static behaviors of passive devices; f in (2)
describes the short-term dynamic functions of synchronous Theorem 1 (ω-limit set relation) [16]:
machines, their automatic voltage regulators (AVRs), and the If positive constants r and ε0 exist such that assumptions S1-
interconnecting transmission network, together with induction S3 and the following conditions are satisfied for all [τ,zc,zd,x,y,ε,]
and synchronous motor loads as well as other devices such as ∈[τ0,+∞]×Ur×[0,ε0]:
the HVDC converter and SVC; and vectors x,y are the
a) The trajectory of the QSS model (5)-(8) moves along the
corresponding short-term variables and the algebraic variables.
stable component of the constraint manifold Γs;
Equation (3) describes long-term dynamics, including

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
4

b) The projection of the initial point of the TD model (1)-(4) dzc

= hc ( zc , zd (k ), x, y )
to the subspace of zc0 and zd (0) is inside the stability region of d
the initial transient stability model, and the TD model satisfies 0 = f ( zc , zd (k ), x, y ) (13)
the condition of consistent attraction,
0 = g ( zc , zd (k ), x, y )
c) If the ω-limit set of the QSS model (5)-(8), starting from
( z cq0 , z d (0), x 0q , y 0q ) , is a stable equilibrium point (SEP) (zcls, zdls,
Therefore, when we run the QSS model for SSA, discrete
xls, yls), the solution of the TD model (1)-(4) exists for all    0 variables zd are updated first at each distinct time, and then
and satisfies the following limit relations: system (13) works with frozen parameters zd before its next
lim z c ( ,  ) = z cls (10) change, and the simulation stops until the simulation time is
 → 0  →+
reached.
lim x( ,  ) = x ls (11) 1
 → 0  →+ time-domain dynamic trajectory
This theorem asserts that if a trajectory of the QSS model QSS trajectory

voltage of the bus 4(p.u.)

lower voltage limit
moves along Γs and the TD model satisfies the condition of 0.98
consistent attraction, then for sufficiently small ε, the TD
trajectory will converge to the same SEP point to which the
0.96
QSS model converges. This property validates the accuracy of
the QSS model in performing the SSA. Fig. 2 shows that in the
same 14-bus system in Section II, the QSS model will converge 0.94
to the same SEP with the benchmark when the conditions in the
theorem (ω-limit set relation) are satisfied. Hence, this theorem
0.92
asserts the accuracy of QSS-based SSA. 0 50 100 150 200
time/s
Fig. 3. A comparison between the QSS trajectory and the TD
trajectory in the IEEE 14-bus system.
From Theorem 1, we confirm that solutions of QSS-based
SSA in its post-contingency steady-state are the same as those
of the benchmark. Fig. 3 shows that the corresponding QSS
trajectory is quite close to that of the simulated time-domain
trajectory at bus4 of the same example in Section II, as asserted
by the above theorem. In other words, the TD trajectory can be
approximated by the QSS trajectory and the TD trajectory will
converge to the same SEP point to which the QSS model
converges.
We apply the QSS-based SSA to the same cases we used in
the PF-based SSA and then we compare the SSA results with
the benchmark. From Table III, we observe that there is no
misclassification in the QSS-based SSA. These results
Fig. 2. The trajectory comparisons of the TD model and the QSS model numerically confirm the accuracy of QSS-based SSA during
in the IEEE 14-bus system. As asserted by the theorem (ω-limit set both light and heavy loading conditions.
relation), the trajectory of the QSS model follows that of the TD model
and both of them converge to the same SEP. TABLE III
ACCURACY OF THE QSS-BASED SSA DURING BOTH LIGHT AND HEAVY
C. Computational Procedure for QSS-based SSA LOADING CONDITIONS
As presented in part A, in the QSS model, the dynamic 14-bus system 145-bus system
behavior of fast variables can be regarded as infinitely fast in a
Number of Number of Number of Number of
long-term time scale and can be replaced by their equilibrium Loading Voltage Overload Voltage Overload
equations (6). As LTC changing is a typical event that results in Misclass- Misclass- Misclass- Misclass-
the discrete dynamics captured by (8), transitions of zd depend ifications ifications ifications ifications
on system variables and thus, zd changes values from zd(k-1) to Light 0 0 0 0
zd(k) at distinct times τk where k=1,2,3…N; otherwise, these Base case 0 0 0 0
variables remain constants [16]. Therefore, the QSS model (5)- Heavy 0 0 0 0
(8) can be considered as two decoupled systems (12) and (13), The QSS model enables fast simulation by adopting a larger
shown below. When zd changes:
time step or adaptive time steps. Also, its Jacobian matrix is
z d (k ) = h d ( x, y, z c , z d (k − 1)) (12) only updated following LTC or OXL activation or when
system (13) works with fixed parameter zd: encountering a slow convergence rate, which saves much
computational effort. However, the QSS model has some
limitations. In our theoretical analysis of the QSS model, we’ve

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
5

already stated the assumptions that must be satisfied, so the
QSS model cannot reproduce the transient instability or short-
term and long-term dynamic interaction instability. While the
SSA is focused on the post-contingency steady-state problem
and does not involve the above-mentioned problems, this paper
suggests that the QSS model be used for Online-SSA in energy
control centers because of its solid theoretical foundation, its
high accuracy, and its computational efficiency.
IV. DETAILED ANALYSIS
To evaluate the accuracy of both PF-based SSA and QSS-
based SSA, we define two indices—MaxV_diffPF and
MaxS_diffPF— to capture the differences in voltage and apparent
power between the PF model and the TD model for each
contingency:
Vi PF − ViTD
MaxV _ diff PF = max
bus num i =1,2,...
MaxS _ diff PF =
max
line num j =1,2,...
14-bus system: The IEEE 14-bus system has 20 lines with
1 LTC placed between bus4 and bus9. We increase the real
power demand at buses 9, 12, and 13 uniformly in the base case.
For the TD and the QSS models, each of the 5 generators is
equipped with an AVR and an OXL. Generators 1 and 2 are
controlled by TGs. Three exponential recovery loads are
located at bus9, bus10, and bus14, respectively. The LTC has
an initial time delay of 30 seconds and a fixed tapping time
delay of 10 seconds.
30-bus system: The IEEE 30-bus system has 41 lines.
Voltages of PV node 11 and 13 are set as 1.045p.u. We place 2
LTCs between bus4-bus12 and bus28-bus27. For the TD and
the QSS models, each of the 6 generators is controlled by an
AVR and an OXL. Generators 1 and 2 are controlled by TGs.
The LTCs have the initial time delay as 30s and the fixed
tapping delay as 10s.
(14)
Vi base To classify the operating conditions into light and heavy
S PF − S TD loading conditions, we employ the metric of a PF-based load
j j
. (15) margin to steady-state stability limit to classify the degree of
S themal
j
limit

loading conditions; a loading condition is classified as heavy if

its normalized load margin is 15% or less [22]. With increasing
Another two indices, MaxV_diffQSS and MaxS_diffQSS, capture loading conditions, misclassifications by the PF-based SSA
the differences in voltage and apparent power between the QSS become more severe, especially for the MA-type
model and the TD model for each contingency: misclassification, while the QSS-based SSA produces no
Vi QSS − ViTD misclassifications.
MaxV _ diff QSS = max (16)
bus num i =1,2,... Vi base TABLE V
THE TOTAL NUMBERS OF MISCLASSIFICATION NUMBERS OF THE
S QSS
−S TD
CONTINGENCIES IN PF-BASED SSA
MaxS _ diff QSS =
j j
max themal limit
. (17)
line num j =1,2,... S j 6-bus 14-bus 30-bus
Misclassi
In this section, we employ the steady-state of the TD model system system system
Loading fications
Volt Over Volt Over Volt Over
as the benchmark and use several IEEE test systems to assess Types
age load age load age load
the accuracy of the SSA by using the PF and the QSS models. MA 0 0
Light FA 0 0 0 0 0 0
MFV 1 1
A. IEEE Small-Scale Test Systems
MA 0 0 0 0 1
PF-based SSA can lead to misclassification in small-sized Base
FA 0 0 1 0 0 0
case
systems, such as a 6-bus system in PSAT tests, a modified IEEE MFV 1 0 1 1 0
14-bus system, and a modified IEEE 30-bus system. MA 1 0 1 3 0 0
• 6-bus system: This system has 11 lines. We place 1 LTC Heavy FA 0 0 1 0 0 0
between bus1 and bus4. For the TD and the QSS models, each MFV 2 3 0 1 2 3
of the 3 generators is equipped with AVR and OXL. Generators
1 and 3 are controlled by TGs. The LTC has an initial time delay λ=0.9 λ=1 λ=1.1
of 30 seconds and a fixed tapping delay of 10 seconds. 4%
To show the robustness of QSS-based SSA, we examine
multiple load variation patterns and generation re-dispatch 3%
patterns, as shown in Table IV.
2%
TABLE IV
LOAD-VARYING AND GENERATION RE-DISPATCH DIRECTION PATTERN
1%
Bus Bus
ΔPL(p.u) ΔQL(p.u) ΔPG (p.u) 0%
number number
Line 9-14 Line 2-3 Line 1-5 Line 4-5 Line 2-4 Line 5-6
4 0.2 0.0667 1 0.2
(a) MaxV_diffPF (%)
5 0.1 0.07 3 0.2
6 0.25 0.1667

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
6

The voltage differences and apparent power differences

λ=0.9 λ=1 λ=1.1
5% between the QSS model and the benchmark are defined as
follows:
4%
Vi QSS − ViTD
3% dv = bus num i = 1, 2, (18)
Vi base
2%
S QSS − S TD
ds = line num j = 1, 2,
j j
1% (19)
S themal
j
limit

0%
Line 9-14 Line 2-3 Line 1-5 Line 4-5 Line 2-4 Line 5-6
(b) MaxS_diffPF (%)
Fig. 4. Histogram of maximal voltage and apparent power differences
between the PF model and the benchmark with different loading
conditions in the IEEE 14-bus system.
We take the 14-bus system as an example for detailed
analysis. Fig. 4 presents a histogram of maximal voltage and
apparent power differences between the PF model and the TD
model of several critical contingencies at several loading
conditions. The PF-based SSA is acceptable during light loading
conditions; however, during heavy loading conditions, there are
large differences in both voltage and apparent power leading to
severe misclassifications made by the PF-based SSA (as shown
in Table V). For instance, with Line 1-5 outage, the PF model
classifies it as secure (during heavy loading conditions) while
this contingency is classified as insecure by the TD model in
which V4 and V5 are already over limit and branch 2-5 is
overloaded (as shown in Table II).
It is observed that over 85% of the voltages, the voltage
differences (dv) are usually less than 1e-4. Regarding the
apparent power differences (ds), they are slightly larger, but all
of them are still less than 1%. It is important to point out that,
from Table III, the QSS-based SSA has the same assessment
results as the benchmark; confirming the accuracy of QSS-based
SSA at different loading conditions. These assessment results of
high accuracy agree with the theoretical prediction.
B. The IEEE 145-bus System
In this modified test system, each generator is equipped with
an AVR, a TG, and a power system stabilizer. Generators 1-6
are controlled by OXLs. We add 3 LTCs to the system with an
initial time delay of 30 seconds and the fixed tapping delay of
10 seconds.

(a)
(a) Voltage differences

(b) Apparent power differences

Fig. 5. Pie charts comparing the voltage/apparent power differences (b)

for 20 contingencies between the QSS model and the benchmark at
different loading conditions in the IEEE 14-bus system.
On the other hand, the solutions of QSS-based SSA are very
close to those of the benchmark. As shown in Fig. 5, the
differences produced by QSS-based SSA for 20 contingencies
during each loading condition are displayed in a pie chart that
shows the accuracy of the QSS-based SSA.
Fig. 6. (a) A 3-D cone bar chart of maximal voltage differences for
most critical contingencies using the PF model and the QSS model
during different loading conditions in the IEEE 145-bus system. (b)
The line 74-106 plane histogram of (a) highlights the comparison of
these two kinds of SSA results.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
7

145- Light 107.4 673.1 9396.0 1.14 7.16 100

bus Base case 109.6 683.5 9498.3 1.15 7.20 100
system Heavy 110.2 736.9 9579.4 1.15 7.69 100

V. PHYSICAL EXPLANATION
In this section, we present a physical explanation for the
different behaviors of the PF model and the benchmark during
heavy loading conditions.
Since misclassifications become more frequent and severe
with increasing loading conditions, we take the IEEE 14-bus
system under a heavy loading condition λ=1.1 and the base case
Fig. 7. A 3-D cone bar chart of apparent power differences for most with a line 1-5 outage as an example. Numerical simulation
critical contingencies by using the PF model and the QSS model during results show that PF-based post-contingency voltages are
different loading conditions in the IEEE 145-bus system. higher than that of the benchmark, while QSS-based post-
The voltage differences and apparent power differences, as contingency voltages are the same as the benchmark. The PF
compared with the steady-state of the TD model, for most model assesses this contingency as secure, while in fact it is
critical contingencies are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. From these insecure because bus4 and bus5 are all under-voltage.
results, we have the following observations:
(i) The steady-state calculated according to the PF model is
quite different from the benchmark. The differences show up in
both the voltage and apparent power, while the steady-state
calculated according to the QSS model is very close to the
benchmark.
(ii) For the PF model, voltage differences and apparent
power differences grow rapidly as loading conditions increase,
which contributes to more misclassifications during heavy
loading conditions; especially for the unacceptable MA-type
misclassification.
(iii) For the QSS model, though voltage differences and
apparent power differences slowly grow as loading conditions
increase, they stay in a small range. This is why the QSS model Fig. 8. Voltage profiles under three different models (the time-domain
provides the same SSA results as the benchmark. model, QSS model, and power flow model) of the IEEE 14-bus system
under a heavy loading condition λ=1.1 with line 1-5 outage. (The red
C. CPU Time dashed lines define the upper and lower voltage limits, respectively.)
The computation time and calculation ratio, calculated by First, the assumption of PV nodes may contribute to the
the PF model and the QSS model and compared with the differences. In the PF model, a generator bus maintains a
benchmark, are presented in Table VI and were implemented constant voltage magnitude until it reaches its reactive power
on an Inter Core i7-4790 @3.60GHz processor with 16GB limit. However, in reality, there are AVRs connected to
RAM. We observe that the QSS model takes only about 5%~10% generators for primary voltage regulation. Due to the difference
of the computation load of the TD model. Moreover, with regulation characteristics of the AVRs’ model, the voltages of
recent progress in accessible high-performance computing [13], generator buses decrease as the loading conditions increase. In
[14], the separate contingencies can be assigned to more than the PF model, bus3 is set as a PV node without a Q limit. With
one processor to reduce the required computation time. sufficient reactive power capability, bus3 maintains its constant
TABLE VI voltage at 1. 01p.u after the contingency. In the TD model, after
CPU TIME IN SECONDS AND COMPUTATION LOAD OF THE FOUR EXAMPLES the line outage, part of the load supported by the generator at
Ratio of calculation bus1 is transferred to the generator at bus2 and bus3, which is
Processing time(s)
Case Loading (%) equivalent to increasing the load current of the generator at bus3.
PF QSS TD PF QSS TD And, with the increased load current, the external characteristic
Light 1.5 5.8 115.3 1.30 5.03 100 of bus3 decreases (V3↓), caused by the degaussing of the
6-bus
system
Base case 1.6 6.1 122.1 1.31 5.00 100 armature reaction and the leakage impedance voltage drop.
Heavy 1.8 6.6 122.7 1.47 5.38 100 Then the field current If3 increases, trying to maintain the
Light 3.0 21.8 248.1 1.21 8.79 100 voltage, and without Q limits in bus3 (syn3), the OXL3 is
14-bus
system
Base case 3.3 26.4 252.4 1.31 10.46 100 inactive and the reference AVR3 voltage stays constant (see Fig.
Heavy 4.6 35.6 258.6 1.78 13.77 100 9). Therefore, due to the armature reaction of the synchronous
Light 5.6 32.0 473.1 1.18 6.76 100
30-bus generator and the differential regulation characteristic of the
Base case 6.3 41.1 477.1 1.17 8.61 100
system AVR, its voltage decreases and settles at 0. 986p.u in the post-
Heavy 9.2 61.6 488.5 1.88 12.62 100

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
contingency steady state. As a result, the voltages of the TD
model and the QSS model are lower than those of the PF model
(see Fig. 8).
1.2
vrefExc 2 vrefExc 3 vrefExc 4 vrefExc 5
1.18
1.16
Vref (p.u)
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
0 50 100 150
time (s)
Fig. 9. Changes of dynamic variables If, Voxl, Vref and reactive power
outputs of synchronous generators in the TD model in the IEEE 14-
bus system.
Second, the treatment of reactive power limits is too
simplified in the PF model. In practice, the maximum reactive
power output of a generator is related to its field current If,
which is proportional to the field voltage Vf. The OXL
connected to the corresponding AVR is modeled as a pure
integrator with anti-windup hard limits and provides an
additional signal Voxl to modify the reference voltage Vref of the
AVR [23]. As Fig. 9 shows, after a time delay, when If of the
generator is greater than its limit, the OXL is activated and
outputs the Voxl to modify the reference AVR voltage Vref, which
limits field voltage Vf of the generator. Thus, at the same time,
the generator limits its reactive power output. So, the standard
box constraints for the reactive power limit set in the PF model
may be too simplified to catch the actual situation, which also
brings about different voltage profiles and apparent power
outputs in this case.
Fig. 10. The LTC regulating process between bus4 and bus9 of the
time-domain dynamic, and the QSS simulation compared with the
power flow solution in the IEEE 14-bus system.
Third, ignoring the interaction between LTC regulation
(discrete characteristics) and other dynamic components may
further increase the differences. In the PF model, due to the
rough approximation of the reactive power limitation, within
the normal regulating range of the LTC, bus9 can go back to its
0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Power Systems
8
original level, while bus4 is still locked to its limit. However, in
the TD and QSS models, after the transient period, when the
slow dynamic device, the OXL, reaches its delay time and If is
0.07 vOxl 2 vOxl 3 vOxl 4 vOxl 5
larger than its upper limit, OXLs are activated, which limits the
0.06
reactive power output of synchronous generators in the system,
0.05
while the LTC tries to restore the secondary voltage (bus9) by
continuously lowering its tap ratio. This process will increase
Voxl (p.u)
0.04
0.03 the demand for reactive power in the system. Because of the
0.02 countereffect between the LTC and the OXL, the LTC fails to
0.01 restore bus9 to its original voltage level and the primary voltage
0
0 50 100 150 200
(bus4) is over limit, thus resulting in an increase in the
time (s) differences.
0.9
qSyn 2 qSyn 3 qSyn 4 qSyn 5
0.8
VI. CONCLUSION
Reactive Power Output (p.u)
0.7
Using the steady-state of time-domain (TD) simulation as
0.6
the benchmark, this paper examines the accuracy of SSA using
0.5 the power flow (PF) model and the Quasi-static state (QSS)
0.4 model, respectively. As the loading conditions increase, it is
0.3 observed (from our numerical evaluation) that
0.2
misclassifications in SSA become more pronounced and can be
200 0 50 100 150 200
time (s) serious in the PF-based SSA, while misclassifications in QSS-
based SSA do not occur in the four test systems under both light
and heavy loading conditions. This observation persists when
load variations and generation re-dispatch patterns are taken
into account during increases in loading conditions. Physical
explanations for misclassifications made by the PF-based SSA
are provided. First, the assumption of PV nodes in the PF model
contributes to the differences. Second, the treatment of reactive
power limits in the PF model is too simplified. Third, ignoring
the interaction between LTC regulation (discrete characteristics)
and other dynamic components may further increase the
differences.
It is a common practice to perform PF-based SSA in modern
energy control centers worldwide. This study raises a serious
issue regarding the inaccuracy of PF-based SSA under heavy
loading conditions. This paper suggests using the QSS model in
performing SSA and presents a theoretical foundation for the
QSS-based SSA to show that the QSS model offers an accurate
approximation of the TD model in terms of the ω-limit set.
Numerical studies show the accuracy of QSS-based SSA under
both light loading conditions and heavy loading conditions,
confirming the theoretical prediction. It is worth mentioning that
the accuracy of PF-based SSA and QSS-based SSA was also
examined under the following different load models: (i) a
constant PQ load, (ii) the ZIP load, and (iii) the ZIP load with
an induction motor load model. From our extensive numerical
results, we observe that misclassifications in SSA produced by
the PF model also occur in all three load models. On the other
hand, the accuracy of QSS-based SSA under both light and
heavy loading conditions with these three load models is
confirmed in the numerical studies. Due to space limitations,
the examination results were not presented in this paper.
We have observed that simulating the QSS model is about
one magnitude faster than the TD model. Due to the
parallelizable nature of contingencies and recent progress in
high-performance computing and commercial availability of
GPUs, the applicability of QSS-based SSA in the online
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2914955, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
9

environment is feasible. On the other hand, we feel that it is
possible to develop a detailed power flow model by
incorporating reactive power/voltage control aspects. For
example, the voltage source behind a reactance to approximate
generators’ behavior can be added to the model. Further
research and development along these directions are desired.
One focus of our future work is to include corrective control
actions such as SPS/RAS in the model for performing SSA.
Another is to evaluate the QSS-based SSA on large-scale,
realistic test systems whose dynamic parameters are publicly
available.
and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp.
357-386.
[20] R. Fischl, T. F. Halpin, and A. Guvenis, "The Application of Decision
Theory to Contingency Selection," IEEE Trans. Circuits and Syst., vol.
29, pp. 712-723, Nov. 1982
[21] T. V. Cutsem, M. E. Grenier, and D. Lefebvre, "Combined Detailed and
Quasi Steady-State Time Simulations for Large disturbance Analysis,"
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 28,
no. 9, pp. 634–642, 2006.
[22] H.-D. Chiang, A. J. Flueck, K. S. Shah, and N. Balu, "CPFLOW: a
practical tool for tracing power system steady-state stationary behavior
due to load and generation variations," IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 623-634, May 1995.
[23] F. Milano, Power System Modelling and Scripting. London, UK: Springer,
2010, pp. 215-217, 373.

VII. REFERENCES
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
[1] N. Balu, T. Bertram, A. Bose, V. Brandwajn, G. Cauley, D. Curtice, A.
Fouad, L. Fink, M. G. Lauby, B. F. Wollenberg, and J. N. Wrubel, "On- Meng-yu Ruan received the B.S. degree (June 2016)
in Electrical Engineering from Hebei University of
line power system security analysis," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 80,
Technology, Tianjin, China, and she is currently
pp. 262-282, Feb. 1992.
[2] Allen J. Wood, Bruce F. Wollenberg, and Gerald B. Sheble, Power pursuing the M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering at
Tianjin University, Tianjin, China. Her current research
Generation, Operation, and Control. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
interests include power system modelling, power
Sons, 2014.
[3] B. Stott, O. Alsac, and A. J. Monticelli, "Security Analysis and system static security assessment, and nonlinear
computation and applications.
Optimization," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 75, pp. 1623-1644, Dec.
1987.
[4] A. Ozdemir, Jae Yun Lim, and C. Singh, "Branch outage simulation for
MVAR flows: bounded network solution," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
18, no. 4, pp. 1523-1528, 2003.
[5] P. Ruiz and P. Sauer, "Voltage and Reactive Power Estimation for Hsiao-Dong Chiang (M'87–SM'91–F'97) received the
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering and computer
Contingency Analysis Using Sensitivities," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
sciences from the University of California at Berkeley,
22, no. 2, pp. 639-647, 2007.
[6] Z. Wu, Z. Hao, and D. Yang, "A new MVA sensitivity method for fast Berkeley, CA, USA. He is a professor in the School of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell
accurate contingency evaluation", Int. J. Elec. Power, vol. 38, no. 1, pp.1-
8, 2012. University, Ithaca, NY, USA. He and his research team
[7] R. Salgado and A. Berizzi, "A new second-order method for branch have published more than 400 papers in refereed
journals and conference proceedings, obtaining an h-
contingency analysis and static voltage security," Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 123, pp. 137-146, 2015. index of 56. His current research interests include
[8] G. C. Ejebe and B. F. Wollenberg, "Automatic contingency selection," nonlinear system theory, nonlinear computation,
nonlinear optimization, and their practical applications. He holds 18 U.S. and
IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-98, no. 1, pp. 97-109, Jan. 1979.
[9] S. Vemuri and R. E. Usher, "On-line automatic contingency selection overseas patents and several consultant positions. He is the author of two books:
algorithms," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-102, no. 2, pp. 346- Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems: Theoretical
Foundations, BCU Methodologies, and Applications (Hoboken, NJ, USA:
354, Feb. 1983.
[10] V. Brandwajn and M. G. Lauby, “Complete bounding method for AC Wiley, 2011) and (with Luis F. C. Alberto) Stability Regions of Nonlinear
contingency screening,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 724– Dynamical Systems: Theory, Estimation, and Applications (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015). Dr. Chiang has served as an associate editor for
729, May 1989.
[11] P. Mitra, V. Vittal, B. Keel, and J. Mistry, "A Systematic Approach to n- several IEEE transactions and journals, and on the editorial board of IEEJ
1-1 Analysis or Power System Security Assessment," IEEE Power and (Japan) and the journal Electric Power Components and Systems. He is the
founder of Bigwood Systems, Inc. and Global Optimal Technology, Inc. in
Energy Technology Systems Journal, vol. 3, pp. 71-80, Jun. 2016.
[12] E. Polymeneas and A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos, "Margin-Based Framework Ithaca, NY, USA.
for Online Contingency Selection in Unbalanced Networks," IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 32, pp. 30-38, Jan. 2017.
[13] D. Chen, H. Jiang, Y. Li, and D. Xu, "A Two-Layered Parallel Static
Security Assessment for Large-Scale Grids Based on GPU," IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1396-1405, May 2017.
[14] Gan Zhou, Yanjun Feng, Rui Bo, Lungsheng Chien, Xu Zhang, Yansheng
Lang, Yupei Jia, and Zhengping Chen, "GPU-Accelerated Batch-ACPF
Solution for N-1 Static Security Analysis," IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid,
vol. 8, pp. 1406-1416, May 2017.
[15] X. Li, P. Balasubramanian, M. Sahraei-Ardakani, M. Abdi-Khorsand, K.
W. Hedman, and R. Podmore, "Real-Time Contingency Analysis with
Corrective Transmission Switching," IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 2604-2617, Jul. 2017.
[16] X. Wang and H. D. Chiang, “Analytical Studies of Quasi Steady-State
Model in Power System Long-Term Stability Analysis,” IEEE Trans. on
Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers,” vol. 61, pp. 943-956, Mar. 2014.
[17] X. Wang and H. D. Chiang, "Numerical investigations on quasi steady-
state model for voltage stability," International Transactions on
Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1586-1599, 2014.
[18] P. Kundur. Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[19] H.-D. Chiang and L. F. C. Alberto, "Bifurcations of stability regions,” in
Stability Regions of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Theory, Estimation,

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.