2020 IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP), 5-7 June 2020, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Over-Frequency Mitigation Using Coordinated
Generator Shedding Scheme in a Low Inertia Power
System
Md. Nahid Haque Shazon, Hasin Mussayab Ahmed and Nahid-Al-Masood*
Department of EEE, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh
shazon.buet.eee@gmail.com, punnohasin@gmail.com, nahid@eee.buet.ac.bd (*Corresponding author)
Abstract—The objective of this paper is to mitigate over-
frequency problem of a low inertia power system using
coordinated Over-Frequency Generator Shedding (OFGS)
scheme. Recently, prolific amount of wind resources has been
introduced in many power systems around the world. These
variable speed wind power plants cannot contribute to system
inertia unlike traditional synchronous generators. This leads
to insufficient system inertia and the system can be termed as
low inertia power system. If an area is transporting
significant amount of power to adjacent area, then tripping of
interconnection line can cause excess power thus to increase
the system frequency in that area. This research work
proposes a method to mitigate this problem using over-
frequency generator tripping scheme. Results show that
tripping wind turbine generator provides the best system
response if single generator tripping scheme is undertaken. In
case of double generator tripping scheme, wind-hydro
combination tripping demonstrates the lowest frequency
summit, lower Rate of Change of Frequency (ROCOF) and
faster settling time. Finally, generators having different
inertia constants are tripped to portray that generators
having lower inertia constant should be tripped first.
Index Terms— Over-frequency generator shedding, inertial
response, low inertia power system, frequency summit, rate of
change of frequency.
I. INTRODUCTION
Interconnected multi-area power system has become
inescapable with the increase in size and capacity of
modern power system. The interconnectivity and
complicacy in modern power system can enhance the risk
of over-frequency problem in a power grid [1]. Especially,
when an area is sending large amount of power to its
adjacent area, an interconnection trip can cause an
undesirable over-frequency situation in that area. Because
of loss of load, the excessive power, which was previously
being sent to its neighboring area, can cause over-voltage
and over-frequency problem. The severity of these
problems depends on overall system configuration, system
inertia and type of generator turbines available on that
system.
In previous years, wind power generation has been
prolific throughout the world. According to [2], worldwide
wind energy generation in 2018 was 563 GW. Wind
penetration has a significant impact on system inertia. The
inertial behavior of these wind turbine generators is
different than that of conventional synchronous generators.
Type III (Doubly-Fed Induction Generator: DFIG) and type
IV (Full-Scale Converter: FSC) wind turbine generators
(WTGs) are predominantly deployed among four type of
wind turbine generators around the world. As they are
connected to the host grid via power electronic converters,
they cannot participate in frequency regulation [3]. Thus,
abundance of wind penetration can enhance the risks of
978-1-7281-7366-5/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE
560
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 23,2021 at 16:37:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
over-frequency in an area which has been separated from
adjacent area because of interconnection line trip. For
instance, South Australian power system is a low inertia
power system under credible risk of experiencing over-
frequency problem in islanded condition [14].
The most convenient method for over-frequency
mitigation is generator shedding when the frequency
crosses a predetermined threshold [4]. The trivial range for
a generator to operate properly is when system frequency is
between 47 Hz- 52 Hz [14]. If system frequency goes
beyond 52 Hz, over-speed protection relays of generators
disconnect them from grid and system eventually leads to
blackout. The most crucial decision about generator
shedding is which generator is to be shed first. Because,
effects of tripping steam turbine generator, hydro turbine
generator and wind turbine generator can be contrasting in
terms of frequency peak and ROCOF following the
generator trip [5]. The difference in operational mechanism,
inertial behavior and dynamic response of these different
turbine generators cause the system to act differently. The
result is more interesting when a combination of them is
tripped to mitigate over-frequency problem. Tripping more
generation than reduced load causes the system to suffer
from substantial under frequency load shedding to resettle
system frequency.
Various methods and coordination of generator
shedding scheme have been reported in literature [6]. [7]
denotes, preferred option for generator tripping scheme is
to trip those generators which are close to the primary node
of disturbance. Coordination of over-frequency generator
tripping in small capacity grids are discussed in [8].
Applying proper delay timing, proper capacity generation
tripping and escaping under frequency load shedding have
been given priority for over-frequency mitigation in [8]. A
control methodology of virtual power plants using decision
tree aided active power control provision is described in
[9]. Potential application of active power reduction of
distributed generator in a microgrid is denoted in [10] and
[11]. Grid connected wind farm tripping can be
instrumental for over-frequency mitigation according to
[12]. However, coordinated tripping of hydro, wind and
steam turbine can bring further improvement in over-
frequency mitigation in a low inertia grid. To
comprehensively investigate the over-frequency
management strategy, this paper proposes a coordinated
tripping scheme including hydro, wind and steam turbine
generator tripping. Furthermore, effect of inertia constant of
the tripped generator on the frequency response has also
been investigated in this research work.
Remaining of the paper is structured as follows:
Methodology and execution of OFGS is narrated in section
II, network overview is given in section III, simulation
scenarios are depicted in section IV, section V contains
simulation results and analyses and section VI presents
concluding remarks and comments.
II. OVER-FREQUENCY GENERATOR SHEDDING OPERATION
Interconnection line trip can cause loss of load in an
area which in turn increases the system frequency. When
the system frequency crosses a certain threshold then over-
frequency generator shedding relay directs the circuit
breaker to open. Basic operation of OFGS is illustrated in
Fig. 1. According to Fig. 1(a), interconnection line trip
occurs at 2 second as a result frequency starts to rise. This
deviation in frequency initiates governor response and
generator power output begins to reduce as shown in Fig.
1(b). When frequency crosses 51.25 Hz, the power output
becomes zero drastically because of the generator shedding
scheme.

Figure. 2 Frequency response and power output for double tripping

III. NETWORK OVERVIEW

The test power system has been constructed based on
South Australian 14 generator model. The test network
is depicted in Fig. 3. The steam turbine generators are
located at PLANT-1 and hydro turbine generators are
located at PLANT-2. The information needed for dynamic
simulation, nameplate data, unit capacity, unit MVA rating
and unit inertia constant are available in Table II.
From the network diagram it is apparent that wind
turbine machines are located at bus 18 and 19. 70% of the
total wind generation is concentrated at bus 18 and rest of
the wind generation is located at bus 19. Area A is
Figure. 1 Frequency response and generator output power after OFGS connected with adjacent area B through a 275KV HVAC
scheme
transmission line which normally transfers 200 MW power
from Area-A to Area-B.
The Upper threshold frequency, relay pick-up time and
TABLE II. SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR INFORMATION
breaker time is illustrated in Table I [13]. Lower threshold
Power Unit Unit MVA Unit inertia
frequency has been set to zero because under frequency station
No. of
capacity rating constant (s)
generator tripping is not considered in this research work. units
name (MW) (MVA)
PLANT_1 2 200 250.0 4.00
TABLE I. RELAY SETTING FOR GENERATOR TRIPPING PLANT_2 2 150 166.6 4.00
Description Value
1. Upper Threshold frequency (Hz) 51.25
2. Lower Threshold Frequency (Hz) 0
3. Relay Pick-up time (seconds) 0.00005
4. Breaker time (seconds) 0.083

Circumstances can arise where single generator tripping

scheme is not enough for frequency regulation. Multiple
generator tripping is more convenient for these situations.
As an illustration, Upper threshold frequencies for those
generators can be 51.00 Hz and 51.25 Hz respectively. Fig.
2(a) and 2(b) show hydro turbine generator has been
tripped at first at 51.00 Hz. As it is not enough to stop the
frequency rise, steam turbine generator is tripped at 51.25
Hz which is shown in Fig. 2(c).

Figure. 3 Network diagram of test system

561

Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 23,2021 at 16:37:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 IV. SIMULATION SEQUENCE
Simulation sequence explored in this research work is
illustrated in Fig. 4. At first, effect of single generator trip
on the system is investigated for three types of turbine
generator. Double generators shedding scheme is inspected
for available three combinations afterwards. Finally, single
generator tripping is investigated by tripping generators
having different inertia constants. This analysis gives an
insight about which generator unit should be tripped first
for better system frequency response.
Therefore, wind turbine generator tripping, which lefts
steam and hydro turbine generators in the system, shows
best frequency response following a contingency. This is
because hydro and steam turbine generators have inertial
response as well as governor response which Type-III wind
turbine generators lack. For all cases the settling frequency
remains above 50 Hz which implies that single generator
trip is not enough to restore the frequency to nominal value.

Fig. 5: Frequency response without OFGS scheme

Figure. 4 Schematic view of simulation sequence

For this research work, it has been assumed that total

system load is 1600 MW. Total wind penetration is 1220
MW and number of online synchronous generators are 4
which produces rest of the power. Overview of these
information are illustrated in Table III. Area-B receives 200
MW of power from Area-A in normal operating condition.
Accordingly, an interconnection line trip causes a sudden
reduction of 200 MW in system load. Figure. 6 Frequency response with single generator trip scheme

TABLE III. OVERVIEW OF GENERATION INFORMATION AND SYSTEM

INERTIA B. Double Generator Tripping
Number of Synchronous Wind Total System Tripping a single unit of generator might not be able to
Synchronous generation Penetration Inertia bring back the frequency to its nominal value. To settle the
Generators (MW) (MW) (MWs)
4 380 1220 3667 frequency quickly and to have a settling frequency nearer
to the nominal frequency, double generators both having
100 MW capacity, tripping scheme is undertaken. The first
V. RESULTS AND ANALYSES generator is tripped at 51.00 Hz and second one is tripped
In this section, simulation results are presented and at 51.10 Hz. Fig. 7 shows that frequency peaks after OFGS
analyzed for various tripping scheme. All the simulation scheme are 51.12 Hz, 51.20 Hz and 51.23 Hz for wind-
tasks are executed using PSS®E software in conjunction steam combination, wind-hydro combination and steam-
with Python programming language. This software is well hydro combination respectively.
acknowledged and utilized in many countries for power
system analysis.
A. Single Generator Tripping
When OFGS scheme is not activated then the system
frequency goes above 52 Hz. Thus, system suffers from
cascaded generator trip and blackout which is illustrated in
Fig. 5. When frequency goes above 51.00 Hz, the OFGS
scheme is activated here. Effect of tripping a single
generator having 100 MW capacity is shown in Fig. 6. It
appears that, frequency peak after wind, hydro and steam
turbine generator trip are 51.25 Hz, 51.35 Hz and 51.65 Hz
respectively. ROCOF has been calculated after activating
OFGS scheme taking 100 ms window from 3.15 s to 3.25 s.
The ROCOF values are 0.23 Hz/s, 0.35 Hz/s and 0.48 Hz/s. Figure. 7 Frequency response with double generator trip scheme

562

Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 23,2021 at 16:37:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ROCOF is quantified the same way as single generator
tripping scheme and obtained values are 0.15 Hz/s, 0.17
Hz/s and 0.22 Hz/s for abovementioned three
combinations.
Therefore, tripping wind and hydro turbine generators
and keeping steam turbine generator yield the best result.
This is because wind turbine generator has neither inertial
response nor governor response. Also, the initial power
surge of a hydro turbine is opposite to that desired which
deteriorates system frequency response [15].
C. Tripping Based on Inertia
In this case, three steam turbine generators having
inertia constants of 3 s (low H), 6 s (medium H) and 7.5 s
(high H) are tripped one by one. For this case, it is
assumed that synchronous generation is 300 MW and wind
generation is 1300 MW. All three generators are of same
capacity and have same type of governor response. Thus,
only contrasting factor is inertia constant (H). Fig. 8
illustrates that for tripping generator with high H and
medium H lead to blackout and for generator with low H
tripping, the frequency summit is 51.96 Hz. Values of
ROCOF are 0.25 Hz/s, 0.31 Hz/s and 0.38 Hz/s for low H,
medium H and high H respectively which have been
quantified taking a window of 200 ms from 3.25 s to 3.45
s.
Figure. 8 Frequency response for generator trip having different inertia
constant
It can be revealed from the results that tripping
generators having high inertia constant cannot stop the
frequency rise. Subsequently it yields unsatisfactory
frequency response. However, when generators having
same type of turbine and capacity are present, generator
with the lowest inertia constant should be tripped for
mitigating over-frequency effectively.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper extensively investigates the role of over-
frequency generator shedding for mitigating over-frequency
problem of a low inertia power system. Combination of
generators having different types of turbine has been
tripped to this end and it is found that for single generator
tripping scheme, tripping wind turbine generator and
keeping hydro and steam turbine generators online yields
the best performance in terms of frequency summit point
563
Authorized licensed use limited to: California State University Fresno. Downloaded on June 23,2021 at 16:37:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and ROCOF after generator tripping. For double generator
tripping scheme, combination of wind and hydro turbine
generators tripping shows the best frequency response. It’s
because of lack of governor and inertial response from
wind turbine generators and initial power surge
characteristics of hydro turbine generator.
Finally, effect of inertia constant of generators in
tripping scheme has been illustrated. It reveals that to avoid
undesirable frequency response, generators having lower
inertia constant is preferred to be tripped first.
REFERENCES
[1] Z. Song, Y. Lin, C. Liu, Z. Ma and L. Ding, "Review on over-
frequency generator tripping for frequency stability control," in
Proc. 2016 IEEE PES Asia- Pacific Power and Energy
Engineering Conference (APPEEC), pp. 2240-2243.
[2] "Statistics Time Series", Irena.org, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.irena.org/ Statistics/ View-Data-by-Topic/ Capacity-
and-Generation/Statistics-Time-Series. [Accessed: 09- Feb- 2020].
[3] N. Masood, N. Modi and R. Yan, "Low inertia power systems:
Frequency response challenges and a possible solution," in Proc.
2016 Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference
(AUPEC), pp. 1-6.
[4] Y. Guo, H. Nan, X. Guan, and L. Wu, “Discussion on the Over-
frequency Generator Tripping Scheme of the Power Grid,” in Proc.
2018 International Conference on Energy, Electrical and Power
Engineering, vol. 1072, pp. 1-8.
[5] F. Yang, Y. Su, S. Zhao, Y. Song, Y. Mei, Q. Wang, and Z. Zhang.
“Research on over Frequency Generator Tripping Configuration
Scheme of Regional Grid in Infirm Interconnections and Small
Capacity.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 336–338, pp.
1174–79, July 2013.
[6] AEMO, “Renewable Energy Integration in South Australia”, Oct.
2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.aemo.com.au [Accessed: 9-
Feb.-2020].
[7] Z. Zhang, X. Li, and Z. Huang, "Simulation and analysis of over
Frequency generator tripping for Guizhou isolated
power system, "Modern Electric Power, vol. 25, pp. 31-34, Aug.
2008.
[8] F. Yang, Z. Zhang, S. Zhao, L. Wu, and J. He, "Configuration
scheme of over- Frequency tripping and coordination with over-
speed protection controller (OPC) of regional grid," Electric Power,
vol. 46, pp. 64-68, Oct. 2013.
[9] P. Moutis and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "Decision Trees-Aided Active
Power Reduction of a Virtual Power Plant for Power System Over-
Frequency Mitigation," IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 251-261, Feb. 2015.
[10] E. Mashhour and S. M. Moghaddas-Tafreshi, "Bidding Strategy of
Virtual Power Plant for Participating in Energy and Spinning
Reserve Markets—Part I: Problem Formulation," IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 949-956, May 2011.
[11] G. Strbac, N. Jenkins, T. Green, and D. Pudjianto, “Review of
Innovative Network Concepts, DG GRID Project Report,” Petten,
Netherlands, 2006.
[12] AEMO, “South Australia- Power System Operation as A Viable
Island”, June 2018 [Online]. Available: http://www.aemo.com.au
[Accessed: 20-Feb.-2020].
[13] N. Samaan, J. Dagle, Y. Makarov, R. Diao, L. Miller, S. Wang, B.
Vyakaranam, T. Nguyen, F. Tuffner, M. Pai and M. Vallem.
"Dynamic contingency analysis tool–phase 1." Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington report- 24843.
2015.
[14] AEMO, “Update to Renewable Energy Integration in South
Australia”, Feb. 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.aemo.com.au
[Accessed: 9-Feb.-2020].
[15] N. R. Ullah, T. Thiringer and D. Karlsson, "Temporary Primary
Frequency Control Support by Variable Speed Wind Turbines—
Potential and Applications," IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 23,
no. 2, pp. 601-612, May 2008.