IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO.

6, NOVEMBER 2021 5175

Power Coupling for Transient Stability and

Electromagnetic Transient Collaborative
Simulation of Power Grids
Dmitry Rimorov , Member, IEEE, Jinan Huang, Member, IEEE, Chuma Francis Mugombozi, Member, IEEE,
Thierry Roudier, and Innocent Kamwa , Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Co-simulation of heterogeneous systems allows for
in-depth analysis of various aspects of power systems’ operation
while staying within the environments of the simulation tools that
are best fit to represent their respective domains. Equipped with
a proprietary co-simulation platform, the paper focuses on the
issue of power-conjugate coupling between parts of power grids
modeled in transient stability and electromagnetic transient sim-
ulation tools. The problems of co-simulation stability and preci-
sion in presence of delays are tackled by means of designing a
proper coupling interface. It is shown that two established interface
methods – the V-I method and the Transmission Line Interface –
are special cases of a generalized interface framework proposed
in the paper. Moreover, a new interface algorithm is described
by parametrizing the generalized framework. Analytical tools are
also formulated to aid in the analysis of interface stability and
precision via the concepts of passivity and transparency. Simulation
results of benchmark systems of various complexity demonstrate
the application of the developed power coupling interface.
Index Terms—Electromagnetic transients, hybrid simulation,
transient stability.
I. INTRODUCTION
UMERICAL simulations have always been invaluable for
N power system studies. As the pace of grid modernization
picks up, so does the demand for advanced simulation
environments. Collaborative simulation framework, or
co-simulation, facilitates harmonious interplay among various
simulation tools best fit to represent specific behavior of
engineering systems. A large body of work can be found with
regards to multi-domain simulation platforms [1]. One such
platform is being developed at Hydro-Québec Research Intitute
(IREQ), driven by the necessity to represent many aspects of
Manuscript received July 30, 2020; revised December 18, 2020 and February
25, 2021; accepted April 17, 2021. Date of publication April 27, 2021; date
of current version October 20, 2021. Paper no. TPWRS-01286-2020. (Corre-
sponding author: Dmitry Rimorov.)
Dmitry Rimorov, Jinan Huang, and Chuma Francis Mugombozi are with
Power System Simulation and Evolution Group, Hydro-Québec Research
Institute, Varennes, QC J3X 1S1, Canada (e-mail: rimorov.dmitry@ireq.ca;
huang.jinan@ireq.ca; mugombozi.chumafrancis@hydroquebec.com).
Thierry Roudier is with E-Sim Solutions Inc., Lévis, Quebec G6W 0M6,
Canada (e-mail: thierry@esims.tech).
Innocent Kamwa is with the Laval University, Québec G1V 0A6, Canada
(e-mail: innocent.kamwa.1@ulaval.ca).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at https:
//doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3075908.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3075908
0885-8950 © 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
smart grids, telecommunication and cybersecurity being of
greater importance in recent years [1], [2].
A promising application of the developed co-simulation plat-
form is hybrid transient stability (TS) and electromagnetic tran-
sient (EMT) simulation. Set up properly, it exploits the advan-
tages of both domains, such as simulation speed for large-scale
systems and model accuracy of representing electromagnetic
phenomena [3]. This subject has received significant attention,
with researchers focusing on various aspects of the problem.
First, there is the issue of adequate representation of the exter-
nal network image in the EMT solver, with the solutions typically
involving Norton or Thevenin equivalents of various degrees of
complexity [4]–[9]. Some of them, such as wide frequency band
multiport equivalents, are not trivial to find or implement and of-
ten assume the development of the TS model and the associated
equivalents from a known EMT model. Evidently, such approach
is poorly adapted for the cases of planning studies, when only
TS models of very large bulk transmission systems are available.
Moreover, static network equivalents represent specific network
conditions and may no longer be accurate when the change in
the system topology or operational point occurs. The proximity
of the interface bus or TS-EMT boundary to the disturbance also
influences the choice of the network equivalents. A relaxation
approach by Plumier et al. [10] enables an iterative update of
the multiport equivalent but generally requires several iterations
within one time step to achieve convergence, which demands
a specific interaction protocol, i.e. data exchange sequence and
coordination.
In fact, the design of interaction protocols is another area
of research that is frequently looked at in the context of TS-
EMT hybrid simulations [3]. Two major classes include serial
(consecutive execution of TS and EMT models) and parallel (i.e.
models are executed in parallel with regular “touch points” to
exchange signals) protocols, although hybrid solutions [7], [9]
can combine speed and precision.
Alternative approaches exploit transmission lines, either in
the form of a hybrid Bergeron model [11] or a dynamic phasor
model [12] as intermediary between TS and EMT domains. In
this case an accurate representation of the external network is not
required, and transmission line is seen as an interface between
subsystems.
The IREQ co-simulation platform is designed to be as versa-
tile and generic as possible. Thus, it promotes certain operational

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5176
features that can affect the approach to co-simulating TS and
EMT models:
r The architecture of the co-simulation platform uses the
principles of Agent and Artefact for Multiple Models
(AA4MM) approach with each simulator acting as inde-
pendent agent [13], It is thus more suited for parallel execu-
tion, where none of the co-simulated tools acts as a master
component. Therefore, parallel TS-EMT interaction pro-
tocols are preferred over series or hybrid ones. This also
allows expanding the platform to distributed simulation,
where many EMT and TS models interact together in a
single simulation.
r The co-simulation platform is geared towards real-time im-
plementation. Thus, possibilities for iterative approaches
are limited.
r The developed platform is inclusive, capable of interacting
with many commercial packages and off-the-shelf prod-
ucts. Many of them do not permit manipulating the simu-
lation process or code modification. Some are event-based,
such as telecommunication simulation tools.
It is important to note that these are not hard limitations,
and with some effort, many of the TS-EMT co-simulation
methods can be implemented if needed. However, in this pa-
per a different approach is explored. The architecture of our
co-simulation setup is similar in spirit to the Framework for
Network Co-Simulation proposed by Huang et al. [14]. Given
a simple parallel interaction protocol utilized in the paper, we
recognize the problem of co-simulating TS and EMT models
as a problem of finding a power-conjugate interface (i.e. the
exchange of signals whose product gives power) that provides
acceptable performance in terms of stability and precision in
presence of delays. This challenge is very similar to a problem-
atic of finding a stable robotic teleoperator [15], or establishing
a Power-Hardware-In-Loop (PHIL) interface [16]. As the first
contribution of the paper, we show how the ideas of passivity and
transparency can be applied to the problem of TS-EMT interface.
We demonstrate that by focusing on optimizing the interface
itself, we can achieve appropriate representation of dynamic
interactions between TS and EMT models, even when limited or
no information on the dynamics of the coupled systems is given.
Essentially, such framework seeks a trade-off between stabil-
ity/precision properties and the simplicity of implementation, as
we do not require complex network equivalents, interface proto-
cols or specific limitations with regards to choosing an interface
bus. This approach accelerates the TS-EMT co-simulation setup.
To this end, we propose a generalized interface framework and
develop associated analytical tools. Furthermore, a new interface
is established by parametrizing the generalized formulation;
variation of the interface parameter allows for a straightforward
trade-off search between stability and precision. This is consid-
ered to be a second major contribution of this research work.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
describes the developed co-simulation platform; Section III
presents some common power coupling interfaces and develops
a convenient analysis framework via a generalized approach;
Section IV contains the co-simulation results, and Section V
concludes the paper.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2021
Fig. 1. Interaction protocol and signal exchange via ISL.
II. CO-SIMULATION SETUP
A. Platform
The implementation of the co-simulation platform requires
exchange of signals between heterogeneous simulation envi-
ronments. This is done via an intermediary software “InSys-
temLab” (ISL), which is an application programming interface
(API) capable of coupling simulators using their proper external
connection techniques. The elements of the ISL are incorporated
in each simulation software in order to establish the necessary
communication. ISL also provides the time synchronization
functionalities, which allows co-simulating systems with differ-
ent time steps. Many commercial simulation tools enable some
level of interaction via APIs, which can be exploited for the
purposes of co-simulation. Such flexibility alleviates the burden
of accessing proprietary code, allowing ISL to include virtually
any simulation package.
Presently, the following commercially available power system
simulators are coupled to ISL: PSS/E (TS software), EMTP-
RV (EMT), HYPERSIM (EMT simulator developed in IREQ
and optimized for real-time simulations), Simulink Simscape
Power Systems (allows both TS and EMT-type simulations). A
complete list of the currently supported packages can be found
in [17].
For this paper, the PSS/E is used as a TS simulator, while
EMTP-RV is the EMT simulation tool of choice. Additional
details of ISL features and implementation, as well as other
applications can be found in [2].
B. Interaction Protocol
The exchange of signals between the PSS/E and EMT via
the shared memory of the ISL for one simulation time step are
schematically shown in Fig. 1. The diagram is drawn for the
case of the V-I coupling method (the details of the method are
explained in the following sections), where PSS/E publishes
bus voltage, while EMT solver publishes the phasor of the
current injection. As can be seen, the overall simulation step
is determined by a larger time step ΔtPSSE of PSS/E. The “Get”
and “Set” methods are defined to access the shared memory.
The diagram also highlights the presence of inherent delays
associated with data transmission. If no iterations are performed,
the simultaneous solution is not achievable as the signal update
and synchronization are performed only once per ΔtPSSE . This
RIMOROV et al.: POWER COUPLING FOR TRANSIENT STABILITY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSIENT
requires a delay of ΔtPSSE - for instance, the EMT solver uses the
voltage phasor that was calculated by PSS/E in the previous time
step, even though it is capable of updating its calculation of the
current phasor several times within ΔtPSSE . Another source of
delay comes from the current implementation of the communi-
cation between ISL and PSS/E. Specifically, the voltage phasor,
which depends on the injection of the current from EMTP, is
published before the network iterations are actually executed.
Hence, the solution process entails delays that affect stability
and precision of the simulation.
To implement the power coupling, controllable voltage or/and
current sources are required. While those are standard in the
EMT simulation packages, they don’t exist in PSS/E. An ad-
ditional complication comes from the fact that bus voltages in
PSS/E are the result of a solution of a set of network algebraic
equations, and thus cannot be explicitly imposed. Therefore,
for the majority of applications it is more convenient to use
the Norton equivalent with controllable current source. Such
source is realized in PSS/E via a dynamic load model. The
model is a current injection type model: at each network iteration
the current increment is calculated and added to the vector of
current injections. The current injection is calculated as a sum
of the current phasor received from ISL minus the current of
the parallel resistive shunt. The role of this shunt depends on the
interface method applied, but this formulation is generic enough
to accommodate different interfaces. The model also calculates
and communicates to ISL the necessary values depending on the
interface algorithm used.
Note that due to the limitations of PSS/E the coupling inter-
faces are implemented for positive sequence only. Thus we re-
strict our attention to balanced network scenarios. Nonetheless,
expanding the discussed methods to other sequences is straight-
forward. Positive sequences of EMT signals are calculated using
Fourier analysis.
III. INTERFACING ALGORITHMS
Before delving into the details of a particular implementa-
tion, we give some general remarks. Firstly, by an interface
algorithm we mean a set of measurements exchanged between
simulators, along with the associated network sources driven
by these measurements. The challenge of the algorithm design
is to choose which measurements must be exchanged, as well
as which topologies and parameters of the sources should be
chosen.
A. V-I Method
The well-known V-I interface is arguably the most popular
method of power coupling [7], [14], [15], [18]. It consists of
controllable voltage and current sources that are driven by the
voltage and current measurements obtained from the other termi-
nal of the coupling interface (Fig. 2; outputs U and J correspond
to associated inputs V1 and I2 with delay). The internal voltage
and current source impedances Zsv and Zsi are typically chosen
to be small and large, respectively, in order to approach the
characteristics of the ideal sources.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5177
Fig. 2. V-I method for TS-EMT coupling.
Fig. 3. TLI method for TS-EMT coupling.
Despite its simplicity, V-I method has a serious limitation
of stability in presence of delays. In general, the V-I coupling
becomes problematic when the equivalent impedance as seen
from the voltage source terminals becomes smaller than that as
seen from the current source terminals. For the simplest case of
the continuous systems the critical ratio of 1 can be established,
but can decrease in case of hybrid systems [18]. No analysis
for hybrid phasor-EMT systems has been done to establish the
critical impedance ratio. In any case, the ideal V-I method is not
robust to network topology changes. It makes it impossible to
simulate the scenarios of short-circuit faults electrically close to
the voltage source’s terminals.
B. Transmission Line Interface (TLI) Method
The TLI method is another well-known technique used for
the coupling interface. Its applications in the domains of teleop-
eration [15], Power-Hardware-In-the-Loop simulation [16], as
well as hybrid phasor-EMTP connection [11] can be found.
The critical advantage of this interface is its enhanced stability
properties, especially compared to the V-I method. In the sim-
plest case where the interconnected systems are of continuous
type or discrete type with the same discretization time step,
the TLI is known to be always stable regardless of the equiv-
alent impedance ratio of the interconnected systems, due to its
passivity properties [15]. However, there is evidence that this
property does not hold for hybrid systems, including TS-EMT
coupling [16].
Fig. 3 demonstrates the TS-EMT implementation of the TLI
via ISL. Again, outputs U and J correspond to associated
inputs U1 , W2 with delay. The lossless transmission line with
distributed parameters is represented by the so-called Berg-
eron line model, with the travelling waves calculated on each
side of the interface. The references [11], [15], [16] provide
necessary background material to establish the model. In the
interest of preserving the space, such material is not covered
in the paper. Topologically, the implementation of controllable
5178
Fig. 4. Generalized V-I method for TS-EMT coupling.
sources remains identical to the V-I method, with the exception
of impedances of the sources: line characteristic impedance Zc
is used as the internal impedance.
There may be two approaches towards choosing Zc . Firstly,
one might attempt to use an existing transmission line (or a
part of it) in the original network to serve as a decoupling
element. In this case, the value of the characteristic impedance
must correspond to that of the existing line, while the delay
determines the equivalent length of the decoupling line element.
This approach is used in [11]. Moreover, a phase shift is added
to the phasors in order to emulate its propagation over a long line
at fundamental frequency. However, it is important to mention
that the notion of the line with distributed parameters does not
exist in the transient stability type simulation tools (such as
PSS/E). Therefore, the transient response of such element may
produce unexpected results. Another way is to view Zc as a
tunable parameter without any regards towards the physics of
an actual line. It can be adjusted for different cases to minimize
any unwanted dynamic behavior. For instance, the characteristic
impedance matching the resistive load can be used to minimize
the reflected wave [15].
C. Generalized V-I Framework and Parametrized Interface
In this section we formulate a Generalized V-I method that
provides a unifying framework for both V-I and TLI methods.
To see this, consider the interfacing technique shown in Fig. 4.
Note that the time-domain-to-phasor conversion step is omitted
for simplicity. It can be seen that by specifically choosing
Z1 , Z2 , Zα and Zβ , any of the aforementioned interfaces can
be implemented.
A following parametrization of the interface is proposed:
Zα = Z2 = Z
1 (1)
Zβ = Z1 = . and TLI methods. Certain assumptions are made, specifically:
Z r The discrete nature of the simulation models is ignored
One can confirm that Z −→ 0 corresponds to the V-I method,
while setting Z = 1 renders the TLI method with the charac-
teristic impedance of 1. For the latter case, if the formulation
is in p.u., choosing proper base values allows implementing
a transmission line with any characteristic impedance Zc in
Ohm. This shows that the generalized V-I framework with
the proposed parametrization can be considered an alternative
interfacing technique. Note that in this case Z no longer has a
particular physical significance (i.e. it does not, in general, have
the impedance units), but rather is a variable interface parameter.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2021
As will be shown in the next section, changing Z alters the
passivity and transparency properties of the interface.
D. Passivity Analysis Via Scattering Operator
Stability assessment of coupled systems is often done on a
case-by-case basis, since impedance ratio plays a critical role
in power-conjugate interfaces with delays. On the other hand,
passivity of the interface is a desirable property of the interface
itself, as it guarantees robust stability of the interconnection of
passive subsystems towards any delays or impedance ratios. An
intuitive physical interpretation is that passive systems are not
capable of generating energy, only storing or dissipating it [15].
There are several ways to assess the passivity of an n-port
system. The straightforward approach is to evaluate the integral
of the dot product of the power-conjugate variables for all ports
(equivalent to the total energy supplied to the system), either
numerically or analytically. The former requires measured or
simulated response, while the latter is generally hard to obtain,
apart from specific cases [15]. An alternative method of using
the norm of the scattering operator has been proposed in [19].
Scattering operator is defined as an operator that maps incident
waves into reflected waves:
F− = S(F+ ), (2)
where F+ , F− : R+ → Rn are defined as follows: F+ = v +
i, F− = v − i. The norm of S is defined as follows:
||S(F+ )||2
||S|| = sup (3)
||F+ ||2 =0 ||F+ ||2
For an LTI system, scattering operator is in the form of a
matrix multiplication in s-domain:
 
1 0
S(s) = (H(s) − I) (H(s) + I)−1 (4)
0 −1
where H(s) is a hybrid matrix. For a 2-port interface of Fig. 4
the hybrid matrix is defined as follows [19]:
   
V1 (s) I1 (s)
= H(s) (5)
−I2 (s) V2 (s)
A necessary and sufficient condition for passivity is ||S|| ≤ 1.
We proceed by performing the passivity analysis of the gener-
alized V-I method with parametrization and its link with the V-I
and a continuous model of the interface is assumed. This
is justified to a certain extent, as many results related to
passivity hold for discrete systems as well [20]. However,
it is important to mention that the analysis becomes more
involved when the coupled systems have different time
steps, as transitioning between such systems affects passiv-
ity [21]. Admittedly, this rather strong assumption results
in an optimistic assessment of system passivity.
r The ISL Middleware is modeled by a symmetric delay
block with the delay of 1 ms (denoted as τ and represents
RIMOROV et al.: POWER COUPLING FOR TRANSIENT STABILITY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSIENT 5179

Fig. 5. Scattering matrix maximum SV for generalized V-I method with

parametrization.

Fig. 6. Generalized V-I mapping of the unit semi-circle for various

frequencies.
the time step of PSS/E) in forward and return paths, which
reflects the schematics of ISL signals’ exchange in Fig. 1.
With these assumptions one can show that the hybrid matrix It appears from Fig. 5 that
for the generalized V-I interface with parametrization can be ob- ⎧
tained by writing out the circuit equations in Fig. 4. Considering ⎨ 1 , if 0 < Z ≤ 1
the presence of delay e−sτ , we obtain: ||S|| = sup σ̄(S(jω)) = Z
ω ⎩∞, if Z = 0
V1 1
I1 − + V2 e−sτ − I2 e−sτ = 0 Several important observations can be made. First, the inter-
Z1 Zβ
(6) face is never passive for the values of Z below 1. For the case of
1  −sτ  the ideal V-I method, the norm is unbounded, but that changes
I2 = V1 e + Zα I1 e−sτ − V2
Z2 as Z increases. Passivity of interface is achieved when Z is
Applying the parametrization (1), one gets: equal to 1. Overall, increasing Z reduces the scattering norm,
suggesting that it provides a stabilizing effect considering the
1 1 interpretation of the scattering operator norm as proportional to
V1 =I1 + V2 e−sτ − I2 e−sτ
Z Z the maximum power gain of the interface. Since passivity is a
(7)
1 1 sufficient condition for stability, we expect that in many cases
−I2 = − V1 e−sτ − I1 e−sτ + V2 generalized V-I interface may become stable before it becomes
Z Z
passive as Z is increased. This claim is supported by the results
After some manipulation, the hybrid matrix is expressed as
of the study cases shown later in the text.
follows:
    2  
1 Z 1 − e−2sτ Z + 1 e−sτ E. Interface Transparency
H(s) = 2    
Z + e−2sτ − Z 2 + 1 e−sτ Z 1 − e−2sτ Transparency refers to the ability of the interface to retain
(8) a faithful image of the impedance across the interface [22].
Analyzing the expression for H(s), one can observe an in- Transparent interfaces ensure minimal distortion of the dynam-
teresting property of the generalized V-I interface. Specifically, ics during transient events in the coupled systems. A perfectly
by setting s to zero (corresponds to steady-state operation), the transparent interface may be practically infeasible, especially
hybrid matrix becomes as follows: in presence of delays; moreover, increased transparency often
  comes at the expense of passivity, A convenient way of character-
0 1 izing the interface transparency is to first define the relationships
H(0) = (9)
−1 0 in the form V1 = Zl I1 and V2 = Zr I2 . Then, by manipulating
the equations (5) and (8), it can be found that:
This shows that in steady-state when constant phasors are
H21 H12 Zr
being exchanged between two systems, the voltages and currents Zl = H11 − (10)
on both sides of the interface are identical. In other words, the 1 + H22 Zr
interface exhibits complete transparency, and the steady-state For perfect transparency Zl = Zr . Thus, interface trans-
operation is not affected by the presence of the interface. This parency can be characterized by the difference between Zl and
property is independent of the value of Z. Also, this suggests Zr . A detailed derivation of a similar result can be found in [22].
a lossless interface, whereas a common modification of adding To visualize the distortion of Zr image by the interface, we
resistive losses to the V-I method results in steady-state power plot the mapping of the unit semi-circle in the complex plane
dissipation by the interface. for different values of Z at two different frequencies (Fig. 6).
The scattering matrix maximum singular value (SV) By restricting Zr to the right-hand plane the passivity of the
σ̄(S(jω)) can now be calculated for various frequencies and load is ensured. The results of Fig. 6 present another view on
for different values of Z (Fig. 5) by substituting (8) in (4). the passivity of the interface. For Z < 1 the mapping permits

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5180 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2021

negative resistance (i.e. the load as seen from terminal l actually

produces power, despite the original load being passive). On the
other hand, TLI mapping always stays in the right-hand plane.
However, for higher frequencies the distortion of the magnitude
is rather significant, while low values of Z generally preserve
the scale of the impedance magnitude.
This formalization of the V-I and TLI methods via a general-
ized V-I provides a convenient mean of optimizing the interface
performance by adjusting Z, altering between stability and
precision when necessary.

F. Choosing Interface Parameters

The analysis of the previous sections highlights the funda-
mental difficulty of finding a single well performing interface
for a large number of operating conditions. When frequency
dependent equivalents of coupled systems at the interface bus
are known, stability and transparency can be evaluated directly,
and systematic methods of finding interface parameters can be
developed. However, for cases where such information is either
unavailable or difficult to obtain, more ad hoc approach is often
required. Below we propose a set of rules of thumb to facilitate
the design:
r for cases where EMT model is of relatively small scale and
is connected to a strong grid (e.g. bulk transmission system
modeled in PSS/E), a sensible choice is to iteratively find
the smallest Z that results in stable simulations for all cases
of interest, thus approaching the ideal V-I method. This
approach is used for the study cases in the remainder of the
paper.
r For cases where the coupled systems are of comparable
sizes or the phasor model represents a weak grid, setting
Z close to 1 is a viable strategy to ensure simulation
stability. By choosing appropriate base values and slightly
varying Z, further improvements of dynamic response can
be achieved.
r Finally, an existing transmission line (or a part of it) can
be used, as discussed in section III.B and in [11]. In such
cases the interface parameters should be set to match the
actual line.
IV. RESULTS
A. Benchmark Systems
1) Southern Eastern Australian Network: The Southern
Eastern Australian (SEA) Benchmark is used for case stud-
ies presented in this section [23]. This fairly detailed 59 bus
model contains 14 synchronous generators (SG) equipped with
voltage regulators and PSSs; dynamic shunt compensation is
also present in the network. Throughout this section we will be
referring to specific bus and machine numbers, which can be
identified in [23, Fig. 5]. For a more detailed analysis of the
developed interfaces in the first part of the section, a smaller
subsystem (Area 5 of the original network) with appropriate
equivalent of the rest of the network and some simplifying
modifications is used. This small-scale network has also been
fully implemented in EMTP for a more complete comparative
Fig. 7. Area 5 of the SEA network.
Fig. 8. Wind park EMTP model.
analysis. The single-phase diagram of the small benchmark is
show in Fig. 7, along with the indication of how the network is
split at Bus 504 for co-simulation.
2) SEA Network With SVC Model: More complex study
cases include simulating specialized power electronics based
technology in EMTP coupled to a complete model of the SEA
network in PSS/E. First is a case of a Static Var Compensator
(SVC) at bus 509 that is modelled in detail in EMTP, along with
the bus load. The SVC model consists of Thyristor Switched
Capacitor banks (TSC) and a Thyristor Controlled (linear) Re-
actor (TCR) with associated voltage controller. The nominal
capacitance of the TSC branch is 200 MVar.
3) SEA Network With Wind Park Model: Another case con-
siders a 75 kW wind park connected to bus 509 at the transmis-
sion level (Fig. 8). The detailed aggregate model of the wind park
is based on the topology of the Fully Rated Converter (FRC)
wind turbine with Permanent Magnet Synchronous Machine
(PMSM) and includes collector grid, along with wind farm level
control and protection [24]. For this particular case we compare
the response to the impedance fault with and without the voltage
sag protection enabled at the WF level, which is expected to trip
the park when voltage drops below a pre-defined threshold. The
WF reactive power control is set to the unity power factor.
The last two scenarios represent a typical planning study,
when only a TS model for bulk transmission system is available.
In such cases judging the validity of the results can be based on
the correct expected behavior of the system.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
RIMOROV et al.: POWER COUPLING FOR TRANSIENT STABILITY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSIENT
Fig. 9. Co-sim with generalized V-I: SG speeds following a fault applied in
PSS/E.
Fig. 10. Co-sim with generalized V-I: SG powers following a fault applied in
PSS/E.
For all scenarios the PSS/E time step is set to 1 ms, EMTP
time step is 50 μs.
B. Simulation Results
1) Area 5 Network Results: The first study case consists
of applying a three-phase short-circuit fault in the small-scale
benchmark of Area 5. To evaluate the performance of various
interfaces, the fault is applied directly at the interface terminal
bus (504), both in PSS/E and EMT. Such testing conditions
present the worst case scenario in terms of simulation precision
and stability. Figs. 9 and 10 show the SGs speed and electric
power for the case of the generalized V-I method for two different
values of Z. A smaller value of 0.01 for Z renders an interface
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5181
Fig. 11. Co-sim with generalized V-I: Bus 504 voltage magnitude following
a fault in PSS/E.
Fig. 12. Co-sim with generalized V-I: SG speeds following a fault applied in
EMTP.
close to the ideal V-I method. A larger value of 0.05 was chosen
from stability considerations, as discussed further. The responses
are superimposed over those obtained from the PSS/E and EMTP
network models. The magnitude of the Bus 504 voltage is shown
in Fig. 11.
A generally good agreement between the models is observed,
especially in the frequency range of the electromechanical phe-
nomena, i.e. post-fault swings. Higher-frequency oscillations in
the co-sim model are due to the interface itself and depend on
the value of Z. More importantly, the coupled system is stable.
The situation is very different when a fault is applied on the
EMT side. Firstly, system instability is observed immediately
following the fault for the interface with Z = 0.01 (Fig. 12).
This contingency highlights the stability issue of the V-I method
cased by the change of the equivalent impedance ratio during
the fault. However, upon increasing Z the system is stabilized.
While SG1 exhibits the expected on-fault dynamics, the image
of the fault is slightly distorted as seen from PSS/E (Figs. 12,
13, and 14). This is especially evident from Fig. 14, where the
evolution of the voltage magnitude on both sides of the interface
following a fault is shown. In particular, it demonstrates how a
short-circuit fault applied in EMTP translates to an impedance
fault in PSS/E across a not perfectly transparent interface.
Electric power swings of SG2 and SG3 due to the interface
are observed Fig. in 13. Nonetheless, the tendency of SGs to
5182
Fig. 13. Co-sim with generalized V-I: SG powers following a fault applied in
EMTP.
Fig. 14. Co-sim with generalized V-I (Z = 0.05): Bus 504 voltage magnitude
on both sides of the interface, EMTP fault.
accelerate is preserved (Fig. 12), and post-fault dynamics are
accurate.
The results confirm the conclusions drawn from the scattering
norm analysis of Section III.D. Specifically, stability of the
coupled system when a fault is applied is achieved with higher
values of the interface parameter Z. It is clear that the presence
of the interface may affect the precision of the simulation results,
depending on interface parameters and electrical distance to the
perturbation.
As a final point, a performance of the TLI method for two
values of the characteristic impedance Zc is considered. The
results are meant to underscore how a choice of Zc can affect
the dynamic response of the co-simulation model. Fig. 15 shows
SG power outputs following a Bus 504 fault applied in PSS/E.
As can be seen, the response differs significantly for Zc of 50
Ohms (0.07 p.u.) and 200 Ohms (0.26 p.u.). Larger value of
the characteristic impedance for this case produces the machine
outputs drastically different from the expected behavior.
2) SEA With SVC: We next focus on more detailed studies,
beginning with the case of the SVC model. An impedance fault
of 0.4 seconds at a nearby bus (Bus 507) is applied, and the
capability of the SVC to provide voltage support is assessed
(Fig. 16). The coupling interface is the parametrized generalized
V-I with Z set to 10−6 .
For reference, voltage profile without the SVC present is
plotted, and for this case no co-simulation is actually required.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2021
Fig. 15. Co-sim with TLI: SG powers following a fault applied in PSS/E for
different Zc .
Fig. 16. Co-sim model with SVC: impedance fault.
An expected positive impact of the SVC is observed. During
the fault, the TSC branch is active and the SVC attains its
reactive power limit, providing voltage support. As the fault
is cleared voltage is recovered more quickly. This is exactly
the behavior expected from the system with SVC, suggesting
that the co-simulation setup correctly represents the interactions
between two systems. Fig. 16(b) also shows the reactive power
of the SVC as obtained from the EMTP model.
3) SEA With WF: Finally, a case with the WF model is pre-
sented. As in the previous scenario, the generalized V-I method
with parametrization is applied. However, to avoid instability
during the initialization of the WF model, Z was set to 0.1. The
simulation results are presented in Fig. 17. The fault at the same
location and with the same impedance and duration was applied.
As can be observed, the post-fault voltage sag triggers the WF
voltage sag protection, forcing the 75 MW WF to temporarily
disconnect from the grid. Equivalent load as seen in the interface
bus is thus increasing as compared to the case when WF stays
connected (Fig. 17(b)). As the voltage rises above the protection
RIMOROV et al.: POWER COUPLING FOR TRANSIENT STABILITY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSIENT
Fig. 17. Co-sim model model with WF: impedance fault.
threshold, the WF is reconnected and quickly restores its power
production. Evidently, temporary disconnection from the grid
provokes PMSM rotor speed oscillations, as witnessed from
Fig. 17(d).
V. CONCLUSION
Power-conjugate interfacing algorithms for TS-EMT collab-
orative simulation were discussed in the paper. To better accom-
modate the hybrid models into the developed ISL co-simulation
platform a simple parallel protocol was employed, which gives
rise to the issues of stability and interface precision in presence
of delays. A generalized V-I framework has been proposed,
and it has been shown that two popular interface algorithms
– the V-I method and the TLI method – can be viewed as
its particular cases. Moreover, such generalization aids in the
interface analysis and design. We demonstrated how the problem
of stability is analyzed via its passivity, and the issue of precision
is tackled by utilizing the concept of interface transparency.
Having formalized the coupling interface, its implementation
for co-simulating TS and EMT models has been demonstrated.
The study cases involving a small network model were used
to benchmark the performance of the interface. More complex
hybrid models that include the SVC and the WF have been tested
to further assess the coupling interface.
Several issues have not been addressed in the paper and
are considered for future research. First, while we have
demonstrated how changing interface parameters can aid
in optimizing its performance, no systematic way of doing
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
5183
so was proposed. Furthermore, extension of the proposed
co-simulation framework towards hybrid protocols and iterative
relaxation approaches is of interest, and requires studying
interface convergence properties. Another aspect is facilitating
the distributed simulation with multiple TS and EMT models
in a single co-simulation session. Finally, the problem of
co-simulation initialization, i.e. integrating the proposed
interfaces in power flow routines, remains a challenge.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Palensky, A. van der Meer, C. Lopez, A. Joseph, and K. Pan, “Applied
cosimulation of intelligent power systems: Implementing hybrid simula-
tors for complex power systems,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 6–21, Jun. 2017.
[2] C. F. Mugombozi, R. Zgheib, T. Roudier, A. Kemmeugne, D. Rimorov,
and I. Kamwa, “Collaborative simulation of heterogeneous components
as a means toward a more comprehensive analysis of smart grids,” in
Proc. IEEE 7th Workshop Model. Simul. Cyber-Phys. Energy Syst., 2019,
pp. 1–6.
[3] V. Jalili-Marandi, V. Dinavahi, K. Strunz, J. Martinez, and A. Ramirez,
“Interfacing techniques for transient stability and electromagnetic transient
programs ieee task force on interfacing techniques for simulation tools,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2385–2395, Oct. 2009.
[4] X. Lin, A. Gole, and M. Yu, “A wide-band multi-port system equivalent
for real-time digital power system simulators,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 237–249, Feb. 2009.
[5] Y. Zhang, A. M. Gole, W. Wu, B. Zhang, and H. Sun, “Development
and analysis of applicability of a hybrid transient simulation platform
combining TSA and EMT elements,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28,
no. 1, pp. 357–366, Feb. 2013.
[6] A. A. van der Meer, M. Gibescu, M. A. van der Meijden, W. L. Kling,
and J. A. Ferreira, “Advanced hybrid transient stability and emt simula-
tion for VSC-HVDC systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 1057–1066, Jun. 2015.
[7] Q. Huang and V. Vittal, “Application of electromagnetic transient-transient
stability hybrid simulation to FIDVR study,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 2634–2646, Jul. 2016.
[8] A. Hariri and M. O. Faruque, “A hybrid simulation tool for the study of
PV integration impacts on distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 648–657, Apr. 2017.
[9] D. Shu, X. Xie, Q. Jiang, Q. Huang, and C. Zhang, “A novel interfacing
technique for distributed hybrid simulations combining EMT and transient
stability models,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 130–140,
Feb. 2018.
[10] F. Plumier, P. Aristidou, C. Geuzaine, and T. Van Cutsem, “Co-simulation
of electromagnetic transients and phasor models: A relaxation approach,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 2360–2369, Oct. 2016.
[11] P. Le-Huy, G. Sybille, P. Giroux, L. Loud, J. Huang, and I. Kamwa, “Real-
time electromagnetic transient and transient stability co-simulation based
on hybrid line modelling,” IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 11, no. 12,
pp. 2983–2990, 2017.
[12] D. Shu, X. Xie, V. Dinavahi, C. Zhang, X. Ye, and Q. Jiang, “Dynamic
phasor based interface model for EMT and transient stability hybrid
simulations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 3930–3939,
Jul. 2018.
[13] J. Siebert, L. Ciarletta, and V. Chevrier, “Agents & artefacts for multiple
models coordination: Objective and decentralized coordination of simula-
tors,” in Proc. ACM Symp. Appl. Comput., 2010, pp. 2024–2028.
[14] R. Huang, R. Fan, J. Daily, A. Fisher, and J. Fuller, “Open-source
framework for power system transmission and distribution dynam-
ics co-simulation,” IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 11, no. 12,
pp. 3152–3162, 2017.
[15] G. Niemeyer and J.-J. Slotine, “Stable adaptive teleoperation,” IEEE J.
Ocean. Eng., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 152–162, Jan. 1991.
[16] O. Tremblay, D. Rimorov, R. Gagnon, and H. Fortin-Blanchette, “A
multi-time-step transmission line interface for power hardware-in-the-loop
simulators,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 539–548,
Mar. 2020.
[17] E-sim Solutions. [Online]. Available: https://www.esims.tech/?lang=en
5184
[18] O. Tremblay, H. Fortin-Blanchette, R. Gagnon, and Y. Brissette, “Con-
tribution to stability analysis of power hardware-in-the-loop simulators,”
IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 3073–3079, 2017.
[19] R. J. Anderson and M. W. Spong, “Bilateral control of teleoperators with
time delay,” IEEE Trans. Autom. control, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 494–501, May
1989.
[20] B. Hannaford and J.-H. Ryu, “Time-domain passivity control of haptic in-
terfaces,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2002.
[21] S. Stramigioli, C. Secchi, A. J. van der Schaft, and C. Fantuzzi, “A Novel
theory for sampled data system passivity,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf.
Intell. Robots Syst., pp. 1936–1941, 2002.
[22] D. A. Lawrence, “Stability and transparency in bilateral teleoperation,”
IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 624–637, Oct. 1993.
[23] C. Canizares et al. “Benchmark models for the analysis and control of
small-signal oscillatory dynamics in power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 715–722, Jan. 2017.
[24] U. Karaagac, J. Mahseredjian, H. Gras, H. Saad, J. Peralta, and L.
Bellomo, “Simulation models for wind parks with variable speed wind
turbines in EMTP,” Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.emtp.
com/documents/EMTP%20Documentation/doc/WP_documentation.pdf
Dmitry Rimorov (Member, IEEE) received the B.Sc. (hons.) and M.Eng.
degrees from Moscow Power Engineering Institute, Moscow, Russia, in 2010
and 2012, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from McGill University, Montreal,
QC, Canada, in 2017. He is currently a Researcher with the Power Systems
Simulation and Evolution Division, IREQ, Varennes, QC, Canada.
Jinan Huang (Member, IEEE) received the B.Eng. and M.Sc. degrees from
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, in 1982 and 1984, respectively,
and the Ph.D. degree from McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1992.
From 1984 to 1987, he was with Shanghai Jiao Tong University as a Faculty
Member for few years. Since 1991, he has been working in system restoration,
transient stability analysis, dynamic security assessment, system modelling,
machine learning, and real-time simulation with Hydro-Québec Research
Institute.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Downloaded on September 25,2023 at 05:47:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2021
Chuma Francis Mugombozi (Member, IEEE) received the M.Sc.A. and Ph.D.
degrees in electrical engineering from Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal, Mon-
tréal, QC, Canada, in 2007 and 2013, respectively. Since 2010, he has been
a Researcher with System Simulation and Evolution Group, Research and
Innovation - Transmission Division, Hydro-Quebec Research Institute. He was
involved in modelling and simulation of HVDC and power systems simulator de-
velopment including parallel computation, nonlinear control equations solution,
and cosimulation. His current research project is on cyber-physical modelling
and simulation of digital automation systems including cosimulation of power
systems and telecommunications systems
Thierry Roudier received the engineering degree in industrial computing and
instrumentation with a specialty in microelectronics from Polytech Grenoble,
and the DEA (diploma of advanced studies) in signal processing from Grenoble
INP. He has a wide experience in systems engineering, modeling and simulation
of systems, with in-depth knowledge of engineering domains interoperability,
simulation methods and tools as an Entrepreneur and the R&D Manager. He is
the Founder of E-Sim Solutions Inc, a Canadian company providing software
solutions and professional services in modeling and simulation. From his in-
dustrial experience in numerical simulation, and in software interoperability, he
designed in collaboration with industrial partners the InSystemLab solution, a
collaborative co-simulation platform for multidisciplines simulation.
Innocent Kamwa (Fellow, IEEE) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical en-
gineering from Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada, in 1989. He is
currently a full Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering and the
Tier 1 Canada Research Chair of Decentralized Sustainable Electricity Grids for
Smart Communities with Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada, he was
previously a Researcher with Hydro-Québec’s Research Institute, specializing
in the dynamic performance and control of power systems. He was the Chief
Scientist for Hydro-Québec’s Smart Grid Innovation Program and an interna-
tional consultant in power grid simulation and network stability. He is a Fellow
of the IEEE for his innovations in power system control and a Fellow of the
Canadian Academy of Engineering. He is also the 2019 recipient of the IEEE
Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Charles Concordia Awards.