You are on page 1of 25

Trayectories Sorrounding the Limit Cycle

SEP
Unstable Trajectory

0.018
Stable
s (pu)

0.016 Trajectory

0.014

0.012
0.88
0.9 2.5
0.92 2
0.94 1.5
1
Eq (pu) Ef (pu)

OSCILLATORY VOLTAGE
INSTABILITY:
A FUNDAMENTAL STUDY
Luigi Vanfretti
ECSE 6963 Nonlinear Phenomena in Engineering and Biology
Outline
2

 Background and Case Studied


 Modeling and Implementation
 Modeling of the network and apparatus
 Computer Implementation
 Analysis: Nonlinear Systems Perspective
 Bifurcation Diagram and Eigenvalue Locus
 Bifurcation Classification
 Oscillatory voltage instability:
SEP
 simulation of stable and unstable points
 Analysis of Hopf Bifurcation and
Classification
 Controller Tuning to Avoid Voltage
Instability
 Effect of Controller Limits on Stability
 Conclusions
April 24, 2008
Background and Case Studied
3

 Background:
 Short-term voltage instability arises when dynamic loads attempt to restore consumed
power in a very short time frame (one - few seconds) [1, 2]. Oscillatory voltage instability
[3] is a type of short-term voltage instability that originates due to the interaction of two
or more load restoration processes acting in the same short-term time scale.
Case Studied V2
 Vt
jX M

G 1
2
 The system consists of a synchronous generator feeding an isolated three phase induction
motor.
 The mechanical load of the motor is considered constant.
 The generator has a first-order excitation system with a proportional AVR. AVR limits will
be considered to evaluate their impact on stability.
 Assumption: frequency transients have no impact on the response of the system –
neglected.
April 24, 2008
Modeling of the System
4

 The system is represented by:  Generator Modeling: field flux decay eqn.
Generator: Td' 0Eq'  E f  Eq'  (xd  xd' )id Td' 0Eq'  E f  Eq'  (xd  xd' )id
AVR: TE f  K (Vo Vt )  E f Eq' : emf behind transient reactance
Motor: 2Hs  Tm Te (V ,s) Ef : filed voltage
 The algebraic variables are Td' 0 : open-circuit transient time constant

function of the network and  Active power is constant as the frequency is held
state variables. constant by the generator.
P1  Re (vx 1  jvy 1 )(ix 1  jiy 1 )  vx 1ix 1  vy 1iy 1
 Network Modeling – Current
Injection:  The d-axis current can be obtained from:
ix 1  BS 12vy 1  B12 (vy 1  vy 2 )  0 i1  ix 1  jiy 1
iy 1  BS 12vx 1  B12 (vx 1  vx 2 )  0 i    
 x 1    sin  cos   id 
ix 2  BS 21vy 2  B21(vy 2  vy 1 )  0 i   cos  sin   i 
 y 1     q 
iy 2  BS 12vx 2  B21(vx 2  vx 1 )  0 id  ix 1 sin   iy 1 cos 
ix 1 and iy 1: Components of the current
injected by the generator.  Where the generator injected currents are
ix 2 and iy 2 : Components of the current sin 2  1 1   cos2  sin2  
 (v  E ' sin )
ix 1  
  ' (vx 1  Eq cos )  
'

injected by the load. xd 
y1 q
2  xq xd   xq
'

Vt  vx21  vy21 : Gen. terminal voltage  cos2  sin2    



iy 1    (v  E ' cos )  sin 2  1  1 (v  E ' sin )

 xq xd'  2  xd' xq  y 1
x1 q q
V  vx22  vy22 : Motor Voltage
Modeling Continued
5
 AVR Model  Load Model ix 3  ixM  ixC
E f  0 if E f  E f max and K (Vo Vt )  E f  0 iy 3  iyM  iyC
 0 if E f  E f min and K (Vo Vt )  E f  0  Two components: induction motor, and shunt
K (Vo Vt )  E f compensation.
 K : Regulator Gain
T
T : Regulator Time Constant  Induction motor currents are function of the equivalent
Vo : Reference Voltage series resistance and slip. (omitted here)
Vt : Generator Terminal Voltage
 Shunt Compensation: iC  jBS 2V2  ixC  jiyC
 Induction 2Hs  Tm  Te (s ) ixC  BS 2vy 2
s :Motor Slip iyC  BS 2vx 2
Motor Tm :Mechanical Torque  Summary:
Te (V2 , s ) : Electrical Troque  Third order model.
Developed by the Motor
Rr  Algebraic variables are function of the network and
V22X m2 state variables  but not simple tractable functions.
Te (V2 , s )  s
 2 
 Rr  2 
 Torque expression complicates analytical derivations.
R1    (X1  X r )  Rs  (X s  X m ) 
2 2

 s     Not a straightforward formulation to treat it


 
R1,X1 : Equivalent series resistance and reactance
analytically.
Rs , Xs : Stator resistance and reactance  Approach: use a Power System Simulation Software to
Rr , X r : Rotor resistance and reactance determine fixed points, bifurcation diagrams,
Xm : Magnetizing Reactance linearization analysis, and to do nonlinear system
simulations.
Implementation with PSAT
6

 The system was implemented using the Power System Analysis Toolbox [4] via
the PSAT-Simulink Library.
Bus1 Bus2

 Command line usage and scripting:


 For the construction bifurcation diagram and eigenvalue location plots
“Command Line Usage” of the software had to be learnt. Routines for
automatic variation of Tm where written. Needs careful analysis of the
software data types and structures.
 Implementation of perturbations:
 For the analysis of Hopf bifurcation, AVR tuning and Controller Limit Analysis
“Perturbation Files” where written to introduce a torque pulse as a small
perturbation  required skillful programming. April 24, 2008
Bifurcation Diagram: Torque – Voltage Curve
7 Bifurcation Diagram
 The fixed points of the system are HB*
1.2
computed for many Tm’s varied
1

Voltage, V2 (pu)
monotonically to obtain the bifurcation SS HB SN*
diagram. 0.8

0.6
SN
 A Saddle-Node Bifurcation point is
located at point SN. 0.4 BS2=0

 Point HB indicates a Hopf bifurcation 0.2 BS2=0.6


point, which determines the actual 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
stability limit. Mechanical Torque, T m (pu)
 The effect of Capacitive Compensation  Note: because the bifurcation diagram was obtained
at Bus 2 is shown by the red curve. using a Power System Simulation program, it is only
possible to obtain the section of the bifurcation
 Observe that even tough the SN* point diagram which contains fixed points which contains
occurs at a higher Tm than SN, the HB* acceptable voltage solutions.
point moves to the left with respect to  Other fixed points will yield low voltage solutions,
this type of solutions are not computed by the power
HB, thereby reducing the stability flow routine.
margin. April 24, 2008
Eigenvalue Locations
8

 The variation of the eigenvalues of the state matrix as the fixed point
moves from point SS to point HB on the torque voltage curve for B = 0 and
B = 0.6 was obtained. The results for B = 0 are shown here.
 The eigenvalue locations are plotte for for Tm:{0.4,1.11}, they are difficult
to interpret at the first glance. Therefore the eigenvalue locations are
ploted for different ranges of the variation of Tm.
 These results are used to construct a more insightful eigenvalue locus.
Eigenvalue Locations for 0.4 Tm 0.71 Eigenvalue Locations for 0.4 Tm 0.71 Eigenvalue Locations for 0.71 Tm 1.11
4 4

2 2
2
Imaginary

Imaginary

Imaginary
0 0 0

-2 -2
-2

-4 -4
-15 -10 -5 0 5 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 -20 -10 0 10 20
Real 63 Real Real
x 10
April 24, 2008
Eigenvalue Locus
Eigenvalue Locations for 0.4 Tm 1.11
4

2
9

Imaginary
0

 From the eigenvalue plots the eigenvalue


-2
locus is constructed.
 At the HB point the pair of complex -4
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Real
eigenvalues crosses the jw-axis: the
system will experiment a Hopf Eigenvalue Locus
Birfurcation. 4 SS
 For point HB and SS the third eigenvalue HB
is real and far to the left (not shown in the
2
plots)
At point SNB one eigenvalue becomes SN SN
Imaginary

zero, one negative, and one positive. This 0


is a Saddle-Node Bifurcation point.
 At the SNB point the system is unstable -2
both before and after it due to the HB
SS
positive eigenvalue. -4
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Real
Oscillatory Voltage Instability:
10
Nonlinear Simulation of a Stable Point
Stable Point Simulation Stable Point Simulation
0.8972 -3
x 10
Eq

0.8972
9.4524

0.8972
0 10 20 30 40 50

s (pu)
1.1936 9.4524
Ef

9.4523
0.8972 1.1936
1.1935 1.1936
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.8972 1.1936
0.9905
0.8972 1.1936 Ef (pu)
Eq (pu)
1-s

0.9905

 Post-disturbance Stable Point


0.9905
0 10 20 30 40 50  Chosen before the HB point.
0.9425
 State variables settle at a stable fixed point.
3D plot shows the stable fixed point
V2

0.9425 

 System is stable.
0.9425
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
April 24, 2008
Nonlinear Simulation of an Unstable Point
11
Unstable Point Simulation Unstable Point Simulation Unstable Point Simulation

1
1.2 0.8
Eq

0.8
1 0.7
Unstable Fixed
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.6 Motor
0.6 Point
Stalling

1-s

V2
0.4 0.5
4
0.2 0.4
Ef

2
0 0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Unstable Point Simulation


 Post-disturbance Unstable Point
 The post-disturbance condition is chosen in an unstable
operating fixed point after the HB point.
 Ef and Eq settle at fixed points while the slip (s) grows
0.2
unboundedly (partially shown in center plot).
s (%)

0.1  Unstable voltage oscillations force the motor to stall when the
2 oscillation amplitude grows beyond an unstable fixed point.
0
1.3
3  3D plot shows the trajectory, the red dot indicates the last
1.2
1.1 point of the simulation, not a stable fixed point.
4
1 Ef (pu)  This is an example of “Oscillatory Voltage Instability”
Eq (pu)
April 24, 2008
Hopf Bifurcation Analysis
1

Hopf Bifurcation

Eq
0.9

0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
4

Ef
12
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

 In a previous slides it was noted that a 1

Hopf bifurcation takes place when a

1-s
complex pair of eigenvalues from the 0.95

1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

state matrix cross the jw-axis as the

V2
1

mechanical torque is varied. 0.5


0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec)

 What type of Hopf bifurcation is it?


Unstable Trajectory Moving Away from the Limit Cycle
 A transient torque pulse is imposed on
a stable fixed point before the HB
point. T 0.02

T0
t0 t1 t1  t s (pu)
0.01
 By adjusting the duration of the pulse
a critical trajectory can be found. 0
0
 The trajectory is trapped in the stable 1 0.9
manifold of the unstable limit cycle. 2 0.95
1
Ef (pu) Eq (pu)
Analysis of Hopf Bifurcation and
Classification
13

Trayectories Sorrounding the Limit Cycle


 From the simulation of the
unstable post-disturbance Unstable Trajectory SEP
point we observe that Stable
there are no attracting limit Trajectory

cycles after the HB. 0.018

This is evidence that is likely


s (pu)

0.016
a subcritical HB.
 Figure shows a limit cycle 0.014
surrounded by unstable
trajectories moving away 0.012
0.88
from the limit cycle, and 0.9 2.5
stable trajectories moving 0.92
1.5
2
towards the SEP. 0.94 1
Eq (pu) Ef (pu)
 Therefore, an unstable
limit cycle exists April 24, 2008
Shrinking Unstable Limit Cycle!
14

Unstable Limit Cycle Shrinking  To prove that the


bifurcation is a
subcritical Hopf we
0.017 further require to show
that the limit cycle
shrinks as the HB point
0.016
is approached
3D plot was obtained
s (pu)


0.015 SEP by imposing different
perturbations.
0.014  Observe that the
bifurcation emerges
2
0.013 1.5 from the shrinking of
0.89 0.9 0.91 0.92 0.93 1 the unstable limit cycle
0.94
Ef (pu) that exists before the
Eq (pu)
April 24, 2008 Hopf Bifurcation.
Controller Tuning to Avoid Voltage
Instability
15

 An operating condition immediately before the HB is chosen.


 A transient torque pulse is imposed at this fixed point.
 The response of the system will be oscillatory with the current AVR settings.
 Appropriate AVR tuning helps to avoid oscillatory voltage instability.
 AVR Model:  K
Vo Ef
Ts  1

Vt
 Two cases analyzed:
 CASE 1: Oscillatory condition with the transient torque pulse used in the
Hopf bifurcation section (unstable behavior onset).
 Case 2: Oscillatory condition from an increased torque pulse.
April 24, 2008
Controller Tuning
16
 CASE 1  CASE 2
 Torque pulse used in HB illustration  Increased torque pulse
 Designed Controller: K = 30 (Nominal), T =  Designed Controller: K = 175, T = 0.105
0.105 (was 0.5) sec sec
 Slow Response – Time constant can  Fast Response – at cost of
be made smaller: equipment limits requirement higher rating for the
 Increase gain with caution. field current: equipment limits need
to be assessed
CASE 1: Field Voltage CASE 2: Field Voltage

2.5 3.5

3
2 Ef (pu)
Ef (pu)

2.5

1.5
2

1 1.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Controller Tuning Continued
17 CASE 1 CASE 2
1

0.95
Eq

Eq
0.95

0.9 0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

2.5
2 3
Ef

Ef
1.5 2
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.99 0.99

0.985

1-s
1-s

0.98
0.98

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50

0.9 0.9
0.85
V2

V2

0.85
0.8
0.75 0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Effect of Controller Limits on Stability
18

 Assumes that the controller cannot be made faster: equipment limitations.


 Same cases as in controller tuning are studied.
 Controller limits are set to evaluate their effect on stability. Depending on the maximum
limit the AVR may be able (or not) to stabilize the system.
 AVR Model: E f max

 K
Vo Ef
Ts  1

Vt E f min  0
 Four cases discussed:
 CASE 1a: conditions from CASE 1 tuning, system is stabilized by the AVR.
 CASE 1b: conditions from CASE 1 tuning, AVR is not able to stabilize the system.
 CASE 2a: conditions from CASE 2 tuning, system is stabilized by the AVR.
 CASE 2b: conditions from CASE 2 tuning, AVR is not able to stabilize the system.
Controller Limits – Cases 1a and 1b
19
 CASE 1a  CASE 1b
 System is stabilized by the AVR.  AVR is not able to stabilize the system.

 Controller Limits:  Controller Limits:


 Efmax = 2.622
 Efmax = 2.625
 Minimal decrease in controller limit yields
 Limit only affects first swing. instability
CASE 1a: Field Voltage CASE 1b: Field Voltage
3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2
Ef (pu)

1.5 Ef (pu) 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)

April 24, 2008


Controller Limits Continued
20
CASE 1a CASE 1b
1.5 1.5
Eq

Eq
1 1

0.5 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
4 4

2 2
Ef

Ef
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
1 20
1-s

1-s
0

0.95 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
1
0.9
V2

V2

0.8 0.5
0.7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Controller Limits – Cases 2a and 2b
21
 CASE 2a  CASE 2b
 System is stabilized by the AVR.  AVR is not able to stabilize the system.

 Controller Limits:  Controller Limits:


 Efmax = 3.10  Efmax = 3.09

 Limit only affects first swing.  Minimal decrease in controller limit


yields instability
CASE 2a: Field Voltage CASE 2b: Field Voltage
3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5
Ef (pu)

Ef (pu)
2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)

April 24, 2008


Controller Limits Continued
22
CASE 2a CASE 2b
1.5 1.5
Eq

Eq
1 1

0.5 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
4 4

2 2
Ef

Ef
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
1 20
1-s

1-s
0

0.95 -20
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
1
0.9
V2

V2

0.8 0.5
0.7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Controller Limits Effect on Trajectories
23

Effect of Limits on Trajectories - Case 2b

Non-smooth
Trajectories as a result
System Unstable of controller limits

4
s (pu)

2 0

0 2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9 4 Ef (pu)
0.8
Eq (pu)

April 24, 2008


Conclusions
24
 Bifurcation analysis showed the existence of a SNB and a HB.
 Capacitive compensation reduces stability margin by moving the HB to the left.

 Linearization analysis provided evidence of the existence of a HB.


 Stable operating points are found before the HB. Unstable operating points are found after the HB.

 Hopf Bifurcation:
 Complex pair of eigenvalues cross the jw-axis.
 Simulation of post-disturbance point shows that there are no attracting limit cycles after the HB.
 A limit cycle is surrounded by unstable trajectories moving away from the limit cycle, and stable trajectories moving towards the SEP 
The limit cycle is unstable.
 Showing that the limit cycle shrinks as the HB point is approached proves that the bifurcation is a subcritical Hopf bifurcation.
 Bifurcation emerges from the shrinking of the unstable limit cycle that exists before the HB.
 AVR Tunning:
 Faster controller avoids oscillatory voltage instability.
 The burden on the field voltage increases as the perturbation grows  important design constraint.

 Effect of Controller Limits:


 Minimal decrease in controller limits may disable the ability of the AVR to stabilize the system.
 For engineering design: worst case scenario must be considered.

 Remarks:
 The oscillatory behavior of the system emerges from the interaction of two load restoration processes acting in the
same short-term time scale.
 The load restoration due to the adjustment of the slip (which is product of the admittance increase) races against
the voltage regulation provided by the AVR (which restores the load indirectly by restoring the voltage).
References
25

1. Thierry Van Cutsem, and Costas Vournas, Voltage Stability of Electric Power
Systems. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
2. Carson Taylor, Power System Voltage Stability. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
3. F. P. de Mello, and J. W. Feltes, “Voltage Oscillatory Instability Caused by
Induction Motor Loads,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp.
1279 – 1285.
4. F. Milano, An Open Source Power System Analysis Toolbox, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 1199-1206, August 2005.
5. Steven H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Reading, MA: Perseus
Books, 1994.
6. Pal, M.K., "Voltage stability: analysis needs, modelling requirement, and
modelling adequacy," IEE Proceedings-Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol.140, no.4, pp.279-286, Jul 1993

April 24, 2008