Second International Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering ICECE 2002, 26-28 December 2002, Dhaka, Bangladesh

A New Method of Transient Stability Assessment by Using a Simple Energy Margin Function
Abdul Malek Miah Department of Industrial and Electrical Engineering Technology School of Engineering Technology & Sciences South Carolina State University Orangeburg, SC 29117, USA e-mail: miah@sets.scsu.edu Abstract - Transient stability assessment plays a very important role in the planning and operation of electric power systems. In the context of on-line applications, a number of methods have been suggested in the literature. Here, another new method of transient stability assessment is proposed. The new method is based on the identification of stable systems. In the first step of this identification process, a one-machine infinite-bus (OMIB) system and a corresponding energy margin function are formed with respect to each individual generator. Then, each of these energy margin functions is evaluated with respect to time by using the actual system post-fault trajectory. A system is identified as stable if each of the energy margin functions remains greater than zero. Here, the OMIB system is used merely as a tool to detect stable systems. The results obtained by the proposed method have been found to be good as demonstrated in this paper. The most important feature of this method is that an energy margin function can be evaluated by using the real-time measurement data taken solely at its respective generator. So, the method has high potential in realtime applications like local control of transient stability. Keywords: Transient stability, energy margin function, dynamic equivalent, one-machine infinite-bus system. 1. INTRODUCTION Transient stability assessment plays a crucial role in the planning and operation of electric power systems. Though the well-known standard time-domain simulation or step-by-step (SBS) numerical integration method is the most reliable and accurate method for transient stability assessment, it suffers from heavy computational burden. This makes the method unsuitable for on-line applications even with classical representation of power systems. In the context of online applications, direct methods such as energy function method [1] and extended equal area criterion [2] have been proposed. To reduce the computational burden of SBS method, large step-size integration has been suggested in [3] and the use of truncated Taylors series expansion has been suggested in [4]. All these methods use classical representation of power systems and hence assess first swing stability. These methods are faster than the standard SBS method. They can be made even faster by coupling with them reduction techniques using simple dynamic equivalents [5]-[6]. Further, a dynamic equivalent power system (DEPS) model has been suggested in [7] to reduce the SBS computation. Recently, parallel processing [8] has been suggested to speed up the time-domain simulations. In this paper, a new method of transient stability assessment is proposed. The proposed method is based on the identification of stable systems. In the first step of this identification process, a one-machine infinite-bus (OMIB) system and a corresponding energy margin function are formed with respect to each individual generator. Then, each of these energy margin functions is evaluated with respect to time by using the actual system post-fault trajectory. A system is identified as stable if each of the energy margin functions remains greater than zero. Since the new method uses the actual post-fault system trajectory as it progresses in time, it is basically a step-by-step (SBS) numerical integration method. However, it requires some additional computation that can be performed parallel in time with the SBS computation. So, the computation time is same as that by the SBS method. Further, the method can be made faster like the SBS method by using the techniques described in [3]-[6]. The most important feature of the proposed method is that an energy margin function can be evaluated by using the real-time measurement data taken solely at its respective generator. 2. PROPOSED METHOD The proposed method uses classical representation of power systems. Hence, it assesses first swing stability. 2.1 One-machine Infinite-bus System Consider a power system of n generators. At the internal bus of an individual generator, say ith generator, the external system can be represented by a simple single generator dynamic equivalent on the assumption that all the external generators are perfectly coherent. To do so, the internal buses of all

ISBN 984-32-0328-3

24

the external generators are connected to a fictitious bus which is taken as the internal bus of the equivalent generator. The dynamics of the entire power system can then be represented by a two-generator system that can be reduced further to a one-machine infinitebus (OMIB) system described by

o Pei = Ei E j [Gij cos( i j ) j =1 o + Bij sin( i j )] o Qei = Ei E j [Gij sin( i j ) j =1 o Bij cos( i j )] o Pei = Ei E j ( i j )[Gij sin( i j ) j =1 o + Bij cos( i j )] o Qei = Ei E j ( i j )[Gij cos( i j ) j =1 o + Bij sin( i j )] n n n

(3a)

=
M = Pm [ Pc + Pmax sin( )]
where

(1a) (1b) (1d) (1e)

(3b)

= i R (1c) MiM R M = Mi + M R
Pm = M R Pmi M i PmR Mi + M R

= i R

(3c)

(1f)

(3d)

2 M R Ei2Gii M i ER GRR Pc = Mi + MR

(1g)

But Pei and Qei in terms of the quantities involved in the two-generator system are given by

Pmax =

Ei E R 2 [( M i + M R ) 2 BiR Mi + M R
2 + ( M i M R ) 2 GiR ]1 / 2

Pei = Ei2 Gii + Ei E R [GiR cos + BiR sin ]

2 i

(4a)

(1h) (1i)

Qei = E Bii + Ei E R [GiR sin BiR cos ] BiR cos ] (4b)

So, (4) can be solved to yield

= tan 1

( M i M R )GiR ( M i + M R ) BiR

ER =

( P ) 2 + (Q ) 2 2 2 Ei (GiR + BiR )

(5a) (5b) (5d) (5e)

Here, the subscript R refers to the equivalent generator. So, /i and /R are rotor angles of the two generators. i and R are rotor speeds. Mi and MR are inertia constants. Pmi and PmR are input mechanical powers. Ei and ER are internal voltage magnitudes. / and  are respectively the angular and speed deviations of ith generator with respect to the equivalent generator. Further, Yii=(Gii+jBii), YRR=(GRR+jBRR), YiR=(GiR+jBiR) and YRi=(GRi+jBRi) are elements of the admittance matrix of the two-generator system reduced to the internal buses of the generators. These elements can be easily obtained as
o Yii = Yii (2a) Y RR = YRi + j =1( i ) k =1

= tan 1 (Q / P ) +
where

P = Pei Ei2 Gii (5c) Q = Qei + Ei2 Bii = tan 1 ( BiR / GiR )

Further, differentiation of (5b) leads to the equation

[Q cos( ) P ei sin( )] = ei [ P cos( ) + Q sin( )]

(6)

Y Y
n ki

jk

(2b)

YiR =
where

k =1( i ) o

Yik

(2c)

Y Ri =

(2d)

k =1( i )

o o Y mn = Gmn + jBmn with the superscript o

refers to the elements of the admittance matrix of the actual system reduced to the generator internal buses. 2.2 Determination of Important Quantities The real power Pei, the reactive power Qei, and their derivatives at the internal bus of ith generator in terms of the actual system trajectory are given by

By using the above equations, it can be shown that when all the external generators are perfectly coherent, the equivalent generator voltage (ER) remains constant and the speed of the equivalent generator (R) is same as the speed of the external generators. Once Pei, Qei, and their derivatives are determined from (3) by using the actual system trajectory, ER, / DQG  DW DQ\ LQVWDQW RI WLPH FDQ EH determined from (5) and (6). However, in real-time applications, ER and / can be determined from measurement data taken solely at the ith generator. Only Ei, Pei, and Qei are needed to obtain them by using (5). In that case,  can be estimated from / by using = [ (t + t ) (t )] / t (7)
ZKHUH

W LV WKH WLPH LQWHUYDO EHWZHHQ PHDVXUHPHQWV

Since the external generators are assumed perfectly coherent, the input mechanical power (PmR) of the

25

equivalent generator can be obtained by setting it equal to the pre-fault real power (PeR) of the equivalent generator. So, PmR is given by
2 PmR = E R G RR + E R Ei [G Ri cos BRi sin ]

(8)

with all the quantities referring to the pre-fault twogenerator system. Further, the inertia constant of the equivalent generator (MR) can be obtained as the sum of the inertia constants of all the external generators. So, it is given by

MR =

k =1( i )

(9)

2.3 Energy Margin Function and Transient Stability Assessment The state vector of the OMIB system described by (1) is (/). The stable and unstable equilibrium states are respectively (/s, 0) and (/u, 0). The stable equilibrium angle /s, and the unstable equilibrium angle /u are given by

Pm Pc p ]+ s = sin [ p Pmax
1

(10a)
p

u = sgn[ Pm Pc p ] s + 2

(10b)

Here, the superscript p refers to the post-fault OMIB system and the function sgn() equals (+1, -1) for a (positive, negative) argument. A Lyapunov type energy function for the post-fault OMIB system can be obtained as

V ( , ) = 1 M 2 (Pm Pc p )( / s ) 2
p Pmax [ cos (  p ) cos (/ s  p )]

(11a)

The first derivative of this function is equal to zero everywhere in the state-space. The corresponding critical value defining the stability region is given by

different times remains constant at a value greater than zero. In a stable system, though the external generators may not be coherent, none of these generators separates out completely from the remaining generators. Further, when a stable system ultimately reaches its stable equilibrium state, all the generators including the external generators run at the same speed and hence they attain perfect coherency. Therefore, a stable system as it progresses in time approaches the OMIB system described here even if the external generators are not coherent for all time. Based on these reasons, the OMIB system can be considered as a crude approximation of a stable system even if the external generators are not coherent. So, the EMF of a stable system as it is evaluated at different times by using /, , and ER obtained from the actual system post-fault trajectory, is expected to remain greater than zero even though it may not remain constant. In the proposed method, it is thus assumed that the EMF as it is evaluated by using the actual system post-fault trajectory remains greater than zero only if the system is stable. This unique characterization of the EMF is the basis for the identification of stable systems. However, since the OMIB system is merely a crude approximation of stable systems, it is necessary to include all the OMIB systems and their energy margin functions in the identification process for accurate detection of stable systems. Further, an EMF, in general, begins with either ascending values or descending values. The later condition is referred to as the first descent of the EMF. Obviously, for a stable system, an EMF begins with a non-zero positive value and remains non-zero positive during such a descent. Based on all these considerations, the following criterion of transient stability assessment is proposed. Transient stability criterion: If each of the energy mDUJLQ IXQFWLRQV 9i (i=1, , n) begins with a nonzero positive value and it has either an ascent or nonzero positive values in its first descent, then the system is considered to be first swing stable. 3. TEST RESULTS The proposed method has been tested for a number of three-phase short circuit faults located at different buses of the New England 39-bus, 10-generator system [9] which is shown in Fig.1. For the purpose of illustration, sample energy margin functions are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Both of them are for the OMIB systems with respect to generator 9. Solid and dashed curves respectively indicate critically stable and unstable cases. The solid curve in Fig.2 shows a critically stable case where the external generators are approximately coherent, while the solid curve in Fig.3 shows a critically stable case where the external generators are incoherent. The critical clearing time

Vcr = (Pm Pc p )( u / s )

p Pmax [ cos ( u  p ) cos (/ s  p )]

(11b)

An energy margin function (EMF) can now be defined as Vi = Vcr V (12) Here the subscript i refers to the OMIB system corresponding to the ith generator. By the energy function method, this OMIB system is considered to be stable if 9i > 0. The beauty of the energy function method is that the stability/instability can be determined by evaluating the EMF at any single instant of time along the post-fault system trajectory. Usually, this evaluation is performed at the beginning of the post-fault system. If the external generators are perfectly coherent, the OMIB system described by (1) accurately represents the dynamic behavior of the entire system. So, /, , and ER can be accurately obtained by using the actual system post-fault trajectory. Further, the EMF as it is evaluated at

26

(CCT) results obtained by the proposed method are shown in Table 1. For the purpose of comparison, CCT results obtained by SBS method are also shown in this table.
G1 30 2 G 10 1 39 3 4 5 7 8 9 G2 G3 31 32 20 34 G5 6 11 10 17 14 15 21 12 23 13 19 33 G4 36 G7 G8 37 25 18 26 27 16 28 24 G6 35 22 G9 38 29

4. CONCLUSIONS A new method of transient stability assessment is proposed. The method is based on the identification of stable systems through the evaluation of an energy margin function with respect to each individual generator. This evaluation is carried out with respect to time by using the actual system post-fault trajectory. A system is identified as stable if each of the energy margin functions remains greater than zero. The most important feature of this method is that an energy margin function can be evaluated by using the real-time measurement data taken solely at the respective generator. So, the method has high potential in realtime applications like local control of transient stability. REFERENCES [1] A.A. Fouad and V. Vittal, Power System Transient Stability Using the Transient Energy Function Method, Prentice-Hall, 1992. [2] Y. Xue, Th.V. Cutsem, and M. Ribbens-Pavella, Extended equal area criterion: justification, generalizations, applications, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. PWRS-4, no. 1, February 1989, pp. 4452. [3] Y. Dong and H.R. Pota, Fast transient stability assessment using large step-size numerical integration, IEE Proc. Part C, vol. 138, no. 4, July 1991, pp. 377-383. [4] M.H. Haque and A.H.M.A. Rahim, Determination of first swing stability limit of multimachine power systems through Taylor series expansions, IEE Proc. Part C, vol. 136, no. 6, November 1989, pp. 373-379. [5] A.M. Miah, Simple dynamic equivalent for fast online transient stability assessment, IEE Proc. Part C, vol. 145, no. 1, January 1998, pp. 49-55. [6] A.M. Miah, Transient stability assessment by using a simple single-generator dynamic equivalent for the less-disturbed generators, IEEE Power Engineering Review, vol. 20, no. 4, April 2000, pp. 5859. [7] F. Da-zhong, T.S. Chung, and A.K. David, Fast transient stability estimation using a novel dynamic reduction technique, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. PWRS-9, no. 2, May 1994, pp. 995-1001. [8] M. La Scala, R. R. Sbrizzai, F. Torelli, and P. Scarpellini, A tracking time domain simulator for real-time transient stability analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. PWRS-13, no. 3, August 1998, pp. 992-998. [9] A. M. Miah, Transient Stability of Electric Power Systems Based on One-Machine Infinite-Bus Models and Local Analysis, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical & Computer engineering, Wayne State University, Michigan, USA, 1992.

Fig.1 One-line diagram of New England Test System

Fig.2 EMF for fault at bus 29, line 29-26 tripped

Fig.3 EMF for fault at bus 25, line 25-2 tripped Table 1: CCT results by the proposed method and the SBS method Faulted CCT (s) Line tripped bus between buses Proposed SBS method method 29 29-26 0.07 - 0.08 0.07 - 0.08 25 25-2 0.13 - 0.14 0.13 - 0.14 2 2-3 0.24 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.26 6 6-11 0.19 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.22 22 22-21 0.17 - 0.18 0.17 - 0.18 24 24-23 0.19 - 0.20 0.20 - 0.21 20 None 0.20 - 0.21 0.20 - 0.21

27