2005 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference & Exhibition: Asia and Pacific Dalian, China

Method of Combined Static and Dynamic Analysis of Voltage Collapse in Voltage Stability Assessment
M.Hasani and M.Parniani
dynamic methods in small radial network was performed by Morison et al [3]. Some advantages of dynamic simulation of this phenomenon were shown by Deuse et al [4]. Taylor [5] and Kundur [6] proposed different static methods and dynamic simulation with appropriate models for voltage stability assessments. Although different approaches have been proposed and employed for voltage collapse analysis till now, few literature have dealt with dynamics of this phenomenon in large interconnected power systems. Most of the methods that are applied to these networks are of static type. Little work has been published on dynamic voltage stability analysis of these systems, and the differences between the results of two approaches have been rarely analyzed. The reason elaborate modeling requirements and time-consuming computations of dynamic simulation. This paper investigates the discrepancies between static and dynamic techniques and combines these techniques to exploit the advantages of both approaches. In this paper, the New England (IEEE 39 bus) power system shown in Fig.1 is used as the test system. First, a severity ranking is carried out on the study system to specify faint buses, generators and links in terms of voltage instability. Based on this ranking, the most severe conditions for generator and branch outages and load increment are defined. For each of these contingencies static methods are employed to examine the network conditions and stability margins with relevant curves and factors. Then, time domain simulation is performed to scrutinize the same conditions. Results obtained from these methods will be compared with each other. Then capabilities and limitations of various methods are discussed.

Abstract--Different analysis methods have been used for voltage stability assessment. In comparison with static analysis methods, little work has been done on dynamic analysis of large interconnected power systems. Voltage instability can be studied effectively with a combination of static approaches and time simulations. This paper discusses voltage stability assessment using mixed static and dynamic techniques. Using static methods, a voltage stability based ranking is carried out to specify faint buses, generators and links in power system. The system is analyzed for most severe conditions. Then, time domain simulation is performed for the conditions determined by voltage instability ranking. The mixed approach benefits from advantages of both static and dynamic analyses. The New England (IEEE 39 bus) system was used as a test system. Index Terms-- Voltage stability, Voltage collapse, Static methods, Dynamic analysis, Contingency ranking

I. INTRODUCTION

N recent years voltage stability is considered as an important concern to electric power industry. Voltage instability and voltage collapse threaten power system reliability and security. The voltage problems are often associated with contingencies like unexpected line and generator outages, insufficient local reactive power supply and increased loading of transmission lines. Voltage collapse is usually characterized by an initial slow and progressive decrease and a final rapid decline in voltage magnitude at different buses. During the past years, there has been a continually increasing attention to voltage stability assessment using several analysis methods. Liu and Vu [1] presented a dynamic description of voltage collapse by characterizing the voltage stability regions in terms of the continuous tap changer model. Lee et al [2] introduced a criterion for static voltage stability enhancement and used accurate models for excitation systems, tap changer and other equipment for analysis of dynamic voltage stability. Voltage stability analysis using static and

II. VOLTAGE STABILITY ANALYSIS METHODS A. Static Analysis Many aspects of voltage stability problems can be effectively analyzed by using static methods. These methods examine the viability of the equilibrium point represented by a specified operating condition of the power system. Static

M.Hasani is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (e-mail: hasani@ee.sharif.edu) M.Parniani is an assistant professor in Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran (e-mail: parniani@sharif.edu)

0-7803-9114-4/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE.

Fig.1 Schematic of New England (IEEE 39 bus) power system

approaches like sensitivity analysis, modal analysis and P-V and Q-V methods for voltage stability assessment use a system condition or snapshot for voltage stability evaluation. They usually solve power flow equations of the network with specific load increments until the point of voltage collapse is reached. These techniques allow examination of a wide range of system conditions and can provide much insight into the nature of this phenomenon by computation of the contributing factors. Sensitivity Analysis: This method calculates the relationship between voltage changes and reactive power changes at different buses using reduced Jacobian matrix [6]. Positive sensitivities represent stable operation and as stability decreases, the magnitude of the sensitivity increases becoming infinite at the maximum loadability limit. Modal Analysis: This analysis approach has the added advantage that it provides information regarding the mechanism of instability. Voltage stability characteristics of the system can be identified by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the reduced Jacobian matrix [6]. Positive eigenvalues represent voltage stability of system and the smaller the magnitude, the closer the relevant modal voltage is to being unstable. The magnitude of the eigenvalues can provide a relative measure of the proximity to instability. In this paper, bus and branch and generator participation factors defined in [6] are widely used for identifying appropriate measures to relieve voltage stability problems and for contingency selections.

P-V Curve Method: These curves are produced by running a series of load flow cases and relate bus voltages to load within a special region. This methodology has the benefit of providing an indication of proximity to voltage collapse throughout the range of load levels. With power transfer increase in a special region, its voltage profile will become lower until a point of collapse is reached. Q-V Curve Method: These curves are also produced by running a series of load flow cases. They show the necessary amount of reactive power to achieve a specified voltage level. This method was developed due to difficulties in power flow program convergence of stressed cases close to the maximum loadability limit. To draw the Q-V Curves stretching from unstable to stable region, special techniques are used to achieve convergence [5]. Examples are using voltage sensitive loads; artificially increasing reactive power sources limits and fixing voltages at critical buses. B. Dynamic Simulation Time domain simulation with appropriate models for devices clarifies this phenomenon more precisely. It shows the time events and their chronology leading the system to final phases of voltage collapse. The computer program solves the differential-algebraic equations describing the power system. It has the features of modeling important dynamics that are influential in voltage instability such as dynamic load models, OLTC, excitation system limiters and various other controllers in the system. Dynamic analysis is useful for detailed study of

specific voltage collapse situations and coordination of protection and time dependent action of controls. In recent years, capabilities of midterm and long-term time domain simulation programs have been greatly improved. Full dynamic simulation considering transient stability models for these purposes seems to be time consuming. New programs usually employ fast dynamic simulation techniques, which have a good compromise between speed and accuracy [7]. The DigSILENT software, which is suitable for long-term dynamic assessment, is used in the simulation presented in this paper.

III. VOLTAGE STABILITY IN TEST SYSTEM A. Modeling for Static and Dynamic Simulation We will present the idea of mixed static and dynamic analyses through an example. Then, we make general conclusions and summarize the proposed approach. For static power flow simulation, we followed the general methodology used for planning and operation decision making. The loads, which were located at the secondary of OLTC transformers, were represented as voltage sensitive (both in active and reactive power). Reference [5] describes the general considerations for static analysis. For dynamic simulation, we added OLTC transformer models. Transformers were initialized at their neutral tap and had 1% tap size (Except for T11-12 which was 2.5%). Other data for tap changing transformers were 10% tap range with 20 steps of 1 or 2.5% and initial time delay was 5 second. Based on typical measurements and report of similar networks, we assumed active load to be 20% resistance and 80% dynamic (voltage and time dependent). Load represented in bus 12 -which is of concern according to the following studies- has active and reactive power voltage dependence of = 1.8 and = 1 .2 and time constants for active and reactive power voltage dependence were 20 and 10 second. The loads were represented on the low voltage side of the OLTC transformers. The overexcitation limiter was modeled as a part of AC2A standard type of AVR. Armature current limit may be encountered, requiring either severe reduction in field current/reactive power or reduction in active power. Armature current limit was modeled separately in simulations. B. Contingency Ranking The base case condition in IEEE 39 bus was used for contingency selection. It is noteworthy that this contingency selection is based on voltage instability in power system and is different from conventional contingency ranking used for system security and reliability studies. All of static analysis methods introduced in part II were used to select the most severe conditions corresponding to line, transformer and generator outages and load increment in different buses. The relationship between voltage and reactive power changes was assessed for all of the buses using sensitivity

analysis. The results identified buses 12 and 2 as the most and least sensitive buses with sensitivity factors 0.0334 and 0.0074 %/MVAR respectively. Modal analysis shows that the least eigenvalues of jacobian matrix in the network has the magnitude of 9.5609, which has sufficient margin to instability. The sizes of bus, branch and generator participation factors corresponding to this mode were calculated. Bus 12 indicated the most effectiveness of remedial actions in stabilizing that mode. Line8-9 (line between buses 8 & 9) consumes the most reactive power in response to an incremental change in reactive load at bus 12, and the generator G3 supplies the most reactive power in such situation. The P-V and Q-V methods confirm these results. Based on these observations, three scenarios were selected for the rest of analyses: 1. Line 8-9 outage 2. Generator G3 outage 3. Load increment at bus 12

IV. STATIC ANALYSIS OF VOLTAGE STABILITY For voltage stability assessment with static methods all three cases defined in the previous section were analyzed. Fig.2 shows Q-V sensitivity results for different buses in network after transmission line outage. Bus 12 shows to be the most sensitive bus in response to reactive power changes. Using modal analysis, different participation factors were calculated for the lowest eigenvalue with magnitude of 6.633. Table.1 shows the bus participation factors indicating nearly the same result as sensitivity analysis. Branches (line and transformers) participation factors are shown in Table.2 and generator participation factors are presented in Table.3. Figures.3 and 4 show the P-V and Q-V curves for the most and least sensitive buses in voltage stability assessment. In QV curve method, bus 12 has the least stable condition with 585 MVAR reactive power margin to instability and bus 19 has the greatest one. P-V curve method identified bus 7 as the weakest bus in terms of voltage stability. Similar analyses were performed for two other scenarios defined in contingency selections. Approximately the same results were obtained for these conditions. For instance, all cases have sufficient reactive power margin, and hence are considered as voltage stable. Results of these stable conditions are directly comparable with the steady state values at the end of stable dynamic simulation. Detailed results of the second and third scenarios are not shown here for the sake of brevity. In the load increment scenario, active and reactive powers were increased with a fixed pattern until the power flow program did not converge. Then the network was analyzed in the situation just before divergence. The critical load at bus 12 in this condition was 44 MW and 420 MVAR as compared to the initial loading of 8.5 MW and 88 MVAR.

TABLE .1 BUS PARTICIPATION FACTORS CORRESPONDING TO THE LEAST STABLE MODE

IN FIRST CONTINGENCY

Bus No 12 8 7 4 5 3 6 14 11 13 18 10 15

Fig. 2. Q-V sensitivity results for different buses after line 8-9 outage

Bus Par. Factor 0.0848 0.0822 0.0798 0.0738 0.0692 0.0677 0.0628 0.0625 0.0573 0.0568 0.0519 0.0488 0.0396

Bus No 17 27 16 24 21 26 23 28 22 19 29 20 25

Bus Par. Factor 0.0373 0.0261 0.0254 0.0228 0.0149 0.0126 0.0051 0.0047 0.0047 0.0038 0.0022 0.0013 0.0011

TABLE .2 BRANCH PARTICIPATION FACTORS IN FIRST CONTINGENCY Branch Name T3 T2 16-19 T6 27-26 21-22 26-25 15-16 6-7 24-23 17-27 18-3 14-15 18-17 Fig. 3. P-V curves for the most and least stable buses after line 8-9 outage Branch Par. Factor 1 0.6813 0.2627 0.2284 0.2272 0.1915 0.1862 0.1643 0.1601 0.1473 0.1418 0.1412 0.1407 0.1333 Branch Name 26-29 8-5 T4 14-4 T7 28-26 11-6 T5 21-16 3-4 10-11 14-13 16-17 4-5 Branch Par. Factor 0.1325 0.13 0.1269 0.1216 0.1199 0.1081 0.0972 0.0873 0.0871 0.0818 0.08 0.08 0.0706 0.055 Branch Name 5-6 T9 13-10 7-8 T13-12 28-29 24-16 T11-12 25-2 T1 23-22 T8 T20-19 1-39 Branch Par. Factor 0.0524 0.0483 0.0473 0.0366 0.0337 0.0303 0.0267 0.026 0.025 0.0225 0.0188 0.0145 0.0143 0.0119

TABLE .3 GENERATOR PARTICIPATION FACTORS IN FIRST CONTINGENCY Gen No Gen Par. Factor 3 1 2 0.8637 6 0.4812 4 0.399 9 0.293 7 0.2736 5 0.1955 8 0.1426 1 0.1219 10 0.0347

V. DYNAMIC SIMULATION Figs. 5-7 show the results of time domain simulation for three cases identified in the previous part. In this figures bus 12 is the load side of the OLTC transformer and bus 11 and 13 are high voltage side of relevant transformers. In all cases, the simulated voltages have reached their stable steady state conditions. However, in Fig.7 which has the load increment of 36 MW and 330 MVAR (to receive the critical load defined in

Fig. 4. Q-V curves for the most and least stable buses after line 8-9 outage

the previous section) stability can not be achieved because of considerable decline in load side voltage which is likely to activate protection devices. Acceptability of stable conditions acquired by dynamic simulation can be judged by the post-disturbance voltage levels, the remaining reactive power reserves at generating plants and the time available for operator action. We used ANSI standard C84.1-1989 for reliability criteria [8], which suggests 92% voltage for consumer service in first contingencies. Also, undervoltage load shedding may be devised using dynamic simulation results in order to enhance system reliability. (This was not considered here). In the first and second scenarios which were stable in both static and dynamic analyses, the result of static methods can be directly compared with the results at the steady state of dynamic simulation. Results for voltage profiles in different buses and generators reactive power margin are presented in Table 4 and 5. According to the results of Table 5, the static method seems to be more conservative. Further investigations not presented in this paper - are carried out with the aid of dynamic simulation, to examine the effects of generator armature and field current limiters, OLTC control parameters, and load characteristics.

Fig. 7. Voltage for different buses after load increment at bus 12 TABLE .4 COMPARISON OF VOLTAGES AT LOAD BUSES CALCULATED BY STATIC AND
DYNAMIC METHODS

Bus No 3 4 7 8 12 15 16 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31

Voltage (Static) 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.00

Voltage (Dynamic) 0.99 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.99 1.01 0.99 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.00

TABLE .5 COMPARISON OF REACTIVE POWER RESERVES CALCULATED BY STATIC AND

DYNAMIC METHODS

Fig. 5. Voltage for different buses after line 8-9 outage Gen No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MVAR Reactive Margin (Static) 19 37 75 29 79 46 62 49 15 112 MVAR Reactive Margin (Dynamic) 12 30 52 39 84 37 55 35 20 80

VI. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Although the voltage instability is a dynamic phenomenon, different static analysis methods have been proposed and widely used in different networks. Static methods are generally easier to implement and require less computing

Fig. 6. Voltage for different buses after generator G3 outage

time. Some of these methods, e.g. P-V and Q-V curves, provide valuable information about stability margin. Some others like modal analysis are very useful to identify the pattern of voltage instability and thus to devise appropriate remedial actions. In contrast, dynamic simulation yields more accurate results; and requires more elaborate models and computing time. In time domain simulation all controllers, protective relays, dynamic model of loads, tap-changer controller and etc can be taken into consideration. And the main limitations in this analysis method are: 1. With dynamic simulation, stability margin for bus voltage is not directly computed. 2. In interconnected networks, because of existing several controllers and protection devices with overlapped time domain actions, distinction of main factor affecting instability might be a problem. Due to limitations of time domain simulation in analyzing voltage stability in interconnected power systems, a new method of combined static and dynamic analysis of voltage collapse is introduced in this paper. In this method, first, a contingency ranking for voltage stability is carried out on the study system. Based on this ranking, the most severe conditions including generators/lines outages and load changes are identified. For each contingency condition, static methods are employed again to examine the stability conditions. Time domain simulation -with more detail models for these parts- is then performed for the selected contingency cases. With the result of dynamic analysis, appropriate controllers and protection devices can be selected for the system to overcome voltage instability. The method considerably reduces computations of dynamic analysis with no complex and detail models required for all equipment. VII. CONCLUSION In this paper, a new approach using combination of static and dynamic methods was proposed for voltage stability assessment. Using static methods, a voltage stability ranking was performed to define faint buses, generators and links in terms of voltage stability. Then, these parts are modeled with more detail and dynamic analysis was used for most severe conditions. Results from different static approaches were compared with more accurate time domain simulations. Although static methods based on power flow analysis is suitable for screening, final decisions involving several considerations both in planning and operation should be confirmed by more accurate time domain simulation in which different characteristics of multiple controllers, protection relays and coordination of them are taken into account. VIII. REFERENCES
[1] C.C.Liu and K.T.Vu, "Analysis of tap-changer dynamic and construction of voltage stability regions," IEEE Trans. on Circuit and Systems, Vol.36, No.4, pp.575-590, Apr 1989 [2] B.H.Lee and K.Y.Lee, "Dynamic and static voltage stability enhancement of power systems," IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.8, pp.231-238, Feb. 1993

[3] G.K.Morison, B.Gao and P.Kundur, "Voltage Stability analysis using static and dynamic approaches," IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. PWRS8, No.3, pp.1159-1171, Aug.1993 [4] J.Deuse and M.Stubbe, "Dynamic simulation of voltage collapses," IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.8 pp.894-900, Aug.1993 [5] C.W.Taylor, Power System Voltage Stability, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994 [6] P.Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. [7] T.Van Cutsem, and C.Vournas, Voltage Stability of Electric Power Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998 [8] American National Standard Institute, "American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment Voltage Ratings," ANSI C84.1-1989. Masoud Hasani was born in July 30, 1978. He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical Power Engineering from Sharif University of Technology (SUT), Tehran, Iran, in 2001 and 2004 respectively. He is currently a Ph.D. student in Electrical Power Engineering at Sharif University of Technology. Mostafa Parniani obtained his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical Power Engineering from Tehran Polytechnic and Sharif University of Technology (SUT), in 1987 and 1990 respectively; and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1995. Since then, he has been with the Electrical Engineering Department of SUT as an assistant professor. He has worked with Ghods Niroo Consulting Engineers Co., Electric Power Research Center, and Niroo Research Institute. He has also been a member of IEEE Task Force on Slow Transients, as well as national committees in his field. His areas of interest are power system control and dynamics, reactive power control, and applications of power electronics in power systems.