See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290202869

Control strategies for power system in island operation

Article · January 2013

CITATION READS

1 416

2 authors, including:

Karel Maslo
CEPS
34 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karel Maslo on 21 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Energy Power Sources Journal of Energy
Vol. 2, No. 3, 2015, pp. and Power Sources
Received: January 7, 2015, Published: March 30, 2015 www.ethanpublishing.com

Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation

Karel Máslo and Zdeněk Hruška

ČEPS, a.s., Elektrárenská 774/2, 101 52 Prague, Czech Republic
Corresponding author: Karel Máslo (maslo@ceps.cz)

Abstract: Supervisory active power and frequency (P-f) control together with reactive power and voltage control (Q-V) represent two
main and usually separated processes to keep system indicators (frequency and voltage) within permissible limits. Generally, the
hierarchical structure of both domains is very similar. It contains local primary control, secondary control and tertiary control. This
system ensures coordination of active and reactive power production and optimization. This paper deals with particular cases of P-f and
Q-V control strategies in island operation when a part of system is electrically separated from the main interconnected system. This
operation condition occurs rarely on transmission system level, however the control systems on all levels should be adjusted properly
and transmission system operators should have prepared a plan to manage such extraordinary situation. Different possibilities for
co-operation of secondary and primary controls are investigated and evaluated. All possibilities mentioned thereinafter are simulated by
dynamic model of power system. Special attention is paid to study cases with successful strategies, which represent secure transition
from normal to island operation mode. Investigated cases lead to recommendation to operate primary controls independently and
decentrally. In case of situation when system indicators (frequency, voltage) are out of their limits, turbine governors should be
switched to proportional speed control and excitation control to terminal voltage control.

Keywords: Power-system control, island operation, dynamic models, primary and secondary controls.

1. Introduction reactive power-voltage (Q-V) domain. It is obvious

According to envisaged European network code [1]
an island operation is defined as an independent
operation of a whole or a part of the network that is
isolated after its disconnection from the interconnected
system. Isolated part of the network has to contain at
least one power-supplying generator with frequency
and voltage control system. This extraordinary power
system operation conditions, contrary to normal
operation condition, require exceptional frequency and
voltage control strategies.
Implementation of higher-level control strategies in
island operation had already been investigated in Ref.
[2] and examination by using a simulation tool for
power system dynamic behavior in island operation
was published in Ref. [3].
This paper compares different control strategies of
primary and secondary control cooperation from both
views: Active power-frequency (P-f) domain and
that such complex research is not possible to perform in
real operation (e.g., by experiments or field tests).
Dynamic simulation with adequate model is an
effective and secure method for testing and examining
of particular variants. This determinates an appropriate
and reliable strategy for the control in the island
operation. The paper presents two main simulation
cases of power system behavior in island operation.
The first case deals with the dynamic behavior of a
large island in terms of frequency control. The second
one deals with the dynamic behavior of a small island
in terms of voltage control.
The description of hierarchical configuration of
power system control is introduced in the next chapter.
2. Power System Control Overview
Power system control has hierarchical character and
represents very complex system. This complex system
is usually divided into 3 levels primary, secondary and
2 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation
Fig. 1 Power system control hierarchical overview—simplified block schemes.
tertiary one. Due to the fact that tertiary level of
controlling system is focused towards optimization the
study cases are aimed to primary and secondary levels
of the system. For brief description and distinction
between primary (decentralized) and secondary
(centralized) levels see Fig. 1.
Secondary voltage control is described in papers
[4-6] and secondary frequency control—(so-called
LFC load frequency control) is described in papers
[7-10] in more details.
P-f domain control is depicted in the left side of Fig. 1.
Primary frequency control is a decentralized function of
the turbine governor and it is implemented by frequency
correction of power reference value PS. Resulting static
turbine characteristic (dependence of generator output
PG on frequency deviation f) is shown below the block
labelled “P control” in the Fig. 1.
Secondary control or Load Frequency Control (LFC)
is a centralised automatic function to control the power
generation in a control area. Its main purpose is to
maintain interchange power flow P at the scheduled
value PSched and to restore the frequency f in case of a
frequency deviation originating from the control area.
The Q-V domain control is showed on the right side
of Fig. 1. Primary voltage control is implemented by
the Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR). It initiates a
fast variation in the excitation of generator when
generator terminal voltage (UG) changes. So-called
load compensation is usually used for generators
operating parallel to the power grid. This function is
performed by reactive current IR correction of voltage
reference value UGRef. Resulting static generator
characteristic (dependence of terminal voltage UG on
terminal reactive current IR or reactive power QG) is
shown below the block labelled “Q control” on Fig. 1.
In this case generator virtually controls the voltage in
external point, usually in the middle of the step-up
transformer.
Secondary Voltage Control (SVC) distributes
reactive power among relevant generators within a
given zone of the network in order to maintain
scheduled voltage level USched at so-called pilot nodes.
3. Case Studies
Two case studies were carried out to evaluate
different control strategies:
 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation
(1) Transition into large island with power
surplus—influence of P-f control;
(2) Transition into small island with power
deficiency—influence of Q-V control.
These cases are analyzed in following chapters.
3.1 Large Surplus Island—LFC and Turbine Control
Coordination
Large island represents the entire Czech Republic
which is disconnected from the rest of continental
Europe synchronous system (former UCTE). This
control area exports ∆P = 3,300 MW before
disconnection.
Four control modes are taken into account in island
operation for investigation:
(1) Turbine power control with remote control from
LFC in P-f mode;
(2) Turbine power control with remote control from
LFC in f mode (so-called flat mode);
(3) Speed control with automatic remote correction
n of reference speed from LFC;
Fig. 2 Principal turbine control block scheme.
3
(4) Speed control with manual changing of
reference speed.
In cases 3 and 4 turbines operate in power control
mode before transition into island operation then they
are automatically switched over from power control
mode to speed control mode when frequency deviation
exceeds |f| > 200 mHz.
Fig. 2 shows block scheme of turbine control with
symbolic illustration of these four control modes in
more details (but still very simplified). Under normal
network conditions, steam turbine operates in power
control mode and a boiler is in pressure control
(so-called boiler follow mode). In case of large
frequency deviations (f > 200 mHz) an island
operation is detected and turbine control is switched
over from power control to proportional speed control
mode. Fast valving is activated in case of near network
faults (short circuits) and it rapidly reduces the
mechanical power to decrease accelerating power of
steam turbine-generator to ensure dynamic stability.
Proportional-Integral (PI) speed governor (so-called
4 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation

isochronous control) is used before synchronization of 8

f[Hz]

generator to the network. EHT—electro hydraulic 7

 
transducer transforms electrical signal to oil pressure 6

governing the control valves. More information about 5

turbine control is in Ref. [11]. 4

In control mode  (turbine in power control mode 3

and LFC in P-f mode) turbine stays remotely 2

controlled from LFC. LFC maintains scheduled

1
interchange power flow P and frequency f. It
0
represents a normal operation condition of turbines 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 t[s]
20
Fig. 3 Frequency deviation time courses for strategies 
and LFC. In control mode  (turbine in power control and  for the surplus island.
mode and LFC in f mode) turbine stays remotely f[mHz]
1000

controlled from LFC, however LFC operates in flat 900

mode (it controls frequency f only). In control mode  800

(turbine in speed control—island operation) and LFC 700

is disconnected) turbine is switched over to speed

600

500
control after transition into island operation and 
400

turbine is disconnected from remote LFC. Plant 300

operator can change reference speed manually. In 200


control mode  (turbine in speed control—island 100

operation and remote correction from LFC) turbine is 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 t[min]

switched over into speed control as well, but the
reference speed is changed automatically by
correction signal n from the LFC.
Fig. 3 shows simulation results for cases  and . It
is obvious that frequency deviation is unstable and
very soon exceeds limit f = 2.5 Hz which drives
disconnection of units from the grid in both cases.
However switching of LFC to the flat mode (f control)
does not prevent the system from frequency collapse
and subsequent black out.
Fig. 4 shows simulation results for cases  and .
Frequency deviations are stable. Limit 90 mHz for
automatic resynchronisation is reached in 15 minutes.
In case  all commands for decreasing of the reference
speed are done manually at selected units in seven steps.
In case  some units are remotely controlled from LFC,
that sends correction signal of reference speed
automatically. In this case, frequency is changed more
smoothly and this control mode is more comfortable for
system dispatchers and plant operators.
Fig. 4 Frequency deviation time courses for strategies 
and  for surplus island.
Fig. 5 explains the different dynamic behavior.
In the control mode  the reference power PS is
remotely adjusted by LFC. However after passing into
surplus island (total turbine power is greater than
consumption and network losses) generator power
decreases (generated power must be equal to
consumption and losses all the time). Turbine PI power
control increases turbine power PT to restore reference
power PS, thereby speed and frequency increase. This
positive feedback causes frequency collapse of the
incurred island. Changing LFC to f mode does not
improve the situation, because LFC is too slow to
decrease significantly reference power PS. Reference
power PS is necessary to decrease within several
seconds after transition into island. It must be
emphasized, that turbine and generator powers are
different values during transient phenomena. The
difference between them causes speed and frequency
 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation 5

[MW] PT [MW] PS
200 190

150
PG 140

100
90
50
PS PG PT
0 40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 t[s]
24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 t[min]
(a) (b)
Fig. 5 Generator and turbine power (PG and PT) and reference power PS for (a) case  and (b) case .

51,4

51,2

51

50,8

50,6

50,4

50,2

50

49,8

49,6
Zone WEST
49,4 Zone South East
Zone North East
49,2

49
22:09:30,0

22:10:00,0

22:10:30,0

22:11:00,0

22:11:30,0

22:12:00,0

22:12:30,0

22:13:00,0

22:13:30,0

22:14:00,0

22:14:30,0

22:15:00,0

22:15:30,0

22:16:00,0

22:16:30,0

22:17:00,0

22:17:30,0

22:18:00,0

22:18:30,0

22:19:00,0

22:19:30,0

22:20:00,0
Fig. 6 Measured frequency during UCTE splitting on 4.11.2006 (according to [12]).

deviations (due to accelerating power on the right side balance between prime movers output and consumption)
of swing equation). Sometimes you can read that there in the incurred island. The small difference between PT
is imbalance between load and power generation in and PG equals to generator losses.
power system. It is not accurate. Power balance The simulations show that switching from power
between generated power (measured on generator control into speed control is necessary for stable island
terminals) and consumption and losses is maintained operation. This solution proved its efficiency during a
naturally according to Kirchhoff’s laws. system-wide incident on 4th November 2006, when
In control mode  the reference power PS is UCTE synchronous zone split into three islands (see
remotely adjusted by LFC to increase power to Final report [12]). The Czech Republic was part of the
scheduled power exchange, but turbine control is northeast island, where power surplus was more than
switched into proportional speed control mode. Turbine 10 GW and instantaneous frequency reached nearly
adjusts its power PT to generator power PG and this 51.4 Hz (see Fig. 6).
control mode is able to ensure power balance (it means Due to the immediate power decrease in this island,
6 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation

the frequency was stabilised on 50.3 Hz in the first 30
seconds. The Czech Republic participated by power
decrease of 950 MW—the largest portion of power in
the island (not taking into account switching off
windmills in the eastern Germany and Austria). Due to
switching over from power to speed control the
K-factor of the Czech Republic control area increased
more than four times, from normal value 730 MW/Hz
(for primary frequency control) to approximately 3,300
MW/Hz (in emergency speed control).
3.2 Small Island—SVC and AVR Coordination
Small island represents three substations connected
by two 400 kV lines with summary charging reactive
power about 115 MVAr. Total consumption in
substations represents 810 MW and generation in
monitored area is 286 MW before disconnection. One
substation operates as pilot node equipped with
secondary voltage controller (SVC). One 200 MW unit
is remotely controlled from this SVC.
Two control modes are taken into account in island
operation of the unit:
Fig. 7 shows block scheme of excitation control in
more detail with symbolical illustration of these two
control modes.
In the first case  SVC changes reference reactive
power of the controlled unit. Excitation control is in Q
mode, which means that it controls generator reactive
power QG to maintain reference power QS. In the
second case , excitation control operates in a basic
voltage mode, which means that it controls generator
terminal voltage UG to maintain reference value UGRef.
Fig. 8 shows the simulation results for cases  and .
The result shows that voltages time courses are stable
in both cases, but in case  the voltage exceeds 110%
threshold (upper limit of normal operation condition).
1.2
u [pu]
1.15

1.1

1.05

(1) Automatic voltage regulator (AVR) stays

remote controlled from SVC; 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 t [s]
120
(2) AVR disconnects from SVC and operates in Fig. 8 Voltage time courses for strategies  and  for the
primary voltage control. deficient small island.

Fig. 7 Principal excitation control block scheme.

 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation 7

[pu] QS
[pu]
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 t [s]
120 0 20 40 60 80 100 t [s]
120

‐0.1 ‐0.1
QG
QS

‐0.2 ‐0.2
QG

‐0.3 ‐0.3
(a)(b)
Fig. 9 Generator and reference reactive powers (QG and QS) for (a) case  and (b) case .

PG reactive power QG could be lower (it is limited by

1
under-excitation limiter in the AVR). Fig. 10 shows
0.8 both cases in P-Q operational diagram.
2 1 SVC Reactive power limits in the SVC have a trapezoid
0.6
shape and are determined during certification process.
0.4
Connection of units into SVC is considered as an
0.2 ancillary service for transmission system operator in
the Czech Republic and it is operated on commercial
0
‐0.5 ‐0.3 ‐0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 Q0.9
G
base. In primary voltage control, low limit to reactive
Fig. 10 P-Q diagram for case  (on the left) and  (on the power is determined by left straight line (marked by 
right). in the Fig. 10). This low limit is guaranteed by
Increase of voltage is caused by under frequency load under-excitation limiter in the AVR.
shedding (UFLS) operation in this small island It is obvious that disconnection from SVC and
(consumption is reduced by 462 MW in four steps switching AVR into primary voltage control in case 
very fast in one second after island disconnection). prevents island from overvoltage.
Two 400 kV lines generate more reactive power and
4. Conclusions
transformers consume less reactive power due to the
network unloading, which results in voltage increase. This paper investigated cooperation of basic
This surplus of reactive power has to be consumed by (primary) and supervisory (secondary) controls of the
synchronous generators that are forced to operate in power system. Active power-frequency (P-f) and
under-excitation area (with negative generated reactive power-voltage (Q-V) controls were taken into
reactive power QG). account. Operation modes of these two systems in
Fig. 9 shows that in the case  SVC decreases island operation represent very rare operation condition,
reference reactive power QS to maintain scheduled which were examined and tested by the simulation tool.
value of voltage in the pilot node USched = 417.8 kV, Presented study cases proved that it is necessary to
but lower limit for reactive power (defined in the SVC) disconnect both primary controllers from supervisory
is reached in t = 60 s. So the voltage did not reach the (secondary) controls. This decentralized way ensures
desired value. In the second case  primary voltage successful and secure transition from normal state
control allows deeper under-excitation and generated (parallel operation with large power system like
 8 Control Strategies for Power System in Island Operation
continental Europe synchronous area) into island
operation. It means switching over turbine control into
proportional speed control mode and excitation control
into the terminal voltage control mode.
References
[1] ENTSO-E Network code for requirements for grid
connection applicable to all generators [Online],
http://networkcodes.entsoe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/0
8/130308_Final_Version_NC_RfG1.pdf.
[2] H.B. Ross, N. Zhu, J. Giri, B. Kindel, An AGC
implementation for system islanding and restoration
conditions, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 9 (3) (1994)
1399-1410.
[3] J.L. Sancha, M.L. Llorens, J.M. Moreno, B. Meyer, J.F.
Vernotte, W.W. Price, J.J. Sanchez-Gasca, Application of
long-term simulation programs for analysis of system
islanding, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 12 (1) (1997) 189-197.
[4] V. Ilea, C. Bovo, M. Merloa, A. Berizzia, P. Marannino,
Reactive power flow optimization in power systems with
hierarchical voltage control, in: Proceedings of the 17th
Power Systems Computation Conference, 2011.
[5] M.D. Ilik, X. Liu, G. Leung, M. Athans, Ch. Vialas, P.
Pruvot, Improved secondary and new tertiary voltage
control, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 10 (4) (1995)1851-1862.
View publication stats
[6] A. Berizzi, M. Merlo, P. Marannino, F. Zanellini , S. Corsi,
M. Pozzi, Dynamic performances of the hierarchical
voltage regulation: The Italian EHV system case, in:
Proceedings of the 15th Power Systems Computation
Conference, 2005.
[7] T. Inoue, H. Amano, K. Hanamoto, W. Wayama, Y.
Ichikawa, Development of load frequency control
simulation tool, CIGRE Session, 2010.
[8] J.L. Agüero, M.C. Beroqui, F. Issouribehere, Grid
frequency control: Secondary frequency control tuning
taking into account distributed primary frequency control, in:
IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2010.
[9] D.D. Rasolomampionona, A modified power system
model for AGC analysis, in: Proceedings of the IEEE
Power Tech Conference, 2009.
[10] S.St. Iliescu, I. Fagarasan, C. Soare, D. Ilisiu, F. Biliboaca,
Process modelling for load frequency control in power
systems, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Power Tech
Conference, 2009.
[11] K. Máslo, C.A. Nucci, A. Borghetti, I. Petružela, Power
system dynamics during large power imbalance phenomena,
in: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE MELECON, 2004.
[12] System disturbance on 4 November 2006, Final report of
UCTE [Online], https://www.entsoe.eu/fileadmin/user_
upload/_library/publications/ce/otherreports/Final-Report
-20070130.pdf.