SAND2017-12926C
Power System Damping Control via Power
Injections from Distributed Energy Storage
David A. Copp, Felipe Wilches-Bernal, David A. Schoenwald, and Imre Gyuk
Abstract—Inter-area oscillations are present in all power
systems dispersed over large areas and can have detrimental
effects limiting transmission capacity or even causing blackouts.
The availability of wide-area measurements in power systems
has enabled damping of inter-area oscillations using distributed
control methods and system components, such as energy storage
devices. We investigate the performance of damping control
enabled by energy storage devices distributed throughout an
example two-area power system assuming the availability of wide-
area measurements of generator machine speeds. The energy
storage devices are capable of injecting active power into the
system in order to damp inter-area oscillations that occur after
a fault in the system. An analysis of the linearized system
and several simulations of the nonlinear system with multiple
combinations of controlled power injections from energy storage
devices are performed. From the results, we quantify and discuss
how damping performance depends on the location, size, and
number of injections.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Power systems consist of complex interconnections of non-
linear components, possibly sparsely distributed across wide
geographic regions. This means that power loads and gen-
eration centers may be geographically separated by large dis-
tances. In these systems, an event, such as a fault at one of the
buses, results in swings in the power transfer between regions.
These power swings are called inter-area oscillations [1], [2],
and they occur in power systems around the world. Damping
inter-area oscillations is crucial for maintaining a secure and
reliable power grid, and failing to do so can have severe
consequences, such as the blackouts experienced throughout
western North America in 1996 [3].
Several methods for implementing damping control that
mitigate the effects of inter-area oscillations have been pro-
posed. Power System Stabilizers (PSSs), utilizing local mea-
surements, have historically been used to implement damping
control for this task. More recently, the use of remote signals
with PSSs has been shown to be advantageous [4]. The
availability of system-wide information via remote signals has
enabled the use of other system components for damping
control, such as Flexible Alternating Current Transmission
System (FACTS) devices, High Voltage DC (HVDC) lines,
and Energy Storage (ES) [5]–[11].
In this work, we specifically investigate damping control
enabled by active power injections from ES devices distributed
throughout the system. The damping control law is based on
D. Copp, F. Wilches-Bernal, and D. Schoenwald are with Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM USA (e-mail: dcopp@sandia.gov). I. Gyuk
is with the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC USA.
feedback from wide-area measurements of the generators’ ma-
chine speeds. Naturally, injections from ES devices in different
locations throughout the system result in different transient
responses and, thus, different damping performance. With
multiple ES devices available throughout the system, there
may be scenarios in which it is advantageous to use smaller
current injections from more ES devices distributed throughout
the system rather than using larger current injections from
fewer ES devices. We quantify performance for these types of
scenarios and provide insights for how best to utilize ES de-
vices for damping control in this example system. Specifically,
we perform a linear analysis as well as nonlinear simulations
of the two-area example power system with damping control
enabled by active power injections from multiple ES devices;
we quantify the damping performance of several combinations
of ES devices providing injections, discuss how performance
depends on the number, sizes, and locations of injections, and
show that there are diminishing improvements on damping
performance as the size of injections increase.
Several authors have previously investigated the use of ES
devices for damping control of power systems similar to the
one considered in this work. Damping inter-area oscillations
in power systems with Superconducting Magnetic Energy
Storage (SMES) is studied in [12], [13]. Damping with an
ES device using particle swarm optimization and heuristic
dynamic programming is discussed to be better than PSS
or FACTS enabled damping in [14] for the same example
system and signals that we consider. An ES system based on
UltraCapacitor technology is utilized for damping control via
real power modulation in [11]. The same authors show that
the optimal placement for an ES device to provide damping
in a power system is in the area with lower inertia [15]. The
authors of [16] consider a similar system with only one ES
device in each area and show that the inter-area oscillations
can be effectively damped and that the best locations for the
ES devices along the tie line are closer to the generators. In
this work we extend these previous results by investigating
injections from multiple ES devices distributed throughout the
system. More broadly, other applications for battery ES in
power systems are discussed in [17]. Several power and energy
applications of ES as well as optimal energy management with
ES are discussed in [18], and multiple applications and value
opportunities for ES are highlighted in [19].
This paper is organized as follows. First, we formulate the
problem by introducing the example two-area power system
and damping control law under consideration in Section II.
Next, we present a linear analysis of the resulting closed-
loop system in Section III. Numerical results and damping TABLE I
performance for the nonlinear system are given in Section IV. M ODEL PARAMETERS
Finally, Section V contains concluding remarks and directions Generators:
for future work. Parameter Description Value Units
Pr power rating 900 MVA
Xd direct axis synchronous 1.8 per unit
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION reactance
Xq quadrature axis 1.7 per unit
synchronous reactance
A. Two-Area Power System Model Xl leakage reactance 0.2 per unit
Xd0 transient reactance 0.3 per unit
We analyze the two-area power system shown in Figure Xq0 transient reactance 0.55 per unit
Xd00 subtransient reactance 0.25 per unit
1 that has two synchronous generators and a load in each Xq00 subtransient reactance 0.25 per unit
area. This model, originally proposed in [20], is augmented to Ra armature resistance 0.0025 per unit
0
include six ES devices distributed throughout the system. The Td0 open-circuit time constant 8.0 seconds
0
Tq0 open-circuit time constant 0.4 seconds
synchronous generators are located at buses 1, 2, 3, and 4. The 00
Td0 open-circuit subtransient 0.03 seconds
loads are located at buses 18 and 19, and the ES devices are time constant
located at buses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The ES devices 00
Tq0 open-circuit subtransient 0.05 seconds
are capable of injecting and absorbing active power into the time constant
H1 , H2 inertia constant 6.5 per unit
system in order to damp inter-area oscillations. To excite the H3 , H4 inertia constant 6.175 per unit
inter-area oscillation of the system, we apply a three-phase to KD damping coefficient 0 per unit
ground fault and investigate the damping performance when Transmission:
Parameter Description Value Units
different combinations of ES devices provide active power
r line resistance 0.0001 per unit/km
injections. For example, we quantify the differences in control xL line reactance 0.001 per unit/km
effort (magnitude of power injected) and transient system bC line charging 0.00175 per unit/km
response when all six of the ES devices provide injections zT transformer impedance 0.0167 per unit/km
System:
versus when only ES devices 1 and 6 provide injections. Parameter Description Value Units
With each synchronous generator modeled using a subtran- Sb system base MVA 100 MVA
sient model, the system dynamics are given by Sf system frequency 60 Hz

ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t)),

B. Damping Control Law
y(t) = ω(t), (1)
0 = g(x(t), u(t)), The damping control law for the active power injection from
the ith ES device is given by
where x(t) = [x> > > >
1 (t) x2 (t) x3 (t) x4 (t) x5 (t)]
> >
∈ (
kd
R 30
denotes the system state vector, and xi (t) = (Ω1 (t) − Ω2 (t)), if injection in area 1,
0 00 0 00
ui (t) = kId1
[δi (t) ωi (t) Eq,i (t) ψd,i (t) Ed,i (t) ψq,i (t)]> ∈ R6 , for I2 (Ω2 (t) − Ω1 (t)), if injection in area 2,
i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, denotes the state vector of the ith gen-
erator at time t with the following states: rotor angle δi , where Ω1 (t) and Ω2 (t) are the average machine speeds of the
machine speed (angular velocity) ωi , quadrature axis tran- generators in areas 1 and 2 at time t (i.e., Ω1 (t) = ω1 (t)+ω
2
2 (t)

0
sient terminal voltage Eq,i , direct axis subtransient flux link-
00 0
age ψd,i , direct axis transient terminal voltage Ed,i , and
00
quadrature axis subtransient flux linkage ψq,i . The vector
of active power injections at time t is denoted by u(t) =
[u1 (t) u2 (t) u3 (t) u4 (t) u5 (t) u6 (t)]> ∈ R6 , and the output
of the system at time t is denoted by y(t) ∈ R6 . The
output for generator i is its angular velocity, so the (possibly
remote) measurements of the generators’ angular velocities are
available for feedback. The function g(·) captures the algebraic
aspects of the model. For brevity we do not explicitly write
down the functions f (·) and g(·) in (1), but more details on
these dynamics can be found in, e.g., [2], [21].
The model parameters are chosen to be the same as in
Example 12.6 of [2] and are given in Table I. Except for the
inertia constants H1 , H2 , H3 , and H4 , all of the parameter
values are the same for all four of the generators. Saturation
effects are neglected.
and Ω2 (t) = ω3 (t)+ω
2
4 (t)
), respectively. These feedback signals
are used because the generators in a given area are often
coherent, so the difference between the average machine
speeds in the two areas is a good measurement of the inter-area
oscillation. Moreover, our objective is to damp the oscillations
in machine speeds in order to improve stability of the system
while also reducing wear and tear on the mechanical compo-
nents. The number of injections in areas 1 and 2 are denoted by
I1 and I2 , respectively, and kd is the damping control gain.
Therefore, the magnitude of each injection is scaled by the
number of injections in the area in which it is located. In this
way, the sums of the magnitudes of the injections in each area
are the same regardless of the number of injections in that area.
This is done to determine how performance changes when
injecting power in one location versus injecting the same total
amount of power but through several injections distributed
throughout the system.
 Fig. 1. Example two-area power system.

 kd kd kd kd 
0 2I1 05 2I1 05 − 2I1
05 − 2I1
010
kd kd kd kd
0
 2I1 05 2I1 05 − 2I1
05 − 2I1
010 

kd kd kd kd
0
2I1 05 2I1 05 − 2I 05 − 2I 010 
K = 1 1
,
 
kd kd kd kd
0 − 2I 2
05 − 2I 2
05 2I2 05 2I2 010 
 kd kd kd kd 
Fig. 2. Block diagram of current injections from ES devices. 0 − 2I 2
05 − 2I 2
05 2I2 05 2I2 010 
kd kd kd kd
0 − 2I 2
05 − 2I 2
05 2I2 05 2I2 010
Figure 2 shows a block diagram of the model for the active and
power injections from the ES devices. In Figure 2, Ωi denotes
 
e1 0 0 0 0 0
the average of the angular velocities of the generators in area 0 e2 0 0 0 0
 
i, Ωj denotes the average of the angular velocities of the 0 0 e3 0 0 0
generators in the other area, and T denotes the response time S=
0
.
 0 0 e4 0 0 
of the ES devices. The transfer function 1/(1 + T s), where 0 0 0 0 e5 0
s is the Laplace transform variable, acts as a first-order low- 0 0 0 0 0 e6
pass filter that captures the dynamics of the injection. In this
The notation 0n in the matrix K denotes a row vector with n
work, we choose T = 0.05 [s], which is representative of
elements all equal to zero. In the matrix S, each variable ei ,
the response time of some types of energy storage, such as
for i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, is equal to one if the ith ES device
Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES) [10]. The
is providing an injection or is equal to zero otherwise. Each
signal ūi (t) then denotes the actual power injection of ES
row of the matrix SK sums to zero, so the control inputs are
device i into the system.
zero when the difference between the average machine speeds
III. L INEAR A NALYSIS is equal to zero. This also means that the power injected and
absorbed by the ES devices is energy neutral throughout the
Because we are interested in small signal stability, we can time the control is active (i.e., assuming no losses, the state-
linearize the nonlinear dynamics (1) around the steady state of-charge of the ES does not change). Finally, the damping of
values and get a good approximation of how the system the closed-loop system (3) can be evaluated by computing the
behaves due to inter-area oscillations. The linearized dynamics eigenvalues of the matrix Ā.
can be written as
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), (2) In this section we present simulation results for the example
two-area power system shown in Figure 1. We analyze a 25
where x(t) and u(t) denote the state and input vectors,
second window in which the system is excited by a three-phase
respectively, as described after (1). The matrix A ∈ R30×30
to ground fault at bus 7 at t = 0.5 [s], and the fault is cleared
encodes the system dynamics, and B ∈ R30×6 is the input
at time 0.505 [s]. After the fault, we investigate the effect
matrix.
that active power injections from multiple combinations of ES
The feedback control can be written as a function of the
devices have on the system’s damping. There are 63 different
states so that the closed-loop dynamics can be written as
ES injection combinations available, but we only present 25
ẋ(t) = Āx(t), (3) combinations that are representative of the options available.
All simulations of the nonlinear system are performed using
where the Power System Toolbox [22] in MATLAB.
The initial conditions of the system after solving the load
Ā = A + BSK, flow are as follows: The initial loads in areas 1 and 2
are (PL1 , QL1 ) = (12.67, 1.00) [pu] and (PL2 , QL2 ) = TABLE II
(14.67, 1.00) [pu], respectively, and the generators are loaded P ERFORMANCE R ESULTS ( ALL VALUES ARE IN PER UNIT )
as follows (all values are in per unit): ES kΩ1 − Ω2 k2 kukmax
Case injections kd = 200 500 kd = 200 500
P1 = 7.00 Q1 = 2.09 V1 = 1.03∠0.87° 1 1,6 0.00299 0.00239 0.0549 0.1349
P2 = 7.00 Q2 = 2.93 V2 = 1.01∠ − 8.96° 2 1,2,5,6 0.00309 0.00247 0.0275 0.0676
3 1,3,4,6 0.00320 0.00258 0.0276 0.0678
P3 = 7.01 Q3 = 1.52 V3 = 1.03∠ − 6.8° 4 1,2,3,4,5,6 0.00320 0.00258 0.0184 0.0452
5 2,5 0.00320 0.00258 0.0552 0.1356
P4 = 7.00 Q4 = 1.55 V4 = 1.01∠ − 16.50° 6 3,4,6 0.00333 0.00271 0.0553 0.1362
7 3,4,5,6 0.00333 0.00271 0.0553 0.1362
Table II shows damping control performance results from 8 1,3,4 0.00334 0.00271 0.0553 0.1362
a numerical analysis of the two-area power system shown in 9 1,2,3,4 0.00334 0.00271 0.0553 0.1362
10 2,3,4,5 0.00334 0.00271 0.0277 0.0681
Figure 1 after a three-phase to ground fault occurs at bus 7 11 3,4,5 0.00342 0.00278 0.0554 0.1364
with active power injections from ES devices, as shown in 12 2,3,4 0.00342 0.00279 0.0554 0.1364
Figure 2. Results are shown for two values of the control gain, 13 6 0.00344 0.00282 0.0559 0.1367
14 1 0.00349 0.00286 0.0555 0.1369
kd = 200 and kd = 500. These values can be chosen based 15 3,4 0.00351 0.00287 0.0555 0.1367
on the size of the ES devices; we choose two values to show 16 5,6 0.00355 0.00291 0.0278 0.0685
how damping performance improves with larger injections. 17 1,2 0.00359 0.00296 0.0278 0.0686
18 4,6 0.00366 0.00302 0.0278 0.0687
The rows of Table II are organized by resulting performance 19 4,5,6 0.00366 0.00302 0.0186 0.0458
so that the combination of ES devices that produce the best 20 5 0.00367 0.00302 0.0557 0.1373
damping are at the top, and the result with no injections is at 21 1,3 0.00371 0.00307 0.0279 0.0688
22 1,2,3 0.00372 0.00307 0.0186 0.0459
the bottom. The order is not affected by considering different 23 2 0.00372 0.00307 0.0557 0.1375
values for kd . The first column gives a case number, and the 24 4,5 0.00381 0.00316 0.0279 0.0689
second column shows the combination of ES injections used 25 2,3 0.00387 0.00321 0.0279 0.0690
Base none 0.00549 0.00549 0 0
for that case. The third and fourth columns show the value of
the 2-norm of the difference between Ω1 and Ω2 , for kd = 200 8 8
and kd = 500, respectively, from time 0 to 25 seconds. This
metric quantifies damping performance (i.e., a smaller value of 6 6
the 2-norm means that the system is better damped). Finally,
the fifth and sixth columns show the value of the max-norm of 4 4

the input vector u for the entire simulation (i.e., the maximum
2 2
absolute value of u), thereby quantifying the size of the largest
injection commanded by the damping controller.
0 0
The A and B matrices in the linearized dynamics (2) can -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

be found using the Power System Toolbox [22], and then the
eigenvalues of Ā can be determined. The eigenvalues for four
cases are shown in Figure 3. For those same four cases, Figure
4 shows simulation results of the nonlinear system. Figure 5
shows the corresponding injections that produce the responses
shown in Figure 4. Naturally, increasing the control gain kd
from 200 to 500 increases the size of the injections, and the
damping performance improves.
A. Discussion
Any injections from ES devices improve the damping per-
formance regardless of how many or where they are located.
In order to get the best improvement in damping performance,
however, the number of injections and their locations are
crucial as, depending on the choice of these options, damping
performance may improve 29.5% to 45.5% when kd = 200
and 41.5% to 56.5% when kd = 500. Moreover, carefully
choosing the number and locations of smaller injections can
produce better damping performance than larger injections that
are not carefully chosen. For example, injections from ES 1
and 6 with kd = 200 produce better results than injections
from ES 4 and 6 with kd = 500, and the largest injections are
1.25 times smaller.
(a) kd = 200 (b) kd = 500
Fig. 3. Least damped eigenvalues of Ā when ES devices 1 and 6 are used
(Case 1), when all six ES devices are used (Case 4), and when ES devices
3 and 4 are used (Case 15). The least damped eigenvalues corresponding to
the inter-area oscillation move farther to the left as kd increases. Eigenvalues
symmetric about the Real Axis are not shown.
All of these results are consistent with the results in [15];
better performance is achieved when using injections from ES
devices in the area with lower inertia. In this example, area
2 has lower inertia, so using only an injection from ES 6
produces better results than using only an injection from ES
1. Similarly, using only an injection from ES 5 produces better
results than using only an injection from ES 2. The same is
true for multiple injections in each area; injections from ES
5 and ES 6 provide better results than injections from ES 1
and ES 2, etc. This is further confirmed by computing the
eigenvalues of Ā for these cases. Figures 6 and 7 show the
corresponding eigenvalues and numerical results for some of
these cases, respectively.
As we saw previously, there is a natural correlation between
the size of injections and the damping performance. In general,
 -4
10
3 0.06

2 0.04

1 0.02

0 0

-1 -0.02

-2 -0.04

-3 -0.06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(a) kd = 200 (a) kd = 200

-4
10 0.15
3
0.1
2
0.05
1
0
0
-0.05
-1
-0.1
-2
-0.15
-3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(b) kd = 500
Fig. 4. Difference between the average machine speed in area 1 and area
2 after the fault. Injections from only ES devices 1 and 6 (Case 1) provide
the best damping, while injections from all six ES devices (Case 4) provide
better damping than injections from only ES devices 3 and 4 (Case 15).
(b) kd = 500
Fig. 5. Power injections when ES devices 1 and 6 are used (Case 1), when
all six ES devices are used (Case 4), and when ES devices 3 and 4 are used
(Case 15). Negative values imply power absorption. Note that the scales on
the y-axes are different.

8 8

larger injections produce better damping performance; how-

ever, there are diminishing returns on damping performance
as the size of injections increase. Figure 8 shows how the
improvement in damping performance diminishes as the size
of the largest injection increases for Case 1 as compared to no
6 6
4 4
2 2

injections. Furthermore, a number of smaller injections may

perform damping almost as well as fewer larger injections,
and, because the injections are smaller, may require smaller
and less expensive ES devices. For instance, when kd = 200,
the best performance is achieved using injections from ES
1 and ES 6, and the damping is improved by 45.5% over
the scenario where there are no injections. However, when
considering injections from ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 6, the
largest injections are half the size, and yet, the performance is
still 43.7% better than having no injections. Additionally, using
injections from all six ES devices produces 41.7% improved
damping performance over the case of no injections, and
the largest injections are three times smaller than when only
injections from ES 1 and ES 6 are considered.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
We investigated the use of active power injections from
distributed ES devices for damping inter-area oscillations in
an example two-area power system assuming the availability
of wide-area measurements of the generators’ machine speeds.
We looked at the effect that different numbers of injections as
well as ES location and size have on the damping performance.
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
(a) kd = 200 (b) kd = 500
Fig. 6. Least damped eigenvalues of the closed-loop matrix Ā when only
ES 1 is used (magenta +), only ES 6 is used (blue 4), only ES 2 is used
(black ×), and only ES 5 is used (green O). Injections in the area with lower
inertia (Area 2) produce better damping than injections in the same relative
location in Area 1. Again, the least damped eigenvalues corresponding to the
inter-area oscillation move farther to the left as kd increases. Eigenvalues
symmetric about the Real Axis are not shown.
We performed nonlinear simulations of the system subjected to
a three-phase to ground fault. Performance was quantified by
computing the 2-norm of the difference between the average
machine speeds in each of the two areas as well as the resulting
maximum injection size. Damping performance improves with
any size or number of injections but depends greatly on
the size, location, and number of injections. We discussed
the trade-offs between choosing different numbers, sizes, and
locations of injections.
For simplicity we did not consider constraints on the ES
 -4
3
10 R EFERENCES
2
[1] G. Rogers, Power system oscillations. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
1 [2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 1994.
0 [3] D. N. Kosterev, C. W. Taylor, and W. Mittelstadt, “Model validation
for the August 10, 1996 WSCC system outage,” IEEE Transactions on
-1 Power Systems, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 967–979, Aug. 1999.
[4] J. H. Chow, J. J. Sanchez-Gasca, H. Ren, and S. Wang, “Power system
-2
damping controller design using multiple input signals,” IEEE Control
-3 Systems Magazine, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 82–90, Aug. 2000.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [5] A. Chakrabortty, “Wide-area damping control of power systems using
dynamic clustering and TCSC-based redesigns,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1503–1514, Sept. 2012.
(a) kd = 200 [6] D. Trudnowski, D. Kosterev, and J. Undrill, “PDCI damping control
10-4 analysis for the western North American power system,” in Power and
3
Energy Soc. General Meeting, IEEE, Vancouver, BC, 2013, pp. 1–5.
2 [7] D. Trudnowski, B. Pierre, F. Wilches-Bernal, D. Schoenwald, R. Elliott,
J. Neely, R. Byrne, and D. Kosterev, “Initial closed-loop testing results
1 for the Pacific DC Intertie wide area damping controller,” in Power and
Energy Soc. General Meeting, IEEE, Chicago, IL, 2017, pp. 1–5.
0 [8] D. A. Schoenwald, B. J. Pierre, F. Wilches-Bernal, and D. J. Trudnowski,
“Design and implementation of a wide-area damping controller using
-1 high voltage dc modulation and synchrophasor feedback,” in 2017 IFAC
Word Congress, vol. 50, no. 1. Elsevier, 2017, pp. 67–72.
-2
[9] A. M. Vural, “Contribution of high voltage direct current transmission
-3 systems to inter-area oscillation damping: A review,” Renewable and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 57, pp. 892–915, 2016.
[10] P. F. Ribeiro, B. K. Johnson, M. L. Crow, A. Arsoy, and Y. Liu, “Energy
storage systems for advanced power applications,” Proceedings of the
(b) kd = 500
IEEE, vol. 89, no. 12, pp. 1744–1756, 2001.
[11] J. Neely, R. Byrne, R. Elliott, C. Silva-Monroy, D. Schoenwald, D. Trud-
Fig. 7. Injections in the area with lower inertia (Area 2) result in better
nowski, and M. Donnelly, “Damping of inter-area oscillations using
damping performance than injections in the same relative locations in the
energy storage,” in Power and Energy Soc. General Meeting, IEEE,
area with higher inertia (Area 1).
Vancouver, BC, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[12] Y. Mitani, K. Tsuji, and Y. Murakami, “Application of superconducting
70 magnet energy storage to improve power system dynamic performance,”
60
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1418–1425,
1988.
50 [13] B. C. Pal, A. H. Coonick, I. M. Jaimoukha, and H. El-Zobaidi, “A linear
matrix inequality approach to robust damping control design in power
40
systems with superconducting magnetic energy storage device,” IEEE
30 Transactions on power systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 356–362, 2000.
[14] X. Sui, Y. Tang, H. He, and J. Wen, “Energy-storage-based low-
20
frequency oscillation damping control using particle swarm optimization
10 and heuristic dynamic programming,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2539–2548, September 2014.
0 [15] R. H. Byrne, D. Trudnowski, J. Neely, R. Elliott, D. Schoenwald, and
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
M. Donnelly, “Optimal locations for energy storage damping systems in
the Western North American interconnect,” in IEEE Power and Energy
Fig. 8. Percentage improvement in damping performance for injections from Soc. General Meeting. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–5.
ES 1 and ES 6, as compared to no injections, for different values of kukmax . [16] J. Wu, J. Wen, H. Sun, and S. Cheng, “Feasibility study of segmenting
These values of kukmax result from choosing kd = 0 to kd = 1700. large power system interconnections with AC link using energy storage
technology,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
1245–1252, 2012.
[17] K. Divya and J. Østergaard, “Battery energy storage technology for
devices, such as maximum injection sizes, ramp rates, or power systems—an overview,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 79,
no. 4, pp. 511–520, 2009.
power factors. In future work, optimization-based approaches [18] R. H. Byrne, T. A. Nguyen, D. A. Copp, B. R. Chalamala, and I. Gyuk,
will be considered that can explicitly address these constraints. “Energy management and optimization methods for grid energy storage
systems,” IEEE Access, in press, 2017.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [19] Electric Power Research Institute, “Electrical energy storage technology
options,” http://www.epri.com, Tech. Rep., December 2010.
Funding for this research was provided by the Energy [20] M. Klein, G. Rogers, and P. Kundur, “A fundamental study of inter-area
oscillations in power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
Storage Program of the US DOE Office of Electricity Delivery vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 914–921, 1991.
and Energy Reliability. Sandia National Laboratories is a [21] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power system control and stability.
multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by National John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[22] J. H. Chow and K. W. Cheung, “A toolbox for power system dynamics
Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a and control engineering education and research,” IEEE Transactions on
wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1559–1564, Nov. 1992.
the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security
Administration under contract DE-NA-0003525.