PROTECTION & CONTROL

Are We Going
to Miss the Bus?
We may well miss the bus to stable, reliable and economic growth
to emission-less electrical energy unless we are prepared to
realistically grasp the engineering challenges posed by renewables.
By Phil Kreveld

I
n summary, the Australian networks with its load and generator
buses are the result of over a century of organic growth, a polite
way of expressing the knitting of an expanding national ‘electrical
cardigan’ without much of a pattern through multiple ad hoc decisions
but with well understood materials and knitting needles. The national
challenge we face is that we are unpicking the cardigan, replacing it
with some future pattern which is the subject of much heated and
uninformed debate but little or no overall engineering oversight. Not
only that but we are replacing traditional synchronous generation,
operating on the basis of universal control rules with inverter-based
generation whose operating rules are ‘commercial-in-con dence’. It
is a recipe for painful and expensive growth—one where, in spite of
Australia’s current vanguard position in the adoption of renewables,
we may well miss the bus to stable, reliable—and economic growth
to emission-less electrical energy.
THE ‘SYNCHRONOUS BUS’ IS DEPARTING AND WITH IT
THE INFINITE BUS!
AEMO’s integrated systems plan of July 2022 forecasts the NEM with
as much as 83% of demand being met by renewables by 2030. The
ISP step change contemplates the retirement by then of most of the
coal- red synchronous eet, these being ‘on the nose’ politically—as
well as increasingly commercially unviable. The ‘synchronous bus’ is
departing and with it the in nite bus! The in nite bus is, of course,
a mathematical concept, seldom re ected in reality. However,
synchronous generators subject to universal droop control, damping
and automatic voltage regulation do contribute as near as practical
to in nite buses where voltage, voltage angle and frequency are very
tightly constrained. Engineering and economic common sense would
indicate that grid design, grid control and market developments
should take the departure of synchronous generation into account
because it opens up a Pandora’s box of challenges for voltage, power
and frequency control. If we fail to implement reliable engineering
solutions, we embark on a hazardous bus trip of load shedding,
islanding and black-outs as more and more asynchronous generation
takes over from synchronous energy sources. This is not a rejection of
inverter-based resources associated with wind and solar generators as
well as batteries. Asynchronous, IBR generation is capable of working
reliably in the NEM grid but with somr critically important provisos:
new control mechanisms are required appropriate for a ‘ nite’, as
opposed to an ‘non- nite’, bus system and we need time to learn the
ropes. As yet there are no large grids elsewhere that can be used as a
template! Even in the NEM of the near future, but certainly by 2030,
variation in generator power and in load centre demand anywhere
within the grid can be expected to a ect distant buses as well.
To sum up the challenge: turbine-generator halls with four or more
generators connected in parallel to the power station bus are to be
replaced by lower rating battery energy storage system (BESS)-inverter
combos ‘here, there and everywhere’ rather than being connected in
parallel to provide strong synchronous sources. In aggregate total
MVA capacity, for a period of several or more hours, may well match
that of the lost synchronous capacity but instead of a station bus or
tie line providing strong synchronising electrical torque and 4 - to 6
- times overload capacity, BESS-inverter capacities will be separated
by transmission line impedances and voltage angles, requiring
synchronisation schemes that are still subject to experimentation.
Therefore, new forms of control will have to be based on wide-area
measurement systems (WAMS) taking into account latencies in
communication. It is reasonable to assume that the asynchronous
system of the future will be subject to di erent voltage and frequency
stability limits currently in force. That is of itself neither good nor
bad—as long as we can be con dent of system security.
At the time of writing, AEMO is facing a vexing question: are we
con dent of running a mainly asynchronous grid or do we ‘have a
bob each way’ and put in an order for forty synchronous condensers
(give or take $1.5 to 2 billion in capital costs) so as to meet 2030

28 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION JUNE-JULY 2023

 T D

targets—to have more assurance of stability and reliability. Loss of
system strength because of limited overload MVA capacity of IBR
makes syncons a solution in that they reduce line impedance—and
provide inertia, giving a control response respite of the order of a
second of time. That period is su cient for phase locked loops (PLL)
in IBR to lock onto new voltage angles while frequency has hardly
changed (phase angles have changed slowly!). On the other hand, we
could put our trust in over-rated BESS-voltage forming IBR capable of
providing MVA short circuit capacity that otherwise would have been
available had we kept our eet synchronous generators. That leads to
another question that AEMO does not pose but should: the growing
energy independence of distribution networks for many hours of the
day and the growth in community batteries. Making these look after
themselves as independent grids, could well prove simpler from a
control aspect and prove more economical than our present growth
path of more interconnectors, more augmentation such as syncons,
phase shifting transformers, series capacitors, etc.
THE CAPACITY TO DESIGN-IN STABILITY AND
RELIABILITY
The alternatives of synchronous static compensators (STATCOM),supplied
static var compensators (SVC) thyristor-controlled series capacitors
(TCSC) and other exible AC transmission system (FACTS) devices
expose us to a brave new world! It is not only the level of capital
expenditure that dictates choices in technology (for example, over-
rated BESS-IBR versus syncons) but more importantly, the capacity
to design-in stability and reliability. We can be sure of one thing—
operational experience will be hard won, and therefore some years
at the very least will be necessary in gaining it. Syncons may reduce
that time—it is hoped but rather than xing our gaze on one solution,
and in as much as the synchronous bus is about to leave us behind at
the bus stop, it is a better idea to grasp the nettle, rmly and develop
control architecture on the basis millisecond time bases typical of IBR
control loops.
Basically, this article assumes that Australia’s increasingly
asynchronous networks, abandoning the simplicity of in nite buses,
will require wide area monitoring systems (WAMS) based on phasors.
As a basis for discussion of control challenges in renewable grids, it is
useful to examine rst conventional synchronous generation because
it forms templates for asynchronous IBR. The important di erence is
that for synchronous generation there is over a century of practical
operating experience whereas we are on a learning curve in respect
of IBR.
short transmission lines and the bulk of power demand being met
by synchronous generators. Even when the NEM grid was hardly
in uenced by the intrusion of solar and wind generation, the in nite
bus simpli cation was challengeable because of long transmission
lines. Long, skinny networks are less ‘in nite’ than meshed networks,
typical of Western Europe.
The diagram referring to the in nite bus shows that variations on
load, P a ect power factor, φ and the power angle, δ. Field voltage,
Ef in (a) is kept constant by keeping excitation current, If constant.
Disregarding armature resistance, the expression relating armature
current, Ia to bus voltage, Vt is given by:
==
or
== ==
The parameters in red are constants and power factor, cos φ
The parameters in red are constants and power factor, cos φ in green
is determined by the load, consuming power, P. The Ef vector, being
constant in magnitude, describes an arc as load current, Ia varies. The
reactive
by thecomponent
generator supplied by the
is Ia Vt sin generator is IaVt sin φ. Therefore:
φ . Therefore:
+ =
+ =
is given by:
or reactive power, Q is given by:
−
= −
=
The simplicity of these formulas is deceptive as they hide the time
variability in power, voltage and impedance, simpli ed as inductive
impedance, Xa to the in nite bus (including the reactance of the
generator) with assumed phasor, Vt ej0 . Frequency, ω stability also
has to be considered. Without a ecting the validity of frequency
stability considerations, etc, a 2-pole machine can serve as basis for
discussion so that shaft speed and frequency are identical values. The
angular acceleration/deceleration of the synchronous generator rotor
is determined by the relationship, T (torque) equals moment of inertia
multiplied by angular acceleration/deceleration. Power is derived
from torque multiplied by angular velocity.
Therefore:
− =
And

− =

Note: Tm,e and Pm,e are respectively machine (m) and electrical (e)
torque, (T) and power, P. J is the combined moment of inertia of the
machine, e.g., a turbine, and generator. The above expressions are the
swing equations. Rather than large power angle, δ angle excursions,
i.e., assuming small signal stability δ = δ0 + ∆δ the swing equation
describes ∆δ variations centred on δ0.

Therefore:
∆
− ( +∆ )= �
is the angular momentum, Jω of the machine and generator and
Where M is
Where M the
is theangular momentum, Jω of the machine and generator
angular momentum,
and = �.. The sine function can be linearised by the Taylor series.
,∆.
Also in a practical system, damping is required, proportional to ,/ to
Figure 1 aid the return to stability following a change in the value ofThe power.
swing equation can
The diagrams as shown in Figure 1 show the limitations in synchronous The swing equation can then be written:
generator control provided by the in nite bus concept. In short, an ∆ ∆
individual synchronous generator’s behaviour is constrained by − ( +( )∆ ) = + �
being connected to a constant voltage and frequency bus, formed by
many other synchronous generators. The in nite bus is a theoretical If the generator was initially operating stably then Pm would be equal
concept, simplifying generator control. It is appropriate to electrically to Pmax sin δ0.
Continued over 4
www.powertrans.com.au TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION 29
 PROTECTION & CONTROL
Continued from page 29
Where D is the damping coe cient. The above formula can be written
more simply:
∆ ∆
+ + ∆ = �
, i.e., : d in order to generate quadrature as well as in-phase components. The
,1$
Where Ps is ,. at δ0, i.e., :Pmax cos δ0
The foregoing discussion based on the synchronous generator is
useful in understanding the required behaviour of those IBR replacing
synchronous generators, and in the types of measurements that will
have to be made in extended grids.
4 5(
The roots to the above time function equation are: − ±
It is therefore evident only in cases where D2 ≥ 4P Mthere
4PmaxM therewillwill
be no
no oscillation of the voltage angle ∆δ. However, speed of response to
load changes requires only su cient damping, less then critical, so
that oscillation of the power angle takes place.
The swing equations when translated to actual operation of an
extensive grid point to the need for complex stability control result power
measures. In practice, local area and interarea oscillation of power
angles due to the variations in power demand cannot be avoided;
therefore, limitation of power angle swings and rate of swinging is
all-important to prevent mechanical damage to turbines and power
swings causing the operation of protection equipment. In early days
piston engine-generator sets were used and they experienced power
angle stability problems because of engine torque vibration. Small
grids with only a few generators minimised power angle instability
and when turbines were introduced, these torque vibrations were
eliminated. The development and maturation of stability control
has taken well over a century. The replacement of synchronous
generators by inverters will cause a new set of stability problems
for which we do not yet have answers. As further explained, basic
to stability control will be the wide deployment of synchrophasor
measurement units (PMU). In some ways, they can be seen as proxies
for transient electromagnetic measurement (EMT)—not theoretically
appropriate, but much simpler to deploy and to incorporate in new
control systems.
Furthermore, the voltage forming IBR has to be able to provide
power and reactive power according to:
= generator, be it diesel-generator or other synchronous source.
− the task. Yet there are studies aplenty of load sharing, voltage forming
=
THE PROBLEM IN WEAK GRIDS
That said, the problem in weak grids, i.e., those with limited short
circuit capacity and generally low X/R ratios, real power, P and reactive
power Q interact, complicating power-frequency and reactive power-
voltage droop controls. In weak grids the above equations are:
= @ + − A bus n is Pn + jQn and at bus 2, a load bus, power is also variable and is
+
= @ − − A
+ ∗
With R/X as a large ratio, power, P becomes dependent on voltage,
and Q dependent on angle.
For IBR there is no natural armature reaction as occurs in
synchronous generators, providing the voltage angle relationship
δ, so that it needs to be created for voltage forming tasks. Whether
grid following or grid (voltage) forming, the heart of voltage or
current sourced inverters is the sinewave pulse width modulation
process for creating AC current, voltage and power. SPWM requires
a carrier frequency of several or more kilohertz converting a sine
wave oscillator voltage into pulses at carrier frequency, therefore
contributing to high frequency harmonics, normally attenuated by
30 TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION
line inductance and ltering at the inverter output terminals. In grid
following IBR, a PLL locks onto the grid voltage and xes the phase of
the sinewave oscillator in relation to the grid voltage to either form
an in-phase current with grid voltage or a speci ed phase di erence
voltage forming task requires the comparison of output voltage and
current phasors with similar reference values as well as frequency
comparison with a reference value. In principle the droop equations:
= −
= −
= − d
)
be where Kq, Kω and Kδ are droop constants that provide for voltage
forming and frequency but as is evident from the real and reactive
power relations for weak grids, the above relationships cannot apply
because of interaction between P and Q. One way of resolving
the interaction is by introducing a virtual impedance in control
transfer functions of an IBR. A virtual inductor would result in a
equation:
in a power equation:
=
= (( −− )) ≈ ≈ ∆
∆
and:
(( − − )) −− −
−
= ≈
= ≈
where ωLvirt is ‘virtually’ interposed between the grid connection
and the inverter H-bridges coupling points, δ1 and δ2 are the phasors
at the H bridges coupling points and the grid. ∆δ is the angular
di erence with respect to δ2, the phasor at the inverter connection
point to the grid and it can be expected to be a variable. It is not a
problem perse for the droop control as V2 δ2 is the reference value
for the IBR. However, what can be increasingly expected is that the
phasor will oscillate and/or jump about through load variations and
the e ects of other IBR. The droop equation for power cited above is
modi ed for the reason that unlike synchronous generators, whose
frequency relates directly to mechanical revolutions per second, an
IBR can use a sinewave oscillator whose phase can be advanced or
retarded. From present microgrid practice we learn that physical
embodiments have just one (or paralleled set) voltage forming
Alternately a single battery-energised voltage forming inverter ful lls
IBR—as mathematical models! AEMO’s ISP contemplates a ‘mega’ grid,
in essence based on mathematical models described for small-scale
networks and to all intents and purposes assumes load sharing and
stability challenges will not exist!
Let’s insert ourselves in a network, (see Figure 2, opposite page)
i.e, between bus n, and n + 1, with admittance Yn Ɵn. At bus n,
assuming there is no power consumption, the voltage phasor is
Vn e jδn and at bus n + 1, Vn+1 e jδn+1. The (variable) power ow into
Pn+1 + jQn+1. The only constant is the admittance. At bus n,
( + )=| | H@| | −| C | * A| | J
At bus n + 1,
( + )=| | * ( )∗
C C C C
Where∗(In+1)* a conjugate vector of the load current at bus n + 1 and
)
its voltage is also determined by the power ow to more distant
buses, determined by Kirchho ’s law. Let’s situate an IBR at bus
n + 2, also supplying the load bus and we notice that |Vn+1 |e jδn+1
is subject to uctuation and a (a frequency oscillation) indicating
instability. We might judge that the load
should be should be mainly
mainly supplied supplied by
by the
the n + 2 IBR and therefore need to send it a power control instruction
JUNE-JULY 2023
 T D

or alternately other IBR downstream from bus n may need to alter reactive
power, for example. Of course, one can dismiss the above scenario as
unrealistic but it is in truth unimaginable that with in nite buses a thing
of the past, we can assume that generators will just know how to load
share and supervise stability. The proprietary designs of IBR, at best
described by shorthand mathematical models su cient to pass AEMO
EMT tests for grid access militate a large potential for stability problems.
Figure 2
As bus voltages, current and power ow become more subject to short-
time variation because the need for phasor monitoring. Phasors are RMS
measurands and this is seen as a disadvantage for networks subject to
electromagnetic transients. However, within-period sampling can
provide a moving average and this is of great advantage for network
control. A phasor can be described by the function:
= L ∆ + ∆ N
In whichInthe phasor
which the phasor d varies
angle, angle, with time
δ varies and and
with time ∆ ∆tissthe sampling
is the samplinginterval. A
interval. A change of phase angle with time implies a frequency change
but an assumption is made that the underlying network frequency in
radians/sec, ω is a constant. X is assumed to be an RMS measurand and
there is a tacit assumption that is slow compared to ω. In the case of
. In the case ofsynchronous
synchronous generators, the oscillation
generators, the oscillation frequency of the voltage angle, δ
is of the order of sub-cycles/second but as already is being experienced
with IBR in low short circuit ratio networks, frequencies are in the tens
of hertz. Applying classical AC circuit laws irrespective of whether IBR
or synchronous generators energise circuits is a priori questionable.
Nevertheless, it represents a sensible stating point, utilising state-based
measurements, e.g., EMT only in some instances. Extraction of phasors can
be achieved by discrete Fourier transform analyses. Synchronising their
sampling via GPS can provide a very useful time-synchronised snapshot
across virtually all the nodes/busbars of network. However, sorting out
useful data from a very large number of observations is a major task.
RAPID ACHIEVEMENT OF STABILITY
The question as to the necessity for inertia was posed above. For
example, there is the case made for the retention of rotating inertia,
mechanically (
ωm as supplied mechanically )
via synchronous generators
motors. Inertia is seen to provide periods of perhaps 50 to
and directly connected AC motors. Inertia is seen to provide periods
of perhaps 50 to 100 cycles decreased rate of change of frequency
(RoCoF) as power demand changes occur therefore providing time for
engine governors to respond with new power settings of prime movers.
However, IBR, for example grid following inverters, via their PLL are able
to respond within milliseconds. Therefore, inertia would not appear
a requirement as changes of power injection to boost or decrease
frequency can be made rapidly. In practice, a particular grid following
IBR connected to a very strong bus experiencing a change in frequency,
would respond stably, i.e., with some overshoot but rapid achievement
of stability. With in nite buses gone, and extended networks with mainly
IBR sources, frequency oscillations between them would result as a result
of their PLLs functioning with varying time constants. To counteract this,
synthetic inertia voltage forming IBR as replacement for synchronous
generators are being trialled. In essence this requires modelling of the IBR
control loops to re ect the swing equation shown below in frequency
mode. It should be noted that the incorporation of the swing equation is
one of the techniques available but the simplest to understand.
+ + =
Where ∂ is the Laplace transform of ∆δ. There are a number of transfer
functions for IBR feedback that can mimic the above equation.
However, the absence of synchronising torque in IBR-only grids leaves a
trail of question marks. We would be well advised to retain at least a 30%
synchronous capacity level while we learn to interpret the observations
of a national WAMS based on synchrophasor monitoring.

Experts in Power Quality

MIRO-F Transfomer Monitor and Logger - Transformer Monitoring

Made Easy. Comprehensive monitoring at a fraction of the price!

MIRO-F TxM
The CHK Power Quality
Miro-F TxM Transformer
Monitor and Logger is a
precision power quality
instrument, ideal for
permanent installations
and specifically designed
for comprehensive and
reliable transformer
monitoring. Features includes
Transformer Loss of Life,
Harmonic Loss Factor,
Factor K, K Factor and more!

Address: Unit 1, 3 Tollis Place, Seven Hills, NSW 2147, Sydney, Australia Tel: +61 2 8283 6945 Fax: +61 2 8212 8105
Website: www.chkpowerquality.com.au Enquiries: sales@chkpowerquality.com.au

www.powertrans.com.au TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION 31