Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65 – 70

Tangent vector applied to voltage collapse and loss sensitivity

studies
A.C. Zambroni de Souza *
Grupo de Engenharia de Sistemas, Escola Federal de Engenharia de Itajubá, A6. BPS, 1303, Bairro Pin heirinho, CEP 37500 -000 -Itajubá,
MG, Brazil
Received 23 February 1998; accepted 30 March 1998

Abstract

The search for a reliable and computationally efficient index for voltage security analysis has been the subject of concern of
many researchers. Recently, a method based on the tangent vector technique has been shown to be accurate as a voltage stability
index and also as an indicator of the system weak area. This technique is tested in this paper with different load scenarios. The
tangent vector technique is then used as a tool for determination of system loss sensitivity. This new application for the tangent
vector technique is tested in the IEEE-14 bus system test. © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tangent vector; Voltage collapse; Loss sensitivity

1. Introduction bifurcation manifold [7], but may be time consuming

Many electric power systems around the world have
experimented voltage collapse problems [1]. The discus-
sions about the nature of the problems have shown that
a system may reach a voltage collapse point through
small perturbations. This characteristic, as well as other
considerations, allow one to use the power flow model
to study the dynamic behavior of a system [2,3]. This
model, used in this paper, is enough to identify the
voltage collapse point as a saddle-node.
The search for an index that predicts the voltage
collapse (or bifurcation) point has been widely ad-
dressed in the literature. The idea is to estimate the load
variation for a known operating point at which the
system remains stable. Claudio et al. [4] compare sev-
eral static voltage stability indices and conclude that
when reactive power limits are considered, no index is
capable of predicting the bifurcation point, due to the
discontinuity observed in the index behavior as the
system is loaded. Because of this feature, continuation
power flows have been widely employed in the litera-
ture to determine the bifurcation point [5,6]. This
method finds the bifurcation point and also traces the
* Tel.: + 55 35 6291242; fax: +55 35 6291187; e-mail: zam-
broni@iee.efei.br
for a large power system.
A method that produces results as accurate as those
obtained by continuation power flows within a reason-
able computational time is proposed by Zambroni de
Souza et al. [8]. Such a method is based on the behavior
of the largest tangent vector component as a function
of load increase. The tangent vector is calculated as a
predictor step in continuation power flows. The appli-
cation of this vector as a voltage security index is recent
and the results reported [8] show this technique as being
very attractive, even when dealing with large systems.
Therefore, this technique is employed in this paper
when different operating load scenarios are considered.
The tangent vector technique may be easily incorpo-
rated into any power flow program. The good results
obtained through this technique for voltage collapse
analysis are extended in this paper for loss sensitivity
studies. This approach identifies the bus or buses whose
capacitor installation most reduces the overall system
losses. It is shown that this bus may not be the system
critical bus from the point of view of voltage collapse;
by critical bus one means the bus whose state variables
changes most when a load increase occurs at the bifur-
cation point.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 relates
to tangent vector determination, while Section 3 intro-

0378-7796/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.

PII S0378-7796(98)00048-0
66 A.C. Zambroni de Souza / Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65–70

duces the quadratic extrapolation method used to de-
termine the bifurcation point. Section 4 proposes the
loss sensitivity technique based on tangent vector. Sec-
tion 5 shows the results obtained by the technique when
the IEEE-14 bus system test is employed and Section 6
gives the conclusions of this work.
bifurcation point. This drawback may be overcome
through the methodology proposed in the next section.
3. Bifurcation point determination by quadratic
extrapolation

The technique proposed in by Zambroni de Souza et

2. Tangent vector
The power flow model used in this paper is repre-
sented by the set of equations:
f(x, l) = 0
where l is the parameter that drives the system from
one stable equilibrium point to another and represents
the state variables. Tangent vector shows how the state
variables change with loading and may be obtained
from the load-flow Jacobian matrix. Assuming that an
operating point is known, then
ÆDP gÇ ÆDu gÇ
à DP l à =[J]à Du l Ã
ÈDQ lÉ ÈDV lÉ
where g represents the generators and l represents the
load buses. The inverse is given by
ÆDu gÇ ÆDP gÇ
à Du l à = [J] à DP l Ã
−1
ÈDV lÉ ÈDQ lÉ
The load is increased as follows:
Pi = Pi0(1+Dl)Qi = Qi0(1 + Dl)
where Pi and Qi are the active and reactive loads after
the parameter l is varied and Pi0 and Qi0 are the initial
active and reactive loads at bus i. Active power genera-
tion is increased in the same way. Therefore,
DPi =Pi0 Dl and DQi =Qi0 Dl
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (3) yields
al. for bifurcation point determination [8] is described
in this section. Let us assume that an initial operating
point (associated with l1) and its tangent vector are
known. Hence, one knows the initial critical bus of the
system, i.e. that associated with the largest entry in the
(1)
tangent vector. If the system is slightly loaded, another
operating point (function of l2) and its tangent vector
may be calculated. If it is assumed that the tangent
vector index provides quadratic behavior as a function
of load increase, the following methodology may be
proposed.
(1) For an initial operating point, slightly load the
system to obtain another operating point. Determine
the tangent vector associated with both operating
(2) points. Store the largest entry for each one.
(2) Calculate the quadratic function parameters for
the expression tg(l)= al 2 + c, where tg(l) is the inverse
of the largest entry in the tangent vector of the load-
flow Jacobian and l is the system parameter. Therefore,
it is a set of two equations for two unknown variables,
since a and c are to be determined. The parameter c is
(3) the initial guess for the bifurcation point (l*), i.e. the
point at which the function crosses the l axis. Apply
the value (l*) to generation and load.
(3) If the system of equations converges to a solu-
tion, go to Step 1. Otherwise, calculate a new l from
(4)
the expression
l*new = (l* − l2)/2 +l2 (7)
If the load-flow equations converge when l*new is
applied to load and generation, go to Step 1. Otherwise,
l*new becomes l* in Eq. (7)and another l*new is evalu-
(5)
ated. This process converges to l0, which is the bifurca-
tion point.

ÆDu gÇ ÆP g0Ç
1
à Du l à =[J] à P l0 Ã
−1
(6)
Dl
ÈDV lÉ ÈQ l0É
The investigation of tangent vector behavior as a
function of load increase is exploited by Zambroni de
Souza et al. [8], where a comparison between a tangent
vector and a right Eigenvector is shown for the purpose
of critical bus identification. It is concluded that the
tangent vector allows early identification of the critical
bus, which is not obtained by any other index. Zam-
broni de Souza et al. however [8], show that tangent
vector behavior does not allow one to predict the
4. Loss sensitivity based on tangent vector
The tangent vector calculated in Eq. (6) is used here
as a new tool for system loss sensitivity. This novel
approach is based on the information provided by
tangent vector, i.e. how state variables vary as a func-
tion of system parameter. The total system active power
losses are given by:
nl
Psystem = % VikVjk (Gk (cos (d(ij )k )+ cos (d( ji )k ))
k=1
− Gk (V 2ik + V 2jk) (8)
 A.C. Zambroni de Souza / Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65–70 67

Assume in Eq. (6) that the right-hand side is slightly

perturbed through a capacitor installation at a generic
load bus ‘l’. The new tangent vector may be obtained
without the need to calculate the new operating point.
If Eq. (9) is then calculated, the active power losses
variation as a function of parameter l (capacitor instal-
lation at bus ‘l’) is known. Taking ‘l’ as all system load
buses, one by one, computation of Eqs. (6) and (9)
indicates the load bus, or buses, whose capacitor instal-
lation most reduces the system active power losses.
Notice that in this process, a power flow program is
executed for the base case only. This idea will be tested
in the next section.

5. Results

The tests presented in this section are carried out in

the IEEE-14 bus system test1 shown in Fig. 1 and are
divided in two parts: in Section 5.1, voltage collapse
point is determined for some different operating scenar-
ios and in Section 5.2, system loss sensitivities are
evaluated.

5.1. Voltage collapse point

Initially, the methodology proposed in Section 3 for

Fig. 1. IEEE-14 bus system.
where nl is the number of transmission lines; Vik and Vjk
are the voltage level at ends (i ) and ( j ) of transmission
line k; Gk is the transmission line k susceptance; and
(ij )k represents the phase angle between buses i and j.
If Eq. (8) is derived in relation to system parameter l,
voltage collapse point determination is employed. The
bifurcation point, when generators reactive power limits
are neglected, is assessed as
l*= 4.11
This result is compared with the result obtained by
PFLOW [5] (l* = 4.08), where a continuation power

 
then
flow is used. As can be seen, the quadratic extrapola-
nl
dPsystem dVik dV dA tion method proposed by Zambroni de Souza et al. [8]
= % Gk Vjk + jk Vik A +VikVjk

 
dl k=1 dl dl dl provides good results, also emphasizing the shorter
dVik dVjk computational time involved in the quadratic extrapo-
−2Gk Vik + V (9) lation process. The voltage collapse point shown above
dl dl jk
has been evaluated assuming a load increase direction
where, A= Gk (cos (d(ij )k ) + cos (d( ji )k ) and dA/dl = as a function of the initial system loading. All load
Gk (2 sin (d( ji )k )(dd(i )k /dl − dd( j )k /dl)). buses have experimented load increase, up to the stage
Eq. (9) shows how active power losses vary as a where the voltage collapse point is encountered. This
function of system parameter. Notice that all the partial typical scenario has been widely exploited in the litera-
derivatives of Eq. (9) consist of tangent vector compo- ture. For this load increase direction, the critical bus is
nents, known from Eq. (6). Therefore, computing Eq. evaluated as Bus 14. It is known that different load
(9) is not time consuming. increase directions may provide different bifurcation
points [9]. This situation has been exhaustively studied
Table 1
Load margin for little bus load variation
in the literature. However, in order to check whether
the technique proposed in Section 3 works properly for
Load increase at buses Critical bus Load margin different load scenarios, some situations are considered.
(l)

14 14 8.1
9, 13, 14 (Level 1) 14 4.8
1
9, 13, 14, 12, 6, 10, 7, 4 (Level 2) 14 4.1 Test system data are available by anonymous ftp at wa-
hoo.ee.washington.edu
68 A.C. Zambroni de Souza / Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65–70

Fig. 2. Load margin for polynomial load model.

5.1.1. Load increase in part of the system
The idea of analyzing load increase in part of the
system arises for two reasons: (1) simulating a real
situation, such as a sudden load increase in a particu-
lar system bus; and (2) obtaining the system response
analyzing a reduced part of the system only.
Item (2) above refers to network partitioning analy-
sis. Vargas and Quintana [10] propose a network par-
titioning technique based on Eigenvalue
decomposition, whereas Cañizares et al. [9] show many
different network partitioning techniques. The re-
ported results [9] have been improved by Zambroni de
Souza [11], where the knowledge of the critical bus is
incorporated to the techniques proposed by Cañizares
et al. [9] in the following way: (a) from the critical
bus, create an initial area formed by this bus and its
first neighbors. (Level 1); and (b) create a new level
formed by the buses considered in level 1 and its
neighbor buses.
Network partitioning technique is beyond the goal
of this work. The interested reader should refer to
Cañizares et al. [9] and Zambroni de Souza [11]. These
references show that a good partitioning from the
critical bus identifies the critical area, i.e. that where
voltage collapse starts. However, critical bus identifica-
tion does not allow one to obtain good results if load
increase is not considered for all the buses contained
in the critical area. In contrast, some buses may expe-
rience a sudden load variation and this consideration
may be analyzed here; Table 1 summarizes this
scenario.
From Table 1, one can see that as the level is
increased, the subsystem load margin becomes closer
to the result obtained for the whole system. The result
obtained for Level 2 indicates that a good subsystem
(partition) has been obtained. Notice however, that
most of the system has been considered, leading one
to conclude that the network partitioning problem is
not trivial [11].
If a load increase is experienced by the whole sys-
tem except the critical bus, the following result is
obtained:
l= 4.6
The result above stresses the importance of critical
area identification. Notice that the load margin ob-
tained in this case is larger than in the base case, when
load is increased in the whole system. Another impor-
tant characteristic regarding this load increase scenario
relates to critical bus identification; this time, Bus 12
overtakes Bus 14 as the critical one.

Table 2 Table 3
Active loss variation (base case) Active loss variation (bifurcation point)

Bus Active power losses Bus Active power losses

4 0.0922 4 2.955
5 0.0921 5 2.9537
7 0.0916 7 2.9586
9 0.0915 9 2.9503
10 0.0914 10 2.9510
11 0.0917 11 2.9642
12 0.0917 12 2.9819
13 0.0912 13 2.9736
14 0.0911 14 2.9583
 A.C. Zambroni de Souza / Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65–70
5.1.2. Load ZIP model
Many works in the literature have shown that a static
system model may suffice for voltage collapse analysis,
although the phenomenon is recognized as a dynamic
event. Xu and Mansour [12] propose a dynamic load
model for voltage collapse analysis. In contrast, Dob-
son [13] shows that under certain considerations, the
dynamic load model may not be so relevant. However,
even when dealing with static load models, the bifurca-
tion point may vary significantly [14]. Fig. 2 shows the
results obtained when the following polynomial model
is employed: the amount of constant impedance is fixed
at 20%. The remaining 80% is varied between constant
power and constant current. The x-label shows the load
margin obtained when the constant power amount
shown in the y-label is considered. Notice that the
smaller the amount of constant power, the larger the
load margin.
5.2. loss sensiti6ity
This section employs the technique proposed in Sec-
tion 4. The idea is that for a known operating point, the
load bus which reduces the overall system losses when a
capacitor is installed is evaluated. This technique has
been implemented in MATLAB [15]. As mentioned in
Section 4, the evaluation of Eq. (9) does not require a
large computational effort. For the initial operating
point, Eq. (9) provides the following rank:
14, 9, 10, 5, 4, 7, 11, 13, 12
In order to prove the result stated above, Table 2 shows
the system active power losses when a capacitor of 0.1
p.u. is installed at each load bus.
Therefore, Bus 14 (the critical one) is the bus whose
capacitor installation most reduces the system losses.
Next, the system is driven to the bifurcation point and
loss sensitivity is calculated again, yielding:
14, 9, 10, 5, 4, 7, 11, 13, 12
Once more, the critical bus is indicated as the best one
for reduction of the overall system losses. Therefore, for
this case evaluating the critical bus at the initial point is
sufficient to identify the bus whose capacitor installa-
tion is more effective for system loss reduction at the
bifurcation point. However, there are situations where
the critical bus may change during the voltage collapse
process. This situation must be considered when analyz-
ing system loss reduction. In this work, such a situation
occurs when Bus 14 does not experience load increase.
Taking the system to the bifurcation point in this
scenario yields the ranking:
9, 10, 5, 4, 14, 7, 11, 13, 12
In this case, system losses are not maximally reduced
when the capacitor is installed at the critical bus (Bus
69
12). On the contrary, it is the worst candidate for this
purpose. Hence, loss reduction must be analyzed for
each operating point separately from voltage collapse
analysis. Table 3 shows the active power losses when a
capacitor of 0.1 p.u. is installed at each load bus. The
results shown in this table confirm the load buses rank
easily obtained via Eq. (9).
Comparing with Table 2, one can see that system
active losses are much larger in this case. This is
expected, since Table 3 has been evaluated at the
bifurcation point, where transmission lines are heavily
loaded.
6. Conclusions
A new and effective methodology for bifurcation
point is tested for different operating conditions. It is
shown that the method produces results depending on
load increase direction and load model. For any operat-
ing scenario, the bifurcation point is accurately deter-
mined. A novel methodology for system loss sensitivity
is also proposed. It is shown that the critical bus may
not provide the most effective results for loss reduction.
Regardless of the purpose of the analysis (voltage col-
lapse or loss reduction), tangent vector is shown to be
very effective, even though it does not allow the incor-
poration of a dynamic system model.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Brazilian agen-
cies CNPq, FAPEMIG and Finep/Recope (profect
0626/98-SAGE) for financial support and Professor
Armando M.L. da Silva, for his valuable comments.
References
[1] CIGRE WG 38.02 Task Force No. 10, Modelling of voltage
collapse including dynamic phenomena, Technical report of task
force 38-02-10, draft 3, CIGRE, June 1992.
[2] IEEE Work Group on Voltage stability, System Dynamic Per-
formance Subcommittee, Voltage Stability of Power Systems,
Technical report 90THO358-2-PWR, IEEE, 1990.
[3] P.W. Sauer, M.A. Pai, Power system steady-state stability and
the load-flow Jacobian, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 5 (4) (1990)
1374 – 1381.
[4] Claudio A. Cañizares, A.C. Zambroni de Souza, V.H. Quintana,
Comparison of performance indices for detection of proximity to
voltage collapse, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 11 (3) (1996) 1441–
1447.
[5] C.A. Cañizares, F.L. Alvarado, Point of Collapse and continua-
tion methods for large ac/dc systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8
(1) (1993) 1 – 8.
[6] A. Venkataramana, C. Collin, The continuation power flow: a
tool for steady-state voltage stability analysis, IEEE PICA Conf.
Proc., Baltimore, MD, May 1991, pp. 304 – 311.
70 A.C. Zambroni de Souza / Electric Power Systems Research 47 (1998) 65–70
[7] R. Seydel, From Equilibrium to Chaos—Practical Bifurcation
and Stability Analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988.
[8] A.C. Zambroni de Souza, C.A. Cañizares, V.H. Quintana,
Critical bus and point of collapse determination using tangent
vectors, 28th North American Power Symp., Cambridge, MA,
November 10 – 12, 1996, pp. 329–333.
[9] C.A. Cañizares, A.C. Zambroni de Souza, V.H. Quintana, Im-
proving continuation methods for tracing bifurcation diagrams
in power systems, in: L.H. Fink (Ed.), Proc. Bulk Power Sys-
tem Voltage Phenomena III—Voltage Stability and Security,
ECC Inc., Davos, Switzerland, 1994, pp. 349–358.
[10] L. Vargas, V.H. Quintana, Clustering techniques for
voltage collapse detection, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 26 (1993)
53 – 59.
[11] A.C. Zambroni de Souza, New methods to efficiently deter-
.
mine proximity to static voltage collapse, PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Waterloo, Ont., 1995.
[12] W. Xu, Y. Mansour, Voltage stability using generic dynamic
load models, IEEE/PES Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH, Jan-
uary 31 – February 5, 1993.
[13] I. Dobson, The irrelevance of load dynamics for the loading
margin to voltage collapse and its sensitivities, in: L.H. Fink
(Ed.), Proc. Bulk Power System Voltage Phenomena III—
Voltage Stability and Security, ECC Inc., Davos, Switzerland,
1994, pp. 509 – 518.
[14] F.L. Alvarado, Voltage stability including detailed load mod-
els, in: L.H. Fink (Ed.), Proc. Bulk Power System Voltage
Phenomena III — Voltage Stability and Security, ECC Inc.,
Davos, Switzerland, 1994, pp. 471 – 475.
[15] MATLAB, The Math Works Inc., Natick, MA, 1993.
.