This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.

This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

Power Swing in Systems with Inverter-Based

Resources—Part II: Impact on Protection Systems
Mohamad-Amin Nasr and Ali Hooshyar , Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—After introducing and analytically proving the dis-
tinctive dynamics associated with power swing of inverter-based
resources (IBRs) in Part I, Part II of this paper investigates the
implications of such dynamics for power system protection. The
paper sheds light on some of the major consequences of IBRs’
unique power swing patterns. The study employs theoretical
analysis and detailed PSCAD/EMTDC simulation models to
unveil the shortcomings of the conventional wisdom regarding
the power swing characteristics of IBRs. The paper offers new
insights into the operation of transmission line relays during
power swing conditions. This part of the study is supported by
extensive testing of commercial relays. The findings of this paper
will provide guidance for future IBR interconnection standards,
the design of inverter control schemes, the power swing detection
methods used by relays, and the appropriate relay settings.
Index Terms—Inverter-based resources (IBRs), large-signal
disturbances, power swing, transmission line relays.
I. I NTRODUCTION
P ART I of this paper developed a novel state-space model
to analyze the power swing characteristics of systems
with inverter-based resources (IBRs) and synchronous ma-
chines (SMs) [1]. The paper identified and mathematically
represented the specific elements of an IBR control system
and the corresponding inverter parameters that affect power
swings after a fault. As a consequence, the developed model
enables assessing the combined impact of IBRs and SMs
on active power oscillations following a fault. This impact
analysis includes the range of frequency components in the
voltage angle variations under different system conditions,
along with the origin of each component.
To ensure system stability after large-signal disturbances,
it is crucial to accurately distinguish between stable power
swings and faults [2]. For this purpose, transmission line relays
primarily assess the swing frequency. The prevailing notion in
the available literature is that the decrease in system inertia
caused by IBRs can raise the swing frequency and potentially
hinder the reliable detection of power swing conditions by
relays [3], [4], [5], [6]. Part II of this paper will investigate if
the heightened swing frequency resulting from reduced system
inertia poses the primary challenge for power swing detection
of line relays in systems with IBRs, or if there are other
aspects of the IBRs’ dynamics that could adversely affect these
relays in a more significant manner. The findings will provide
This work was supported by the Khalifa University of Science and
Technology under Grant CIRA-2020-013.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G4, Canada (email:
ma.nasr@mail.utoronto.ca; hooshyar@ece.utoronto.ca).
guidance for future IBR interconnection standards, parameter
tuning of inverter controllers, determining appropriate proce-
dures for the power swing detection component of relays, and
the potential need for modifying these elements.
The power swing frequency is directly reflected in the rate of
change of apparent impedance, which is the primary param-
eter examined by practical power swing detection methods
discussed in [7], [8], [9], [10]. This poses several critical
questions:
1) How can the dynamic model developed in Part I of the
paper be utilized to derive analytical expressions that
describe the rate of change of impedance measured by
relays in systems with IBRs?
2) How can these expressions be employed to analytically
investigate the performance of power swing blocking
schemes of transmission line relays?
3) Do the behaviors of real-world, commercial relays repli-
cate the findings from this paper?
4) What would be the system-wide implications of any
potential relay malfunction caused by the IBRs’ uncon-
ventional power swing characteristics?
5) How can the power swing-related issues in systems with
IBRs be mitigated?
Each of the following five sections presents an answer to
one of these questions.
II. R ATE OF C HANGE OF I MPEDANCE IN
G RIDS WITH IBR S
The first principle used by transmission line relays to
detect power swings is that the slow rotor dynamics of SMs
result in relatively small rates of impedance change for power
swings, whereas faults cause sudden changes in the apparent
impedance seen by the relay [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. To
determine the impact of IBRs on this approach, this section
investigates the rate of change of impedance in grids with
IBRs. The following analysis shows how the dynamics of
voltage angle at IBR and SM buses—which were determined
by the state-space model in [1]—can be used to derive closed-
form relations for the rate of impedance change at any location
in the system. These relations will form the basis for analyzing
the impact of IBRs on power swing detection techniques.
To determine the rate of change of impedance, consider the
transmission line in Fig. 1, which connects two subgrids that
include a mixture of IBRs and SMs. In this figure, |Vx |̸ δx
and |Vy |̸ δy denote the voltages at buses x and y, respectively;
Ix−y is the current flowing through the line; and Zx−y is

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

|V y | δ y |V x | δ x of impedance can be determined analytically if the voltage

angle dynamics at the two ends of the line in Fig. 1, i.e.,
Ix-y
Zx-y ∆δ(t) = δx (t) − δy (t), are known. The analytical expression
for ∆δ(t) is not straightforward to derive for grids with IBRs
Relay because the voltage angle dynamics are not solely determined
Subgrid 2 Subgrid 1
by SMs. Thus, the following demonstrates how the dynamic
Fig. 1. A transmission line connecting two subgrids, both of which include model developed in [1] can be adopted to find ∆δ(t) for any
a mixture of IBRs and SMs. given pair of bus voltages.
Consider the power system in Fig. 9 of [1]. This system can
be described by the set of nodal equations in (8).
the line’s impedance. During a balanced fault, the apparent     
impedance measured by the relay at bus x is In Ynn Ynm Ynk Vn
 SM   T  ′ 
Vx (t) Vx (t)  Im  =  Ynm Ymm Ymk   Em  . (8)
Zapp (t) = =  . (1) T T poc
Ix−y (t) Vx (t) − Vy (t) /Zx−y
IBR
Ik Ynk Ymk Ykk Ek
In (8), In denotes the vector of the net currents injected to
Denoting the difference between the bus voltage angles in Fig.
the first n buses of the system, which correspond to the non-
1, δx (t) − δy (t), by ∆δ(t) and considering the voltage of bus
generation buses. The voltages at these buses are expressed by
y as the reference phasor, Zapp (t) can be written as
  the vector Vn . The vector ISMm represents the currents injected
|Vx | cos(∆δ(t)) + j sin(∆δ(t)) by SMs to buses n+1 to n+m of the system. The voltages at
′
Zapp (t) =   Zx−y . these buses are expressed by the vector Em . Finally, the vector
|Vx | cos(∆δ(t)) + j sin(∆δ(t)) − |Vy | IIBR
k shows the currents injected by IBRs to buses n + m + 1
(2) to n + m + k of the system. The voltages at these buses are
Considering that |Vx | can be approximated by |Vy | [12], expressed by the vector Epoc k . Note that the bus admittance
Zapp (t) can be simplified to the following equation. This matrix in (8) is partitioned into nine submatrices. A submatrix
approximation upholds a conservative approach, which, as with i rows and j columns is represented by Yij . (·)T is the
substantiated in the following sections, maintains the integrity transpose of (·).
of the problem identification process. Since each load is modeled by an admittance embedded in
the bus admittance matrix, the net currents injected into the
cos(∆δ(t)) + j sin(∆δ(t))
Zapp (t) = Zx−y . (3) non-generation buses of the power system in Fig. 9 of [1] are
cos(∆δ(t)) − 1 + j sin(∆δ(t)) zero, i.e., In = 0 [13]. Therefore, multiplying the first row of
Multiplying this equation by the complex conjugate of the the bus admittance matrix in (8) by the vector of voltages in
denominator and considering the cos2 (·)+sin2 (·) = 1 identity, (8) element-wise yields the sum in (9).
(3) is re-written as ′
0 = Ynn Vn + Ynm Em + Ynk Epoc
k . (9)
1 − cos(∆δ(t)) − j sin(∆δ(t))
Zapp (t) = Zx−y . (4) Solving for Vn in the above equation results in
2 − 2 cos(∆δ(t))
′
Since transmission line impedances are mainly inductive, −1
Vn = −Ynn −1
Ynm Em − Ynn Ynk Epoc
k . (10)
Zx−y ≈ jXx−y , and (4) can be written as
In this equation, the admittance submatrices are known
1  sin(∆δ(t))  1 based on the grid configuration. The voltage magnitudes
Zapp (t) = Xx−y + j Xx−y . (5) ′
2 1 − cos(∆δ(t)) 2 in vectors Em = [|E1′ |̸ δ1′ . . . |Em ′ ̸
| δm ] and Epoc
′ T
k =
poc ̸ poc poc ̸ poc T
The real part of Zapp (t) in (5) varies with ∆δ(t), which, in [|E1 | δ1 . . . |Ek | δk ] are calculated using power
turn, changes with respect to time. Thus, the rate of change of flow analysis [1]. The voltage angles in these two vectors are
ℜ{Zapp (t)} is equivalent to the rate of change in the impedance state variables x1 = [δ1′ . . . δm ] and x3 = [δ1poc . . . δkpoc ]T
′ T

seen by the relay, as in (6). in [1] and can be obtained using (38) and (40) in [1].
Therefore, all the parameters on the right side of (10) are
d h ∂ ih d i
known. The voltage angles of all the buses are in vector
ℜ{Zapp (t)} = ℜ{Zapp (t)} ∆δ(t) . (6)
dt ∂∆δ(t) dt Vn = [|V1 |̸ δ1 . . . |Vn |̸ δn ]T on the left side of (10). The
Calculating the partial derivative of the real part of Zapp (t) voltage angles calculated using (38) and (40) in [1] and
with respect to ∆δ(t) in (5) and substituting the result into (10) can be plugged into (7) to derive the rate of change of
(6) yield impedance measured by a relay.
" # It is worth noting that the oscillations associated with the
d −Xx−y 1 hd i
inverters’ outer control loops, including the dc-link voltage
ℜ{Zapp (t)} = ·   ∆δ(t) . (7)
dt 4 sin2 ∆δ(t) dt control loop discussed in [1], fall under the category of
2
low-frequency oscillations [14]. During such oscillations, the
The equation presented above is of a generic nature, thereby voltage and current waveforms are still dominated by the
making it applicable to any grid, regardless of the generation fundamental-frequency component. Therefore, modeling the
type involved. This equation shows that the rate of change electrical network using quasi-static phasors, as in (8) to

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

(10), remains a justified practice for understanding the power 1 7 8 3

600 km
swing dynamics in systems with IBRs. This is particularly
relevant considering the significantly broader time scale of 2 5 4 100 km
9 200 km 300 km 300 km
the phenomenon examined in this study relative to the fast 100 km
switching frequency of power electronic inverters. 200 km 10
IBR 1
SM 1

III. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION SM 2 IBR 3 IBR 2

This section investigates how the rate of change of
impedance derived in Section II is affected by IBRs. To this
end, we will define different scenarios for the test system
in [1], which is shown in Fig. 2 for ease of reference. The
focus is on the specified area, where SM 4 supplies 600 MW
through four transmission lines. During normal operation, lines
12-6 and 12-13 in Fig. 2 each transmit 250 MW, totaling
500 MW. These lines are prone to power swings caused by
SM 4. In the base scenario depicted in Fig. 2, SM 4 is an
aggregated 600 MVA plant that consists of four 150 MVA SMs
[1], all operating at unity power factor. To define scenarios
that serve the objective of this section, we gradually change
the source at bus 12 from SM to IBR. In Scenario 1, as
illustrated in Fig. 3, we replace 25% of SM 4 with an IBR.
Each subsequent scenario depicted in this figure introduces an
additional 25% replacement of SM 4 with IBRs, culminating
in Scenario 4, where the source at bus 12 is entirely based on
inverters. The per-unit specifications of the added IBRs match
those described in Section II of [1]. The following analysis
investigates the frequency of power swings after a fault for
each of these scenarios and examines how this frequency is
reflected in the rate of change of impedance.
A. Swing Frequency
Equation (7) indicates the dependence of the rate of change
d
of impedance on dt ∆δ(t) and, consequently, the frequency
of ∆δ(t) oscillations. To investigate the impacts of IBRs on
the frequency of the voltage angle oscillations, consider a
bolted balanced fault close to bus 13 on line 12-13 in Fig.
2 for the scenarios defined in Fig. 3. The fault happens at
t = 2 s and is cleared 75 ms later at t = 2.075 s when line
12-13 is tripped. This 75 ms window represents the critical
clearing time, beyond which the SM 4 units undergo transient
instability in the base scenario. After line 12-13 is tripped, line
12-6 transmits the entire 500 MW of power, and therefore, it
becomes prone to power swings with large magnitudes.
The difference between the angles of the voltages at buses
12 and 6 (i.e., δ12 − δ6 ) is calculated using (10) based on
(38) and (40) of [1] and plotted in Fig. 4 for the above-
mentioned scenarios following the fault clearance (i.e., the
analysis that follows is grounded in theoretical derivations in
[1] and Section II, rather than simulations). Unlike conven-
tional systems for which the frequency of oscillations during
stable power swings varies in a narrow range of 0.2 ∼ 2.5
Hz [15], the oscillations in Fig. 4(b)-(d) contain multiple
frequencies, which change over time. Such multi-component
non-stationary signals require time-localized spectral analysis,
which is provided by the short-time Fourier transform (STFT)
in Fig. 5. In the base scenario, where all the four sources at bus
12 are SMs, the voltage angle oscillations at bus 12 are dictated
6
100 km 300 km
12 14a
150 MW
100 km SM 4a
14b
R12-6
11 150 MW
SM 4b
14c
SM 3 100 km 13 150 MW
50 km SM 4c
100 km 14d
150 MW
SM 4d
500 MW 100 MW
PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95
Fig. 2. Single-line diagram of the study system highlighting an area prone
to power swings.
by the SMs’ slow rotor dynamics. Thus, the STFT result in
Fig. 5(a) indicates that the dominant frequency of the curve
in Fig. 4(a) is about 1 Hz, which is a typical swing frequency
for SMs [15]. This can also be visually verified in Fig. 4(a),
where the time difference between the two consecutive peaks
is 0.961 s, corresponding to a frequency of 1.04 Hz.
By contrast, in Scenario 4, where the generation behind bus
12 is entirely inverter-based, the voltage angle oscillations at
bus 12 are solely influenced by the IBRs. Thus, the frequency
of oscillations in Fig. 4(e) is determined primarily by the IBRs’
dc-link voltage control dynamics [1]. This is evident in Fig.
5(e), where the dominant frequency component of the curve in
Fig. 4(e) measures approximately 13 Hz. This swing frequency
is significantly higher than the typical frequency range of 0.2
∼ 2.5 Hz for stable swings in conventional power systems
[15]. The frequency of oscillations in Fig. 4(e) is significantly
higher than even the maximum power swing frequency of 7
Hz that can be accommodated by the power swing detection
elements of commercial relays [8], [9], [16].
In Figs. 4(b) to 4(d) for Scenarios 1 to 3, which involve
a combination of IBRs and SMs behind bus 12, the voltage
angle oscillations at bus 12 exhibit a mix of the characteristics
shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(e). Since the parameters of the dc-
agg agg
link voltage control (specifically kprp and kint in (16) of [1])
are identical for all of these scenarios, the frequency of the
component introduced by the IBRs to the curves in Figs. 4(b)-
(d) remains equal to the dominant frequency of the curve in
Fig. 4(e). Only the magnitude of this component increases
commensurate with the share of IBRs. Both of these features
are corroborated by the STFT results shown in Fig. 5, where
the 13 Hz band is the dominant high-frequency component
and exhibits growth in magnitude from Scenario 1 in Fig.
5(b) to Scenario 3 in Fig. 5(d) within the [2.075 s, 2.250 s]
window. This consistency is also visually confirmed in Figs.
4(b)-(d), where the time difference between the first two peaks
in Scenarios 1 to 3 remains constant at 0.078 s, matching the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

6 12 14a 6 12 14a
150 MW 150 MW
SM 4a 100 km SM 4a
100 km
14b
R12-6 150 MW R12-6 150 MW

Rest of SM 4b Rest of IBR 4a

the grid 14c the grid
13 13 150 MW
100 km 150 MW 100 km
50 km SM 4c 50 km IBR 4b
100 km 100 km
150 MW 150 MW
IBR 4a IBR 4c
500 MW 100 MW 500 MW 100 MW
PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95
(a) (c)
6 12 14a 6 12
150 MW 150 MW
100 km SM 4a 100 km IBR 4a
14b
R12-6 150 MW R12-6 150 MW
Rest of SM 4b Rest of IBR 4b
the grid the grid
13 13
100 km 150 MW 100 km 150 MW
50 km IBR 4a 50 km IBR 4c
100 km 100 km
150 MW 150 MW
IBR 4b IBR 4d
500 MW 100 MW 500 MW 100 MW
PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95 PF = 0.95
(b) (d)

Fig. 3. Area highlighted in Fig. 2 when IBRs replace the SM 4 units in: (a) Scenario 1; (b) Scenario 2; (c) Scenario 3; and (d) Scenario 4.

time difference shown in Fig. 4(e) for Scenario 4.
Figs. 5(b)-(d) indicate that once the 13 Hz swings subside
around t = 2.25 s, the dominant frequency components
transition to lower-frequency swings driven by the slower rotor
dynamics of the SMs. Since the total inertia of the generation
behind bus 12 is determined based on the sum of the inertia
constants of the individual machines connected to this bus
[17], reducing the number of SMs connected to bus 12 results
in a decrease in the total inertia of the generation at this bus.
Reducing the inertia amplifies the swing frequency of the SMs
[18]. As a result, the frequency of the SMs’ rotor oscillations
increases from 1/0.961 = 1.04 Hz in Fig. 4(a) (where the
total inertia behind bus 12 reaches its maximum value of 8
s) to 1/0.731 = 1.37 Hz in Fig. 4(d) (where the total inertia
behind bus 12 is only 2 s). The potential increase in the swing
frequency discussed in [3], [4], [5], [6] corresponds to this
specific increase, not the one explained in the previous two
paragraphs. Even if 95% of the generation at bus 12 becomes
inverter-based, and the inertia of the SMs for the remaining
5% of the generation is H = 1 s (which is the minimum
practical value for SM inertia [19]), the swing frequency will
be only 2.5 Hz after the initial 13 Hz oscillations die out.
The above finding also aligns with the simulation results in
[3], where the swing frequency of SMs increases from 0.63
Hz to only 0.77 Hz when the inertia of all the SMs is halved.
Although the frequency of the SMs’ rotor oscillations intensi-
fies due to the reduced inertia resulting from the replacement
of SMs with IBRs, the frequency range of the SMs’ rotor
oscillations in Figs. 4(b)-(d) remains within the commonly
recognized 0.2 ∼ 2.5 Hz band for stable swing frequency of
SMs [15]. More importantly, this frequency range stays well
below the 7 Hz maximum frequency supported by the power
swing detection elements of commercial relays [8], [9], [16].
B. Rate of Change of Impedance
This subsection investigates the impact of the increase in
the swing frequency discussed above on the rate of change of
apparent impedance seen by relay R12−6 in Fig. 3 after line
12-13 is tripped. Zones 1 and 2 of the phase distance element
of this relay protect 80% and 120% of line 12-6, respectively.
This relay uses the concentric characteristics delay to detect
power swings [7], [8], [9], [10]. This technique measures
the time it takes for the impedance locus to pass through
a zone delimited by two impedance characteristics, referred
to as the outer and middle characteristics [7]. If the elapsed
time exceeds a certain threshold, such as 30 ms [10], the
relay detects a power swing condition and blocks the distance
elements. The settings of the concentric technique for R12−6
are presented in Appendix A.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude Normalized amplitude
1

of oscillation
0.5
∆ t = 0.961 s
0

(a) (a)
1

of oscillation
0.5

∆ t = 0.078 s ∆ t = 0.882 s
0

(b) (b)
1

of oscillation
0.5
∆ t = 0.078 s ∆ t = 0.775 s
0

(c) (c)
1

of oscillation
0.5
∆ t = 0.078 s ∆ t = 0.731 s
0

(d) (d)
1

of oscillation
0.5
∆ t = 0.078 s
0

(e) (e)

Fig. 4. Phase angle difference between the voltages of buses 12 and 6, Fig. 5. STFT of δ12 − δ6 curves in Fig. 4 for: (a) the base scenario; (b)
calculated using (10) based on (38) and (40) in [1] for: (a) the base scenario; Scenario 1; (c) Scenario 2; (d) Scenario 3; and (e) Scenario 4.
(b) Scenario 1; (c) Scenario 2; (d) Scenario 3; and (e) Scenario 4.

The difference between the right blinders of the outer and
middle characteristics of the concentric method used by R12−6
is about 7 Ω in Appendix A. Therefore, the objective is to
determine if the rate at which the impedance changes during
the discussed power swing scenarios is high enough to cause
the impedance to traverse the 7 Ω distance between the two
blinders in less than 30 ms, leading to erroneous detection of a
fault by R12−6 . To calculate the instantaneous rate of change
of impedance, the voltage angles shown in Fig. 4 are plugged
into (7), yielding the solid-line curves depicted in Fig. 6. To
determine whether the impedance trajectory crosses the critical
distance of 7 Ω between the power swing blinders in less
than or more than 30 ms, the integral of these instantaneous
rates should be computed over a 30 ms period; i.e., the solid-
line curves in Fig. 6, in their original form, do not directly
determine whether the impedance locus passes through the
power swing region within the 30 ms time delay.
To enhance the visual comprehension of the instantaneous
rates depicted in Fig. 6, the following two-step methodology
is pursued: (i) the vertical axes in Fig. 6 are scaled to convert
the unit of the rate of change of impedance from Ω/s, as given
by (7), to Ω/(30 ms). This rescaling aligns the measurement
scale with the time window pertinent to this analysis; and (ii)
the moving average of the solid-line curves in Fig. 6 is calcu-
lated over a 30 ms window to calculate the above-mentioned
integral. The average curves are shown as dashed lines in Fig.
6. This two-step process allows for easy determination of the
impedance variation over the preceding 30 ms at any given
point in time. For instance, for the base scenario, Fig. 6(a)
illustrates that within the first 30 ms following the fault (i.e.,
from t = 2.075 to t = 2.105 s), the impedance measured
by R12−6 decreases by only 2.14 Ω. This value is reliably
below 7 Ω, enabling the successful detection of a power swing
condition by the relay in the base scenario.
For Scenarios 1 and 2, the amplitude of the 13 Hz oscil-
lations added by the IBRs to the curves in Figs. 4(b)-(c) is

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
−2.14
(a)
−2.47
(b)
−6.09
-7 Ω/(30 ms)
(c)
-7 Ω/(30 ms)
−12.49
(d)
-7 Ω/(30 ms)
−21.66
(e)
Fig. 6. Rate of change of impedance given by (7) using (10) for: (a) the base
scenario; (b) Scenario 1; (c) Scenario 2; (d) Scenario 3; and (e) Scenario 4.
insignificant. Therefore, the dashed curves in Figs. 6(b)-(c)
remain above −7 Ω/(30 ms), allowing the relay to successfully
detect a power swing condition. Conversely, Scenarios 3 and
4 in Figs. 4(d)-(e) exhibit relatively larger 13 Hz oscillations,
as indicated by the STFT results in Figs. 5(d)-(e). Thus, the
rate of impedance change measured by R12−6 is noticeably
higher for these two scenarios in Figs. 6(d)-(e). In the first
30 ms after the fault clearance, the change in the impedance
measured by R12−6 exceeds −12 Ω and −21 Ω in Scenarios
3 and 4, respectively. These changes are substantially larger
than −7 Ω, causing the impedance to cross the area between
the two blinders quite sooner than 30 ms. As a result, the relay
mistakes these power swings for a fault.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
To assess the accuracy of the analytical approach presented
above, the scenarios depicted in Figs. 2 and 3 were simulated
using PSCAD/EMTDC. The simulations incorporated detailed
models of the IBRs, SMs, and relay R12−6 . The settings of the
relay are the same as those mentioned in Appendices A and
B. Fig. 7 depicts the impedance plane of the relay obtained
from the simulations for all the aforementioned scenarios. The
impedance trajectories in this figure were derived from voltage
and current phasors computed using a full-cycle discrete
Fourier transform, resulting in a one-cycle measurement delay.
It is worth noting that the inner characteristic, grayed out in
Fig. 7, is used for out-of-step tripping and falls outside the
scope of this paper.
For the distance zones depicted in Fig. 7, the choice of
a quadrilateral characteristic primarily serves as an illustrative
example to demonstrate the potential implications of the power
swing blocking misoperations revealed in the study. The core
findings of this study remain independent of the distance
characteristic used by the relay. In addition, the resistive
reaches of the quadrilateral distance zones can be established
using various strategies, such as the zone overlapping practice
[9] (i.e., setting the resistive reaches of zones 1 and 2 the same)
or the coordination method detailed in [20]. For the examples
that follow, we proceed with the zone overlapping strategy, as
recommended in [9], [10]. The detailed procedure for setting
the resistive reaches is discussed in Appendix B.
In Fig. 7, the impedance is time-labeled when it crosses
the outer and middle characteristics. White labels indicate
the impedance entering the outer blinder without reaching
the middle characteristic. Orange labels represent the traversal
of the area between the blinders in more than 30 ms, while
red labels indicate a passage faster than 30 ms. Figs. 7(a)-
(c) show that the impedance locus takes more than 80 ms to
cross the region between the outer and middle characteristics
in the base scenario, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2. This interval
is significantly longer than the 30 ms threshold set for the
relay in Appendix A. Thus, the relay successfully detects a
power swing condition in these three scenarios, verifying the
theoretical analysis in Figs. 6(a)-(c).
In Scenario 3, the impedance trajectory passes through the
region between the outer and middle characteristics twice in
Fig. 7(d). This outcome is expected due to the relatively large
amplitude of the first two peaks of the 13 Hz oscillations
in Fig. 4(d). The impedance enters the outer characteristic at
2.104 s and swiftly crosses the middle characteristic in less
than 13 ms at 2.117 s. Subsequently, the impedance locus exits
both the outer and middle characteristics before re-entering
them again at 2.174 s and 2.189 s, respectively. In both cases,
the time required for the impedance locus to traverse between
the outer and middle characteristics falls well below the 30
ms threshold set for the relay in Appendix A. Therefore, the
relay fails to detect the power swing condition in this scenario,
consistent with the findings depicted in Fig. 6(d).
In Scenario 4, this problem exacerbates, and the impedance
obtained from the PSCAD/EMTDC simulation swiftly crosses
the area between the outer and middle characteristics in Fig.
7(e) within just 8 ms, significantly below the 30 ms threshold
specified in Appendix A. This outcome is also consistent
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

Impedance trajectory Impedance trajectory Impedance trajectory

50 50 50

tic

tic
tic

aracteris

aracteris
aracteris

40 40 40
istic

istic

istic
tic

tic

tic
character

character

character
30 30 30
aracteris

aracteris

aracteris
Outer ch

Outer ch
Outer ch

20 2.196 s 20 2.219 s 20 2.255 s

Inner ch

Zone 2 Zone 2

Inner ch

Inner ch
Zone 2 2.165 s
Middle

Middle

Middle
10 2.114 s 10 2.097 s 10
Zone 1 Zone 1 Zone 1 2.098 s

-30 -20 -10 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30

-10 -10 -10 2.129 s

-20 -20 -20

-30 -30 -30

(a) (b) (c)

Impedance trajectory Impedance trajectory

50 50

tic
tic

aracteris
aracteris

40 40
istic

istic
tic

tic
character

character
30 30
aracteris

aracteris
Outer ch
Outer ch

20 2.117 s 2.122 s 2.114 s

20
2.104 s
Inner ch

Zone 2 Zone 2

Inner ch
Middle

Middle
10 Zone 1 10 Zone 1

-30 -20 -10 10 20 30 2.174 s -30 -20 -10 10 20 30

-10 -10
2.189 s
-20 -20
-30 -30
(d) (e)

Fig. 7. Impedance measured by the distance element of R12−6 in: (a) the base scenario; (b) Scenario 1; (c) Scenario 2; (d) Scenario 3; and (e) Scenario 4.

with the results obtained using theoretical analysis in Fig. IV. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION OF
5(e), which indicates the maximum amplitude for the 13 Hz R EAL -W ORLD R ELAYS
oscillations, and Fig. 6(e), which illustrates an impedance
change rate exceeding −21 Ω/(30 ms). The 8 ms travel time is We conducted extensive laboratory experiments using com-
less than the minimum half-a-cycle setting allowed by certain mercial relays from various manufacturers to validate the
commercial relays, such as [8], for the power swing blocking aforementioned findings. Consistent results were obtained
time delay of the concentric technique. Although some other across all of these relays, irrespective of the manufacturer. This
manufacturers’ relays allow for a shorter time delay, they still section presents the outcomes obtained from two off-the-shelf
advise against reducing this delay below 30 ms [10]. relays, referred to as Commercial Relay 1 and Commercial
Note that the increased swing frequency resulting from Relay 2. These relays were updated with the latest firmware
reduced inertia, as discussed in [3], [4], [5], [6], and the last as of February 2024. The voltage and current waveforms of
paragraph of Section III-A, does not contribute to the failure PSCAD/EMTDC simulations, captured at the R12−6 location
to detect power swings in Scenarios 3 and 4. This increase in Figs. 2 and 3, were recorded as common format for transient
in swing frequency merely requires considering the actual data exchange (COMTRADE) files [21]. The relay test set
system inertia when determining the settings of the concentric detailed in [22] was used to supply these input COMTRADE
method. Moreover, as shown in Section III-A, this increase files to the relays.
is small enough to keep the required changes in the relay Fig. 8 illustrates the relay recordings, which are distinct
settings within the setting ranges commonly used in conven- from the recordings at the terminals of IBRs and SMs; this
tional systems. By contrast, the high-frequency component distinction is elaborated at the end of this section. These
introduced to the voltage angle oscillations by the inverter recordings show the currents on the secondary side of the
control system renders the first principle of the relays’ power current transformer (CT), voltages on the secondary side of the
swing detection methods ineffective. Consequently, addressing voltage transformer (VT), and the relay word bits, for the base
this issue requires more than just minor adjustments to the scenario. Word bits POWER SWING OUTER and X7ABC
relay settings. in Figs. 8(c)-(d) pick up when the impedance locus enters

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
the outer characteristic; word bits POWER SWING MIDDLE
and X6ABC in Figs. 8(c)-(d) pick up when the impedance
locus enters the middle characteristic; and word bits POWER
SWING BLOCK and OSB in Figs. 8(c)-(d) are asserted to
logical 1 and latched for 0.5 s if the relay detects a power
swing condition. PH DIST Z1 OP and Z1P in Figs. 8(c)-(d)
denote the operation of the zone-1 phase distance elements of
these relays (the former stays latched until the reset condition
is met or the element is blocked by the power swing blocking
function of the relay); and TRIPBUS 1 OP and TRIP word
bits in Figs. 8(c)-(d) show the relays’ trip signals.
The difference between the pick-up times of the outer and
middle characteristics in Figs. 8(c)-(d) is in the range of 80-
100 ms. Thus, both of these relays successfully detect a power
swing condition in the base scenario. This prevents the zone-1
distance element from operating, and neither of these relays
trip in this scenario. This outcome aligns with the theoretical
analysis depicted in Fig. 6(a) and the simulation results shown
in Fig. 7(a). A similar consistency between the results of
Section III and the operation of commercial relays is observed
for Scenarios 1 and 2 as well. Figs. 9 and 10 show that
both relays can effectively detect a power swing condition,
preventing the operation of their distance elements.
In Scenario 3, Fig. 7(d) demonstrates that the impedance
traverses the area between the outer and middle characteristics
twice, both within a cycle, before entering the relay’s zone 1.
Testing of commercial relays produced the same result. Figs.
11(c)-(d) show that the middle characteristic picks up twice,
both less than a cycle after the outer characteristic is activated.
Consequently, both relays in Figs. 11(c)-(d) fail to detect the
power swing condition. As a result, the impedance enters
zone 1, causing both PH DIST Z1 OP and Z1P to activate
in Figs. 11(c)-(d). Consequently, both relays erroneously trip
line 12-6. Figs. 12(c)-(d) illustrate a similar relay malfunction
in Scenario 4, where the middle characteristic picks up only
8 ms after the outer characteristic is activated. The relay fails
to detect the power swing condition, while PH DIST Z1 OP
and Z1P are asserted, resulting in the tripping of line 12-6.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the currents
shown in Fig. 12(a) are the currents measured at the location
of relay R12−6 , not at the terminal of the IBRs connected to
bus 12. In addition, the currents in Fig. 12(a) are the currents
on the secondary side of the CT connected to relay R12−6 . As
discussed in Appendix A, the CT ratio for this relay is 600:1.
The CT nominal tap for this relay is determined based on the
rated current of line 12-6. Due to the load connected to bus
12 and the presence of line 12-13 during normal conditions,
the rated current of line 12-6 is less than half of the IBRs’
total current injected to bus 12. Before the fault, line 12-6
transmits only half of the total power exported from bus 12.
Therefore, since the total rated current
√ of the IBR generation
outflowing from bus 12 is 500/( 3 × 230) = 1255 A, the
nominal current through line 12-6 is about 600 A, which is 1
A on the secondary side of the CT connected to relay R12−6 .
The above indicates that the increased current magnitude in
Fig. 12(a), whose zoomed-in view is displayed in Fig. 13(a),
is due to the overloading of line 12-6 after the tripping of
line 12-13 at t = 2.075 s. This increase does not indicate
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Current (A)
2
0
-2
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s)
(a)
Voltage (V)
100
0
-100
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s)
(b)
POWER SWING OUTER
POWER SWING MIDDLE
POWER SWING BLOCK
PH DIST Z1 OP
TRIPBUS 1 OP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s)
(c)
X7ABC
X6ABC
OSB
Z1P
TRIP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s)
(d)
Fig. 8. COMTRADE recordings of commercial relays for the base scenario
of Fig. 2: (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT secondary voltages; (c) Word
bits of Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits of Commercial Relay 2.
a violation of the IBRs’ 1.5 pu current limit considered in
√ (which is equivalent to a combined total of 1.5 ×
this study
600/( 3 × 230) = 2260 A). This can be further verified in
Fig. 14, where the current of each individual inverter within the
IBR plants connected to bus 12 remains below the inverters’
1.5 pu current limit not only during the fault (i.e., from t = 2
to t = 2.075 s) but also during the power swing condition
from t = 2.075 s onwards.
In addition, the temporary overvoltage condition immedi-
ately after the fault clearance in Fig. 13(b) is due to the reactive
current injection of the IBRs during the fault, as per [23].
This overvoltage is normal in IBR systems during post-fault
conditions [24]. This temporary overvoltage condition does not
cause any overvoltage tripping since it is mitigated by surge
arrestors within the IBR plant facility [25].
V. S YSTEM -W IDE I MPACTS
The last two sections demonstrated that the control system
dynamics of the IBRs prevented relay R12−6 from detecting
stable power swings. As a result, 500 MW of generation
transmitted through line 12-6 was lost. This section examines
the significance of this issue and its system-wide impacts for
the grid shown in Figs. 2 and 3. This system is based on the
CIGRE high-voltage benchmark, derived from an actual North
American system [26]. The significant imbalance between
the generation and load caused by the aforementioned relay
malfunction has a severe impact on the frequencies of SMs 1-3
in the system. Fig. 15(a) demonstrates that following the fault,
the frequencies of these SMs decrease to 57.33 Hz before their
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

Current (A)

Current (A)
2 2
0 0
-2 -2

2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (a)

Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)

100 100
0 0
-100 -100

2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s) Time (s)
(b) (b)
POWER SWING OUTER POWER SWING OUTER
POWER SWING MIDDLE POWER SWING MIDDLE
POWER SWING BLOCK POWER SWING BLOCK
PH DIST Z1 OP PH DIST Z1 OP
TRIPBUS 1 OP TRIPBUS 1 OP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 Time (s)
Time (s) (c)
(c)
X7ABC
X7ABC X6ABC
X6ABC OSB
OSB Z1P
Z1P TRIP
TRIP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 Time (s)
Time (s) (d)
(d)

Fig. 9. COMTRADE recordings of commercial relays for Scenario 1 of Fig. Fig. 11. COMTRADE recordings of commercial relays for Scenario 3 of Fig.
3(a): (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT secondary voltages; (c) Word bits of 3(c): (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT secondary voltages; (c) Word bits of
Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits of Commercial Relay 2. Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits of Commercial Relay 2.
Current (A)

Current (A)

2 2
0 0
-2 -2

2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (a)
Voltage (V)

Voltage (V)

100 100
0 0
-100 -100

2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s) Time (s)
(b) (b)
POWER SWING OUTER POWER SWING OUTER
POWER SWING MIDDLE POWER SWING MIDDLE
POWER SWING BLOCK POWER SWING BLOCK
PH DIST Z1 OP PH DIST Z1 OP
TRIPBUS 1 OP TRIPBUS 1 OP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 Time (s)
Time (s) (c)
(c)
X7ABC X7ABC
X6ABC X6ABC
OSB OSB
Z1P Z1P
TRIP TRIP
2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675 2.075 2.275 2.475 2.675 2.875 3.075 3.275 3.475 3.675
Time (s) Time (s)
(d) (d)
Magnified in Fig. 13

Fig. 10. COMTRADE recordings of commercial relays for Scenario 2 of Fig. Fig. 12. COMTRADE recordings of commercial relays for Scenario 4 of Fig.
3(b): (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT secondary voltages; (c) Word bits of 3(d): (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT secondary voltages; (c) Word bits of
Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits of Commercial Relay 2. Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits of Commercial Relay 2.

speed governors begin to respond. This frequency falls well all SMs in the grid may trip. To prevent cascade tripping, Fig.
below the under-frequency trip curve of the NERC Standard 15(b) illustrates that shedding 500 MW of the load at bus 6 in
PRC-006-2 [27]. Consequently, without appropriate measures, Fig. 2—which is equivalent to approximately 25% of the total

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

10

Current (A)
4
2
0
-2
-4
2.025 2.075 2.125 2.175 2.225 2.275 2.325
Time (s)
(a)
Voltage (V)

200
100
0
-100 Fig. 14. Instantaneous currents of each individual inverter within the IBR
-200 plants connected to bus 12 before, during, and after the fault of Fig. 12.
2.025 2.075 2.125 2.175 2.225 2.275 2.325
Time (s)
(b)
POWER SWING OUTER 57.33 Hz
POWER SWING MIDDLE
POWER SWING BLOCK
PH DIST Z1 OP
TRIPBUS 1 OP
2.025 2.075 2.125 2.175 2.225 2.275 2.325
Time (s)
(c)
X7ABC (a)
X6ABC
OSB
Z1P 58.53 Hz
TRIP
2.025 2.075 2.125 2.175 2.225 2.275 2.325
Time (s)
(d)
Under-frequency load shedding begins
Fig. 13. Zoomed-in view of Fig. 12: (a) CT secondary currents; (b) VT
secondary voltages; (c) Word bits of Commercial Relay 1; and (d) Word bits
of Commercial Relay 2.
(b)

system load—can mitigate the decline in frequency and limit
it to 58.53 Hz. The prevention of such system-wide major
disturbances requires adequate awareness of the power swing
characteristics of IBRs.
Fig. 15. Frequency of SMs 1-3 after the loss of 500 MW of power transmitted
by line 12-6: (a) if no under-frequency load shedding scheme is implemented;
and (b) if an under-frequency load shedding scheme is implemented.

VI. D ISCUSSION
A. Regulatory Frameworks and Fault Recovery of IBRs
The phenomenon investigated in this paper occurs following
the clearance of a fault. The requirements for the operation
of IBRs after the fault clearance are not consistent across
all recent regulatory frameworks, such as the IEEE Standard
2800-2022 [23], and the more recent NERC recommendations
in [28], most notably in
1) Subclause 7.2.2.6 of [23], where it is mentioned “The
active power recovery time shall be configurable within
a range between 1 s and 10 s. The default active power
recovery time is 1 s; however, in weak grids, in order
to reduce oscillatory behavior of the IBR plant upon
fault recovery and maintain system stability, it may be
desirable to reduce the average rate of active power
recovery in consultation with the TS owner;” and
2) Recommendation 4.d of [28], where it is mentioned
“Coordinate with inverter manufacturers and power
plant controller manufacturers to ensure that facility
control modes, fault ride through modes and parameters,
and protections are set and coordinated according to
the following principles: Facility output returns to pre-
disturbance active power levels as soon as possible
without any artificial ramp rate limit or delay imposed
by the power plant controller.”
The above demonstrates that the primary focus in [23]
is to mitigate the oscillations of IBRs in weak grids by
imposing a ramp limit on IBRs’ active power. By contrast, the
priority in [28] is given to the swift recovery of IBRs’ active
power, explicitly prohibiting ramp limitations. The NERC
recommendation in [28] is consistent with Section 10.2.3.3
of the VDE grid code as well [29]. This section discusses
how adherence to each of these requirements influences the
power swing behavior of IBRs and explores how to combine
the advantages of both approaches while avoiding the power
swing-related issues identified in this paper.
Consider Scenario 4, illustrated in Fig. 3(d), as the worst-
case scenario, where the sources connected to bus 12 are
entirely inverter-based. Fig. 16(a) depicts the active power
transmitted through line 12-6 before, during, and after the fault
in this scenario. As discussed in [1], the IBRs’ active power is
regulated by the dc-link voltage control loop shown in Fig. 2
of [1] before and after the fault. This structure, including the
proportional-integral (PI) compensator, is well established in
the inverter control literature [30], [31], [32]. The post-fault
oscillations of the power curve in Fig. 16(a) are consistent with
those of the voltage angle curve in Fig. 4(e), leading to the
relay malfunction and incorrect tripping of line 12-6. Having
said that, the power curve in Fig. 16(a) does comply with the
recommendations in [28] regarding the fast recovery of active
power following a fault. Fig. 16(b) shows the active power

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 16. Active power of the IBRs obtained from the PSCAD/EMTDC
simulation of Scenario 4 of Fig. 3(d) if the IBRs: (a) quickly restore active
power using a typical PI compensator without power ramp limitation; (b)
gradually restore active power using a typical PI compensator with power
ramp limitation; and (c) quickly restore active power using the proposed
compensator.
curve for the same scenario when Subclause 7.2.2.6 of [23]
is followed and a 1 pu/s ramp limit is imposed on the active
power recovery of the IBRs. This approach prevents power
swing but at the expense of an excessively prolonged delay in
the active power recovery of the IBRs. This poses a significant
problem for systems with high IBR penetration and can have
system-wide stability implications—the primary reason for the
updated requirements in [28].
The ideal objective should be the fast active power recovery
of IBRs while power oscillations are prevented. To this end,
consider the control loop depicted in Fig. 2 of [1]. The PI
compensator of this loop is intended to achieve a zero steady-
state error, rather than a pre-determined transient performance
[33]. Consequently, a more elaborate compensator can be
employed to expedite the response of this loop without any
oscillations while still achieving a zero steady-state error. An
effective and straightforward approach is to substitute the PI
compensator of Fig. 2 in [1] with an integrator and a lead
filter, as in (11).
−2
    
s+z 1 1
Gop (s) = −kc . (11)
s+p s Cdc s employing alternative methods, such as the capacitive voltage
Gop (s) is the modified open-loop transfer function of the
control loop; kc is the compensator gain; and z and p denote
the zero and pole of the lead filter, respectively, added to
improve the control loop’s transient response. To meet the
above objective, these parameters must be tuned properly. For
example, if kc = 5467.9 Ω−1 , z = 34.06, and p = 2226,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
11
Fig. 17 illustrates that all the closed-loop poles of the system
will be on the real axis, and thus, the control loop’s transient
response will exhibit no oscillations. Since τi = 2 × 10−4
s in [1], the gain crossover frequency of Gop (s) should be
adequately smaller than 5000 rad/s, e.g., 5000/10 = 500
rad/s. Figs. 18(a) and 18(b) indicate that at the gain crossover
frequency of 500 rad/s, the compensated loop has a phase
margin of 73.5°, which is adequately large for a well-damped
response. The same bode plot in the absence of the proposed
lead filter for the control loop in Fig. 2 of [1] is depicted in
Fig. 19. The magnitude plot in Fig. 19(a) indicates that at zero
frequency, the magnitude of the open-loop transfer function is
large enough to obtain a zero steady-state error for this loop.
Thus, the design of the PI compensator of the loop in Fig. 2 of
[1] meets the performance characteristic of a PI compensator.
However, the phase plot in Fig. 19(b) shows that the phase
margin of this loop is only 19.2°. This small phase margin is
the root cause of the oscillatory behavior of the inverters upon
fault recovery discussed earlier in the paper.
If the proposed compensator is utilized in Scenario 4 of Fig.
3(d), the IBRs’ active power can be restored immediately after
the fault clearance without any oscillations in Fig. 16(c). It is
worth noting that the short-circuit ratio (SCR) at bus 12 of
Fig. 3(d) is only about 1.2 when line 12-13 is out of service
(i.e., after the fault clearance). In other words, the quick and
oscillation-free active power recovery is realized despite the
weak connection to the grid. This result indicates that, in future
revisions of [23], the requirement for the 1 pu/s ramp limit on
the IBRs’ active power recovery in Subclause 7.2.2.6 can be
eliminated and replaced with a threshold for the active power’s
damping ratio upon fault recovery.
B. Measures for Enhancing the Relay Security
Section VI-A discussed how an inverter’s control system
can be modified to prevent the problems revealed in this paper
for power swing detection. An alternative approach to solving
this problem would be modifying the common practices for
power swing detection in today’s protection systems. This
could entail either (i) modifying the existing power swing
blocking algorithms; or (ii) adding extra layers of security
to distance elements. The former necessitates new research
and development of new power swing detection methods. The
latter could involve introducing time delays to enhance the
security of distance elements in the vicinity of IBRs [34]. The
earlier sections of the paper demonstrated that the oscillations
exhibited by IBRs tend to be rapid but brief. Thus, the addition
of time delays to the operation of zone-1 distance elements can
prevent their inadvertent tripping during power swings in IBR
systems. This added delay can be achieved either by directly
extending the pickup delay of the distance elements or by
transformers (CVT) transient detection schemes, which inher-
ently slow down the relay operation [35].
However, it is important to note that such time delays
are not the ultimate solutions for all scenarios, and they
come with potentially significant caveats depending on the
system condition. The findings of this paper are not limited
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843

12

Closed-loop pole {s} for the zone-1 distance element, cannot dynamically adapt
Open-loop pole 40 to weather variations. As a consequence, the five scenarios
Open-loop zero
20 depicted in Figs. 2 and 3 should not be necessarily seen as
{s} five different systems each with its own settings for R12−6 .
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 Instead, the single-line diagrams in these figures can represent
-20
five potential generation mixes for a single system with one
-40 set of settings for R12−6 .
For the condition shown in Fig. 3(d), a time delay for zone 1
Fig. 17. Root locus plot of the open-loop transfer function of the dc-link
voltage control loop with the proposed lead filter.
of R12−6 does not impact the stability of the generation units
connected to bus 12. However, consider a scenario where the
power of the IBRs reduces by 25%, necessitating the dispatch
Magnitude (dB)

100 of an SM, such as a natural gas plant, similar to the case

50 illustrated in Fig. 3(c). In this figure, the sources connected to
bus 14a include three 150 MW IBRs and one 150 MW SM
0
operating at its full rated capacity (i.e., the input mechanical
-50
torque is near its maximum value).
-100 To asses the impact of the delayed tripping, consider a fault
10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5
Frequency (rad/s) close to bus 13 on line 12-13 and a 50 ms time delay for
zone 1 of relays R12−6 and R12−13 . Considering the breakers’
Phase (degree)

(a)
-90
operation time and the time it takes for the impedance to
-120 enter zone 1 after the fault inception, suppose that the faulted
-150 Phase margin = 73.5 line, i.e., line 12-13, is removed from the system in 100
ms (which does not represent the worst-case scenario for the
-180 breaker opening time). Fig. 20 shows the measurements at the
10 2 3 4 5
10 0 10 1 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) terminal of the SM connected to bus 14a in Fig. 3(c). The SM
(b) undergoes transient instability as a result of the additional time
delay added to the zone-1 distance element. However, if the
Fig. 18. Bode plot of the open-loop transfer function of the dc-link voltage
control loop with the proposed lead filter: (a) Magnitude and (b) Phase.
fault is cleared in 75 ms (as demonstrated in the case studies
presented earlier), the SM can successfully recover from the
fault, as shown in Fig. 21.
The above shows the need for caution when introducing
Magnitude (dB)

100
time delays to the operation of distance elements: Depending
50 on the system configuration, this delay may solve one problem
0 while creating another. It should be noted that the scenario
-50 illustrated in Fig. 20 is only one example of problematic
-100 scenarios for delayed operation of zone 1. Even if all sources
10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 behind the relay are inverter-based, delaying zone 1 could
Frequency (rad/s) potentially affect the stability of SMs in other parts of the
Phase (degree)

(a) system if the relay is part of a pilot protection scheme.

-90
The adverse effects of IBRs on relays can be mitigated by
-120
Phase margin = 19.2 adjusting either the IBR control systems or the protection
-150 systems. For the specific problem revealed in this paper,
-180 comparing the above-mentioned challenges with the relatively
1 2 3 4 5
10 0 10 10 10 10 10 clear-cut solution outlined in Section VI-A indicates that
Frequency (rad/s) altering the inverter’s control system presents a more straight-
(b) forward solution. This adjustment can be mandated through
Fig. 19. Bode plot of the open-loop transfer function of the dc-link voltage technical regulations governing IBR interconnections, such as
control loop without the proposed lead filter: (a) Magnitude and (b) Phase. grid codes or IBR interconnection agreements.

to direct tie-lines of IBRs; these findings are actually mostly
applicable to large transmission corridors of systems with
high penetration of IBRs. Consequently, reducing the speed
of distance relays can compromise the system stability when
the source on one end of a transmission corridor is a mix of
SMs and IBRs. For such systems, the generation mix varies
with weather conditions and the availability of renewable
energy sources. However, relay settings, including time delays
VII. C ONCLUSION
Using the dynamic model developed in Part I, Part II of
this paper analyzed the rate of change of impedance measured
by transmission line relays during power swings in systems
with IBRs. The findings revealed that the dc-link voltage
control dynamics of IBRs can significantly amplify the rate
of impedance change, surpassing the high rate of impedance
change caused by the low inertia of IBR systems. These rapid

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
(a)
(b)
Fig. 20. Measurements at bus 14a of the system of Fig. 3(c) when the
operation of the zone-1 distance element of the relay that protects line 12-13
is delayed by 50 ms and the fault is cleared in 100 ms: (a) Instantaneous
currents; and (b) Instantaneous voltages.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 21. Measurements at bus 14a of the system of Fig. 3(c) when the fault is
cleared in 75 ms: (a) Instantaneous currents; and (b) Instantaneous voltages.
variations in impedance pose a potential risk of relay mal-
functions. The theoretical derivations presented in the paper
were substantiated through detailed PSCAD/EMTDC simula-
tions and laboratory experiments involving commercial relays.
Additionally, the study highlighted the substantial system-wide
impacts associated with power swings of IBRs. To address
these challenges, the paper proposed modifications to the
existing IBR standards to mitigate active power oscillations
while achieving prompt power recovery. The paper concluded
by presenting practical recommendations for enhancing the
relay security against the unique challenges posed by power
swings in systems with IBRs.
A PPENDIX A
S ETTINGS C ALCULATIONS FOR THE P OWER S WING
B LOCKING E LEMENT OF R12−6
This appendix details the procedure for configuring the
power swing detection element of relay R12−6 following the
industry practices and guidelines in [10], [36], [37]. The
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
13
settings for the impedances presented below are expressed in
terms of secondary ohms. The relay’s voltage transformer ratio
(VTR) and the current transformer ratio (CTR) are 2090.90
and 600, respectively.
A. Outer Characteristic
The blinders of the outer characteristic should be set below
the impedance associated with the maximum line loading,
multiplied by a safety factor [10]. To this end, first consider
the 600 MW total generation behind bus 12 in Fig. 2. Given
the 100 MW load connected to the same bus, the total power
transmitted through lines 12-6 and 12-13 is 500 MW. The
maximum line loading for line 12-6 occurs when line 12-13
is out of service, i.e., when the entire 500 MW is transmitted
through line 12-6. For this emergency loading condition, the
impedance measured by relay R12−6 is calculated using the
relation in (12) [11].
  2  
Sbase Vbase CTR
Zload =
Pline Sbase VTR
 2
100 [MVA] 230 [kV] 600
= . .
500 [MW] 100 [MVA] 2090.90
= 30.36 Ω. (12)
Based on the above load impedance and considering a 0.9
safety factor [10], the right blinder of the outer characteristic
is set to
Right blinder = (0.9)(30.36)
= 27.32 Ω. (13)
The left blinder is set to the negative of the right blinder,
as recommended in [10]. In addition, the settings for the top
(i.e., forward reach) and bottom (i.e., reverse reach) of the
outer characteristic are, respectively, chosen as 45.91 Ω and
−28.26 Ω, which fall within the range recommended in [37],
that is, at least two to three times the distance element’s reach.
B. Middle Characteristic
To set the blinders of the middle characteristic, it is rec-
ommended by [36] to set these blinders outside the largest
applicable tripping zone. However, in [10], it is recommended
to set these blinders to about 80% of the outer characteristic
blinders. To reconcile these objectives, we set the right blinder
of the middle characteristic to 22.38 Ω, which is 120% of the
resistive reach of the distance zones in Fig. 7 and 81% of
the right blinder of the outer characteristic calculated above.
The left blinder of the middle characteristic is similarly set to
the negative of its right blinder. To ensure that the middle
characteristic is inside the outer characteristic, the settings
for the top and bottom of the middle characteristic are,
respectively, chosen as 37.3 Ω and −18.65 Ω.
C. Power Swing Blocking Time Delay
Faster power swings can be detected more effectively by
reducing the power swing blocking time delay. The minimum
recommended threshold for this time delay, as per [10], is 30
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
ms. However, as discussed in [10] and elaborated further in
[37], this time delay is system-specific and depends largely
on the oscillation frequency during power swings. Therefore,
the recommended 30 ms threshold should be checked with
the system’s oscillation frequency to ensure it is neither too
short nor too long. The relation for determining this time delay
based on the swing frequency is given by (14) [37].
δmid − δout
Time delay = fnom ,
360fs
where δmid and δout are the middle and outer blinder power
angles, respectively, in degrees; fnom is the system’s nominal
frequency in Hz; and fs is the swing frequency in Hz. The
time delay obtained using (14) is expressed in cycles. The
method for obtaining δmid and δout is outlined in [37]. Based
on this method and the blinder values calculated in the last two
subsections, δmid and δout are 72.31° and 61.81°, respectively.
Extensive transient stability analysis performed on the sys-
tem of Fig. 2 reveals that the highest oscillation frequency of
the voltage angle at bus 12 relative to bus 6 is approximately
1 Hz during the most severe stable power swing for this
system. This frequency increases to about 5 Hz during unstable
power swings. Therefore, since the triple-blinder scheme used
to detect power swings in Fig. 7 decouples the power swing
blocking and the out-of-step tripping functions of the relay
[36], the frequency of the most severe stable power swing is
used to determine the power swing blocking time delay [10].
Thus, based on (14), the power swing blocking time delay is
calculated as
72.31 − 61.81
Time delay = 60 = 1.75 cycles.
360 (1)
This time delay corresponds to 29.16 ms, which is approx-
imately the same as the 30 ms threshold recommended in
[10]. Therefore, the power swing blocking time delay of relay
R12−6 is set to 30 ms. It should be noted that although the
procedure outlined above closely follows multiple industry
practices and guidelines, reducing the chosen time delay any
further is not always effective for improving the power swing
detection near IBRs, as discussed in Section III-B.
A PPENDIX B
S ETTINGS C ALCULATIONS FOR THE
R ESISTIVE R EACH OF R12−6
This appendix outlines the procedure adopted to set the
resistive reaches of the distance zones depicted in Fig. 7.
A. Zone-1 Resistive Reach
The setting guideline in [10] recommends to set the resistive
reach for both the ground and phase elements of the relay as
high as possible without interfering with the load impedance.
Meanwhile, this guideline recommends that the resistive reach
for the zone-1 phase distance element, denoted in this paper
by R1rch , should be limited to three times the reactance reach
of zone 1, denoted by X1rch . As discussed in Section III-B,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
14
the reactance reach of zone 1 is set to 80% of the reactance
of line 12-6 in Fig. 2; i.e.,
 
rch 600
X1 = (0.8)(47.87)
2090.90
= 10.99 Ω. (16)
Therefore, based on the guideline in [10], R1rch can be as high
(14) as 3 × 10.99 = 32.97 Ω. In addition, as shown in (12), the
load impedance associated with the maximum line loading for
line 12-6 in Fig. 2 is 30.36 Ω. Therefore, to avoid interference
with the load impedance, the upper limit for R1rch should be
30.36 Ω. Setting R1rch to this upper limit, however, brings
about two challenges: (i) the power swing blinders cannot be
placed between the distance zone characteristic and the load
region; and (ii) the phase angle errors in the polarizing current
of the distance elements are not accounted for.
To address the challenges discussed above, we follow the
guideline in [38] and recalculate R1rch . To make the relay
robust against phase angle errors in the polarizing current,
R1rch should satisfy the inequality in (17) [38].
R1rch,pu < [(1 − X1rch,pu )/(θerr × π/180)]. (17)
In this equation, R1rch,pu and X1rch,pu are, respectively, the
resistive and reactance reaches of the zone-1 quadrilateral
distance element, expressed in per-unit of line reactance;
and θerr is the phase angle error in the polarizing current.
Considering an error as large as θerr = 8° [38] and plugging
X1rch,pu = 0.8 pu in (17) result in an upper limit of 1.43 pu for
(15) R1rch,pu , which is equivalent to 1.43 × (10.99/0.8) = 19.65 Ω.
Considering an additional 1 Ω safety margin, we set the
resistive reach of zone 1 of the distance elements in Fig. 7
to 18.65 Ω. This number is about 60% of the 30.36 Ω upper
limit suggested by [10], thereby addressing the two challenges
discussed above.
B. Zone-2 Resistive Reach
To configure the resistive reach for zone 2 of the distance
characteristics illustrated in Fig. 7, one strategy involves
adhering to the guideline presented in [20], which recommends
coordinating the resistive reaches of zones 1 and 2 considering
the infeed currents, hence different resistive reach settings
across these zones. Meanwhile, since zone 2 is also considered
susceptible to inadvertent operation during power swings [11],
we follow the zone overlapping practice recommended in [9],
in which the resistive reach parameters are set uniformly across
all zones. This would reduce the resistive reach of zone 2
for a given zone-1 characteristic, thereby making the passage
of apparent impedance through zone 2 during power swings
less likely. This approach is also adopted in [10], where the
default settings for the resistive reaches of zones 1 and 2 of the
quadrilateral characteristics are identical (whereas the default
settings for the reactance reaches of zone 1 and 2 in [10]
are different). Therefore, the resistive reach for zone 2 of the
distance characteristics in Fig. 7 is similarly set to 18.65 Ω.
 This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3382843
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
Dr. Manish Patel of Southern Company, Atlanta, GA, for his
valuable insights and discussions throughout this study.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. A. Nasr and A. Hooshyar, “Power swing in systems with inverter-
based resources—Part I: Dynamic model development,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., In press, 2024.
[2] Protection System Response to Power Swings. System Protection and
Control Subcommittee, NERC, Atlanta, United States, Aug. 2013.
[3] Impact of Inverter Based Generation on Bulk Power System Dynamics
and Short-Circuit Performance. IEEE/NERC Task Force on Short-
Circuit and System Performance Impact of Inverter Based Generation,
Tech. Rep. PES-TR68, Jul. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/
3PKE8ZS.
[4] A. Haddadi, I. Kocar, U. Karaagac, H. Gras, and E. Farantatos, “Impact
of wind generation on power swing protection,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 34, pp. 1118–1128, Jun. 2019.
[5] Impact of High Penetration of Inverter-based Generation on System
Inertia of Networks. CIGRE, Working Group C2/C4, Oct. 2021.
[6] Electromagnetic transient simulation models for large-scale system
impact studies in power systems having a high penetration of inverter-
connected generation. CIGRE, Working Group C4.56, Sep. 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3FjsXRu.
[7] D60 Line Distance Protection System: Instruction Manual. GE,
Markham, Canada, Jun. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/
3mucHXR.
[8] Instruction Manual for SEL-411L Advanced Line Differential Protection,
Automation, and Control System. SEL, Pullman, United States, Dec.
2022. [Online]. Available: https://selinc.com/products/411L/docs/.
[9] SIPROTEC 5, Distance Protection, 7SA82-V9.5: Manual. Siemens,
Germany, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://sie.ag/44MKLPU.
[10] Line Distance Protection REL670 Application Manual. ABB, Vasteras,
Sweden, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3Q1sIRH.
[11] Power swing and out-of-step considerations on transmission lines. IEEE
Power System Relaying and Control Committee (PSRC) Working Group
WG-D6, Jul. 2005. [Online]. Available: https:bit.ly/3kQx8xI.
[12] J. Machowski, Z. Lubosny, J. W. Bialek, and J. R. Bumby, “Electrome-
chanical dynamics - Large disturbances,” in Power System Dynamics:
Stability and Control, ch. 6, pp. 229–283, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
3rd ed., 2020.
[13] H. Saadat, “Bus admittance matrix,” in Power System Analysis, ch. 6,
pp. 190–195, PSA Publishing LLC, 1st ed., 1999.
[14] N. Hatziargyriou et al., “Definition and classification of power system
stability – Revisited & extended,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 36,
pp. 3271–3281, Jul. 2021.
[15] J. Machowski, Z. Lubosny, J. W. Bialek, and J. R. Bumby, “Electrome-
chanical dynamics - Small disturbances,” in Power System Dynamics:
Stability and Control, ch. 5, pp. 195–228, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
3rd ed., 2020.
[16] G. Ziegler, “Mode of operation,” in Numerical Distance Protection:
Principles and Applications, ch. 3, p. 66, Erlangen, Germany: Publicis
Publishing, 4th ed., 2011.
[17] E. W. Kimbark, “Solution of networks,” in Power System Stability,
Volume I, ch. 3, pp. 111–112, IEEE Press, 1st ed., 1995.
[18] J. D. Glover, M. S. Sarma, and T. J. Overbye, “Numerical integration
of the swing equation,” in Power System Analysis and Design, ch. 11,
pp. 608–613, Cengage Learning, 5th ed., 2012.
[19] N. Tleis, “Typical data of power system equipment,” in Power Systems
Modelling and Fault Analysis: Theory and Practice, Appendix A.2,
pp. 608–618, Newnes, 1st ed., 2008.
[20] C. Henville and R. Chowdhury, “Coordination of resistive reach of
phase and ground distance elements,” in Proceedings of the 48th Annual
Western Protective Relay Conference, Spokane, WA, USA, Oct. 2021.
[21] IEEE/IEC Measuring relays and protection equipment – Part 24:
Common format for transient data exchange (COMTRADE) for power
systems. IEEE Std. C37.111-2013 (IEC 60255-24 Edition 2.0 2013-04),
2013.
[22] CMC 356 User Manual. Omicron Electronics Corporation, 2020.
[Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/3NVZdjo.
[23] IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Inverter-
Based Resources (IBR) Interconnecting with Associated Transmission
Electric Power Systems. IEEE Std. 2800-2022, 2022.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universität Leipzig. Downloaded on March 29,2024 at 07:24:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
© 2024 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
15
[24] Odessa Disturbance, Joint NERC and Texas RE Staff Report. NERC, At-
lanta, United States, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://bit.ly/46hHw45.
[25] Reliability Guideline: BPS-Connected Inverter-Based Resource Perfor-
mance. NERC, Atlanta, United States, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://bit.ly/3tl4gS4.
[26] K. Strunz et al., Benchmark Systems for Network Integration of Renew-
able and Distributed Energy Resources. CIGRE, TF C6.04, Apr. 2014.
[27] Standard PRC-006-2 — Automatic Underfrequency Load Shedding.
NERC Std. PRC-006-2, 2015.
[28] Industry Recommendation: Inverter-Based Resource Performance Is-
sues. NERC, Atlanta, United States, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://bit.ly/42OhK5k.
[29] Technical requirements for the connection and operation of customer
installations to the high voltage network (TAR high voltage). VDE-AR-
N 4120:2018-11, 2018.
[30] R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and P. Rodriguez, “Ac voltage and dc voltage
control,” in Grid Converters for Photovoltaic and Wind Power Systems,
ch. 9, pp. 210–219, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1st ed., 2011.
[31] A. Sangwongwanich, A. Abdelhakim, Y. Yang, and K. Zhou, “Control
of single-phase and three-phase dc/ac converters,” in Control of Power
Electronic Converters and Systems, ch. 6, pp. 153–173, Academic Press,
1st ed., 2018.
[32] S. Bacha, I. Munteanu, and A. Iuliana Bratcu, “Design of the outer
loop (voltage) controller,” in Power Electronic Converters Modeling and
Control, ch. 9, pp. 283–284, Springer, 1st ed., 2014.
[33] K. Ogata, “Transient and steady-state response analyses,” in Modern
Control Engineering, ch. 5, pp. 218–225, Prentice Hall, 5th ed., 2010.
[34] R. Chowdhury and N. Fischer, “Transmission line protection for systems
with inverter-based resources—Part II: Solutions,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 36, pp. 2426–2433, Aug. 2021.
[35] B. Kasztenny and R. Chowdhury, “Security criterion for distance zone
1 applications in high SIR systems with CCVTs,” in Proceedings of
the 76th Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference,, Atlanta,
GA, USA, May 2023.
[36] P. Annamdevula, A. Thurman, M. Thompson, B. Smyth, and D. Tziou-
varas, “Simplifying PRC-026 compliance with practical solutions you
least expect,” in 2021 74th Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relaying
Conference, Aug. 2021.
[37] J. Mooney and N. Fischer, “Application guidelines for power swing
detection on transmission systems,” in 42nd Annual Minnesota Power
Systems Conference, Saint Paul, MN, USA, Nov. 2006.
[38] B. Kasztenny, “Settings considerations for distance elements in line
protection applications,” 74th Annual Conference for Protective Relay
Engineers, Texas, TX, USA, Mar. 2021.
Mohamad-Amin Nasr is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering with the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. He
received the M.Sc. (Hons.) degree in electrical engi-
neering from Amirkabir University of Technology
(Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran, in 2019. Mr.
Nasr was recognized as an outstanding reviewer of
the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON P OWER D ELIVERY
in 2021. His current research interests include power
system dynamics and protection in the presence of
inverter-based resources.
Ali Hooshyar (Senior Member, IEEE) is currently
a Canada Research Chair in Electric Power Systems
with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering at the University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada. His research interests include dynam-
ics, control, and protection of renewable energy
systems. Dr. Hooshyar is an Editor of the IEEE
T RANSACTIONS ON S MART G RID, IEEE T RANS -
ACTIONS ON P OWER D ELIVERY , and IEEE P OWER
E NGINEERING L ETTERS. He was the Guest Editor-
in-Chief of the Special Issue of the IEEE T RANS -
ACTIONS ON P OWER D ELIVERY on “Resilience-Oriented Protection, Control,
and Monitoring Systems for Power Grids.” Dr. Hooshyar was the Guest
Editor of the IEEE E LECTRIFICATION M AGAZINE for the Special Issue on
“Microgrid Protection and Control.” He is also an Associate Editor for the
Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Dr. Hooshyar
chairs Working Group C45 of the IEEE Power Systems Relaying and Control
Committee on short-circuit modeling and protection of power systems with
high penetration of inverter-based resources.