SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN POWER SYSTEM DYNAMIC STABILITY STUDIES
M. M. Elmetwally
Student Member, I.E.E.E.
ABSTRACT
In this paper, the second method of Liapunov is
used to investigate the dynamic stability problem of
power systems using the perturbed system dynamics in
state variable form. Defining stability measure in
terms of Liapunov functions and their time derivatives,
the paper formulates a method for the calculation of
the sensitivity of the dynamic stability measure to
variations in various machine and control system pa-
rameters. The method provides a basis for optimal dy-
namic stability design of power systems, the criterion
of optimality being that the sensitivity of the dynam-
ic stability measure to parameter variations be zero.
For simplicity, the case of a synchronous machine con-
nected to an infinite bus is considered. The effect
of various voltage regulator parameters on the sensi-
tivity of the dynamic stability measure is investi-
gated. A numerical example is used to demonstrate the
superiority of the time response resulting from the
choice of parameter settings corresponding to zero
sensitivity of the dynamic stability measure. The
method is readily generalized to the case of multi-ma-
chine power systems.
INTRODUJCTION
Power system dynamic stability has been the sub-
ject of extensive investigation by many authors. The
methods that have been used so far may be classified
as follows.
1. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion: In this method, the
sign of the real part of the roots of the characteris-
tic equation is predicted on the basis of the coeffi-
cients of the equation. If any root has a positive
real part, it is concluded that the system is unstable.
This approach has been extensively used by Concordia,
Messerle, Yu and others [1-6]. Its major disadvantage
is that no information regarding the degree of stabil-
ity is available.
2. Nyquist Criterion: This classical control tech-
nique has been used by Messerle and Bruck [7], Jaco-
vides and Adkins [8], Aldred and Shackshaft [9], and
Ewart and Demello [10]. Even though this method is
capable of showing the degree of stability and indica-
ting the possible procedures for its improvement, it
suffers from the disadvantage of extensive computation
and poor presentation of results.
3. Analogue Computation: This approach has been
used by Messerle [3,11], and Heffron and Phillips [12].
While it pernits the determination of stability by
direct observation of the resulting performance, it is
lengthy and time consuming. As a result, it is not
generally popular.
4. Root Locus: Using standard root locus tech-
niques, Stapleton [13] investigated the effect of
various voltage regulator parameters on stability and
dynamic response.
5. D-partition or Domain Separation: This method
has been used by Surana and Hariharan [14] and Yu et
al [4]. Since it renders possible, the graphical rep-
resentation of stability limits in the plane of one or
two parameters of interest, it appears to have consid-
erable application to problems involving the selection
of regulator parameter values for optimum results.
Paper T 72 144-9, recommended and approved by the Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE
Winter Meeting, New York, N.Y., January 30-February 4, 1972. Manuscript submitted August 19, 1971; made available for printing November 24, 1971.
1692
N. Dharma Rao
Member, I.E.E.E.
6. Matrix Techniques: These techniques, which are
based on modern control theory, have been suggested by
Laughton [15] and Undrill [16]. Using the concept of
state variables, the differential equations describing
the small-signal performance of the synchronous ma-
chines and associated control apparatus are expressed
in vector-matrix form. Once such a formulation is
achieved, a variety of methods developed in the recent
control literature become applicable.
Need For Sensitivity Analysis
In Dynamic Stability Studies
As described above, the first phase of the appli-
cation of control system techniques to the power sys-
tem dynamic stability problem concentrates primarily
on the acquisition of information pertaining to the
values of machine and control system parameter combi-
nations for stability in general and assigned degree
of relative stability in particular. In other words,
the work reported in the references cited above large-
ly concerns itself with the determination of regions
in the parameter space within which the system pos-
sesses a prescribed degree of relative stability. How-
ever, one further question needs to be resolved. This
relates to the choice of the parameters in the stabil-
ity zone such that the transient response of the sys-
tem for small disturbances remains acceptable. Since
transient performance is dependent on the root loca-
tions of the system in the complex plane, it becomes
necessary to study the effect of the sensitivity of
the characteristic roots of the system to the differ-
ent parameter variations. Paraphrasing, the question
to be answered is, "'ow sensitive are the locations of
the characteristic roots to small variations in param-
eter values, when the nominal values correspond to a
stable operating point?"
In an attempt to answer this question, Laughton
[17] and Kasturi et al [18] made use of two different
approaches for performing sensitivity calculations.
Laughton's approach consists in reducing the linear-
ized equations to the vector-matrix form
X = AX '(1)
where X is an n-vector and A a constant n-square ma-
trix. The dot over X denotes differentiation with
respect to time. Using the sensitivity coefficients
of the eigenvalues of the A-matrix, he goes on to pre-
dict the approximate changes in eigenvalue locations
and hence the modifications to system stability mar-
gins and behaviour for any number of design parameter
changes. In contrast, Kasturi et al calculate the
sensitivity coefficients of the system characteristic
roots using the generalized Mitrovic method.
Outline Of The Proposed Method
In the present paper, it is proposed to investi-
gate the sensitivity problem in dynamic stability
studies through the second method of Liapunov. The
starting point is the representation of the linearized
equations in state-variable form as shown by equation
(1). Using the well-known Liapunov theorem on asymp-
totic stability, the stability of the system is first
checked for the assumed set of operating conditions
and control parameter values. Then, following Kalman
and Bertram [19], the maximum value of *the ratio of a
Liapunov function V to the negative of V is taken as a
figure of merit for the tra-nsient response of the sys-
tem. This ratio denoted by T, being an estimate of
the largest time constant (i.e., the reciprocal of the
real part of the predominant or critical root) associ-
ated with the system transient, gives an indication of
how fast equilibrium is approached. Adopting T as a
dynamic stability measure, its sensitivity to varia-
tions in voltage regulator parameters such as, regula-
tor gain, exciter time constant, etc., is stiudied for
the case of a synchronous machine with its control
equipment connected to an infinite bus. It is shown
that the regulator parameter settings corresponding to
the zero-crossings of the sensitivity curves result in
a transient with minimum settling time. An example is
given to demonstrate the superiority of the system
response resulting from the choice of parameter values
which correspond to zero sensitivity of the dynamic
stability measure.
System Model
In order to permit concentration on the main
events, a synchronous machine connected to an infinite
bus is considered. However, since the differential
equations of the perturbed quantities are linear,
there is no limitation on the applicability of the
method to the dynamic stability analysis of multi-ma-
chine systems. A conventional voltage regulator with
the following transfer function [4] is assumed.
Avf -V (l+T p)
fVt = + (Te+e +
(2)
+ (Te+ P')p +Tp
t -1 es s es
Governor action is neglected for simplicity. However,
if desired, sensitivity calculations for the governor
parameters can be carried out in exactly the same way
as for the voltage regulator parameters. The reduc-
tion of the linearized system equations to the state-
variable fonn of equation (1) is shown in the Appendix.
Liapnov Functions For Linear Differential Systems
Linearization of the general nonlinear differen-
tial equations describing the dynamic performance of
the system about a postulated equilibrium point leads
to a set of equations, whose state-variable represen-
tation is given by equation (1). The equilibrium
state X(o) of the system (1) is asymptotically stable
if and only if given any symmetric, positive-definite
matrix Q, there exists a symmetric, positive-definite
matrix P which is the unique solution of the set of
n(n+l)/2 linear equations [19].
AtP + PA = -Q (3)
lead to identical predictions as far as absolute sta-
bility is concerned. However, in contrast with the
fonner, the latter can provide estimates of relative
stability and sensitivity to parameter variations.
Dynamic Stability Measure
For the system (1), if it is possible to find a
positive-definite scalar function V(X) whose total
time derivative is negative definTte, then by Lia-
punov's theorem, the asymptotic stability of (1) is
assured. Following Kalman and Bertram [19], an esti-
mate of the rate at which the system's response ap-
proaches the origin is given by the expression
T = X[. (] X A (4)
It can be shown that
-1
T = max. e.igenvalue of [Q P1
(5)
T may be regarded as an estimate of the largest time
constant relating to the changes in a Liapunov func-
tion V over a certain region in state space. Its val-
ue can be considered a figure of merit for the assumed
operating conditions and control parameters. Smaller
values of T correspond to faster response and vice
versa. Since the value of T is thus an index of rela-
tive stability, we shall hereafter call T the dynamic
stability measure.
Sensitivity Analysis Using The
Second Method Of Liapunov
A method will be developed now to calculate the
sensitivity of the stability measure T to variations
in various machine and control system parameters. The
method provides a basis for optimal stability design
of power systems, the criterion of optimality being
that the settling time as indicated by T is a minimum.
Taking Q in equation (3) to be the unit matrix
and differentiating with respect to any control vari-
able v for which the sensitivity needs to be calculat-
ed, there results
aAt p + p aA + At aP + aP A = 0
Rewriting gives
AtP V +PA =-D (6)
V

where
and XtPX is a Liapunov function for (1).
D = AtP
'v
+ PAv (7)
A few comments are in order here regarding the
application of the second method of Liapunov to linear The subscript v indicates the partial derivative with
and nonlinear differential systems. The second method respect to the variable v. Now let the following
of Liapunov, when applied to a nonlinear power system eigenvector equation be considered.
problem such as transient stability invariably results
in a conservative estimate of the stability region [20]. (8)
However, no such difficulty arises in the application Pyi= XiYi ,i
=
12, ...,n

of this method to dynamic stability analysis because

of the linear nature of small departure equations. In Here Yl represents the normalized eigenvector corre-
fact, Parks [21] derived the Routh-Hurwitz stability sponding to the eigenvalue X. of the matrix P. Dif-
criterion from the Liapuov theorem stated above.
ferentiation of equation (8) with respect to the vari-
As demonstrated in the sequel, if the stability able v in question yields
of a linear system is established by means of a Lia-
puov function, the latter can be used to estimate the PY. +PY. =x. Y. + x.Y.
V-1 -1V iVi i-V
rapidity of transient response, effect of variation in
parameters, etc. It must be mentioned that the Routh- Multiplying both sides by Yi and simplifying, one ob-
Hurwitz Criterion and the second method of Liapunov
1693
tains ra = re = 0.02 xe = 0.3 H= 5sec
ytp
-1 V-i
Y. + Y.py.
-1 -iv
= x.
iv
+ X.y:ty.
i-i-iM (9) kd = 0.01 rf = 0.001 wo = 2ir(60)rad/sec
Taking the transpose of equation (8) and substituting Using the procedure previously explained, the
t stability check- and sensitivity calculations are per-
1-1 in equation (9) leads to after some simpli-
for X.Y
fication formed on a digital computer for an assumed under
excited operating condition and various values of reg-
ulator parameters. The results so obtained are summa-
X. iV
= ytP y.
I-i
(10) rized in Figures 2-4. In each case the zero-crossing
of the sensitivity curve in question represents the
Let Xi = T be the largest eigenvalue of the matrix best parameter setting.
P(=Q1P, since Q is chosen as the unit matrix in Furthermore, Figures 2-4 show that the sensitivi-
equation (5)). Then it follows from equation (10) ty curves are relatively flat in the vicinity of their
that zero-crossings. Hence it may be inferred that in this
region the dynamic stability measure is relatively
T 'V = YPy (11) insensitive to variations of the parameter under con-
v- sideration. On the contrary, in the end regions the
sensitivity curves are somewhat steeper. This indi-
where Y the eigenvector corresponding to the eigen- cates that for operation in these regions the system
value T. dynamic stability measure is highly sensitive to pa-
rameter variations. The foregoing analysis shows the
By definition, the sensitivity of a system vari- importance of selecting the parameter settings in the
able T to a parameter v is neighbourhood of their best values.
Tv=T 9T vT In order to dramatize the deterioration of the
vsTTv aT=
DvT TT v(2 (12) system response when the operating point is changed
from 0 to O' in Figure 1, the system equations are
Combining equations (11) and (12) gives integrated numerically on a digital computer and the
results presented in Figure 5-7. The disturbance
ST= (YtPY) (13) considered is a step of 0.02 radians in the power
angle. Only the time response of the state variables
A6, Aw and Aif are shown. The other two state vari-
The procedure to be followed for the assessment ables namely Avf and Avf show a similar behaviour. The
of dynamic stability is then:
control parameters values indicated by the analysis
1. Equation (3) is solved for the elements of the presented here lie in the range of values presently
matrix P. If P is positive definite, the system is used in practice [22].
stable for the assumed operating condition and parame-
ter values. QJNCLUSIONS
2. With stability assured, T and Y corresponding to Using the second method of Liapunov, a new proce-
P are determined. As remarked already, T is an index dure for performing sensitivity calculations in dynam-
of dynamic stability measure. ic stability analysis has been developed. The proce-
dure is simple and lends itself readily to programming
3. The elements of Av are calculated by simple dif- on a digital computer. The use of a Liapunov function
ferentiation of the elements of A. Equation (6) is to check dynamic stability makes it also possible to
then solved for the elements of P v estimate the quality of the transient performance and
the effect of variation of parameters. All these ap-
4. The sensitivity STV of the dynamic stability mea- plications of the Liapunov theory stem from regarding
the Liapunov function as a measure of the distance
sure is obtained from equation (13). from the origin. Using the settling time, obtainable
from a Liapunov function and its time derivative, as a
It is easy to see that the zero-crossing of the measure of dynamic stability, its sensitivity with
graph of S versus v corresponds to minimum T, as respect to various voltage regulator parameters is
examined. The sensitivity calculations demonstrate
illustrated in Figure 1. The selection of the param- that the choice of parameters corresponding to minimum
eter v corresponding to the zero-crossing of the sen- settling time enhance the quality of the transient.
sitivity curve results in a transient with minimum
settling time. The development reported in this paper supple-
ments the recent work on transient stability using the
Illustrative Example For Sensitivity Analysis second method of Liapuov. As shown in reference [23],
very often a Liapunov fuction developed for the lin-
A synchronous machine connected to an infinite ear model of a nonlinear system can be generalized to
system is selected for sensitivity analysis. The sys- predict stability regions for the actual nonlinear
tem model and the underlying assumptions are described system. Thus power system stability, which is actual-
in the Appendix. A voltage regulator is assumed, but ly a single phenomenon but divided for ease of analy-
governor action is neglected. sis into steady state and transient, can be studied in
a unified way using a single technique.
The machine and transmission line constants are:
Nomenclature
xd= 1.2 xq= 0.8 xd= Xf= 1.1
0 = subscript denoting an initial condition

1694
 A = prefix to denote small changes about the pV = overall stabilizer gain = (1 + k 11 )
initial operating value
All quantities are in p.u., unless otherwise stated
I d-- = time derivative
APPENDIX
_ symbol identifying vectors Formation Of The A Matrix For A Single Machine System
Jm.=Vqm armature voltages in d and q axes,
respectively
The system considered consists of a synchronous
machine feeding into a large system which can be rep-
resented by an infinite bus-bar through an external
vt = magnitude of machine terminal voltage reactance. Synchronous machine equations in d and q
axes are used [4]. They are based on the following
vb = infinite bus-bar voltage main assumptions:
(i) Saturation is neglected.
vf = field winding applied voltage
(ii) The effect of stator slots is negligible.
id,i. = armature currents in d and q axes,
respectively (iii) The stator windings are sinusoidally dis-
tributed around the air gap.
w = rated angular velocity, rad/sec
(iv) The armature transformer voltages are
. = instantaneous angular velocity of neglected.
nimachine rotor, rad/sec
The system linearized equations written in the
xd,xq = synchronous reactance in d and q axes, matrix form are:
respectively
e Li [av d-vbcos 0
d-axis between stator and
rotor inreactance
xmd = mutual

rf,xf = field winding resistance and reactance,

Ixe reJ A^iqj Avqmj vbsin6o,
respectively which can be written symbolically as
ra = armature winding resistance Ll =
Z1AV +
Z2A6 (14)
re Ke = respectively
tie-line resistance and reactance, where
-1

r -x
e e~ ~ ~ ~~~ -vbcos6
6 = rotor angle, radians
H = inertia time constant, (kWsec/kVA)
= ZX
I- x2sin6
J = moment of inertia = 2Hi/wo
danping coefficient
Vher -::L[ Ad
kd =
qif+ qiqo /wo
Pt
= active power output of the machine w
where C = (x difo-xdid)/WO
= reactive power output of the machine or in symbolic form
Qt
Av = Z Ai + Zaif +Z (A1
4
S)
p
m
= mechanical power input to the rotor 3-m 5-

Te = exciter time constant, seconds

w
0AVf WorfAif + xOfpAif
=
[xmd 0]

FAid
PAq
Ts = stabilizer time constant, seconds
or symbolically
ke = exciter gain
WOVAf = ZIif +
Z7pAif -
Z8PAi (16)
k = amplifier gain
APm (Pmo/wod mdi qo Ai f
= +k)a + x +

s
= stabilizer gain
[Ai
Pe = -regulator gain = keka [(xq-diqo MOAqo A
+. A

Ve e
= overall regulator gain =
rf Pe or

1695
 _Ai
Ai- +Z1i4
Z= w+ z1 0-f
AP Z.:m,9- + _Z
Z12pAW (17) - Z38A6 - Z39Pf Z(24 (24)
and where
Avd1 Z36 z16Z34' Z42 Z37 + Z41' Z38 z16Z33'
Avt =
[vdmO/vto Vqo/v ] AVJ
qmj z39 Z17z34' z40 Z17Z35 Z37 Z16Z35 and

or z41 Z17Z 33
Av
-'t
= Z 1 3-Av (18)
..
Substituting from (20) into (17) to eliminate Ai,
Considering the voltage regulator transfer function as then
represented by equation (2) and rewriting in matrix
form, then AP= Z468) + Z47Lif + Z45AL + Z12pA (25)
where
Avf + T PAvf + T2p AVf = P"Avt - TsPAVt
Z46 Z9+Z44 Z44 =11Z22 Z4s5 = + 43
or
Avf + Z 1 4PVf + Z15kf-f = 1Z16Vt Z17PAVt - Z43 = Z11Z21 and Z45 = Z11Z23.
(19) Rewriting the equations (22), (24), and (25) in state
where variable fonn gives
T =T + T and T TT
1 e S5s 2 es A,X = A2X
into equation (14) to or
Substituting from equation (15)
eliminate Avm, then X = A-'2
or
Limi = Z 2 1Ai-f + Z 22- A6
Aw + Z 2 3- (20) X = AX (26)
where where Al' A2 and X are defined as follows:
Z18 =Z1Z3) 219 Z1Z4) Z20 1 Z5
1 a6
Z21 =
(U-Z18) Z19, Z22 =
(U-28) Z20 and Z12
-
A1 = -Z28 Z30 Aif
z2=
23 (U-Z 1 8 8) z2
1 Avf
Combining equations (15) and (18) gives Avf
Z40 Z39 15

- vt =
Z2 4Ai + Z2Ai +
Z26Aw (21)
and
where 1
Z13z3, Z25 =Z13Z4 and Z26 =z13z5.
Z24
-Z45 -Z46 -Z47
Combining equations (16) and (20) gives
A2 = Z330 -Z6 L0
AV i+ Z30 M 2f pAW Z29Aw
22 29-
w = -
o-~=Vf Z26tif 1
- (22)
1
where
-Z38 -Z42 -Z36 -1 -Z214
z27 =z8z21"'z28 z8z22V' z29 z8z23 and
All the submatrices are of dimensions lxl. The
z30 =7z27' above procedure is useful especially in the case of
multimachine systems, where the A matrix is formed
Substituting from (20) into (21) to eliminate Ai from the system submatrices.
gives
Acknowledgment
AV
=-t Ai +2z 35-"
=2Z 3 4t-f AW +2 3 3-
A6 (23)
The research reported in this paper is supported
where by an operating grant from the National Research
Council of Canada.
234 Z31 + 25, Z35 = Z32 + Z26$
References
Z33 z24z23- z32 =Z24Z22 and Z31 Z24Z (1) C. Concordia, "Steady-state stability of synchro-
nous machines as affected by voltage regulator
Combining equations (19) and (23), then characteristics," AIEE, Elec. Engg. Transactions
Section, vol. 63, pp. 215-220, May 1944.
Vf + Z14vf + Z15Avf -Z36Alf Z42AW
1696
(2) C. Concordia, "Effect of buck-boost voltage regu- vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 577-591, November 1964.
lator on steady state stability limit," Trans.
AIEE, Part I, vol. 69, pp. 380-385, 1950. (18) R. Kasturi and P. Doraraju, "Sensitivity analysis
of power systems," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus
(3) H. K. Messerle, "Steady state stability of alter- and Systems, vol. PAS-88, No. 10, pp. 1521-1529,
nators as modified by regulators," Elec. and October 1969.
Mech. Engg. Trans., IE Aust., vol. EM3, No.T2,
pp. 101-104, November 1961. (19) R. E. Kalman and J. E. Bertram, "Control system
analysis and design via the second method of Lia-
(4) Y. N. Yu and K. Vongsuriya, "Steady-state stabil- punov,"1 Part I, Trans. ASME, Ser. D, vol. 82,-
ity limits of a regulated synchronous machine pp. 371-393, June 1W6 .
conected to an infinite system," IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. (20) N. D. Rao, "Generation of Liapunov functions for
PAS-85, No. 7, pp. 759-767, July 1966. the transient stability problem," Transactions of
the Engineering Institute of Canad, EIC-68-ELECT
(5) R. R. Booth and G. L. Dillon, "The use of digital 3, vol. ll, No. C-3, pp. 1-8, May 1968.
computers for steady state stability calcula-
tions," The Institution of Engineers, Australia, (21) P. C. Parks, "A new proof of the Routh-Hurwitz
Elec. Engg. Trans., pp. 12-22, March 1968. stability criterion using the second method of
Liapunov," Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 1962, 58,
(6) R. M. Gove, "Geometric construction of the sta- pp. 694-702.
bility limits of synchronous machines," Proc.IEE,
vol. 112, No. 5, pp. 977-985, May 1965. (22) IEEE Committee Report, "Computer representation
of excitation systems," IEEE Tutorial Course,
(7) H. K. Messerle and R. W. Bruck, "Steady-state Text 70M29-PWR, pp. 244-248, 1970.
stability of synchronous generators as affected
by regulators and governors," Proc. IEE, Part c, (23) N. D. Rao, "Routh-Hurwitz conditions and Liapunov
vol. 102, pp. 24-34, 1955. methods for the transient-stability problem,"
Proc. IEE, vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 539-547, April
(8) L. J. Jacovides and B. Adkins, "Effect of excita- 1969 .
tion regulation on synchronous-machine stabil-
ity," Proc. IEE, vol. 113, No. 6, pp. 1021-1034,
June 1966.
(9) A. S. Aldred and G. Shackshaft, "A frequency-
response method for the predetermination of syn-
chronous-machine stability," Proc. IEE, vol. 107c,
pp. 2-10, 1960.
(10) D. N. Ewart and F. P. Demello, "A digital comput-
er program for the automatic determination of
dynamic stability limits," IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-86, No. 7,
pp. 867-875, July 1967.
(11) H. K. Messerle, "Relative dynamic stability of
large synchronous generators," Proc. IEE, Part c,
vol. 103, pp. 234-242, 1956. Fig. 1.
T.
(12) W. G. Heffron and R. A. Phillips, "Effect of a
modern amplidyne voltage regulator on under
excited operation of large turbine generators,"
Trans. AIEE, Part III, vol. 71, pp. 692-697,
August 1952.
(13) C. A. Stapleton, "Root-locus study of synchro-
nous-machine regulation,I" Proc. IEE, vol. III,
No. 4, pp. 761-768, April 1964.
(14) S. Surana and M. V. Hariharan, "Transient re-
sponse and transient stability of a power sys-
tem, " Proc. IEE (London), vol. 115, pp. 114-120, 0

January 1968. Reulator Gain (p.f*

(15) M. A. Laughton, 'Matrix analysis of dynamic sta-
fi
bility in synchronous multimachine systems," Proc.
IEE, vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 325-336, February I96.
(16) J. M. Undrill, "Dynamic stability calculations
for an arbitrary number of interconnected syn-
chronous machines," IEEE Transactions on Power
Aparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-87, No. 3, pp. Fig. 2. Effect of regulator gain on the sensitivity
835-8447,March 1968. of T.
(17) M. A. Laughton, "Sensitivity in dynamic system Pt 1.5, = -0.8, Te = 1 sec, Ts = 1 sec
analysis,'" Journal of Electronics and Control, (a) p = 2.5, (b) p5 = 5
s s

1697
 -
Exciter time constont (Te ec)

Fig. 3. Effect of exciter timne constant on the

sensitivity of T.
v= 25, T 1
Q 0
1.5, (a) 0.8Pe
.5,
p-0.8, s
= = sec

(a) P =
0.5, (b) ii- =
1

siFg).
Fig. 2)
t in p 40
7

0 < 4 8 12 Is 20 24-

\W2
Stabiizer Gdn (j)

0
Time(soc)
Non-ptimn Setting
(Point o'in Flo. 2) pea 90

Fig. 4. Effect of stabilizer gain on the sensitivity

of T.
Pt= 1.5, Qt = -0.8, Te= 1 sec, Ts = 1 sec
Fig. 5. Time response of A6 for a step disturbance of
(a) = 25, (b) = 50 0.02 rradians in 6.
Pt 1L.5, Qt = -0.8, Te
e e
= 1 sec, Ts = 1 sec,
fs = 2 .

0
o
Nonoptimum Setting
o
| | (Point d'
in Fig.2); .-90

- 0

Co

Q
n_
0 A
A Non-optimum Setting
(Point o'in Fig.2)14.90
a

Time (sec)
3
\4 5

Time (nec)

mng
1g. 2); -40

1 %
ptimum Setting
[L hPoint@ o in Fig.2 40

Fig. 6. Time response of Aw for a step disturbance of 0.02 radians in 6.f

.0.02 radians in 6.

Pt =1.5, Qt = -0.8, Te= 1 sec, .T = 1 sec, Pt =1.5, Qt = -0.8, Te 1 sec, Ts =1sec,

vPs= 2.5 = 2.5

1698
 Discussion
S. S. Venkata (Lowell Technological Institute, Lowell, Mass. 01854):
The authors are to be commended for presenting an interesting
technique to find out the effects of variation of control system
parameters on the dynamic stability measure of the power system.
It is proper to state at this juncture that sensitivity analysis of transient-
stability of power systems is already made using a different type
of stability measure defined in terms of Liapunov functions, 1,2 to
find out the effects of variation of power system parameters. This
latter stability measure, though conservative in nature, takes care
of the nonlinearity of the system. Looking broadly, the discusser
feels that a unique model, valid for both dynamic - and transient-
stability studies should be developed. Such a model will be highly
useful not only to investigate the stability of the present systems, but
also to design the future energy systems optimally with respect to zero
(or minimum) sensitivity.
Finally it would be welcome if the authors publish their results
for a specific multi-machine case.
REFERENCES:
[1l R.D. Teichgraeber, F.W. Harris and G.L. Johnson, "New Stability
Measure for Multi-machine Power Systems," IEEE Trans. on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-89, No. 2, pp. 233-239,
February 1969.
[21 S.S. Venkata, "Sensitivity Analysis and Simulation of Power
System Stability by Popov's Method" (unpublished Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, 1971, University of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C.)
Manuscript received February 28, 1972.
Mahmoud M. Elmetwally and N. Dharma Rao: We would like to thank
the discusser for the interest he has shown in the paper and the
pertinent points he has raised. The authors are familiar with the
techniques reported in the literature for the sensitivity analysis of
transient stability of power systems using Liapunov functions. How-
ever, as the discusser himself mentions, a price is paid for the inclusion
of system nonlinearity into the analysis in the form of a conservative
result. This is because Liapunov's theorems when applied to nonlinear
systems give only sufficient conditions which may not always be
necessary.
As for the discusser's comment regarding the desirability of
developing a unique model valid for both dynamic and transient
stability studies, our reply is this. Such a development, even though
Manuscript received April 12, 1972
1699
desirable, is not feasible for several reasons. First, the application
of the second method of Liapunov to transient stability problems
is limited to a modelling which leads to autonomous nonlinear
differential equations for the system dynamic behaviour. Even here,
investigators have not succeeded too well in generating Liapunov
functions which are far removed from energy functions. It is well
known that energy functions are especially bad offenders in giving
conservative stability predictions. Furthermore, if refinements such
as exciter and regulator action are injected into the analysis, the
equations of motion become nonautonomous. Unfortunately, Liapunov
theory for high-order nonautonomous systems is still not as well
developed as it is for autonomous systems. These difficulties need
to be overcome before any progress can be made in the direction
of a unified treatment for transient and dynamic stability.
We do not believe that we will be adding anything more to what
has already been reported in the paper by publishing the results for
a multi-machine case. Since our analysis is confined to infinitesimal
disturbances, the governing differential equations are linear. For linear,
ordinary differential equations, Liapunov theory can be applied without
running into problems of dimensionality or conservativeness. As a
result, the technique given in the paper can be applied to a system of
any complexity as long as attention is restricted to small disturbances.
However, the algorithm reported in the paper needs some modification,
if a multi-parameter sensitivity analysis is to be made. This will appear
elsewhere.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Dharma Rao, "Generation of Liapunov functions for the
transient stability problem", Transactions of the Engineering
Institute of Canada, EIC-68-ELECT.3, Vol. 11, No. C-3, pp. 1-8.
[2] N. Dharma Rao, "Generalized Routh-Hurwitz conditions for the
transient stability problem", Proc. I.E.E. (London), Vol. 116,
No. 4, April 1969, pp. 539-547.
[3] N. Dharma Rao and A. K. De Sarkar, "Analysis of a third-order
nonlinear power system stability problem through the second
method of Liapunov", Conference Paper No. 70CP-22OPWR,
Winter Power Meeting of I.E.E.E., New York, N.Y., January 25-30,
1970.
[41 N. Dharma Rao, "A unifying treatment of power system stability",
International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, Vol. 8,
1970, pp. 389-394.
[5] A. K. De Sarkar and N. Dharma Rao, "Zubov's method and
transient stability problems of power systems", Proc. I.E.E.
(London), Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 1035-1040, 1971.