By R RAVI KIRAN PSE 09EE6307

Large signal rotor angle stability(LSRAS) Conventional Methods Dynamic Single machine infinite bus equivalent method Trajectory prediction methods Single machine equivalent of power system Stability prediction Stream computing based LSRAS analysis Conclusion

To implement a real time large signal rotor angle stability analysis application which can predict the stability of the system quickly and reliably using measurements obtained from synchrophasors

Conventional methods used for LSRAS analysis are,

Time Domain Simulation Methods Direct Methods Hybrid Methods

Dynamic Single machine infinite bus equivalent (SMIE) uses synchrophasor measurements to form one machine infinite bus equivalent of the system
SMIE method consists of three steps. They are, Finding critical and non-critical machines Forming one machine equivalent of the system Using equal area criterion to assess the LSRAS of the system

System 1: 9-bus, 3-machine power system

System 2: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system

Conventional method Taylor series expansion Proposed method 4th and 5th order Polynomial curve fitting Methods used for comparison Trigonometric curve fitting Auto regression Model Y.Ohuras Model

Taylor series expansion can be used to predict the rotor angle trajectory as shown below,

System: 9-bus,3-machine system Case: 3 phase fault at bus 7, cleared at 0.05 s after fault initiation by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5

Taylor Series Expansion

80

Rotor Angle (degrees)

Actual Predicted 70

60

50

40

30

20

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

Time (s)

Curve fitting is the process of constructing a curve, or mathematical function, which has the best fit to a series of data Trigonometric Curve Fitting Rotor angle trajectory is estimated as a trigonometric function

System: 9-bus, 3-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 7, cleared at 0.083 s after fault by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5
Trigonometric curve fitting
70

Phase Difference (degrees)

Measured
60

Actual Predicted

50

Predicted

40

30

20

10

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Time (s)

The rotor angle trajectories are estimated as

Auto-Regression order 2
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

System: 9-bus, 3-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 7, cleared at 0.15 s after fault by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5

Rotor angle (degrees)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Time (s)

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21

System: 391-bus, 76-machine NREB power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 1228, cleared at 0.35 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 1228 and bus 1205
Autoregression - order 2
150

100

Rotor angle (degrees)

50

-50

-100 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Time (s)

The rotor angle trajectory is predicted as shown,

TH m-3 TH TH TK p

Where,

n-3

n m-2

n-2

m-1 n-1

TH

TH

TH

TH

p : predicted relative phase angle m, n : phase angles

System: 9-bus, 3-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 7, cleared at 0.15 s after fault by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5
Y-Ohuras Model
70

Rotor angle (degrees)

60 50

40

30 20

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Time (s)

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21

The rotor angle trajectory is fitted as a polynomial function of time Polynomial Curve Fitting Rotor angle trajectory is estimated as a polynomial expression (2)
4th order and 5th order polynomial curve fitting methods are found to be more suitable to predict the dynamics of rotor angle

System: 9-bus, 3-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 7, cleared at 0.15 s after fault by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21

System: 391-bus, 76-machine NREB power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 1228, cleared at 0.35 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 1228 and bus 1205
Polynomial Curve Fitting - order 4

Polynomial Curve Fitting - order 5

80 60
Rotor angle (degrees)

80

60

40

40

Rotor angle (degrees)

20

20

-20

-20

-40

-40

-60

-60

-80 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Time (s)

-80 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Time(s)

System: 9-bus, 3-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 7, cleared at 0.15 s after fault by removing line between bus 7 and bus 5 Stability of System: Stable
Comparison of trajectory prediction methods
75 70

65

Actual Polynomial 3rd order Polynomial 4th order Polynomila 5th order Autoregression Y.Ohura's model

Rotor angle (degrees)

60

55

50

45

40 0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Time (s)

System: 39-bus, 10-machine power system Case: 3 phase fault on bus 29, cleared at 0.18 s after fault by removing line between bus 29 and bus 28 Stability of System: Unstable
500 450 400

Rotor angle (degrees)

350

Actual Autoregression Polynomial order 3 Polynomial order 4 Polynomial order 5 Y.Ohura's model

300

250

200

150

100

50 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Time (s)

The range of prediction for various trajectory prediction methods for predicting absolute rotor angles with error less than 20 for a 39-bus, 10-machine power system are shown below
Method Taylor series expansion Y.Ohura's Method Autoregression Method 3rd order polynomial curve fitting 4th order polynomial curve fitting Range of Prediction (ms) 80 165 210 195 285

5th order polynomial curve fitting

270

The range of prediction for various trajectory prediction methods for predicting rotor angles with error less than 20 for a 391-bus, 76-machine NREB power system are shown below
Method Autoregression Method 3rd order polynomial curve fitting 4th order polynomial curve fitting 5th order polynomial curve fitting Range of Prediction (ms) 200 180 260 260

Largest relative angle between any two generators (max) during pre fault condition and centre of inertia angle (COA) are used to find critical and non-critical machines

max(| |) i, j 1,2, , n max i j

If the predicted relative angle between any generator and COA is greater than max, then the machine is identified as a critical machine

Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21 Critical Machines: Generators 6 and 7 Real Trajectories 2nd order Autoregression

4th order curve fitting

5th order curve fitting

Critical and non-critical single machine equivalents are formed using the method shown below

The dynamic SMIE of the power system is obtained using the method shown below

Relation between electric power and rotor angle is estimated as follows,

Electrical & Mechanical Powers
12

Case: 3 phase fault at bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21 Pconst = 3.629751 Pmax = 8.292519

Elec. Power Mech. Power

10

Power
4 2 0 -2 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Rotor Angle (degrees)

Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 sec after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21 Acceleration area =1.253178 Deceleration area = 6.723547

The stability of the system is obtained using the acceleration and deceleration areas

PMUs

Read data from PMUs

Find max Predict rotor angle trajectories using polynomial curve fitting

Identify critical machines

No

No. of critical machines >0

Yes Form critical and non-critical single machine equivalents Form single machine infinite bus model

Obtain stability of power system using equal area criterion Yes Is system stable?

No
Take emergency control actions

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Stable Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21 Critical Machines: Generators 6 and 7

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Unstable Case: 3 phase fault at bus 29, cleared at 0.18 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 29 and bus 28 Critical Machines: Generator 9

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.17 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21
Stability Margin Vs Time
0.05 0.045

0.04

0.035

Stability margin

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0 0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

0.48

0.49

0.5

Time (s)

The time taken by time domain simulation method and dynamic SMIE method implemented by using different trajectory prediction methods are as shown below
Dynamic SMIE Method Time Domain Simulation (1s simulation) 4th order Polynomial Curve fitting 2nd order Auto regression

Time(ms)

1670

124.7 (120- measuring, 4.7-computation)

125.9 (120- measuring, 5.9-computation)

Stream based programming language is used to code an algorithm on distributed computing systems
Stream computing has an advantage over conventional programming languages that it works on a running data

The following built-in operators are basic tools available to code an algorithm in SPADE Source Sink Functor Barrier Join

System: 39-bus, 10-machine New England power system Stable Case: 3 phase fault bus 16, cleared at 0.15 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 16 and bus 21

Unstable Case: 3 phase fault at bus 29, cleared at 0.18 s after fault initiation by opening line between bus 29 and bus 28

Table shows the time taken by stream computing and C programming language to compute stability of the system at the arrival of each new sample
Programming Language Stream Computing Program coded in C based SPADE language

Time(ms)

0.72

4.7

Hybrid method using single machine equivalent for LSRAS analysis has been implemented using 'C' programming language and Stream computing based SPADE programming language 4th and 5th order polynomial curve fitting methods provide better rotor angle trajectories than other trajectory prediction methods SMIE method along with PMU measurements and stream based distributed computing systems can be used for realizing a real time LSRAS analysis application

Testing of proposed method for larger power systems Design of stability control techniques like braking resistance method and islanding schemes

1.

P. Kundur, Neal J. Balu, Mark G. Lauby , Power System Stability and Control, 1994, Pages: 827-958, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing P.M. Anderson, A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability Volume 1, 1981, Pages: 312, Galgotia Publications M. Pavella, D. Ernst, and D. Ruiz-Vega, Transient stability of power systems, a unified approach to assessment and control, 2000, Springer Publications Vidalinc, Antoine Jr.; On-Line Transient Stability Analysis of a Multi-Machine Power System Using the Energy Approach , Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute And State University,1997, Page(s): 30 43

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ohura, Y.; Suzuki, M.; Yanagihashi, K.; Yamaura, M.; Omata, K.; Nakamura, T.; Mitamura, S.; Watanabe, H.; A predictive out-of-step protection system based on observation of the phase difference between substations, Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions, Volume: 5 , Issue: 4, 1990 , Page(s): 1695 1704
D. Ernst, D. Ruiz-Vega, and M. Pavella,Preventive and emergency transient stability control,, Scientic Commons, March 2010

6.

7.

Y. Xue, T. Van Cutsem, and M. Ribbens-Pavella, Extended equal area criterion justications, generalizations, applications, IEEE Power Engineering Review, Volume: 11 , Issue: 2, 1989, Page(s): 131 149 Y. Xue and M. Ribbens-Pavella, Extended equal-area criterion: an analytical ultra-fast method for transient stability assessment and preventive control of power systems, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Volume: 11 , Issue: 2, 1989, Page(s): 38 39 D. Ruiz-Vega and M. Pavella, A comprehensive approach to transient stability control 1, near optimal preventive control, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, Volume: 18 , Issue: 4, 2003, Page(s): 1446 1453

8.

9.

10. D. Ernst, A. Bettiol, Y. Zhang, L. Wehenkel, and M. Pavella, Real time transient stability emergency control of the south- southeast brazilian system, SEPOPE, Salvador, Brazil, May 1998
11. Chunyan Li; Changhong Deng; Yuanzhang Sun; Xiangyi Chen; An on-line transient stability emergency control strategy based on PMU forecasted trajectory, Power Engineering Conference, 2007. IPEC 2007, 2007 , Page(s): 807 812

IIT Kharagpur Prof. A. K. Sinha Dr. Jagabondhu Hazra (IBM Researcher) Mr. Devasenapathi (IBM Researcher)