Transient Stability

STABILITY ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS (EEEN50100)

Prof. Federico Milano

Email: [email protected]

Tel.: 01 716 1844

Room 157a – Engineering & Materials Science Centre

School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering

University College Dublin

Dublin, Ireland

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 1

 Angle Stability Outlines
• Definitions.
• Small-signal Stability:
◦ Hopf Bifurcations.
◦ Control and mitigation.
◦ Practical example.
• Transient Stability
◦ Time Domain.
◦ Direct Methods.
⋄ Lyapounov function.
⋄ Equal Area Criterion.
⋄ Energy functions.
◦ Practical applications.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 2

 Angle Stability Definitions

• IEEE-CIGRE classification (IEEE/CIGRE Joint Task Force on Stability) Terms and

Definitions, “Definitions and Classification of Power System Stability”, IEEE Trans.
Power Systems and CIGRE Technical Brochure 231, 2003:

Power System
Stability

Rotor Angle Frequency Voltage

Stability Stability Stability

Large Small
Small Disturbance Transient
Disturbance Disturbance
Angle Stability Stability Voltage Stability Voltage Stability

Short Term Short Term Long Term

Short Term Long Term

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 3

 Angle Stability Definitions

• “Rotor angle stability refers to the ability of synchronous machines of an interconnected

power system to remain in synchronism after being subjected to a disturbance. It
depends on the ability to maintain/restore equilibrium between electromagnetic torque
and mechanical torque of each synchronous machine in the system.”

• In this case, the problem becomes apparent through angular/frequency swings in some
generators which may lead to their loss of synchronism with other generators.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 4

 Transient Stability

• “Large disturbance rotor angle stability or transient stability, as it is commonly referred

to, is concerned with the ability of the power system to maintain synchronism when
subjected to a severe disturbance, such as a short circuit on a transmission line. The
resulting system response involves large excursions of generator rotor angles and is
influenced by the nonlinear power-angle relationship”.

• The system nonlinearities determine the system response; hence, linearization does
not work in this case.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 5

 Transient Stability

• For small disturbances, the problem is to determine if the resulting steady state
condition is stable or unstable (eigenvalue analysis) or a bifurcation point (e.g. Hopf
bifurcation).

• For large disturbances, the steady state condition after the disturbance can exist and
be stable, but it is possible that the system cannot reach that steady state condition.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 6

 Transient Stability

• The basic idea and analysis procedures are:

◦ Pre-contingency (initial conditions): the system is operating in “normal” conditions
associated with a s.e.p.

◦ Contingency (fault trajectory): a large disturbance, such as a short circuit or a line

trip forces the system to move away from its initial operating point.

◦ Post contingency (fault clearance): the contingency usually forces system

protections to try to “clear” the fault; the issue is then to determine whether the
resulting system is stable, i.e. whether the system remains relatively intact and the
associated time trajectories converge to a “reasonable” operating point.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 7

 Transient Stability

• Based on non linear theory, this analysis can be basically viewed as determining:
◦ Whether the fault trajectory at the “clearance” point is outside or inside of the
stability region of the post-contingency s.e.p.; and

◦ If the clearance point is inside the stability region, whether the system does not
have sufficient “kinetic” energy to get outside the stability region of the s.e.p.

• The second point makes the problem intrisincally “dynamic”, i.e., the transient stability
analysis cannot be solved considering only the set of e.p. of the system.

• Hence, we needs something more sophisticated than the first Lyapunov’s method.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 8

 Time domain analysis

• Given the complexity of power system models, the most reliable analysis tool for these
types of studies is full time domain simulations.

• For example, for the generator-load example:

Generator PG + jQG PL + jQL

jx′G jxL

E ′ ∠δ V1 ∠δ1 V2 ∠δ2 −jxC

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 9

 Time domain analysis

• The ODE for the simplest generator d-axis transient model and neglecting AVR and
generator limits is:

1
ω̇ = (Pd − E ′ V2 B sin δ − DG ω)
M
1
δ̇ = ω− (E ′ V2 B sin δ − Pd )
DL
1
V̇2 = [−V22 (B − BC ) + E ′ V2 B cos δ − kPd ]
τ
where
1 1
B= = ′
X XG + XL

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 10

 Time domain analysis

• The objective is to determine how much time an operator would have to connect the
capacitor bank BC after a severe contingency, simulated here as a sudden increase in
the value of the reactance X , so that the system recovers.

• In this case, and as previously discussed in the voltage stability section, the
contingency is severe, as the s.e.p. disappears if the capacitor bank is not connected
to the load.

• Full time domain simulations are carried out to study this problem for the parameter
values M = 0.1, DG = 0.01, DL = 0.1, τ = 0.01, E ′ = 1, Pd = 0.7,
k = 0.25, BC = 0.5.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 11

 Time domain analysis
• A contingency X = 0.5 → 0.6 at tf = 1 s, with BC connection at tc = 1.4 s yields
a stable system:

1.4
ω
δ
1.2 V2
E′

0.8

0.6

0.4

tf
0.2
tc

−0.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 12

 Time domain analysis

• If BC is connected at tc = 1.5 s, the system is unstable:

ω
δ
5 V2
E′

4
tc

tf
3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 13

 Direct Methods

• Time domain analysis is expensive, so direct stability analysis technique have been
proposed based on Lyapounov’s stability theory.

• The idea is to define an “energy” or Lyapounov function ϑ(x, xs ) with certain

characteristics to obtain a direct “measure” of the stability region A(xs ) associated
with the post-contingency s.e.p. xs .

• A system’s energy is usually a good Lyapounov function, as it yields a stability

“measure”.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 14

 Direct Methods

• The rolling ball example can used to explain the basic behind these techniques:
u.e.p.2

~
v
m
u.e.p.1
h

s.e.p.

• There are 3 equilibrium points: one stable (“valley” bottom), two unstable (“hill” tops).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 15

 Direct Methods

• The energy of the ball is a good Lyapounov or Transient Energy Function (TEF):

W = Wkinetic + Wpotential
= WK + WP
1
= mv 2 + mgh
2
= ϑ([v, h]T , 0)

• The potential energy at the s.e.p. is zero, and presents local maxima at the u.e.p.s
(WP 1 and WP 2 ).

• The “closest” u.e.p. is u.e.p.1 since WP 1 < WP 2 .

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 16

 Direct Methods

• The stability of this system can then be evaluated using this energy:
◦ if W < WP 1 , the ball remains in the “valley”, i.e. the system is stable, and will
converge to the s.e.p. as t → ∞.

◦ If W > WP 1 , the ball might or might not converge to the s.e.p., depending on
friction (inconclusive test).

◦ When the ball’s potential energy WP (t) reaches a maximum with respect to time t,
the system leaves the “valley”, i.e. unstable condition.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 17

 Direct Methods

• The “valley” would correspond to the stability region when friction is “large”.
• In this case, the stability boundary ∂A(xs ) corresponds to the “ridge” where the
u.e.p.s are located and WP has a local max. value.

• The smaller the friction in the system, the larger the difference between the ridge and
∂A(xs ).
• For zero friction, ∂A(xs ) is defined by WP 1 .

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 18

 Direct Methods

• The direct stability test is only a necessary but not sufficient condition:

ϑ(x, xs ) < c ⇒ x ∈ A(xs )

ϑ(x, xs ) > c ⇒ Inconclusive!

where the value of c is usually associated with a local maximum of a “potential energy”
function.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 19

 Direct Methods

• For the simple generator-infinite bus example, neglecting limits and AVR:

Generator PG + jQG PL + jQL System

jx′G jxL jxth

E ′ ∠δ V1 ∠δ1 V2 ∠δ2 V ∠0

δ̇ = ω = ωr − ω0
E′V
 
1
ω̇ = PL − sin δ − Dω
M X
′
X = XG + XL + Xth

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 20

 Direct Methods

• The kinetic energy in this system is defined as:

1
WK = M ω2
2
• And the potential energy is:
Z
WP = (Tc − Tm )dδ
Z
≈ (Pc − Pm )dδ → in p.u. for ωr ≈ ω0
δ δ
E′V
Z Z
≈ (PG − PL )dδ ≈ ( − PL )dδ
δs δs X
≈ −E ′ V B(cos δ − cos δs ) − PL (δ − δs )

where δs is the s.e.p. for this system.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 21

 Direct Methods

• With WP presenting a very similar profile as the rolling ball example:

PG stable

unstable unstable
E′ V
X

δu2 δs δu1

max
WF
WF 2 max

WF 1
min

δu2 δs δu1

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 22

 Direct Methods

• The potential energy WP allows defining the stability of the equilibrium points.
• one has to compute the second derivative with respect to the position δ of the potential
energy at the equilibrium points. Then the equilibrium point is:

◦ stable if ∂ 2 WP /∂δ 2 > 0 ;

◦ unstable if ∂ 2 WP /∂δ 2 < 0.

• Note that, for the OMIB example, ∂ 2 WP /∂δ 2 is positive for δs and negative for δu1
and δu2 , as expected.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 23

 Direct Methods

• Hence, the system Lyapounov function of TEF is:

T EF = ϑ(x, xs )
= ϑ([δ, ω]T , [δs , 0]T )
1
= M ω 2 − E ′ V B(cos δ − cos δs )
2
−PL (δ − δs )

• Thus, using similar criteria as in the case of the rolling ball:

◦ If T EF < WP 1 ⇒ system is stable.
◦ If T EF > WP 1 ⇒ inconclusive for D > 0 (“friction”).
◦ If T EF > WP 1 ⇒ unstable for D = 0 (unrealistic).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 24

 Direct Methods

• This is equivalent to compare “areas” in the PG vs. δ graph (Equal Area Criterion or
EAC):

PG pre-contingency

post-contingency

PL

contingency (fault)

δ(0) = δspre δ(tc ) δ

δu1
δspost post
fault clearing time

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 25

 Direct Methods

• Thus, comparing the “acceleration” area:

Z δ(tc )
Aa = (PL − PGf ault )dδ
δspre
δ(tc )  ′

EV
Z
= PL − dδ
δspre Xf ault

• versus the “deceleration” area:

Z δspost
Ad = (PGpost − PL )dδ
δ(tc )
δspost
E′V
Z  
= − PL dδ
δ(tc ) Xpost

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 26

 Direct Methods

• In conclusion:
◦ If Aa < Ad ⇒ system is stable at tc .
◦ If Aa > Ad ⇒ inconclusive for D > 0.
◦ If Aa > Ad ⇒ unstable for D = 0 (unrealistic).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 27

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• A 60 Hz generator with a 15% transient reactance is connected to an infinite bus of 1

p.u. voltage through two identical parallel transmission lines of 20% reactance and
negligible resistance. The generator is delivering 300 MW at a 0.9 leading power factor
when a 3-phase solid fault occurs in the middle of one of the lines; the fault is then
cleared by opening the breakers of the faulted line.

• Assuming a 100 MVA base, determine the critical clearing time for this generator if the
damping is neglected and its inertia is assumed to be H = 5 s.

• Assuming D = 0.1 s, determine the actual critical clearing time.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 28

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• Pre-contingency or initial conditions:

E′V
PGpre = PL = sin δspre
Xpre
V2 E′V
QL = − + cos δspre
Xpre Xpre

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 29

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• Where:
0.2
Xpre = 0.15 + = 0.25
2
300 MW
PL =
100 MVA
E′
3 = sin δspre
0.25
QL = 3 tan(cos−1 0.9)
1 E′
1.4530 = − + cos δspre
0.25 0.25

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 30

 Direct Methods: Example 1

⇒ Ei′pre = E ′ sin δspre

= 0.75
Er′ pre = E ′ cos δspre
= 1.3633
q
E′ = E ′ 2rpre + E ′ 2ipre
= 1.5559
!
Ei′pre
δspre = tan−1
Er′ pre
= 28.82◦ = 0.5030 rad

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 31

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• Fault conditions:
E′V
PGf ault = sin δ
Xf ault
1.5559
= sin δ
Xf ault
where, using a Y-∆ circuit transformation due to the fault being in the middle of one of
the parallel lines:

jXf ault

j0.15
j0.2

E ′ ∠δ V ∠0
j0.1 j0.1

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 32

 Direct Methods: Example 1

0.15 × 0.2 + 0.1 × 0.2 + 0.15 × 0.1

Xf ault =
0.1
⇒ PGf ault = 2.394 sin δ
Z δ(tcc )
Aa = (PL − PGf ault )dδ
δspre
Z δ(tcc )
= (3 − 2.394 sin δ)dδ
0.503
= 3(δ(tcc ) − 0.503) + 2.394(cos δ(tcc ) − cos(0.503))
= 3δ(tcc ) + 2.394 cos δ(tcc ) − 3.6065

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 33

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• Post contingency conditions:

Xpost = 0.15 + 0.2 = 0.35

E′V
⇒ PGpost = sin δ
Xpost
= 4.446 sin δ
⇒ 3 = 4.446 sin δspost
δspost = 42.44◦
= 0.7407 rad

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 34

 Direct Methods: Example 1

Z π−δspost
⇒ Ad = (PGpost − PL )dδ
δ(tcc )
Z 2.4
= (4.446 sin δ − 3)dδ
δ(tcc )
= −4.446(cos 2.4 − cos δ(tcc )) − 3(2.4 − δ(tcc ))
= 3δ(tcc ) + 4.446 cos δ(tcc ) − 3.9215

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 35

 Direct Methods: Example 1

Aa = Ad
= 3δ(tcc ) + 2.394 cos δ(tcc ) − 3.6065
= 3δ(tcc ) + 4.446 cos δ(tcc ) − 3.9215

⇒ δ(tcc ) = 81.17◦
= 1.4167 rad

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 36

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• During the fault:

δ̇ = ω
′
 
1 EV
ω̇ = PL − sin δ
M Xf ault
H
M =
πf
5s
=
π60 Hz
= 0.0265 s2

⇒ δ̇ = ω
ω̇ = 37.70(3 − 2.394 sin δ)

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 37

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• Integrating these equations numerically for δ(0) = δspre = 28.82◦ :

220

200

180

160

140
δ [deg]

120

100

80

60

40

20
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 38

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• For D = 0.1 and a clearing time of tc = 0.27 s, the system is stable:

150

100

δ [deg]
50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
t [s]

10

5
ω [deg]

−5

−10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 39

 Direct Methods: Example 1

• For a clearing time of tc = 0.28 s, the system is unstable; hence tcc ≈ 0.275 s:
2500

2000

δ [deg]
1500

1000

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
t [s]

40

30
ω [deg]

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 40

 Direct Methods: Example 2

• Generator-motor, i.e. system-system, cases may also be studied using the EAC
method based on an equivalent inertia M = M1 M2 /(M1 M2 ), and damping
D = M D1 /M1 = M D2 /M2 .
• For the generator-load example neglecting the internal generator impedance and
assuming an “instantaneous” AVR:
PG + jQG PL + jQL
jxL

V1 ∠δ1 V2 ∠δ2

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 41

 Direct Methods: Example 2

• The “energy” functions, with or without generator limits, can be shown to be:
1
WK = M ω2
2
WP = −B(V1 V2 cos δ − V10 V20 cos δ0 )
1 1
+ B(V2 − V20 ) + B(V12 − V10
2 2 2
)
2 2
   
V2 V1
−Pd (δ − δ0 ) + Qd ln − QG ln
V20 V10
• The stability of this system can then be studied using the same “energy” evaluation
previously explained for T EF = ϑ(x, x0 ) = WK + WP .

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 42

 Direct Methods: Example 2

• Thus for V1 = 1, XL = 0.5, Pd = 0.1, and Qd = 0.25Pd , the potential energy

WP (δ, V2 ) that defines the stability region withr espect to the s.e.p. is:

5
WP

0
400

200 s.e.p. 2

u.e.p. 0 node 1.5

1
saddle −200
0.5
−400
δ 0
V2

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 43

 Direct Methods: Example 2

• Simulating the critical contingency XL = 0.5 → 0.6 for Pd = 0.7 and neglecting
limits, the “energy” profiles are:

0.2 Wp
Wk+Wp

0.1

0
T EF

−0.1

−0.2

−0.3

−0.4
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
t [s]

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 44

 Direct Methods: Example 2

• The “exit” point on ∂A(xs ) is approximately at the maximum potential energy point.
• Thus, the critical clearing time is:

tcc ≈ 1.42 s

• A similar value can be obtained through trial-and-error.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 45

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• Consider the following system:

1 X1 X2 2
Vm
System 1 System 2

V1 V2
SVC

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 46

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• Without the SVC, the active power tha flows from bus 1 to bus 2 is as follows:
V1 V2 V2
P12 = sin δ12 = sin δ
X1 + X2 X
where we assume V1 = V2 = V and define X1 = X2 = X/2 and δ12 = δ .
• With the SVC device, one has:
V1 Vm 2V 2 δ
P12 = P1m = sin δ1m = sin
X/2 X 2
where we assume that the SVC regulates the voltage Vm so that Vm =V.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 47

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• We can generalize the active power that can be transmitted from bus 1 to bus 2 using
n SVC devices, as follows:
(n + 1)V 2 δ
P12 = sin
X (n + 1)

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 48

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• Active power as a function of δ12 = δ and n:

30

25 n=0
n=1
Active Power (p.u.)

n=2
20 n=3

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Angle δ12

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 49

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• The increased power transfer capability obtined by means of the SVC can be used to
improve the transient stability of the system, as follows:

Ad

Aa

δ0 δc δ

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 50

 Direct Methods: Example 3

• Typically, it is more economic a partial compensation:

Ad

Aa

δ0 δc δ

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 51

 Direct Methods: Example 4

• Let study the effect of the machine damping on the CCT.

• OMIB system with three-phase fault and line outage.

xL /2
1 0
x′d xTh
t 0 + tc

e∠δ xL /2 v∠0
t0

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 52

 Direct Methods: Example 4
• Without damping the CCT is ≈ 0.26 s.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 53

 Direct Methods: Example 4
• With damping, the CCT can increase considerably.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 54

 Direct Methods: Conclusions

• The advantages of using Lyapounov functions are:

◦ Allows reduced stability analysis.
◦ Can be used as an stability index.

• The problems are:

◦ Lyapounov functions are model dependent; in practice, only approximate “energy”
functions can be found.

◦ Inconclusive if test fails.

◦ The post-perturbation system state must be known ahead of time, as the energy
function is defined with respect to the corresponding s.e.p.

• Can only be used as an “approximate” stability analysis tool.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 55

 Hybrid Methods - I

• Considering the methods that we have seen so far, this are relevant conclusions:
• Time domain simulations are accurate, but can be computationally expensive.
• Direct methods are fast but have several theoretical limitations.

• Hybrid methods attempt to take the best from the two approaches.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 56

 Hybrid Methods - II

• An important issue to solve when dealing with numerical integration is when to stop the
simulation.

• A simple method for determining if the trajectory is going to be unstable is to monitor

the rotor angle of synchronous machines.

• If at a certain time t, the maximum difference between two rotor angles exceeds 2π
• Then some machine is certainly losing the synchronism and the simulation can be
stopped.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 57

 Hybrid Methods - III

• However, the previous method does not allow saving time if the simulation is stable.
• In fact, if the simulation is stable, one has to wait for the final assigned time tf before
stopping the numerical method.

• A well-known technique that allows defining the stability or instability of a given

trajectory is the SIME method (developed at Univ. of Liège, Belgium).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 58

 SIME Method - I

• At each step of the numerical integration, the machine rotor angles are sorted and the
maximum difference of two consecutive synchronous machine rotor angles is found.

• Assuming that these angles are δi and δj , with δi > δj , all machines whose rotor
angles satisfy δh ≥ δi are considered critical machines, while all machines whose
rotor angles satisfy δh ≤ δj are considered non-critical machines.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 59

 SIME Method - II

• Once defined the critical and non-critical machine sets, say GC and GNC , the
equivalent OMIB rotor angle is defined as:

OMIB 1 X 1 X
δ = Hj δ j − Hj δ j (1)
HC HNC
j=GC j=GNC

where the sub-indexes C and NC stand for critical and non-critical, and the equivalent
inertia constants are:
X
HC = Hj (2)
j=GC
X
HNC = Hj
j=GNC

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 60

 SIME Method - III

• Similarly, OMIB electrical and mechanical powers are defined as:

 
OMIB  1 1
X X
OMIB
pe = H pej − pej  (3)
HC HNC
j=GC j=GNC
 
OMIB  1 1
X X
OMIB
pm = H pmj − pmj 
HC HNC
j=GC j=GNC

where H OMIB = HC HNC /(HC + HNC ).

• According to the EAC, the equivalent OMIB accelerating power pOMIB
a is:

pOMIB
a = pOMIB
m − pOMIB
e (4)

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 61

 SIME Method - IV
• The following stability conditions hold for the equivalent OMIB:
1. If, at a certain time step t, pOMIB
a = 0 and ṗOMIB
a > 0 and δ̇ OMIB > 0 the
system is unstable. In fact, the previous conditions ensure that the system has no
further kinetic energy to spend for decelerating the system. Furthermore,
δ̇ OMIB > 0 implies that the rotor angle is increasing. These are sufficient
conditions to define instability.

2. If, at a certain time step t, pOMIB

a < 0 and δ̇ OMIB ≤ 0 the system is first-swing
stable. In fact, in this case, the kinetic energy is enough to stop the critical machine
rotor angles and make them to “come back”. These stability conditions are only
necessary. In fact, the system can later on show multi-swing instability. Only the
numerical integration can show if the trajectory is multi-swing stable or not.

3. If pOMIB
a > 0, ∀t > 0, then the system is certainly unstable. However, some
heuristic is needed to determine when to stop the simulation.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 62

 SIME Method - V

• The main assumption of the SIME method is that the two sets of critical and
non-critical machines can be considered as an OMIB system.

• One may argue that there could be a case in which the system separates into three or
more groups.

• Actually, there is no experimental result that shows a system separating in more than
two groups since it becomes unstable.

• Thus, until a case study will prove the contrary, the main assumption of the SIME
method can be considered true.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 63

 Transient Stability Applications

• In practice, transient stability studies are carried out using time-domain trial-and-error
techniques.

• These types of studies can now be done on-line even for large systems.
• The idea is to determine whether a set of “realistic” contingencies make the system
unstable or not (contingency ranking), and thus determine maximum transfer limits or
ATC in certain transmission corridors for given operating conditions.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 64

 Transient Stability Applications

• Thus, the maximum loadability of the system may be affected by the “size” of the
stability region, leading to the definition of a “true” ATC value.

1
HB
0.9 HB
OP
0.8

0.7
ETC ATC TRM

0.6
V2

0.5
TTC
0.4

0.3
Worst
Contingency
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pd

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 65

 Transient Stability Applications

• Critical clearing times are not really an issue with current fast acting protections.
• Simplified direct methods such as the “Extended Equal Area Criterion” (Y. Xue et al.,
“Extended Equal Area Criterion Revisited”, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol.
7, No. 3, Aug. 1992, pp. 1012-1022) have been proposed and tested for on-line
contingency pre-ranking, and are being implemented for practical applications through
an E.U. project.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 66

 Impact of Wind Generation on Transient Stability

• Wind generators do not show the loss of synchronism as conventional synchronous

generators.

• Nevertheless, even wind generators can become unstable following a fault or a line trip.
• For Type A figures, the generator can “stall”, i.e. the mechanical torque is greater than
the maximum electrical one. This leads to a dangerous acceleration of the machine
(short term-voltage collapse).

• In case of Type C and Type D figures, current limiters avoid unexepcted behaviors of
the generators. However the mechanical power has to be properly regulated or
dissipated (crow-bar).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 67

 Overcurrent Protection through Crow-Bar

• The crow-bar is a reasonable solution to allow existing generators and Type D figures
standing faults.

CROW−BAR
CROW−BAR

• New generators can be equipped with overdesigned inverters that avoid disconnecting
the generator during the faults (only Type C).

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 68

 Operational Metrics

• Operational metrics reflect operation values showing a strong relationship with relevant
system variables.

• Let define the ratio of inertialess power from wind plus import and instantaneous load
plus export as follows:
Pwind + Pimport
OM1 = (5)
Pload + Pexport
• Let define the ratio of kinetic energy stored in conventional generators plus load and
the dispatched power of the largest infeed as follows:

KEconv gen + KEload

OM2 = (6)
Plargest infeed

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 69

 System Inertia Constant as a Function of OM1

• System inertia vs OM1 for the Irish system.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 70

 Example: Irish System

• Percentage of disturbances with certain CCTs as a function of OM1 for the Irish
system.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 71

 Example: Irish System

• In the Irish transmission system break times (including circuit breaker separation) are
about 50-80ms.

• Eirgrid defined a share of 30%...40% of disturbances associated with critical clearance

times of ≤150ms as tolerance range.

• In the previous figure, we observe that as long as value of OM1 is below

70%...80%,the 30% tolerance is respected for CCTs ≤150ms.

• Source: “All Island TSO Facilitation of Renewables Studies”, EirGrid & Soni, 2012.

Dublin, 2019 Transient Stability - 72