DIRECT COMPUTATION OF CRITICAL CLEARING TIME FOR TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS

Naoto Yorino*, Ardyono Priyadi*, Ridzuan A. Mutalib*, Yutaka Sasaki*, Yoshifumi Zoka*, Hiroaki Sugihara**
Hiroshima University* Chugoku Electric Power** Higashi Hiroshima, Japan yorino@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Abstract This paper presents a new technique for what we call the critical trajectory method, a recent new method proposed by the authors for obtaining critical clearing time (CCT) for transient stability analysis. A specific feature of the method lies in its ability to provide exact CCT by solving a minimization problem. The method is based on the computation of the critical trajectory, which is defined as the trajectory that starts from a point on a fault-on trajectory at CCT and reaches an end point. This paper proposes new alternative end point condition, making it possible to take into account AVR and Governor for the Xd generator model. It is demonstrated using 30machine system that the proposed methods successfully provide the exact CCT that agrees with the conventional numerical simulation method.

although this is not the case for general multi-machine systems.

Keywords: Electric power system, Transient stability analysis, Critical clearing time, Critical trajectory method. 1 INTRODUCTION Transient stability analysis (TSA) is key issue for maintaining security of power system operation. The analysis is mainly performed through numerical simulations, where numerical integration is carried out step by step from an initial value to obtain dynamic response to disturbances. In general, such a numerical simulation method is effective since it can easily take into account various dynamic models for complex power systems as well as various time sequences of events. Furthermore, the method is useful in analyzing various kinds of complex nonlinear phenomena such as in [1-3]. However, the numerical simulation is usually time consuming, and therefore, it is not necessarily suited for real time stability assessment. An alternative approach, called transient energy function methods [4-18], assesses system stability based on the transient energy. Those methods provide fast stability assessment, while a common disadvantage is concerned with the accuracy of stability judgment. The limitation in accuracy comes from the fact that all those methods are inherently approximations. The critical trajectory is defined as the trajectory that starts from a point on a fault-on trajectory and reaches a critical point. The critical trajectory is given as trajectory 3 in Figure 1. The critical point agrees with unstable equilibrium point (UEP) for a single machine system,

Figure 1: Trajectories in a phase plane for a single machine to infinite bus system with damping.

It is generally difficult to compute the critical trajectory by means of conventional numerical simulations. In [19-27], the authors have proposed a new formulation as a minimization problem for computing the critical trajectory, that is, what we call critical trajectory method. In [19, 20], the method has been applied to the BCU method, a kind of the transient energy function method. The method has been extended to the regular transient stability analysis problem in [21-26], where exact CCT are obtained using the Xd generator model in multi-machine systems. Various examinations including preliminary investigations to take into account controllers have been performed in [24, 27]. This paper proposes alternative formulation for the critical trajectory method using a new end point condition, making it possible to deal with AVR and Governors. The effectiveness of the proposed method will be demonstrated through IEE Japan West 30-machine 115bus system. 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.1 Power System Model Multi-machine power system model is defined using the Xd generator model, where each generator is represented by two dimensional differential equations. The center of angle (COA) or center of inertia swing equation in reference [4] is given by:

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

rad/s

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

& % i = Pmi Pei ( ) M i

~ & = i i

Mi %i ) PCOA Di ( MT

(1) (2)

where,
MT =

M i ; 0 = M T M ii ; 0 = M T M i i ;
i =1 i =1 i =1 n i =1 n

The fault is cleared at time . The system is governed by the post-fault dynamics expressed by the following nonlinear equation. & = f (x ), t ; f : R N R N x (7) The solution curve of (7), curves 2, 3, 4 in Figure 1, are called post-fault trajectories, and represented by x(t ) = X t ; x 0 , t ; X ; x 0 : R N R N (8)

( )
(

~ = ; P i = i 0 ; i i COA = (Pmi P ei ( )) ; 0 Pei ( ) =

j =i

Yij Ei E j sin i j + ij

Note that initial point x is a point on the fault-on trajectory at time , fault clearing time. x 0 = X F , x pre (9)

AVRs and speed governors are respectively represented by, & = 1 ( E E ) + K E (3) i 0i i AVRi (Vrefi Vti ) TAVRi
& = P mi 1 TGOVi ( Pmrefi Pmi ) + K GOVi ( %i )

(4)

The critical trajectory is defined as the post-fault trajectory which satisfies the following boundary conditions: Initial point condition The initial point is on the fault-on trajectory when the fault is cleared at CCT. Namely, x 0 = X F CCT , x pre (10)

Pm i is mechanical power input i-th; i is generator

rotor speed i-th; i is generator angle deviation ith; M i is moment of inertia i-th; Di is damping coefficient i-th; Ei is voltage behind transient reactance i-th; Vrefi is terminal voltage reference i-th; Vti is terminal voltage i-th; Pmrefi is mechanical power reference i-th; Pei is electric power i-th; KAVRi is automatic voltage regulator (AVR) gain i-th; TAVRi is AVR time constant ith; KGOVi is governor gain i-th; TGOVi is governor time constant i-th. In this paper, we use two kinds of power system models. The Xd model stands for equations (1) and (2), while the Xd model with controllers, equations (1)-(4). Those equations define power system models (5) and (7) in fault condition as well as post fault condition. Those equations are also used for both the conventional numerical simulation and the proposed method. 2.2 Definition of Problem for CCT This section defines a problem for obtaining CCT in the transient stability problem. The transient stability problem for an event disturbance may be expressed as below: Firstly, a power system is operating at a stable operating point, denoted as x pre , when a fault occurs at time t = 0 . Then, the system is governed by the faulton dynamics during the fault [0, ] as follows: & = f F (x ), 0 t , x(0 ) = x pre x (5) ~ ] R N , t R, f : R N R N where x = [ ,
F

End point condition The critical trajectory must reach a critical point. In this paper, we use m+1 to represent the end point, where m is the number of integration steps for trapezoidal method, see Figure 2. In our previous study in [25], we have proposed the conditions for x as the condition for losing synchronism as follows. P with v 0 (11) 0 = v ~ & = k v = ks (12) s Where [P ] is synchronizing force coefficient matrix; v is the eigenvector corresponding to zero eigenvalue of matrix [P ] . The condition (11) implies that matrix [P ] is singular, and the synchrom +1 & are the , where , nizing force vanishes at x elements of x . The second condition means that the & eigenvector must agree with change direction of with a scalar k s R . In [25], we have proposed the above boundary conditions to successfully obtain the CCT. The conditions have successfully worked so far with no exceptions. However, controllers such as AVR and Governor have not been successfully deal with so far by the above end point condition.
3 THE PROPOSED METHOD
m +1

m +1

The solution curve of (5), corresponding to trajectory 1 in Figure 1, is called fault-on trajectory and is expressed in this paper by: (6) x(t ) = X F t ; x pre , 0 t

where X F ; x pre : R R N

3.1 Alternative End Point Condition This section proposes an alternative end point condition. For a single machine to infinite bus system as stated in Figure 1, the end point for the critical trajectory agree with Controlling UEP (CUEP) of post-fault systems represented by x u , which satisfies ~u ] 0 = f x u , with x u = [ u , (13) However, we have confirmed by exhaustive examinations that the end point is not identical with CUEP for

( )

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

multi-machine systems. Instead, the following endpoint conditions work to obtain the critical trajectory. End point condition It has been confirmed that the end point never agrees with CUEP for all the elements, but they agree to each other for certain elements. That is, the following conditions at least hold at the end point, m+1:
m +1 u cg = cg ,
m +1 u % cg % cg = =0

the same distance in (17). This treatment makes the computation of critical trajectory robust.
x0 x0 ~ xm+1: critical trajectory x1 xk

(14)
Each point is connected by using Trapezoidal Method

Index cg represents a specific generator number which is defined here as the critical generator. The above conditions imply that only the two state variables corresponding to the critical generator (CG) reach the corresponding UEP. Detailed procedure of CG selection is explained in sub section III. B. The conditions (14) are simpler than conditions (11) and (12), and therefore they are useful to take account of controllers. CUEP that satisfies equilibrium equation (13) has been determined separately in advance by other methods such as the boundary controlling UEP (BCU) method [12, 19-20]. 3.2 Procedure of CG selection Critical Generator (CG) selection plays an important role in this paper. After various examinations, we utilize the potential energy value of each generator as an index for the selection. The potential energy in the energy function corresponding to this system is given as follows: (15) Ep = Epi
i

xm xm+1 CP

Figure 2: Concept of the proposed method.

4.2 Problem Formulation According to previous discussion, the problem for obtaining the critical condition for transient stability for system (5) is formulated as follows:

m min ( k ) ' ( k ) + ( m +1 ) ' W ( m +1 ) (18) X k =0

where, x k R N , ( k = 0,K, m ) , R, R, X = x0 ,..., x m +1 , ,

k = x k +1 x k
&k = f xk x

& k +1 + x &k x & k +1 + x &k x

(19) (20)

( )
( )
m +1 u

with boundary conditions:

x 0 = X F ; x pre
m +1

where

(16) Ei is constant voltage behind the direct axis transient reactant; Gii is driving point conductance. Superscript s represents stable equilibrium point (SEP); Epi is used as an index to select CG. Based on (15) and (16), generator with the largest index value of Ep is selected as the critical generator (CG). It is noted that the index works almost satisfactory in our numerical examinations in identifying critical generator very accurately.
4 FORMULATION

Epi = Pmi (Ei )2 Gii i is

][

4.1 Modified Trapezoidal Formulation A modified trapezoidal form has been proposed and used in [19-27], which is given as in the following form: & k +1 + x &k x =0 (17) x k +1 x k & k +1 + x &k x
& k = f xk where, x

( )

Solution of (7) at time t k is denoted as x k in (17). The numerical integration with respect to time in the original trapezoidal form is transformed into that with

=x x with f x = 0 (22) k After the minimization of (18), becomes ideally zero in (19), where the proposed trapezoidal equations of (17) hold, which connect all point xk, k = 0 to m + 1, as shown in Figure 2. The setting of W is essential in the proposed method to set the condition (14). W is a square weighting matrix with positive diagonal terms for (22), where a large weight is assigned for the CG and small values for other generator terms for the UEP elements of x m+1 = x u . In this paper, 10000 for the CG and unity for the others are used. Equation (21), a boundary condition for the initial point, expresses a fault-on trajectory as a function of fault clearing time, . The solution of the problem, (18)-(22) is interpreted as follows. The set of points, xk, k = 0 to m + 1, represent the critical trajectory, where is automatically determined when the number of integration steps, m, is specified; CCT and the critical point are respectively obtained as and xm+1 at the solution. Note that the proposed method is exact without major approximations in the formulation, and that m is an important parameter that affects the accuracy and computation time for the proposed method.

( )
u

(21)

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

NUMERICAL EXAMINATIONS

5.1 Simulation Method for Exact Solutions In order to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method, we have performed numerical examinations using IEE Japan West 30-machine 115-bus system (IEEJ West 30 system) depicted in figure 3. It is assumed that every transmission line consists of double parallel circuits, and that a three phase fault occurs at a point very close to a bus on one of the parallel lines. After a while, the fault is cleared by opening the faulted line. The 4-th order Runge-Kutta method is applied for numerical integration with time step of 0.001 [s]. First, the fault-on trajectory is obtained numerically, which is saved as x 0 ( ) as a function of in the computer memory. Then, x 0 ( ) with a specified is chosen as an initial condition to simulate the dynamic behavior to evaluate the stability of the system. This process is repeated by setting different value of . The binary search method is used to judge a critical value of , that is CCT. The obtained results are shown in Tables I II, where the fault location and CCTs are shown. For example, in Table II, the expression of 0.227-0.228 means that the system is stable with clearing time of 0.227 [s] but unstable with 0.228 [s] and that exact value of CCT exists between 0.227 and 0.228 [s]. The CPU time for the simulation method contains ten conventional simulations to obtain the corresponding accuracy of the CCT provided by the proposed method. 5.2 The Proposed Method The proposed method is executed as in the following procedure: 1. The fault-on trajectory is found as x0() by the conventional numerical simulation method and is estimated as a cubic spline data interpolation to define (21); 2. The CUEP xu is judged by the shadowing method. 3. The CG is selected using (16) to set W; 4. The least square minimization problem, (18)-(22), is solved by the Newton-Raphson (NR) method with Max dxi < 0.1 as a convergence criterion to obtain CCT. The CCT for the test systems obtained by the proposed method are shown in Table I for Xd generator model without controllers and in Table II for Xd generator model with controllers, where the number of iterations, computation time (CPU time), and critical generator (CG) is also indicated. The CPU time for the proposed method is for Max dxi < 0.1 . It is confirmed in those tables that the CCTs obtained by the proposed method are exact enough compared with the conventional numerical simulation method. It is also confirmed that the proposed method is also numerically robust, where no computational difficulties exist.

It is also observed that the CPU time for the proposed method is faster compared to the conventional numerical simulation method. The method can preserve significant time in off-line stability studies, and may be useful for on-line application in the future. Figures 4 - 6 show the waveforms of rotor angles of generator i , i 30 = i 30 , where generator 30 is selected as angle reference to analyze the phenomena clearly. All those figures are for fault at point N in the IEEJ West 30 system. Figure 4 focuses on generator 1 indicating the critical waveform obtained by the proposed method, with the stable and unstable waveforms found by the conventional numerical simulations. This critical waveform corresponds to the critical trajectory. It is confirmed that the proposed method provides the sufficiently accurate critical waveform as well as the CCT.
Fault Point A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ Open Line 68-69 79-80 91-90 85-86 74-79 94-98 72-77 85-88 91-95 83-84 87-89 60-94 70-75 36-37 65-66 77-72 81-80 63-96 82-41 71-79 37-79 75-34 67-68 73-72 47-112 48-88 17-109 110-45 43-108 106-14 84-83 93-95 97-99 24-115 27-61 114-22 Proposed Method CCT [s] 0.1871 0.1568 0.3167 0.1562 0.2846 0.3108 0.2972 0.1560 0.3163 0.1133 0.3730 0.4099 0.2588 0.2476 0.2763 0.2807 0.2009 0.1812 0.2238 0.2636 0.2757 0.2625 0.1621 0.3444 0.1894 0.4904 0.2746 0.2311 0.2147 0.1950 0.1098 0.6777 0.4255 0.6155 0.2320 0.3985 Iter. 24 13 12 18 10 10 10 23 12 9 16 9 18 16 11 14 12 12 12 23 12 11 14 10 8 10 11 9 20 10 13 12 11 9 9 10 CPU [s] 7.933 4.175 3.864 5.802 3.231 3.231 3.231 7.382 3.864 2.906 5.117 2.906 5.802 5.117 3.537 4.532 3.864 3.864 3.864 7.382 3.867 3.537 4.532 3.231 2.595 3.231 3.537 2.906 6.447 3.231 4.175 3.867 3.537 2.906 2.906 3.231 CG G1 G1 G23 G15 G1 G28 G1 G15 G23 G15 G19 G26 G1 G1 G1 G1 G12 G29 G14 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G20 G21 G17 G18 G14 G14 G14 G28 G30 G24 G27 G22 Simulation Method CCT [s] 0.18-0.19 0.15-0.16 0.31-0.32 0.15-0.16 0.28-0.29 0.31-0.32 0.29-0.30 0.15-0.16 0.31-0.32 0.11-0.12 0.37-0.38 0.40-0.41 0.25-0.26 0.24-0.25 0.27-0.28 0.28-0.29 0.20-0.21 0.18-0.19 0.22-0.23 0.26-0.27 0.27-0.28 0.26-0.27 0.16-0.17 0.34-0.35 0.18-0.19 0.49-0.50 0.27-0.28 0.23-0.24 0.21-0.22 0.19-0.20 0.11-0.12 0.67-0.68 0.43-0.44 0.61-0.62 0.23-0.24 0.39-0.40 CPU [s]

51.622

Table 1: CCTs for IEEJ West 30 System without Controllers

Figures 5 and 6 respectively depict the stable and unstable waveforms of generators 1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 29 obtained by the conventional numerical simulations with the critical waveforms obtained by the proposed method in common. As the system becomes lager, the unstable phenomena tend to become complex, but the

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

proposed method successfully calculates the critical condition.

accurate enough even for Max dxi < 0.1 , resulting in the reduced iterations as well as computation time.
600

500

400

300

G N

200

100

-100

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 3:

IEEJ West 30 system.

Figure 6: Critically unstable rotor angle curves for CT=0.295 [s] for IEEJ West 30 system for fault at point N.

600

500

Fault Point A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ

Open Line 68-69 79-80 91-90 85-86 74-79 94-98 72-77 85-88 91-95 83-84 87-89 60-94 70-75 36-37 65-66 77-72 81-80 63-96 82-41 71-79 37-79 75-34 67-68 73-72 47-112 48-88 17-109 110-45 43-108 106-14 84-83 93-95 97-99 24-115 27-61 114-22

Proposed Method CCT [s] 0.2260 0.2260 0.3294 0.1602 0.3595 0.3243 0.3636 0.1607 0.3290 0.1156 0.3980 0.4276 0.3016 0.2947 0.3360 0.3573 0.2090 0.1925 0.2376 0.3245 0.3362 0.3238 0.1962 0.4166 0.1959 0.5262 0.2850 0.2383 0.2217 0.2137 0.1135 0.7713 0.4504 0.6780 0.2486 0.4178 Iter. 18 16 12 11 14 15 14 11 11 8 15 8 12 22 12 15 11 14 11 20 16 14 16 14 9 9 9 10 23 8 20 16 11 8 11 11 CPU [s] 34.246 30.751 23.342 21.615 27.366 29.111 27.366 21.615 21.615 15.346 29.111 15.346 23.342 42.588 23.342 29.111 21.615 37.366 21.615 40.409 30.751 27.366 30.751 27.366 18.366 18.366 18.366 20.266 45.210 15.894 40.409 30.751 21.615 15.346 21.615 21.615 CG G1 G1 G23 G15 G1 G28 G1 G15 G23 G15 G19 G26 G1 G1 G1 G1 G12 G29 G14 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G20 G21 G17 G18 G14 G14 G14 G28 G30 G24 G27 G22

Simulation Method CCT [s] 0.227-0.228 0.228-0.229 0.329-0.330 0.160-0.161 0.359-0.360 0.323-0.324 0.361-0.362 0.161-0.162 0.329-0.330 0.115-0.116 0.397-0.398 0.428-0.429 0.300-0.301 0.294-0.295 0.337-0.338 0.354-0.355 0.209-0.210 0.192-0.193 0.239-0.240 0.325-0.326 0.339-0.340 0.320-0.321 0.198-0.199 0.416-0.417 0.196-0.197 0.528-0.529 0.284-0.285 0.238-0.239 0.220-0.221 0.212-0.213 0.113-0.114 0.771-0.772 0.450-0.451 0.678-0.679 0.248-0.249 0.417-0.418 CPU [s]

400

300

200

100

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 4: Critical, unstable and stable waveforms of rotor angle of generator 1, CG, for IEEJ West 30 system for fault at point N.
600

80.875

500

400

300

200

100

-100

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Figure 5: Critically stable rotor angle curves for Critical Time (CT) = 0.294 [s] for IEEJ West 30 system for fault at point N.

Table 2: CCTs for IEEJ 30 System with Controllers

Figures 7, 8, and 9 respectively show the errors in CCT [s], the number of iterations, the CPU time for different setting of the convergence criterion of the NR method. It is understood that the obtained CCTs are

It should be noted that parameter m=10 is utilized for every test system. This setting usually supplies exact CCT with negligible error. It is interpreted that the obtained CCTs are sufficiently accurate even for Max dxi < 0.1 , resulting in the

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

reduced iterations as well as computation time. Note that an Intel Core2 Duo E8500 with 3 GB of RAM is used for the numerical examinations.
0. 004 0. 003 0. 002 0. 001 0 0. 000001 0. 0005 0. 0027 0. 0027 0. 0005 0. 0006
10 0. 00001
5 4 3

0. 0028 0. 0028 0. 0006

0. 0028

0. 0006
10 0. 01
2 1 10 0. 1

10 0. 0001

10 0. 001 Max dxi

0 10 1

Figure 7: Errors in CCT [s] related to convergence criterion for 30 machine system Max dxi .

no such methods have existed so far to compute the exact CCT without major errors. The other significant point is that the proposed method is numerically robust for detecting CCTs for various patterns of complicated instability phenomena. The Xd generator model is used to confirm the validity of the new formulation in this paper. Also promising results are obtained for the Xd model with AVR and Governor. Since the proposed method can deal with various types of power system models at least in theory, a further study is necessary in order to take into account more detailed generator models together with various types of controllers in the future.
REFERENCES [1] IEEE Power Engineering Society, Inter-Area Oscillations in Power Systems, System Dynamic Performance Subcommittee Special Publication, 95TP101, 1995. [2] IEEE Power Engineering Society, Voltage Stability Assessment: Concepts, Practices and Tools, Power System Stability Subcommittee Special Publication, SP101PSS, 2003. [3] N. Yorino, H. Sasaki, Y. Tamura, and R. Yokoyama, A Generalized Analysis Method of Auto-Parametric Resonances in Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1057-1064, 1989. [4] T. Athey, R. Podmore, and S. Virmani, A Practical Method for Direct Analysis of Transient Stability, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-98, pp. 573-584, 1979. [5] N. Kakimoto, Y. Ohsawa, and M. Hayashi, Transient stability analysis of electric power system via Lure type Lyapunov function, Trans. IEE of Japan, vol. 98-E, no. 5/6, pp. 63-79, 1978. [6] G. A. Maria, C. Tang, and J. Kim, Hybrid Transient Stability Analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.5, no.2, pp. 384-393, 1990. [7] Y. Xue, L. Wehenkel, R. Belhomme, P. Rousseaux, M. Pavella, E. Euxibie, B. Heilbronn, and J. F. Lesigne, Extended Equal Area Criterion Revised, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1012-1022, 1992. [8] Y. Mansour, E. Vaahedi, A. Y. Chang, B. R. Corns, B. W. Garrett, K. Demaree, T. Athey, and K. Cheung, B. C. Hydros On-line Transient Stability Assessment (TSA): Model Development, Analysis, and Post-processing, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 241-253, 1995. [9] G. D. Irisarri, G. C. Ejebe and J. G. Waight, Efficient Solution for Equilibrium Points in Transient Energy Function Analysis, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 693-699, 1994. [10] H. D. Chiang, F. Wu, and P. Varaiya, A BCU Method for Direct Analysis of Power System Transient Stability, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 9, no. 3, 1994.

30 20 10 0 0. 000001 19 21 17 13 15

10 0. 00001

10 0. 0001

3 10 0. 001 Max dxi

10 0. 01

1 10 0. 1

0 10 1

Figure 8: Average number of iterations related convergence criterion for 30 machine system Max dxi .
50 40 30 20 10 0 105 0. 000001 0. 00001
10 0. 0001
4 3 10 0. 001 Max dxi

to

38. 174 42. 192 34. 156 26. 119 30. 137

10 0. 01

1 10 0. 1

0 10 1

Figure 9: Average CPU time [s] related to convergence criterion for 30 machine system Max dxi .

6 CONCLUSION Formulation of what we call the critical trajectory method is a new type of transient stability analysis for solving power system dynamic models represented by ordinary differential equations. The formulation is not based on an initial value problem but based on boundary value problem to directly obtain a critical condition for stability such as a Critical Clearing Time (CCT). It computes the critical trajectory that represents a critical case for stability. This paper extends the previous formulation by using alternative end point condition, which is useful as well as the previous formulation. The advantage of the new formulation lies in the robust computation ability when taking into account controllers of AVR and Governors. Tables I-II have confirmed that the proposed method can provide the exact CCTs, consistent with the conventional numerical simulations. It is quite important since

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011

[11] H. D. Chiang, C. C. Chu, and G. Cauley, Direct Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems Using Energy Functions: Theory, Applications, and Perspective, Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 83, no. 11, 1995. [12] R. T. Treinen, V. Vittal, and W. Kliemann, An Improved Technique to Determine the Controlling Unstable Equilibrium Point in a Power System, IEEE Trans. Circuit and Systems, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 313-323, 1996. [13] Y. Kataoka, Y. Tada, H. Okamoto, and R. Tanabe, Improvement of Search Efficiency of Unstable Equilibrium for Transient Stability Assessment, in National Convention Record, IEE of Japan, Power System, pp. 1349-1350, 1999. (in Japanese) [14] A. Llamas, J. De La Ree Lopez, L. Mili, A. G. Phadke, and J. S. Thorp, Clarifications of the BCU Method for Transient Stability Analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 210-219, 1995. [15] F. Paganini, and B. C. Lesieutre, Generic Properties, One-parameter Deformations, and the BCU Method, IEEE Trans. CAS-I, 46-6, pp.760-763, 1999. [16] L. F. C. Alberto, and N. G. Bretas, Application of Melnikovs Method for Computing Heteroclinic Orbits in a Classical SMIB Power System Model, IEEE Trans. CAS-I, 47-7, pp. 1085-1089, 2000. [17] H.M. Rodrigues, L.F.C. Alberto, N.G. Bretas, On the Invariance Principle: Generalizations and Applications to Synchronization, IEEE Transactions on circuits and systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, vol. 47, no. 5, pp 730-739, may 2000. [18] N.G. Bretas, L.F.C. Alberto, Lyapunov Function for Power Systems With Transfer Conductances: Extension of the Invariance Principle, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 769-777, may 2003 [19] N. Yorino, T. Saito, H.Q. Li, Y. Kamei, and, H. Sasaki A New Method for Transient Stability Analysis, The Papers of Technical Meeting on Power System Technology, IEE Japan, no. PE-0383, PSE-03-94, 2003. (in Japanese) [20] N. Yorino, Y. Kamei, Y. Zoka, A New Method for Transient Stability Assessment Based on Critical Trajectory, Proc. of 15th Power System Computation Conference (PSCC), Paper ID: 20-3, 2005. [21] N. Yorino, A. Priyadi, Y. Zoka, H. Yasuda and H. Kakui, A Novel Method for Transient Stability Analysis as Boundary Value Problem, Proc. of the International Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Okinawa, Japan, July 2008. [22] A. Priyadi, N. Yorino, M. Eghbal, Y. Zoka, Y. Sasaki, H. Yasuda, H. Kakui, Transient Stability Assessment as Boundary Value Problem, Proc. of the IEEE 8th Annual Electrical Power and Energy Conference, Vancouver, Canada, October 2008.

[23] N. Yorino, A. Priyadi, Y. Zoka, Y. Sasaki, M. Tanaka, H. Yasuda, H. Kakui, Transient Stability Analysis as Boundary Value Problem, Proc. of the XI Symposium of Specialists in Electric Operational and Expansion Planning (XI SEPOPE), Belem-PA, Brazil, March 2009. [24] N. Yorino, A. Priyadi, Y. Zoka, Y. Sasaki, H. Sugihara, A New Method for Direct Computation of Critical Clearing Time for Transient Stability Analysis, Proc. on IREP, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, August 2010, pp 1-9. [25] N. Yorino, A. Priyadi, H. Kakui, and M. Takeshita, A New Method for Obtaining Critical Clearing Time for Transient Stability, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, August 2010. vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1620-1626. [26] A. Priyadi, N. Yorino, Y. Sasaki, M. Tanaka, T. Fujiwara, Y. Zoka, H. Kakui, and M. Takeshita, Comparison of Critical Trajectory Methods for Direct Method for Transient Stability, IEEJ Transactions on Power and Energy, pp. 870-876, October 2010, vol. 130, no. 10. [27] N. Yorino, A. Priyadi, Ridzuan B.A.M., Y. Sasaki, Y. Zoka, H. Sugihara, A Novel Method for Direct Computation CCT for TSA Using Critical Generator Conditions, TENCON, Fukuoka, Japan, 23 November 2010, pp 1-6.

17th Power Systems Computation Conference

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Stockholm Sweden - August 22-26, 2011