1108

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2002

An Interim Dynamic Induction Motor Model for

Stability Studies in the WSCC
Les Pereira, Senior Member, IEEE, Dmitry Kosterev, Peter Mackin, Senior Member, IEEE, Donald Davies,
John Undrill, Fellow, IEEE, and Wenchun Zhu

AbstractAn interim composite load model containing a

static part and a dynamic part has been implemented in the
Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC). The static part
of the load model is about 80% of the total load and comprises of
existing static load data from the WSCC members. The dynamic
part is a default induction motor model for approximately 20%
of the total load. This composite model is used for all loads in the
full-scale WSCC grid models that are the basis for system interconnection studies. The model is designed primarily to capture the
effects of dynamic induction motor loads for highly stressed north
to south flow conditions during summer peaks in the WSCC.
Index TermsInduction motor, load modeling, power system
dynamic modeling, power system dynamic performance, transient
stability.

I. INTRODUCTION

HIS paper describes the implementation of a practical,

system-wide, composite static and induction motor interim model for loads in the Western Systems Coordinating
Council (WSCC). The paper describes the reasons why it was
necessary to implement this system-wide dynamic load model
to an urgent timeline, the general difficulties in load modeling,
extensive validation study efforts against real-time recordings
of two similar oscillation events, study of numerous model alternatives, limitations of the interim model, and planned future
work for system-wide dynamic load modeling.
The August 10, 1996 WSCC collapse following undamped
oscillations has been described in [1]. On August 4, 2000, the
tie line to Alberta tripped, separating it from the system, and
created a poorly damped system-wide oscillation that lasted for
about 60 s. This event renewed concerns that the WSCC system
was still inherently susceptible to oscillatory behavior in the
0.2 to 0.3 Hz range during peak summer stressed conditions.
Extensive validation studies indicated that both the August
10, 1996 and the August 4, 2000 events could not be reproduced by simulations using the existing static load modeling
in the WSCC. The studies had in common the need to include
Manuscript received August 17, 2001; revised May 24, 2002.
L. Pereira is with the Northern California Power Agency, Roseville, CA
95678 USA (e-mail: les@ncpa.com).
D. Kosterev is with the Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA,
97208 USA (e-mail: dnkosterev@bpa.gov).
P. Mackin was with the California ISO, Folsom, CA 95630 USA. He is now
with Navigant Consulting, Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 USA (e-mail:
pmackin@navigantconsulting.com).
D. Davies is with the Western Systems Coordinating Council, Salt Lake City,
UT 84108 USA (e-mail: donald@wscc.com).
J. Undrill and W. Zhu are with General Electric International, Inc., Schenectady, NY 12345 USA (e-mail: john.undrill@ps.ge.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2002.804960

system-wide dynamic induction motor models in order to obtain

a correlation between the actual recordings and the simulations.
The focus of the urgent effort described here was to include
these dynamic models in the WSCC database and programs in
time for the 2001 peak summer operating studies. The WSCC
had set a strict timetable for studies to establish key transfer path
limits for summer operation.
It was impossible in the time available to create new composite static and dynamic load models for the entire WSCC
system based on field tests, measurements, or synthesis of component models. These methods have been traditionally used to
create static load models that have a voltage- or frequency-dependent part. Dynamic motor models have been investigated
but not used system-wide in practical large-scale interconnected
system1 operating studies. Given the time constraints, a composite load model was constructed from existing standard static
load models and a standard induction motor electromagnetic dynamic model. The construction and validation of this model
was made by calibration of simulations against the disturbance
recordings of the two events described (August 10, 1996 and
August 4, 2000). Numerous sensitivity studies were performed
to investigate the effect of representing different percentages of
the system-wide load represented by the motors part of the proposed composite load model, different motor electrical parameters, different motor/load inertias, and the alternatives of representing of loads at high voltage (HV) or distribution-voltage
(LV) buses.
Initial studies quickly concluded that the single most important sensitivity was the percentage of motors modeled at the load
bus. A level of 20 to 30% of motor load best simulated the phenomena described. Varying the motor inertia and impedances
had varying impacts but, relatively, not as great as the motor
percentages.
The existing system database has a large number of loads
aggregated at HV buses. Moving these loads from HV to LV
buses (about three transformations away from the 500-kV level)
increases the required percentage of motor load to give the
same system damping response. If all motor loads are moved to
LV buses, it is expected that the motor levels would be closer
to 50%. As described in the detailed simulations section, the
driving factor for both scenarios was the motor percentages
with a scaling effect between the two scenarios for the same
overall simulation response. Representing loads at LV buses is
a more accurate model; however, this is a clearly a topic for
future work given the urgent schedule of WSCC studies.
1The WSCC system has over 12 000 buses, 2300 generators, 15 000 lines and
transformers, and 7000 loads.

0885-8950/02$17.00 2002 IEEE

PEREIRA et al.: INTERIM DYNAMIC INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL FOR STABILITY STUDIES

1109

A key approach to the interim model was to implement

a model that can be implemented in the stability programs
currently in production use by operating study engineers
throughout the WSCC. The paper is therefore not about developing a new modeling theory for induction motor models,
which has been well established over the past 50 or more
years, but rather a practical approach to the implementation of
a very important dynamic modeling aspect of the simulation
of large interconnected systems in conditions where they are
particularly vulnerable to oscillations.
A. Difficulties in Load Modeling, Field Testing
The issues in deciding on a load model that can be used
with confidence to describe loads that are essentially random at
any given season, day, and time have long been recognized and
recorded in the literature. These include a 1982 paper by Concordia and Ihara [2] and two IEEE Task Force reports in 1993 [3]
and 1995 [4]. Undrill and Laskowski [5] argued for representing
major blocks of induction motor load by dynamic models including both inertial and rotor flux dynamics. Attempts to establish load model characteristics from system field tests have been
met with varying degrees of success. Such modeling is, at best,
approximate for the system conditions of the test in terms of
system voltage and frequency deviations and the corresponding
real and reactive power deviations observed. Tests by Ohyama
et al. [6] and Omata and Uemura [7], both of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, have included dynamic models. A more
recent paper by Kao [8] describes low-frequency oscillations in
the Taiwan Power System and reports on field tests to determine which load model provides the most accurate results. The
author concludes from a study of three types that the composite
static and dynamic load model gave the best simulation results
in comparison with field tests.
II. DYNAMIC MODELING STUDY APPROACH
Following the WSCC collapses of July 2, 1996 and August
10, 1996, a strong effort was initiated in the WSCC to improve dynamic modeling and validate models by field tests [9]
wherever possible. Models included turbine-governors, generator excitation systems, overexcitation limiters, power system
stabilizers (PSSs), and HVDC systems and their controls. It is
important to recognize that the dynamic interaction of all of
these elements of the power system led to the poorly damped
response of the WSCC system in the mentioned events. The
sensitivity simulations of the dynamic load model were therefore performed without modifying the parameters of these other
models established by other extensive validation studies [1].
The predisturbance events and the Sequence of Events for the
August 10, 1996 event, leading to the final collapse, including
the sequential tripping of ten McNary generators, as shown in
Fig. 1, are described in [1]. The August 4, 2000 event was simply
a trip of the 500-kV tie between BC Hydro and Alberta. Fig. 1
shows the recordings from both events.
The method of model construction and validation used in
these studieswith reference to both the August 10, 1996 and
the August 4, 2000 eventswas to repeat the exact sequence
of the real events for each computer simulation (up to 90 s)

Fig. 1.

August 10, 1996 and August 4, 2000 disturbances.

and compare it with the real-time disturbance recordings (see

Fig. 1). A simple but effective approach was used with a visual examination of each plot: The earlier the collapse of the
system in a simulation in comparison with the 90 s that the multiple-event August 10, 1996 disturbance took to collapse, the
less damping there was in that particular case.
It is emphasized that the purpose of the modeling was not to
simply reproduce the event exactly by a perfect match but to
ascertain the comparative performance of each alternative and
sensitivity case. The objective was to develop a practical simulation modeling for the overall behavior of the system in a practically wide range of circumstances.
A. Composite Static and Dynamic Load Modeling Approach
The approach selected was to use the existing static load
model with data already supplied by the member systems and
add to it a dynamic induction motor model as a percentage of
the load. This would, in effect, yield a composite static and
dynamic load motor model using readily available static load
model data in the existing stability programs in use by the
WSCC2 members. The static part of the load model has the
voltage and frequency-dependent form

(1)
2This essentially follows the recommendations by an IEEE Task Force [4] for
standard load models for power flow and dynamic performance simulation. The
IEEE Task Force stated that the lack of dynamic motor models was suspected to
be a major source of discrepancies between field measurements and large-scale
simulation results.

1110

Intheseequations, , representsthefractionoftheconstant
impedance load; ,
represents the constant current part; ,
the constant power part; and ,
the frequency dependent
part of the load. and are the total MW and MVAR load in per
unit at nominal voltage and frequency.
and
represent the
sensitivity of and , respectively, to variations in frequency.
The fractions
through
and
through
as well as
and
of this static model have been provided by the WSCC
member systems previously in the databases, representing their
estimation of the load composition for each seasonal basecase.
The selection of the parameters for the dynamic part of the
model and the considerations that led to the selection of the interim motor model is the focus of this paper. Several configurations of the induction motor modeling were studied before the
model was finalized. These studies involved simulations covering the following configurations and considerations:
1) without induction motors modeled;
2) with induction motor loads aggregated at existing HV and
LV load buses;
3) with induction motor loads aggregated at newly created
LV buses with transformers, OLTC, and caps for load
buses 230 kV or greater;
4) with different percentages of load represented as induction motors;
5) with different motor electrical parameters;
6) with different motor/load inertias;
7) sensitivity to use of induction motor modeling in different
areas of the WSCC.
The finalized study protocol recommended a specific motor
model and provided flexibility for selection of different percentage of the load to be represented as induction motors in each
separate control area.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2002

Fig. 2. Diagram of the induction motor model used in simulations. See the
Appendix for symbol definitions.

Fig. 3.
unit.

Torque and current characteristics of the default induction motor in per

TABLE I
SHOWING TYPICAL DATA OF VARIOUS MOTORS

B. Interim Default Motor Details

A single induction motor model was placed at each load bus.
The electrical parameters of this default motor3 and its corresponding speed-current-torque curves are shown in Figs. 2 and
3. The parameters are defined in the Appendix.
This motor model is a compromise; it is intended to represent
a general population of motors ranging in type from those in
small residential/industrial applications to large motors. It is a
generic model that can be used where the motors are dispersed
through the load that is collected at the HV or LV load bus
but where there is no specific information of the identity of individual motors. As a general rule, the smaller motors run
at a much higher slip than most larger motors above about
30 kW. The full load slip of the default motor is closer to that
of small motors than large. The default motor model uses only
a single cage representation. This is adequate for dynamic stability studies where damping of oscillations, rather than stalling
of motors and motor starting, is the main focus.
The induction motor is represented by a standard single-cage
model with the transient variations of its rotor flux linkages handled explicitly. The motor can be described by performance3The term default motor is applied to the final selected motor described in
Table I, shown in Figs. 2 and 3, and used in the interim composite static and
dynamic load model implemented in WSCC for dynamic studies.

based parameters or equivalent circuit parameters, as shown in

the Appendix. The relationship between these two sets of parameters is given in the Appendix, as are the associated differential equations describing the variation of rotor flux linkages
and the algebraic equations of the network interface.
The driven load is characterized by the inertia constant
of the combined motor-load rotor and the exponent , relating
driven load to its speed.
The electrical parameters of the model are a compromise
judged to give a fair representation of the general population
of motors. The parameters of the default motor are shown in
Table I and defined in the Appendix. Data for two other motor designs termed large and small, which are used in a sensitivity
study described later in this paper, are also included in Table I.
The initial reactive power in each motor is calculated as a
function of the voltage at its bus. If the motors reactive demand is calculated to be greater than the MVAR given in the
initial condition load flow, the program automatically calculates
and places a compensating capacitor at the motor terminal. Undervoltage tripping is provided in the motor model. A timer is

PEREIRA et al.: INTERIM DYNAMIC INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL FOR STABILITY STUDIES

1111

started if the terminal voltage falls below the voltage setting and
will trip the motor if it remains continuously below this setting
for the duration of the time setting. If the load is tripped by underfrequency or other undervoltage schemes, the motor will trip
out as well.
III. DETAILS OF DYNAMIC SIMULATIONS
This section provides details of the dynamic motor model
simulations of the August 10, 1996 disturbance. The sequence
of events for the August 10, 1996, disturbance described [1] was
used for all of the studies in this Section III. Unless specified,
sensitivity studies are compared with the 22.5% default motor
model included in all areas of the WSCC and for all loads greater
than 5 MW. Similar studies performed for the August 4, 2000
event are briefly described in Section IV and in detail in [10].
A. Study Without Induction Motors

Fig. 4. Malin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit. Without motor models: No
collapse occurs in 90 s.
TABLE II
LOAD REPRESENTATION AT VARIOUS VOLTAGES

The first study shown in Fig. 4 is a simulation of the August

10, 1996 disturbance without modeling of the induction motors
and comparing it with simulations with the default motor. The
simulations shown in this figure indicate clearly that simulations
do not reproduce the undamped behavior of the highly stressed
power system when motor models are not used and that the use
of the motor modeling does reproduce the undamped behavior
seen in reality. Without motor models, there is no collapse in
the simulation within the 90-s period over which the system
collapsed on August 10, 1996. Compare Figs. 1 and 4. A similar
conclusion was reached in the August 4, 2000 simulation studies
with and without motor modeling.
The frequency of oscillation in Fig. 4 is approximately
0.25 Hz compared with the recorded 0.225 Hz in the corresponding window in the August 10, 1996 disturbance.
B. Induction Motor Loads Aggregated at Different Voltage
Level Load Buses
Table II gives a breakdown of the loads at different voltage
level buses in the WSCC system. It is clear from the table that
as much as 12% of the load is aggregated at HV buses at voltages
of 230 kV and above, whereas about 70% of the load is at the
60 to 138-kV level, which is two transformations away from
the 345500-kV major intertie EHV level.4 About 14% of the
loads, at levels less than 30 kV, are at least three transformations
away from the EHV level.
The options to handle the loads at 230 kV and greater were
to leave it at those buses or to create LV load buses complete
with 230/30-kV transformers, on load tap changers (OLTCs),
and capacitors.
C. Induction Motor Loads Aggregated at New LV Buses With
Transformers and OLTC
Loads on the LV side are a truer representation due to the
effects of the transformation and the operation of tap changers.
At an early stage in the project, the creation of LV side load
buses was considered. A limited number of sensitivities were
run with loads moved from buses greater or equal to 230 kV to
4The EHV level is the backbone of the system and plays a critical part in
the inter-area oscillations of the WSCC system.

Fig. 5. Comparison of studies with LV load configuration and existing load

configuration. Malin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit.

synthesized 21-kV load buses connected radially through OLTC

transformers. In general, these runs show greater damping for
loads thus connected at LV buses. See Fig. 5.5 Conversely, it
may be concluded that a larger percentage of motor load on
the LV side gives results approximately equivalent to a lower
percentage of motor load on existing HV side load placement.
(If all the loads are moved additionally from the 60138-kV
levels to the lower levels of 30 kV and below, it is expected that
the percentage of motors to produce equivalent results would be
about 50%.)
Since the driving factor for both scenarios was clearly the
percentage of motor load, there appeared to be little advantage,
5Note that the plots in Fig. 5 are from a study base case with a different motor
percentage and are not directly comparable with the other figures in this section.
However, the design parameters of the motor model were the same as the default
model, and the same comparative responses have been noted consistently in the
studies.

1112

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2002

Fig. 6. Effect of 22.5, 30, and 40% induction motor loads on bus voltages.
Malin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit.

Fig. 8. Comparative studies with Large and Small industrial motors, as

defined in [4]. Malin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit.

Fig. 7. Inertia sensitivity: Effect of varying

by plus/minus 40% from 0.5
default value. Malin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit.

considering the focus and urgent timeline for implementation

to expend the greater effort needed to create low voltage buses.
Further work is planned in the future for more complete representation of loads on the LV side.
D. Sensitivity StudiesDifferent Motor Load Percentages,
Types, Designs, and Sizes
Studies were performed for different motor load percentages, different types, sizes and designs of motors, inertias, and
impedance data that influence the responses of the motor model.
All these sensitivity studies were performed with induction
motor loads aggregated at existing load buses in the database.
1) Different Motor Percentages: Sensitivity studies showed
that the single most important sensitivity was the percentage of
motors modeled at a load bus. Studies covering a range of 10 to
50% were performed. Only a few of the key results are discussed
below. See Fig. 6 for a typical sensitivity study for 22.5 to 40%
motors. The figure shows the Malin 500-kV voltage oscillations.
2) Effect of Different Inertias: Fig. 7 shows the effect of
varying inertia values for the interim default motors.
constants of 0.7 and 0.3, respectively, compared with an
of 0.5
for the default motor were evaluated. The motor load percentage
was 22.5% for all the studies. The observed differences in impact of inertia variations of plus/minus 40% are relatively small.
However, a general observation from these studies was that the
system damping of oscillations decreases when motor inertia is
increased in the model if all other design parameters remain the
same.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity studiesMalin 500-kV bus voltage in per unit. Effect

of Removing motors (i.e., converting motors to static constant power,
impedance, and current) in specific areas of the WSCC.

3) Large and Small Industrial Motors: Sensitivities studied

included modeling with the different industrial induction motor
data from Table I. All studies were with motor percentages of
22.5%. See Fig. 8.

PEREIRA et al.: INTERIM DYNAMIC INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL FOR STABILITY STUDIES

1113

TABLE III
AREA SENSITIVITY STUDY INFORMATION

Fig. 11. Illustrating the voltage swing magnitudes at various buses across the
WSCC system, greatest toward the Middle of the system (Malin). Plot shows
500 kV in per unit at the various buses.

Fig. 12. Illustrating the frequency swing magnitude differences across the
WSCC system, greatest at the system Ends. Frequency is in hertz.

Fig. 10. Map of the WSCC showing NS peak summer path flows. Locations
of GM Shrum in the north and Palo Verde in the south. Malin 500-kV substation
is at the border between California and Oregon.

E. Sensitivity of Induction Motor Loads in Different Areas of

the WSCC
An interesting finding in the study was that motors have
different impacts on system damping based on their location
and the disturbance under study. In the sensitivity studies
described below,6 the dynamic motors were removed from each
area, in turn (see Fig. 9), by converting the motor component
to an equivalent static load of constant power, impedance and
current. Table III lists the areas studied. The base case had
22.5% default motors in all areas of the WSCC. These areas
are interconnected by tie lines that constitute some of the
critical paths in the WSCC (see Fig. 10). Motor models located
6The sequence of events for the August 10, 1996 disturbance described in [1]
was used for all of these sensitivities

toward the electrical middle of the system experiencing

oscillatory behavior appear to have a greater negative impact
on damping than motor models at either end of the system.
This was ascertained when removing motors from the Northern
California area (and converting them to constant power loads)
produced greater damping of oscillations. This general area
also has the greatest deficiency in generation in the WSCC and
its location in the middle of the system compounds the effect.
Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate the variation in the magnitudes of the
voltage and frequency swings from one end of the system to the
other. Voltage swings are largest toward the middle (Malin) of the
system and smallest at the ends (GM Shrum and Palo Verde) of
the system. Conversely, frequency swings are largest at the ends
of the system and smallest toward the middle of the system.
F. 2001 Heavy Summer Sensitivity Check
To check the robustness (inherent stability) of the motor
model for the 2001 heavy summer case, several sensitivity
studies were performed. These included trips of the two largest
generating units in the system, namely Palo Verde units 1 and
2, a total of 2700 MW, with and without motor modeling,
and with and without a three-phase 500-kV bus fault at Palo
Verde. See Fig. 13. Simulations using the motor model show
larger oscillation amplitude and decreased damping, but not
instability. With motor modeling, certain critical path loadings
needed to be curtailed to meet WSCC Reliability Criteria limits.

1114

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2002

Fig. 13. Showing voltages at Malin 500 kV bus in per unit for 2001 heavy
summer base case for a Palo Verde N-2 generator outage.

IV. AUGUST 4, 2000 WSCC SYSTEM OSCILLATION

AFTER ALBERTA SEPARATION
On August 4, 2000, the separation of Alberta from the WSCC
system started poorly damped power and voltage oscillations
across the WSCC system. The oscillation lasted for 60 s before
damping out. The sequence of events was simulated using the
same dynamic database that was used for the August 10, 1996
studies [10]. Several sensitivities were performed with respect to
various load modeling assumptions including varying of motor
model percentages, and the number of critical areas modeled
with motors in the WSCC. The results of the August 4th 2000
disturbance are generally consistent with those observed in August 10, 1996 studies described in this paper. Damping levels
obtained in the studies were compared with the 1.8% damping
in the actual event. As the number of loads modeled with motors was increased, the damping shown by simulations was correspondingly reduced. Reference [10] gives a full account of the
studies of this event.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

An interim composite load model containing a static part
and a dynamic part has been developed and implemented in the
WSCC. The static model load part is 80% of the total load and
comprises existing static load data from the members. The dynamic part is a default induction motor model for approximately
20% of the total load. The WSCC protocols for the use of the
model allow some flexibility in the selection of the percentage
of the load represented by the interim model in the individual
control areas as they deem appropriate. However, the studies
indicated that much higher levels of motor load modeling at
HV buses could likely produce too great a system undamping.
Conversely, too small a level could likely yield unrealistically
well-damped simulation responses for highly stressed systems.
The recommended range for motor loads is between 20 and 30%
when the motor load modeling is applied at the HV buses.
The model is designed primarily to capture the effects of dynamic induction motor loads for highly stressed North-South
flow conditions in summer peak conditions in the WSCC.
Several questions may be legitimately asked. Is this a valid
model that can be used for the extended future? The answer is a

definite no. This is an interim model that will be replaced by

more accurate composite dynamic load models as ongoing work
progresses. The focus of the effort was to include the interim
model in the WSCC database in time for the 2001 peak summer
operating studies using stability programs normally used to establish the WSCC systems safe operating limits. Future work
will include user-friendly composite models to implement LV
bus dynamic representation of all loads and the use of field test
load data provided by WSCC members.
Can this model be effectively used for accurate local
voltage stability dynamic studies? No. For those studies, the
member systems are advised to use their own, more accurately
determined, motor models of specific design and specifications
appropriate to their needs, with induction motor modeling used
at percentages that reflect the specific load composition in their
areas.
Again, the authors stress the interim nature and use of the
model. What this extensive study has accomplished is a start
in system-wide dynamic load modeling in the WSCC and the
recognition that it is needed to ensure that interconnected system
studies properly represent the damping characteristics that will
largely determine how the system responds to inevitable future
disturbances.

APPENDIX
INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL EQUATIONS
The motor model is illustrated by the equivalent circuit and
network interface shown in Fig. 2. The motor flux linkages
form a Thevenin voltage source
behind a transient
impedance
.
The parameters of the model are as follows:
Stator winding resistance (in per unit);
Stator leakage inductance (in per unit);
Magnetizing inductance (in per unit);
Rotor resistance (in per unit);
Rotor leakage inductance (in per unit);
Synchronous inductance (in per unit);
Motor transient inductance (in per unit);
Transient rotor time constant (in seconds);
, , ,
Direct and quadrature axes components of
transient stator voltage and current;
Nominal value of mechanical torque (in per
unit);
Rotor speed (in radians per second);
Synchronous speed (in radians per second);
slip, equal to
(in per unit);
Inertia constant (in megawatt-seconds per
Megavoltamp);
Load model exponent (in per unit);
The variation of the components of the Thevenin voltage is
described by the differential equations

PEREIRA et al.: INTERIM DYNAMIC INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL FOR STABILITY STUDIES

The rotor speed dynamics are described by

The inertia constant is of the motor plus driven load. The

exponent describes the driven load speed variation.
The equivalent circuit parameters are related to the parameters of these equations as follows:

1115

Les Pereira (SM96) received the B.S.E.E. degree from the University of
Kerala, Kerala, India, and the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, U.K., in 1970.
His interests include stability simulations, machine modeling, design and
testing of hydro generating power plants.
Mr. Pereira is active in the Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC),
is a member of the Planning Coordination Committee, the Modeling and Validation Work Group, and the California Region Operating Studies Group, and
represents WSCC in the NERC IDWG. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in California.

Dmitry Kosterev received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from

Oregon State University, Corvallis, in 1996.
He is currently a network planning engineer at the Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA. He has been involved in various network planning
studies, operating capability studies, model validation, and testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authoirs acknowledge the WSCC and the Modeling and
Validation Work Group (M&VWG) for their support in this
work and implementation of the interim composite static and
dynamic induction motor load model.
REFERENCES
[1] D. N. Kosterev, C. W. Taylor, and W. A. Mittelstadt, Model validation
for the August 10, 1996 WSCC system outage, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 14, pp. 967979, Aug. 1999.
[2] C. Concordia and S. Ihara, Load representation in power system
stability studies, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-101, pp.
969977, 1982.
[3] Load representation for dynamic performance studies, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 8, pp. 472482, May 1993.
[4] Standard load models for power flow and dynamic performance simulation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp. 13021313, Aug. 1995.
[5] J. M. Undrill and T. F. Laskowski, Model selection and data assembly
for power system simulation, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.
PAS-101, pp. 33333341, Sept. 1982.
[6] T. Ohyama et al., Voltage dependence of composite loads in power
systems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 30643073,
Nov. 1985.
[7] T. Omata and K. Uemura, Aspects of voltage responses of induction
motor loads, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, pp. 13371344, Nov.
1998.
[8] W. S. Kao, The effect of load models on unstable low-frequency oscillation damping in Taipower system experience w/wo power system
stabilizers, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, pp. 463472, Aug. 2001.
[9] Test Guidelines for Synchronous Unit Dynamic Testing and Validation,
WSCC Modeling and Validation Work Group and Control Work Group,
Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.
[10] D. Kosterev et al.. (2000) Model validation and analysis of
WSCC system oscillations following Alberta separation on August 4, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/
orgs/opi/Wide_Area/index.shtm

Peter Mackin (SM94) received the B.S. degree in civil engineering and the
M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Montana State University, Bozeman,
in 1981 and 1982, respectively.
He has over 18 years of power system planning experience at Pacific Gas and
Electric Co. and the California ISO. He has been involved in Western Systems
Coordinating Council (WSCC) planning and operating activities since 1985. He
is currently a Principal Consultant with Navigant Consulting Inc., Sacramento,
CA.
Mr. Mackin has been a member of the WSCC Modeling and Validation Work
Group since 1997. He is a registered electrical engineer in California.

Donald Davies received the B.S. and M.E. degrees from Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, in 1978.
He compiles the Western Systems Coordinating Councils (WSCC) Study
Program annual reports and supports Modeling and Validation Work Group activities, including insertion of validated generator data into WSCC base cases.
His current interests include disturbance simulations, machine modeling, and
transmission-constrained production costing analysis.

John Undrill (F78) received the Ph.D. degree from the University of Canterbury, Cantrerbury, U.K., in 1965.
He has worked in power system dynamics and control at General Electric,
Power Technologies, Inc., and Electric Power Consultants, Inc. He is a Principal
Consultant with General Electric, Schenectady, NY.

Wenchun Zhu received the Masters degree in engineering from TsingHua University, Beijing, China, and the Ph.D. degree in engineering from Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
She joined General Electric (GE), Schenectady, NY, in 1994. Her work at GE
has been centered on dynamics and control analysis of power system equipment
and development of modeling methods for the GE PSLF simulation program.