2010 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon2010), Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

An Analysis of Transient Stability Using

Center-of-Inertia: Angle and Speed
*H. Hashim, M. R. Zulkepali, Y. R. Omar, N. Ismail, I. Z. Abidin, S. Yusof
Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. Advanced Power Solution Sdn. Bhd.
{halimatun, yaakob, noraisma, izham}@uniten.edu.my. zm.ridzuwan@gmail.com, salleh@aps-my.com
dynamic behavior of generators in the system [3, 4,
5]. If the indices calculated show an out of step
condition after the fault is cleared, the system is
considered to be in an unstable condition. In addition,
if the multi-machine system is in synchronism with
all the machines turning at a constant speed, the
system frequency is equal to the dynamic frequency
(possibly above or below the steady state speed, s)
[4].

Abstract - Instability in the system may cause the rotor

angle of the machine to accelerate or decelerate
depending on the mechanical power and electrical
power; most seriously could result to tripping of the
machine This paper evaluates the impact of
disturbances and types of loads to system stability using
Area-based COI-referred Transient Stability Indexes:
COI angle and COI speed. The analysis is carried out
using PSSE 32 software on IEEE 118 Bus Test System
at system conditions with and without dynamic loads.
The network is initially divided into significant areas
based on the geographical.

The COI reference transformation defines the

COI angle as:

Keywords - Transient stability, Center-of Inertia,

Dynamic load.
I.

(1)

INTRODUCTION

Fault on transmission facilities, large loss of load

or generation will result in transient stability causing
large currents and torque experienced by the machine
concerned. Any unbalanced torque acting on the rotor
causes the machines to accelerate or decelerate,
which may lead to loss of synchronism [5, 6] if the
imbalance is too significant. Therefore, it is important
to analyze the impact of these disturbances to the
power network in order to maintain system stability.
This paper analyzes the effect of dynamic load to
power system stability upon the occurrence of fault
using Area-based [3] COI-referred Transient Stability
Index: COI angle and COI speed [3, 4, 5]. For this to
be possible, simulation analysis was carried out on
IEEE 118 Bus Test System. Apart from that, the
system loads are varied by taking into account static
and dynamic load conditions.

( )

(2)

(3)
(4)

Where N is the number of generator, M is the

moment of inertia of the machine, MT is the total
system inertia, is the area equivalent rotor angle, i
the individual rotor angle, while r is total number of
areas in a power system.
The COI reference transformation defines the
COI speed as:
(5)

II. AREA-BASED CENTRE OF INERTIA (COI)

( )

Area-Based COI is a common transformation

used in transient stability analysis. The indices as
shown in equation (1) and equation (5) associate with
the rotor angle and angular speed of a particular area
of a power grid and are based on an equivalent inertia
representing the total inertia of the generators located
in that area. The indices are derived from the
classical machine model by assuming that the

978-1-4244-8946-6/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

(6)

Where is the area equivalent rotor speed and i is

the individual rotor speed of the area.

402

III. METHODOLOGY

indices and hence, the stability of the system could be

analyzed. If the COI angle is within 180 and the
COI speed is very low, the system is in stable
condition; however, if the COI angle exceeds 180
and the COI speed is large, then the system is in an
unstable condition [3, 4].

The index of Area-Based COI: COI angle and

COI speed are used to examine the stability the IEEE
118 Bus Test System, which consists of 28
generators, 118 buses and 186 transmission lines,
when subjected to fault. Figure 1 shows that the large
network is organized into three areas, namely: Area 1
has 13 generators, Area 2 with 8 generators and Area
3 consists of 7 generators respectively based on
geographical. Different types of power plants are
modeled connected to static loads and/or dynamic
loads using PSSE 32.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Case studies without dynamic loads
Case 1: A bus fault is created at bus 89 in Area
1. Figure 3.1 Figure 3.3 illustrate the behavior of
the angle in each area: Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3.
Referring to Table 1, the COI angle is lesser than
180, which means the system is in stable condition.
Referring to Table 11, the individual rotor angle of
each machine in all areas does not violate the stability
limit of the power system. Table 2 shows that the
COI speed is very low, which indicates that this
multi-machine system is in synchronism with all the
machines in each area turning at almost a constant
speed. This indicates the system frequency is almost
equal to the dynamic frequency.

Figure 1: IEEE 118 Bus Test System with three

electrically coherent areas.
Figure 2 represents a simplified version of
IEEE 118 Bus Test System to highlight
interconnection between the three areas and
number of generators and inertia constant for
respective area.

the
the
the
the
Figure 3.1: Case 1 for Area 1

Area 3,
7- genset,

Area 2,
8- genset,

Area 1,
13- genset,
Figure 3.2: Case 1 for Area 2
Figure 2: Area Based IEEE 118 Bus Test System
Simulations are carried out on the system at base
case and contingency conditions with and without
dynamic loads as a comparison from different load
models. Bus fault was simulated at Bus 80 and 89
with a fault clearance time of 100ms [7]. The
characteristic of rotor angle for each machine in the
respective area was plotted during pre-fault, fault and
post-fault conditions. Data obtained from the
simulation results were used to calculate the stability

Figure 3.3: Case 1 for Area 3

403

The total inertia of the machines of the three areas:

Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3 is MT = 186.6
33.5530
COI Angle

19.0352
( )

2.2664

40.8326

= 31.2866

12.2514

Figure 3.6: Case 2 for Area 3

9.5460

611.2

Table 1: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Angle Case 1
-314.102
COI Speed

0.073809

-314.213

-314.263

( )

= -314.175

2133.525

COI Angle

( )

824.094

2108.80

= 1435.294

698.231

673.506

Table 3: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Angle Case 2
-0.03781

-0.0876
-366.929

Table 2: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Speed Case 1

COI Speed

Case 2: Figure 3.4 Figure 3.6 demonstrate the

behavior of rotor angles when fault occurs at Bus 80.
After the disturbance is cleared, the individual rotor
angle for each machine in particular areas goes out of
step of the stability limit, which is 180 as proven in
Table 3 and Table 12. In addition, the COI speed of
each area in Table 4 is also high. This indicates that
the machines in each area are running out of
synchronism.

-1.52478

-369.125

-358.628

( )

= -365.404

-3.72024

6.776079

Table 4: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Speed Case 2
B. Case studies with dynamic loads
Case 3: A bus fault is simulated at bus 89 in
Area 1. Figure 3.7 Figure 3.9 show the behavior of
the rotor angle, which is decreasing due to the effect
of dynamic loads connected to buses 13, 15 and 19 in
Area 3. Nevertheless comparing to Case 1, the
dynamic loads that are connected to the system have
caused the rotor angles to be decreasing within the
simulation time frame of 20 seconds.

Figure 3.4: Case 2 for Area 1

Figure 3.7: Case 3 for Area 1

Figure 3.5: Case 2 for Area 2

404

Case 4: Figure 3.10 Figure 3.12 show the

graph of rotor angle for each generator in the three
areas when a fault occurs at Bus 80 in Area 1. The
system becomes unstable since the rotor angle of
most of the machines exceeding the stability limit,
which is 180 accept for some of the machines in
Area 1 as shown in Table 14 and proven in Table 7
and Table 8 through Transient Stability Index.
Figure 3.8: Case 3 for Area 2

Figure 3.10: Case 4 for Area 1

Figure 3.9: Case 3 for Area 3
The fault does not affect the system stability
since the individual rotor angle for each machine in
particular areas does not violate the stability limit of
the power system as shown in Table 13. This is also
proven by COI angle in Table 5. In addition, COI
speed of each area in Table 6 is also low showing that
the machines are turning at almost a constant speed.
Figure 3.11: Case 4 for Area 2
16.068

3.5029

COI Angle

( )

1.473

4.6827

= 4.975

11.092

9.657

Table 5: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Angle Case 3

Figure 3.12: Case 4 for Area 3

650.508

-315.888
COI Speed

-315.996

-316.046

( )

= -315.96

-0.0361

-0.08592

COI Angle
827.783

0.071775

2178.688

( )

700.397

2155.869

= 1478.291
677.578

Table 7: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Angle Case 4

Table 6: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Speed Case 3

405

V.
-370.373
COI Speed

-315.996

( )

-29.6525

24.72438

The existence of dynamic loads in the system

affects the rotor angle and speed of the machines
during steady state and abnormal conditions. At
transient instability condition, the system with
dynamic loads receives a greater impact compared to
the system without dynamic loads. Therefore, in
order to ensure that the stability of a power system is
preserved, it is advisable to take dynamic loads into
consideration during the analysis of transient
stability. Based on all the cases, if the COI angle is
within 180 and the COI speed is very low, then the
system is in stable condition. Furthermore, in all
cases, Area-based COI-referred Transient Stability
Index: COI angle and COI speed is useful in analyzing
the transient stability of a system when it is subjected
to disturbance.

= -340.72

24.67456

Table 8: Transient Stability Index: Area-Based COI

Speed Case 4
Table 5 and 6 summarize the results in terms of
Transient Stability Index: COI angle and COI speed
for cases with and without the dynamic loads
connected to the system. The index indicates whether
the system is stable or unstable. Case 1 and Case 3
demonstrate the stability of the system with the value
of Transient Stability Index, COI angle not exceeding
180 and low values of COI speed. In contrast,
Case 2 and Case 4 represent the unstable condition of
the system with Transient Stability Index, COI angle
exceeding 180 and large values of COI speed. In
addition, the values of both COI angle and COI speed
are higher for the system with dynamics loads
compared to the system without dynamic loads.
Case 1: fault at Bus 89

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research team would like to acknowledge the
Ministry of Science and Technology Malaysia for
research funding (03-02-03-SF0141 and 03-02-03SF0187), Universiti Tenaga Nasional Malaysia,
Tenaga Nasional Berhad and Advanced Power
Solution Sdn. Bhd. for the support given to this
research.

Case 2: fault at Bus 80

2.2664

0.073809

12.2514

-0.03781

698.231

-3.72024

9.5460

-0.0876

673.506

6.776079

824.094

This paper is also dedicated to the late Dr.

Sallehhudin Yusof (President, Advanced Power
Solutions Sdn. Bhd.) for his tireless effort and
tremendous help in making the research presented to
be more meaningful. May The Al-Mighty bless him
always.

-1.52478

REFERENCES

TABLE 9: TSI for system without dynamic loads

Case 3: fault at Bus 89

1.4733

0.071775

CONCLUSIONS

-316.046

[1] C. W. Taylor, Power System Voltage Stability.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[2] Hadi Saadat, Power System Analysis. Second
Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
[3] A. W. Noor Izzri, A. Mohamed, Area-Based
COI-Referred Transient Stability Index for
Large-Scale Power System,International Journal
of Power, Energy and Artificial Intelligence,
No.1, Vol. 1 (ISSN: 1985-6431), August 2008.
[4] Sauer P. W and M. A. Pai, Power System
Dynamics and Stability. Prentice Hall, 1998.
[5] Kundur, P. 1994. Introduction to the Power
System Stability Problem Basic Concept and
Definitions, Mid-term and Long-Term Stability.
Power System Stability and Control: 33-34,
McGraw-Hill.

Case 4: fault at Bus 80

827.7827

-29.6525

11.0923

-0.0361

700.3969 24.72438

9.6569

-0.08592

677.5782 24.67456

TABLE 10: TSI for system with dynamic loads

406

[6] J Machowski, J W Bialek, JR, Bumby, Power

System Dynamics Stability and Control. 2nd
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[7] TNB Transmission Division, Protection and
Control Code of Practice (COP), Second
Edition, September 2003.

APPENDIX
A. Rotor Angle after Fault without Dynamic Loads
M/C
No
Area1
69

Rotor
angle,
()
25.5470

M/C
No
Area2
40

Rotor
angle,
()
20.8900

M/C
No
Area3
1

Rotor
angle,
()
39.2257

70

57.2498

42

13.8581

10

58.6341

74

43.5788

46

20.8517

12

38.5190

76

4.9322

49

20.5787

25

34.2887

80

32.0188

54

16.3275

26

41.1974

87

5.5125

55

22.0559

27

31.3702

89

21.2923

59

18.8620

31

42.5933

91

28.2124

65

18.8620

100

81.9580

103

40.9147

107

28.8721

110

32.0866

B. Rotor Angle after Fault with Dynamic Loads

M/C
No
Area1
69

TABLE 11: Case 1: Fault at Bus 89 without Dynamic

Load
M/C
No
Area1
69

Rotor
angle,
()
-2149.66

M/C
No
Area2
40

Rotor
angle,
()
-2133.33

M/C
No
Area3
1

Rotor
angle,
()
-2111.5

70

-2126.19

42

-2140.99

10

-2090.44

74

-2152.01

46

-2130.21

12

-2109.75

76

-2139.87

49

-2132.84

25

-2114.02

80

32.815

54

-2135.03

26

-2107.33

87

102.901

55

-2133.29

27

-2120.11

89

85.8264

59

-2135.01

31

-2108.47

91

71.0956

65

-2127.5

100

72.7026

103

63.8331

107

64.0682

110

66.6714

Rotor
angle,
()
-28.7021

M/C
No
Area2
40

Rotor
angle,
()
-15.7373

M/C
No
Area3
1

Rotor
angle,
()
1.7394

70

-4.5072

42

-22.7143

10

23.7219

74

-31.1004

46

-15.103

12

2.9723

76

-17.5300

49

-15.5163

25

-1.7649

80

-9.2960

54

-19.6988

26

5.1773

87

44.4442

55

-14.1043

27

-5.4513

89

20.2945

59

-17.1486

31

6.3774

91

5.2610

65

-8.5175

100

4.2279

103

-8.0555

107

-4.5227

110

-4.3124

TABLE 13: Case 3: Fault at Bus 89 with Dynamic

Load
M/C
No
Area1
69

TABLE 12: Case 2: Fault at Bus 80 without Dynamic

Load

Rotor
angle,
()
-2192.30

M/C
No
Area2
40

Rotor
angle,
()
-2179.43

M/C
No
Area3
1

Rotor
angle,
()
-2159.90

70

-2171.83

42

-2186.71

10

-2138.78

74

-2197.39

46

-2175.47

12

-2155.58

76

-2186.75

49

-2177.85

25

-2160.48

80

30.2364

54

-2180.32

26

-2153.83

87

62.0942

55

-2178.31

27

-2167.30

89

45.0147

59

-2179.87

31

-2155.18

91

29.2325

65

-2171.54

100

32.0114

103

23.1300

107

23.7278

110

24.6400

TABLE 14: Case 4: Fault at Bus 80 with Dynamic

Load

407