IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No.

8 August 1982

2869

A NEW AGGREGATION METHOD FOR DETERMINING COMPOSITE LOAD CHARACTERISTICS

F. J. Lange, Member, IEEE
J. R. Ribeiro, Member, IEEE
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Syracuse, NHe York

Abstract - A new aggregation method for

deteining load characteristics for representation
in computer simulations is proposed. In support of
the new method, a mathematical derivation is
presented. Also, results are compared with models
obtained by using the EPRI/University of Texas at
Arlington method and field tests. The application of
the proposed method is simpler than existing methods
in that it does not require field tests or the use of
curve fitting techniques. The procedure should be of
primary interest to transmission system planners
involved in load flow and dynamic stability
simulations of power systems.
INTRODUCTION

The need to account for load dependence on

voltage in the study of povwer system. disturbances was
identified as early as 1935 (3, 5). Presently,
digital power system simulation (DPSS) programs have
the ability to represent loads as some function of
voltage and frequency. Several publications have
load
of
different
effect
the
documented
representations in DPSS [2, 6, 7]. These papers
confirm the general consensus among planning
engineers that the effect of load representation is,
in many instances, critical to system design and
Thus, the traditional approach of
operation.
modelling the most conservative load characteristic
is quickly becoming a less acceptable practice as the
economic pressures on the power industry require a
closer scrutiny of safety margins. Nevertheless,
system security is a very strong consideration,
therefore the only alternative for using the most
conservative load characteristic is to use the most
realistic load characteristic.
In general, the determination of a model for
representation of loads in DPSS programs can be
achieved by two different approaches:

a) Field Tests
b) Load Aggregation
With approach (a), field tests would be performed
at a reasonable number of buses. From an analysis of
the results an equation describing the relationship
of real power and reactive power with voltage and

frequency would be determined. This approach has

inherent realism hy virtue of its empirical nature.
However, field tests require elaborate apparatus and
are difficult to schedule. In addition, it is nearly
impossible to have a significant change of frequency
independent of voltage change in order to determine
the load dependence on frequency. [2]

A paper recommended and approved by the

IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE
PES 1982 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, January 31February 5, 1982. Manuscript stubrnitted August 25, 1981;
made available for printing December 11, 1981.

82 WM 127-9

Approach (b) is a response to the difficulties in

performing field tests. It hypothesizes that given
the combination of the finite number of fundamental
components (ranges, incandescent lamps, fluorescent
lamps, etc.) making up the bus load, and the behavior
of each of these components, the load model can be
determined. Of course, it still requires testing the
load components, but these are tests which in
principle only have to be performed once. Actually,
one would resort to the published results of
laboratory tests of load components.
Implicit in approach (b) is the assumption that
superposition applies, which means a certain degree
of linearity in the system. The linearity exists to
a certain degree for small variations on voltage or
frequency, i.e. about +10% from nominal. In this
respect, approach (b) is-not inferior to approach (a)
since rarely could any field test exceed the +10%
range.
Reference 1 describes one method for determining
load characteristics using approach (b). There,
extensive laboratory tests of fundamental components
were performed from which expressions were derived to
characterize the component's voltage and frequency
dependence. The method then requires the use of a
program that first calculates the voltage and
frequency functions at discreet points, then uses a
curve fit routine to arrive at a composite load
characteristic. The method being proposed here which
we will call simplified load aggregation (SLA)
method, makes use of the processed results of the
fundamental laboratory tests of reference 1, but then
uses a weighted averaging procedure to arrive at the
Throuigh a
composite load characteristic model.
mathematical derivation, it is shown that onl2v secoPd
order effects, i.e. dependence on AV , A f ,
( AVAF) and higher products are being neglected with
the SLA. A sample application of the SLA method to
the Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E) is
presented and compared with the model obtained from
field tests and the EPRI aggregation method.
The method is designed to simplify the work of
system planners in quickly determining a reasonably
accurate load model for DPSS based on easily
A short BASIC program which
accessible data.
automates the simplified aggregation method along
with a sample application to the RG&E system is
included in Appendix B.

tMATHEMATICAL

DERIVATION

The objective of this derivation is to provide

the mathematical path from the data obtained from
analysis of tests performed with components of power
system loads (lamps, heaters, clothes dryers, etc.)
to an expression suitable for computer representation.
A generally suitable equation for computer
representation is:
k
(1)
L = Lo^(EaiVni) (1 + bAf)
where
L = Real or reactive power at voltage V
and frequency f
LO= Real or reactive power at nominal
voltage and frequency

0018-9510/82/0800-2869$00.75 1982 IEEE

.~ ~

2870

Then (4) allows us to write:

Af = Frequency deviation in p.u.

V = Voltage in p.u.
consisting of
ai = Fraction of" i load
conmponent " z ai = 1.0 al way s

In principle k would be equal to the number of

individual components of loads (a number in theneighborhood of 10). Also consider that laboratory
tests of components, after analysis, provide partial
derivatives as shown in the upper portion of table
1. As a first step, it will be shown that for any
single fundamental component, the exponent of
voltage, n, and the coefficient of A f, b,
respectively correspond to the partial derivatives of
the load with respect to voltage and frequency.
Voltage Dependence

Let's first consider the conditions at A f = o,

i.e. constant frequency.
Then, for a single load component, equation (1)
becomes

For a small change of voltage

Vo we have

operating point
Lo +AL

Lo (VO

AV about the

AV)n

(2)

using the binonial expansion on the right side yields

LO + AL = Lo (VOn + nVo n-lAV +

negl ecti ng second order terms
operating voltage Vo = 1 p.u.
AL

LO

(1 +

... +AVn)

and

setti ng

AV)

(3)
tne

(LO + AL)/Lo
AL/Lo = n AY

AL/Lo

= 1 + n AV

ELoi

ni

=
=

Li

initial value of load component "i"

partial derivative of load component "i"
with respect to voltage
change in load for component "i" due to
a small voltage changeA V at the bus to
which component "i" is connected.

ELoini

AV

(10)

Recognizing that ELoi = LO (the total initial

bus load) and EALi = AL (the total bus load change
due to a voltage change&V), then

LO + AL

ELoi

ILoini AV

(11)

Per unitizing in the base of the total initial

bus load

(Lo + AL)/Lo = 1 + Ecini

where ci = Loi/Lo

AV

Comparing (11) with (5), it is evident that making n

in (5) equal to E cini makes the two equations
identical. Therefore, we can state that when k
components are connected at a bus, each with a
partial derivative of load with respect to voltage
given by ni (for component i), the partial
derivative of the composite load with respect to
voltage is given by
n =

(6)

Ecin

(12)

For constant voltage, (1) becomes:

L

(7)

(8)

Equations 1 through 8 establish that, neglecting

the second order terms, for a small change in voltage
about an operating point, if the load, L, is
described by L = V, then the partial derivative of
L with respect to the voltage is n.
We are ready to extend the derivation for k
components of load as follows:
Say that a particular bus has k components
connected. Taking:

Loi

ZLoi

Frequency Dependence

The left side of (7), for small AV, is simply

p.u. of initial load. We can write now
=

(5)

aL/aV in

aL/aV

EALi

where c; is the fraction of the bus load made up by

component "i ". In the previous equations, L stands
for either real power or reactive power.

which we can call AL. Thus, dividing both sides by AV

AL/AV

(9)

apply, it follows that

is the per unit change in L

n2AV)
n3AV)

(4)

dividing both sides by Lo

or

nlAV)

+
+

Lo + ALk = Lo (1 + nkAV)
Assunming that superposition of l oad effects

LoVn

L =

LO

Lo + ALl = Lo (1
AL2 == Lo (1(1
Lo + AL3
Lo
Lo+

or

LO

+AL

whence,
a

LO (1

(13)

b Af)

LO (1

bAf)

(14)

in equations 5 through 8 above

as

L/ 2f

(15)

Equations 13 14, and 15 show that the character

"b" in (1 ) corresponds to the partial derivative of
the load with respect to frequency.
By the same reasoning used for the voltage
dependence, we can state that: when k components are
connected at a bus, each with a partial derivative of
load with respect to frequency given by- bi (for
component "i " ), the partial derivative of the
composite load with respect to frequency is given by
,

Ecibi

(16)

where ci is the fraction of the bus load made up by

component i. Again, L, in equations 12 through 14,
stands for either real or reactive power.

SAMPLE APPLICATION

In this section, the steps to be taken by a power

system planner in preparing the model s for a
particular bus or set of buses will be outlined in
connection with a specific case.

2871

The two fundamental inputs required are:

a) Partial derivatives of load components with
respect to voltage and with respect to

frequency.
b) Make-up of bus load.
Item (a) can be obtained from. reference 1, which
in addition to results obtained through their own
tests, contains a survey of published results.
Item (b) can be obtained from the utility's ovn
inventory of loads, or from a survey such as
contained in reference 1.
As an example, a load model is built for RG&E.
The reason for selecting RG&E is that reference 2
shows results of field tests and the EPRI aggregation
method for an RG&E bus. Thus, we will he abl e to
compare the results obtained here with the results of
the other two methods. The data used will be as
general as possible in order to illustrate that a
minimum amount of searching is required in applying
the SLA method.
Table I shows the partial derivatives with
respect to voltage and frequency for the fundamental
load components and the breakdown of fundamental load
components as a fraction of total bus load making up
the three general consumer types: industrial,
commercial, and residential.
TABLE I - SAMPLE DATA
PARTIAL DERIVATIVES OF
FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS*
DP/DV DO/DV DP/DF DO/DF
INC. LIGHT
1.55 0
0
0
FLUOR. LIGHT
0.96
7.38
1.00 -26.6
AIR. COND.
0.20
2.30
0.90 -2.67
DRYER, FORC. AIR HEATER 2.04
3.27
0
-2.63
REFR., FREEZER
0.77
2.50
0.53 -1.46
ELECT. RANGE COOKING
2.00
0
0
0
PUMP-FAN-IND. MOTORS
0.08
1.60
2.90
1.80
HEATERS:HOTWATER; SPACE 2.00
0
0
0
TV, COMPUTER, ETC.
2.00
5.20
0
-4.60
FRACTION OF TOTAL DEMAND**
IND.
COM.
RES.
INC. LIGHT
0.03
0
0.13
FLUOR. LIGHT
0.49
0.39 4 0
AIR. COND.
O. 21
0.4
0.31
DRYER, FORC. AIR HEATER 0
0
0.23
REFR., FREEZER
0
0
0.13
ELECT. RANGE COOKING
0
0
0.08
PUMP-FAN-IND. MOTORS
0
0.08
0
HEATERS: HOTWATER; SPACE 0
0
0.17
TV, COMPUTER, ETC.
0
0
0
-BREAKDOWN AMONG CONSUMER TYPES:
INDUSTRIAL = 30%, COMMERCIAL = 38%, RESIDENTIAL = 32%
*From Table 3.3, Ref. 1, Vol. 1, page 3.14.
**IDEM, pages A-13 through A-20.

According to the derived method, we have to

calculate the following terns:
np=exponent of voltage for real power dependence
nq=exponent of voltage for reactive
power dependence
bp=coefficient of per unit frequency
deviation for real power dependence
bq=coefficient of per unit frequency
deviation for reactive power dependence
These are obtained by applying the method
successively to the data in table 1, first we
calculate the values for each type of consumer, i.e.
"Industrial", "Commercial" and "Residential". Once
these were calculated, the three consumer types are
treated as fundamental components and the method is
again applied to these three "fundamental comrponents"
to arrive at the final values of np, nq, bp,
and bq for use in the expressions:

P = P VnP (1 + b Af)
Q = (?oq (1 + b Af)

which are adequate for representation in dynamic

simulation programs.
The detailed calculations for the RG&E Sumer
model are shown in Appendix A, where the following
values were found:
np = .78
bp= .69
nq = 3.29
bq = -8.89
It is interesting to observe that the value of
np indicates that the real povwer behavior of the
load is very close to constant current.

MATRICIAL PROCEDURE
The calculations outlined irr the previous section
be synthesized in matrix form by first
identifying the following arrays in table 1:
1. Array of partial derivatives which is a 9x4
matrix, let's call it [N].
2. Arrays of component makeup by type of
These are the three columns
consumer.
listed under "fraction of total demand" in
table 1. Let's call them [X], [YJ, and [VWJ
for
the
respectively,
industrial,
conmercial, and residential components
makeup. For the number of fundamental
components considered these arrays are each
9xl vectors.
3. The solution array containing the exponents
for the voltage tern, and the coefficient of
the frequency deviation is:

can

[npl

[M]

(17)

nq
bp

[bqj

Then,

[Ml

[Nt] * rEX]

[Nt] * srY]

[Nt] * zEW] (18)

where r, s, and z are respectively the fraction of

bus load consisting of industrial, commercial and
residential type consumers. The brackets indicate a
matrix, the symbol * indicates matrix multiplication,
and the superscript "t" indicates transposition. The
beauty of the matrix format is that it is easily
programmable sparing us the tedious calculations.
A simple BASIC program written to solve equation
(18) is listed in Appendix B, along with results of
applying the program to Rochester Gas & Electric
(RG&E) data. The following general models result for
RG&E:

SUMMER
p

= PO VO78 (1 + .69Af)

QO v329 (1 - 8.89 Af)

WINTER

P = PO

V1.21

(1 + .77Af)

QO

V3f88

(1

o =

- 10.85

Af)

2872

COMPARISON WITH FIELD TESTS

AND THE EPRI AGGREGATION METHOD
In order to provide some measure of the accuracy
in the application of the proposed aggregation
method, values of load versus voltage at noninal
frequency were computed using the derived models and
plotted in Figures 1 through 4 together with the
values from curve fitted field test results and the
EPRI aggregation methods (published in Volume 4 of
Ref. 2).
Figures 1 and 3 show real power in p.u. of
initial value versus p.u. voltage for the summer and
winter peak models respectively. Within the range of
0.95 to 1.05 p.u. voltage, the largest difference
between the field test and the proposed model is
about 0.005 p.u. (Field tests results were available
for 0.95 to 1.01 p.u. voltage only).
Figures 2 and 4 show corresponding plots for
reactive power in p.u. versus p.u. in voltage. Here
the largest deviation from the field test in the
range of 0.95 p.u. to 1.05 p.u. voltage is of the
order .05 p.u. These deviations are well within
practical accuracy requirements. The figures also
indicate that reactive power characterization is not
as good as real power, perhdps suggesting a need for
additional research in the reactive power behavior of

fundamental components.
Plots of load variation with frequency are not
included here because there are not meaningful
results of field tests available for conparison. It
is well known that it is practically impossible to
have a significant change in system, frequency for a
isolated
an
in
Even
staged field test.
generator-load system, it is not so easy to determine
the frequency dependence. For example, reference 2
describes a staged frequency test performed on an
isolated system consisting of gas turbine generation
and load. When the turbine frequency was varied, the
load voltage variation was larger than the frequency
variation, so the independent effect of frequency on
the load was masked by the voltage effects.

FIELD TEST

EPRI/UTA

:m

EPRI/UTA

CM

METHOD

C3
<

FIELD TEST

.5

1-

0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99-1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09

VOLTAGE

P.U.

FIGURE 2.SUMMER MODEL. REACTIVE POWER DEPENDENCE

ON VOLTAGE.

C:
.4

SLA
METHOD

C)
0

.4

co

C)

C)

a:

EPRIUTA

FIELD TEST

-1

METHOD

C)
13
C)

o1
C)
r-

c01
L

-4

00.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09
VOLTAGE P.U.
WINTER
MODEL. REAL POWER DEPENDENCE
FIGURE 3.
ON VOLTAGE.

o1
*~
oi

in
C)

C)

,q

,-1
LU 00D

CM
n *c.

CL)

CS

CD

1-1

SLA METHOD

C)

EI

0:
*9ml
w

:c

SLA

C)

FIELD TEST

CD

.o
6

PRI/UTA

CD*1

EPRI/UTA METHOD

U-

IETHOD

`~.

o=

0*1
.o

FIELD TEST
SLA METHOD

0.

0.91 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07

1.09

VOLTAGE, P.U.
FIGURE 1.

SUMMER MODEL.
ON VOLTAGE

REAL POWER DEPENDENCE

0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09

VOLTAGE, P.U.
FIGURE 4.WINTER MODEL.
ON VOLTAGE.

REACTIVE POWER DEPENDENCE

2873

GENERAL CONS IDERATIONS

Notice that the initial value of real power and
reactive power will both be assumed known (e.g. from,
the base case load flow) when using the results of
This
the SLA method in a dynamic simulation.
assumption is not strange to system planners. In
contrast, by the EPRI/UTA approach only the real
power is assumed known. The reactive power is
calculated from the power factor obtained from the
In
tests.
laboratory
components
fundamental
principle, the idea is very attractive, however, when
this approach was applied and compared to field
measurements, it led to significant differences in
the estimation of initial value of reactive power.
The discrepancy is understandable because the power
factor of the components varies with the voltage at
which it is operating, which in p.u. is not
necessarily the same as the vol tage where the
measurements are being taken in a field test.
Although the SLA method would be easily adapted to do
the same calculation of reactive power from the power
factor, it is not felt that the accuracy of the data
grants such approach nor is it necessary for
transmission system planning.
Distribution and transformer core and copper
losses may generally be neglected ,Pased on an
in-depth study at Niagara Mohawk(8" which has
indicated that on an average they represent less than
3% of the total energy.
'When characterizing loads by an expression as
(1), the user should be aware that, strictly
speaking, the model is only valid for steady state
conditions. More explicitly, load dynamics are not
being accounted for when the model is used in dynamic
simulations, no matter which method was used to
arrive at (1). Since a large percentage of the loads
have very small time constants, such neglect is
generally acceptable. However, loads consisting of
involve non-negl igible time constants.
motors
Therefore, if a substantial portion of a system load
consists of motors, the system planner should
consider representing the motor loads in detail with
the necessary differential equations (2, 7).
Another important aspect to emphasize is that
although load model expressions will provide values
for load at any voltage and frequency, there is
presently no way of validating the load behavior in
interconnected systems beyond a variation of about
+10% in voltage and a much smaller variation in
frequency. Generally, we are not even interested in
what happens after a 5% frequency deviation from
synchronous; since by then, all stages of load
shedding wiould have occurred and many generation
units would have tripped. At the moment, all a
system planner can do is to be aware of the above
limitations and try to weigh the possible effect of
these uncertainties in each particular study.

Appendix A. Detailed Calculations for the RG&E

Summer tModel

a)

Real Power

np

n:

=(n zclni x 1.552) + (.49 x .962)

= 0.56

bp

=
=

Eb-c
0.68,3

(.21 x .202)

(.49 x 1) + (.21 x .901)

Reactive Power

nq

Ecinj:

nq = (.49 x 7.38) + (.21 x 2.3)

.= 4.1

bq == cibi bq = [.49 x (-26.6)]

-13.59

[.21

(-2.67)]

similarly we find

b) Commercial Loads

bp = .9824
4.01, bq = -11.3

Real Power: np =- .664,

Reactive Power:

nq =

c) Residential Loads
Real Power: np = 1.132,

Reactive Power: nq

d) Repeating
industrial
residential
given that
commercial,

bp

1.79, bq

0.348
=

-1.62

now
considering
procedure
the
and
loads,
commercial
loads,
loads as "fundamental components";
the bus load is 30% industrial, 38%
32% residential, obtains:

np = .3 (.56) + .38 (.664) + .32 (1.132)

= .78

bp

= .3 (.68) + .38 (.98) + .32 (.348)

=

.69

nq= .3 (4.1) + .32 (4.01) + .32 (1.79)

bq
bq

CONCLUS IONS
A new method for determining the characteristics
of a composite load from the characteristics of the
fundamental load components was derived.
This method makes use of readily available data.
A simple procedure for the application of the method
is illustrated by an application to the RG&E systenm.
Results are compared to field tests (performed by
other investigators) showing that the method can
provide models within practical state of the art
A short basic -program is provided to
accuracy.
further facilitate the application of the method.
It is expected that the procedure outlined will
considerably help users of dynamic stability programs
load
an
at
adequate
easily
in
arriving
characterization.

Industrial Loads

are:

3.29

=
=

.3 (-13.59) + .39 (-11.3) + .32 (-1.62)

-8.89

The final equations for computer representation

P =

POV.78 (1

.69 Af)

Q = Qov3.29 (1 - 8.89 Af)

2874

Appendix B. BASIC Program Listing, Input and Output

40 DIMi VS(9)
50,DIM X(9,1)
60-DIM
Y(9,1)
70 DIM iI( 9,1 )
100 DIP, 11(9,4)
200 DII A(9,1)
300 DIt: 0(9,1)
400 DIll C (9,1)
500 DII; T(4,9)
510 DI0M E(4,1)
520 DIM F(4,1)
530 DIM, G(4,1)
540 DI"I !:(4,1)
550 DIM P(4,1)
600 DEFIIIE FILE 01='PAPRI'
610 DEFI:E FILE 02='PAPR2'
631 PRINT 'PILE PAPRI COUTAI::S TIlE INPUT DATA IN THIE FOLLOrIIING 0RDE''.
632 POIUT 'FIRST PARTIAL DERIVATIVES FOr EACII COMPO:IEI:T'
633 PRI;T 'THAT IS O:P/DVERE
SINCE
634 POIfNT
'11E27T COI:SESIMID YOU SHOULD NAVE 36 ITENZ TiiElE
hIRE. ARE 9 CCi'PO-'
645 PRINIT 'THE FILE CONTAINS THE FRACTI01:S CF THE COMPONENTSSEO:ID,l
THAT'
646 PRI:T 'MAKE UP EACII OF THE 3 TYPES Or CONSU!SErS:IIIDUSTRIAL,'
647 PRIIIT 'COl:ERCIAL, RESIDE':TIAL, II TIlE ORD-l JUST STATED'
648-PRINT 'THERE ACE 9 ITE::S FoP EACH CO!'SU::El YPC'
649 PRINT 'ALL THESE IT: ...
..OI:-OLE SEQUEI!CE OF SEVERAL LIIIS'
650 PRIIIT
OUTPUT IS I'l FILE PAPR2'
652 PRIEIT
653 PRINT
654 PRlIIT
660 VS(l)='I::C.LIGfT
665 VSI2)='FLUOR.LICI)T
670 V13)=A'I..COh:D.
675 V$(4)='DRYEI,FORC.AIR HEATER
680 VI(5= 'RPFR., FPECZEs;
685 VI(6 ='ELECT R12:1E COOKIIG
687 VS(7)='?U:IP-FA;:-.!ID.IOTORS
609 V$(S)='!lEATERS:MIOT'!ATSI;SPACZ
690 VS(9)='TV,COIIPUTER, ETC.
TOO IIAT. RE:D 1 ;!, X,Y,!
702 PRI!T 'TYPE FRACTP0:1 OF I:DUSTRIAL,CO::MERCIAL AND RESID. CC::?0"E::TS'
705 INPUT R,S,Z
710 M?AT T=TRl:()

/D',1)P/DF,ODQ/DF),

720
730
740
750
760

846
850
860
070
875
880
881
882
883
898
899

900
901
902
920
921
940
999

Planni.ng

1.

FOR I:1,9
J=1

NUITE 02,VS(I),N(I,J),I(I,J,1),O(I,a.2),1:(I,J,3)

HAT W/RITE C2,11

WRITE 02, .....

......f**......

WPRITE 025'

***

RGSE WIIlTER MODEL

DATA USED

FOR

THIS

GEnERAL DATA

RUN

I!lC.LLIGIIT
FLUOR. LIGHT
AIR.COID.
DRYEa ,FO;0C.AI UR lhEATER
D.:FR. FREEZEII1;
ELECT RAN1CE C:OOIlG
PUMP-FAO-IRID. HOTORS

HEATERS:HOTWAATER;SPACE
TV,COMPUTER, ETC.

1I\

IlIC. LIGHIT
FLUOR.LIGIIT
AIR. COIID.
-DRYER,F0RC.A0 0R HEATER
REFR. ,FREEZE1 Sn0
ELECT RAINGE COOKIIIG
PUMP-FAE-IIID..lIOTORS
HEATERS: HOTWIJ
TV,COIHPUTER, ETC.

......*

IS:P=PO'(V"IEP)'l1EPH0ILTAM)
Q0Q0'(V**IIQ)'(1.oQ*DELTAF)'

WRITE 02, 'YOUR MODEL

WRITE 02, '
WRIiE 02,'
ElID

I-

kTEC;SPACE

PARTIAL DERIVATIVES OF
FUIlDAMEIITAL COSPORNENTS
DP/DV
DP/DF
DQ/DR
0
1.552
0
.962
7.38
1
.202
2.3
.901
2.04

3.27
2.5

.769

.08

2
2

-2.63
-1.459

.531

2.9

5.2

-26.6
-2.67

1.6

DQ/DF
0

1.8
-4.6

FRACTION OF TOTAL DElIAND

EIND.
COII.
RES.
0
.03
.13
.49

.21

.39

.4

.23

.13

0
O

0
0
0

.08

0
0

.31

.08

0
.17
0

-BREAKDOWN A;IO;G CONSUIIER TYPES:

INDUSTRIAL=
.27
COlMMERCIAL=
.34
R.ESIDEl;TIAL: .39
*. ...
..*...*,..
........
@* .*.. *..S ....*,...
II
CALCULATED VOLTAGE EXPO:'ENTS AIID
B?
liP
l'Q
.010503
3.139S3
.653255
-

Dutkiewicz of the New England

for stimulus and valuable comments.

Power

REFERENCES

Determining Load CI laracteristics for Transient

Performances, EPRI E L-849, Vols. 1-3, prepared by
tfhe University of Texas at Arlington, for EPRI,
849-3.
under project

2.

Determinia

Load Characteristics

eFriainces, EPRI EL-850, Vols.

for Transient

1-4 prepared by
the General Electric Co. for EPRI under project

849-1.

3. F. G. McCrakin, W. R. Schmus, "The Representation

of System Loads in Stability Studies", IEEE
Tutorial Course on Modern Concepts of Power
Tystem D`namics, IEEE 1970, pp. 41-46.

"Equipment

4.

Loads",
General Electric Co. ElectricModeling
Utility
Engineering
Seminar on Power System Stability, 1969.

5.

S. B. Crary, "Steady State Stability of Composite

Systems." AIEE Transactions 1934 Vol. 53 pp.

C.

Concordia,

1809-1814.

HEXT I
WRITE 22,
FRtCTIO: OF TOTAL DS::A!::L
WHRITE GZ,'
INDUSTRIAL CO:I;::RCIAL .
_S;D_
FOR 1=1,9
WUITE 02,MS(I),3(I,l,y(I,1),iCI,1)
RESTI
URITE 02,'
WRITE:12, '-D3EAiDO:I A;lO;G CO:ISUMER TYPES:'
WRITE 02, 'IIRDUST2IAL=' , 'COl::lERCIAL',S, '?ISIDEIJTIAL=' '
W7RITE ,
WIRITE C2,'
WHITE 02, IX - CALCULATED VOLTAGE EXPONENTS AID FREO.COIFPICI'!ITS'
WHITE 02, 'IIP
ISO
BP
RhO

800
810
820
840
845

Thomas J.

MAT D=(S)Y

HAT F=T'l

797

770

790
791
792

The authors wish to thank Mr. P.D. Raymond of

Niagara Mohawk for management support, and Mr.

HAT A=(R)'Z
MAT E=T-A

TIAT C=(Z)''J
0
IIAT
=T*C
MAT P = E=F
FIAT I'= P.O
WRITE 02, 'I- DATA USED FOR THIS RUN'
WRITE 02,
PARTIAL DERIVATI'SE OF FU::DA::E:
WRITE 02,
DP/DV
DQ/DV
DP

.7S

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

FRE4.COEFFICIEITS
B8
-8.14458

6.

Kajornsak

Hotrabbavananda, Lewis N. Walker;

Granville E. Ott "A Study of the Effects of
Load
Characteristics on Power System Stability Using
the Long Term Dynamics Hybrid Simulator",
presented at the 1977 IEEE PES Summer Meeting,
Mexico City, Mex. Paper No. 477608-3.
7. J. M. Undrill, "Equipment and Load Modelling in
Power
System Dynamic Simulation", System
Engineering for Power, Status and Prospects, pp.
T94-48, U.S. Department of Energy, publication
No. CONF-750876, 1975.

L. W. Vicks, "Investigation of Electric System

Losses and Unaccounted for Energy" Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation Internal Progress_ Rport, May
1981.___________
9. S. A. Kalinowsky, M. N. Forte, "Steady State and
Load Voltage Characteristic Field Tests at Area
Substations and Fluorescent Lighting Component
Characteristics", presented at the 1981 IEEE PES
Winter Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Paper to.
8.

81WM085-0.

J. R. Ribeiro (S'72, M'74) was

born in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He
received the B.S.E.E. degree from
New York University, New York, in
1973 and the M.S.E.E. degree from
Union College, Schenectady, N.Y.,
in 1974.
From 1969 to 1973 he was with
the Technical and Special Studies
Section of the American Electric
Power Service Corporation, N.Y.,
where he was involved with power
system analysis and planning. In September 1973 he
joined Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI), Schenectady,
to work in the area of transmission planning and
system dynamics. From 1974 to 1977 he worked with
PTI's subsidiary in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Since
September 1977 he has been with Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation in the Generation and Transmission

2875

Planning Section, in Syracuse, NY, where he is

involved in power system analysis, including system
dynamics and electromagnetic transients studies. He
has co-authored three technical papers on Power
System modeling.
Mr. Ribeiro is a member of Tau Beta Pi, Eta
Kappa Nu and serves on the IEEE Working Group on
Preparation of a Guide for Excitation Systems
He is a Registered Professional
Specifications.
Engineer in the State of New York and a member of the
Adjunct Faculty of Syracuse University.

Frederick J. Lange (S'66, M'68) was born in

Syracuse, New York, in 1944. He received B.S. and
M.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering from Clarkson
College of Technology in 1966 and 1968 respectively.
In 1967, he joined the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation, Syracuse, New York, where he worked in
varied areas of transmission planning. Since 1975,
he has been Supervisor - System Generation &
In this capacity, he is
Transmission Planning.
responsible for supervi sing appropriate planning
generation
and
EHV
studies
involving
major
transmission additions.
Mr. Lange is a Registered Professional Engineer
in the State of New York.
Discussion
C. Concordia (Consulting Engineer, Venice, FL): The method described in this paper is not at all a new aggregation method, but rather is a
return to the old method as existed before the EPRI studies were made.
In a sense, it is a repudiation of the trend toward complexity noted in
most recent work. (Although it uses component data from it.) This is
not to say that it is wrong. To the contrary, it may be an important
signal as to what is really wanted by the electric utility industry.
The paper is concerned only with static representation, and so leaves
open the question of when load dynamics may be significant.
We were struck by the typical results reported, and believe that they
must be viewed cautiously, at least until verified by others. In particular, we noted the variation of reactive power (Q) as between the
third and fourth power of voltage and as the (negative) ninth or
eleventh power of frequency. Both of these parameters are very stronly
stabilizing: the first, by tending to maintain voltage during power swings because of the large reduction in Q when voltage decreases; the second, by contributing to damping by greatly increasing Q, and thus

reducing voltage and therefore active load, when the frequency

decreases. It would therefore be prudent to be thoroughly convinced of
the validity of the load representation before accepting the more optimistic stability results calculated thereby.
Finally, since we did not see shunt capacitors mentioned in Table I,
we assume that they are not included in the final Q, but are handled
separately?
Manuscript received February 18, 1982.

J. R. Ribeiro and F. J. Lange: Initially we wish to thank Dr. Concordia

for his comments on our work. It both enhances the value of the paper
and gives us an opportunity to bring additional insight to the paper.
First, from our necessarily limited survey of the literature, it seems
that previous publications on this subject did not establish the
mathematical relationships between individual load component
behavior and their aggregated behavior nor did they lay out a simple
procedure to arrive at a composite model as exposed in our paper. For
this reason, we titled the paper "A New Aggregation Method . . ." On
the other hand, we certainly agree that one of our major motivations
was to maintain simplicity in the load modeling process.
Second, the paper is basically proposing a mathematical procedure,
everything else is circumstantial. This means that we are not passing any
judgment on the data used, although the comparison shown in the
paper of the aggregation method with the field test does indicate good
data particularly for the real power dependency on voltage and frequency. In the general case, the user of the method will have to make his own
decision as to the source of his data, as long as it can be obtained in the
form required by the method.
Third, we agree with Dr. Concordia's comments about the stabilizing
effects of the reactive power dependency. It remains to point out that
the reactive effect on stability is somewhat attenuated by the fact that
the reactive part of the load in general is about half of the real part. In
addition, in the case of faults in interconnected systems, the frequency
deviations are within 0.005 p.u., so even the large coefficients are not
very significant when multiplied by such a small number. Of course, in
the case of islanded subsystems the effect of frequency on the reactive
power becomes more significant.
Fourth, no capacitors were involved in the example shown in the
paper. We do recommend that capacitors be handled separately
whenever their exact participation in the bus composition is known, by
adding a term to the bus load characteristic in the form QoV2 with Qo
being a negative number corresponding to the reactive power of the
capacitor banks at 1.0 p.u. voltage.
Manuscript received March 31, 1982.