03 Cme Lyapunov

Lyapunovs Second Method for Stability Transient Energy Function
Ciudad Real, February 2013
Transient Energy Function - 1
Angle Stability Denitions
IEEE-CIGRE classication (IEEE/CIGRE Joint Task Force on Stability) Terms and

Denitions, Denitions and Classication of Power System Stability, IEEE Trans. Power Systems and CIGRE Technical Brochure 231, 2003:
Power System Stability
Rotor Angle Stability
Frequency Stability
Voltage Stability
Small Disturbance Angle Stability
Transient Stability
Large Disturbance Voltage Stability
Small Disturbance Voltage Stability
Short Term Short Term Long Term
Short Term
Long Term
Angle Stability Denitions
Rotor angle stability refers to the ability of synchronous machines of an interconnected

power system to remain in synchronism after being subjected to a disturbance. It depends on the ability to maintain/restore equilibrium between electromagnetic torque and mechanical torque of each synchronous machine in the system.
In this case, the problem becomes apparent through angular/frequency swings in some
generators which may lead to their loss of synchronism with other generators.
Transient Stability
Large disturbance rotor angle stability or transient stability, as it is commonly referred

to, is concerned with the ability of the power system to maintain synchronism when subjected to a severe disturbance, such as a short circuit on a transmission line. The resulting system response involves large excursions of generator rotor angles and is inuenced by the nonlinear power-angle relationship.
The system nonlinearities determine the system response; hence, linearization does
not work in this case.
Transient Stability
For small disturbances, the problem is to determine if the resulting steady state
condition is stable or unstable (eigenvalue analysis) or a bifurcation point (e.g. Hopf bifurcation).
For large disturbances, the steady state condition after the disturbance can exist and
be stable, but it is possible that the system cannot reach that steady state condition.
Transient Stability
The basic idea and analysis procedures are:

Pre-contingency (initial conditions): the system is operating in normal conditions associated with a s.e.p. Contingency (fault trajectory): a large disturbance, such as a short circuit or a line trip forces the system to move away from its initial operating point. Post contingency (fault clearance): the contingency usually forces system protections to try to clear the fault; the issue is then to determine whether the resulting system is stable, i.e. whether the system remains relatively intact and the associated time trajectories converge to a reasonable operating point.
Transient Stability
Based on non linear theory, this analysis can be basically viewed as determining
wheter the fault trajectory at the clearance point is outside or inside of the stability region of the post-contingency s.e.p.
Time domain analysis
Given the complexity of power system models, the most reliable analysis tool for these
types of studies is full time domain simulations.
For example, for the generator-load example:

Generator
PG + jQG jx G jxL
PL + jQL
V1 1
V2 2
jxC
The ODE for the simplest generator d-axis transient model and neglecting AVR and
generator limits is:
2 V
where
= = =
1 (Pd E V2 B sin DG ) M 1 (E V2 B sin Pd ) DL 1 [V22 (B BC ) + E V2 B cos kPd ] 1 1 = B= X XG + XL
The objective is to determine how much time an operator would have to connect the capacitor bank BC after a severe contingency, simulated here as a sudden increase in the value of the reactance X , so that the system recovers. In this case, and as previously discussed in the voltage stability section, the
contingency is severe, as the s.e.p. disappears.
Full time domain simulations are carried out to study this problem for the parameter values M = 0.1, DG = 0.01, DL = 0.1, = 0.01, E = 1, Pd = 0.7, k = 0.25, BC = 0.5.
A contingency X = 0.5 0.6 at tf = 1 s, with BC connection at tc = 1.4 s yields

a stable system:
1.4

1.2 V2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
tf tc
-0.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
t [s]
If BC is connected at tc = 1.5 s, the system is unstable:

6

5 V2
tc
3
tf
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t [s]
Direct Methods
Time domain analysis is expensive, so direct stability analysis technique have been
proposed based on Lyapunovs stability theory.
The idea is to dene an energy or Lyapunov function (x, xs ) with certain characteristics to obtain a direct measure of the stability region A(xs ) associated with the post-contingency s.e.p. xs . A systems energy is usually a good Lyapunov function, as it yields a stability
measure.
Direct Methods
The rolling ball example can used to explain the basic behind these techniques:
u.e.p.2
v m
u.e.p.1
s.e.p.
There are 3 equilibrium points: one stable (valley bottom), two unstable (hill tops).
Direct Methods
The energy of the ball is a good Lyapunov or Transient Energy Function (TEF): W = = = = Wkinetic + Wpotential WK + WP 1 mv 2 + mgh 2 ([v, h]T , 0)
The potential energy at the s.e.p. is zero, and presents local maxima at the u.e.p.s (WP 1 and WP 2 ). The closest u.e.p. is u.e.p.1 since WP 1 < WP 2 .
Direct Methods
The stability of this system can then be evaluated using this energy:
if W
< WP 1 , the ball remains in the valley, i.e. the system is stable, and will converge to the s.e.p. as t . > WP 1 , the ball might or might not converge to the s.e.p., depending on
friction (inconclusive test).
If W
When the balls potential energy WP (t) reaches a maximum with respect to time t, the system leaves the valley, i.e. unstable condition.
Direct Methods
The valley would correspond to the stability region when friction is large. In this case, the stability boundary A(xs ) corresponds to the ridge where the u.e.p.s are located and WP has a local max. value. The smaller the friction in the system, the larger the difference between the ridge and A(xs ). For zero friction, A(xs ) is dened by WP 1 .
Direct Methods
The direct stability test is only a necessary but not sufcient condition: (x, xs ) < c (x, xs ) > c x A( x s )
Inconclusive!
where the value of c is usually associated with a local maximum of a potential energy function.
Direct Methods
For the simple generator-innite bus example, neglecting limits and AVR:
Generator
PG + jQG jx G jxL
PL + jQL jxth
System
V1 1
V2 2
V 0
= = =
= r 0 EV 1 PL sin D M X
+ XL + Xth XG
Direct Methods
The kinetic energy in this system is dened as: WK And the potential energy is: WP = (Tc Tm )d (Pc Pm )d in p.u. for r 0 EV ( (PG PL )d PL )d X s s E V B (cos cos s ) PL ( s )

1 = M 2 2
where s is the s.e.p. for this system.
Direct Methods
With WP presenting a very similar prole as the rolling ball example:

PG
unstable stable unstable
E V X
u2
u1
max
WF WF 2 WF 1
min max
u2
u1
Direct Methods
Hence, the system Lyapunov function of TEF is: T EF = = = (x, xs ) ([, ]T , [s , 0]T ) 1 M 2 E V B (cos cos s ) 2 PL ( s )
Thus, using similar criteria as in the case of the rolling ball:

If T EF If T EF If T EF
< WP 1 system is stable. > WP 1 inconclusive for D > 0 (friction). > WP 1 unstable for D = 0 (unrealistic).
Direct Methods
This is equivalent to compare areas in the PG vs. graph (Equal Area Criterion or
EAC):
PG
pre-contingency
post-contingency
PL
contingency (fault)
(0) = spre
( tc ) spost
u1
post
fault clearing time
Direct Methods
Thus, comparing the acceleration area:

(t c )
Aa
=
spre (t c )
(PL PGf ault )d EV PL Xf ault d
=
spre
versus the deceleration area:

spost
Ad
=
(t c ) spost
(PGpost PL )d EV PL d Xpost
=
(t c )
Direct Methods
In conclusion:
If Aa If Aa If Aa
< Ad system is stable at tc . > Ad inconclusive for D > 0. > Ad unstable for D = 0 (unrealistic).
Direct Methods: Example 1
A 60 Hz generator with a 15% transient reactance is connected to an innite bus of 1

p.u. voltage through two identical parallel transmission lines of 20% reactance and negligible resistance. The generator is delivering 300 MW at a 0.9 leading power factor when a 3-phase solid fault occurs in the middle of one of the lines; the fault is then cleared by opening the breakers of the faulted line.
Assuming a 100 MVA base, determine the critical clearing time for this generator if the damping is neglected and its inertia is assumed to be H = 5 s. Assuming D = 0.1 s, determine the actual critical clearing time.
Pre-contingency or initial conditions: PGpre QL = = EV sin spre PL = Xpre V2 EV + cos spre Xpre Xpre
Where: Xpre PL = = 0. 2 = 0.25 0.15 + 2 300 MW 100 MVA E sin spre 0.25 3 tan(cos1 0.9) 1 E + cos spre 0.25 0.25
3 = QL =
1.4530 =
Ei pre
= = = = = =
E sin spre 0.75 E cos spre 1.3633

2 E2 + E rpre ipre
Er pre
1.5559 tan1
Ei pre Er pre
spre
= =
28.82 = 0.5030 rad
Fault conditions: PGf ault = = EV sin Xf ault 1.5559 sin Xf ault
where, using a Y- circuit transformation due to the fault being in the middle of one of the parallel lines:
jXf ault j 0.15 j 0 .2 E j 0 .1 j 0 .1 V 0
Xf ault PGf ault Aa
= = =
0.15 0.2 + 0.1 0.2 + 0.15 0.1 0. 1 2.394 sin

(tcc )
(PL PGf ault )d

spre (tcc )
=
0.503
(3 2.394 sin )d 3( (tcc ) 0.503) + 2.394(cos (tcc ) cos(0.503)) 3 (tcc ) + 2.394 cos (tcc ) 3.6065
= =
Post contingency conditions: Xpost PGpost = = = 3 = = = spost 0.15 + 0.2 = 0.35 EV sin Xpost 4.446 sin 4.446 sin spost 42.44 0.7407 rad
spost
Ad
=
(tcc ) 2 .4
(PGpost PL )d (4.446 sin 3)d

(tcc )
= = =
4.446(cos 2.4 cos (tcc )) 3(2.4 (tcc )) 3 (tcc ) + 4.446 cos (tcc ) 3.9215
Aa
= = =
Ad 3 (tcc ) + 2.394 cos (tcc ) 3.6065 3 (tcc ) + 4.446 cos (tcc ) 3.9215
(tcc )
= =
81.17 1.4167 rad
During the fault: M = = = = = = = EV 1 PL sin M Xf ault H f 5s 60 Hz 0.0265 s2 37.70(3 2.394 sin )
Integrating these equations numerically for (0) = spre = 28.82 :

220 200 180 160 140
[deg]
120 100 80 60 40 20
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
t [s]
For D = 0.1 and a clearing time of tc = 0.27 s, the system is stable:

150
[deg]
100
50
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t [s]
10
[deg]
-5
-10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t [s]
For a clearing time of tc = 0.28 s, the system is unstable; hence tcc 0.275 s:
2500 2000
[deg]
1500 1000 500 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t [s]
40
30
[deg]
20
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
t [s]
Generator-motor, i.e. system-system, cases may also be studied using the EAC method based on an equivalent inertia M = M1 M2 /(M1 M2 ), and damping D = M D1 /M1 = M D2 /M2 . For the generator-load example neglecting the internal generator impedance and
assuming an instantaneous AVR:
PG + jQG jxL PL + jQL
V1 1
V2 2
The energy functions, with or without generator limits, can be shown to be: WK WP = = 1 M 2 2 B (V1 V2 cos V10 V20 cos 0 ) 1 1 2 2 2 + B (V2 V20 ) + B (V12 V10 ) 2 2 V2 QG ln Pd ( 0 ) + Qd ln V20
V1 V10
The stability of this system can then be studied using the same energy evaluation previously explained for T EF = (x, x0 ) = WK + WP .
Thus for V1 = 1, XL = 0.5, Pd = 0.1, and Qd = 0.25Pd , the potential energy WP (, V2 ) that denes the stability region withr espect to the s.e.p. is:
8 7 6 5
WP
4 3 2 1
0 400 200
u.e.p. saddle
0 -200
s.e.p. node
1 0.5 -400 0
2 1.5
V2
Simulating the critical contingency XL = 0.5 0.6 for Pd = 0.7 and neglecting
limits, the energy proles are:
0.2 Wp Wk+Wp
0.1
T EF
4 0.9
1.1
1.2 t [s]
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
The exit point on A(xs ) is approximately at the maximum potential energy point. Thus, the critical clearing time is: tcc 1.42 s A similar value can be obtained through trial-and-error.
Consider the following system:
1
System 1
X1
Vm
X2
2
System 2
V1
SVC
V2
Without the SVC, the active power that ows from bus 1 to bus 2 is as follows: P12
where we assume V1
V2 V1 V2 sin 12 = sin = X1 + X2 X
= V2 = V and dene X1 = X2 = X/2 and 12 = .
With the SVC device, one has: P12 = P1m 2V 2 V1 Vm sin 1m = sin = X/2 X 2 =V.
where we assume that the SVC regulates the voltage Vm so that Vm
We can generalize the active power that can be transmitted from bus 1 to bus 2 using n SVC devices, as follows: P12 (n + 1)V 2 sin = X (n + 1)
Active power as a function of 12 = and n:
30
25
Active Power (p.u.)
20
n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3
15
10
0.5
Angle 12
1.5
2.5
The increased power transfer capability obtined by means of the SVC can be used to
improve the transient stability of the system, as follows:
Ad
Aa 0
Typically, it is more economic a partial compensation:
Ad
Aa 0
Direct Methods: Conclusions
The advantages of using Lyapunov functions are:

Allows reduced stability analysis. Can be used as an stability index.
The problems are:

Lyapunov functions are model dependent; in practice, only approximate energy functions can be found. Inconclusive if test fails. The post-perturbation system state must be known ahead of time, as the energy function is dened with respect to the corresponding s.e.p.
Can only be used as an approximate stability analysis tool.
Transient Stability Applications
Critical clearing times are not really an issue with current fast acting protections. Simplied direct methods such as the Extended Equal Area Criterion (Y. Xue et al.,
Extended Equal Area Criterion Revisited, IEEE Transaction on Power Systems, Vol. 7, No. 3, Aug. 1992, pp. 1012-1022) have been proposed and tested for on-line contingency pre-ranking, and are being implemented for practical applications through an E.U. project.

03 Cme Lyapunov

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

03 Cme Lyapunov

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lyapunovs Second Method for Stability Transient Energy Function

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 1

Angle Stability Denitions

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

Power System Stability

Rotor Angle Stability

Small Disturbance Angle Stability

Large Disturbance Voltage Stability

Small Disturbance Voltage Stability

Short Term Short Term Long Term

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 2

Angle Stability Denitions

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

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 3

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

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 4

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 5

The basic idea and analysis procedures are:

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 6

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 7

Time domain analysis

For example, for the generator-load example:

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 8

Time domain analysis

1 (Pd E V2 B sin DG ) M 1 (E V2 B sin Pd ) DL 1 [V22 (B BC ) + E V2 B cos kPd ] 1 1 = B= X XG + XL

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 9

Time domain analysis

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 10

Time domain analysis

A contingency X = 0.5 0.6 at tf = 1 s, with BC connection at tc = 1.4 s yields

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 11

Time domain analysis

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

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 12

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 13

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 14

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 15

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 16

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 17

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 18

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 19

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

Ciudad Real, February 2013

Transient Energy Function - 20