3038
3, AUGUST 2013
International Industry Practice
on Power System Load Modeling
Jovica V. Milanović, Fellow, IEEE, Koji Yamashita, Member, IEEE, Sergio Martínez Villanueva,
Sasa Ž. Djokić, Senior Member, IEEE, and Lidija M. Korunović, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Power system load modeling is a mature and gen-
erally well researched area which, as many other in electrical
power engineering at the present time, is going through a period
of renewed interest in both industry and academia. This interest is
fueled by the appearance of new non-conventional types of loads
(power electronic-based, or interfaced through power electronics)
and requirements to operate modern electric power systems with
increased penetration of non-conventional and mostly intermittent
types of generation in a safe and secure manner. As a response
to this renewed interest, in February 2010 CIGRE established
working group C4.605: “Modelling and aggregation of loads in
flexible power networks”. One of the first tasks of the working
group was to identify current international industry practice
on load modeling for static and dynamic power system studies.
For that purpose, a questionnaire was developed and distributed
during the summer/autumn of 2010 to more than 160 utilities
and system operators in over 50 countries on five continents.
This paper summarizes some of the key findings from about 100
responses to the questionnaire received by September 2011 and
identifies prevalent types of load models used as well as typical
values of their parameters.
Index Terms—Dynamic and composite load models, load mod-
eling, power system study, questionnaire, static, survey.
I. INTRODUCTION
A N important requirement for the correct analysis of
planning, operation and control of both distribution and
transmission networks is accurate representation of steady state
and dynamic characteristics of system loads. Most of the load
models used today were developed several decades ago, and
are not adequately updated after the subsequent changes in load
structure and load characteristics-the last systematic update of
Manuscript received July 01, 2012; revised October 14, 2012; accepted De-
cember 01, 2012. Date of publication January 04, 2013; date of current version
July 18, 2013. Paper no. TPWRS-00755-2012.
J. V. Milanović is with the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K. (e-mail: mi-
lanovic@manchester.ac.uk).
K. Yamashita is with the Central Research Institute of Electric Power In-
dustry, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511, Japan (e-mail: yama@criepi.denken.or.
jp).
S. Martínez Villanueva is with Red Eléctrica de España, 28109 Alcobendas
(Madrid), Spain (e-mail: smartinez@ree.es).
S. Ž. Djokić is with the Institute for Energy Systems, School of Engi-
neering, the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, U.K. (e-mail:
sasa.djokic@ed.ac.uk).
L. M. Korunović is with the Faculty of Electronic Engineering, University of
Niš, 18000 Niš, Republic of Serbia (e-mail: lidija.korunovic@elfak.ni.ac.rs).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2231969
0885-8950/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO.
load models was performed in the mid 1990s [1]. Additionally,
load models and their parameters currently used by utilities and
system operators for power system analysis are generally not in
public domain [2], and there is a level of uncertainty regarding
industry acceptance of research efforts in this area.
Although the majority of current power system research
and industry acknowledges the importance of accurate load
modeling, they still use typical representation of static loads
by the constant impedance/current/power load types, while
dynamic loads are usually represented with the induction
motor (IM) model. General inadequacy of currently used
load models was highlighted in several unsuccessful at-
tempts to reconstruct recent blackouts in the corresponding
“post-mortem” simulations and analysis (e.g., [3]). During
the power system stability analysis, the emphasis is mainly
placed on modeling power generating units, while load
models are regarded as of secondary importance, although
the influence of load representation on the stability was
recognized a long time ago [4]–[7]. Power system engineers
began to pay more attention to the load modeling since the
Swedish blackout of 1983 [8], as inappropriate representation
of system loads has usually led to the discrepancies between
the recorded and simulated system responses [8]–[11].
Recently, there is a renewed interest in both industry and
academia for load modeling due to appearance of new types
of loads, offering increased efficiency and controllability. For
example, different types of modern non-linear power electronic
loads are now responsible for more than 30% of the total de-
mand in the U.K. residential load sector [12]. Similarly, there
are currently no appropriate load models available for the cor-
rect representation of various directly connected and inverter-
interfaced micro and small-scale distributed generation tech-
nologies, which, in some of the future network scenarios, will
strongly impact real and reactive power demands, as they will
be installed in large numbers [13].
In a response to this renewed interest in load modeling,
CIGRE established a new working group C4.605: “Modelling
and aggregation of loads in flexible power networks” in Feb-
ruary 2010 with a remit to: 1) provide a critical and updated
overview of existing load models and their parameters for
power system studies at all voltage levels, and identify types
of loads and load classes for which adequate load models
are presently missing; 2) provide a comprehensive overview
of existing methodologies for load modeling, with a critical
overview of component-based and measurement-based ap-
proaches, clearly identifying their advantages and disadvan-
tages; 3) develop a set of recommendations and step-by-step
MILANOVIĆ et al.: INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY PRACTICE ON POWER SYSTEM LOAD MODELING 3039

procedures for load model development and validation using TABLE I

either component-based or measurement-based approaches, or SURVEY QUESTIONS AND CATEGORIES
their combination; 4) develop load models for all typical de-
vices and classes of customers for which there are no existing
models and recommend their typical parameter values and
ranges; 5) provide recommendations on developing equiv-
alent static and dynamic models of networks with signifi-
cant amount of distributed generation, including equivalent
models of micro-grids and active distribution network cells
[14]–[16].
One of the first tasks of the CIGRE WG C4.605 was to
survey and identify current industry practice for power system
load modeling. For that purpose, a comprehensive question-
naire on load modeling practices was developed and distributed
during the summer/autumn of 2010 to more than 160 utilities
and system operators from over 50 countries on all continents.
This paper summarizes some of the key findings of that ques- TABLE II
tionnaire, based on about 100 responses received by September PARTICIPANTS AND RESPONSE RATES OF THE SURVEY
2011.
The initial, partial, results of the CIGRE WG C4.605 ques-
tionnaire originally reported in [14] are updated in this paper by
incorporating the responses received after publishing [14] and,
more importantly, by full statistical analysis of the results of the
survey in order to identify prevalent types of load models used
in industry and typical values of their parameters.
The previous work reported in [1] and [2] provided impor-
tant information on load modeling and also recommended dif-
ferent load models for specific power system studies, targeted Note: “Americas” denotes both North and South America.
mainly for the utilities and system operators in the U.S. The aim
of this paper is not to recommend any specific load model for respondents who expressed willingness in completing it after
any specific power system study, but, rather, to identify what returning the short questionnaire. This paper considers only re-
load models are currently used and to provide some basic in- sponses to the questions from the short questionnaire (Table I),
formation on their use. Furthermore, this paper presents infor- which are classified into four categories: 1) types of load models
mation on currently used load models and their parameters by for static and dynamic power system studies, 2) approaches for
the utilities and system operators not only in the U.S., but also identification of load models and model parameters, 3) ade-
in the rest of the world. Although that makes this paper signif- quacy of load models and used load simulation tools, 4) ap-
icantly different from [1] and [2], the presented results can be proaches for including small distributed generation (DG) in load
used to check whether some of the load models recommended models. It should be pointed out that multiple answers were al-
in [1] and [2] are actually used in power system studies. Sim- lowed for questions Q1, Q2, Q4, Q5, and Q6, as respondents
ilarly compared to another milestone reference, [11], which is might use more than one load model, or more than one approach
a bibliographical list of papers related to load modeling and for load model data collection. Multiple answers however, were
load model parameter identification published in the literature not allowed for questions Q3, Q7, Q8, and Q9.
by 1993, this paper presents and important update as it reports
the results of a survey conducted almost twenty years after [11]
B. Survey Participants
was published.
Potential survey participants were identified by WG members
and contacted by e-mail. The questionnaire was sent to 160 con-
II. SURVEY tacts around the world (different utilities and system operators)
between June and December 2010. By September 2011, the re-
A. Organization of the Questionnaire sponses to short survey were received from 97 contacts from dif-
ferent continents, resulting in the overall response rate of about
A two-part questionnaire was developed for the purpose of 60.6% (see 2nd column, 3rd column and last row in Table II).
conducting the survey on load modeling practices. The first part Per-continent overall response rate was higher than 50% for 4
was shorter and contained only nine general questions, which out of 5 continents (see 4th column in Table II). If only the re-
were sent to all participants in order to facilitate high response ceived responses are considered, the relative per-continent re-
rate and provide a basic, but comprehensive overview of the in- sponse rates are shown in the last column in Table II. In case of
ternational load modeling approaches and practices. The second a detailed questionnaire, the response rates were much lower, as
part was a longer questionnaire, which was sent only to those these responses were received from only 19 initial participants.
3040
Fig. 1. Q1: Load models used for steady state power system studies.
III. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
A. Q1: Load Models Used in Steady State Power System
Studies
Several sample answers were offered to the respondents to
this question: constant power load model (PQ); simple poly-
nomial load model, i.e., combination of constant impedance,
constant current and constant power (ZIP) load model; combi-
nation of ZIP and equivalent induction motor model; detailed
composite load model; and exponential load model, [1].
Exponential and polynomial (ZIP) load models (only for real
power demand) are given by (1) and (2):
(1)
(2)
where ; tion Q2, it was not possible to derive clear and confident conclu-
; ;
and : Actual and initial real power of modeled load;
and : Actual and initial load bus voltage magnitudes; ,
: corresponding shares of constant P, I or Z load, and
. stability studies, while only a small portion mentioned small
The widely accepted practice for power flow analysis of
electric networks is to assume that the distribution system tap
changing transformers and voltage regulators have brought bus
voltages close to nominal values (i.e., close to 1 p.u. value). In
this case, loads may be treated as a constant real and reactive
power demands, and constant PQ load model can be used.
Therefore, as expected, the responses to this question (Q1,
Fig. 1) identified constant power PQ load model as by far the
most dominant type of load model used in steady state power
system studies (84% of all responses).
B. Q2: Load Models Used in Dynamic Power System Studies
Load models used in dynamic power system studies (for, e.g.,
transient stability and frequency stability, or short-term voltage
stability analysis) by different network operators and utilities
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 2013
Fig. 2. Q2: Load models used for dynamic power system studies. a) Real power
load model. b) Reactive power load model.
are very different. According to the received responses to ques-
sions about the types of load models used in different dynamic
studies, as only 23% of the respondents indicated which load
models are used in specific dynamic studies (most of them did
not differentiate between transient stability studies and voltage
signal stability studies or frequency stability studies). In total,
8 different types of load models are used, featuring additional
differences between load models used for representing real and
reactive power demands. The responses to this question (Q2)
suggest that there is no dominant dynamic load modeling prac-
tice, which is summarized in Fig. 2 separately for real and reac-
tive power load models.
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that although there is a relatively
even spread of different load models used in dynamic system
studies for modeling real power demand, static load models
are again dominant. Constant power and constant current load
models account for about 42% of all used models. Similar dom-
inance of static load models is observed in case of modeling
reactive power demand. In this case, however, constant power
and constant impedance load models account for 45% of all
used load models. For modeling both real and reactive power
MILANOVIĆ et al.: INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY PRACTICE ON POWER SYSTEM LOAD MODELING
Fig. 3. Q3: Use of different load models for different load classes in dynamic
power system studies.
demand, about 30% of the used models represent dynamic load
by some form of induction motor model (IM with ZIP or expo-
nential, or composite load model).
In case of load models for dynamic system studies, there was
no uniformity between different utilities, countries and conti-
nents, as in case of load models for static power system studies.
More than a half of utilities and system operators surveyed in
Americas use load models which include different types of in-
duction motor models, i.e., dynamic load models for dynamic
system studies. In contrast, 100% of utilities in Africa use static
load models for dynamic power system studies.
In general, the constant power PQ load model is still the most
widely used in a majority of power system stability studies (as
it is the most conservative approach), together with the con-
stant current for real power and constant impedance for reac-
tive power model. Arguably, this might be a consequence of a
recommendation given almost twenty years ago in [2], that in
the absence of a detailed information on the load structure/com-
position, real power demand can be represented using constant
current and reactive power demand using constant impedance
load models.
C. Q3: Load Models for Specific Load Classes
Although the same type of the load model can be used for
representing loads at different buses, its parameters could vary
depending on the modeled load class (e.g., residential, indus-
trial, commercial, etc.) [17]–[20]. However, according to the re-
sponses to this question (Q3, Fig. 3), the current practice mostly
does not discriminate between different load classes. In large
majority of the cases, the same load model and model parame-
ters are used throughout the modeled system. Therefore, in gen-
eral, there is no discrimination neither between load classes nor
loads used at different voltage levels (i.e., high, medium and low
voltage networks) based on received responses. This could be
explained by the difficulties that transmission system operators
encounter in obtaining accurate information on load classes at
different network buses, because these data are typically owned
by distribution system companies.
3041
Fig. 4. Q4: Approaches for load model parameter identification.
D. Q4: Load Model Collection and Parameter Identification
During the past few decades, capabilities of various measure-
ment devices have been significantly improved and their num-
bers in power systems have substantially increased. This opened
a possibility for the measurement and capture of data required
for load modeling and, particularly, load model parameter iden-
tification and acquisition. According to received responses to
this question (Q4, Fig. 4), it is clear that power industry is taking
advantage of available measuring and monitoring systems, as
the current practice for load model parameter identification is
based on the measurements in over 50% of the cases (on av-
erage), while in Americas and Asia this figure is 60% and 65%,
respectively.
It is interesting to note that in 19% of the cases (on average),
the utilities rely solely on model parameters available in the lit-
erature. This highlights the importance of publishing the results
of load model parameter identification studies based on mea-
surements by utilities around the world. These results are likely
to be used by other utilities, e.g., those that might not have re-
sources to conduct their own load modeling studies.
E. Q5: Most Recent Update of Load Model Parameters
Another interesting observation from the survey is how
frequently load model parameters are updated. This has been
traditionally one of the major difficulties associated with load
modeling, as the appearance of new types of loads/devices
with different characteristics may invalidate load models and
parameters established in the past. Regular update of load
model parameters is, therefore, essential to ensure accurate
simulation results. According to the responses to this question
(Q5, Fig. 5), the utilities and system operators are very well
aware of this issue, and they relatively frequently update load
model parameters used in simulations. In 41% of the cases,
the load model parameters were updated within the last five
years. Significance that utilities in general, and those in Europe,
Africa and Americas in particular, are currently placing on load
modeling is demonstrated through the fact that in 20% of the
3042
Fig. 5. Q5: Frequency of updating load model parameters.
Fig. 6. Q6: Power system analysis and load simulation tools [21]–[27].
cases, the load model parameters have been updated during the
past year.
F. Q6: Load Simulation Tools Used for System Studies
Whatever mathematical model of power system load is devel-
oped or used, it has to be incorporated with the models of other
system components into the overall model of power system,
which is then applied in computer simulations by in-house de-
veloped or commercially available software. According to the
responses to this question (Q6, Fig. 6), currently most widely
used simulation software by industry for power system analysis
are PSS/E (41% of users) and DIgSilent (13% of users), indi-
cating that standard load models (i.e., “load model libraries”)
from these software packages are also the most widely used.
G. Q7 and Q8: Adequacy of Available Load Models
According to the received responses, most engineers are sat-
isfied with the load models available in existing software pack-
ages (85% on average, Q7 in Fig. 7) and do not develop their
own load models for power system studies (78% on average,
Q8 in Fig. 8). This places significant pressure on power system
software developers to keep load models and model parameters
regularly updated in their simulation tools.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 2013
Fig. 7. Q7: Adequacy of available load models for system stability studies.
Fig. 8. Q8: Extent of use of user-defined load models.
In spite of wide reliance on models available in commercial
software packages, it should be noted that a relatively large por-
tion of surveyed utilities and system operators in Europe and
Americas (about 35%) are basically not satisfied with provided
load models and they either modify them, or would like them to
be modified.
H. Q9: Modeling of Small Distributed Generation
Increasing penetration levels of both medium/large dis-
tributed generation (DG) systems in medium and high voltage
networks, as well as highly dispersed micro/small DG in low
voltage networks, require development of new load models
for correct representation of aggregate system demands and
power flows. According to responses to this question (Q9,
Fig. 9), however, 40% of the surveyed network operators and
utilities do not currently consider at all these technologies when
modeling demand at bulk load supply points (BLSP) in system
studies.
In further 28% of the cases, DG is simply modeled as a nega-
tive load. Some utilities and system operators, however, model
DG as an independent component from the system load, espe-
cially when DG penetration in the distribution system is rela-
tively high. In most of cases, current penetration levels of var-
ious DG technologies are reasonably low, which may justify ne-
MILANOVIĆ et al.: INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY PRACTICE ON POWER SYSTEM LOAD MODELING
Fig. 9. Q9: Inclusion of small DG in load models.
glecting their influence on bulk-supplied aggregate loads. Antic-
ipated increase of various DG technologies (particularly those
based on power electronic-interfaced intermittent/variable re-
newable energy resources), however, will effectively change the
nature of BLSP responses to network disturbances. Generally,
it is not feasible to model large number of small and highly dis-
persed individual DG units as individual generators due to sig-
nificant increases in model complexity and computational time.
Therefore, their representation will require some form of ag-
gregation and equivalenting, either as an “aggregate generation
model”, or with the DG correctly incorporated as a part of the
overall aggregate (BLSP) load model.
IV. PREVALENT LOAD MODELS
Based on the results of the survey, some additional analysis
is performed in this section, in order to identify prevalent (i.e.,
dominant or overall average) load models used by utilities and
network operators around the World. It is difficult to specify a
single prevalent or typical dynamic load model, as load models
currently used in dynamic system studies vary in relatively
wide ranges (Fig. 2). Regardless of the type of power system
study (static or dynamic), the most common types of static load
models by far are individual constant power, constant current
and constant impedance loads, or their combination expressed
in a form of a ZIP load model (Figs. 1 and 2).
Based on the individual constant power/current/impedance
and ZIP load models reported in the survey, parameters of equiv-
alent exponential load model, i.e., voltage exponents and
, are calculated next. The conversion from polynomial to
exponential load model consists of two steps: 1) conversion
of different polynomial load models into the exponential load
model, and 2) calculation of equivalent values of exponential
load model coefficients for real and reactive power, and .
The main point of this analysis is to uniformly convert all
static load models used for power system studies into a single
exponential load model. For example, Fig. 2 shows that used
static load models include “constant Z”, “constant I”, “constant
P”, ZIP, and exponential load models. As shown in (2), in case
of the constant Z, I, and P load models, the corresponding ex-
ponential load model coefficients are 2, 1, and 0, respectively.
3043
TABLE III
PARAMETERS OF ZIP MODEL AND EQUIVALENT EXPONENTIAL
MODEL: FOR ALL RESPONDENTS FROM NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA
Presented as the constant current (I) load type in Fig. 2
Presented as the constant impedance (Z) load type in Fig. 2
TABLE IV
EXAMPLES OF EXPONENTIAL LOAD MODEL PARAMETERS
PROVIDED BY ONE RESPONDENT FROM EUROPE
However, for the conversion of the ZIP model into the exponen-
tial model, a separate procedure is required.
A simple conversion between ZIP load models reported in
the survey (2) and equivalent exponential load model (1) can be
done by (3) and (4):
(3)
(4)
where and are active and reactive power coefficients of
the equivalent exponential load model, and all other quantities
are defined in (1) and (2).
The conversion by (4) is based on Taylor expansion, which
is more accurate if the voltage changes are smaller. Table III
shows an example of the conversion and equivalent and
coefficients for five network operators and utilities from North
and South America. (Note: Some respondents from Americas
did not provide any specific information for the selected ZIP
model as the answer to Q2.) On the other hand, Table IV shows
four examples of the coefficients of exponential load models
used by one respondent from Europe. (Note: In this case, the
conversion is not performed, as this respondent indicated four
exponential load models with the corresponding coefficients as
the actually used load models.)
Following the above conversion procedure, currently used
static load models for dynamic stability studies, shown in Fig. 2,
are converted into equivalent exponential load models shown in
Fig. 10.
The conversion of static load models used by the survey
respondents in dynamic system stability studies into equivalent
exponential load models is further statistically analyzed in
Tables V and VII, as well as in Figs. 11 and 12. These results
3044
Fig. 10. Identified prevalent static load models used for dynamic power system
studies, represented as equivalent exponential load model. a) Real power load
model. b) Reactive power load model.
TABLE V
FURTHER RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF EQUIVALENT COEFFICIENT
show minimum, maximum, median and mean values of co-
efficients and , their standard deviations and ranges for
different continents and for the World as a whole.
It can be seen that in case of Asia, Americas, Africa and Eu-
rope, varies from 0 to 2, while in Oceania it ranges from 0 to
1.7. Mean values of are less than 1 for all continents except
for Oceania, where it is slightly greater than 1. Consequently,
mean value of for the World is approximately 0.7, while its
median value is 1.0 (Fig. 10(a)).
Standard deviations are of the same order as the corre-
sponding mean values, indicating a large dispersion of
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 2013
Fig. 11. Histogram of coefficients of equivalent exponential models for
static load models used worldwide in dynamic power system studies.
Fig. 12. Histogram of coefficients of equivalent exponential models for
static load models used worldwide in dynamic power system studies.
TABLE VI
ANALYSIS OF VALUES OF COEFFICIENT WITHOUT CONVERSION
coefficient for all continents and worldwide. Using these stan-
dard deviations and corresponding mean values, somewhat
narrower ranges of are obtained according to the formulae:
(5)
where is mean value and is standard deviation. These
ranges are shown in the last column in Table V, and the same
approach is repeated for calculated equivalent coefficient.
For comparison, Table VI presents the results of statistical anal-
ysis of processing of excluding those values that are obtained
by conversion. Most of the differences between Table V and
Table VI are small, but generally greater standard deviations and
therefore wider ranges are obtained in Table VI.
Table VII shows that the values of are spread over wider
range than the values of . Mean values of vary from 0.79
for Africa, to 2.25 for Oceania, while the mean worldwide value
of is 1.3 (worldwide median value is 1.8, Fig. 10(b)). Stan-
dard deviations of values are again of the same order as the
corresponding mean values, confirming a rather widely spread
of values. Table VIII presents the results of the analysis of
values that are not obtained by conversion. As expected, the
MILANOVIĆ et al.: INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRY PRACTICE ON POWER SYSTEM LOAD MODELING
TABLE VII
FURTHER RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF EQUIVALENT COEFFICIENT
TABLE VIII
ANALYSIS OF VALUES OF COEFFICIENT WITHOUT CONVERSION
greater standard deviations and therefore wider ranges are ob-
tained in Table VIII in comparison with corresponding standard
deviations in Table VII. Exception is in the case of Oceania
where none of values is obtained by conversion.
Since the dispersion of parameters and used in dy-
namic studies is significant, both mean values and median
values can be treated as prevalent, i.e., typical. For example,
prevalent value of for Europe is approximately 0.6, while
for Americas and the World it is approximately 0.7/1.0 (Note:
mean value/median value). Prevalent or typical value of
is almost 1/0.4 for Europe, but it is approximately 2.3/2.8 for
Oceania and 1.3/1.8 globally.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents summary of the results from a worldwide
survey of industry practice on power system load modeling. The
survey was initiated by CIGRE Working Group C4.605, and
was sent to 160 system operators and utilities around the World.
Main questions from the survey covered following areas and
topics: 1) types of load models for static and dynamic power
system studies, 2) approaches for identification of load models
and model parameters, 3) adequacy of load models and used
load simulation tools, 4) approaches for including small dis-
tributed generation (DG) in load models. In total, 97 responses
to the survey were received.
The survey indicated that there are large differences between
the load models used for static and dynamic power system
studies by different system operators and utilities. Therefore,
additional analysis of the received responses is performed,
including the calculation of equivalent exponential load model,
in order to identify prevalent (i.e., dominant or overall average)
load models used by system operators and utilities in different
continents and worldwide.
3045
The following main conclusions can be drawn from the re-
sults of the survey:
• About 70% of utilities and system operators around the
World use only static load model for power system stability
studies.
• About 30% of utilities and system operators use some form
of induction motor model to represent dynamic loads in
power system stability studies.
• Dominant practice in the USA is to use a combination of
static (typically ZIP) and dynamic load model (typically
induction motor), while use of static load models is preva-
lent in the rest of the world.
• In about 40% of the cases, currently used load model pa-
rameters have been updated within the last five years.
• Typical static load model used in steady state studies is
constant power (PQ) load for both real (active) and reactive
power, i.e., .
• Typical values of and coefficients of the equiva-
lent exponential static load models used in dynamic studies
worldwide are 0.7 and 1.3, respectively
• Most of the utilities and system operators represent dis-
tributed generation as a negative load in system studies,
without modeling them explicitly. Some of them, however,
recognize the importance of appropriate DG models, par-
ticularly for future power system studies.
The results of the survey presented in the paper can be used to
indicate in which areas some additional work on load modeling
(or on updating of currently used load models) may be required
by some utilities and system operators and such help them to
identify where to put more effort. The results of the survey,
however, even if used for simple benchmarking purposes by in-
dividual utilities and system operators (e.g., to compare their
load modeling practices with those indicated as the prevalent
ones in the survey), should not be considered as the guidelines
for load modeling. Each utility/system operator should perform
their own analyses and carry out studies to determine most ap-
propriate load models (and identify their parameters) for their
network. For utilities and system operators that cannot perform
their own load modeling studies (for whatever reason), or have
not identified appropriate load models and their parameters yet,
the presented results could be used for initial studies, or as an
indication for selecting provisional load models and parameter
values.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors appreciate the support of their colleagues from
CIGRE WG C4.605, who contributed in many different, but
always useful ways to this paper: providing industry contacts,
helping with the development and distribution of the survey, etc.
Members of the WG C4.605 are J. V. Milanovic (Convener,
U.K.), O. Auer (AR), A. Borghetti (IT), S. Djokic (U.K.), Z.
Dong (AU), A. Gaikwad (US), A. Halley (AU), K. Karoui (BE),
L. Korunovic (RS), D. Kosterev (US), J. Leung (AU), S. M.
Villanueva (ES), J. Ma (CN), J. Matevosyan (US), D. Mtolo
(ZA), P. Pourbeik (US), F. Rosende (PT), S. Sterpu (FR), F.
Villella (BE), and K. Yamashita (JP).
Equally important, the authors would like to acknowledge the
support of the colleagues from utilities and system operators
3046
around the world, who took the time to fill in the questionnaire/
survey and kindly shared their knowledge and experience.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance,
“Standard load models for power flow and dynamic performance sim-
ulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, pp. 1302–1313, 1995.
[2] IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance,
“Load representation for dynamic performance analysis (of power sys-
tems),” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 472–482, May 1993.
[3] 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, no. 3, pp. 967–979, Aug. 1999.
[4] W. Mauricio and A. Semlyen, “Effect of load characteristics on the
dynamic stability of power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,
vol. PAS-91, pp. 2295–2304, 1972.
[5] P. Kundur et al., in 294 T 622 Investigation of Low Frequency-area
Oscillation Problems in Large Interconnected Power Systems, Ontario
Hydro, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1993.
[6] C. Concordia and S. Ihara, “Load representation in power system sta-
bility studies,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-101, no. 4, pp.
969–977, Apr. 1982.
[7] M. H. Kent, W. Schmus, and L. M. Wheeler, “Dynamic modelling of
loads in stability studies,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-88,
no. 5, pp. 756–763, May 1969.
[8] D. S. Brereton, D. G. Lewis, and C. C. Young, “Representation of
induction motor loads during power system stability studies,” AIEE
Trans., vol. PAS-76, pp. 451–460, 1957.
[9] K. Walve, Modelling of Power System Components at Severe Distur-
bance CIGRE Report 38-18, 1986.
[10] CIGRE Committee No. 13 Report, Load Representation in Stability
Studies and the Effect of the Load-voltage Characteristics on Tran-
sient Stability, Submitted by Swedish and Norwegian Power Compa-
nies, 1964.
[11] IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance,
“Bibliography on load models for power flow and dynamic perfor-
mance simulation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 1, pp.
523–538, Feb. 1995.
[12] Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), “Energy Trends,
Section 5: Electricity” and “Electricity Consumption in the UK: Do-
mestic,” National Statistics Publications, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
[13] Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), “Energy Act
2008” and “Microgeneration Strategy Consultation” 2008 and 2010.
[14] K. Yamashita, S. M. Villanueva, and J. V. Milanovic, “Initial results
of international survey on industrial practice on power system load
modelling conducted by CIGRE WG C4.605,” in Proc. CIGRE Symp.,
Bologna, Italy, 2011, vol. C4-333.
[15] J. Matevosyan, S. M. Villanueva, S. Z. Djokic, J. L. Acosta, S.
M-Zali, F. O. Resende, and J. V. Milanovic, “Aggregated models of
wind-based generation and active distribution network cells for power
system studies—Literature overview,” in Proc. IEEE Power Tech
Conf., Trondheim, Norway, 2012.
[16] K. Yamashita, S. Z. Djokic, J. Matevosyan, Z. Y. Dong, F. O. Re-
sende, and J. V. Milanovic, “Modelling and aggregation of loads in
flexible power networks—Scope and status of the work of CIGRE WG
C4.605,” in Proc. IFAC Symp., Toulouse, France, 2012.
[17] EPRI Report of Project RP849-3, Determining Load Characteristics for
Transient Performance, EPRI EL-840, May 1979, vol. 1–3, prepared by
the University of Texas at Arlington.
[18] EPRI Report of Project RP849-1, Determining Load Characteristics for
Transient Performance, EPRI EL-850, Mar. 1981, prepared by General
Electric Company.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 3, AUGUST 2013
[19] EPRI Report of Project RP849-7, Load Modelling for Power Flow
and Transient Stability Studies, EPRI EL-5003, Jan. 1987, prepared
by General Electric Company.
[20] D. Kosterev, A. Meklin, J. Undrill, B. Lesieutre, W. Price, D. Chassin,
R. Bravo, and S. Yang, “Load modeling in power system studies:
WECC progress update,” in Proc. 2008 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting—Conversion and Delivery of Electrical
Energy in the 21st Century, 2008, pp. 1–8.
[21] PSS/E, Program Application Guide, SIEMENS Energy Inc., Oct. 2010.
[22] DIgSilent, Technical Documentation: General Load Model, DIgSI-
LENT GmbH., Oct. 2008.
[23] Integrated Analysis Software for Bulk Power System Stability, Power
System Study Group, CRIEPI Report, ET90002, Jul. 1991.
[24] GE Energy. [Online]. Available: http://www.ge-energy.com/prod-
ucts_and_services/products/concorda_software_suite/.
[25] W. Zhongxi and Z. Xiaoxin, “Power system analyais software package
(PSASP)—An integrated power system analysis tool,” in Proc. 1998
Int. Conf. POWERCON, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 7–11.
[26] TRACTEBEL Engineering GDFSUEZ. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurostag.be/en/products/eurostag/the-reference-power-
system-dynamic-simulation/.
[27] Manitoba HVDC Research Center. [Online]. Available: https://pscad.
com/products/pscad.
Jovica V. Milanović (M’95–SM’98–F’10) received the Dipl.Ing. and M.Sc. de-
grees from the University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, the Ph.D. degree
from the University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, and Higher Doctorate
(D.Sc. degree) from The University of Manchester, Manchester, U.K., all in
electrical engineering.
Currently he is a Professor of Electrical Power Engineering and Director of
External Affairs in the School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering of the
University of Manchester (formerly UMIST), Manchester, U.K., Visiting Pro-
fessor at the University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, and Conjoint Professor
at the University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Koji Yamashita (M’04) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from Waseda
University, Tokyo, Japan, in 1993 and 1995, respectively.
Since 1995, he has been with the Department of Power Systems at the Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Tokyo, Japan. He was a visiting
researcher at Iowa State University, Ames, during 2006–2007
Sergio Martínez Villanueva received the degree of Electrical Engineer from
the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in 2002.
He joined Red Electrica de España S.A. in 2005. Presently, he works in the
Network Studies Department.
Sasa Ž. Djokić (M’05–SM’11) received the Dipl.Ing. and M.Sc. degrees in elec-
trical engineering from the University of Nis, Nis, Serbia, and the Ph.D. degree
in the same area from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology (UMIST), Manchester, U.K.
Currently, he is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Engineering at the Univer-
sity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.
Lidija M. Korunović (M’04) received the Dipl.Ing., M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees
from the Faculty of Electronic Engineering, The University of Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Currently she is a Lecturer at the same university.