IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO.
2, MAY 2012
A Method for the Design of UFLS Schemes
of Small Isolated Power Systems
Lukas Sigrist, Student Member, IEEE, Ignacio Egido, and Luis Rouco, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a systematic method for the de-
sign of robust and efficient underfrequency load-shedding (UFLS)
schemes. UFLS schemes play an important role in protecting the
system integrity. The systematic method consists first in selecting
representative operating and contingency (OC) scenarios by means
of a clustering algorithm and subsequently, in tuning UFLS scheme
parameters by dint of a simulated annealing optimization algo-
rithm. The approach is applied to a small isolated Spanish power
system. The systematic method leads to a robust and efficient UFLS
scheme. The resulting design is also compared to a design based on
OC scenarios determined by the common practice of OC scenario
selection. The possibility of rearranging UFLS stages and the in-
fluence of minimum allowable frequency constraints is analyzed as
well. Finally, an analysis of the impact of increasing converter-con-
nected generation (CCG) is presented.
Index Terms—Design methodology, frequency stability, load
shedding, power system protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
F REQUENCY stability of power systems is concerned with
the ability of generators to supply their loads at an accept-
able frequency after generator and load imbalances. Small iso-
lated power systems are especially sensitive to real-power im-
balances. It is crucial to avoid the frequency falling below a cer-
tain value, since low frequency may severely harm power plants
and load-side equipment and hence, the system integrity [1]. In-
creasing integration of converter-connected generation (CCG)
(e.g., photovoltaics or full-converter wind generators) enhances
the risk of frequency instability due to the negligible primary
control and inertia [2].
Underfrequency load-shedding (UFLS) schemes are a last-re-
sort tool to protect the power system in case of a severe distur-
bance [3]. In small isolated power systems, UFLS schemes play
an important role in protecting the system integrity. Most of
the UFLS schemes implemented today are conventional static
and semi-adaptive schemes [4], [5]. These schemes continu-
ously measure frequency and optionally the rate of change of
frequency (ROCOF) by means of type 81 relays and shed a
predefined amount of load in case frequency and/or the rate of
change of frequency fall below a certain threshold. Electric utili-
ties adopt different approaches to design UFLS schemes, which
Manuscript received May 04, 2011; revised July 21, 2011 and September 14,
2011; accepted October 28, 2011. Date of publication December 05, 2011; date
of current version April 18, 2012. This work was supported by Red Eléctrica de
España, Madrid, Spain. Paper no. TPWRS-00410-2011.
The authors are with the School of Engineering ICAI, Universidad Pontificia
Comillas, 28015 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: Lukas.Sigrist@iit.upcomillas.es).
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.2011.2174448
0885-8950/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
951
are mainly based on their experience, and they usually follow
typical design criteria on the number of steps, step size, fre-
quency thresholds, etc. [6]–[8].
Several methods have been reported in the literature to
design conventional UFLS schemes, i.e., to tune frequency and
ROCOF thresholds, intentional time delays, and step sizes.
Some of these methods are based on iterative trial and error
procedures [9]; others make use of a screening process among
a host of candidate schemes [6], [7]. However, these methods
do not necessarily guarantee an efficient performance of the
scheme.
Both deterministic and heuristic optimization algorithms
have also been applied to the design of conventional UFLS
schemes to minimize the amount of shed load [10]–[13]. In
[12], frequency thresholds, intentional time delays, and step
sizes are optimized by means of a quasi-Newton method.
Deterministic optimization algorithms depend however on
the initial guess of the decision variables. Furthermore, the
objective function, which aims at minimizing the amount of
shed load, becomes discontinuous and shows a step-like shape
if step sizes are not considered as decision variables (which is
usually not possible in small isolated power systems), impeding
the use of gradient-based methods.
Heuristic algorithms seem to be an appropriate alternative
[13]. A genetic algorithm (GA) has been used to optimize
the step size of a very simple single-stage UFLS scheme of
a test system, maintaining constant frequency threshold and
intentional time delay [13]. However, for small isolated power
systems, it is difficult to realize the optimized step size by
rearranging available feeder load-blocks.
Irrespective of the design method applied, the adequate
selection of hypothetical contingencies the system should be
protected for is crucial to design robust UFLS schemes [9].
Different contingencies could be initially considered (line
tripping, generation outages, sudden load increase, etc.), but
only generation outages are contemplated here, since they lead
to pronounced frequency deviations [7]. The common prac-
tice of contingency selection consists in determining system
operation conditions corresponding to different load-demand
levels (e.g., minimum and maximum) and to design the UFLS
scheme taking into account the outages of the largest and the
smallest generating unit for each of these system conditions
[7], [14]. In [15], clustering techniques have been applied to
select representative OC scenarios for subsequent design of
UFLS schemes, but the design itself has not been addressed.
Similarly, most design methods did not consider the selection
of OC scenarios [9]–[13].
This paper proposes a method for the design of robust and
efficient UFLS schemes. To guarantee a robust UFLS scheme,
952
representative OC scenarios are selected by means of clustering
techniques. Efficiency of the UFLS scheme can be achieved by
applying an optimization algorithm such as simulated annealing
(SA) to adjust the UFLS scheme parameters by minimizing the
amount of shed load. SA is a heuristic method suited to solve
complex optimization problems [16], [17], and it has been suc-
cessfully applied to problems related to power-system stability,
operation, and planning [18]–[20].
The proposed method makes use of a simplified power-
system model, taking into account power output limitations.
This model allows simulating and evaluating the behavior
of a small isolated power system following a disturbance. In
[10] and [12], linear power-system models have been sup-
posed, neglecting power output limitations, and intentional
time delays have been modeled as simple delays, omitting
their frequency-dependent characteristics. Finally and unlike
other design methods, step sizes are a priori not considered as
decision variables and only frequency and ROCOF thresholds
as well as intentional time delays are optimized. In very small
power systems, it is difficult to realize a desired step size by
rearranging available feeder load-blocks. However, the pos-
sibility exists to rearrange UFLS stages, corresponding to a
somehow rough step-size optimization.
Section II describes the simplified power system model the
time-domain simulations are based on; in Section III, the sys-
tematic method for the design of robust and efficient UFLS
scheme is presented; in Section IV, the developed method is
applied to the design of the UFLS scheme of a small isolated
Spanish power system. A sensitivity analysis with respect to de-
sign conditions and an analysis of the impact of increasing CCG
on the design of UFLS schemes are presented as well. Section V
concludes the paper.
II. SYSTEM MODELING
This section outlines the model used to represent and simulate
small isolated power systems. This model is widely used for
the analysis and design of UFLS schemes and is able to reflect
short-term frequency dynamics of small isolated power systems
[21].
Fig. 1 details the power-system model used to design UFLS
schemes of a small isolated power system, consisting of gen-
erating units. Each generating unit is represented by a second-
order model approximation of its turbine-governor system. In
fact, frequency dynamics are dominated by rotor and turbine-
governor system dynamics. Excitation and generator transients
can be neglected for being much faster than the turbine-governor
dynamics. Steam turbines can be usually represented by first-
order models as in [12], but generation mix also contains gas-
driven and Diesel-driven turbines, which might require higher
order models. Since frequency can be considered uniform [21],
an equivalent system inertia can be defined. The overall re-
sponse of loads can be taken into account by means of a load-
damping factor if its value is known.
The gain and parameters , , , and , of each
generating unit , can be deduced from more accurate models
or field tests. Since primary spinning reserve is finite, power
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, MAY 2012
Fig. 1. System-frequency dynamics model of the power system.
output limitations and are also modeled. The
inclusion of CCG can be easily realized if inertia and parameters
of the second-order generating unit model were known.
Nonlinearities introduced by both power output limitations
and the step-like behavior of the UFLS scheme in Fig. 1 require
simulating the response of the power system to a disturbance.
These responses in terms of frequency and shed load
are subsequently used within the systematic method for the de-
sign of UFLS schemes.
III. METHOD FOR THE DESIGN OF UFLS SCHEMES
In this section, the systematic method for the design of ro-
bust and efficient UFLS schemes is presented, covering both
selection of OC scenarios and optimal tuning of UFLS scheme
parameters. This method comprises two tasks: the selection of
representative OC scenarios and the application of the SA opti-
mization algorithm.
A. Selection of Operating and Contingency Scenarios
It is crucial to select adequate OC scenarios to design robust
UFLS schemes. Not only N-1 outages have to be considered, but
also multiple generation outages could occur. OC scenarios are
then defined as the outage of a single generating unit or as the
simultaneous outage of multiple generating units for a particular
system operating condition (SOC).
The clustering-based method proposed in [15] is used here
to identify representative OC scenarios, i.e., to find those sce-
narios which represent all other possible scenarios best. Clus-
tering is carried out with regard to system responses in terms of
frequency to all possible OC scenarios. Note also that the
UFLS scheme does not intervene during the OC scenario selec-
tion process.
The quality of the OC scenario selection can be evaluated by
statistical measurements such as principal component analysis
(PCA), etc. [22]. PCA is mathematically defined as an orthog-
onal linear transformation that transforms the data to a new co-
ordinate system such that the greatest variance by any projec-
tion of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the
first principal component), the second greatest variance on the
second coordinate, and so on.
SIGRIST et al.: A METHOD FOR THE DESIGN OF UFLS SCHEMES OF SMALL ISOLATED POWER SYSTEMS 953

B. Tuning of UFLS Scheme Parameters
Efficiency of the UFLS scheme depends on the tuning of its
parameters, which is proposed to be carried out in function of
the selected representative OC scenarios. The problem of UFLS
tuning is formulated as an optimization problem (1).
(1)
category are 1) the minimum and 2) the maximum allowable fre-
quency values ( and ). In general,
the constraint of minimum allowable frequency is accompanied
by a maximum time delay, , during which fre-
quency can stay below the minimum allowable frequency. Typ-
ical values for small isolated power systems are 47.5 Hz during
maximum 3 s [23]. The maximum allowable frequency varies
between 51.5 Hz and 52 Hz. Equation (4) implements these two
constraints for the considered OC scenarios:

The main objective of a UFLS scheme is to protect a power ..

system against instability by curtailing a minimum amount of
load; therefore, the objective function aims at minimizing
the amount of shed load, whereas stability is guaranteed by im-
posing appropriate inequality constraint functions . and
are the lower and upper bounds of the decision variables .
In its most generic formulation, decision variables of the
optimization problem correspond to the frequency and ROCOF
thresholds, the intentional time delays, and the step sizes of
underfrequency and ROCOF stages. However, for rather small
power systems, it does not make sense to adjust the step size.
In fact, the step size is usually defined by the utility and also
depends on the feeders connected to the relays defined by a par-
ticular stage and on the priority of the associated loads; there-
fore, in smaller power systems, it will be difficult to find feeder
blocks which finally sum up to the desired step size. In addi-
tion, implemented step size usually differs from real step size
due to feeder-load variation, feeder outages, or breaker failures.
Thus, type 81 (underfrequency and ROCOF) relay parameters,
i.e., frequency and ROCOF thresholds ( , , and
as well as intentional time delays ( and ) are a
priori considered here as decision variables as shown in (2). This
corresponds to a more practical, industry-oriented optimization
strategy. The settings of the existing UFLS scheme can be used
as initial values for the decision variables:
.
..
. (4)
The constraint requires that the time frequency that is below
is smaller than . The constraint
requires that the maximum frequency, , is always smaller
than or equal to .
The constraints with respect to the performance of the UFLS
scheme are 3) the UFLS scheme does not act once the frequency
has passed its minimum value since frequency is returning to-
wards its nominal value (instant of shedding), 4) the amount of
shed load, , is smaller than or at most equal to the amount
of lost real power, (amount of shed load), and 5) the UFLS
scheme respects the priority of loads (priority). The constraint
in (5) requires that the instant of last shedding, , is prior
) to the instant of minimum frequency, , whereas the con-
straint requires that is smaller than or at most equal to
. The constraint on priority is implemented such that its as-
sociated constraint function is positive whenever a UFLS stage
actuates without that its preceding stage has actuated:

(2) ..
.
The objective function complying with the main objective is

(3) .. (5)
.

where is a weighting factor, the amount of shed load

in pu for the th representative OC scenario, the vector of
decision variables, and is the number of representative OC
scenarios. Other objective function formulations also include an
additional term related to frequency deviations (see, e.g., [11]),
but it seems more intuitive to include restrictions on frequency
deviation as constraints. The weighting factor is set to unity
here as in [12], attaching equal importance to the amount of
shed load in each OC scenario. Another possibility could be to
make inversely proportional to the amount of lost generation
in pu. This way, load shedding for smaller outages outweighs
load shedding for larger outages.
Constraints can be divided into two categories. The first one
contains the constraints imposed by the power system, whereas
the second category covers the constraints with respect to the
performance of the UFLS scheme. The constraints of the first
The SA optimization algorithm [17] is applied to solve the
optimization problem (1). The objective function is translated
into an energy function, which also takes into account the con-
straints by means of a penalty function. This energy function is
given by (6):
(6)
where indicates whether the constraint is active (i.e., 1)
or not (i.e., 0), whereas and are a penalty constants
taking distinct values for different constraints and is the th
constraint function. In fact, these two penalty constants ensure
that the importance of the constraint is taken into account.
is the number of constraints and is the number of considered
954
Fig. 2. Flow chart of the UFLS scheme tuning process based on the SA opti-
mization algorithm.
OC scenarios. The energy function is evaluated by time-domain
simulations using the power-system model in Fig. 1. These sim-
ulations evaluate in turn the impact of the UFLS scheme defined
by on the representative OC scenarios in every iteration of the
SA algorithm. is varied according to a neighborhood function
and a cooling schedule as described in [16].
The tuning process of a UFLS scheme using SA optimiza-
tion algorithm and contemplating representative OC scenarios
is shown in Fig. 2.
IV. APPLICATION TO AN ISOLATED SPANISH POWER SYSTEM
The systematic method for the design of UFLS schemes is
applied to a small isolated Spanish power system. This power
system consists of eleven generators and its peak load demand
is around 35 MW. The parameters of the generating unit models
and the different system operation conditions (SOC) are given in
the Appendix. The SOC include CCG which covers up to 12%
of total load demand and which corresponds to the average con-
tribution of CCG in supplying load demand of the considered
isolated Spanish power system.
At first, the systematic method is applied step by step to the
existing UFLS scheme of the considered power system. The re-
sulting UFLS scheme will be referred to as base case. Subse-
quently, a sensitivity analysis with respect to design conditions
is presented. Finally, the impact of increasing CCG on the de-
sign of UFLS schemes is discussed.
A. Base Case
In a first step, the representative operating and contingency
scenarios are determined by means of K-Means algorithm. It
has been found by applying the K-Means algorithm iteratively
that four clusters are sufficient to represent all possible 164 OC
scenarios. N-1 outages have been considered since they include
generation loss of over 50% of the total demand. Fig. 3(a) shows
the representative OC scenarios determined by the K-Means
algorithm and compares them to the OC scenarios given by
the common practice, i.e., the OC scenarios corresponding to
the outages of the largest and smallest generating unit for the
maximum and minimum load-demand level. Note that during
the process of OC scenarios selection, the UFLS scheme does
not intervene and that the worst OC scenarios are in both cases
nearly the same. According to Fig. 3(a), the clustering-based
method covers a wider range of possible system responses.
In Fig. 3(b), first and second principal components of the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, MAY 2012
Fig. 3. Comparison of OC scenarios determined by the common practice and
by the K-Means clustering algorithm. (a) Time domain. (b) Principal component
analysis.
TABLE I
EXISTING (EXIST) AND SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED (SYST)
UFLS SCHEME OF THE CONSIDERED POWER SYSTEM
representative scenarios are superposed to the principal com-
ponents of all OC scenarios and the principal components of
the common practice. For example, the first three OC scenarios
of the common practice seem to be very close, whereas the
clustering-based scenarios are rather widespread, thus better
covering the variance within all the possible OC scenarios.
The existing UFLS scheme, which is currently used by the
system operator of the contemplated Spanish isolated power
system, is shown in Table I. After large disturbances and in order
to enable the power system to withstand the same disturbances
next time, this UFLS scheme has been revised and manually
readjusted by the system utility using OC scenarios selected ac-
cording to the common practice. The existing UFLS scheme will
be redesigned using the proposed method for the design of ro-
bust and efficient UFLS scheme outlined in Section III.
Decision variables are the frequency thresholds and
, the ROCOF thresholds , and the intentional time
delays . The UFLS scheme parameters are bounded above
and below as follows: 1) , 2)
, 3) , and
4) . Step sizes of the underfrequency and
ROCOF stages have not been considered as a decision variable
and therefore, the step sizes of the existing UFLS scheme have
been used. accounts for measurement and tripping delays.
The optimization constraints for the base case design are: the
minimum and maximum allowable frequencies, the instant of
SIGRIST et al.: A METHOD FOR THE DESIGN OF UFLS SCHEMES OF SMALL ISOLATED POWER SYSTEMS
Fig. 4. (a) Comparison of the system responses of the existing and the sys-
tematically designed UFLS scheme. (b) Convergence characteristics of the op-
timization algorithm.
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING
AND THE SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED UFLS SCHEME
shedding, the amount of shed load, and the priority. In partic-
ular and taking into account (4), minimum allowable frequen-
cies of 48 Hz and 47 Hz with corresponding
of 2 s and 0 s, respectively, have been imposed.
The maximum allowable frequency is set to 52
Hz.
Constraints imposed on minimum allowable frequency
are more restrictive than those described in Section III (e.g.,
for maximum 3 s). This leads to a
more conservative scheme and gives therefore a certain safety
margin. Further, more restrictive constraints might also benefit
UFLS scheme performance in the case of assumed step sizes do
not correspond with real step sizes due to feeder-load variation,
feeder outages, or breaker failures.
Table I shows the systematically designed UFLS scheme. The
number of stages adjusted depends on the maximum amount of
lost power generation in the contemplated OC scenarios. For ex-
ample, the worst OC scenario in Fig. 3 corresponds to the outage
of generator G17 of the SOC 4, implying a loss of about 50% of
power generation. Thus, using the first six stages of the UFLS
scheme, the system can be stabilized. Remaining steps (7 to 10)
could be used as backup steps in case of step-size variations
or non-responding turbine-governor systems. Backup steps sup-
port the UFLS scheme during such events and guarantee system
integrity, and minimizing the amount of shed load is not para-
mount anymore when tuning their settings. In comparison to
the existing UFLS scheme, frequency thresholds and inten-
tional time delays of the underfrequency relays have been
lowered, whereas frequency thresholds and of the
ROCOF relays have been increased. The latter allows a faster
UFLS scheme intervention in case of severe disturbances.
Fig. 4(a) and Table II compare the two UFLS schemes.
Fig. 4(a) shows the system responses in terms of frequency to
the four representative OC scenarios. It can be inferred that the
minimum and maximum frequency deviations clearly exceed
955
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT UFLS SCHEME DESIGNS
Fig. 5. Comparison of the system responses in terms of frequency. (a) Existing
UFLS scheme. (b) Systematically designed UFLS scheme.
the minimum and maximum allowable frequency deviations
in case of the existing UFLS scheme. Frequency overshoot
also indicates overshedding. In the case of the systematically
designed UFLS scheme, frequency is confined within the
allowable frequency range. Fig. 4(b) shows the systematic
method’s convergence characteristics (see also Section IV-B4).
Table II provides some additional information on the perfor-
mance of both the existing and the optimized UFLS scheme.
Table II indicates whether the UFLS scheme satisfies the con-
straints on its performance (state) and in addition, provides a
cause in case of constraint violation. It can be inferred that the
existing UFLS scheme sheds too much load for the first two
contingencies (cause a). Furthermore, load is shed after the fre-
quency has passed its minimum (cause b). Overshedding is also
the reason for the large frequency overshoot and the resulting
frequency instability since generators cannot lower their output
to the new demand level. Finally, it can be seen from Table II that
the systematically designed UFLS scheme sheds less amount of
load than the existing UFLS scheme (Pshed) and that no con-
straint on its performance is violated. Thus, the existing UFLS
scheme has been successfully optimized with respect to the con-
sidered representative OC scenarios.
To come full circle, both the existing and the systematically
designed UFLS scheme are applied to all possible 164 N-1
OC scenarios. The first two lines in Table III compare the
performance of both UFLS schemes. According to Table III,
the amount of shed load has been remarkably reduced after
implementing the systematically designed UFLS scheme. This
is also reflected in the lower number of relays which tripped. In
addition, fewer errors (e.g., overshedding, low frequency, etc.)
occurred thanks to the systematically designed UFLS scheme.
Total frequency deviations have also been slightly
reduced.
Fig. 5 finally shows and compares the system responses in
terms of frequency of the existing and the systematically de-
signed UFLS scheme. It can be seen that in case of the systemati-
956
cally designed UFLS scheme, frequency deviations are confined
within the imposed values of maximum and minimum allowable
frequency. By contrast, the existing UFLS scheme causes low
and high frequencies and frequency instabilities since genera-
tors cannot lower their output to the new load demand level.
B. Sensitivity Analysis With Respect to Design Conditions
This subsection presents a sensitivity analysis of UFLS
scheme designs with respect to the imposed design conditions;
in particular, four cases are analyzed: 1) the use of OC scenarios
selected according to the common practice, 2) the imposition
of a minimum allowable frequency constraint
of 47.5 Hz with of 3 s, 3) the neglect of the
priority constraint, and 4) the use of a GA as in [13]. Case 3
is also compared with a complete optimization, i.e., when step
sizes are considered as decision variables as well. Anew, the
UFLS schemes resulting from the analyzed cases are applied
to all possible OC scenarios. Table III displays and compares
the four cases.
1) Common Practice of OC Scenario Selection: The prin-
cipal idea of clustering-based OC scenario selection is to ob-
tain most appropriate OC scenarios. Fig. 3 showed that clus-
tering-selected OC scenarios cover a wider range of frequency
responses and therefore, a more robust UFLS scheme could be
expected.
Three important characteristics with respect to the robust-
ness of the systematic design can be deduced by comparing the
base case with case 1 (Common practice) in Table III. First, the
number of errors (occasions of poor performance) is remarkably
reduced in the case of the base case scheme. Frequency devia-
tions have also been reduced which is indicated by the lower
sum of maximum frequency deviations (corresponding to min-
imum frequencies). Finally, the amount of shed load has been
significantly reduced thanks to the base case design. Thus, the
systematic design given by the base case guarantees a robust and
efficient UFLS scheme.
2) Minimum Allowable Frequency of : Con-
straints imposed on minimum allowable frequency are more re-
strictive than the Spanish grid code [23], which leads to a more
conservative scheme and gives therefore a certain safety margin.
A relaxation on the minimum allowable frequency constraint by
permitting the frequency to stay below 47.5 Hz for maximum 3
s could result in a lower amount of shed load since the constraint
is less restrictive.
By comparing the base case with case 2 (47.5 Hz-3 s) in
Table III, it can be readily deduced that a relaxation on the min-
imum allowable frequency constraint remarkably reduces the
amount of shed load as expected, at the expense of increased
frequency deviations. By relaxing the constraint on allowable
minimum frequency by applying the 47.5 Hz–3 s constraint,
one accepts very low minimum frequencies (e.g., 46 Hz or less)
although power-system responses finally comply with the im-
posed constraint. This enhances the risk of tripping generating
units by their underfrequency protection.
3) Neglect of Priority Constraint: Step sizes have not been
considered as a decision variables, since for rather small power
systems, it does not make sense to adjust the step size. An at-
tractive alternative consists in rearranging the established order
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, MAY 2012
of steps by neglecting the priority constraint. The omission of
the constraint on the priority should intuitively lead to more ef-
ficient UFLS scheme designs since this corresponds somehow
to a rough optimization of the step size.
Table III shows the results of completely optimized UFLS
scheme (Complete optimization) and the one obtained by
omitting priority (No priority). It can be readily deduced that
omitting priority reduces the amount of shed load with regard
to the base case design. In addition, it is noteworthy that the
efficiency of the UFLS scheme designed without considering
priority constraints approaches the efficiency achieved by an
SA-based complete optimization of the UFLS scheme. This
shows that for smaller isolated power systems, where complete
optimization is theoretically feasible but less practical, relaxing
the constraint on priority leads to very efficient UFLS schemes
with a performance similar to completely optimized UFLS
scheme.
4) Use of Genetic Algorithm: SA optimization algorithm has
been used so far. A GA optimization algorithm as proposed in
[13] is applied using the same genetic operators and param-
eters. As shown in Table III, case 4 (GA) has a similar (al-
though slightly worse) impact on all possible OC scenarios in
terms of minimum frequency deviations, amount of shed load,
and the number of errors as the base case. These small dif-
ferences are mainly due to the fact that the objective function
has a step-like shape and that for the same final objective func-
tion value, slightly different decision variable values can be ob-
tained. It seems that different heuristic optimization algorithms
lead to similar results. Fig. 4(b) compares SA and GA conver-
gence characteristics, and it can be seen that they are similar, al-
though SA seems to be slightly faster in converging to the final
value.
C. Analysis of the Impact of Increasing CCG
The impact of CCG on the response of a simple power system
in terms of frequency has been analyzed in [2]. Negligible pri-
mary control and the absence of inertial response increase fre-
quency deviations and the initial slope of frequency. Larger
amounts of shed load could be therefore expected.
Two additional CCG penetration levels have been contem-
plated: 1) CCG covering up to 24% of total load demand and
2) CCG covering up to 34% of total load demand. Further and
in order to study the impact of increasing CCG on the design
process, a UFLS scheme has been designed for the CCG level
of 24% using the proposed method. Table IV shows and com-
pares the impact of increasing CCG levels on the performance
of the base case and the performance of the UFLS scheme de-
signed for the CCG level of 24% (Increased CCG). Both UFLS
schemes are applied to all possible OC scenarios of the initial
and the two additional levels of CCG (12%, 24%, and 34%, re-
spectively).
It can be deduced from Table IV that the total amount of shed
load and the number of error increase with the increasing level
of CCG. Note that most errors are due to low frequency and
overshedding. It can be also seen that for CCG levels of 24%
and 34%, the UFLS scheme designed for the CCG level of 24%
sheds less load than the base case (designed for a CCG level of
12%) and reduces frequency deviations. Further, the number of
SIGRIST et al.: A METHOD FOR THE DESIGN OF UFLS SCHEMES OF SMALL ISOLATED POWER SYSTEMS
TABLE IV
IMPACT OF INCREASING LEVELS OF CCG IN SOC ON UFLS SCHEME DESIGNS
TABLE V
PARAMETERS OF THE TURBINE-GOVERNOR SYSTEM MODEL
errors is slightly larger in the case of the base case. It seems that
contemplating higher levels of CCG during the design process
improves the UFLS scheme performance. However, the UFLS
scheme designed for the CCG level of 24% exhibits a slightly
worse performance in terms of shed load and number of errors
than the base case for a CCG level of 12%. Similar to the find-
ings of Section IV-B1, the selection of SOC with different levels
of CCG penetration and the selection of OC scenarios seem to
influence both the UFLS scheme design and its performance.
Thus, a representative CCG penetration level should be used
during UFLS scheme design process.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a systematic method for the design of ro-
bust and efficient UFLS schemes. The proposed method consists
of two tasks: first, representative OC scenarios are selected by
means of the K-Means clustering algorithm and subsequently,
UFLS scheme parameters are tuned by dint of the simulated an-
nealing optimization algorithm
The approach has been successfully applied to a small iso-
lated Spanish power system. The systematically designed UFLS
scheme outperformed the existing scheme. Further, it has been
shown that the systematic design is more robust than a design
based on OC scenarios selected according to the common prac-
tice, emphasizing the importance of an adequate selection of
OC scenarios. It has been also shown that the choice of min-
imum allowable frequency constraints significantly influences
the UFLS scheme performance and that by rearranging UFLS
stages, a similar performance can be obtained as by optimizing
step sizes. Finally, the impact of increasing converter-connected
generation on the design of UFLS schemes has been analyzed.
APPENDIX
Table V lists the parameters of the turbine-governor system
model, and Table VI lists the system operation conditions
(SOC).
957
TABLE VI
SYSTEM OPERATION CONDITIONS (SOC)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank S. Marín, J. Ruperez, A. Ro-
dríguez, and C. Castro for providing valuable comments and dis-
cussions throughout the collaboration.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE C37.106, Guide for Abnormal Frequency Protection for Power
Generating Plant, IEEE Standards, IEEE, 2004.
[2] L. Rouco et al., Impact of Wind Power Generators on the Frequency
Stability of Synchronous Generators. Paris, France: Cigré Session
2008.
[3] R. M. Maliszewski, R. D. Dunlop, and G. L. Wilson, “Frequency actu-
ated load shedding and restoration. Part I—Philosophy,” in Proc. IEEE
Summer Power Meeting and EHV Conf., Los Angeles, CA, Jul. 12–17,
1970, pp. 1452–1459.
[4] IEEE C37.117, IEEE Guide for the Application of Protective Relays
Used for Abnormal Frequency Load Shedding and Restoration, IEEE
Standards, IEEE, 2007.
[5] UFLS Regional Reliability Standard Characteristics. Washington,
DC: NERC, 2008.
[6] E. J. Thalassinakis and E. N. Dialynas, “A Monte-Carlo simulation
method for setting the underfrequency load shedding relays and se-
lecting the spinning reserve policy in autonomous power systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2044–2052, Nov. 2004.
[7] C. Concordia, L. H. Fink, and G. Poullikas, “Load shedding on an iso-
lated system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1467–1472,
Aug. 1995.
[8] B. Delfino et al., “Implementation and comparison of different under
frequency load-shedding schemes,” in Proc. 2001 IEEE Power Eng.
Soc. Summer Meeting, Piscataway, NJ.
[9] H. E. Lokay and V. Burtnyk, “Application of underfrequency relays for
automatic load shedding,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-87,
no. 3, pp. 720–726, Mar. 1968.
[10] L. Jenkins, “Optimal load shedding algorithm for power system emer-
gency control,” in Proc. 1983 IEEE Int. Conf. Systems, Man and Cy-
bernetics., Bombay and New Delhi, India.
[11] Y. Halevi and D. Kottick, “Optimization of load shedding system,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 207–213, Jun. 1993.
[12] A. D. L. Hau, “A general-order system frequency response model in-
corporating load shedding: Analytic modeling and applications,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 709–717, May 2006.
[13] J. A. P. Lopes et al., “Optimum determination of underfrequency load
shedding strategies using a genetic algorithm approach,” in Proc. 32nd
Annu. North American Power Symp., Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2000.
[14] J. G. Thompson and B. Fox, “Adaptive load shedding for isolated power
systems,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 141, no.
5, pp. 491–496, Sep. 1994.
[15] L. Sigrist et al., “Representative operating and contingency scenarios
for the design of UFLS schemes,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 25, no.
2, pp. 906–913, May 2010.
958
[16] L. Ingber, “Simulated annealing: Practice versus theory,” J. Math.
Comput. Model., pp. 29–57, 1993.
[17] Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search Toolbox User’s Guide. Natick,
MA: MathWorks, 2007.
[18] J. Zhu et al., “Phase balancing using simulated annealing,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1508–1513, Nov. 1999.
[19] D. N. Simopoulos, S. D. Kavatza, and C. D. Vournas, “Reliability
constrained unit commitment using simulated annealing,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1699–1706, Nov. 2006.
[20] M. A. Abido, “Robust design of multimachine power system stabilizers
using simulated annealing,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 15, no.
3, pp. 297–304, Sep. 2000.
[21] P. M. Anderson, Power System Protection. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
Press, 1999.
[22] J. Abonyi and B. Feil, Cluster Analysis for Data Mining and System
Identification. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser, 2007.
[23] Ministry of Industry Tourism and Commerce of Spain, Resolution 9613
of 26 April 2006 Establishing the Operation Procedures for Insular and
Extra Peninsular Power Systems, Official Bulletin of the State no 219
of 31 May 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.ree.es.
Lukas Sigrist (S’08) received the M.Sc. degree in electrical and electronics
engineering from École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, in 2007 and the Ph.D. degree from Universidad Pontificia
Comillas, Madrid, Spain, in 2010.
He is a researcher at Instituto de Investigación Tecnológica (IIT) of Univer-
sidad Pontificia Comillas, where he has been involved in a number of research
projects related to power-system stability. His areas of interest are modeling,
analysis, simulation, and identification of electric power systems.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 27, NO. 2, MAY 2012
Ignacio Egido was born in Arévalo (Ávila), Spain, in 1976. He received the
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Universidad Pontificia
Comillas, Madrid, Spain, in 2000 and 2005, respectively.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engi-
neering of the School of Engineering of Universidad Pontificia Comillas. He de-
velops his research activities at the Instituto de Investigación Tecnológica (IIT)
of the same university, where he has been involved in a number of research
projects related to AGC and power system stability. His interests include con-
trol system design and power systems stability and control.
Luis Rouco (M’91) received the Ingeniero Industrial and Doctor Ingeniero In-
dustrial degrees from Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in
1985 and 1990, respectively.
He is a Professor of electrical engineering in the School of Engineering of
Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, attached to the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering. He served as Director of the Department of Electrical En-
gineering from 1999 to 2005. He develops his research activities at Instituto
de Investigación Tecnologica (IIT) of the same university, where he has super-
vised more than 100 research and consultancy projects for Spanish and foreign
companies. He has published more than 70 papers in conferences and journals.
He has been a visiting researcher at Ontario Hydro, Toronto, ON, Canada; the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; and ABB Power Systems,
Vasteras, Sweden. His areas of interest are modeling, analysis, simulation, and
identification of electric power systems.
Prof. Rouco is a member of Cigré, the Vice-President of the Spanish Chapter
of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and a member of the Executive Com-
mittee of the Spanish National Committee of Cigré.