PESTR18

IEEE Power & Energy Society
Aug 2015
TECHNICAL REPORT
PES-TR18
Benchmark Systems for

Small-Signal Stability
Analysis and Control
PREPARED BY THE
Power System Dynamic Performance Committee
Power System Stability Controls Subcommittee
Benchmark Systems for Stability Controls Task Force
IEEE 2015 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
IEEE PES Task Force on Benchmark Systems for

Stability Controls
Technical Report
Rodrigo Ramos, Chair

Ian Hiskens, Past Chair
Contributors (alphabetical)
Claudio Canizares
Tatiane Fernandes
Edson Geraldi Jr.
Luc Gerin-Lajoie
Michael Gibbard
Jonas Kersulis
Roman Kuiava
Leonardo Lima
Fernando de Marco
Nelson Martins
Bikash Pal
Artur Piardi
Jhonatan dos Santos

Dinemayer Silva
Abhinav Singh
Behnam Tamimi
David Vowles
August 12th, 2015
This report documents the work of the IEEE PES Task Force (TF) on Benchmark Systems
for Stability Controls. The following sections present the objectives of the TF, the guidelines
used to select the benchmarks, a brief description of each benchmark system so the reader can
select the most suitable system for the intended application, the input data and results for each
benchmark system, and a set of conclusions.
Detailed descriptions of each system are also presented in the Appendices to this report and
in the website1 created by this Task Force to share the data and simulation results related to the
benchmark systems.
This website is provisionally available at the web address http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee, but it will be
transferred to the PSDP web server as soon as the Task Force work is complete.
1. Index
2.
Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 4
3.
Context ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.
Choice and Validation of the Benchmark Systems .......................................................... 5
5.
Data Sets for the Benchmark Systems............................................................................. 14
5.1. Data for the 3MIB System ................................................................................................. 14
5.2. Data for the Brazilian 7-bus Equivalent Model ............................................................... 35
5.3. Data for the 2-area (4-generator) system ......................................................................... 54
5.4. Data for the 39-bus (New England) System ..................................................................... 66
5.5. Data for the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model................................................ 80
5.6. Data for the 68-bus (NETS/NYPS) System ...................................................................... 95
6.
References ........................................................................................................................ 114
Appendix A - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by Profs. David

Vowles and Michael Gibbard ................................................................................................. A.1
Appendix B - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by Prof. Claudio

Canizares and Dr. Behnam Tamimi .......................................................................................B.1
Appendix C - Report on the 2-area (4-generator) system by Dr. Leonardo Lima and
Dinemayer Silva ...................................................................................................................... C.1
3
Appendix D - Report on the New England Test System by Prof. Ian Hiskens and Jonas
Kersulis..................................................................................................................................... D.1
Appendix E - Report on the New England Test System by Luc Gerin-Lajoie ...................E.1
2. Scope of Work
The objective of this TF is to develop a set of benchmark models that could be used by the
research community on small signal stability analysis and control to compare small-signal
stability analysis methods and algorithms, as well as to compare different power system
stabilizer (PSS) tuning procedures. These benchmarks highlight a number of practical aspects
and issues that should be observed while proposing a new tuning procedure for the PSSs (or a
new type of power oscillation damper (POD) to enhance the poor damping of the
electromechanical oscillations exhibited in each system without adversely impacting other
oscillatory modes and other aspects of the system transient response.
3. Context
For many decades, the problem of ensuring adequate damping to the electromechanical
oscillations [1] that are typical of large interconnected power systems has attracted the attention
of engineers and researchers alike. The classical Power System Stabilizer (PSS), which
generates damping torques through the modulation of the excitation level of synchronous
generators [2], has been the industry practice for many decades. Many variants of the early
phase compensators that were employed in the 1970s have been proposed along this period to
cope with or avoid specific technical problems [3].
The classical PSS with a properly tuned phase compensation [4], [5] is still the most costeffective approach for improving electromechanical oscillation damping and is, therefore, the
accepted standard. New control techniques, either in terms of the control loop to be used or the
applied tuning technique should be compared with this well-established structure and tuning
practice.
The advances in robust control theory have also contributed with a number of alternative
proposals to enhance the damping of electromechanical oscillations by supplementary control
acting through the Automatic Voltage Regulator (AVR) of synchronous machines [6].
Controllers with structures that are different from the classical lead-lag network that
characterizes a PSS have been named Power Oscillation Dampers (PODs) [3], although
classical phase compensators, when applied to FACTS devices [7] for the same purpose, have
also been referred to as PODs.
Several proposals for advanced PODs or even for tuning techniques for classical PSSs can
be found in the literature (see, for instance, [8], [9], and [10]). Many of them claim superior
performances for their proposed controllers as compared to those achieved with classical PSSs
in terms of robustness, either with respect to changes in the operating point or to nonlinear
behaviors in the power system response (or both).
However, the comparisons made to support these claims are based on results for different
test systems and damping controller criteria. They often focus on a feature in which the
proposed POD is indeed superior to the classical PSS, but neglect other essential practical
requirements. These requirements include, for instance, the provision of adequate damping for
5
multiple modes, non-detrimental interactions with other controllers in the system and control
and protection features that do not induce saturation on the PSS output or on the field voltage.
As discussed in the previous paragraphs, there is a clear need for a set of benchmark
systems to provide a common basis of comparison among new PSS or POD design alternatives.
The next section describes the criteria used to select the benchmark systems and the guidelines
to be followed when proposing a new tuning procedure or damping controller structure.
4. Choice and Validation of the Benchmark Systems

Test systems comprising a Single Machine connected to an Infinite Bus (SMIB) have been
extensively used for the study of PSS design to damp electromechanical oscillations [1]. The
SMIB model very effectively considers the practical aspects related to the field commissioning
of stabilizers, since it is quite difficult to perform staged tests that would excite oscillations
modes other than the intra-plant and local modes [11]. Despite being an excellent starting point
for the analysis of electromechanical oscillations (due to its simplicity, which allows a clear
understanding of the underlying principle that gives rise to these oscillations), the
simplifications inherent to the SMIB model lead to well-documented limitations when dealing
with different aspects of the electromechanical oscillations in a large interconnected power
system [10].
The current challenges in this area include the coordination of multiple damping controllers,
the damping enhancement for multiple modes and dealing with controllability issues when
considering multiple scenarios, for example. Therefore, the guidelines used for the choice of the
benchmark systems address the above issues as well as the following:
a) Each chosen benchmark system must have unique characteristics and present a
challenge from the viewpoint of small signal stability analysis and control that
would not be apparent or properly captured by a SMIB model. Additionally, a
controller must be proposed to overcome this challenge without compromising
other relevant aspects from practice;
b) The addition of a proposed controller to a system under expansion should be made
in coordination with the previously existing controllers. However, the simultaneous
design of several controllers will rarely be required in practice, so the approaches
that propose the design or tuning of one or two controllers are considered closer to
practice and of higher interest;
c) The proposed controllers must deal with the multiple modes that exist in multimachine systems and, therefore, SMIB models are not adequate to present new
controller proposals on such control design coordination. The benchmarks must
therefore have multiple machines and exhibit a combination of local and inter-area
modes to be damped by the proposed controllers. Other types of modes (such as
intra-plant ones, for example) can also be present in the models to better reflect the
system conditions from practice;
d) When the system is subjected to a small perturbation, the damping action of the
controller must be evident with respect to the open-loop case, while avoiding
saturation of the controller output and of the field voltage. For this reason, each
benchmark must be provided with at least one set of nonlinear simulation results of
the system response to a not so small perturbation, and the simulation results must
6
include the responses of rotor angle (or speed), damping controller output and field
voltage.
In order to better focus on the damping control issue, small-scale test systems were chosen
to keep the benchmarks simple and easy to handle, while still maintaining the characteristics
that are of interest to actual practice. Robustness with respect to changes in the operating point
and to nonlinear behavior excited by large disturbances, although a mandatory feature for any
proposed controller, have unfortunately not been considered in most of the proposed systems:
only one of the benchmark systems has multiple generation and load dispatch scenarios.
Based on these guidelines, six benchmark systems are presented in this report, covering
different aspects of practical interest to electromechanical oscillation damping control. To
elevate these systems to benchmark status, their computer models were simulated, whenever
possible, in at least two commercial-grade software and the results of these simulations were
compared. When a satisfactory level of agreement was achieved between these results, the
system was considered to be a validated benchmark. Unavoidable discrepancies between the
results from the different simulators (due to the different generator and controller models
available in different software, for example) were highlighted and their probable source
discussed.
Reports on these validation processes, as well as the complete set of data for each of the
benchmark systems, can be found (provisionally) at the URL http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/
[12]. For brevity, this URL will be referred to as "the TF website" in the remainder of this
report. The TF website also provides a set of data files describing the component models for the
benchmark systems (generators and their respective controllers, as well as for the network data)
which were used to obtain the described simulation results. It is, however, worth emphasizing
that this TF does not recommend or endorse the use of any specific component model or
simulation software to perform the small-signal stability analyses or the nonlinear simulations in
order to reproduce the reported results. The recommendation is to choose, within the set of
models available in the software of choice, that one which exhibits the closer match to the
reported results.
Based on the above-mentioned guidelines, the benchmark systems validated by this Task
Force are summarized in Table 4.1 and briefly presented in the following subsections, so
readers can select the most suitable one for the purposes of their work. The systems are listed in
ascending order according to their respective number of buses.
Table 4.1: Description of the benchmark systems
System Buses
Generators
#1
#2
#3
11
Feature
Simultaneous damping of intra-plant, local (interplant) and inter-area modes
Poor controllability due to zeros in the vicinity of the
critical electromechanical mode
Simultaneous damping of local and inter-area modes
in a system with a highly symmetrical structure
#4
39
10
#5
59
14
#6
68
16
Coordination of multiple stabilizers to damp

electromechanical modes within a control area
Simultaneous damping of local and inter-area modes
of a longitudinal system considering multiple
operating conditions
Coordination of multiple stabilizers to damp multiple
local and inter-area modes
4.1. The Three-Machine versus Infinite-Bus System (3MIB)

The 3-machine-infinite bus (3MIB) benchmark system shown in Figure 4.1 is comprised of
6 buses and 3 generators. It was proposed in [11] to show the effectiveness of power system
stabilizers to simultaneously contribute to the damping of electromechanical modes of different
nature, ranging from the intra-plant to the inter-area modes in terms of frequency.
Figure 4.1: The Three-Machine Infinite-Bus system (3MIB)
In the given operating point, three electromechanical modes are clearly identified from the
system eigensolution, which can be classified into intra-plant (oscillation between generators #1
and #2), inter-plant (generators #1 and #2 oscillating against generator #3), and inter-area (the
three generators oscillating coherently against the infinite bus, with the infinite bus considered
to be the equivalent representation of an external area).
Detailed small-signal stability results are given [13], while nonlinear results are presented
in [14]. Power flow results are given for a single operating point. Including other operating
points, for the assessment of control design robustness, are recommended by the TF for future
work.
8
4.2. The Brazilian 7-Bus
Bus Equivalent Model
This 7-bus, 5-machine
machine equivalent model of the South-Southeastern
South Southeastern Brazilian system
configuration in the late 1980's
0's,, disregarding the large HVDC Itaipu transmission system, has
been used in several small-signal
signal stability related works
work (an example is reference [10]). All of
its synchronous generators are described by fifth-order models and have first
rst-order automatic
voltage regulator models.. The single-line
single
diagram for
or this system is depicted in Figure 4.2. Bus
7 represents an equivalent of the southeastern
southeast
part of the system.
Figure 4.2: The Brazilian 7-bus equivalent system
This system highlights

hts a modal controllability problem that may exist in multi-machine
multi
systems, in which a single generator, despite having the largest magnitude of the transfer
function residue [15], [16] (thus a relatively good modal observability and controllability),
controllability)
might be unable to provide enough damping via excitation control to a poorly--damped inter-area
mode. In this benchmark system, this
t
single control-loop impossibility arises due to the
presence of a poorly-damped
damped complex-conjugate
complex
pair of zeros in the single-input,
input, single-output
single
(SISO) transfer function associated with the PSS transfer function at the Itaipu plant. The rootlocus shows branches starting at the open-loop
open
unstable poles and approaching
roaching the transfer
2
function zeros as the PSS gain is increased . One possible solution is to install a PSS at a second
machine, in order to eliminate the problematic SISO transfer function zeros, and thus allow the
PSS at the Itaipu machine to move the unstable open-loop
open
pole further into
to the left-half
left
of the
complex plane [17].
The ends of these root-locus

locus branches are defined by the mentioned zeroes that are located close to the
imaginary axes of the s-plane
plane in such a way that the closed loop poles, for whatever PSS gain and phase
compensation, result poorly damped.
4.3. The Two-Area, 4-Generator System

The two-area, 4-generator system is very well-suited for the study of concepts related to the
different nature of local and inter-area modes. The one-line diagram for this system is shown in
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: The 2-area, 4-generator system
This test system first appeared in [18] and then in several other works including [16], where
this system is very well documented.
The symmetric structure and the easy modeling of its components, coupled with the
conceptually clear results produced, contributed to the pervasive use of this system in smallsignal stability analysis work. The system is comprised by Area 1, located to the left of the
dashed red line (shown in Figure 4.3), and by Area 2, located to the right of the same red dashed
line. The two local modes, related to areas 1 and 2, respectively, can have almost identical
frequencies (depending on the power flow conditions, among other factors [18]). The inter-area
mode for this system involves Area 1 oscillating against Area 2 at a lower frequency and, under
certain circumstances, can only be properly damped by a suitable coordination of PSS tunings
or by the addition of other types of controller structures to the system.
Due to its highly symmetrical topology, the eigenstructure of this system reveals a clear
separation among the eigenvalues, eigenvectors and participation factors related to the local and
inter-area modes. Therefore, the modes can be easily related to their respective invariant
subspaces in the state-space model, and thus it is also straightforward to apply perturbations that
predominantly excite one of these modes at a time [3].
While this system symmetry contributes to simplifying the description of the concepts
involved in small-signal stability analysis, it must be emphasized that such a feature will seldom
be seen in real, large-scale systems. It is therefore important to have in mind the use of the 2area, 4 generator system should be limited to cases for proof-of-concept or illustration of a
particular feature. Successful results obtained when using this system should not automatically
lead to claims about real-life systems, which will certainly not exhibit this level of symmetry.
10
4.4. The 39-bus (New England) System
The New England test system has been extensively used in the power system dynamics
literature, as far back as in [19], and possibly even before that. The system has 39 buses, 9
generators and 1 equivalent generator that represents the New York system to which the New
England system is interconnected [20], [21]. The TF website provides the system data for a base
case, together with results of small-signal analysis and nonlinear simulations.
Figure 4.4: The New England system
Figure 4.4 presents the one-line diagram of the New England system. Almost all
electromechanical modes in this system have a local or regional nature, except for one that
represents the oscillation of all generators within the New England Area (generators 2 to 10)
against the equivalent generator representing the New York Area (generator 1). This lastmentioned mode has the lowest frequency and should be regarded as a New England versus
New York inter-area mode, with all generators within New England area oscillating coherently,
against the New York equivalent (generator 1).
This system does not present much of a challenge from the small signal stability viewpoint
and is included mostly for historical reasons and for the sake of verifying the compatibility
among different software. The emphasis of the presented results is on avoiding detrimental
interactions among the multiple PSSs that have to provide adequate damping for both the local
mode of their respective generators and the inter-area mode.
11
4.5. The Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model
The simplified 14 generator model of the southern and eastern Australian system is
representative of the longitudinal Australian system that extends for some 5000 km from Pt.
Lincoln in South Australia to Cairns in far north Queensland. The one-line diagram of this 50
Hz system is shown in Figure 4.5. It is characterized by four weakly connected regions resulting
in three inter-area modes of oscillation as well as 10 local area modes. Without PSSs many of
these modes are either unstable or inadequately damped. The system also includes five Static
Var Compensators (SVCs) and a series compensated transmission line. The generators are
represented by 5th or 6th order models. Two basic types of excitation systems are employed
from IEEE Std 421.5(2005) [4]: static excitation system ST1A and rotating ac exciter AC1A.
Base cases for six different system operating conditions representing a range of system
loading and interconnection power flow conditions are provided. The six cases are prudently
chosen to encompass a set of normal operating conditions; this leads to the resulting P-Vr
characteristics that forms the basis of the conventional PSS tuning procedure [22], [23] which is
adopted and demonstrated in this benchmark. This is done because the robustness of stabilizers
for a wide range of operating conditions is essential. Thus, this benchmark system provides a
firm basis on which alternative advanced stabilizer tuning procedures can be assessed.
Appendix A of this report provides a comprehensive description of the benchmark system
including the following:
1. A description of the benchmark system and the base case scenarios.
2. A description of the theoretical basis for the benchmark PSS tuning procedure that was
employed together with the P-Vr characteristics [22], [23] for each of the 14 generators in
each of the six base cases.
3. A comparison between the 13 electromechanical modes with the PSSs in- and out-ofservice for each base case.
4. Listing of all network, generator and controller parameters sufficient for both small-signal
and transient stability analysis.
5. Verification of the small-signal model of the six base case scenarios by comparison of
small-disturbance step responses obtained with two different software packages.
6. A comprehensive set of transient stability studies conducted to demonstrate that with the
benchmark PSSs in-service the six base case scenarios are transiently stable for all credible
contingencies involving a two-phase to ground fault and associated de-energization of the
faulted transmission element.
7. A list of references.
The TF website [12] provides the following data.
1. The power flow data for each of the six base cases;
2. The dynamic data of the system for small-signal stability and transient stability analysis;
3. State-space models and associated eigenanalysis results of the system with the PSSs in- and
out-of-service for two of the six base cases;
4. Time-series data from small-disturbance step-response simulations;
5. Time-series data from transient-stability simulations;
Appendix A also describes the formats in which all data mentioned in the previous lists are
available.
12
Figure 4.5: Simplified 14-generator model of the South and East Australian Power System
13
4.6. The 68-bus (New England/New York Interconnection) System

The 68-bus system is a reduced order equivalent of the inter-connected New England test
system (NETS) and New York power system (NYPS), with five geographical regions out of
which NETS and NYPS are represented by a group of generators, whereas the power import
from each of the three other neighboring areas are approximated by equivalent generator
models, as shown in Figure 4.6. This model was created after the 1965 blackouts and represents
part of the power network of that region in the 1970s.
NETS
5
5
20
23
3
3
13
59
43
16
13
58
12
60
17
36 12
50
45 51
34 35
56
66
19
68
61
67
52
55
21
30
49
15
38
32
46
27
28 26
11
25
15
42
37
24
AREA 4
33
11
9
9
29
18
39
57
16
44
65 63
64
22
AREA 5
NYPS
62
54
10
10
31
AREA 3
40
14
14
41
53
8
8
1
1
47
48
Figure 4.6:The 68-bus system
There are three major tie-lines between NETS and NYPS (connecting buses 60-61, 53-54
and 27-53). All the three tie-lines are double-circuit lines. Generators G1 to G12 have IEEE Std
421.5(2005) [4] DC4B excitation systems, except for G9, which has an ST1A static excitation
system. There are four inter-area modes present in the system, and all of them have a high
participation from the mechanical states of G14, G15 and G16.
The challenge in this system resides in the difficulty to damp its local and inter-area modes
simultaneously. An interesting research problem for this system is whether it is possible to get
adequate damping for the inter-area modes without relying on PODs for FACTS devices [8].
14
5. Data Sets for the Benchmark Systems
5.1. Data for the 3MIB System
5.1.1. Power Flow Data

The power flow solution is printed in Figure 5.1, over the one-line diagram of the system.
The bus data, including the voltage magnitudes and angles from the power flow solution, are
shown in Table 5.1 . The transmission line data is shown in Table 5.2. The data is provided in
percent considering a system MVA base of 100 MVA. The generator step-up transformers
(GSU) are explicitly represented in the case. Table 5.3 presents the GSU data, on system MVA
base (100 MVA).
There are two loads, directly connected to the high-voltage buses 4 and 5. A large load was
added to bus 6 to ensure that the equivalent machine at the infinite bus is a generator (injecting
power into the grid), although this is probably unnecessary and the results would be practically
the same with the infinite bus absorbing power from the grid. The associated data is given in
Table 5.4.
These loads are represented, in the dynamic simulation, with a combination of constant
power, constant current and constant admittance characteristics for the active power and
reactive power, as shown in Table 5.4. The power flow data for this system is given in Table
5.5.
Table 5.1: Bus Data and Voltages from the Power Flow Solution
Bus
Number
Bus Name
GENERATOR 1
18.0
PV
1.0400
50.57
GENERATOR 2
18.0
PV
1.0400
50.57
GENERATOR 3
18.0
PV
1.0200
20.05
PLANT HV 1
500.0
PQ
1.0169
45.69
PLANT HV 2
500.0
PQ
0.9728
14.87
INFINITE BUS
500.0
swing
1.0000
0.00
Base kV
Bus
type
Voltage
(pu)
Angle
(deg)
15
1
GENERATOR 1
434.411
-1404.000
1.0000
1404.000
434.411R
1.0000
1404.000
1
4
PLANT HV 1
-306.405
1400.000
1.040
18.720
1
100.000
1404.000
434.411R
434.411
-1404.000
1407.998
-306.405
512.811
1.0000
1404.000
1
1.0000
2
GENERATOR 2
1.040
18.720
1.017
508.457
799.999
466.247H
466.247
1.0000
800.000
1
5
PLANT HV 2
1.0000
3
GENERATOR 3
-799.999
-1407.998
-373.949
268.879
6
INFINITE BUS
9792.000
1
1.020
18.360
2049.823R
2000.000
208.000
100.000
5.072
-208.000
10000.000
49.824
2000.000
1.000
500.000
0.973
486.389
Figure 5.1: One-line Diagram and Power Flow Solution of Benchmark Model #1
Table 5.2: Transmission Line Data (100 MVA Base)
From
Bus
4
5
To
Bus
5
6
ckt
id
1
1
R
(%)
0.00
0.00
X
(%)
3.6
12.0
Charging
(%)
0.0
0.0
Table 5.3: Generator Step- Up Transformer Data (100 MVA Base)
From
Bus
1
2
3
To
Bus
4
4
5
R
(%)
X
(%)
0.641
0.641
1.12
0
0
0
MVA
Base
1560
1560
890
tap
(pu)
1
1
1
Table 5.4: Load Data
Bus
Bus Loads
P
Q
(MW)
(MVAr)
1400
100
5
6
2000
10000
100
2000
ZIP Load Parameters

P
80% I
20% Z
100% P
100% P
100% Z
100% Z
100% P
16
Table 5.5: Power Flow Solution Printout
BUS
1 GENERATOR 1 18.000 CKT
FROM GENERATION
TO
4 PLANT HV 1 500.00 1
MW
1404.0
1404.0
MVAR
MVA
434.4R 1469.7
434.4 1469.7
% 1.0400PU
94 18.720KV
1.0000LK
BUS
FROM GENERATION
TO
4 PLANT HV 1 500.00 1
MW
1404.0
1404.0
MVAR
MVA
434.4R 1469.7
434.4 1469.7
% 1.0400PU
94 18.720KV
94 1.0000LK
50.57
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
0.00 128.01
BUS
FROM GENERATION
TO
5 PLANT HV 2 500.00 1
MW
800.0
800.0
MVAR
466.2H
466.2
MVA
% 1.0200PU
926.0 104 18.360KV
926.0 104 1.0000LK
20.05
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
0.00
92.30
MW
MVAR
MVA
45.69
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
100.0
-306.4
-306.4
512.8
1403.6
1437.0
1437.0
1498.5
MVAR
MVA
100.0
-373.9
268.9
5.1
2002.5
883.1
1433.4
208.1
BUS
4 PLANT HV 1
500.00 CKT
TO LOAD-PQ
TO
1 GENERATOR 1 18.000
TO
TO
5 PLANT HV 2 500.00
BUS
5 PLANT HV 2
1
1
1
500.00 CKT
TO LOAD-PQ
TO
TO
4 PLANT HV 1 500.00
TO
6 INFINITE BUS500.00
1
1
1
1400.0
-1404.0
-1404.0
1408.0
MW
2000.0
-800.0
-1408.0
208.0
BUS
6 INFINITE BUS500.00 CKT
MW
FROM GENERATION
9792.0
TO LOAD-PQ
10000.0
TO
5 PLANT HV 2 500.00 1
-208.0
MVAR
MVA
2049.8R10004.3
2000.0 10198.0
49.8
213.9
% 1.0169PU
508.46KV
50.57
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
0.00 128.01
1.0000UN
92 1.0000UN
% 0.9728PU
486.39KV
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.87
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
99 1.0000UN
% 1.0000PU
10 500.00KV
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.01
128.01
781.69
92.30
781.69
54.90
X--- LOSSES ---X

MW
MVAR
0.00
54.90
5.1.2. Dynamic Data

The generator model used to represent the salient pole units (generators 1 and 2) is shown in
the block diagram in Figure 5.2. This is a 5th order dynamic model with the saturation function
represented as a geometric (exponential) function. Similarly, the generator model to represent
the round rotor unit (generator 3) is in the block diagram in Figure 5.3. This is a 6th order
dynamic model with the saturation function represented as a geometric (exponential) function.
The corresponding parameters for these models can be found in Table 5.6 and Table 5.7,
respectively.
Table 5.6: Dynamic Model Data for the Salient Pole Units
PARAMETERS
Description
Rated apparent power
d-axis open circuit transient time constant
d-axis open circuit sub-transient time constant
q-axis open circuit sub-transient time constant
Inertia
Speed damping
d-axis synchronous reactance
q-axis synchronous reactance
d-axis transient reactance
sub-transient reactance
Leakage reactance
Saturation factor at 1.0 pu voltage
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X''d = X''q
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
Value
1560
5.10
0.060
0.094
4.50
0
0.89
0.66
0.36
0.29
0.28
0.087
0.257
Unit
MVA
s
s
s
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
17
Figure 5.2:: Block Diagram for the Salient Pole Machine Model
Table 5.77: Dynamic Model Data for the Round Rotor Units
PARAMETERS
Description
d-axis
axis open circuit transient time constant
d-axis open circuit sub-transient
transient time constant
q-axis open circuit
cuit transient time constant
q-axis open circuit sub-transient
transient time constant
Inertia
Speed damping
d-axis
axis synchronous reactance
q-axis
axis synchronous reactance
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T'qo
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
Value
890
5.30
0.048
0.62
0.066
3.90
0
1.72
1.679
0.488
Unit
MVA
s
s
s
s
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
18
q-axis transient reactance
Leakage reactance
X'q
X''d = X''q
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
0.80
0.337
0.266
0.0001
0.001
Figure 5.3:: Block Diagram for the Round Rotor machine model
pu
pu
pu
19
The details associated with the representation of the saturation of the generators should not
significantly impact the results of a small-signal (linearized) analysis of the system
performance. On the other hand, the proper representation of saturation is extremely important
for transient stability and the determination of rated and ceiling conditions (minimum and
maximum generator field current and generator field voltage) for the excitation system. The
calculated rated field current for this generator model is 2.75 pu (considering 0.80 rated power
factor). This calculation comprises the initialization of the generator model at full (rated) power
output, considering their rated power factor.
The excitation systems are represented by a simple first order model, for which the block
diagram is shown in Figure 5.1. The parameters for the model are presented in Table 5.8. Note
that the Transient Gain Reduction (TGR) is not used, so TA=TB=1.
Figure 5.4: Block Diagram for the Excitation System model
Table 5.8: Dynamic Model Data for the Excitation Systems
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
Transient Gain Reduction
TA/TB
TGR block 2 numerator time constant
TB
AVR steady state gain
KA
AVR equivalent time constant
TE
Min. AVR output
VRmin
Max. AVR output
VRmax
excitation power supply option
CSWITCH
negative field capability
rC/rfd
Value
1
1
100
0.05
5
5
1
0
Unit
s
s
pu
s
pu
pu
Notes:
AVR gains for generators 1 and 2 are KA=100; for Generator 3 the gain is KA = 150.
The parameter CSWITCH determines if the excitation system is bus-fed (CSWITCH=0) or
independently fed (CSWITCH=1). The excitation systems are represented as independently
fed.
The excitation system is represented with negative field current capability.
The IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) model PSS1A, which is shown in Figure 5.5, is used to
represent the power system stabilizers. The parameters for this model are presented in Table 5.9.
The output limits were set to +/ 5%, while the logic to switch off the PSS for voltages outside a
normal operation range has been ignored (parameters VCU and VCL set to zero).
20
Input
Signal
1 +A 5S+A 6S 2
1 +sT1
1 +sT3
(1 +A 1S+A 2S 2 ) (1 +A 3S+A 4S 2 )
1 +sT2
1 +sT4
KS
L SMAX
Output Limiter
V S = V SS , if (VCU > V CT >V CL)
sT5
VSS
1 +sT6
V S = 0, if (VCT < V CL)
VOTHSG
V S = 0, if (VCT < V CU)
L SMIN
Figure 5.5: Block Diagram for the PSS1A model
Table 5.9: Parameters for the PSS1A Power System Stabilizers
PARAMETERS
Description
nd
2 order denominator coefficient
2nd order denominator coefficient
2nd order numerator coefficient
1st lead-lag numerator time constant
1st lead-lag denominator time constant
2nd lead-lag numerator time constant
2nd lead-lag denominator time constant
Washout block numerator time constant
Washout block denominator time constant
PSS gain
PSS max. output
PSS min. output
Upper voltage limit for PSS operation
Lower voltage limit for PSS operation
Symbol
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
KS
LSmax
LSmin
VCU
VCL
Value
0.641
0
0
0
0.158
0
0.142
0.014
0.142
0.014
3
3
35
0.05
0.05
0
0
Unit
s
s
s
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
5.1.3. Selected Results and Validation

The results presented in the following correspond to eigenstructure calculations and timedomain simulations of different disturbances performed with the PSS/E [24] and
PacDyn/ANATEM [25], [26] software packages.
Regarding eigenstructure calculation, the complete set of eigenvalues for the system without
PSSs, calculated with PSS/E program LSYSAN [24] and PacDyn [25], are presented in Figure
5.6.a. Figure 5.6.b is an enlarged view of Figure 5.6.a in the region of the electromechanical
modes. The speed mode-shapes of the three electromechanical modes calculated by both
programs are shown in Figure 5.7. The mode-shapes calculated by LSYSAN had been
normalized by the respective elements of highest magnitude.
The comparison of results in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 shows a good matching of the
electromechanical modes and their respective speed mode-shapes calculated by the different
software.
21
a)
b)
10
15
9
8
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
7
10
ANATEM
PSS/E
ANATEM
PSS/E
5
4
3
2
1
-30
-25
-20
-15
Real (1/s)
-10
-5
0
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Real (1/s)
0.5
Figure 5.6: Comparison of Eigenvalues Calculated with PSS/E Program LSYSAN [24] and PacDyn [25].
a) Complete set of eigenvalues; b) Enlarged view in the region of the electromechanical modes.
a) 1.43 Hz
b) 1.22 Hz
c) 0.39 Hz
0.5
0.5
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
Figure 5.7: Comparison of the Speed Mode-shapes Calculated with PSS/E Program LSYSAN () and
PacDyn ().
Regarding the mode shape figures in Figure 5.7:

a) the 1.43 Hz intraplant mode shows the rotors of Gen 1 and Gen 2 oscillating against each
other;
b) the 1.22 Hz interplant mode is characterized by the coherent oscillation of Gen 1 and Gen
2 generators oscillating against Gen 3. Gen 3 oscillates with a larger magnitude since it has a
lighter inertia and capacity as compared to the combined inertia of Gen 1 and Gen2; and
c) the 0.39 Hz interarea mode is characterized by the coherent oscillation of all three
generators against the "infinite bus" placed at bus 6.
Figure 5.8 is reproduced from [11] (Fig. 22 in [11]) and shows the phase compensation
requirements for a PSS installed at generator #1 of the 3MIB benchmark system in order to best
damp its three electromechanical modes of different frequencies and nature. This figure also
shows that the PSS phase compensation requirements for these different modes can be
individually computed from three independent SMIB system models that share the same
generator and controller data but have different tie line impedances and local load values.
Advocating the use of this simpler set of SMIB results (results from "a SMIB family") for
22
preliminary PSS tuning in multimachine systems is basically the essence of [11], which is just,
on its turn, a ready-to-use automated version of the classic GEP method [1].
12
12
10
10
Imag [rad/s]
0
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Real [1/s]
0.5
1.5
Figure 5.8: Electromechanical poles and their residues of the (/Vref) transfer function of generator #1
calculated with no PSS (blue : multimachine system results; red +: synthetic system results).
Figure 5.9 is also taken from [11] and shows the departure angles of the root locus for the
PSS loop considering an incremental gain change in a properly phase-tuned PSS. Again, the
incremental results for the multimachine system (3MIB benchmark) are equivalent to the
combined incremental results from the 3 SMIB systems (the SMIB family).
23
12
12
10
10
Imag [rad/s]
0
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Real [1/s]
0.5
1.5
Figure 5.9: Electromechanical poles and their residues of the (PSSoutput/Vref) transfer function of
generator #1 when equipped with stabilizer.
Figure 5.10 displays the electromechanical poles and their residues of the (/Vref) and
(PSSoutput/Vref) transfer functions of generator #3. The speed based PSS at generator #3
has two blocks leading 50 at 3.5 Hz, one block lagging 35 at 0.3 Hz, and a wash out block
with a time constant of 3 s. It is verified that the intraplant mode between generators #1 and #2
is insensitive to changes in the gain of generator #3. The sensitivity of the interplant mode to
changes in the gain of the PSS at generator #3 is relatively large, and therefore generator #3 is
the most suitable for damping this mode because it belongs to the smaller area among the two
areas that oscillate against each other at this frequency.
24
10
0.12
0.06
9
8
8 0.24
7
Imag [rad/s]
Without PSS
With PSS
6
5 0.36
4
0.48
3
0.6
0.74
1 0.86
0.98
0
0.98
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Real [1/s]
Figure 5.10: Electromechanical poles and their residues of the (/Vref) and (PSSoutput/Vref) transfer
functions of generator #3.
An additional result is shown in Figure 5.11, where incremental gain PSSs, with proper
phase-tuning circuits, have been added to all three generators. A detailed analysis of this figure
is quite instructive for the interested reader. Figure 5.11 shows that the combined effect of the
three PSSs positively damps the three modes, and that there is no adverse interaction between
damping actions from the various PSSs. It allows to verify that the intraplant mode is damped
only by generators 1 & 2, while the other two modes have their damping levels dependent on
the combined effort from all three PSSs.
Sensitivities in Figure 5.11 were calculated as the sum of the residues of the
(PSSoutput/Vref) transfer functions of the three generators. For each mode, the sensitivities
are practically in phase, and therefore the magnitude of the total sensitivity is approximately
equal to the sum of the sensitivities of the individual generators. Figure 1.4 does not allow to
compare the relative magnitudes of the sensitivities for different modes, since the sensitivities
were normalized independently for each mode by the calculation software.
Figure 5.12 displays the sensitivities of the electromechanical modes calculated from the
shifts of these modes when the gains of all PSSs are changed from 0 to 0.1 pu. The interarea
mode is less sensitive to changes in the gains of the three PSSs than the intraplant and the
interplant modes. The angles of the sensitivities in Figure 5.12 match those of the sensitivities in
Figure 5.11.
25
10
0.12
0.06
9
8
8 0.24
7
Generator 1
Generator 3
Combined
Imag [rad/s]
6
5 0.36
4
0.48
3
0.6
0.74
1 0.86
0.98
0
0.98
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Real [1/s]
Figure 5.11: Residues of the (PSSoutput/Vref) transfer functions of the three generators for each
electromechanical mode, and combined sensitivities.
10
0.12
0.06
9
8
8 0.24
7
Imag [rad/s]
6
5 0.36
4
0.48
3
0.6
0.74
1 0.86
0.98
0
0.98
-1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Real [1/s]
Figure 5.12: Sensitivities of the electromechanical modes to simultaneous changes in the gains of the
three PSSs.
26
With respect to the time-domain simulations, the comparison was made between the results
of PSS/E [24] and ANATEM [26]. The main objective associated with the selection of the
disturbances was to assess the system damping and the effectiveness of the proposed stabilizers
in providing damping to these oscillations.
The first set of simulations comprise the connection of a 50 MVAr reactor at the point of
interconnection of the generators with the large system (bus #5) through the tie-line at t = 1.0
second. The reactor is disconnected 100 ms later, without any changes in the system topology.
This is a very small disturbance, and as such leads to results that are essentially a linear system
response. Furthermore, given the location where the disturbance is applied, it tends to excite
primarily the inter-area oscillation, with all three generators coherently oscillating against the
infinite bus.
For the case with no PSSs, the active power output of all generators is compared in Figure
5.13, while their respective rotor speeds are compared in Figure 5.14. When the PSSs are in
service, the active power output of all generators is compared in Figure 5.15, whereas their
respective rotor speeds are compared in Figure 5.16.
The second set of simulations correspond to simultaneous changes in the excitation system
voltage references of all generator units, applied at t = 1.0 second. A step change of +3% of the
initial voltage was applied to Vref of the AVR associated to generator G1, at the same time that
steps of -1% and -2% were applied to the reference voltages of the AVRs associated with
generators G2 and G3, respectively.
These changes in voltage references were selected in order to cause a relatively small
impact to the inter-area oscillation mode while exciting the intra-plant mode (between
generators 1 and 2) and the local mode (generators 1 and 2 oscillating against generator 3).
Once again, for the case with no PSSs, the active power outputs of all generators are
compared in Figure 5.17, while their respective rotor speeds are compared in Figure 5.18. For
the case with the PSSs in service, the active power outputs of all generators are compared in
Figure 5.19, whereas their respective rotor speeds are compared in Figure 5.20.
From the comparative results presented in this section, one may conclude that the two
software packages provide satisfactorily matching results and, thus, this benchmark system can
be considered to be validated by this Task Force.
27
CaseA-noPSS
P e (MW) Gen #1
1408
1406
1404
1402
ANATEM
PSS/E
1400
1398
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Pe (MW) Gen #2
1408
1406
1404
1402
1400
ANATEM
PSS/E
1398
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
Pe (MW) Gen #3
806
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
804
802
800
798
796
794
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.13: Response to a Temporary Connection of a 50 MVAr Reactor to Bus #5 (Generator Active
Power, no PSS)
28
-5
CaseA-noPSS
x 10
ANATEM
PSS/E
(pu) Gen #1
4
2
0
-2
-4
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-5
x 10
ANATEM
PSS/E
(pu) Gen #2
4
2
0
-2
-4
0
-4
x 10
(pu) Gen #3
ANATEM
PSS/E
-1
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.14: Response to a Temporary Connection of a 50 MVAr Reactor to Bus #5 (Generator Speed, no
PSS)
29
CaseA-PSS
P e (MW) Gen #1
1410
ANATEM
PSS/E
1408
1406
1404
1402
1400
1398
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
Pe (MW) Gen #2
1410
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
1408
1406
1404
1402
1400
1398
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
Pe (MW) Gen #3
804
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
802
800
798
796
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.15: Response to a Temporary Connection of a 50 MVAr Reactor to Bus #5 (Generator Active
Power, with PSS)
30
-5
CaseA-PSS
x 10
4
ANATEM
PSS/E
(pu) Gen #1
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-5
x 10
4
ANATEM
PSS/E
(pu) Gen #2
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-5
x 10
(pu) Gen #3
10
ANATEM
PSS/E
-5
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.16: Response to a Temporary Connection of a 50 MVAr Reactor to Bus #5 (Generator Speed,
with PSS)
31
P e (MW) Gen #1
CaseB-noPSS
ANATEM
PSS/E
1450
1400
1350
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
1440
P e (MW) Gen #2
18
1420
1400
1380
1360
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
840
Pe (MW) Gen #3
18
820
800
780
760
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.17: Response to steps applied to the reference voltages of the AVRs (Generator Power, no PSS)
32
-4
CaseB-noPSS
x 10
(pu) Gen #1
-5
ANATEM
PSS/E
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-4
(pu) Gen #2
x 10
ANATEM
PSS/E
-5
0
-4
ANATEM
PSS/E
x 10
(pu) Gen #3
-5
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.18: Response to steps applied to the reference voltages of the AVRs (Generator Speeds, no PSS)
33
CaseB-PSS
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW) Gen #1
1440
1420
1400
1380
1360
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
Pe (MW) Gen #2
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
1420
1410
1400
1390
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
830
Pe (MW) Gen #3
18
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
820
810
800
790
780
770
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.19: Response to steps applied to the reference voltages of the AVRs (Generator Power, with
PSS)
34
-4
CaseB-PSS
x 10
ANATEM
PSS/E
(pu) Gen #1
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-4
x 10
(pu) Gen #2
ANATEM
PSS/E
1
0
-1
-2
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-4
x 10
(pu) Gen #3
ANATEM
PSS/E
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.20: Response to steps applied to the reference voltages of the AVRs (Generator Speed, with
PSS)
35
5.2. Data for the Brazilian 7-bus Equivalent Model

The system one line diagram is shown in Figure 5.21, where the line power flows are also
indicated. The bus voltage magnitudes and angles from the power flow solution, for the single
condition analyzed in this report, are shown in Table 5.10.
The bus load data are given in Table 5.11 (where the negative loads indicate active or
reactive generation). These load values were computed at the power flow solution, being
represented, in the dynamic simulation, with a constant current characteristic for the active
power components and a constant admittance characteristic for the reactive power components
(100%I, 100%Z for P and Q, respectively).
The bus shunt elements are listed in Table 5.12, where the MVAR values for the capacitors
relate to nominal voltage conditions (1.0 pu voltage).
The transmission line data is listed in Table 5.13 and given in per unit on the system MVA
base of 1,000 MVA. The lines are represented by series (RL) impedances. The capacitive
chargings of these lines have been compounded with the bus reactors and are accounted for in
the shunt data of Table 5.12.
The transformer data is given in per unit on system MVA base (1,000 MVA) in Table 5.14.
The generators step-up transformers (GSU) are not represented in the case.
A complete report from the power flow solution report for this system is given in Table 5.15.
4
ITAIPU
6
IVAIPORA
7
EQUIVALENT
6500.0
6437.3
-6315.6
6211.2
-6048.3
-3164.3
1957.9R
1973.4
1109.0
1133.1
1187.6
952.3R
2884.0
0.0
-196.0
-39.2
0.0
62.6
-39.7
24.3
0.0
-4.9
-2097.2
79.8
109.3
1.039
48.5
0.966
0.0
-224.8
0.0
1
2
S. SANTIAGO
0.989
21.4
1.0000
5
IVAIPORA
1.0000
-109.3
-32.9
227.3
1
FOZ AREIA
845.8
1
-200.3R
0.0
0.0
-9.2
1332.0
1
488.6
-484.9
-251.5
252.9
137.5
-82.8
-102.4
0.998
21.2
120.5
1
-158.2
692.3
-184.0
-151.0
4.4
-2.8
1.030
27.2
-412.3R
1002.8
-999.9
2405.0
124.3
-467.0
-88.0
688.2
1540.0
-235.0
-446.7R
0.0
1.030
24.5
IEEE BENCHMARK SYSTEM

BRAZILIAN 7-BUS EQUIVALENT SYSTEM
TUE, OCT 01 2013 10:16
1
-120.9
1.029
26.6
1658.0
1
3
S. SEGREDO
151.1
-190.1
Bus - VOLTAGE (PU)/ANGLE

Branch - MW/Mv ar
Equipment - MW/Mv ar
kV: <=500.000<=765.000 >765.000
Figure 5.21: One-line diagram of Benchmark Model #2
36
Table 5.10: Bus Data (Including Voltage and Angle from the Power Flow Solution)
Bus
Number
1
FOZ AREIA
Base
kV
500.0
S. SANTIAGO
500.0
PV
1.0300
27.22
S. SEGREDO
500.0
PV
1.0290
26.60
ITAIPU
765.0
PV
1.0390
48.45
IVAIPORA
500.0
PQ
0.9984
21.20
IVAIPORA
765.0
PQ
0.9895
21.45
EQUIVALENT
765.0
swing
0.9660
0.00
Bus Name
Bus
type
PV
Voltage
(pu)
1.0300
Angle
(deg)
24.53
Table 5.11: Bus Loads
Bus
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
P (MW)
Q (Mvar)
2405.0
692.3
688.2
62.6
845.8
4.9
2884.0
467.0
184.0
235.0
24.3
9.2
79.8
196.0
Table 5.12: Shunt Data
Bus
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Bus Name
FOZ AREIA
S. SANTIAGO
S. SEGREDO
ITAIPU
IVAIPORA
IVAIPORA
EQUIVALENT
Base
kV
G-Shunt
(MW)
B-Shunt
(Mvar)
500.0
500.0
500.0
765.0
500.0
765.0
765.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
179.2
149.1
114.2
36.8
33.0
2142.0
42.0
Table 5.13: Transmission Line Data (1,000 MVA Base)
From
Bus
1
1
2
2
4
6
To
Bus
3
5
3
5
6
7
R
(pu)
0.003
0.019
0.005
0.015
0.0029
0.004
X
(pu)
0.038
0.245
0.076
0.225
0.0734
0.057
Charging
(pu)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5 IVAIPORA
1973.4
500.00
1 0.9984
1 794.84
2 1.0390
1 514.50
21.2
48.5
26.6
0.0
1958.0R
6500.0
-446.7R
1540.0
-200.3R
1332.0
845.8
24.3
62.6
-235.0
688.2
-184.0
692.3
-467.0
2405.0
5 IVAIPORA
3 S. SEGREDO
500.00
500.00
5 IVAIPORA
3 S. SEGREDO
500.00
500.00
500.00
2 S. SANTIAGO 500.00
1 FOZ AREIA
6 IVAIPORA
765.00
0.0 ---------------------------------------
-39.7
0.0 ---------------------------------------
-120.9
0.0 ---------------------------------------
-158.2
0.0 ---------------------------------------
-190.1
0.0 ---------------------------------------
X
(pu)
0.039
6437.4
151.0
-2.8
4 ITAIPU
765.00
---------------------------
-88.0
1 1.0290
1 515.00
27.2
-412.3R
1658.0
X---------- TO BUS ----------X
BUS# X-- NAME --X BASKV AREA CKT
SHUNT
MW/MVAR MW/MVAR MW/MVAR
LOAD
R
(pu)
0.0
1002.8
488.6
137.5
3 S. SEGREDO 500.00
---------------------------
4.4
1 1.0300
1 515.00
24.5
ANGLE
GEN
To
Bus
6
151.1
252.9
120.5
2 S. SANTIAGO 500.00
---------------------------
124.3
1 1.0300
PU/KV
VOLT
From
Bus
5
999.9
1 FOZ AREIA
500.00
---------------------------
X------- FROM BUS ------X AREA

TRANSFORMER
BUS# X-- NAME --X BASKV ZONE
MW
MVAR
RATIO
ANGLE
37
Table 5.14: Transformer Data (1,000 MVA Base)
tap
(pu)
1.0
Table 5.15: Power Flow Solution Printout
38
5.2.2. Dynamic Data
The generator model shown in the block diagram of Figure 5.2 is used to represent all
five generators of this benchmark system. The model parameters corresponding to these five
generators are presented in Table 5.16 and Table 5.17. Rotor speed mechanical damping D is set
to zero for all generators, which is usually the case when using sub-transient generator models.
Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 also present the calculated rated field current (considering 0.80 rated
power factor). This calculation comprises the initialization of the generators models at full
(rated) power output, considering their rated power factor. The values given to the saturation
factors S(1.0) and S(1.2) shown in Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 are equivalent to neglecting
saturation effects.
Table 5.16: Dynamic Model Data for the Salient Pole Units 1 and 2
Parameters
Buses
1
Description
Symbol
Unit
FOZ
AREIA
S.
SANTIAGO

Inertia
Speed damping
Leakage reactance
Rated field current
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X''d = X''q
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
IFDrated
MVA
s
s
s
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
1900
5.0
0.053
0.123
4.5
0.0
0.85
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.001
0.01
1.66
1400
5.0
0.053
0.123
4.5
0.0
0.85
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.001
0.01
1.66
Table 5.17: Dynamic Model Data for the Salient Pole Units 3, 4 and 7
Parameters
Symbol
Unit
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X''d = X''q
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
IFDrated
MVA
S
S
S
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
Buses
4
S. SEGREDO
ITAIPU
EQUIVALENT
1944
5.0
0.06
0.09
4.5
0.0
0.88
0.69
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.001
0.01
1.68
6633
7.6
0.09
0.19
5.07
0.0
0.9
0.68
0.3
0.24
0.18
0.001
0.01
1.70
6000
8.0
0.09
0.2
5.0
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.25
0.18
0.001
0.01
1.79
39
All five generators have identical excitation systems that will be represented by the same
dynamic model, shown in Figure 5.22.. The parameters for the model are presented in Table
5.18. The limits Emax and Emin are set to reasonably large values, so they should not impact
small-signal stability results. Prime-mover
Prime
and speed-governor
governor effects are not represented.
Figure 5.22: Block Diagram for the Excitation Systems
This benchmark
enchmark system considers power system stabilizers (PSS) in all machines except the
machine connected to bus #7 (EQUIVALENT). All PSSs are derived from rotor speed deviation
and have the same structure, comprising two lead-lag blocks, one wash-out
out block, and a gain.
Table 5.18: Data for the Excitation System model
Parameters
Description
TGR block 1 transient gain
TGR block 1 denominator time constant
Exciter gain
Exciter time constant
Max. AVR output
Min. AVR output
Symbol Value Unit

TA/TB
1
TB
1
s
K
30
pu
TE
0.05
s
Emin
4
pu
Emax
5
pu
The IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) model PSS1A will be used to represent all four power system
stabilizers, and is shown in Figure 5.5. The PSS parameters for the corresponding generators are
given in Table 5.19. It should be noted that the parameters A1 to A6 are set in a way that leads
to the whole filter block to be bypassed.
The output limits were set to +/
+/ 10%,
%, while the logic to switch off the PSS for voltages
vol
outside a normal operation range has been ignored (parameters VCU and VCL set to zero).
Table 5.19: Parameters for the four PSSs
Parameters
Buses
40
Description
PSS gain
PSS max. output
PSS min. output
nd
Symbol
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
KS
LSmax
LSmin
VCU
VCL
Unit
s
s
s
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
1, 2, 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.30
0.075
0.30
0.075
3
3
10
0.1
-0.1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.52
0.065
0.52
0.065
3
3
16
0.1
-0.1
0
0

The results presented in the following correspond to eigenvalue calculations and timedomain simulations of different disturbances performed with the PSS/E [24] and
For the linearized analyses, the system eigenvalues calculated with both software for the
cases with no PSS, with PSS at generator #4 only, and with PSS at all generators (except the
equivalent at bus #7) are presented from Figure 5.23 to Figure 5.27.
The PSS/E modal analysis results were generated with PSS/E auxiliary program PSSPLT,
which estimates the dominant modal components of an oscillatory response (thus requiring the
choice of an output variable for the estimation process) by the Prony method [24].
In the case with no PSS, good matching is observed for the electromechanical modes. In the
last two cases (with PSS), the results obtained with PSSPLT highly depend on the processed
signal, as expected, since these estimation methods work better with responses involving poorly
damped oscillations.
The good matching observed in the time domain simulations of the two software for the
cases with PSS practically confirm that the numerical differences observed in their
eigenvalue/modal analyses are due to the imprecisions inherent to the estimation process.
System with no PSS
41
a)
b)
10
9
ANATEM
PSS/E
ANATEM
PSS/E
9
8
7
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
-25
-20
-15
-10
Real (1/s)
-5
0
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Real (1/s)
0.5
Figure 5.23: : Eigenvalues calculated with PSSE Program PSSPLT (using Itaipu active power signal)
and PacDyn for the system with no PSS. a) Complete spectrum of eigenvalues; b) Enlarged view of the
spectrum to highlight the electromechanical modes.
System with PSS at generator #4

a)
b)
15
ANATEM
PSS/E
50
ANATEM
PSS/E
10
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
40
30
20
10
-120
-100
-80
-60
Real (1/s)
-40
-20
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
Real (1/s)
-1
Figure 5.24: Eigenvalues calculated with PSSE Program PSSPLT (using Itaipu active power signal) and
PacDyn for the system with PSS at generator #4 (Itaipu). a) Complete spectrum of eigenvalues; b)
Enlarged view of the spectrum to highlight the electromechanical modes.
42
a)
b)
15
ANATEM
PSS/E
50
ANATEM
PSS/E
10
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
40
30
20
10
-25
-20
-15
-10
Real (1/s)
-5
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
Real (1/s)
-1
Figure 5.25: Eigenvalues Calculated with PSSE Program PSSPLT (using S. Santiago active power
signal) and PacDyn for the system with PSS at generator #4 (Itaipu). a) Complete spectrum of
eigenvalues; b) Enlarged view of the spectrum to highlight the electromechanical modes.
System with PSS at all generators

a)
b)
15
ANATEM
PSS/E
50
ANATEM
PSS/E
10
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
40
30
20
10
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Real (1/s)
-20
-10
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
Real (1/s)
-1
Figure 5.26: Eigenvalues calculated with PSSE Program PSSPLT (using Itaipu active power signal) and
PacDyn for the system with PSS at all generators. a) Complete spectrum of eigenvalues; b) Enlarged view
of the spectrum to highlight the electromechanical modes.
43
a)
b)
15
60
ANATEM
PSS/E
ANATEM
PSS/E
50
10
Imag (rad/s)
Imag (rad/s)
40
30
20
10
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
Real (1/s)
-20
-10
0
-5
-4
-3
-2
Real (1/s)
-1
Figure 5.27: Eigenvalues Calculated with PSSE Program PSSPLT (using S. Santiago active power
signal) and PacDyn for the system with PSS at all generators. a) Complete spectrum of eigenvalues; b)
Enlarged view of the spectrum to highlight the electromechanical modes.
For the time-domain simulations, two disturbances were selected to generate the results for
the comparative analyses between the software. Both disturbances excite the unstable interarea
mode of 0.85 Hz. Results are again presented for the system without PSS, with PSS at Itaipu
only, and with PSS at all generators except the equivalent (at bus #7).
The first set of simulations comprises the connection of a 500 Mvar reactor at the Ivaipor
765 kV bus (bus #6) at t = 1.0 second. The reactor is disconnected 100 ms later, without any
further changes in the system topology. This set of simulations will be referred to as Case A and
its corresponding comparative analysis is presented from Figure 5.28 to Figure 5.32.
The second set of simulations corresponds to a 2% step in voltage reference at the Itaipu
machine (bus #4), applied at t = 1.0 second. The step is removed (i.e., a 2% step is applied) at
t = 11.0 seconds. This set of simulations will be referred to as Case B and its corresponding
comparative analysis is presented from Figure 5.33 to Figure 5.37.
The matching observed between the time-domain simulation results obtained from these
two software, as seen from Figure 5.28 to Figure 5.37, allows concluding that this benchmark
system has been validated.
44
Case A: 500 MVAr Reactor Applied to Bus #6
CaseA-noPSS - Gen #1
4000
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
3000
2000
1000
0
0
Time (s)
CaseA-PSSita - Gen #1
1670
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
1665
1660
1655
1650
1645
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
CaseA-allPSS - Gen #1
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1665
1660
1655
1650
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.28: Output power Response of Generator #1 to a 500 MVAr Reactor Temporarily Connected to
Bus #6. Top: no PSS; Center: PSS at Itaipu; Bottom: PSS at four generators.
45
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
3000
2000
1000
0
Time (s)
1340
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
1335
1330
1325
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1335
1330
1325
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
46
ANATEM
PSS/E
3000
P e (MW)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Time (s)
ANATEM
PSS/E
1550
Pe (MW)
1545
1540
1535
1530
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
1550
P e (MW)
1545
1540
1535
1530
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
47
10000
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
5000
0
-5000
0
Time (s)
6600
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
6550
6500
6450
6400
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
6600
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
6550
6500
6450
6400
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
48
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
10000
5000
-5000
0
Time (s)
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
-3100
-3150
-3200
-3250
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
-3100
-3150
-3200
-3250
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
49
Case B: Step applied to the AVR reference of Generator #4
CaseB-noPSS - Gen #1
1700
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1680
1660
1640
1620
1600
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
CaseB-PSSita - Gen #1
ANATEM
PSS/E
1662
Pe (MW)
1660
1658
1656
1654
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
CaseB-allPSS - Gen #1
1662
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1660
1658
1656
1654
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
Figure 5.33: Output power response of Generator #1 to step applied to the AVR reference of Generator
#4. Top: no PSS; Center: PSS at Itaipu; Bottom: PSS at four generators.
50
1400
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1350
1300
1250
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
1336
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
1334
1332
1330
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
1335
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1334
1333
1332
1331
1330
1329
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
51
P e (MW)
1600
ANATEM
PSS/E
1550
1500
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
1544
1542
1540
1538
1536
1534
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
1544
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
1542
1540
1538
1536
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
52
P e (MW)
7500
ANATEM
PSS/E
7000
6500
6000
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
6530
ANATEM
PSS/E
Pe (MW)
6520
6510
6500
6490
6480
6470
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
6530
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
6520
6510
6500
6490
6480
6470
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
53
-1500
ANATEM
PSS/E
P e (MW)
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
-3140
Pe (MW)
-3150
-3160
-3170
-3180
-3190
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
-3130
ANATEM
PSS/E
-3140
P e (MW)
-3150
-3160
-3170
-3180
-3190
0
10
Time (s)
12
14
16
18
20
54
5.3. Data for the 2-area (4-generator) system

For the 2-area (4-generator) system, the one-line diagram (together with one respective
power flow solution) is shown in Figure 5.38, with the one line diagram of the system. The bus
data, including the voltage magnitudes and angles from this power flow solution, are shown in
Table 5.20.
The transmission line data is shown in Table 5.21. The data is provided in percent
considering a system MVA base of 100 MVA. All transmission lines are 230 kV lines. The
lines are represented by sections and the charging shown in Table 5.21 corresponds to the
total line charging.
The only difference regarding the data as presented in [16] is the introduction of multiple
parallel circuits, so results considering weaker transmission system conditions might be
investigated.
The generator step-up transformers (GSU) are explicitly represented in the case. The GSUs
are all rated 900 MVA and have a leakage reactance of 15% on the transformer base. Winding
resistance and magnetizing currents are neglected. Table 5.22 presents the GSU data.
There are two loads, directly connected to the 230 kV buses 7 and 9. The associated data is
given in Table 5.23. These loads are represented, in the dynamic simulation, with a constant
current characteristic for the active power and a constant admittance characteristic for the
reactive power (100%I, 100%Z for P and Q, respectively).
Capacitor banks are also connected to the 230 kV buses 7 and 9. The values for these
capacitors at nominal voltage (1.0 pu voltage) are shown in Table 5.24.
The complete output report with all power flows for this system is given in Table 5.25.
area interchange = 400.3 MW
5
G1
350.0
-343.8
51.3
-700.0
350.0
-102.6
51.3
8.3
-343.8
8.3
6
G2
462.5
42.9
462.5
42.9
-700.0
462.5
-145.5
42.9
-455.8
7
LOAD A
8
MID POINT
9
LOAD B
-461.9
24.2
-455.8
24.2
-455.8
468.7
41.0
200.2
-195.4
6.1
200.2
195.4
-190.7
26.8
-461.9
24.3
-24.3
53.6
-195.4
195.4
-190.7
24.3
-24.3
53.6
41.0
0.0
1767.0
468.7
41.0
26.8
-461.9
10
G4
-353.1
359.5
17.5
44.9
-353.1
359.5
17.5
468.7
-700.0
26.8
-115.3
11
G3
44.9
-719.1
-89.9
1
100.0
0.961
221.0
0.949
218.2
-330.2
100.0
0.971
223.4
0.983
226.2
176.0
-184.7
1.008
231.9
719.1
967.0
719.1
6.1
0.0
176.0R
24.2
Bus - VOLTAGE (PU)/ANGLE

Branch - MW/Mvar
Equipment - MW/Mvar
kV: <=20.000 <=230.000
>230.000
1.010
20.2
202.0
IEEE BENCHMARK SYSTEM VII

HTTP://WWW.SEL.EESC.USP.BR/IEEE/
SAT, MAY 24 2014 9:18
700.0
2
GEN G2
700.0
202.0R
234.6
1.010
20.2
700.0
1
GEN G1
700.0
185.0
1
0.978
225.0
234.6R
700.0
700.0
1.030
20.6
185.0R
1.006
231.5
1.030
20.6
4
GEN G4
Figure 5.38: One-line Diagram of the 2-area, 4-generator system (with power flow solution)
3
GEN G3
55
Table 5.20: Bus Data and Power Flow Solution
Bus
Bus
Number
Bus Name
Base kV
type
Voltage
(pu)
Angle
(deg)
GEN G1
20.0
PV
1.0300
20.07
GEN G2
20.0
PV
1.0100
10.31
GEN G3
20.0
swing
1.0300
-7.00
GEN G4
20.0
PV
1.0100
-17.19
G1
230.0
PQ
1.0065
13.61
G2
230.0
PQ
0.9781
3.52
LOAD A
230.0
PQ
0.9610
-4.89
MID POINT
230.0
PQ
0.9486
-18.76
LOAD B
230.0
PQ
0.9714
-32.35
10
G4
230.0
PQ
0.9835
-23.94
11
G3
230.0
PQ
1.0083
-13.63
Table 5.21: Transmission Line Data
From
Bus
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
To
Bus
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
ckt
id
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
R
(%)
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.50
X
(%)
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
Charging
(%)
2.1875
2.1875
0.5833
0.5833
0.5833
19.2500
19.2500
19.2500
19.2500
0.5833
0.5833
0.5833
2.1875
2.1875
Length
(km)
25
25
10
10
10
110
110
110
110
10
10
10
25
25
56
Table 5.22: Generator Step- Up Transformer Data (on Transformer MVA Base)
From
Bus
1
2
3
4
To
Bus
5
6
11
10
R
(%)
X
(%)
15
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
MVA
Base
900
900
900
900
tap
(pu)
1
1
1
1
P
(MW)
967
1767
Bus
7
9
Q
(MVAr)
100
100
Table 5.24: Capacitor Bank Data
Bus
7
9
Q
(MVAr)
200
350
Table 5.25: Power Flow Results

X---- FROM BUS ---X VOLT
BUS# X-- NAME --X PU/KV
ANGLE
GEN
LOAD
SHUNT X---- TO BUS -----X
BUS# X-- NAME --X CKT
MW
MVAR
TRANSFORMER
RATIO
1 GEN G1
1.0300
20.600
20.1
700.0
185.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
5 G1
1
700.0
185.0 1.000UN
2 GEN G2
1.0100
20.200
10.3
700.0
234.6R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
6 G2
1
700.0
234.6 1.000UN
3 GEN G3
1.0300
20.600
-7.0
719.1
176.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
11 G3
1
719.1
176.0 1.000UN
4 GEN G4
1.0100
20.200
-17.2
700.0
202.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
10 G4
1
700.0
202.0 1.000UN
5 G1
1.0065
231.49
13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6 G2
0.9781
224.97
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7 LOAD A
0.9610
221.04
-4.9
0.0
0.0
967.0
100.0
8 MID POINT
0.9486
218.18
-18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9 LOAD B
0.9714
223.42
-32.4
0.0
0.0
1767.0
100.0
0.9835
226.20
-23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
1 GEN G1
1
-700.0 -102.6 1.000LK
6 G2
1
350.0
51.3
6 G2
2
350.0
51.3
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
2 GEN G2
1
-700.0 -145.5 1.000LK
5 G1
1
-343.8
8.3
5 G1
2
-343.8
8.3
7 LOAD A
1
462.5
42.9
7 LOAD A
2
462.5
42.9
7 LOAD A
3
462.5
42.9
0.0 --------------------------------------------------184.7
6 G2
1
-455.8
24.2
6 G2
2
-455.8
24.2
6 G2
3
-455.8
24.2
8 MID POINT
1
200.2
6.1
8 MID POINT
2
200.2
6.1
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
7 LOAD A
1
-195.4
24.3
7 LOAD A
2
-195.4
24.3
9 LOAD B
1
195.4
-24.3
9 LOAD B
2
195.4
-24.3
0.0 --------------------------------------------------330.2
8 MID POINT
1
-190.7
53.6
8 MID POINT
2
-190.7
53.6
10 G4
1
-461.9
41.0
10 G4
2
-461.9
41.0
10 G4
3
-461.9
41.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
4 GEN G4
1
-700.0 -115.3 1.000LK
9 LOAD B
1
468.7
26.8
9 LOAD B
2
468.7
26.8
10 G4
57
11 G3
1.0083
231.90
-13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9 LOAD B
3
468.7
26.8
11 G3
1
-353.1
17.5
11 G3
2
-353.1
17.5
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
3 GEN G3
1
-719.1
-89.9 1.000LK
10 G4
1
359.5
44.9
10 G4
2
359.5
44.9
5.3.2. Dynamic Data

All generation units are considered identical and will be represented by the same dynamic
models and parameters, with exception of the inertias.
The generator model to represent the all units is given in the block diagram in Figure 5.3.
The corresponding parameters for this model can be found in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26: Dynamic Model Data for Round Rotor Units
PARAMETERS
Description
q-axis open circuit transient time constant
Inertia
Speed damping
Leakage reactance
Notes:
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T'qo
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X'q
X''d = X''q
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
Value
666.7
8.0
0.03
0.4
0.05
0
1.8
1.70
0.3
0.55
0.25
0.20
0.0392
0.2672
Unit
MVA
s
s
s
s
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
Units 1 and 2 have inertias H = 6.50, while units 3 and 4 have inertias H = 6.175
The block diagram of the Excitation System Model DC1A [4] is shown in Figure 5.39. The
TGR will be implemented by the lead-lag block with parameters TC and TB, so the parameters
TC1, TB1, KF and TF are not applicable and have been set accordingly. Similarly, the generator
field current limit represented by the parameters KLR and ILR is not considered in the results
presented in this report. The parameters for the ST1A model are presented in Table 5.28.
58
V UEL
V RMAX
VS
EC
(pu)
+
1
1 +sTR V C
+ -
1 +sTC
1 +sTB
HV
Gate
KA
1 +sTA
VR
0.
V FE
V RMIN
V REF
VF
E FD
1
sTE
KE
+
V X = E FD * S E(E FD)
sK F
1 +sTF1
Figure 5.39: Block Diagram for the Excitation System Model DC1A
Table 5.27: Dynamic Model Data for DC Rotating Excitation System Model DC1A
PARAMETERS
Description
Voltage transducer time constant
Max. AVR output
Min. AVR output
Exciter feedback time constant
Stabilizer feedback gain
Stabilizer feedback time constant
Exciter saturation point 1
Exciter saturation factor at point 1
Symbol
TR
KA
TA
TB
TC
VRmax
VRmin
KE
TE
KF
TF1
E1
SE(E1)
E2
SE(E2)
Value
0.05
20
0.055
0
0
5
3
1
0.36
0.125
1.8
3
0.1
4
0.3
Unit
s
pu
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
s
pu
pu
The block diagram of the Excitation System Model ST1A [4] is shown in Figure 5.40. The
TGR will be implemented by the lead-lag block with parameters TC and TB, so the parameters
TC1, TB1, KF and TF are not applicable and have been set accordingly. Similarly, the generator
field current limit represented by the parameters KLR and ILR is not considered in the results
presented in this report. The parameters for the ST1A model are presented in Table 5.28.
59
The limits (parameters VImax, VImin, VAmax, VAmin, VRmax and VRmin) in the model were set to
typical values corresponding to the expected ceilings of such static excitation system. These
limits are irrelevant for the small-signal analysis of the system dynamic response. On the other
hand, these limits are a critical part of the model and the expected response of the excitation
system following large system disturbances such as faults.
VUEL
VUEL
ALTERNATIVE
UEL INPUTS
VS
VS
ALTERNATIVE
STABILIZER INPUTS
VUEL
VIMax
VC
VT VRMax -K CIFD
VAMax
VRef
+
+
-V
VI
HV
GATE
1 + sTC 1 + sTC 1
1 + sTB 1 + sTB1
KA
1 + sTA
VAMin
IMin
VA
LV
GATE
HV
GATE
EFD
VT VRMin
VOEL
sK F
1 + sTF
KLR
IFD
0
ILR
Figure 5.40: Block Diagram for the Excitation System Model ST1A
Table 5.28: Dynamic Model Data for Static Excitation System Model ST1A
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
TR
Max. voltage error
VImax
Min. voltage error
VImin
TC
TB
TC1
TB1
KA
Rectifier bridge equivalent time constant TA
Max. AVR output
VAmax
Min. AVR output
VAmin
Max. rectifier bridge output
VRmax
Min. rectifier bridge output
VRmin
Commutation factor for rectifier bridge
KC
KF
TF
Field current limiter gain
KLR
Field current instantaneous limit
ILR
Value
0.01
99
99
1
10
0
0
200
0
4
4
4
4
0
0
1
0
3
Unit
s
pu
pu
s
s
s
s
pu
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
pu
The IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) model PSS1A will be used to represent the power system
stabilizers. The block diagram corresponding to this model is shown in Figure 5.5. The
parameters for the PSS1A model are presented in Table 5.29. The output limits were set to +/
5%, while the logic to switch off the PSS for voltages outside a normal operation range has been
ignored (parameters VCU and VCL set to zero).
60
Table 5.29: Dynamic Model Data for Power System Stabilizer Model PSS1A
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
nd
A1
nd
A2
A3
nd
2 order numerator coefficient
A4
A5
A6
T1
st
1 lead-lag denominator time constant
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
PSS gain
KS
PSS max. output
LSmax
PSS min. output
LSmin
VCU
VCL
Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.02
3
5.4
10
10
20
0.05
0.05
0
0
Unit
s
s
s
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu

The results presented in the following correspond to eigenvalue calculations and timedomain simulations of disturbances in the AVR references, for different system configurations
(with and without power system stabilizers) performed with the PSS/E [24] and
Based on reference [16],the cases that were considered for evaluation of the 2-area (4generator) system are the following:
Case 1: All generators in manual control (constant generator field voltage);
Case 2: DC1A model for the excitation system with Ka = 20;
Case 3: DC1A model for the excitation system with Ka = 200;
Case 4: ST1A model for the excitation system (with TGR);
Case 5: ST1A model for the excitation system (without TGR);
Case 6: ST1A model for the excitation system without TGR and with PSS1A.
Not all of these cases, however, were taken into account in the comparative analysis
performed for benchmarking this system. To avoid the presentations of an unnecessarily large
61
set of results in this section (taking into account that the set of eigenvalues for the 2-area (4generator) system is larger than the previous ones), only the results related to the ST1A
excitation system (Cases 4, 5, and 6) were included in this comparative analysis.
Furthermore, only the electromechanical oscillations will be compared, to keep this section
of the report focused on the main aspect covered by this Task Force. However, the interested
reader is referred to Appendix C of this report for a much more detailed set of results for this
system, produced using PSS/E.
The reader will notice that Case 2 is not present in reference [16]. It was deliberately
introduced in Appendix C with the objective of showing the effect of a higher AVR gain on the
DC1A excitation system model. In order to do so, the AVR gain was increased tenfold with
respect to the parameters of Table 5.27. This is the main reason why all the 6 cases that were
considered for evaluation of the system are listed at the beginning of this section.
Regarding the eigenvalue calculations, the mode comparisons were made for case 5, and
are shown in Table 5.30. When the PSS/E and PacDyn results are compared, the imaginary
parts exhibit a close match for all modes, although the same cannot be said for the real parts.
However, it is interesting to see that, regarding these real parts, the LSYSAN program for
PSS/E provides a reasonable approximation to the ones calculated by PacDyn for the local
modes, while for the inter-area modes a better match with PacDyn is obtained when the PSS/E
plotting package PSSPLT is used. For a more detailed explanation on how both LSYSAN and
PSSPLT work, the reader is referred to Section 3.8 of Appendix C to this report.
It is also noticeable that the eigenvalues provided in reference [16] are not as close to
the ones calculated/estimated by PacDyn and PSS/E. This is easily explained by the fact that a
quite simple model (consisting of a single first order block) is used to represent the excitation
system in [16], while the full ST1A standard model of Figure 5.40 is used to obtain the results
shown in the other columns of Table 5.30.
Table 5.30: Comparison of electromechanical modes provided by different sources for the 2-area (4generator) system.
Source of Results \
Oscillation Mode
Reference
[16]
PSS/E
(LSYSAN)
PSS/E
(PSSPLT)
PacDyn
Local Mode - Area 1

(G1 X G2)
-0.490j7.15
-0.660j7.29
-0.575j7.06
-0.639j7.08
Local Mode - Area 2

(G3 X G4)
-0.496j7.35
-0.656j7.09
Not Provided
-0.639j7.28
Inter-Area Mode
(G1+G2 X G3 +G4)
0.031j3.84
0.006j3.84
0.038j3.82
0.022j3.82
With respect to the time-domain simulations, the disturbances applied in all simulation
cases correspond to simultaneous changes in voltage references in all generator units, applied at
t=1.0 second. The applied step changes are depicted in Table 5.31.
62
Table 5.31: Perturbations applied for the nonlinear simulations of the 2-area (4-generator) system.
GENERATOR
STEP IN Vref
G1
+3%
G2
1%
G3
3%
G4
+1%
These changes in voltage reference were selected in order to excite not only the inter-area
oscillation mode but also the other electromechanical modes in the system.
A relatively fast (high initial response) ST1A excitation system was used to produce the
following results. Figure 5.41 shows the comparison of speed deviations for all generating units
obtained by PSS/E and ANATEM in Case 4, when an AVR with transient gain reduction is used
and the PSS is not active. Under the same conditions, the active power outputs of all generating
units were compared in Figure 5.42.
UG1
UG2
0.4
Speed Deviation [rad/s]
0.5
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
10
Time [s]
15
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
UG3
15
20
15
20
UG4
1
1
ANATEM
PSS/E
10
Time [s]
0.5
10
Time [s]
15
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0
10
Time [s]
Figure 5.41: Response of the rotor speed deviations for all four generators to the applied perturbation
(Case 4: ST1A excitation system, with TGR and without PSS).
63
UG1
UG2
730
720
Active Power [MW]
Active Power [MW]
720
710
700
690
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
670
0
710
700
690
ANATEM
PSS/E
680
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
20
15
20
UG4
UG3
760
780
760
Active Power [MW]
Active Power [MW]
15
740
720
700
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
660
0
740
720
700
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
660
640
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
Figure 5.42: Response of the active power outputs for all four generators to the applied perturbation (Case
4: ST1A excitation system, with TGR and without PSS).
For Case 5 (in which the only difference from Case 4 is the absence of the TGR block),
Figure 5.43 and Figure 5.44. show the comparison of speed deviations and active power outputs
for all generating units obtained by PSS/E and ANATEM.
UG1
UG2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
ANATEM
PSS/E
-0.2
0.2
0.1
0
ANATEM
PSS/E
-0.1
-0.3
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
UG3
15
20
15
20
UG4
0.4
0.4
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.3
10
Time [s]
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
0.2
0
ANATEM
PSS/E
-0.2
0
10
Time [s]
(Case 5: ST1A excitation system, without TGR and without PSS).
64
UG1
UG2
740
ANATEM
PSS/E
720
Active Power [MW]
Active Power [MW]
740
700
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
720
700
680
660
660
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
UG3
20
15
20
UG4
780
760
ANATEM
PSS/E
760
Active Power [MW]
Active Power [MW]
15
740
720
700
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
740
720
700
680
660
640
660
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
5: ST1A excitation system, without TGR and without PSS).
It is possible to see, by comparison of Figure 5.41 and Figure 5.43 (or Figure 5.42 and
Figure 5.44) that the deviations with respect to the equilibrium conditions are larger in the
simulations with the TGR block. Considering that these are two simulations of perturbations
applied under unstable conditions (and, thus, the deviations grow larger as the time progresses),
the most likely reasons for the differences observed in the PSS/E results with respect to the ones
provided by ANATEM are produced by a combination of nonlinear effects, different integration
methods and differences in the representation of damping.
The statement in the previous paragraph is reinforced by the results shown for a stable case.
For Case 6, (in which a well-tuned PSS ensures the system steady-state is a stable equilibrium),
Figure 5.45 shows the comparison of speed deviations and Figure 5.46 shows the comparison of
active power outputs for all generating units.
UG2
Speed Deviations [rad/s]
UG1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
ANATEM
PSS/E
-0.2
-0.25
0
10
Time [s]
15
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
20
ANATEM
PSS/E
0.2
15
20
15
20
UG4
0.3
UG3
10
Time [s]
0.1
0
0.1
-0.1
ANATEM
PSS/E
-0.2
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
(Case 6: ST1A excitation system, without TGR and with PSS).
65
UG1
UG2
720
Active Power [MW]
730
Active Power [MW]
730
ANATEM
PSS/E
710
700
690
680
ANATEM
PSS/E
720
710
700
690
680
670
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
UG3
15
20
UG4
760
740
ANATEM
PSS/E
740
Active Power [MW]
Active Power [MW]
10
Time [s]
720
700
ANATEM
PSS/E
720
700
680
680
660
0
10
Time [s]
15
20
10
Time [s]
15
20
6: ST1A excitation system, without TGR and with PSS).
The nearly perfect match exhibited in Figure 5.45 and Figure 5.46, associated to the
arguments given in the previous paragraph, allow the conclusion that this benchmark has been
validated.
Finally, it is important to mention once again that, to avoid the presentations of an
unnecessarily large set of results in this section, only the results related to the ST1A excitation
system were included in the comparative analysis performed for benchmarking this system. The
reader is referred to Appendix C for a complete set of simulations of all six cases defined in this
report, using PSS/E and adding some extra information.
66
5.4. Data for the 39-bus (New England) System
As stated in Subsection 3.5, the 39-bus system (widely known and referred to as the New
England Test System) first appeared in Volume 1 of EPRI Report EL-2348 [19] which
contained, at the time of its publication, the state-of-the-art in the analysis of electromechanical
oscillations using eigenvalue calculations. Due to the advancements, particularly in
computational speed and memory, the simulation models used in [19] no longer reflect the best
practices for representing synchronous generators and associated controllers in power system
studies [27], [4].
Since the publication of [19], this system has been extensively used in several types of
studies with different objectives, the vast majority of them being related to small-signal stability
analysis and control. Even modified versions of this system have appeared in the literature
(different system topologies and the inclusion of FACTS devices are a few examples of such
modifications). As a result, there are several versions of the New England Test System
published in the power system literature where this system is referred to as the "New England
Interconnected Power System".
For the purpose of benchmarking this system, this Task Force has made a choice to be
faithful to its original source of data [19]. This choice was motivated by the historical value that
the New England Test System has, which is strongly associated to the development of
researches in the small-signal stability analysis and control fields. Making this choice, however,
implies that it is no longer possible to use [27] as the source of dynamic models for the
benchmarking process, given that [19] does not provide, for example, data for the subtransient
components (impedances and time constants) of the generator models), given the described
limitations in the selected models for the synchronous generators and associated controllers.
In summary, this disclaimer was added prior to the description of the data and results for the
New England Test System to justify the previously mentioned choice (related to the historical
value of this system) and explain the fact that its presentation (mainly with respect to dynamic
models) will be made in a different format with respect to the one adopted for the other
benchmark systems.
Furthermore, this Task Force has received only one contribution in which the time-domain
simulations are performed with the nonlinear models described in [19] (which corresponds to
Appendix D to this report). Therefore, it was not possible to perform a validation study with
these results. Most commercial software such as [24] or [26], for example, do not have built-in
models that can produce comparable results to the ones presented in Appendix D (with respect
to the time-domain simulations).
On the other hand, the Task Force has indeed received a contribution using a commercial
software described in [25], which is capable of reproducing the results obtained by the
eigenvalue calculations presented in Appendix D using its built-in models. As the reader will
notice, the match between the two sets of results is very satisfactory. Therefore, for the purpose
of validating the New England Test System, only the eigenvalue analysis will be used.
Another contribution received by this Task Force was produced in a software that employs
EMTP-type instead of phasor-based simulations. The results of this contribution are fully
described in Appendix E, and also added to this section of the report. The main feature of this
contribution is a set of time-domain simulations showing the response of the system to a
67
perturbation in the set-points of the voltage regulators. These simulation results complement the
eigenvalue analysis on which the benchmark validation was grounded.

The one-line diagram for the New England Test System was already shown in Figure 4.4
but is repeated here in. Figure 5.47 for convenience.
Figure 5.47: The New England system (repeated).
The bus data, including the voltage magnitudes and angles from the power flow solution,
are shown in Table 5.32. All data in this section of the report are referred to the system bases of
100 MVA and 100 kV. Load data is also included in Table 5.32, and all loads are represented by
constant impedances. A more complete version of Table 5.32 can be found in Appendix D to
this report, which includes line flows
The transmission line data is shown in Table 5.33. The data is provided in per unit using the
previously mentioned system bases. The lines are represented by sections and the
susceptances shown in Table 5.33 correspond to the total line charging. The generators step-up
transformer data is also given in per unit on system bases, a can be seen in Table 5.34. Table
5.35 brings the same type of data for the other transformers in the system. More details on the
power flow data and calculations for this system can be seen in Appendix D to this report.
68
Table 5.32: Power flow results for the New England Test System.
Generation
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
V[pu]
1.047
1.049
1.030
1.004
1.005
1.008
0.997
0.996
1.028
1.017
1.013
1.000
1.014
1.012
1.015
1.032
1.034
1.031
1.050
0.991
1.032
1.050
1.045
1.037
1.058
1.052
1.038
1.051
1.050
1.048
0.982
0.983
0.997
1.012
1.049
1.064
1.028
1.027
1.030
Angle[Deg]
-8.4
-5.8
-8.6
-9.6
-8.6
-7.9
-10.1
-10.6
-10.3
-5.4
-6.3
-6.2
-6.1
-7.7
-7.7
-6.2
-7.3
-8.2
-1.0
-2.0
-3.8
0.7
0.5
-6.1
-4.4
-5.5
-7.5
-2.0
0.7
-3.3
0.0
2.6
4.2
3.2
5.6
8.3
2.4
7.8
-10.1
P[MW]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250.0
520.8
650.0
632.0
508.0
650.0
560.0
540.0
830.0
1000.0
Q[MVAR]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
147.6
198.2
204.7
109.6
165.3
210.6
102.9
0.2
23.2
87.8
Load
P[MW]
0.0
0.0
322.0
500.0
0.0
0.0
233.8
522.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
320.0
329.4
0.0
158.0
0.0
628.0
274.0
0.0
274.5
308.6
224.0
139.0
281.0
206.0
283.5
0.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1104.0
Q[MVAR]
0.0
0.0
2.4
184.0
0.0
0.0
84.0
176.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
88.0
0.0
0.0
153.0
32.3
0.0
30.0
0.0
103.0
115.0
0.0
84.6
-92.2
47.2
17.0
75.5
27.6
26.9
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250.0
69
Table 5.33: Transmission Line Data
From
Bus
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
10
13
14
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
21
22
23
25
26
26
26
28
To
Bus
2
39
3
25
4
18
5
14
6
8
7
11
8
9
39
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
21
24
18
27
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
29
R
(p.u.)
X
(p.u.)
B
(p.u.)
0.0035
0.001
0.0013
0.007
0.0013
0.0011
0.0008
0.0008
0.0002
0.0008
0.0006
0.0007
0.0004
0.0023
0.001
0.0004
0.0004
0.0009
0.0018
0.0009
0.0007
0.0016
0.0008
0.0003
0.0007
0.0013
0.0008
0.0006
0.0022
0.0032
0.0014
0.0043
0.0057
0.0014
0.0411
0.025
0.0151
0.0086
0.0213
0.0133
0.0128
0.0129
0.0026
0.0112
0.0092
0.0082
0.0046
0.0363
0.025
0.0043
0.0043
0.0101
0.0217
0.0094
0.0089
0.0195
0.0135
0.0059
0.0082
0.0173
0.014
0.0096
0.035
0.0323
0.0147
0.0474
0.0625
0.0151
0.6987
0.75
0.2572
0.146
0.2214
0.2138
0.1342
0.1382
0.0434
0.1476
0.113
0.1389
0.078
0.3804
1.2
0.0729
0.0729
0.1723
0.366
0.171
0.1342
0.304
0.2548
0.068
0.1319
0.3216
0.2565
0.1846
0.361
0.513
0.2396
0.7802
1.029
0.249
Table 5.34: Generator Step- Up Transformer Data
From
Bus
6
10
To
Bus
31
32
R
(p.u.)
0
0
X
(p.u.)
0.025
0.02
Tap
(p.u.)
1.007
1.007
70
19
20
22
23
25
2
29
33
34
35
36
37
30
38
0.0007
0.0009
0
0.0005
0.0006
0
0.0008
0.0142
0.018
0.0143
0.0272
0.0232
0.0181
0.0156
1.007
1.009
1.025
1
1.025
1.025
1.025
Table 5.35: Transformer Data
From
Bus
12
12
19
To
Bus
11
13
20
R
(p.u.)
X
(p.u.)
Tap
(p.u.)
0.0016
0.0016
0.0007
0.0435
0.0435
0.0138
1.006
1.006
1.006
5.4.2. Dynamic Data

All generators in the New England Test System are represented by a 4th order model,
given that the available data in [19] is related to this model. As previously mentioned, a
different format will be used here for presentation of the model for the generators. The
following equations describe this 4th order model.
=
(1)

(2)
= (
( + ) )

= ( ( ) + )
(3)

= ( ( ) )
(4)

All generators in this system are equipped with automatic voltage regulators (AVRs) and
power system stabilizers (PSSs). The same controller models are used for all generators, and the
corresponding parameters for each of them are presented in the following. Figure 5.48 presents
the AVR model while Figure 5.49 presents the PSS model used in the mentioned
implementations. The reader can seen that they are simplified versions of the currently adopted
models standardized in [4].
71
Figure 5.48: Automatic voltage regulator model for all generators in the New England Test System.
Figure 5.49: Power system stabilizer model for all generators in the New England Test System.
The data for the generators are given in Table 5.36, while the AVR and PSS data are given
in Table 5.37 and Table 5.38. With respect to Table 5.36, the per unit conversion from H to M
associated with is in radians per second, leading to H = 2 M / (120 ), so the value of M that
must be used in equations (1) to (4) can be calculated from this relation.
Table 5.36: Generator data for the New England Test System.
Unit No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
H
500
30.3
35.8
28.6
26
34.8
26.4
24.3
34.5
42
Ra
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
x'd
0.006
0.0697
0.0531
0.0436
0.132
0.05
0.049
0.057
0.057
0.031
x'q
0.008
0.17
0.0876
0.166
0.166
0.0814
0.186
0.0911
0.0587
0.008
xd
0.02
0.295
0.2495
0.262
0.67
0.254
0.295
0.29
0.2106
0.1
xq
0.019
0.282
0.237
0.258
0.62
0.241
0.292
0.28
0.205
0.069
T'do
7
6.56
5.7
5.69
5.4
7.3
5.66
6.7
4.79
10.2
T'qo
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.44
0.4
1.5
0.41
1.96
0
xl
0.003
0.035
0.0304
0.0295
0.054
0.0224
0.0322
0.028
0.0298
0.0125
EfdMax
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
EfdMin
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
Table 5.37: AVR data for the New England Test System.
Unit No.
1
2
3
4
5
TR
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
KA
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
TA
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
TB
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
TC
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Vsetpoint
10.300
0.9820
0.9831
0.9972
10.123
72
6
7
8
9
10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.493
10.635
10.278
10.265
10.475
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
Table 5.38: PSS data for the New England Test System.
Unit No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
K
1.0/(120)
0.5/(120 )
0.5/(120 )
2.0/(120 )
1.0/(120 )
4.0/(120 )
7.5/(120 )
2.0/(120 )
2.0/(120 )
1.0/(120 )
TW
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
T1
5.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
T2
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.20
0.50
0.05
T3
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
T4
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.50
VPSS,Max
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
VPSS,Min
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2

This Task Force received three sets of contributions: one MATLAB-based implementation
from a group affiliated to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (which was the base for the
validation process), one PacDyn implementation from a group affiliated to the University of Sao
Paulo and one EMTP-RV [28] implementation from a researcher affiliated to Hydro-Qubec.
The MATLAB-based and EMTP-RV implementations are described in Appendices D and E to
this report.
As previously mentioned, the validation process will rely on eigenvalue calculations to
ensure the results produced by the PacDyn implementation exhibit a satisfactory match when
compared to the ones produced by the MATLAB-based implementation. Since the focus of this
Task Force is on electromechanical modes, the highly satisfactory match with respect to this
type of oscillations will be highlighted initially, and then the whole set of eigenvalues will be
compared to ensure the two implementations are fully compatible. Results of the EMTP-RV
implementation are also shown together with the MATLAB-based and PacDyn ones, but these
results do not exhibit the same level of compatibility observed for the latter.
For this 10-generator system, there are 9 modes identified as being of an electromechanical
nature. The following tables will present the eigenvalues associated to them calculated by the
three previously mentioned implementations, so the reader can observe how closely they match.
Table 5.39 presents the comparison of modes labeled #1, #2 and #3, while modes #4, #5 and #6
and modes #7, #8 and #9 are compared in Table 5.40 and Table 5.41, respectively.
73
Table 5.39: Eigenvalues related to modes #1, #2 and #3 for the New England Test System.
Mode #1
Mode #2
Mode #3
Source
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Matlab
-2.553
10.566
-1.849
10.028
-1.582
8.550
Pacdyn
-2.553
10.569
-1.850
10.197
-1.582
8.550
EMTP
-2.15
9.75
-2.48
9.63
-1.53
8.21
Mode #4
Mode #5
Mode #6
Source
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Matlab
-2.563
8.671
-1.863
7.439
-1.312
7.108
Pacdyn
-2.561
8.670
-1.864
7.447
-1.312
7.108
EMTP
-2.88
8.89
-0.49
7.42
-1.70
7.10
Mode #7
Mode #8
Mode #9
Source
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Real
Imag
Matlab
-1.844
7.081
-1.523
6.318
-0.498
3.682
Pacdyn
-1.864
7.082
-1.522
6.316
-0.498
3.682
EMTP
-1.66
6.54
-0.86
6.07
-0.43
3.86
The comparison between the MATLAB-based and PacDyn results can be seen graphically
in Figure 5.50. It becomes clear that the match is satisfactory enough to support the claim that,
under the special circumstances that were described at the beginning of this section, this
benchmark is validated.
74
11
Website
PacDyn
10
9
Imag( )
8
7
6
5
4
3
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
Real()
-1
-0.5
Figure 5.50: Graphical comparison of the electromechanical modes calculated in Matlab and PacDyn for
the New England Test System.
To add extra information to this section, a comparison between the full sets of eigenvalues
resulting from the MATLAB-based and PacDyn implementations is given in Table 5.42. One
can see that the modes that are not of an electromechanical nature also exhibit a very good
match, which adds up to support the claim of benchmark validation
Table 5.42: Comparison between full sets of eigenvalues (Matlab-based and PacDyn implementations) for
the New England Test System.
Eigenvalues (Matlab-based implementation)
Eigenvalues (PacDyn implementation)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
-0.4505
-0.4861
-0.4812
0.6750
0.6278
0.6084
0.107
0.100
0.097
-55.514
-61.222
-62.035
-0.4504
-0.4860
-0.4810
0.6750
0.6279
0.6085
0.1074
0.0999
0.9685
55.504
61.206
62.009
-0.6901
-0.5780
-0.7928
-4.4830
-0.8648
-2.9562
0.8108
0.6705
0.8127
4.1880
0.7743
2.5076
0.129
0.107
0.129
0.666
0.123
0.399
64.813
-65.293
-69.831
73.074
74.505
76.260
-0.6901
-0.5877
-0.7934
-4.4828
-0.8647
-2.9575
0.8108
0.6705
0.8126
4.1863
0.7743
2.5070
0.1290
0.1067
0.1293
0.6663
0.1232
3.8771
64.815
65.918
69.863
73.086
74.498
76.281
-2.0436
-1.2040
-4.3350
-5.7301
-12.618
1.4761
1.6338
0.9107
2.9883
3.6713
6.6283
0.5231
0.260
0.145
0.475
0.584
1.055
0.083
78.107
79.755
82.333
84.200
88.528
94.256
-2.0440
-1.2043
-4.3349
-5.7306
-12.616
-1.4753
1.6330
0.9106
2.9876
3.6730
6.6329
0.5228
0.2599
0.1449
0.4755
0.5846
1.0557
0.0832
78.126
79.767
82.339
84.191
88.513
94.257
-4.3697
-1.0444
1.5310
0.2387
0.244
0.038
94,375
97.486
-4.3692
-1.0445
1.5311
0.2387
0.2437
0.0380
94.373
97.486
75
Eigenvalues (Matlab-based implementation)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
-19.993
1.2699
0.202
99.799
-19.992
1.2724
0.2025
99.798
-104.59
-103.78
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
---103.78
--0.0
--0.0
--100.0
-102.68
-102.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
-102.68
-102.27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
-102.13
-101.90
-101.33
-101.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
---101.90
-101.33
-101.32
--0.0
0.0
0.0
--0.0
0.0
0.0
--100.0
100.0
100.0
-101.31
-100.90
-72.869
-65.987
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-101.31
-100.90
-72.858
-65.989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-65.936
-65.797
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
---65.798
--0.0
--0.0
--100.0
-65.165
-64.250
-63.948
-63.535
-61.774
-59.612
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-65.166
-64.249
-63.949
-63.535
-61.774
-59.612
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-32.118
-13.988
-7.3691
-7.1480
-5.8943
-5.5374
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-32.136
-13.981
-7.3691
-7.1480
-5.8945
-5.5392
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-2.8327
-2.0263
-1.5315
-1.4500
-1.0995
-0.9758
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-2.8327
-2.0263
-1.5315
-1.4501
-1.0996
-0.9758
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-0.9592
-0.9066
-0.1920
-0.1007
-0.1003
-0.1002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-0.9592
-0.9065
-0.1616
-0.1007
-0.1003
-0.1002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-0.1001
-0.1000
-0.1000
-0.1000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-0.1001
-0.1000
-0.1000
-0.1000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
76
Eigenvalues (Matlab-based
based implementation)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
Real
Imag
f(Hz)
(%)
-0.1000
0.0
0.0
100.0
-0.1000
0.0
0.0
100.0
One significant difference that the reader may notice between the two implementations
compared in Table 5.42 is the existence of 3 real modes in the Matlab-based
Matlab based implementation
that are not present in the PacDyn counterpart. Although it was not possible
possible to determine the
exact reason for this, all of them are well-damped
well damped modes and do not interfere with the
electromechanical dynamics. Further investigation is needed to determine the source of this
minor discrepancy between the two implementations.
Finally, although the validation of the New England Test System does not involve timetime
domain simulations of the corresponding nonlinear equations, results for these simulations using
both Matlab and EMTP-RV
RV are available for download at the Task Force website.
webs
Furthermore,
comparative plots of the time domain responses of the electrical power outputs of all generators
to step inputs of +5% in the voltage reference set-points
set points of all AVRs, applied at t = 1 s and
removed at t = 1.1 s, are shown in the plots of Figure 5.51 to Figure 5.60.
Figure 5.51: Electrical power output of generator

enerator 1 for a +5% step in all AVR setpoints - Pacdyn (red)
versus EMTP (blue) comparison.
77
Figure 5.52: Electrical power output of generator 2 for a +5% step in all AVR setpoints - Pacdyn (red)
78
Figure 5.55:: Electrical power output of generator 5 for a +5% step in all AVR setpoints - Pacdyn (red)
Figure 5.56:: Electrical power output of generator 6 for a +5% step in all AVR setpoints - Pacdyn (red)
79
80
5.5. Data for the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model
The simplified 14-generator model of the southern and eastern Australian power system is
depicted in Figure 4.5. As mentioned in Section 3.6, six base case scenarios representing an
encompassing set of normal operating conditions is provided. Therefore, to avoid the provision
of the associated large volume of power flow and dynamic data for the models in the main body
of the report and to avoid the possibility of transcription errors the reader is referred to the
Appendix of this report which includes a comprehensive description of the benchmark system.
Power flow and dynamic data as well as eigenanalysis results and time-series data from smalldisturbance step responses and transient stability analysis are provided on [12]. The reader is
referred to Appendix V of Appendix A to this report for further details about the data provided
on [12].

Power flow data for the six base case scenarios of the benchmark system are listed in
Appendix I.1 of Appendix A to this report. Power flow data files are also provided for the six
operating conditions on [12] in a format described in Appendix I.1 along with power flow
solution report files for the six base case scenarios.
5.5.2. Dynamic Data

Dynamic data for the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model are provided in Appendix
I.2 of Appendix A to this report. The dynamic data files for both small-signal and transient
stability analysis for the six base cases are provided on [12] in formats described in Appendix
I.2 of Appendix A.

a) Small-signal stability model results and validation
The developers of the simplified 14-generator model of the southern and eastern Australian
system have implemented the model in the Mudpack [29] and PSS/E [24] software packages.
As explained in Appendix III of Appendix A to this report, a comprehensive set of smalldisturbance step response studies have been conducted in these two packages. The responses of
selected variables obtained with the respective packages are compared to verify the small-signal
dynamic performance for this benchmark system. The step-response studies are conducted only
for those scenarios with the PSSs in-service. This is because with the PSSs out-of-service the
system is unstable and consequently the non-linear behavior of the system will play a significant
role in the PSS/E step responses as the oscillations grow in amplitude.
For each generator a +0.5% step-change in the AVR voltage reference is applied and the
perturbations in the generator power output, rotor-speed, stator voltage, reactive power output,
field current and field voltage are compared. These studies verify the local modes in which the
perturbed generator participates significantly. A typical voltage-reference step-response
81
comparison is presented in Figure 5.61 for generator BPS_2 for case 2. The figure shows the
typically very close agreement between the PSS/E and Mudpack implementations of the
benchmark system.
Inter-area modes of oscillation are excited by applying perturbations in the mechanical
power inputs of two widely separated generators in the respective simulation packages. Power
flows in inter-regional transmission corridors obtained with the respective simulation packages
are compared to verify the inter-area modal characteristics of the benchmark system. Figure
5.62 shows the typically very close agreement between the inter-area modal characteristics in
the PSS/E and Mudpack implementations of the 14-generator benchmark system.
5
3
Time (s)
2
Mudpack
1
0
0
PSSE
5
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case02_VrefStep_BPS_2.eps
Thu, 30Jan2014 19:07:28
4
3
0.5
0.5
Time (s)
2
1
5
Time (s)
5
3
pu)
20
pu)
Vt.BPS_2 (x10
5
4
3
Time (s)
2
1
0
20
20
40
1
4
20
10
Ef.BPS_2 (pu)
W.BPS_2 (x10
Q.BPS_2 (Mvar)
40
The University of Adelaide, MudpackScripts

Simplified Australian System; Case02_VrefStep_BPS_2;
Benchmark PSS/E & Mudpack; 0.5% step on Vref.BPS_2;
pu)
If.BPS_2 (x10
Time (s)
82
P.BPS_2 (MW)
Figure 5.61: Case 2, Vref.BPS_2 step-response benchmark comparison between PSS/E (with NETFRQ
= 1) and Mudpack. A 0.5% step increase in the voltage-reference of the AVR of generator BPS_2 is
applied and the perturbations in the electrical power output (P), rotor-speed (W), stator-voltage (Vt),
reactive-power output (Q), generator field-voltage (Ef) and field-current (If) of BPS_1 are compared.
83

Simplified Australian System; Benchmark PSS/E & Mudpack;
Case02_NETFRQ_DIS01; 10 MW step on Pm.NPS_5 and +10 MW step on Pm.GPS_4;
P.LN42 (MW)
20
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
PSS/E
Mudpack
File: CMP_Case02_NETFRQ_DIS01.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 14:57:53
Figure 5.62: Case 2. Benchmark comparison between PSS/E (with NETFRQ = 1) and Mudpack. Step
change in mechanical power input of +10 MW applied to GPS_4 and a compensating change of -10 MW
applied to NPS_5. Power flow in the interconnectors between areas 2 &4 (P.LN42); areas 2 & 3 (P.LN23)
and areas 5 & 3 (P.LN53) are compared.
The tuning of PSSs in this benchmark system is based on the P-Vr characteristics [22], [23]
of the generators computed with the Mudpack software package. In Appendix III.3 of Appendix
A to this report the developers of the 14-generator model have verified the computation of these
P-Vr characteristics by comparison with those computed with PSS/E for each generator in
study case 2. Figure 5.63 shows for generator BPS_2 the typically very close agreement
between the P-Vr characteristics computed using Mudpack and PSS/E. Note that in order to
84
highlight any differences between the characteristics in the range of electromechanical modal
frequencies the magnitude characteristics are displayed in absolute units, rather than in dB.
These results demonstrate that the implementation of the electromagnetic behavior of the
generator models and of the AVR/exciter models in the respective simulation packages are
practically identical.
To the authors knowledge the PSS/E software package does not include built-in facilities
for computation of frequency-responses. A tool, AUPSSEFRTOOL, developed at Adelaide
University as a PSS/E plug-in has been used to compute the P-Vr characteristics within the
PSS/E program. A paper describing this tool is in preparation at time of writing. It should be
mentioned that the accuracy of the frequency responses computed in PSS/E are sensitive to the
integration time-step and to the amplitude of the sinusoidal perturbation applied to the voltagereference.
85
Figure 5.63: Comparison of P-Vr characteristics computed by Mudpack and PSS/E for generator BPS_2
in case 2.
The simplified 14-generator model of the southern and eastern Australian system has been
implemented by researchers at the University of So Paulo, Brazil using the ANAREDE [30]
power flow package and the PacDyn [25] small-signal stability analysis software package. The
electromechanical modes obtained with the PacDyn package for all six cases with the stabilizers
in- and out-of-service are compared in Figure 5.64 with those obtained with the Mudpack
package to validate the key eigenanalysis results. The effectiveness of the benchmark PSSs in
damping the electromechanical modes of oscillation for all six operating scenarios is evident. It
is also clear from this figure that the electromechanical modal behavior of the PacDyn and
Mudpack implementations of the model are practically identical.
86
Figure 5.64: Electromechanical modes of oscillation of the simplified 14-generator model of the southern
and eastern Australian power system model obtained with Mudpack, PacDyn and SSAT with the PSSs inand out-of-service for cases 1 to 6.
b) Transient stability results and validation
Under the Australian National Electricity Rules [31] which apply to the operation of the
southern and eastern Australian power system three-phase faults on the transmission network
are not considered to be credible contingencies (except under exceptional circumstances).
87
Rather, for planning purposes solid two-phase to ground faults are generally treated as the most
severe form of credible contingency. In order to allow the researcher to reflect this practice in
their analysis of the simplified 14-generator model of the southern and eastern Australian
system the negative and zero sequence impedance data for the network is provided in Appendix
II of the Appendix to this report. Based on this data the equivalent fault impedances required to
represent two-phase to ground faults can be computed.
As detailed in Appendix IV of Appendix A to this report the developers of the 14generator model used their PSS/E implementation of the model to conduct a comprehensive set
of transient stability studies on the six base cases with the PSSs in-service. These studies verify
that the system is transiently stable for all two-phase to ground faults cleared by de-energization
of the faulted transmission element in the applicable primary protection time. Since this
benchmark system does not include turbine / governor models contingencies involving the loss
of generation or load not considered.
Researchers at the University of So Paulo, Brazil have implemented the Simplified
Australian 14-Generator Model in the ANATEM transient-stability analysis package [26].
Furthermore, researchers at the University of Waterloo, Canada have also performed the same
implementation using TSAT, the transient stability tool contained in the DSAT [32] software
package. Comparisons between selected transient-stability simulations conducted with the
PSS/E, ANATEM and TSAT for study case 2 have been conducted.
The figures in the remaining of this section compare responses obtained with the
respective model implementations due to solid two-phase to ground faults applied adjacent to
selected buses on the transmission network, mainly in those related to high-voltage sides of
step-up transformers. The faults are cleared by de-energizing the circuit in 100 ms.
The responses of the active power output (P), terminal voltage (Vt) and field voltage
(Efd) of generators GPS_4, TPS_4, BPS_2, and EPS_2 to a fault on bus #209 are shown,
respectively, in Figure 5.65, Figure 5.66, and Figure 5.67. The same structure of presentation is
followed for a fault on bus #303, with responses for generators LPS_3, HPS_1, EPS_2, and
TPS_5 shown in Figure 5.68, Figure 5.69, and Figure 5.70, respectively. Similarly, for a fault on
bus #506, the responses for generators NPS_5, PPS_5, YPS_3, and NPS_2 are shown,
respectively, in Figure 5.71, Figure 5.72, and Figure 5.73.
The final set of simulations shows the responses of the susceptances (B) and the
terminal voltages (Vt) of the SVCs in the system to faults applied and cleared in the same
manner as the ones described previously for the generators. Responses of ASVC_2 and
BSVC_4 to a fault on bus #209 are shown in Figure 5.74, while responses of RSVC_3 and
SSVC_5 to a fault on bus #303 and responses of PSVC_5 and ASVC_2 to a fault on bus #506
are shown in Figure 5.75 and Figure 5.76, respectively.
88
Generator GPS_4
Generator TPS_4
1550
1450
1450
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1400
1350
0
5
Time (s)
Generator BPS_2
P (MW)
P (MW)
1500
1350
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1300
1250
10
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
10
2500
2500
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2000
0
5
Time (s)
P (MW)
3000
P (MW)
1400
2000
1500
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1000
500
10
5
Time (s)
10
Figure 5.65: Responses of active power outputs (P) of selected generators to a fault on bus #209.
Generator GPS_4
Generator TPS_4
1.03
Vt (p.u.)
1.01
1
1.02
Vt (p.u.)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.02
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.98
0.99
0
5
Time (s)
Generator BPS_2
10
1.05
0.9
V t (p.u.)
V t (p.u.)
0.95
0.9
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.85
5
Time (s)
0.7
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.5
10
10
0.8
0.6
0.8
0
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
5
Time (s)
10
Figure 5.66: Responses of terminal voltages (Vt) of selected generators to a fault on bus #209.
89
Generator TPS_4
Generator GPS_4
2
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.5
0
5
Time (s)
Generator BPS_2
2.5
10
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
4
2
0
2.5
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2
1.5
5
Time (s)
10
3
EFD (p.u.)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
8
EFD (p.u.)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
3.5
E FD (p.u.)
E FD (p.u.)
2.5
10
5
Time (s)
10
Figure 5.67: Responses of field voltages (Efd) of selected generators to a fault on bus #209.
Generator LPS_3
Generator HPS_1
700
6000
600
3000
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2000
1000
0
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
1950
500
400
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
300
200
10
5
Time (s)
Generator TPS_5
10
900
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2000
P (MW)
P (MW)
4000
P (MW)
P (MW)
5000
1900
800
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
700
1850
600
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
90
Generator LPS_3
Generator HPS_1
1.05
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.6
0
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
V t (p.u.)
1.02
1
Vt (p.u.)
0.8
0.95
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.9
10
5
Time (s)
Generator TPS_5
1.04
V t (p.u.)
Vt (p.u.)
0.98
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.02
1
0.98
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
Generator LPS_3
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
20
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
4
EFD (p.u.)
30
EFD (p.u.)
Generator HPS_1
10
2
0
0
0
5
Time (s)
Generator EPS_2
10
2.6
2.4
EFD (p.u.)
EFD (p.u.)
5
Time (s)
Generator TPS_5
2.2
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2
1.8
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
3
2
1
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
91
Generator NPS_5
Generator PPS_5
800
700
800
P (MW)
P (MW)
600
500
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
400
300
0
5
Time (s)
Generator YPS_3
600
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
400
200
10
5
Time (s)
Generator MPS_2
1640
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1580
1620
P (MW)
P (MW)
1560
1540
1520
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1500
1480
1460
0
5
Time (s)
10
1600
1580
1560
1540
10
5
Time (s)
10
Generator NPS_5
Generator PPS_5
1.1
1
0.8
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.7
0.6
0
Vt (p.u.)
Vt (p.u.)
0.9
5
Time (s)
Generator YPS_3
0.9
0.8
0.6
10
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.01
1
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.99
0.98
0
5
Time (s)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.7
Vt (p.u.)
Vt (p.u.)
5
Time (s)
Generator MPS_2
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1
0.99
10
5
Time (s)
10
92
Generator NPS_5
Generator PPS_5
2.5
2
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.5
1
0
10
5
0
0.5
5
Time (s)
Generator YPS_3
10
5
Time (s)
Generator MPS_2
10
1.7
E FD (p.u.)
2.4
E FD (p.u.)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
15
EFD (p.u.)
EFD (p.u.)
2.2
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
2
1.8
0
5
Time (s)
1.6
1.5
1.4
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.3
1.2
10
5
Time (s)
10
SVC ASVC_2
SVC BSVC_4
1.02
1
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.95
0.9
0
5
Time (s)
SVC ASVC_2
B (MVAr)
400
Vt (p.u.)
1.01
1.05
0.99
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.97
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
300
0.98
B (MVAr)
Vt (p.u.)
1.1
200
100
0
5
Time (s)
SVC BSVC_4
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
100
50
0
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
Figure 5.74: Responses of SVCs susceptances (B) and terminal voltages (Vt) to a fault on bus #209.
93
SVC RSVC_3
SVC SSVC_5
1.2
V t (p.u.)
V t (p.u.)
1
0.8
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.6
1
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
5
Time (s)
SVC RSVC_3
5
Time (s)
SVC SSVC_5
400
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
400
200
10
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
300
B (MVA)
B (MVA)
600
10
200
100
0
-100
0
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
SVC ASVC_2
SVC PSVC_5
1.2
1.1
1.08
0.8
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
0.6
0.4
0
5
Time (s)
SVC PSVC_5
Vt (p.u.)
Vt (p.u.)
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
1.06
1.04
1.02
10
5
Time (s)
SVC ASVC_2
10
100
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
200
B (MVA)
B (MVA)
300
100
0
50
PSS/E
TSAT
ANATEM
-100
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
It is possible to observe in Figure 5.74, Figure 5.75, and Figure 5.76 that there are slight
differences in the responses of the SVCs simulated in TSAT with respect to the ones simulated
94
in PSS/E and ANATEM. The source of these discrepancies has been identified as a difference in
the built-in model of the SVC limiters: it is possible to create identical models for these limiters
using PSS/E and ANATEM, while for TSAT it would require an extra work that is out of the
scope of this Task Force. This difference in the behavior of the SVCs also explains some minor
differences observed from Figure 5.65 to Figure 5.73, when comparing the results from TSAT
with the ones from PSS/E and ANATEM. A complete report on the TSAT implementation
made by the group led by Prof. Claudio Canizares can be found in Appendix B to this report.
In spite of the small differences mentioned in the previous paragraphs - and taking into
account that: a) the responses of PSS/E and ANATEM exhibit a perfect agreement, from the
viewpoint of visual inspection (i.e., disregarding irrelevant numerical differences); and b) the
source of discrepancies from the previously mentioned results with respect to the TSAT outputs
has been clearly identified; it is possible to conclude that this benchmark has been validated
using the criteria established by this Task Force.
95
5.6. Data for the 68-bus (NETS/NYPS) System

The one line diagram of the system adopted by this Task Force as the 68-bus system is
shown in Figure 5.77. The bus data, including the voltage magnitudes and angles from the
power flow solution, are shown in Table 5.43 and Table 5.44.
The transmission line data is shown in Table 5.45 and Table 5.46. The data is provided in
per unit considering a system MVA base of 100 MVA. The lines are represented by sections
and the charging shown in Table 5.45 and Table 5.46 corresponds to the total line charging.
The transformers (GSU) are explicitly represented in the case. The GSUs are all rated 900
MVA and have a leakage reactance of 15% on the transformer base. Winding resistance and
magnetizing currents are neglected. Table 5.47 presents the GSU data.
For both load flow calculation and dynamic simulations, constant admittance characteristics
were admitted for all loads. The corresponding load details are given in Table 5.48.
The complete power flow solution for this system is given in Table 5.49.
96
Figure 5.77: One-line

line Diagram of the 68-bus system (with power flow solution
solution)
97
Table 5.43: Bus Data and Power Flow Solution
Bus
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Type
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
slack
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
Voltage
(pu)
1.0450
0.9800
0.9830
0.9970
1.0110
1.0500
1.0630
1.0300
1.0250
1.0100
1.0000
1.0156
1.0110
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9499
1.0023
0.9320
0.9806
0.9603
0.9937
0.9961
0.9587
0.9981
0.9869
0.9679
0.9897
0.9921
0.9762
0.9838
0.9699
0.9738
0.9801
1.0431
0.9607
0.9555
0.9890
0.9916
1.0443
0.9997
0.9990
0.9765
0.9775
1.0471
Angle
(deg)
-8.9521
-0.9796
1.6167
1.6725
-0.6235
3.8466
6.0348
-2.8368
2.6566
-9.64
-7.2206
-22.6264
-28.6487
10.9625
0.0172
0
-36.0217
-5.8053
-4.2592
-5.8703
-7.0498
-1.7969
-2.1565
-9.8725
-9.9953
-11.0152
-12.8529
-7.4925
-4.5422
-19.7057
-17.46
-15.2335
-19.754
-26.1115
-27.0843
-28.8224
-11.7838
-18.7555
-39.2852
-13.6368
9.4277
-0.8432
-37.9036
-37.9812
-29.3591
98
Table 5.44: Bus Data and Power Flow Solution (continued from Table 4.30)
Bus
Number
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Type
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
Voltage
(pu)
0.9903
1.0184
1.0338
0.9936
1.0603
1.0634
0.9545
0.9864
0.9857
0.9571
0.9209
0.9102
0.9090
0.9038
0.9062
0.9557
0.9122
0.9097
0.8367
0.9128
0.9194
0.9280
0.9483
Angle
(deg)
-20.5281
-19.4936
-18.3724
-19.8169
-19.0506
-27.2854
-12.8292
-18.9331
-11.5328
-13.2137
-11.9551
-11.2088
-10.3982
-13.3067
-14.0326
-23.2176
-7.3078
-8.366
-8.3731
-8.1807
-10.1869
-11.4256
-10.0671
99
Table 5.45: Transmission Line Data on a 100 MVA base
From Bus
Number
7
17
17
18
18
18
19
21
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
33
33
34
35
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
41
43
44
45
46
To Bus
Number
23
36
43
42
49
50
68
22
68
23
24
68
26
54
27
28
29
37
53
29
31
32
53
61
38
53
33
34
38
36
45
61
52
68
46
44
45
41
48
42
44
45
51
49
Id
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
resistance
(pu)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.004
0.0076
0.0012
0.0016
0.0008
0.0008
0.0006
0.0022
0.0003
0.0032
0.007
0.0014
0.0043
0.0057
0.0013
0.032
0.0014
0.0013
0.0024
0.0008
0.00095
0.0011
0.0016
0.0008
0.0011
0.0036
0.0033
0.0007
0.0011
0.0007
0.0007
0.0022
0
0
0.006
0.002
0.004
0.0001
0.0025
0.0004
0.0018
reactance
(pu)
0.0272
0.0045
0.0276
0.06
0.1141
0.0288
0.0195
0.014
0.0135
0.0096
0.035
0.0059
0.0323
0.0086
0.0147
0.0474
0.0625
0.0173
0.32
0.0151
0.0187
0.0288
0.0074
0.00915
0.0147
0.0163
0.0099
0.0157
0.0444
0.0111
0.0175
0.0098
0.0082
0.0089
0.0284
0.0411
0.0839
0.084
0.022
0.06
0.0011
0.073
0.0105
0.0274
total
charging
(pu)
0
0.32
0
2.25
1.16
2.06
0.304
0.2565
0.2548
0.1846
0.361
0.068
0.531
0.146
0.2396
0.7802
1.029
0.3216
0.41
0.249
0.333
0.488
0.48
0.58
0.247
0.25
0.168
0.202
0.693
1.45
1.39
0.68
0.1319
0.1342
0.43
0
0
3.15
1.28
2.25
0
0
0.72
0.27
100
Table 5.46: Transmission Line Data on a 100 MVA base (continued from Table 4.32)
From Bus
Number
47
47
50
52
53
54
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
59
60
62
62
65
66
67
To Bus
Number
48
53
51
55
54
55
56
57
66
58
60
59
63
60
61
63
65
66
67
68
Id
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
resistance
(pu)
0.00125
0.0013
0.0009
0.0011
0.0035
0.0013
0.0013
0.0008
0.0008
0.0002
0.0008
0.0006
0.0007
0.0004
0.0023
0.0004
0.0004
0.0009
0.0018
0.0009
reactance
(pu)
0.0134
0.0188
0.0221
0.0133
0.0411
0.0151
0.0213
0.0128
0.0129
0.0026
0.0112
0.0092
0.0082
0.0046
0.0363
0.0043
0.0043
0.0101
0.0217
0.0094
total
charging
(pu)
0.8
1.31
1.62
0.2138
0.6987
0.2572
0.2214
0.1342
0.1382
0.0434
0.1476
0.113
0.1389
0.078
0.3804
0.0729
0.0729
0.1723
0.366
0.171
Table 5.47: Transformer Data (on 100 MVA Base, tap on the from side)
From Bus
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
34
63
65
To Bus
Number
54
58
62
19
20
22
25
29
31
32
36
17
41
42
18
19
35
64
64
Id
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
resistance
(pu)
0
0
0
0.0007
0.0009
0
0.0006
0.0008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0007
0.0001
0.0016
0.0016
reactance
(pu)
0.0181
0.025
0.02
0.0142
0.018
0.0143
0.0232
0.0156
0.026
0.013
0.0075
0.0033
0.0015
0.0015
0.003
0.0138
0.0074
0.0435
0.0435
tap
(pu)
1.025
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.009
1.025
1.025
1.025
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1
1
1
1.06
0.946
1.06
1.06
101
Bus
Number
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
33
36
39
40
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
56
59
60
61
64
67
68
P
(MW)
6000
2470
680
274
248
309
224
139
281
206
284
112
102
267
65.63
1000
1150
267.55
208
150.7
203.12
241.2
164
100
337
158
252.7
322
200
234
208.8
104
9
320
329
Q
(Mvar)
300
123
103
115
85
-92
47
17
76
28
27
0
-19.46
12.6
23.53
250
250
4.84
21
28.5
32.59
2.2
29
-147
-122
30
118.56
2
73.6
84
70.8
125
88
153
32
102
Table 5.49: Power Flow Results
FROM
BUS#
VOLT
PU
ANGLE
GEN
LOAD
MW/MVAR MW/MVAR
TO
BUS#
CKT
MW
MVAR
TRANSFORMER
RATIO
1 1.0450
-9.0
250.0
196.0R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
54
1
250.0
196.0 1.025LK
2 0.9800
-1.0
545.0
70.0R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
58
1
545.0
70.0 1.070LK
3 0.9830
1.6
650.0
80.8R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
62
1
650.0
80.8 1.070LK
4 0.9970
1.7
632.0
0.3R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
19
1
632.0
0.3 1.070LK
5 1.0110
-0.6
505.0
116.6R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
20
1
505.0
116.6 1.009LK
6 1.0500
3.8
700.0
254.5R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
22
1
700.0
254.5 1.025LK
7 1.0630
6.0
560.0
290.8H
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
23
1
560.0
290.8
8 1.0300
-2.8
540.0
49.1R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
25
1
540.0
49.1 1.025LK
9 1.0250
2.7
800.0
59.8R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
29
1
800.0
59.8 1.025LK
10 1.0100
-9.6
500.0
-13.2R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
31
1
500.0
-13.2 1.040LK
11 1.0000
-7.2
1000.0
8.3R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
32
1
1000.0
8.3 1.040LK
12 1.0156
-22.6
1350.0
280.0R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
36
1
1350.0
279.9 1.040LK
13 1.0110
-28.6
3591.0
884.9R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
17
1
3591.0
884.9 1.040LK
14 1.0000
11.0
1785.0
47.4R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
41
1
1785.0
47.4 1.000LK
15 1.0000
0.0
1000.0
76.7R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
42
1
1000.0
76.7 1.000LK
16 1.0000
0.0
3379.5
93.5R
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
18
1
3379.5
93.5 1.000LK
17 0.9499
-36.0
0.0
0.0
18 1.0023
-5.8
0.0
0.0
19 0.9320
-4.3
0.0
0.0
20 0.9806
-5.9
0.0
0.0
21 0.9602
-7.0
0.0
0.0
22 0.9937
-1.8
0.0
0.0
23 0.9961
-2.2
0.0
0.0
24 0.9587
-9.9
0.0
0.0
25 0.9981
-10.0
0.0
0.0
6000.0 -------------------------------------300.0
13
1 -3591.0 -407.2 1.000UN
36
1 -2517.7
198.9
43
1
108.7
-91.7
2470.0 -------------------------------------123.0
16
1 -3379.5
249.4 1.000UN
42
1
-142.9
-91.6
49
1
212.6
-38.8
50
1
839.7 -242.0
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
4
1
-628.8
65.1 1.000UN
20
1
177.7
39.9 1.000UN
68
1
451.1 -104.9
680.0 -------------------------------------103.0
5
1
-502.6
-68.4 1.000UN
19
1
-177.4
-34.6 1.060LK
274.0 -------------------------------------115.0
22
1
-633.4 -176.3
68
1
359.4
61.3
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
6
1
-700.0 -178.9 1.000UN
21
1
637.1
216.9
23
1
62.9
-38.0
248.0 -------------------------------------85.0
7
1
-558.2 -195.0
22
1
-62.9
20.2
24
1
373.1
89.8
309.0 --------------------------------------92.0
23
1
-369.8
-71.1
68
1
60.8
163.1
224.0 -------------------------------------47.0
8
1
-538.3
18.5 1.000UN
26
1
57.2
3.1
54
1
257.0
-68.6
103
Table 6 (cont.): PSS/E Power Flow Results
26 0.9869
-11.0
0.0
0.0
27 0.9679
-12.9
0.0
0.0
28 0.9897
-7.5
0.0
0.0
29 0.9921
-4.5
0.0
0.0
30 0.9762
-19.7
0.0
0.0
31 0.9838
-17.5
0.0
0.0
32 0.9699
-15.2
0.0
0.0
33 0.9738
-19.8
0.0
0.0
34 0.9801
-26.1
0.0
0.0
35 1.0430
-27.1
0.0
0.0
36 0.9606
-28.8
0.0
0.0
37 0.9555
-11.8
0.0
0.0
38 0.9890
-18.8
0.0
0.0
39 0.9916
-39.3
0.0
0.0
40 1.0443
-13.6
0.0
0.0
41 0.9996
9.4
0.0
0.0
42 0.9990
-0.8
0.0
0.0
43 0.9765
-37.9
0.0
0.0
44 0.9775
-38.0
0.0
0.0
45 1.0471
-29.4
0.0
0.0
46 0.9903
-20.5
0.0
0.0
139.0 -------------------------------------17.0
25
1
-57.1
-54.1
27
1
218.8
98.2
28
1
-125.8
-28.7
29
1
-175.0
-32.4
281.0 -------------------------------------76.0
26
1
-218.0 -112.0
37
1
-93.9
62.2
53
1
30.9
-26.2
206.0 -------------------------------------28.0
26
1
126.5
-39.8
29
1
-332.5
11.8
284.0 -------------------------------------27.0
9
1
-794.9
40.6 1.000UN
26
1
176.8
-48.5
28
1
334.1
-19.1
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
31
1
-202.8
-37.6
32
1
-252.0
29.1
53
1
-187.6 -135.4
61
1
642.4
143.9
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
10
1
-500.0
82.1 1.000UN
30
1
203.3
13.8
38
1
146.4
-55.8
53
1
150.3
-40.1
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
11
1 -1000.0
132.4 1.000UN
30
1
253.6
-55.3
33
1
746.3
-77.0
112.0 -------------------------------------0.0
32
1
-741.6
120.3
34
1
669.8
-57.8
38
1
-40.2
-62.5
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
33
1
-664.5
113.1
35
1
246.6 -100.0 0.946LK
36
1
418.0
-13.1
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
34
1
-246.5
104.9 1.000UN
45
1
246.6 -104.8
102.0 --------------------------------------19.5
12
1 -1350.0 -130.5 1.000UN
17
1
2553.0
90.3
34
1
-411.9 -102.9
61
1
-893.2
162.6
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
27
1
94.1
-89.2
52
1
202.6
-10.1
68
1
-296.7
99.3
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
31
1
-146.1
35.3
33
1
40.3
-3.0
46
1
105.8
-32.3
267.0 -------------------------------------12.6
44
1
-53.7
34.5
45
1
-213.3
-47.1
65.6 -------------------------------------23.5
41
1
-473.4
16.9
48
1
407.8
-40.3
1000.0 -------------------------------------250.0
14
1 -1785.0
0.4 1.000UN
40
1
487.7 -146.0
42
1
297.3 -104.4
1150.0 -------------------------------------250.0
15
1 -1000.0
-61.6 1.000UN
18
1
143.8 -121.2
41
1
-293.8
-67.2
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
17
1
-108.6
97.8
44
1
108.6
-97.8
267.5 -------------------------------------4.8
39
1
53.7
-32.8
43
1
-108.6
98.1
45
1
-212.6
-70.1
208.0 -------------------------------------21.0
35
1
-246.2
-37.1
39
1
213.3
87.9
44
1
213.9
108.4
51
1
-389.1 -180.1
150.7 -------------------------------------28.5
38
1
-105.6
-6.6
49
1
-45.1
-21.9
104
Table 6 (cont.): PSS/E Power Flow Results
47 1.0184
-19.5
0.0
0.0
48 1.0338
-18.4
0.0
0.0
49 0.9936
-19.8
0.0
0.0
50 1.0603
-19.1
0.0
0.0
51 1.0634
-27.3
0.0
0.0
52 0.9545
-12.8
0.0
0.0
53 0.9864
-18.9
0.0
0.0
54 0.9857
-11.5
0.0
0.0
55 0.9571
-13.2
0.0
0.0
56 0.9209
-12.0
0.0
0.0
57 0.9102
-11.2
0.0
0.0
58 0.9090
-10.4
0.0
0.0
59 0.9038
-13.3
0.0
0.0
60 0.9062
-14.0
0.0
0.0
61 0.9557
-23.2
0.0
0.0
62 0.9122
-7.3
0.0
0.0
63 0.9097
-8.4
0.0
0.0
64 0.8367
-8.4
0.0
0.0
65 0.9128
-8.2
0.0
0.0
66 0.9194
-10.2
0.0
0.0
67 0.9280
-11.4
0.0
0.0
68 0.9483
-10.1
0.0
0.0
203.1 -------------------------------------32.6
48
1
-163.1 -141.5
53
1
-40.0
108.9
241.2 -------------------------------------2.2
40
1
-404.7
-64.1
47
1
163.5
61.9
164.0 -------------------------------------29.0
18
1
-209.2
-24.9
46
1
45.2
-4.1
100.0 --------------------------------------147.0
18
1
-831.1
230.3
51
1
731.1
-83.3
337.0 --------------------------------------122.0
45
1
389.7
116.4
50
1
-726.8
5.7
158.0 -------------------------------------30.0
37
1
-202.3
1.8
55
1
44.3
-31.8
252.7 -------------------------------------118.6
27
1
-30.6
-9.5
30
1
188.0
92.9
31
1
-149.9
19.8
47
1
40.5 -234.6
54
1
-300.7
12.8
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
1
1
-250.0 -178.4 1.000UN
25
1
-252.1
60.3
53
1
304.0
-41.7
55
1
198.1
159.8
322.0 -------------------------------------2.0
52
1
-44.2
12.6
54
1
-197.2 -173.4
56
1
-80.6
158.8
200.0 -------------------------------------73.6
55
1
81.1 -170.2
57
1
-80.2
76.5
66
1
-200.9
20.1
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
56
1
80.3
-85.7
58
1
-444.2
76.2
60
1
363.9
9.5
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
2
1
-545.0
20.0 1.000UN
57
1
444.7
-73.5
59
1
455.3
29.4
63
1
-355.1
24.1
234.0 -------------------------------------84.0
58
1
-453.8
-15.4
60
1
219.8
-68.6
208.8 -------------------------------------70.8
57
1
-362.6
-3.7
59
1
-219.6
65.1
61
1
373.4 -132.2
104.0 -------------------------------------125.0
30
1
-638.0 -155.6
36
1
903.1 -136.3
60
1
-369.1
166.9
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
3
1
-650.0
20.9 1.000UN
63
1
358.5
20.0
65
1
291.5
-40.9
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
58
1
356.1
-23.0
62
1
-357.9
-19.3
64
1
1.8
42.3 1.060LK
9.0 -------------------------------------88.0
63
1
-1.7
-41.3 1.000UN
65
1
-7.3
-46.7 1.000UN
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
62
1
-291.0
39.3
64
1
7.3
48.1 1.060LK
66
1
283.7
-87.4
0.0 -------------------------------------0.0
56
1
201.3
-25.5
65
1
-282.8
83.4
67
1
81.5
-57.9
320.0 -------------------------------------153.0
66
1
-81.3
28.8
68
1
-238.7 -181.8
329.0 -------------------------------------32.0
19
1
-447.2
125.6
21
1
-358.2
-64.9
24
1
-60.7 -167.3
37
1
297.5 -101.8
67
1
239.6
176.3
105
5.6.2. Dynamic Data

The generator model to represent the round rotor units is shown in the block diagram of
Figure 5.3. The details associated with the representation of the saturation of the generators
should not dramatically interfere with the results of a small-signal (linearized) analysis of the
system performance. On the other hand, the proper representation of saturation is extremely
important for transient stability and the determination of rated and ceiling conditions (minimum
and maximum generator field current and generator field voltage) for the excitation system.
The calculated rated field current for this generator model is 2.75 pu (considering 0.80 rated
power factor). This calculation comprises the initialization of the generator model at full (rated)
power output, considering their rated power factor.
The parameters and other data for the dynamic models of the generators are given in the
sequence, from Table 5.50 to Table 5.52.
Table 5.50: Dynamic Model Data for Round Rotor Units 1 and 2
PARAMETERS
Description
Inertia
Speed damping
sub-transient reactance (X''d=X''q)
Leakage reactance
GENERATOR
1
2
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T'qo
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X'q
X''
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
Value
600
10.2
0.05
1.5
0.035
7
0
0.6
0.414
0.186
0.25
0.15
0.075
0.001
0.01
Value
600
10.2
0.05
1.5
0.035
7
0
0.6
0.414
0.186
0.25
0.15
0.075
0.001
0.01
Unit
MVA
s
s
s
s
MW.s/MVA
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
106
Table 5.51: Dynamic Model Data for Round Rotor Units from 3 to 9
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T'qo
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X'q
X''
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
GENERATOR
6
Value
700
5.7
0.05
1.5
0.035
5.1143
0
1.7465
1.659
0.3717
0.5
0.315
0.2128
0.001
0.01
Value
700
5.69
0.05
1.5
0.035
4.0857
0
1.834
1.806
0.3052
0.41
0.245
0.2065
0.001
0.01
Value
600
5.4
0.05
0.44
0.035
4.3333
0
1.98
1.86
0.396
0.53
0.3
0.162
0.001
0.01
Value
800
7.3
0.05
0.4
0.035
4.35
0
2.032
1.928
0.4
0.54
0.32
0.1792
0.001
0.01
Value
600
5.66
0.05
1.5
0.035
4.4
0
1.77
1.752
0.294
0.4
0.24
0.1932
0.001
0.01
Value
600
6.7
0.05
0.41
0.035
4.05
0
1.74
1.68
0.342
0.46
0.27
0.168
0.001
0.01
Value
900
4.79
0.05
1.96
0.035
3.8333
0
1.8954
1.845
0.513
0.69
0.405
0.2682
0.001
0.01
Table 5.52: Dynamic Model Data for Round Rotor Units from 10 to 16
Symbol
MBASE
T'do
T''do
T'qo
T''qo
H
D
Xd
Xq
X'd
X'q
X''
X
S(1.0)
S(1.2)
10
11
Value
650
9.37
0.05
1.5
0.035
4.7692
0
1.0985
0.7475
0.297
0.4
0.26
0.075
0.001
0.01
Value
1700
4.1
0.05
1.5
0.035
1.6588
0
2.176
2.091
0.306
0.41
0.204
0.075
0.001
0.01
GENERATOR
12
13
14
Value
1500
7.4
0.05
1.5
0.035
6.1533
0
1.515
1.425
0.465
0.63
0.375
0.075
0.001
0.01
Value
10000
5.9
0.05
1.5
0.035
4.96
0
1.48
1.43
0.275
0.37
0.2
0.075
0.001
0.01
Value
8700
4.1
0.05
1.5
0.035
3.4483
0
1.566
1.5051
0.248
0.33
0.2001
0.075
0.001
0.01
15
16
Value
8700
4.1
0.05
1.5
0.035
3.4483
0
1.566
1.5051
0.248
0.33
0.2001
0.075
0.001
0.01
Value
8000
7.8
0.05
1.5
0.035
5.625
0
1.424
1.336
0.284
0.38
0.22
0.075
0.001
0.01
107
The block diagram of the excitation system model DC4B [4] is shown in Figure 5.78. The
parameters for the model are presented in Table 5.53. This model and these parameters apply to
the excitation systems of generators 1 to 12.
VOEL
VOEL
(OEL=1)
(OEL=2)
Alternate OEL Inputs
V UEL (UEL=1)
V UEL (UEL=2)
Alternate UEL Inputs
V RMAX
VREF
EC
1
1 +sTR
V T V RMAX
VT
KA
+
KP +
KI
S
sK D
1 +sTD
HV
Gate
LV
Gate
VF
+
VR
V T V RMIN
V RMIN
V PSS
KA
1 +sTA
V FE
V EMIN
+
KA
VX
E FD
1
sTE
KE
+
sK F
1 +sTF
Figure 5.78: Block Diagram for the Excitation System Model DC4B
Table 5.53: Dynamic Model Data for DC Rotating Excitation Systems DC4B
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
TR
AVR proportional gain
KP
AVR integral gain
KI
AVR derivative gain
KD
AVR derivative time constant
TD
Max. AVR output
VRmax
Min. AVR output
VRmin
thyristor bridge equivalent gain
KA
thyristor bridge equivalent time constant
TA
KE
TE
KF
TF
Minimum exciter output
VEmin
E1
SE(E1)
E2
SE(E2)
Value
0.01
200
50
50
0.01
10
10
1
0.02
1
0.785
0
1.0
0
3.9267
0.07
5.2356
0.91
Unit
s
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
s
pu
s
pu
pu
The block diagram of the exciter model ST1A is shown in Figure 5.40. The transient gain
reduction will be implemented by the lead-lag block with parameters TC and TB, so the
parameters TC1, TB1, KF and TF are not applicable and have been set accordingly. Similarly, the
108
generator field current limit represented by the parameters KLR and ILR is not considered in the
results presented in this report. The parameters for the this model are presented in .
Table 5.54: Dynamic Model Data for Static Excitation Systems ST1A
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
TR
Max. voltage error
VImax
Min. voltage error
VImin
TC
TB
TC1
TB1
KA
Max. AVR output
VAmax
Min. AVR output
VAmin
VRmax
VRmin
KC
KF
TF
KLR
ILR
Value
0.01
99
99
1
1
1
1
200
0.01
5
5
5
5
0
0
1
0
3
Unit
s
pu
pu
s
s
s
s
pu
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
pu
The IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) model PSS1A will be used to represent the power system
stabilizers. The block diagram of this model is shown in Figure 5.5. The parameters for the
PSSs used in this study are presented in Table 5.55.
The output limits were set to +/ 5%, while the logic to switch off the PSS for voltages
Table 5.55: Dynamic Model Data for Power System Stabilizers PSS1A
PARAMETERS
Description
nd
Symbol
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Unit 9
0
0
0
0
0
0.04
0
0
0
0.15
Unit
109
PSS gain
PSS max. output
PSS min. output
A6
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
KS
LSmax
LSmin
VCU
VCL
0
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.02
10
10
12
0.20
0.05
0
0
0
0.15
0.04
0.15
0.04
15
15
20
0.20
0.05
0
0
s
s
s
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu

The first set of results presented for the 68-bus system are a comparison between the
eigenvalues (focused on the range of electromechanical modes) generated in Matlab/Simulink
[33] and in the PacDyn/ANATEM package [34]. The following plots show that the match
between the results of these two software packages is quite satisfactory, and the complete set of
input and output data for this comparison can be found at the TF website.
Figure 5.79 shows the eigenvalue comparison for the case were the generators are not
equipped with PSSs. It can be seen that three modes are unstable and 9 other modes are poorly
damped (considering a minimum acceptable damping of 5%).
Figure 5.79: Eigenvalues (calculated from MATLAB/SIMULINK [21] and PacDyn [34]) for the case
where the generators are not equipped with PSSs.
If only one PSS is in service at Generator 9, the comparative results can be seen in Figure
5.80. It is now possible to see that this single PSS can stabilize most of the modes that were
unstable with no damping control at all in the system. However, an unstable inter-area mode
still remains in the system. Furthermore, there are several poorly damped modes in this case,
indicating that PSS are needed in the other generators to adequately damp the electromechanical
oscillations in this system.
110
where only generator in bus 9 is equipped with PSS.
For the case were PSSs are placed and tuned for Generators from 1 to 12, the results can be
seen in Figure 5.81. In this case, it is possible to see that there are still two inter-area
underdamped modes remaining in the system eigenstructure. This is due to the fact that that no
PSSs were placed in the equivalent generators that represent areas 3, 4 and 5.
where the generators in the buses 1 to 12 are equipped with PSSs.
To provide more than 5% of damping to the poorly damped modes in Figure 5.81 since
there is no access to the detailed structure of areas 3, 4 and 5, it is necessary to rely on different
types of damping controllers, such as PODs for FACTS devices, for example. The interested
reader can find examples of these PODs in [8].
Nonlinear time-domain simulations were carried out to validate the results of the linear
analyses, so the reader can assess the effectiveness of the proposed stabilizers in providing
damping to these oscillations directly with a time-domain plot. For the time-domain
simulations, only the cases with no PSSs and with PSSs in Generators from 1 to 12 were
compared, given that it was found that only one PSS in Generator 9 does not adequately
stabilize the system.
The first set of simulations comprise the connection of a 50 MVAr reactor at bus #3 at t =
1.0 s. The reactor is disconnected at t = 11.0 s, and the system returns to its original topology.
The total simulation time was 10s and the integration step was 0.008s. The angle of generator
111
16 was taken as a reference for angle differences. The relative rotor slips for generators
generator 3, 9 and
15 (in relation to generator 16) are presented in Figure 5.82 to Figure 5.87
87, were the results
obtained from ANATEM [34] are compared with
ith the ones obtained from
MATLAB/SIMULINK [33].
Figure 5.82 shows the time-domain
time domain plot of the response of Generator 3 to the disturbance
described in the previous paragraph. It can be seen that the insertion of this reactor is a very
small disturbance, and as such leads to results that correspond to a predominantly linear
response of the system. Furthermore, it is also possible to see (mainly in Figure 5.84) that this
perturbation excites the poorly damped inter-area
inter
modes, and that the system needs extra
damping sources to exhibit a well-damped
well
behavior.
Figure 5.82:: Relative rotor slips for G3 for the perturbations in bus #3.
#3
Figure 5.83:: Relative rotor slips for G9

G for the perturbations in bus #3.
#3
112
Figure 5.84:: Relative rotor slips for G15
G for the perturbations in bus #3.
#3
The second set of simulations correspond to simultaneous changes in the voltage references
reference
of selected generators. For the case shown in this report, the perturbation consisted in a 2% step
in Vref of Generator 3 at t = 1.0s and a -2% step in the same Vref at t = 11s.
It is possible to see in Figure 5.85, Figure 5.86 and Figure 5.87 that, although the
applied disturbance tends to excite primarily the oscillation associated to the local mode
of Generator 3, it also excites the poorly damped inter-area
inter area oscillation. This can be seen
mainly in Figure 5.87, and reinforces the need for the application of PODs to this system.
Figure 5.85:: Relative rotor slips of G3 for steps in its own AVR setpoint.
Figure 5.86:: Relative rotor slips of G9 for steps in the AVR setpoint of G3.
113
Figure 5.87:: Relative rotor slips of G15 for steps in the AVR setpoint of G3.
114
6. References
[1] F. P. DeMello and C. Concordia, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected

by Excitation Control," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vols. PAS88, no. 4, pp. 316 - 329, 1969.
[2] E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, "Applying Power System Stabilizers - Parts I, II and III,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vols. PAS-100, no. 6, pp. 3017 3046, 1981.
[3] G. Rogers, Power System Oscillations, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
[4] IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation System Models for Power System Stability
Studies, IEEE Standard 421.5(2005), 2006.
[5] Excitation Systems Subcommittee, Energy Development and Power Generation
Committee, ""IEEE Tutorial Course on Power System Stabilization via Excitation
Control", IEEE/PES Technical Publication 09TP250," 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://resourcecenter.ieee-pes.org/publications/tutorials/ieee-tutorial-course-power-systemstabilization-via-excitation-control/.
[6] L. Fan, "Review of Robust Feedback Control Applications in Power Systems," in
Proceedings of the Power Systems Conference and Exposition, Seattle, 2009.
[7] N. G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, Understanding FACTS: Concepts and Technology of
Flexible AC Transmission Systems, New York: IEEE Press, 2000.
[8] B. Pal and B. Chaudhuri, Robust Control in Power Systems, New York: Springer
Science+Business Media, 2005.
[9] R. A. Ramos, L. F. C. Alberto and N. G. Bretas, "A New Methodology for the Coordinated
Design of Robust Decentralized Power System Damping Controllers," IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 444 - 454, 2004.
[10] G. E. Boukarim, S. Wang, J. H. Chow, G. N. Taranto and N. Martins, "A Comparison of
Classical, Robust and Descentralized Control Designs for Multiple Power System
Stabilizers," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1287 - 1292, 2000.
[11] F. J. De Marco, N. Martins and J. C. R. Ferraz, "An Automatic Method for Power System
Stabilizers Phase Compensation Design," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28,
no. 2, pp. 997 - 1007, 2013.
[12] Website of the IEEE PES Task Force on Benchmark Models for Stability Controls, 8
August 2015 [Online] Available: http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/ (provisional).
[13] F. J. de Marco and N. Martins, "Report on the Three-Machine Infinite-Bus (3MIB)
System,"
(Working
Paper)
29
July
2013.
[Online].
Available:
115
http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/.
[14] F. J. de Marco, L. T. G. Lima e N. Martins, Comparison Report PSS/E versus
ANATEM/PacDyn: Results for Benchmark #1- The Three-Machine versus Infinite-Bus
System,
(Working
Paper)
2
July
2014.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/.
[15] N. Martins e L. T. G. Lima, Determination of suitable locations for power system
stabilizers and static VAR compensators for damping electromechanical oscillations in
large scale power systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 5, pp. 1455-1469,
1990.
[16] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[17] N. Martins, H. J. C. P. Pinto and L. T. G. Lima, "Efficient Methods for Finding Transfer
Function Zeros of Power Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 7, pp.
1350-1361, 1992.
[18] M. Klein, G. Rogers and P. Kundur, "A Fundamental Study of Inter-Area Oscillations,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 914 - 921, 1991.
[19] Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI Report EL-2348, "Phase II - FrequencyDomain Analysis of Low Frequency Oscillations in Large Electric Power Systems Volume 1: Basic Concepts, Mathematical Models and Computing Methods", April 1982.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/results.aspx?k=EL-2348-V1.
[Acesso em 2 February 2015].
[20] R. T. Byerly, D. E. Sherman and R. J. Bennon, "Phase II: Frequency Domain Analysis of
Low Frequency Oscillations in Large Power Systems," EPRI EL-2348 Project 744-1 Final
Report - Volume 1, Pittsburgh, 1982.
[21] M. A. Pai, Energy Function Analysis for Power System Stability, Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1989.
[22] M. J. Gibbard, "Co-ordinated design of multimachine power system stabilisers based on
damping torque concepts," IEE Proceedings C Generation, Transmission and Distribution,
vol. 135, pp. 276-284, 1988.
[23] M. J. Gibbard, "Robust design of fixed-parameter power system stabilisers over a wide
range of operating conditions," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 6, pp. 794-800,
1991.
[24] SIEMENS-PTI, "PSS/E 32.0 Online Documentation," 8 August 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/services/power-transmission-distribution/powertechnologiesinternational/software-solutions/pss-e.htm.
[25] CEPEL, PacDyn Online Documentation, 8 August 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.pacdyn.cepel.br/
116
[26] CEPEL, ANATEM Users Manual V10.04.06 (in Portuguese), 8 August 2015. [Online].
Available: http://www.anatem.cepel.br/
[27] "IEEE Guide for Synchronous Generator Modeling Practices and Applications in Power
System Stability Analyses", IEEE Std. 1110(2002)," November, 2003.
[28] EMTP-RV, EMTP-RV 2.6. EMTP-EMTPWorks Online Documentation, 8 August 2015.
[Online] Available: http://emtp.com/software_for_power_systems_transients
[29] D. J. Vowles e M. J. Gibbard, Mudpack User Manual: Version 10S-02, School of
Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Adelaide, April 2013.
[30] CEPEL, ANAREDE online documentation, 8 August 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.anarede.cepel.br/
[31] Australian National Electricity Rules, Version 60, 8 August 2015 [Online]. Available:
http://www.aemc.gov.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Rules/Current-Rules.html.
[32] Powertech, DSA Tools Reference Manual, 8 August 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dsatools.com.
[33] A. K. Singh and P. Bikash, "Report on the 68-bus, 16-machine, 5-area System," (Working
Paper), 3 December 2013 [Online] Available: www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/.
[34] R. Kuiava, T. C. d. C. Fernandes, M. R. Mansour e R. A. Ramos, Report on the 68-bus
system
using
PacDyn/ANATEM,
20
June
2014
[Online]
Available:
www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/.
[35] P. M. Anderson and R. G. Farmer, Series Compensation of Power Systems, Encinitas:
PBLSH! Inc., 1996.
A.1
Appendix A - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by

Profs. David Vowles and Michael Gibbard
IEEE PES Task Force on Benchmark Systems for Stability

Controls
Simplified 14-Generator Model of
the South East Australian Power System:
(Including implementations in Mudpack for small-signal analysis
and PSS/E for transient-stability analysis)
14 June 2014
Mike Gibbard & David Vowles

Power Systems Dynamics Group
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
The University of Adelaide, South Australia
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
1 of 128
The University of Adelaide
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide a test system which can be used as a test bed for the
small-signal analysis and design of power system stabilisers (PSSs) and other controllers in a
multi-machine power system.
Frequently papers are published in which the performance of PSSs designed using a new advanced method is compared to that of PSSs designed using so-called conventional techniques. Often the conventional PSSs employed in such papers do not represent a
properly-designed conventional PSS. In the following a sound basis for a conventional PSS
design is outlined and its performance demonstrated. It is a tuning method used in practice by a
number of organisations.
An important aspect of the design of PSSs for use on practical systems is that PSSs should contribute to the damping of inter-area, local-area and intra-station modes. This aspect is seldom
tested adequately in most advanced design methods because:
a single-machine infinite-bus test system is typically employed by the proponent; it does

not reveal the damping performance of the proposed PSS over the full range of modal frequencies likely to be encountered in practice, i.e. from the low frequency inter-area modes
(~1.5 rad/s) to the higher local / intra-station frequencies (12+ rad/s);
the contributions to modal damping by the proposed PSS are not validated over a wide
range of operating conditions encountered in practice, light to peak load, for normal and
contingency operation, etc.;
the models of AVR/excitation systems employed in the proponents system are often very
simple. In practice such models may be third or higher order.
For designs of advanced PSSs to be credible for practical application, the proponents should
demonstrate the above issues have been adequately addressed. An aim of the 14-generator test
system is to provide researchers and developers with a system possessing the features highlighted above, i.e. a range of modal frequencies, a range of operating conditions, and higher-order
avr/excitation system models.
Each generator in the 14-machine system is in fact an aggregated equivalent generator representing a power station (PS) of between 2 to 12 units. While the generators in each station could
have been individually represented, this adds an additional level of complexity and increases
system size, moreover, it is not warranted for the primary purpose of this document.
Included in Appendix I is a complete set of power flow and small-signal dynamics data that allows an interested party (i) to replicate the results provided using that partys loadflow and
small-signal dynamics analysis packages, (ii) to cross-check results obtained by the party with
those presented here, (iii) to insert in a Matlab environment the partys own controller, etc., into
the power system for the analysis being conducted for research purposes.
A large-signal model of the system has been developed to allow transient stability analysis. As
summarized in Section 9 the data for the large-signal model is presented in Appendix II in a format amenable to use with the PSS/E [1] transient-stability program. Benchmarking studies in
2 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Appendix III show that the small-disturbance performance of the PSS/E implementation of the
model is in close agreement with that of the original Mudpack implementation. A comprehensive set of transient stability studies are conducted in Appendix IV using the PSS/E implementation of the model. It is found that the system is transiently stable for a comprehensive set of
two-phase to ground faults across all six base case scenarios.
Caveats
The model of the power system used in this document is loosely based on the southern and eastern Australian networks. Therefore,
it does not accurately represent any particular aspect of those networks;
the model should not be used to draw any conclusions relating to the actual performance
of the networks comprising the southern and eastern Australian grid, either for any normal
or any hypothetical contingency condition;
the model is suitable for educational purposes / research-oriented analysis only.
Information provided
The following data are provided. Refer to Appendix V for details of information provided in
electronic format.
The load flow data and results files in PSS/E format together with the associated data
tables for six normal operating conditions. These cover peak, medium and light load conditions with various inter-area power transfers and directions of flow.
Tables of the parameters for the generators, SVCs, excitation systems and PSSs for use in
both the small- and large-signal analysis of the dynamic performance of the system.
The P-Vr frequency response characteristics of the generators over the range of operating
conditions. These are presented in graphical form (on machine base).
Tables of the rotor modes of oscillation for the six cases with PSSs in- and out-of-service.
Matlab *.mat files of the state-space model matrices (i.e. ABCD matrices), eigenvalues,
eigenvectors and participation factors for two of the six cases with the PSSs both in- and
out-of-service.
Small-disturbance step-response analysis results in comma-separated-value (*.csv) and

Matlab (*.mat) formats for a selection of scenarios computed by both Mudpack and
PSS/E.
Transient-stability time-domain analysis results in comma-separated-value (*.csv) and

Matlab (*.mat) formats for a selection of faults computed by PSS/E.
A rudimentary Matlab function is also provided to allow the user to compare their own
time-response results (small- or large-signal) with those provided.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
3 of 128
The Simplified System
The simplified 14-generator, 50 Hz system is shown in Figure 1. It represents a long, linear system as opposed to the more tightly meshed networks found in Europe and the USA. For convenience, it has been divided into 5 areas in which areas 1 and 2 are more closely coupled
electrically. There are in essence 4 main areas and hence 3 inter-area modes, as well as 10 local-area modes. Without PSSs many of these modes are unstable.
In order to tune generator PSSs in practice an encompassing range of normal operating conditions and contingencies are considered. In the data provided in the Appendices, however, only
six normal conditions are used for illustrative purposes. The operating conditions, system loads
and major inter-area flows are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Load Condition
Six normal steady-state operating conditions

Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Heavy
Mediumheavy
Peak
Light
Medium
Light
Total generation (MW)
23030
21590
25430
15050
19060
14840
Total load (MW)
22300
21000
24800
14810
18600
14630
(South to (Hydro to N
north)
& S)
(Area 2 to
N & S)
Inter-area flows
(North to
south)
(N & S to (~Zero
pumping) transfers)
Area 4 to Area 2 (MW)
500
-500
-500
-200
300
1134
-1120
-1525
470
740
270
1000
-1000
1000
200
-200
500
-500
250
200
250
The schedules of generation for the six cases are listed in Appendix I, Table 8. Note that the
number of generating units on-line in certain power stations (designated *PS_#, e.g. HPS_1)
can vary considerably over the range of operating conditions.
Power flow analysis
Data for the power flow analysis of the six normal operating conditions given in Table 1 is supplied in Appendix I.1. Included in Appendix I.1 are relevant results of the analysis such as reactive outputs of generators and SVCs, together with tap positions on generator and network
transformers. This information permits the power flows to be set up on any power flow platform
and the results checked against those provided in this document.
The power flow data is also provided in Siemens-PTI PSS/E version 29 format1. These files
for the six operating conditions are accessible from the web site in Appendix V.1.
1. The specification of the Siemens-PTI PSS/E version 29 power flow raw data format is available by
application from Siemens-PTI at the following web-site http://w3.usa.siemens.com/smartgrid/us/en/
transmission-grid/products/grid-analysis-tools/transmission-system-planning/Pages/PSSERawDataFormat.aspx
4 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
406
SPS_4
GPS_4
407
403
404
405
CPS_4
AREA 4
408
402
409
TPS_4
410
401
413
411
3
414
412
415
ASVC_2
SVC
BSVC_4
416
BPS_2
SVC
VPS_2
205
201
207
203
206
EPS_2
202
208
209
MPS_2
211
NPS_5
210
204
501
215
212
504
213
T PS_5
AREA 2
4
214
502
505
PSVC_5
AREA 5
SVC
216
507
506
PPS_5
217
508
503
509
SVC
102
SSVC_5
311
315
HPS_1
AREA 1
101
305
2
3
309
310
LPS_3
308
304
307
306
303
301
YPS_3
RSVC_3
314
SVC
AREA 3
302
313
312
Figure 1 Simplified 14-generator, 50 Hz system.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
5 of 128
Design of PSSs based on the P-Vr Method for multi-machine systems
6.1 Introduction
Comparisons between conventional PSS design methods such as the GEP, P-Vr - and a
method based on residues - for multi-machine power systems are discussed in [7] and [11]. A
comparison of the P-Vr and GEP methods and their features are provided in Table 21 of Appendix I.4.
6.2 Concepts based on an ideal PSS
Consider the idealised shaft dynamics of the simplified generator model shown in Figure 2. Assume that a feedback loop can be added from the rotor speed signal to the torque signal
P d - as shown in Figure 2 - such that P ds = k . It is clear that increasing the gain k has
the same effect as increasing the inherent damping torque coefficient k d [13], that is, enhancing
the damping of rotor oscillations. The block with gain k represents an ideal PSS that induces on
the rotor a torque of electro-magnetic origin proportional to speed perturbations. The gain k, like
k d , is a damping torque coefficient which we call the damping gain of the PSS. (The difference
between the latter gain and the conventional PSS gain is discussed shortly.) The goal in the
design of a practical PSS is to achieve the same result, the damping gain being adjusted to meet
the specifications on the damping for the rotor modes of oscillation. Framed in this context, the
damping gain k of a practical PSS expressed in per unit on machine base becomes a meaningful
quantity.
Ps
Pm +
_
Pds
K1
_
Pa
Pd
/(sM)
kd
k
o/s
Generator
model
Ideal PSS
Figure 2 The ideal PSS, represented by a damping gain k, introduces a pure damping torque
on the rotor of a simplified generator model.
6.3 Theoretical background
The design of the compensating transfer function (TF) for the PSS of generator i in a multi-machine power system is based on the so-called P-Vr TF of generator i. This is the TF from the
AVR voltage reference input, Vr, on generator i to the torque of electromagnetic origin (or
electrical power output, P) on that generator, calculated with the shaft dynamics of all machines disabled [2], [3]. In the following, V ri s and P ei s are perturbations in the reference voltage and the electrical torque, respectively. (For small disturbances the per-unit
perturbations in electrical power and electrical torque are identical.)
The frequency response of the P-Vr TF, H PVri s = P ei s V ri s , is easily calculated.
To disable the shaft dynamics of all machines the rows and/or columns of all generator speed
states are eliminated in the ABCD matrices of the linearized state equations of the system. The
6 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
frequency response(s) P ei j f V ri j f are then calculated over the range of rotor modal
frequencies (typically 1.5 to 12 rad/s).
The TF H PSSi s of a PSS is typically of the form k i G i s . When the transfer functions of the
PSS compensation block G ci s , and the wash-out and low-pass filters, G Wi s and G LPi s
respectively, are added the PSS TF takes the form,
H PSSi s = k i G i s = k i G ci s G Wi s G LPi s .
(1)
Alternatively, considering the typical forms of the relevant TFs, the PSS TF is
sT W
1 + c 1 s + c 2 s 2 1 + sT a1
1
H PSSi s = k i G i s = k i ------------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 + sT W k c 1 + sT b1 1 + sT 1 1 + sT 2
(2)
where, for generator i, T W is the time constant of the washout filter; k c c 1 c 2 T a1 T b1

are the parameters of the compensation TF G ci s determined in the design procedure described below, and T 1 T 2 are the time constants of the low-pass filter. The corner frequencies of the washout and low-pass filters are selected such that the phase shifts introduced at the
frequencies of the rotor modes are negligible. The PSS TF must be proper.
Note that, in the context of (2), the gain k i has been referred to as the damping gain of the
PSS. If the washout filter is ignored the dc gain of the PSS TF is k i k c ; conventionally this is
referred to as the PSS Gain. However, the PSS gain k i k c has little meaning as k c is machine
and system dependent.
The compensation TF G ci s is designed to achieve the desired left-shift in the relevant modes
of rotor oscillation. The damping gain k i (on machine base) of the PSS determines the extent of
the left-shift. The aim of the design procedure is to introduce on the generator shaft a damping
torque (a torque proportional to machine speed); this causes the modes of rotor oscillation to be
shifted to the left in the s-plane. Thus the ideal TF between speed i and the electrical damping torque perturbations P ei due to the PSS over the range of complex frequencies of the rotor
modes should be
D ei = P ei s i s
,
PSSi
(3)
where D ei is a damping torque coefficient (e.g. as is k in Figure 2) and - for design purposes is a real number (p.u. on machine base). The TF G ci s compensates in magnitude as well as
phase for the P-Vr TF H PVri s of machine i. With rotor speed being used as the input signal
to the PSS, whose output is V si s , the expression (3) for D ei can be written:
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
7 of 128
P ei s V si s
D ei = ------------------- ------------------- = H PVri s k i G ci s ;
V si s i s
(4)
hence, rearranging (4), we find

k i G ci s = D ei H PVri s .
(5)
It follows from an examination of (5) that k i = D ei and G ci s = 1 H PVri s . As in the

case of the simplified generator model of Figure 2, the gain k i of the PSS can thus also be considered to be a damping torque coefficient. The practical, proper TF for the i-th PSS is that of
(2), i.e.:
k i G i s = k i 1 PVR i s washout & low-pass filters
where PVR i s is the synthesized form of P-Vr characteristic, H PVri s . As most rotor modes
are relatively lightly damped, s can be replaced by j f and conventional frequency response
methods can be employed in the design procedure. In practice, the aim of a design is to ensure
that, over the range of frequencies of rotor oscillations, the magnitude response of the RHS of
(3) is flat with zero or slightly lagging phase shift. This means that the PSS introduces an almost
pure damping torque over the frequency range of the rotor modes. Because of the more-or-less
invariant nature of the TF H PVri s over a wide range of operating conditions, fixed-parameter
PSSs tend to be robust [5].
Note that speed appears to be the ideal stabilizing signal because the damping torque induced
on the shaft of the generator by the associated PSS is related to speed through a simple gain.
Moreover, this gain being a damping torque coefficient has practical significance, e.g. a damping gain k i of 20 pu on machine rating can typically be considered a moderate gain setting for
a speed-PSS. A practical form of the speed-PSS is the Integral-of-accelerating-power PSS
for which the design procedure outlined above is applicable.
The approach to the design of speed-PSSs can be adapted to the design of power-input PSSs. If
the perturbations in mechanical power are negligible over the frequency range of interest the
equation of motion of the units shaft can be written s = P ei s 2Hs [13]; is
then the input to the speed-PSS.
7 The P-Vr characteristics of the 14 generators and the associated synthesized characteristics
For each of the generators the P-Vr characteristics are determined for the six power flow cases
as shown in Figure 3 to Figure 16. These characteristics were calculated using Mudpack, a software package for the analysis of the small-signal dynamic performance and control of large
power systems [14].
It should be noted in this analysis that the operating conditions on which the load flows, and
therefore the P-Vr characteristics, are based are normal operating conditions. In practice, the
P-Vr characteristics for a relevant set of contingency conditions are also considered when determining the synthesized characteristic.
8 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
The synthesized P-Vr characteristic for each generator is derived based on the following:
The modal frequency range of interest is 1.5 to 12 rad/s.
The synthesized characteristic is a best fit of the P-Vr characteristics for the range of cases
examined over the modal frequency range 1.5 to 12 rad/s. The best fit characteristic is
considered to be that characteristic which lies in the middle of the magnitude and phase
bands formed by the P-Vr characteristics. If particular P-Vr characteristics tend lie outside
the bands formed by the majority of the characteristics, the synthesized P-Vr is offset
towards the band formed by the majority (e.g. see Figure 12).
Less phase lead at the inter-area model frequencies may be required than that provided by
the synthesized TF based on P-Vr characteristic [11]. It can be accommodated by a
gain-lag-lead transfer function block or by adjusting the synthesized transfer function at
the inter-area frequencies. This feature has the effect of increasing the damping of the
inter-area modes, however, it is not incorporated in following analysis.
The P-Vr characteristics for the 14 generators, shown in Figure 3 to Figure 16, are in per unit
on the machine rating given in Table 8.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
9 of 128
10
Magnitude Response (db)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
10
10
10
10
Phase Response (deg)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 5
Case 2
Synthesized PVr
Case 3
Figure 3 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator HPS_1.
(In cases 4 & 6 the PSS is switched off as it is operating as a synchronous compensator.)
2
PVR s = 1.3 1 + s0.373 + s 0.0385
10 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 4 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator BPS_2.
2
PVR s = 3.6 1 + s0.128 + s 0.0064
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
11 of 128
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 5 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator EPS_2.
PVR s = 4.3 1 + s0.286 1 + s0. 111 1 + s0.040
12 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 6 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator MPS_2.
2
PVR s = 3.0 1 + s0.01 1 + s0. 1 + s 0.0051
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
13 of 128
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 7 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator VPS_2.
PVR s = 3.5 1 + s0.0292 1 + s0.0708
14 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 8 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator LPS_3.
2
PVR s = 1.6 1 + s0.168 + s 0.0118
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
15 of 128
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 9 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator YPS_3
2
PVR s = 3.35 1 + s0.05 1 + s0. 509 + s 0.132
16 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 10 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator CPS_4.
PVR s = 4.25 1 + s0.278 1 + s0.100
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
17 of 128
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 11 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator GPS_4.
2
PVR s = 3.3 1 + s0.115 + s 0.00592
18 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 12 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator SPS_4.
The synthesized P-Vr characteristic is weighted towards those of Cases 1 to 5.
2
PVR s = 3.16 1 + s0.0909 + s 0.00207
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
19 of 128
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 13 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator TPS_4.
PVR s = 2.8 1 + s0.208 1 + s0.208
20 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
10
10
20
30
40
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
200
250
300
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 14 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator NPS_5.
2
PVR s = 5.13 1 + s0.300 1 + s0.033 1 + s0.300 + s 0.111
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
21 of 128
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
10
10
10
10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 15 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator PPS_5.
5.62 1 + s0.350 1 + s0.0667
PVR s = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 + s0.020 1 + s0.167 1 + s0.187 1 + s0.200
22 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
1
10
10
10
10
50
100
150
200
250
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
Case 1
Case 4
Synthesized PVr
Case 2
Case 5
Case 3
Case 6
Figure 16 P-Vr characteristics, calculated and synthesized PVR s , for generator TPS_5.
PVR s = 3.4 1 + s0.500 1 + s0.0588 1 + s0.0167
Results of small-signal analysis for the six cases
Please note the Caveats listed in Section 2 before interpreting these results.
For each of the six cases the rotor modes of oscillation without and with all PSSs in service are
listed in Table 2 to Table 7.
In Figure 17 is shown the plot of the electro-mechanical modes for Case 1 as the PSS damping
gains on all generators are increased from zero (no PSSs in service) to 30 pu in 5 pu steps. Note
that the modes shift more or less directly into the left-half of the s-plane. Without the special
compensation referred to in Section 7 for the inter-area modes, the frequencies of the inter-area
modes tend to decrease relatively more than the local-area modes due to the effects of interactions [6], [11]; the damping of the inter-area modes is also poorer.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
23 of 128
Table 2
Rotor modes. Case 1: PSSs out and in service. (Damping gains 20pu on rating)
Case1: No PSSs
Case 1: All PSS in service
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
-0.175
0.109
0.041
-0.557
-0.260
-0.612
-0.439
0.014
-0.189
-0.617
0.115
0.088
-0.016
10.442
9.583
8.959
8.634
8.368
8.047
7.965
7.812
7.724
7.425
3.970
2.601
2.028
0.017
-0.011
-0.005
0.064
0.031
0.076
0.055
-0.002
0.024
0.083
-0.029
-0.034
0.008
-2.193
-1.978
-1.926
-2.505
-1.953
-1.971
-1.875
-1.777
-2.061
-1.878
-1.044
-0.385
-0.522
10.386
9.742
9.293
8.858
8.261
8.490
7.756
7.643
7.872
7.588
3.640
2.402
1.798
0.207
0.199
0.203
0.272
0.230
0.226
0.235
0.226
0.253
0.240
0.276
0.158
0.279
12
A
B
Imaginary Part (rad/s)
10
C
D
D
8
B
C
D
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
F
F
FE F E F E D E
F
E
E
E
I H G I HG IF GH I H
IG
G H JG
GH I J
J
J
J
H J J
=0.1
6
=0.2
4
K
PSS damping gain (%):
150
125
100
75
50
25
LLL
LLL L
MM
MMMM
Local area modes: A to J;

Interarea modes: K to M.
0
4
3.5
2.5
2
1.5
1
Real Part (Np/s)
0.5
Figure 17 Rotor modes for Case 1 as the PSS damping gain on each generator is increased
from zero (no PSSs in service) to 30 pu (150%) in 5 pu (25%) steps.
(100% gain is equivalent to PSS damping gain De=20 pu on machine base)
24 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Table 3
Case 2: No PSSs
Table 4
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
0.066
0.101
-0.250
-0.922
-0.534
-0.184
-0.700
-0.208
-0.065
-0.485
0.193
0.054
0.081
10.743
9.563
9.261
8.613
8.669
8.482
8.293
7.929
7.385
7.570
3.772
2.863
1.915
-0.006
-0.011
0.027
0.106
0.062
0.022
0.084
0.026
0.009
0.064
-0.051
-0.019
-0.042
-2.403
-2.038
-2.370
-2.805
-2.494
-2.039
-2.442
-2.029
-2.021
-1.814
-0.769
-0.447
-0.431
10.964
9.725
9.644
8.962
8.936
8.379
8.370
7.739
7.490
7.772
3.537
2.542
1.759
0.214
0.205
0.239
0.299
0.269
0.236
0.280
0.254
0.261
0.227
0.212
0.173
0.238
Case 3: No PSSs
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
-0.377
0.101
-0.301
-0.583
-0.182
-0.140
-0.191
-0.076
-0.576
-0.131
0.011
0.020
-0.032
11.109
9.563
9.019
8.660
8.476
8.256
7.909
7.381
7.625
6.314
4.076
2.670
2.050
0.034
-0.011
0.033
0.067
0.021
0.017
0.024
0.010
0.075
0.021
-0.003
-0.007
0.015
-1.909
-2.037
-2.278
-2.519
-2.025
-1.948
-2.011
-1.932
-1.933
-2.030
-1.119
-0.428
-0.580
11.244
9.724
9.100
8.914
8.376
8.492
7.727
7.535
7.800
5.909
3.707
2.418
1.860
0.167
0.205
0.243
0.272
0.235
0.224
0.252
0.248
0.241
0.325
0.289
0.174
0.298
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
25 of 128
Table 5
Case 4: No PSSs
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
0.197
0.030
-0.173
-1.541
-0.178
-0.561
-0.211
-0.508
-0.431
-0.190
0.165
0.023
-0.009
10.484
9.665
9.369
8.276
8.779
8.581
8.278
8.522
8.211
7.200
4.743
3.573
2.678
-0.019
-0.003
0.018
0.183
0.020
0.065
0.025
0.060
0.052
0.026
-0.035
-0.007
0.003
-2.374
-2.163
-2.269
-1.695
-2.272
-2.496
-2.554
-2.492
-2.280
-1.319
-1.080
-0.563
-0.589
10.774
9.951
9.813
8.169
8.793
9.064
8.445
8.826
8.279
7.494
4.581
3.322
2.513
0.215
0.212
0.225
0.203
0.250
0.266
0.289
0.272
0.265
0.173
0.229
0.167
0.228
PSS of HPS_1 is OFF as it operates as a synchronous compensator in this case
Table 6
Case 5: No PSSs
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
0.181
0.086
-0.163
-0.182
-0.496
-0.263
-0.524
0.008
-0.157
-0.765
0.191
0.006
0.059
10.940
9.570
9.171
8.696
8.554
8.452
7.975
7.896
7.736
7.241
4.152
3.122
2.154
-0.017
-0.009
0.018
0.021
0.058
0.031
0.066
0.000
0.020
0.105
-0.046
-0.002
-0.027
-2.409
-1.988
-2.093
-2.187
-2.471
-2.024
-2.382
-1.853
-2.116
-1.858
-0.884
-0.457
-0.497
11.257
9.762
9.395
9.119
8.828
8.382
7.969
7.809
7.865
7.449
3.902
2.889
1.957
0.209
0.200
0.217
0.233
0.270
0.235
0.286
0.231
0.260
0.242
0.221
0.156
0.246
26 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Table 7
Case 6: No PSSs
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
Real
Imag
Damping
Ratio
0.276
0.318
-0.129
-0.233
-0.455
-0.136
-0.213
-1.507
-0.301
-0.359
0.200
0.054
0.036
10.390
10.138
9.423
8.920
8.738
8.578
8.285
8.237
8.128
7.250
4.810
3.552
2.597
-0.027
-0.031
0.014
0.026
0.052
0.016
0.026
0.180
0.037
0.049
-0.041
-0.015
-0.014
-2.217
-2.142
-2.069
-2.522
-2.381
-2.320
-2.579
-1.701
-2.076
-1.598
-1.078
-0.565
-0.520
10.708
10.652
10.017
9.541
9.023
8.506
8.453
8.168
8.242
7.553
4.644
3.298
2.451
0.203
0.197
0.202
0.256
0.255
0.263
0.292
0.204
0.244
0.207
0.226
0.169
0.207
PSS of HPS_1 is OFF as it operates as a synchronous compensator in this case.
Transient stability analysis
A large-signal model of the system has been developed to allow transient stability analysis. The
data for the large-signal model is presented in Appendix II in a format amenable to use with the
PSS/E transient-stability program. Since, at this stage, the model does not include representation of the generator turbine / governing systems this large signal is unsuitable for analysing loss
of generation / load events.
The small-disturbance performance of the PSS/E implementation of the simplified 14-generator model has been thoroughly benchmarked with the original Mudpack implementation of the
model in Appendix III. With appropriate setting of PSS/E simulation parameters there is close
agreement between the respective simulation packages.
A comprehensive set of transient stability studies are conducted in Appendix IV. It is found that
the system is transiently stable for a comprehensive set of two-phase to ground faults across all
six base case scenarios. (Note that in accord with the Australian National Electricity Rules [18]
two-phase to ground faults are considered to be the most severe credible contingency for voltages at and above 220 kV; the risk of solid three-phase to ground faults is, except under extraordinary circumstances, considered to be so low to be non-credible.)
10
Acknowledgements
The authors are most grateful for advice and assistance of Dr. Leonardo Lima in their development of the PSS/E dynamics data set for the model. Some of the ideas on data presentation
contained in his draft report have been employed in this report.
During the development of this and earlier versions of the 14-generator model of the Australian
system we have been grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with Prof. Rodrigo Ramos and
some of his students, particularly Dr. Rodrigo Salim, in their benchmarking of our model with
the PacDyn software package.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
27 of 128
We thank researchers who have identified errors or unrealistic parameter values in the model.
We endeavour to address such matters, at least by notifying users of the deficiencies in reports
such as this and, hopefully, over time correcting the model data and associated results.
11
References
[1]
PSS/E Version 32, Program Operation Manual: Siemens, June 2009.

Siemens-PTI PSS/E web address:
http://w3.usa.siemens.com/smartgrid/us/en/transmission-grid/products/grid-analysis-too
ls/transmission-system-planning/Pages/transmission-system-planning.aspx
[2]
Gibbard, M.J. Coordinated design of multi-machine power system stabilisers based on

damping torque concepts. Proceedings IEE, Pt.C, Vol.135, July 1988, pp.276-284.
[3]
Gibbard, M.J. Robust design of fixed-parameter power system stabilisers over a wide
range of operating conditions. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, May
1991, pp 794-800.
[4]
Pourbeik, P. and Gibbard, M.J., Damping and synchronising torques induced on generators by FACTS stabilizers in multi-machine power systems, IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, Vol. 11, no. 4, Nov. 1996, pp. 1920-1925.
[5]
Pourbeik, P. and Gibbard, M.J., Simultaneous coordination of Power-System Stabilizers

and FACTS device stabilizers in a multi-machine power system for enhancing dynamic
performance, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 13, no. 2, May 1998, pp.
473-479.
[6]
Gibbard, M.J., Vowles, D.J. and Pourbeik, P., Interactions between, and effectiveness of,
power system stabilizers and FACTS stabilizers in multi-machine systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 15, no. 2, May 2000, pp. 748-755. (In February 2001 this
paper received the Prize Paper Award for 2000 from the Power System Dynamic Performance Committee of the IEEE PES.)
[7]
CIGRE Technical Brochure no. 166 prepared by Task Force 38.02.16, Impact of Interactions among Power System Controls, published by CIGRE in August 2000.
[8]
Gibbard, M.J. and Vowles, D.J., Discussion of 'The application of Power System Stabilizers to multi-generator plant, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. Vol. 15, no. 4,
Nov. 2000, pp. 1462-1464.
[9]
Gibbard, M.J., Martins, N., Sanchez-Gasca, J.J., Uchida, N., Vittal, V. and Wang, L., Recent Applications in Linear Analysis Techniques, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.
Vol. 16, no. 1, Feb. 2001, pp. 154-162.
[10] Pourbeik, P., Gibbard, M.J. and Vowles, D.J., Proof of the equivalence of residues and
induced torque coefficients for use in the calculation of eigenvalue shifts, IEEE Power
Engineering Review, Power Engineering Letters, Vol. 22, no.1, Jan. 2002, pp. 58-60.
[11] Gibbard, M.J. and Vowles, D.J., Reconciliation of methods of compensation for PSSs
in multimachine systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. Vol. 19, no. 1, Feb.
2004, pp. 463-472.
[12] E.V. Larsen and D.A. Swann, Applying power system stabilizers: Part I - III, IEEE
Transactions PAS, Vol. 100, pp. 3017-3046, 1981.
28 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
[13] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.
[14] Vowles, D.J. and Gibbard, M.J., Mudpack - a software package for the analysis of the
small-signal dynamic performance and control of large electric power systems, School
of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Adelaide, South Australia.
[15] IEEE Committee Report, Static VAr compensator models for power flow and dynamic
performance simulation, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 9, pp. 229-240,
1994.
Studies, IEEE Standard No:421.5-2005, ISBN:0-7381-4787-7.
[17] IEEE Committee Report, Excitation System Models for Power System Stability Studies, Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PAS-100, pp. 494-509,
1981.
[18] [Australian] National Electricity Rules, Version 60.
Available: http://www.aemc.gov.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Rules/Current-Rule
s.html
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
29 of 128
Appendix I
Data
Please note the Caveats listed in Section 2 before using this data.
I.1
Steady-state analysis
Table 1 (repeated) Six normal steady-state operating conditions
Load Condition
Case 1
Load
Case 2
Load
Case 3
Load
Case 4
Load
Case 5
Load
Case 6
Load
Heavy
Mediumheavy
Peak
Light
Medium
Light
Total generation MW
23030
21590
25430
15050
19060
14840
Total load MW
22300
21000
24800
14810
18600
14630
Inter-area flows
(North to
south)
(South to (Hydro to N
north)
& S)
(Area 2 to
N & S)
(N & S to (~Zero
pumping) transfers)
Area 4 to Area 2 MW
500
-500
-500
-200
300
Area 2 to Area 1 MW
1134
-1120
-1525
470
740
270
Area 1 to Area 3 MW
1000
-1000
1000
200
-200
Area 3 to Area 5 MW
500
-500
250
200
250
Table 8
Generation conditions for six loadflow cases. (Voltage at all generator buses is 1.0
pu in all cases.)
Power Station / Bus #

Rating
Rated power factor
Case 1
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 2
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 3
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 4:
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 5:
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 6:
No. units
MW
Mvar
HPS_1 / 101
12 x 333.3 MVA
0.9 power factor lag
4
75.2
77.9
3
159.6
54.4
12
248.3
21.8
2
0
-97.4
Syn.Cond
3
-200.0
-26.0
Pumping
2
0
-102.2
Syn. Cond
BPS_2 / 201
6 x 666.7 MVA
6
600.0
95.6
5
560.0
38.9
6
550.0
109.1
4
540.0
-30.8
5
560.0
38.7
3
560.0
-53.5
EPS_2 / 202
5 x 555.6 MVA
5
500.0
132.7
4
480.0
60.5
5
470.0
127.6
3
460.0
-2.5
4
480.0
67.2
3
490.0
-7.3
VPS_2 / 203
4 x 555.6 MVA
4
375.0
132.8
3
450.0
82.4
2
225.0
157.0
3
470.0
9.4
2
460.0
83.1
3
490.0
3.7
30 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Power Station / Bus #

Rating
Rated power factor
Case 1
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 2
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 3
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 4:
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 5:
No. units
MW
Mvar
Case 6:
No. units
MW
Mvar
MPS_2 / 204
6 x 666.7 MVA
6
491.7
122.4
4
396.0
17.8
6
536.0
96.5
4
399.3
-43.6
4
534.4
55.2
3
488.6
-61.2
LPS_3 / 301
8 x 666.7 MVA
7
600.0
142.3
8
585.0
141.1
8
580.0
157.6
6
555.0
16.6
8
550.0
88.1
6
550.0
9.4
YPS_3 / 302
4 x 444.4 MVA
3
313.3
51.5
4
383.0
63.3
4
318.0
49.6
2
380.0
-9.3
3
342.0
43.8
2
393.0
-6.9
TPS_4 / 401
4 x 444.4 MVA
4
350.0
128.7
4
350.0
116.5
4
350.0
123.2
3
320.0
-21.9
4
346.0
84.9
3
350.0
-32.6
CPS_4 / 402
3 x 333.3 MVA
3
279.0
59.3
3
290.0
31.4
3
290.0
32.0
2
290.0
-2.4
3
280.0
45.4
3
270.0
4.7
SPS_4 / 403
4 x 444.4 MVA
4
350.0
52.3
4
350.0
47.2
4
350.0
47.3
3
320.0
14.2
4
340.0
46.3
2
380.0
25.2
GPS_4 / 404
6 x 333.3 MVA
6
258.3
54.5
6
244.0
39.8
6
244.0
40.0
3
217.0
-3.5
5
272.0
50.4
3
245.0
3.9
NPS_5 / 501
2 x 333.3 MVA
2
300.0
25.3
2
300.0
-8.8
2
300.0
6.5
2
280.0
-52.5
2
280.0
-35.2
1
270.0
-42.2
TPS_5 / 502
4 x 250 MVA
0.8 pf lag
4
200.0
40.1
4
200.0
53.0
4
180.0
48.8
3
180.0
-1.8
4
190.0
0.1
4
200.0
-9.7
PPS_5 / 503
6 x 166.7 MVA
4
109.0
25.2
5
138.0
36.9
6
125.0
32.6
1
150.0
2.2
2
87.0
3.5
2
120.0
-11.2
As mentioned in the introduction, in this report, the online generators within each of the 14 power-plants are each replaced by an aggregated equivalent generator. While the generators in each
station could have been individually represented, this adds an additional level of complexity and
increases system size, moreover, it is not warranted for the primary purpose of this document.
If the researcher intends to investigate intra-plant dynamic performance for a particular power
plant they can readily modify the power flow and dynamics data to individually represent each
on-line unit within the plant. In general, a power plant has n identical generating units of which
m n are online. If m = 0 the entire power-plant is off-line. It is also assumed that each of the
n generator step-up transformers is identical. The steady-state operating conditions of each of
the m online units are assumed to be identical. For the purpose of analysing any disturbance external to the power plant; or any disturbance which is applied identically to all on-line units
within the plant we can aggregate the m on-line units to form a single equivalent unit as illustrated in Figure 18. For such disturbances the dynamic performance of the system in which the
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
31 of 128
generating plant is replaced by a single equivalent unit is identical to that of the system with the
original m identical on-line units. Of course, the m-1 intra-plant modes of oscillation do not exist
in the single composite representation, however, these modes are not excited by such disturbances.
V g1 g1
z t1 ,t 1
P g1 + jQ g1
V gi gi
V g g
P g + jQ g m
z
----t ,t
m
One line diagram of power-plant with single aggregated equivalent generator to

represent the m online generators.
Notes:
(a) Generator terminal voltages, angles and power generation are
P gi + jQ gi
identical: Vg1 = ... = Vgi = ... = Vgm = Vg pu;
g1 = ... = gi = ... = gm = g deg; Pg1 = ... = Pgi = ... = Pgm = Pg MW;
and Qg1 = ... = Qgi = ... = Qgm = Qg Mvar. The MVA base of each of
the m generators is MBASE.
V gm gm
(b) For the aggregate equivalent generator the terminal voltage and
angle is Vg pu and g deg respectively. The real and reactive power
output is (m x Pg) MW and (m x Qg) Mvar respectively. The MVA base
z tm ,t m
of
the aggregate generator is (m x MBASE) MVA.
P gm + jQ gm
(c) The impedance and tap position of each generator transformer is
identical: zt1 = ... = zti = ... = ztm = zt = rt + jxt pu on system MVA base;
One line diagram of powand t1 = ... = ti = ... = tm = t pu;
er-plant with m individual on(d) The impedance and tap position of the aggregate equivalent genline generators.
erator transformer is (rt + jxt)/m pu on system MVA base; and t pu respectively.
(e) Usually, generator model parameters are specified on the generator MVA base. If so then it is unnecessary to modify the values of the
generator parameters. Otherwise, the user must convert the parameters of the equivalent generator model from per-unit on (m x MBASE)
to the base required by their simulation program.
z ti ,t i
Figure 18
Formulation of a single aggregated equivalent generator to represent m online generators in a power-plant.
32 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Table 9
SVC name /
BusNo.
SVC ratings and operating conditions for loadflow Cases 1 to 6.
Reactive
Power
Range
(MBASE)
Qmax
Qmin
Case 1
Voltage
Mvar
Case 2
Voltage
Mvar
Case 3
Voltage
Mvar
Case 4
Voltage
Mvar
Case 5
Voltage
Mvar
Case 6
Voltage
Mvar
Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage

ASVC_2 /
205
650.0
430.0
-220.0
1.055
-68.3
1.055
41.8
1.02
-5.2
1.045
-39.3
1.045
-118.3
1.045
-29.4
RSVC_3 / 313
800.0
600.0
-200.0
1.015
71.4
1.015
129.4
1.015
158.8
1.015
86.7
1.015
54.9
1.015
54.2
BSVC_4 / 412
1430.0
1100.0
-330.0
1.000
58.2
1.000
63.9
1.000
83.8
1.000
-52.2
1.000
22.8
1.000
-0.2
PSVC_5 / 507
500.0
320.0
-180.0
1.015
22.6
1.040
36.8
1.043
18.0
1.010
-4.0
1.015
13.8
1.000
-3.7
SSVC_5 / 509
550.0
400.0
-150.0
1.030
10.6
1.027
50.2
1.050
-63.4
1.030
-109.3
1.030
-123.8
1.030
-109.3
Table 10
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Transmission Line Parameters: Values per circuit.

From bus
/ to bus
Line
No.
Line r+jx; b
(pu on 100MVA)
102
102
102
102
217
217
309
309
1,2
3,4
1,2
3
0.0084
0.0078
0.0045
0.0109
0.0667
0.0620
0.0356
0.0868
0.817
0.760
0.437
0.760
205
205
206
206
206
207
207
208
209
210
211
211
212
214
214
215
215
216
206
416
207
212
215
208
209
211
212
213
212
214
217
216
217
216
217
217
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2,3
1
1,2
1,2
1
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
1
0.0096
0.0037
0.0045
0.0066
0.0066
0.0018
0.0008
0.0031
0.0045
0.0010
0.0014
0.0019
0.0070
0.0010
0.0049
0.0051
0.0072
0.0051
0.0760
0.0460
0.0356
0.0527
0.0527
0.0140
0.0062
0.0248
0.0356
0.0145
0.0108
0.0155
0.0558
0.0077
0.0388
0.0403
0.0574
0.0403
0.931
0.730
0.437
0.646
0.646
0.171
0.076
0.304
0.437
1.540
0.133
0.190
0.684
0.095
0.475
0.494
0.703
0.494
33 of 128
From bus
/ to bus
Line
No.
Line r+jx; b
(pu on 100MVA)
303
303
304
305
305
306
307
309
310
312
313
315
304
305
305
306
307
307
308
310
311
313
314
509
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
1
1,2
1,2,3
1,2
1,2,3
1,2
1,2
0.0020
0.0011
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003
0.0001
0.0023
0.0135
0.0000
0.0060
0.0010
0.0070
0.0280
0.0160
0.0040
0.0030
0.0045
0.0012
0.0325
0.1070
-0.0337
0.0450
0.0100
0.0500
0.740
1.700
0.424
0.320
0.447
0.127
3.445
0.5827
0.000
0.300
0.260
0.190
405
405
405
406
407
408
409
410
410
410
411
414
415
406
408
409
407
408
410
411
411
412
413
412
415
416
1,2
1
1,2,3
1,2
1
1,2,3
1,2
1
1 to 4
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
0.0039
0.0054
0.0180
0.0006
0.0042
0.0165
0.0103
0.0043
0.0043
0.0040
0.0012
0.0020
0.0037
0.0475
0.0500
0.1220
0.0076
0.0513
0.1920
0.0709
0.0532
0.0532
0.0494
0.0152
0.0250
0.0460
0.381
0.189
0.790
0.062
0.412
0.673
0.460
0.427
0.427
0.400
0.122
0.390
0.730
504
504
505
505
506
506
507
507
507
508
507
508
507
508
508
509
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1,2
1
1
1-6
0.0230
0.0260
0.0016
0.0025
0.0016
0.0030
0.0020
0.0900
0.1500
0.0190
0.0170
0.0280
0.0170
0.0280
0.0190
0.6600
0.560
0.870
0.030
0.170
0.030
0.140
0.090
0.300
Notes:
(a) System frequency is 50 Hz.
(b) In Version 4 the number of parallel circuits between
the following pairs of buses were increased:
303-304: 1 to 2 ckt
309-310: 2 to 3 ckt
312-313: 1 to 3 ckt.
313-314: 1 to 2 ckt
505-507: 1 to 2 ckt
506-507: 1 to 2 ckt
507-509: 2 to 6 ckt
If the number of parallel circuits between a pair of
nodes is changed from m to n then the per-circuit
impedance and susceptance (r + jx, b) is changed to ((r
+ jx)*n/m, b*m/n). Consequently, the aggregate impedance and susceptance between the pair of nodes is
unchanged.
34 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Table 11
Transformer Ratings and Reactance.
Buses
Number
From
To
101
201
202
203
204
209
213
301
302
304
305
305
308
401
402
403
404
413
501
502
503
102
206
209
208
215
210
214
303
312
313
311
314
315
410
408
407
405
414
504
505
506
ng
ng
ng
ng
ng
4
4
ng
ng
2
3
2
2
ng
ng
ng
ng
3
ng
ng
ng
Rating,
each Unit
(MVA)
333.3
666.7
555.6
555.6
666.7
625.0
625.0
666.7
444.4
500.0
333.3
700.0
370.0
444.4
333.3
444.4
333.3
750.0
333.3
250.0
166.7
Reactance per
transformer
% on
Rating
per unit on
100MVA
12.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
12.0
17.0
10.0
15.0
17.0
15.0
17.0
6.0
17.0
16.0
16.7
0.0360
0.0240
0.0288
0.0306
0.0240
0.0272
0.0272
0.0240
0.0338
0.0320
0.0360
0.0243
0.0270
0.0338
0.0510
0.0338
0.0510
0.0080
0.0510
0.0640
0.1000
Notes:
(a) System frequency is 50 Hz.
(b) ng - Generator/transformer unit; in-service if associated generator
is on-line. (Thus, if ng generator units are on-line then the impedance
of the aggregated generator step-up transformer is xt/ng where xt is the
impedance of a single generator step-up transformer.)
Table 12
Switched Shunt Capacitor / Reactor banks (C/R) in service, Cases 1-6 (Mvar)
Bus
Number
Case 1
Case 2
211
100 C
212
400 C
150 C
150 C
400 C
400 C
400 C
216
300 C
150 C
150 C
300 C
300 C
300 C
409
60 C
60 C
60 C
60 C
60 C
60 C
411
30 C
30 C
30 C
30 C
30 C
30 C
414
30 R
30 R
30 R
30 R
30 R
30 R
415
60 R
60 R
60 R
60 R
60 R
60 R
416
60 R
60 R
60 R
60 R
60 R
90 R
90 R
90 R
504
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5:
Case 6:
35 of 128
V1
t:1
V1/t
From
bus
Zt
V2
To
bus
Taps-ratio convention employed
Figure 19 Transformer Taps Convention

The transformer tap ratios listed in Table 13 are based upon the convention shown in Figure 19.
Table 13
Transformer Tap Ratios for Loadflow Cases 1 to 6
Buses
From
To
101
201
202
203
204
209
213
301
302
304
305
305
308
401
402
403
404
413
501
502
503
102
206
209
208
215
210
214
303
312
313
311
314
315
410
408
407
405
414
504
505
506
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
0.939
0.943
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.976
1.000
0.939
0.952
0.961
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.939
0.952
0.952
0.952
1.000
0.952
0.962
0.962
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.990
1.000
0.935
0.952
0.961
1.000
1.000
0.960
0.939
0.952
0.952
0.952
1.000
0.952
0.930
0.930
0.948
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.976
1.000
0.930
0.952
0.948
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.939
0.952
0.952
0.952
1.000
0.952
0.930
0.930
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.976
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.961
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.971
0.971
0.971
0.971
0.976
1.000
0.961
0.961
0.961
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.952
0.952
0.952
0.952
1.015
0.985
0.995
0.985
1.000
1.010
1.010
1.010
1.010
0.976
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.961
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.010
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.015
1.020
1.020
36 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
For simplicity, loads are assumed to behave as constant impedances in the small- and large-signal analysis.
Table 14
Case 1
Bus
No.
102
205
206
207
208
211
212
215
216
217
306
307
308
309
312
313
314
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
504
507
508
509
450
390
130
1880
210
1700
1660
480
1840
1260
1230
650
655
195
115
2405
250
990
740
0
150
260
530
575
1255
300
1000
800
200
Busbar Loads (P MW, Q Mvar) for Cases 1 to 6

Case 2
Q
45
39
13
188
21
170
166
48
184
126
123
65
66
20
12
240
25
99
74
0
15
26
53
58
126
60
200
160
40
P
380
330
110
1600
180
1445
1410
410
1565
1070
1230
650
655
195
115
2405
250
1215
905
0
185
310
650
700
1535
200
710
520
70
Case 3
Q
38
33
11
160
18
145
140
40
155
110
123
65
66
20
12
240
25
120
90
0
20
30
65
70
155
40
140
105
15
P
475
410
140
1975
220
1785
1740
505
1930
1320
1450
770
770
230
140
2840
300
1215
905
0
185
310
650
700
1535
300
1100
800
100
Case 4
Q
50
40
15
200
25
180
180
50
200
140
150
80
80
25
15
290
30
120
90
0
20
30
65
70
155
60
220
160
20
P
270
235
80
1130
125
1060
1000
290
1105
750
900
470
620
140
92
1625
180
730
540
0
110
190
390
420
922
180
640
490
122
Case 5
Q
30
25
10
120
15
110
110
30
120
80
90
50
100
15
10
165
20
75
55
0
10
20
40
45
100
20
65
50
15
Case 6
Q
340
290
100
1410
160
1275
1245
360
1380
940
1085
580
580
170
105
2130
222
990
740
0
150
260
530
575
1255
225
750
600
150
35
30
10
145
20
130
125
40
140
95
110
60
60
20
15
220
25
100
75
0
15
30
55
60
130
25
75
60
15
P
270
235
80
1110
125
1035
1000
290
1105
750
900
470
620
140
92
1625
180
730
540
0
110
190
390
420
922
170
565
450
117
Q
30
25
10
120
15
110
110
30
120
80
90
50
100
15
10
165
20
75
55
0
10
20
40
45
100
20
65
50
15
Load Characteristics: Constant Impedance
I.2
Dynamic performance analysis
I.2.1 Generator model parameters (small- and large-signal)

The parameters of the fourteen generators are listed in Table 15. The generator model to which
these parameters apply are given in Section I.5. It should be noted that various simulation packages may adopt the same set of generator model parameters but employ different model formulations. Differences in the representation of generator saturation between simulation packages
are frequently observed. For that reason, and since generator saturation tends to have a small
effect of damping performance, generator saturation has been neglected in this benchmark model.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
37 of 128
Table 15
Generator Parameters
Rating Max.
H
Genera
Or- MVA No.
Bus
MWs/
tor
der per
of
MVA
Unit Units
Xa
pu
Xd
pu
Xq
pu
Xd'
pu
HPS_1 101
5 333.3
12
3.60
0.14
1.10
0.65
0.25
8.50
0.25 0.050
0.25 0.200
BPS_2 201
6 666.7
3.20
0.20
1.80
1.75
0.30
8.50
0.21 0.040
0.70
0.30
0.21 0.080
EPS_2 202
6 555.6
2.80
0.17
2.20
2.10
0.30
4.50
0.20 0.040
0.50
1.50
0.21 0.060
MPS_2 204
6 666.7
3.20
0.20
1.80
1.75
0.30
8.50
0.21 0.040
0.70
0.30
0.21 0.080
VPS_2 203
6 555.6
2.60
0.20
2.30
1.70
0.30
5.00
0.25 0.030
0.40
2.00
0.25 0.250
LPS_3 301
6 666.7
2.80
0.20
2.70
1.50
0.30
7.50
0.25 0.040
0.85
0.85
0.25 0.120
YPS_3 302
5 444.4
3.50
0.15
2.00
1.80
0.25
7.50
0.20 0.040
0.20 0.250
CPS_4 402
6 333.3
3.00
0.20
1.90
1.80
0.30
6.50
0.26 0.035
0.55
1.40
0.26 0.040
GPS_4 404
6 333.3
4.00
0.18
2.20
1.40
0.32
9.00
0.24 0.040
0.75
1.40
0.24 0.130
SPS_4 403
6 444.4
2.60
0.20
2.30
1.70
0.30
5.00
0.25 0.030
0.40
2.00
0.25 0.250
TPS_4 401
6 444.4
2.60
0.20
2.30
1.70
0.30
5.00
0.25 0.030
0.40
2.00
0.25 0.250
NPS_5 501
6 333.3
3.50
0.15
2.20
1.70
0.30
7.50
0.24 0.025
0.80
1.50
0.24 0.100
TPS_5 502
6 250.0
4.00
0.20
2.00
1.50
0.30
7.50
0.22 0.040
0.80
3.00
0.22 0.200
PPS_5 503
6 166.7
7.50
0.15
2.30
2.00
0.25
5.00
0.17 0.022
0.35
1.00
0.17 0.035
Tdo'
s
Xd"
pu
Tdo"
s
Xq'
pu
Tqo'
s
Xq"
pu
Tqo"
s
Generator reactances in per unit on machine rating as base.

For all generators the stator winding resistance (Ra) and damping torque coefficient (D) are both assumed to be zero.
System frequency is 50 Hz.
38 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
I.2.2 Small-signal Excitation System Models and Parameters

Two basic types of excitation systems are employed, ST1A and AC1A [16]. For simplicity exciter saturation, exciter armature reaction and voltage-drop due to rectifier regulation are neglected in the AC1A model. The parameters of the AVR have been tuned to ensure that the
open-circuit generator under closed-loop voltage control is stable and satisfies the performance
specifications. The small-signal models for the ST1A and AC1A excitation systems are shown
in Figures 20 and 21, respectively.
1
1+sTr
Vc
Vr
1+sTC 1+TC1
1+sTB 1+sTB1
Vs
Figure 20
Vs
KA
1+sTA
EF
Small-signal model of a type ST1A excitation system.

1
1+sTr
Vc
Vr
Vt
VF
1+sTC
1+sTB
Vt
KE
KA
1+sTA
sTE
EF
sKF
1+sTF
Figure 21 Small-signal model of a type AC1A Excitation System; exciter saturation, the demagnetizing effect of generator field current and the voltage drop due to rectifier regulation are
neglected.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
39 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
40 of 128
KF
TF (s)
2.50
TC (s)
TE (s)
13.25
TB (s)
0.10
TA (s)
KE
200
Tr (s)
KA (s)
ST1A
Type
HPS_1 /
101
0.50
1.12
0.02
400
ST1A
BPS_2 /
201
1.0
1.0
0.02
400
1.0
0.029
AC1A
EPS_2 /
202
Table 16
0.35
0.70
0.01
300
ST1A
VPS_2 /
203
0.50
1.12
0.02
400
ST1A
MPS_2 /
204
1.14
6.42
0.05
400
ST1A
LPS_3 /
301
1.0
0.05
200
0.8
0.020
1.333
AC1A
YPS_3 /
302
4.00
40.0
0.10
300
ST1A
TPS_4 /
401
1.52
9.80
0.05
300
0.02
ST1A
CPS_4 /
402
0.35
0.70
0.01
300
ST1A
SPS_4 /
403
0.20
250
0.1360
0.0232
ST1A
GPS_4 /
404
0.87
1.00
0.04
1000
AC1A
NPS_5 /
501
Small-signal excitation System Model Parameters: 14-generator system
0.60
0.05
1.40
16.0
0.50
400
ST1A
TPS_5 /
502
0.2
0.8
0.01
300
ST1A
PPS_5 /
503
I.2.3 SVC small-signal model and parameters

From a small-signal perspective the SVC is represented as a perturbation in the shunt susceptance B connected to the bus. The susceptance is controlled by a voltage-regulator with
SVC current droop as depicted in Figure 22. (Note: In Version 3 and earlier B and Q V t
were in per-unit on the system MVA base of 100 MVA, whereas now they are in per-unit on the
SVC Mvar base. Consequently the base conversion factor K s is now included in the model. It
is emphasized that this change in base has no effect on the dynamic performance of the model.)
An alternative formulation of the SVC model in which the current droop signal is represented
implicitly, under the assumption that the perturbation in voltage is small compared to the associated perturbation in susceptance, is developed in Appendix II.2.2. The alternative formulation is developed to allow the SVC to be represented in the PSS/E program using one of its
built-in SVC models. It is shown in the later appendix that the damping performance of the system with the alternative SVC model formulation is practically identical to that obtained with the
SVC model in Figure 22.
Vt
Vref
Vs
Vd
KA
s
2.5
1+sTd
Kd
KS
1----KS
Q/Vt]
SVC name / MBASE

bus number
(Mvar)
ASVC_2/205
650.0
RSVC_3/313
800.0
BSVC_4/412
1430.0
PSVC_5/507
500.0
SSVC_5/509
550.0
KA
500.0
500.0
500.0
250.0
250.0
KS
6.5
8.0
14.3
5.0
5.5
B and Q V t are in per-unit on MBASE.

K d = 0.01 pu on SBASE and T d = 0.005 s
Figure 22 Small-signal model of the SVCs.
I.3
Power System Stabiliser (PSS) Parameters
The structure of the PSS employing a speed-stabilising signal is shown in Figure 23. The design
based on the P-Vr method of the block labelled Compensation TF and LP Filter has been outlined in Section 6.3.
sKW
1+sTW
DE
Compensation
TF & LP Filter
Vs
Washout
Filter
Figure 23 Structure of the PSS for analysis and design purposes

Assuming a single washout filter block is employed, the general form of the PSS TF is given in
(2), i.e.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
41 of 128
sT W
1 + c 1 s + c 2 s 2 1 + sT a
1- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .
H PSS s = kG c s = k

1 + sT W k c 1 + sT b1 1 + sT 1 1 + sT 2
The Compensation TF & LP Filter (which excludes the Washout Filter) in Figure 23 represents a general form of that component in the above PSS TF given by:
1 + c 1 s + c 2 s 2 1 + sT a1
H c s = K c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 + sT b1 1 + sT 1 1 + sT 2
where K c = 1 k c
(6)
In the PSS transfer function of Figure 23, (i) the damping gain of the PSS is k = D e = 20 pu
on generator MVA rating, and (ii) the washout time constant T W is 7.5 s.
I.3.1
PSS compensating transfer functions and parameters
Form of the fourth-order TF having real zeros:

1 + sT a 1 + sT b 1 + sT c 1 + sT d
H c s = K c ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -----------------1 + sT e 1 + sT f 1 + sT g 1 + sT h
Table 17
(7)
Compensation and LP Filter Parameters for PSS based on (7).
Generator Name /
Number
Kc
Ta
Tb
Tc
Td
Te
EPS_2 / 202
0.233
0.286
0.111
0.040
0 0.00667 0.00667 0.00667
TPS_5 / 502
0.294
0.500
0.0588
0.0167
0 0.00667 0.00667 0.00667
PPS_5 / 503
0.178
0.200
0.187
0.167
0.020
0.350
Tf
Tg
Th
0.0667 0.00667 0.00667
Form of the fourth-order TF having real and complex zeros:

2
1 + sT a 1 + sT b
1 + as + bs
H c s = K c ------------------ ------------------ --------------------------------------------1 + sT 1 + sT 1 + sT 1 + sT
d
Table 18
Generator Name /
Number
(8)
Compensation and LP Filter Parameters for PSS based on (8)

Kc
Ta
Tb
MPS_2 / 204
0.333
0.010
0.10
0.0051 0.00667
0 0.00667 0.00667
YPS_3 / 302
0.298
0.050
0.5091
0.1322 0.00667
0 0.00667 0.00667
NPS_5 / 501
0.195
0.033
0.033
0.30
0.1111
Td
Te
Tf
Tg
0.300 0.00667 0.00667 0.00667
42 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Form of the second-order TF having real zeros:

1 + sT a 1 + sT b
H c s = K c ------------------ -----------------1 + sT e 1 + sT f
Table 19
(9)

Generator Name /
Number
Kc
Ta
Tb
Te
Tf
VPS_2 / 203
0.286
0.0708
0.0292 0.00667 0.00667
TPS_4 / 401
0.357
0.2083
0.2083 0.00667 0.00667
CPS_4 / 402
0.235
0.2777
0.1000 0.00667 0.00667
Form of the second-order TF having a pair of complex zeros:

2
1 + as + bs
H c s = K c ------------------------------------------- 1 + sT e 1 + sT f
Table 20
(10)
Generator Name /
Number
Kc
Te
Tf
HPS_1 / 101 *
0.769
0.3725
0.03845
0.00667
0.00667
BPS_2 / 201
0.278
0.1280
0.00640
0.00667
0.00667
LPS_3 / 301
0.625
0.1684
0.01180
0.00667
0.00667
SPS_4 / 403
0.316
0.0909 0.002067
0.00667
0.00667
GPS_4 / 404
0.303
0.1154 0.005917
0.00667
0.00667
* Note for HPS_1: PSSs are OFF in Cases 4 and 6. When motoring in Case5
the sign of the PSS output VS at the summing junction is negated - or equivalently the PSS gain setting is negated..
I.4
Comparison of P-Vr and GEP methods

Table 21
P-Vr and GEP methods for the design of PSS compensation TFs
Comparison of two methods for the design of the PSS compensation transfer functions
Feature
P-Vr
GEP [12]
Essentially an analytical frequency response

approach using small-signal analysis software or
Matlab. A wide range of normal and contingency operating conditions occurring on the
power system is examined.
Originally a field-based frequency response

method for tuning the PSS on a particular generator in a station for the particular operating condition(s) existing at the time.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
43 of 128
Comparison of two methods for the design of the PSS compensation transfer functions
Feature
P-Vr
GEP [12]
Calculates magnitude and phase of the P-Vr over Field measurements provide the phase response
V term V ref over a frequency range. Higher
the complete range of rotor modes.
frequency measurements may be limited by resonances at lightly-damped local-area or
intra-station modal frequencies.
The shaft dynamics are disabled.
I.5
PSS TF synthesized in both magnitude and

phase from P-Vr characteristic.
Using magnitude information from P-Vr TF,
damping gain ki is set to provide the left-shift
required to satisfy relevant system stability criteria.
The phase response of the TF V term V ref is

close to that of the P-Vr TF because the speed
perturbations associated with measurements are
small (i.e. the shaft dynamics are virtually disabled).
PSS TF is synthesized from phase response.
The gain setting of the PSS (on site) is determined by increasing the gain until the onset of
instability is detected; the gain is set to 1/3rd the
latter value.
Machine Equations
In Table 15 both fifth- and sixth-order generator models are represented; in the fifth-order model the q-axis representation is simplified.
I.5.1
Sixth-order generator model
The following is a sixth-order model of a synchronous generator employed in PSS/E. In this

model the classically defined, unsaturated operational-impedance parameters are used [13],
section 4.1-2. A linearized form of these equations are provided in small-signal analysis packages such as [14].
Equations of motion:
d
------ = 0 1 ,
dt
(11)
2
2
d
2H ------- = D 1 + P m v D i D + v Q i Q + r a i D + r a i Q .
dt
(12)
0 = 2f 0 , f 0 is 50 Hz,
where is the rotor angle (rad), and is the shaft speed in per-unit.
The rates of change of voltage behind transient reactance ( E q and E d ) and damper winding
flux linkages ( kd and kq ) are given by:
dE q
1----------- = -------- E X ad i fd ;
dt
T d0 fd
(13)
44 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
d kd
1 ------------ = ---------- E kd X d x a i d ;
dt
T d0 q
(14)
dE d
1----------- = --------X i ;
dt
T q0 aq kq
(15)
d kq
1 ----------- = ---------- E kq X q x a i q .
dt
T q0 d
(16)
The d- and q-axis components of the generator terminal voltage are:

v d = r a i d + X q i q + q ,
(17)
v q = r a i q X d i d + d .
(18)
The transformer voltages and the speed dependency of the rotational voltages in the stator equations are neglected.
The d- and q-axis components of the stator subtransient flux linkages, d and q , are:
X d x a
X d X d
d = --------------------- E q + ------------------------ kd ,
X d x a
X d x a
(19)
X q x a
X q X q
q = --------------------- E d + ------------------------ kq .
X q x a
X q x a
(20)
The field current I fd = X ad i fd is given by:

X ad i fd = K 1d E q + K 2d kd + K 3d i d ,
(21)
where
X d X d X d X d
K 1d = 1 + -------------------------------------------------------
2
X d x a
K 2d = 1 K 1d
X d X d X d x a
K 3d = ---------------------------------------------------- . (22)
X d x a
The q-axis excitation is:

X aq i kq = K 1q E d + K 2q kq + K 3q i q ,
(23)
where
X q X q X q X q
K 1q = 1 + -------------------------------------------------------
2
X q x a
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
K 2q = 1 + K 1q ,
45 of 128
X q X q X q x a
K 3q = ---------------------------------------------------- .
X q x a
(24)
I.5.2 Fifth-order generator model

In the fifth-order model, only one damper winding is represented on the quadrature axis. The
equations of motion and those for the direct-axis of the generator are therefore the same as for
the sixth-order generator model. However, (15) and (16) for the quadrature axis are replaced by:
d q
1 ------------- = ---------- q X q X q i q ;
dt
T q0
(25)
furthermore, the following equation replaces (20), (23) and (24):

q = q X q i q .
(26)
46 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Appendix II
Transient stability modelling data
The small-signal model of the simplified 14-generator model of the southern and eastern Australian power system is augmented to allow large-signal (i.e. transient-stability) analysis.The
study results in this report are prepared using the Siemens-PTI PSS/E program [1]. Consequently, the large-signal dynamics model data is presented in a format consistent with PSS/E.
However, it is expected the data can be readily adapted to other transient-stability programs as
well.
II.1
Steady-state analysis data
The power flow data in Appendix I.1 is used as a basis for transient stability analysis.
II.2
Dynamic analysis data
II.2.1 Generator model and parameters

The generator model and parameters in Appendix I.2.1 are used in the transient stability analysis, with the exception of a difference in the formulation of the rotor equations of motion which
is described below. In addition, since generator saturation is neglected, the parameters S(1.0)
and S(1.2) are both set to zero in the PSS/E data for each generator.
II.2.1.1
Formulation of the generator rotor-equations of motion
When using PSS/E it is necessary that the frequency dependence of network parameters is represented by setting the simulation parameter NETFRQ = 1. This ensures a consistent formulation of the generator rotor-equations of motion.
II.2.2
Large-signal SVC model and parameters
To our knowledge there is no standard or built-in model in PSS/E of a SVC with the structure
used in the small-signal formulation described in Appendix I.2.3. In the following it is shown
that, subject to certain assumptions, the PSS/E CSVGN1 SVC model has similar small-signal dynamic performance to the model in Appendix I.2.3.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
47 of 128
Vt
V ref
VMAX
ub
Vs
1 + sT 1 1 + sT 2
K ------------------ ------------------
1 + sT 3 1 + sT 4
VMIN
1.0
1
---------------- 1 + sT 5
C BASE
---------------R BASE
R BASE
---------------S BASE
RMIN/RBASE
Notes:
(a) Vref is the external SVC AVR voltage reference input; Vt is the SVC terminal voltage in pu; Vs is
the output from an optional power oscillation damper and is not used in the 14 generator system model; B is the SVC susceptance in pu on system MVA base (SBASE).
(b) RBASE is the maximum value of the SVC inductance (in Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage) and in the 14
generator system model is equal to the SVC reactive power range MBASE = QMAX - QMIN (Mvar) as
specified in Table 9, The SVC inductance is assumed to be continuously controllable between RMIN
and RBASE (Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage).
(c) CBASE is the total SVC capacitance (in Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage) and in the 14 generator model is
equal to the maximum SVC reactive power output QMAX (Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage) as specified in
Table 9.
(d) RMIN is the minimum value of the controllable inductance (in Mvar @ 1.0 pu voltage) and is zero
for all five SVCs in the 14 generator system model.
(e) VMAX = 1.0 pu and VMIN = 0.0 pu and for the 14 generator system model corresponds to the inductance range of the SVC in pu of RBASE.
Figure 24 PSS/E CSVGN1 SVC model structure used to represent the five SVCs in transient stability simulations.
Linearizing the PSS/E CSVGN1 model we have the following transfer-function from u b
to B :
R BASE 1 + sT 1 1 + sT 2
B s 1
---------------= K ---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ pu on SBASE
u b s
S BASE 1 + sT 3 1 + sT 4 1 + sT 5
(27)
Referring to Figure 22 we seek to develop the transfer-function from the perturbation in the
voltage-error signal u b = V ref V t + V s to the perturbation in the SVC susceptance
B .
2.5K A
1
Qs
B s = --------------- ------------------ u b s K d K S ------------ pu on MBASE
V t s
sK S 1 + sT d
(28)
Now, consider the expression for the SVC current, Q V t . Recall that Q = BV t and therefore,
Q V t = BV t . Linearizing the latter expression and transforming to the Laplace domain yields:
Qs
------------ = B 0 V t s + V t0 B s
V s
t
(29)
48 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Assuming that the perturbation in susceptance is large when compared to the associated change
in voltage we can simplify (29) to:
Qs
------------ V t0 B s
V s
(30)
Qs
Substituting for ------------ in (28) from the approximation in (30) yields:
V s
t
2.5K A
1
B s = --------------- ------------------ u b s K d K S V t0 B s
sK S 1 + sT d
(31)
which, upon rearrangement yields the following transfer-function:

1 K d K S V t0
B s
----------------- = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------u b s
T
1
d
1 + ------------------------------ s + ------------------------------ s
2.5K d K A V t0
2.5K d K A V t0
(32)
Td
2
1
Let us now factorize the characteristic equation 1 + ------------------------------ s + ------------------------------ s = 0
2.5K K V
2.5K d K A V t0
d A t0
into the form 1 + sT a 1 + sT b = 0 .
1
After defining a = -----------------------------2.5K d K A V t0
(33)
we have T a + T b = a and T a T b = aT d . Eliminating T b from the preceding two equations we

2
have the following quadratic equation for T a : T a aT a + aT d = 0 . Taking the largest root we
have
a + a a 4T d
T a = ---------------------------------------2
(34)
a a a 4T d
T b = a T a = --------------------------------------2
Thus, subject to the assumption that V t B , the small-signal transfer-function representation of the SVC in Figure 22 is:
B s 1
1
1
---------------= ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------ pu on MBASE.
K K V 1 + sT 1 + sT
u b s
d S t0
a
b
(35)
With minimal loss of accuracy we can set V t0 = 1.0 pu, thereby avoiding the need to adjust
the SVC model parameters with changes in the SVC bus voltage.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
49 of 128
Comparing the transfer-function of the small-signal model of the SVC in (35) with that of the
PSS/E CSVGN1 model in (27) we can see that the CSVGN1 model can be used to represent the SVC according to the following relationships between the small-signal model parameters and CSVGN1 model parameters:
Table 22
Transformation from the small-signal SVC model parameters in (35) to the

PSS/E CSVGN1 model parameters in (27).
PSS/E
CSVGN1
Parameter
in terms of small-signal model

parameters
1
--------------------
K d K S V t0
T1
0.0
T2
0.0
T3
a + a a 4T d
T a = ---------------------------------------2
T4
0.0
T5
a a a 4T d
T b = --------------------------------------2
Notes:
1
2.5K d K A V t0
(a) from (), a = ------------------------------
(b) set V t0 = 1.0 for fixed model parameters.
50 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Table 23 Parameter values of the PSS/E CSVGN1 SVC model [1] used in the transient
stability studies. (Note that K, T3 and T5 are calculated assuming Vt0 = 1.0 pu)
Parameter values for five SVCs in the 14-generator system
ASVC_2 RSVC_3 BSVC_4 PSVC_5
SSVC_5
IBUS
205
313
412
507
509
Model Code CSVGN1 CSVGN1 CSVGN1 CSVGN1 CSVGN1
I
1
1
1
1
1
K
15.384615
12.5
6.993
20.0 18.181818
T1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Parameter
T2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T3
0.074641
0.074641
0.074641
0.154833
0.154833
T4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T5
0.005359
0.005359
0.005359
0.005167
0.005167
RMIN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
VMAX
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
VMIN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
430.0
600.0
1100.0
320.0
400.0
CBASE
II.2.2.1 Assessment of the effect of the modified SVC model on damping performance
The 13 electromechanical modes for Case 2 with all PSSs in-service with their design damping-gains are listed in Table 24 for two alternative SVC representations. The first is the
small-signal representation with SVC-current droop explicitly represented as shown in
Figure 22 and the second is the transfer-function in (35) which is derived from the first on the
assumption that perturbation in SVC susceptance is large when compared to the associated
change in voltage. It is thus clear from this comparison that employing the PSS/E CSVGN1
model of the SVC in which current droop is implicitly represented will have negligible effect
on the damping performance of the system.
Table 24
Comparison of electromechanical modes for Case 2 with two alternative SVC

representations.
SVC model with
explicit current droop
(i.e. Figure 22)
Real
Np/s
(1)
-2.403
-2.038
-2.370
-2.805
-2.494
-2.442
-2.039
-1.814
-2.021
-2.029
-0.769
-0.447
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Imag
rad/s
(2)
10.964
9.725
9.644
8.962
8.936
8.370
8.379
7.772
7.490
7.739
3.537
2.542
SVC model with

implicit current droop
(i.e. transfer-function
(35))
Real
Imag
Np/s
rad/s
(3)
(4)
-2.403
10.964
-2.038
9.725
-2.370
9.644
-2.805
8.962
-2.494
8.936
-2.443
8.370
-2.039
8.379
-1.813
7.770
-2.021
7.490
-2.030
7.738
-0.769
3.538
-0.446
2.545
Difference
(3)-(1)
Real
Np/s
(5)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
-0.001
0.000
0.001
(4)-(2)
Imag
rad/s
(6)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.002
0.000
-0.001
0.001
0.003
51 of 128
SVC model with

implicit current droop
(i.e. transfer-function
(35))
Imag
Real
Imag
rad/s
Np/s
rad/s
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.759
-0.431
1.760
SVC model with

explicit current droop
(i.e. Figure 22)
Real
Np/s
(1)
-0.431
II.2.3
II.2.3.1
Difference
(3)-(1)
Real
Np/s
(5)
0.000
(4)-(2)
Imag
rad/s
(6)
0.001
Large-signal excitation system models and data

IEEE Std. 421.5-2005 ST1A Model [16]
The PSS/E ESST1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std 421.5-2005 ST1A excitation system model [16] is employed in the studies conducted in this report. The model data for the control-system block diagram of the PSS/E ESST1A implementation of the model in Figure 25
is presented in Table 25.
The source of power for generator excitation is the generator stator consequently the limit on
the generator field voltage is proportional to the generator stator voltage. The limit VRMAX is
specified such that when a three-phase short-circuit is applied to the high-voltage side of the
generator step-up transformer the excitation system is able to produce a factor k times the field
voltage which is required to produce rated power output at rated (lagging) power factor and a
stator voltage of 1.05 pu. The factor k is, with the following exceptions, 1.5. For the LPS_3 generator k = 4.5 and for the TPS_5 and PPS_5 generators k = 3.0. These latter values of k are considered to be somewhat (probably unrealistically) high. They are set to these values to ensure
that the six base cases in this version of the model are transiently stable. VRMIN is set to
-VRMAX, VAMAX to VRMAX and VAMIN to VRMIN.
II.2.3.2
IEEE Std. 421.5-2005 AC1A Model [16]
The PSS/E ESAC1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std 421.5-2005 AC1A excitation system model [16] is employed in the studies conducted in this report. The model data for the control-system block diagram of the PSS/E ESAC1A implementation of the model in Figure 26
is presented in Table 26.
The upper limit on the voltage regulator output (VAMAX) is specified as a factor k times the generator field voltage which is required to produce rated power output at rated (lagging) power
factor and a stator voltage of 1.05 pu. For generators EPS_2 and NPS_5 k is 2 and for YPS_3
k is 2.75. The lower limit VAMIN is set to -VAMAX. The limits VRMAX and VRMIN are disabled
by setting them to large positive and negative values respectively.
52 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
53 of 128
V ref
Vs 1
1
-----------------1 + sT R
VIMIN
VIMAX
V uel 1
HV
Gate
V uel 2
sK F
----------------1 + sT F
1 + sT C 1 + sT C1
----------------- ---------------------
1 + sT B 1 + sT B1
VAMIN
KA
----------------1 + sT A
VAMAX
Vs 2
K LR
HV
Gate
V uel 3
LV
Gate
I LR
I FD
V oel
Vt*VRMIN
E FD
Vt*VRMAXKC*IFD
Figure 25 Control-system block diagram of the PSS/E ESST1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std. 421.5-2005 ST1A model [16] used in
the transient-stability studies conducted in this report. (Note: Vs(1) and Vs(2) are alternative inputs from the PSS; Vuel(1), Vuel(2) and Vuel(3)
are alternative inputs from the under-excitation-limiter (UEL); and Voel is the input from the over-excitation-limiter. Vt is the generator stator
voltage in pu; EFD and IFD are the generator field voltage and current respectively in per-unit as defined in Annex B of [16]) Note that under- and
over-excitation limiters are not modelled in this report.
Vt
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
54 of 128
Table 25
0.0
TB1 (s)
0.0
999.0
ILR
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-9.5
9.5
-9.5
9.5
0.02
400.0
0.0
0.0
1.12
0.500
-99.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-10.5
10.5
-10.5
10.5
0.01
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.350
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-9.5
9.5
-9.5
9.5
0.02
400.0
0.0
0.0
1.12
0.500
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-42.0
42.0
-42.0
42.0
0.05
400.0
0.0
0.0
6.42
1.140
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-13.0
13.0
-13.0
13.0
0.10
300.0
0.0
0.0
40.00
4.000
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-11.0
11.0
-11.0
11.0
0.05
300.0
0.0
0.0
9.80
1.520
-99.0
99.0
0.02
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-13.0
13.0
-13.0
13.0
0.01
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.70
0.350
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-11.0
11.0
-11.0
11.0
0.20
250.0
0.0
0.0
0.0232
0.136
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-22.0
22.0
-22.0
22.0
0.50
400.0
0.05
0.60
16.0
1.400
-99.0
99.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
-18.5
18.5
-18.5
18.5
0.01
300.0
0.0
0.0
0.80
0.200
-99.0
99.0
0.0
Notes:
(a) UEL is ignored unless the under-excitation limiter is modelled. UEL = 1 means the output signal from the UEL is connected to Vuel(1); and similarly
for UEL = 2 and UEL = 3.
(b) VOS is ignored unless the PSS is modelled. VOS = 1 means the output signal from the PSS is connected to Vs(1) and similarly for VOS = 2.
1.0
KC
KLR
0.0
VRMIN
0.0
-9.5
VRMAX
TF (s)
9.5
VAMIN
KF
9.5
-9.5
VAMAX
0.10
0.0
TC1 (s)
TA (s)
13.25
TB (s)
200.0
2.500
TC (s)
KA
-99.0
VIMIN
99.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
VIMAX
VOS
TR (s)
(b)
Parameter values for generators fitted with ESST1A AVR/exciter models

HPS_1
BPS_2
VPS_2
MPS_2
LPS_3
TPS_4
CPS_4
SPS_4
GPS_4
TPS_5
PPS_5
101
201
203
204
301
401
402
403
404
502
503
ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A ESST1A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UEL (a)
IBUS
Model Code
I
Parameter Name
Parameter values for the PSS/E ESST1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std. 421.5-2005 ST1A model [16] used in the
transient-stability studies conducted in this report.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
55 of 128
V ref
1
-----------------1 + sT R
Vs
sK F
----------------1 + sT F
1 + sT C
-----------------1 + sT B
HV
Gate
V uel
V oel
LV
Gate
VRMIN
VRMAX
1
if I N 0
IN
1 -----if 0 I N 0.433
f IN =
2
0.75 I N if 0.433 I N 0.75
3 1 I if 0.75 I 1.0
N
N
0
if I N 1
VAMIN
KA
----------------1 + sT A
VAMAX
V FE
VR
KE
KD
SE VE
1-------sT E
VE
F EX
E FD
I FD
K C ---------
VE
IN
I FD
F EX = f I N
Figure 26 Control-system block diagram of the PSS/E ESAC1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std. 421.5-2005 AC1A model [16] used in
the transient-stability studies conducted in this report. (Note: Vs is the input from the PSS; Vuel is the input from the under-excitation-limiter; and
Voel is the input from the over-excitation-limiter. Vt is the generator stator voltage in pu; EFD and IFD are the generator field voltage and current
respectively in per-unit as defined in Annex B of [16]. Note that under- and over-excitation limiters are not modelled in this report.)
Vt
Table 26 Parameter values for the PSS/E ESAC1A implementation [1] of the IEEE Std.
421.5-2005 AC1A model [16] used in the transient-stability studies conducted in this report.
Parameter Name
IBUS
Model Code
I
TR (s)
Parameter values for generators

fitted with ESAC1A AVR/exciter
models
EPS_2
YPS_3
NPS_5
202
302
501
ESAC1A ESAC1A ESAC1A
1
1
1
TB (s)
TC (s)
KA
TA (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
400.0
200.0
1000.0
0.02
0.05
0.04
VAMAX
5.5
7.0
5.5
VAMIN
-5.5
-7.0
-5.5
TE (s)
1.0
1.333
0.87
KF
0.029
0.02
0.004
TF (s)
1.0
0.8
0.27
KC
0.0
0.0
0.0
KD
0.0
0.0
0.0
KE
1.0
1.0
1.0
E1 (a)
0.0
0.0
0.0
SE(E1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
E2
0.0
0.0
0.0
SE(E2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
VRMAX
99.0
99.0
99.0
VRMIN
-99.0
-99.0
-99.0
Notes:
(a) The exciter saturation function is defined by two points, (E1,
SE(E1)) and (E2, SE(E2)). In the case of PSS/E exciter saturation is neglected if (E1, SE(E1)) = (0,0) and (E2, SE(E2)). = (0,0).
Other programs may have different ways to indicate that exciter
saturation is to be neglected.
II.2.4
Large-signal PSS models and data
II.2.4.1 IEEE 1981 general purpose single-input PSS model [17]

The 1981 report of the IEEE Working Group on Computer Modelling for Excitation Systems
[17] recommended a general purpose single-input PSS. This PSS model is implemented in
PSS/E as the IEEEST model [1] as shown in the block diagram in Figure 27.
The parameters of the phase-compensation transfer-functions in equations (7) to (10) are transformed to the parameters A 1 to A 6 , T 1 to T 6 and K S of the PSS/E formulation of the PSS
transfer-function according to the mappings in Table 27. The parameters for the PSSs contained
in Tables 17 to 20 are converted according to the transformations defined in Table 27 to the parameters required by the PSS/E IEEEST model. The resulting PSS/E parameters are listed
56 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
in Table 28. Recall from Appendix I.3.1 that for all of the PSSs T W = 7.5 s and D e = 20.0 pu
on the machine MVA rating.
Not shown in Figure 27 are the voltage-dependent limits on the output from the PSS/E
IEEEST model. These latter limits are disabled by setting the parameters VCU and VCL to zero.
All PSS output limits have been set to +/- 0.1 pu. In this version no attempt has been made to
optimize the setting of these limits.
Table 27
Transformation from the PSS parameters in equations (7) to (10) to the PSS
parameters in the PSS/E IEEEST PSS model in Figure 27.
PSS/E
model
Parameter
Eqn. (7)
Eqn. (8)
Eqn. (9)
Eqn. (10)
A1
Tg + Th
Tf + Tg
0.0
Te + Tf
A2
Tg Th
Tf Tg
0.0
Te Tf
A3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
A5
Tc + Td
0.0
A6
Tc Td
0.0
T1
Ta
Ta
Ta
0.0
T2
Te
Td
Te
0.0
T3
Tb
Tb
Tb
0.0
T4
Tf
Te
Tf
0.0
T5
TW
T6
TW
KS
De kc
LSMAX
1
-
----------------------------------2
1 + sA 3 + s A 4
1 + sA 5 + s A 6
-
---------------------------------- 1 + sA 1 + s 2 A 2
1 + sT 1
-----------------1 + sT 2
1 + sT 3
-----------------1 + sT 4
sT 5
----------------1 + sT 6
Vs
KS
LSMIN
Figure 27 Control-system block diagram of the PSS/E IEEEST implementation [1] of the
general-purpose PSS model developed in 1981 by the IEEE Working Group on Computer Modelling for Excitation Systems [17]. This model is used in the transient-stability studies conducted in this report. (Note: is the rotor-speed perturbation (in pu of synchronous speed) and Vs
is the output from the stabilizer which is connected to the AVR reference-input summing junction. The voltage-dependent output limits are not shown and are disabled.)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
57 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
58 of 128
BPS_2
EPS_2
VPS_2
MPS_2
LPS_3
YPS_3
TPS_4
CPS_4
SPS_4
GPS_4
NPS_5
TPS_5
PPS_5
7.5
7.5
15.38
T4
T5
T6
KS
VCL
-0.1
0.1
5.556
7.5
7.5
0.0064
0.128
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
4.651
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.111
0.006667
0.286
0.04
-0.1
0.1
5.714
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.0292
0.006667
0.0708
-0.1
0.1
6.667
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.01
0.0051
0.1
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
12.5
7.5
7.5
0.0118
0.1684
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
5.97
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.05
0.1322
0.5091
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
7.143
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.2083
0.006667
0.2083
-0.1
0.1
4.706
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.1
0.006667
0.2777
-0.1
0.1
6.329
7.5
7.5
0.002067
0.0909
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
6.061
7.5
7.5
0.005917
0.1154
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
3.899
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.033
0.3
0.033
0.1111
0.3
4.444e-5
-0.1
0.1
5.882
7.5
7.5
0.006667
0.0588
0.006667
0.5
0.0167
-0.1
0.1
3.559
7.5
7.5
0.0667
0.187
0.35
0.2
0.00334
0.187
4.444e-5
Notes:
(a) Eqn / Tab refers respectively to the equation describing the form of the PSS compensation transfer-function and the associated table of parameter values from which the IEEEST model
parameters are derived according to the parameter mappings in Table 27.
(b) The PSS fitted to machine HPS_1 is removed from service in cases 4 & 6 because it is operating as a synchronous condensor; in case 5 the PSS gain KS is negated because it is pumping.
VCU
0.1
T3
-0.1
T2
LSMIN
T1
LSMAX
0.3725
0.03845
A4
A6
A3
A5
4.444e-5
A2
10 / 20
10 / 20
7 / 17
9 / 19
8 / 18
10 / 20
8 / 18
9 / 19
9 / 19
10 / 20
10 / 20
8 / 18
7 / 17
7 / 17
Eqn / Tab
IBUS
101
201
202
203
204
301
302
401
402
403
404
501
502
503
Model Code IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST IEEEST
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ICS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A1
0.01333
0.01333 0.006667
0
0.01333
0.01333
0.01333
0
0
0.01333
0.01333
0.01333 0.006667
0.01333
(a)
Parameter Values
Parameter values for the PSS/E IEEEST implementation [1] of the IEEE 1981 general-purpose PSS model [17] used in the
transient-stability studies conducted in this report.
Parameter
Name
HPS_1 (b)
Table 28
II.3
Network sequence impedance data
In the South East Australian power system three-phase faults on the transmission network are
not considered to be credible contingencies (except under exceptional circumstances) under the
Australian National Electricity Rules [18]. Rather, for planning purposes solid two-phase to
ground faults are generally treated as the most severe form of credible contingency. In order to
reflect this practice on the simplified 14-generator model of the South East Australian system it
is necessary to provide negative and zero sequence impedance data for the network so that the
equivalent fault impedances required to represent two-phase to ground faults can be computed.
II.3.1 Transmission lines
It is assumed that the three-phase system is balanced and consequently the negative-sequence
impedance of transmission lines are identical to the positive-sequence impedances listed in
Table 10. The zero-sequence impedances are deemed to be 2.5 times the corresponding positive-sequence impedance. This multiplying factor is based on rules-of-thumb on the relationships between positive- and zero-sequence impedances on page 884 of [13].
Mutual coupling between transmission circuits is neglected.
II.3.2 Transformers
Since it is assumed that the three-phase system is balanced the negative-sequence impedances
of the transformers are identical to the positive sequence impedances listed in Table 11.
All generator step-up transformers are assumed to have a delta/grounded-star connection with
the delta on the generator side. The neutral of the high-voltage windings is solidly grounded.
Consequently, there is no path for the flow of zero-sequence currents from the generator to the
network. For the generator step-up transformers the zero-sequence impedances are identical to
the corresponding positive-sequence impedances listed in Table 11.
All other network transformers, such as those between buses 315 and 308, are assumed to have
a delta/delta connection. The implication is that there is no path for the flow of zero-sequence
currents from the delta windings into the lines and thus viewed from either terminal the zero-sequence impedance is infinite. Although three-winding transformers are often employed in practice, it is considered an unnecessary complication for the purpose of this benchmark study
system.
II.3.3 Generators
As discussed in Section 13.4.2 (pg. 877) of [13], if only the fundamental frequency component
of the negative-sequence current produced by impressing a balanced set of fundamental frequency negative-phase sequence voltages on the stator terminals of a generator is considered
the effective negative-sequence reactance of the generator is found to be:
X d X q
X 2 = 2 -----------------------Xd + Xq
(36)
Since we are neglecting saliency of sub-transient reactances (i.e. X q = X d ) it follows that

X 2 = X d . Thus, for the generators, the negative-sequence impedances are identical to the
d-axis sub-transient reactances listed in Table 15.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
59 of 128
Since we are concerned only with faults on the high-voltage side of the generator step-up transformers; and since the generator step-up transformers have a delta/grounded-star connection the
generator zero-sequence impedances of the generators are irrelevant and so we do not propose
values for them.
II.3.4 Loads
All loads are represented as an equivalent impedance in the negative-sequence network; and as
an infinite impedance in the zero-sequence network.
II.4
Effective negative and zero sequence admittances at network buses
For the purpose of representing an unbalanced fault in a transient stability study it is usual practice to represent the effect of the negative- and zero-sequence networks by their equivalent admittances ( Y 2 and Y 0 ) as seen at the fault location [13]. These admittances (or impedances) are
combined depending on the type of fault and the resulting effective fault admittance ( Y fe ) is
connected at the fault location in the detailed positive-phase sequence representation of the network for the duration of the fault. The fault is cleared by removing the effective fault admittance
and (possibly) disconnecting the faulted network element (e.g. transmission line or transformer). It should be noted that this study system does not include models of generator turbines and
governors and therefore, events involving the loss of generation or load should not be simulated.
The effective fault admittance for a two-phase to ground fault is given by Y fe = Y 2 + Y 0 ; and
Y2 Y0
for a single-phase to ground fault it is: Y fe = ------------------ .
Y2 + Y0
The negative- and zero-sequence admittances seen from all of the high-voltage buses in the system are listed in Tables 29 & 30 respectively for each of the six study cases. These admittances
are computed with the PSS/E program based on the sequence impedance data in Appendix
II.3.
The effective fault admittances for a solid two-phase to ground fault at each of the high-voltage
buses in the system are listed in Table 31 for the six study cases.This data is intended to assist
researchers to benchmark the system model in other simulation tools and, for users who do not
have access to software capable of analysing sequence networks.
60 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
61 of 128
102
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
405
406
BusID
G
16.965
7.5511
24.099
41.504
34.256
29.666
14.971
46.608
42.098
17.17
31.477
23.874
34.128
30.531
32.186
36.54
47.209
41.236
41.977
15.482
12.572
118.16
14.278
13.345
37.023
30.037
8.6531
17.405
11.907
B
-79.65
-30.363
-183.25
-142.34
-137.15
-157.06
-97.353
-113.61
-102.93
-88.871
-103.74
-165.72
-88.128
-90.366
-140.23
-95.185
-101.19
-87.168
-88.051
-39.026
-54.639
-119.98
-62.688
-65.999
-73.143
-70.831
-29.653
-84.43
-68.179
Table 29
Equivalent negative sequence admittance (pu on 100 MVA)
Case
2
3
4
5
G
B
G
B
G
B
G
B
15.725
-70.544
17.434
-147.54
13.45
-61.791
15.18
-71.942
7.0619
-29.959
8.0742
-30.446
6.1675
-29.198
6.694
-29.981
23.19
-159.72
25.85
-181.32
20.106
-143.08
23.059
-159.26
36.879
-126.18
43.826
-132.26
30.163
-116.81
35.604
-119.87
30.856
-118.7
34.781
-114.42
25.995
-113.29
29.298
-106.07
27.436
-135.23
32.072
-152.39
22.98
-119.83
27.404
-132.2
15.009
-90.226
16.055
-96.267
13.195
-82.264
14.963
-87.135
40.68
-103.87
48.316
-106.81
32.791
-97.045
38.245
-97.061
37.239
-96.459
44.531
-101.26
29.857
-89.012
35.136
-90.763
16.681
-82.937
17.937
-88.755
14.461
-76.967
16.492
-80.303
28.791
-95.659
32.733
-104.77
23.933
-88.89
27.783
-92.089
21.818
-129.41
23.79
-168.37
18.927
-128.56
21.298
-129.85
29.99
-82.114
35.596
-90.964
24.227
-77.37
28.404
-79.461
27.086
-82.905
31.634
-103.49
22.385
-77.517
26.058
-82.235
30.726
-155.54
33.606
-159.96
27.299
-124.57
29.528
-156.35
35.02
-101.49
39.644
-106.24
29.553
-84.939
32.84
-98.98
45.86
-108.42
52.707
-113.74
37.169
-90.083
42.598
-105.97
39.81
-92.449
45.62
-96.344
32.836
-78.679
36.932
-90.556
40.513
-93.493
46.427
-97.458
33.454
-79.374
37.61
-91.509
14.359
-39.981
15.854
-40.595
13.868
-36.921
13.618
-39.039
12.233
-52.388
12.757
-67.072
11.101
-48.394
11.699
-52.625
129.85
-138.51
148.58
-130.97
84.199
-113.25
117.86
-138.8
13.185
-63.049
14.415
-68.943
12.74
-57.435
12.663
-62.445
12.989
-78.329
14.323
-79.422
10.957
-53.35
11.983
-66.325
36.782
-79.3
42.284
-80.882
27.167
-64.75
32.76
-74.848
29.026
-75.344
32.999
-77.563
23.24
-63.312
26.523
-72.124
7.2494
-28.361
8.1737
-30.406
7.7893
-28.183
7.5665
-29.268
20.214
-85.113
20.217
-85.121
14.456
-58.198
17.273
-76.781
13.877
-68.548
13.879
-68.551
10.69
-55.563
12.117
-66.736
Equivalent negative-sequence admittances at transmission network nodes.
G
13.668
6.1846
20.448
30.585
26.661
23.825
13.87
33.088
30.116
15.135
24.468
19.221
24.432
22.666
27.154
29.4
36.934
32.612
33.218
13.686
11.175
83.684
12.715
10.94
27.091
23.161
7.6386
14.648
10.471
6
B
-60.986
-28.981
-123.56
-112.45
-110.38
-116.75
-80.334
-93.523
-85.464
-74.793
-85.2
-109.27
-73.45
-74.428
-124.47
-84.866
-90.01
-78.633
-79.333
-36.981
-48.111
-113.51
-57.291
-53.328
-64.704
-63.262
-28.268
-56.69
-48.429
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
62 of 128
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
504
505
506
507
508
509
BusID
G
10.191
7.1565
10.429
23.738
20.345
23.206
6.2368
5.7672
4.8186
4.8979
16.449
14.636
14.181
19.541
19.041
6.372
B
-75.287
-59.856
-30.954
-67.921
-40.669
-43.332
-32.806
-31.562
-27.582
-25.878
-38.182
-54.83
-51.57
-54.41
-47.291
-21.723
Equivalent negative sequence admittance (pu on 100 MVA)

Case
2
3
4
5
G
B
G
B
G
B
G
B
11.857
-75.728
11.858
-75.731
9.5471
-60.53
10.449
-74.009
7.9054
-60.244
7.9093
-60.253
7.1093
-48.895
7.2825
-59.171
11.448
-31.442
11.453
-31.453
8.9743
-27.567
10.336
-30.498
27.597
-69.561
27.736
-69.667
18.896
-56.085
23.68
-68.186
23.853
-41.424
23.889
-41.461
16.097
-35.897
20.253
-40.591
27.478
-43.914
27.529
-43.957
18.035
-38.11
23.145
-43.338
6.5949
-33.126
6.7649
-33.269
5.8232
-30.242
6.0359
-32.502
6.0586
-31.834
6.2372
-31.981
5.5587
-30.097
5.7097
-32.139
4.9204
-27.677
5.1492
-27.856
4.5562
-26.537
4.6627
-27.839
4.7868
-25.761
5.2026
-26.039
4.3628
-25.008
4.5562
-25.819
13.317
-39.793
16.765
-40.769
11.374
-32.061
13.39
-35.633
10.25
-54.506
13.952
-58.094
11.397
-38.827
12.539
-48.738
10.225
-53.859
14.216
-59.972
10.343
-32.934
11.414
-41.06
13.684
-55.491
19.571
-60.109
13.52
-37.109
15.44
-45.916
13.762
-48.271
18.908
-51.387
13.679
-34.55
15.43
-41.156
4.8856
-21.055
5.4178
-21.97
5.5383
-20.582
5.5896
-21.22
G
9.3717
7.4645
9.0026
18.973
16.126
18.079
5.766
5.6606
4.6067
4.4041
11.757
10.26
9.3366
12.254
11.565
5.3747
6
B
-50.97
-54.811
-27.508
-56.849
-36.129
-38.419
-30.205
-30.921
-27.056
-25.306
-28.447
-44.869
-37.604
-41.514
-36.036
-20.726
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
63 of 128
102
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
405
406
BusID
1
G
1.6634
1.2262
4.8793
10.666
5.5817
4.3886
0
7.458
6.7248
0
4.7418
3.6439
4.7708
5.6728
0
2.9847
3.2288
2.7379
2.7664
1.0749
2.3346
0.87866
0
0
2.0803
1.6477
0.37366
2.1525
3.6302
B
-124.68
-10.016
-291.8
-107.71
-179.14
-212.28
0
-68.53
-58.269
0
-40.019
-280.78
-40.306
-50.5
-291.55
-50.887
-57.702
-46.815
-47.597
-16.172
-22.001
-7.3537
0
-88.739
-20.299
-16.158
-2.7786
-141.69
-71.835
Table 30
2
G
1.6301
1.2136
4.6429
9.5677
5.3427
4.1447
0
6.9751
6.4218
0
4.5585
3.5428
4.5459
5.2859
0
3.1198
3.3952
2.8515
2.8832
1.09
2.1431
0.85297
0
0
2.3404
1.8087
0.37449
2.1525
3.6302
Equivalent zero sequence admittance (pu on 100 MVA)

Case
3
4
5
B
G
B
G
B
G
-96.752
1.6558
-346.86
1.6275
-68.967
1.6249
-9.9582
1.2258
-10.015
1.1972
-9.8786
1.2132
-249.09
4.7078
-290.91
4.5569
-207.07
4.5258
-101.44
9.5527
-100.16
8.7957
-96.979
8.9301
-145.37
5.5978
-113.84
5.0306
-143.86
5.3427
-176.31
3.9155
-209.51
4.093
-141.38
3.8607
-0
0
0
0
0
0
-65.831
6.748
-63.469
6.8158
-65.223
6.5425
-56.842
6.3896
-56.246
6.2525
-56.149
6.196
-0
0
0
0
0
0
-39.192
4.7095
-39.705
4.4867
-38.902
4.4964
-197.01
3.7125
-281.04
3.407
-196.4
3.5187
-39.285
4.7831
-40.269
4.4814
-39.024
4.5111
-48.647
6.2433
-53.034
4.9161
-46.68
5.2618
-333.33
0
-333.33
0
-250
0
-52.022
3.1198
-52.022
2.8188
-49.458
3.1198
-59.166
3.3952
-59.166
3.0265
-55.87
3.3952
-47.773
2.8515
-47.773
2.5974
-45.602
2.8515
-48.588
2.8832
-48.588
2.6221
-46.344
2.8832
-16.285
1.09
-16.285
1.0553
-16.025
1.09
-20.94
2.9105
-24.777
1.8751
-19.266
2.1426
-7.2316
0.94362
-7.6393
0.81204
-7.0213
0.85291
-0
0
0
0
0
0
-118.35
0
-118.35
0
-59.18
0
-21.516
2.3404
-21.516
1.6754
-18.236
2.0803
-16.92
1.8087
-16.92
1.3844
-14.824
1.6477
-2.784
0.37519
-2.7882
0.36865
-2.7317
0.37146
-141.69
2.1525
-141.69
2.0122
-82.022
2.1525
-71.835
3.6302
-71.835
2.8993
-63.28
3.5894
B
-96.727
-9.9572
-248.49
-96.886
-112.69
-174.59
0
-62.679
-55.491
0
-38.824
-196.9
-39.093
-48.521
-333.33
-52.022
-59.166
-47.773
-48.588
-16.285
-20.939
-7.2314
0
-88.739
-20.299
-16.158
-2.7608
-122.08
-71.524
Equivalent zero-sequence admittances at transmission network nodes.
6
1.6
1.1741
4.4645
8.6251
4.9157
4.0155
0
6.7023
6.132
0
4.3831
3.3288
4.3287
4.7906
0
2.8188
3.0265
2.5974
2.6221
1.0553
1.8715
0.81153
0
0
1.6754
1.3844
0.36668
1.9682
2.3291
B
-68.845
-9.7606
-164.99
-96.22
-143.39
-141.07
0
-64.775
-55.65
0
-38.451
-154.36
-38.305
-46.092
-250
-49.458
-55.87
-45.602
-46.344
-16.025
-19.256
-7.0201
0
-59.18
-18.236
-14.824
-2.7548
-81.597
-53.908
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
64 of 128
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
504
505
506
507
508
509
BusID
1
G
1.4574
1.7902
2.1169
1.0002
2.1582
2.3017
1.0408
0.39389
0.46309
0.6783
7.7156
3.4127
3.5219
5.1748
11.301
0.45004
B
-138.16
-79.409
-16.351
-128.22
-26.807
-31.925
-14.303
-4.0498
-4.6406
-6.3433
-55.425
-86.355
-66.144
-60.311
-45.26
-3.3764
2
G
1.4574
1.7902
2.1169
1.0002
2.1582
2.3017
1.0408
0.39231
0.46095
0.67397
7.9791
3.434
3.5219
5.3215
11.478
0.45126
Equivalent zero sequence admittance (pu on 100 MVA)

Case
3
4
5
B
G
B
G
B
G
-138.16
1.4574
-138.16
1.2668
-107.08
1.4227
-79.409
1.7902
-79.409
1.6737
-59.147
1.773
-16.351
2.1169
-16.351
1.978
-15.784
2.0923
-128.22
1.0002
-128.22
0.94342
-98.297
0.99322
-26.807
2.1582
-26.807
1.9781
-25.513
2.1502
-31.925
2.3017
-31.925
2.0653
-29.987
2.296
-14.303
1.0408
-14.303
0.98054
-13.834
1.0406
-4.0402
0.39383
-4.0496
0.39025
-4.027
0.39225
-4.6281
0.46301
-4.6404
0.45816
-4.6108
0.46088
-6.3199
0.67815
-6.3429
0.66832
-6.2877
0.67383
-55.638
8.1862
-55.798
5.6668
-53.464
6.8971
-87.54
3.4618
-88.472
3.5962
-63.953
3.448
-76.144
3.5219
-86.132
3.4771
-34.672
3.5219
-62.982
5.4662
-65.197
4.6854
-43.938
4.9269
-46.281
11.628
-47.094
10.233
-37.871
10.835
-3.3844
0.45227
-3.3906
0.44283
-3.3074
0.44687
B
-137.91
-79.321
-16.255
-128.19
-26.776
-31.903
-14.302
-4.04
-4.6279
-6.3196
-54.7
-82.667
-46.144
-52.906
-42.178
-3.3502
6
G
1.3133
1.6289
1.9777
0.96659
1.9809
2.0693
0.98142
0.38733
0.45421
0.66033
6.8971
2.1968
2.5902
3.4863
6.7953
0.43986
B
-77.866
-78.468
-15.783
-98.473
-25.523
-30.003
-13.838
-4.0072
-4.5848
-6.2396
-35.092
-80.843
-44.851
-50.65
-39.143
-3.3413
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
65 of 128
102
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
405
406
BusID
1
G
18.628
8.7773
28.979
52.17
39.838
34.054
14.971
54.066
48.822
17.17
36.219
27.517
38.898
36.204
32.186
39.525
50.438
43.974
44.744
16.557
14.907
119.04
14.278
13.345
39.104
31.685
9.0268
19.558
15.537
Equivalent two phase to ground fault admittance (pu on 100 MVA)

Case
2
3
4
5
G
B
G
B
G
B
G
17.355
-167.3
19.09
-494.4
15.078
-130.76
16.805
8.2755
-39.917
9.3
-40.461
7.3647
-39.076
7.9072
27.833
-408.81
30.558
-472.23
24.663
-350.15
27.585
46.447
-227.62
53.378
-232.42
38.959
-213.79
44.535
36.199
-264.07
40.379
-228.26
31.026
-257.15
34.64
31.581
-311.54
35.988
-361.9
27.073
-261.22
31.264
15.009
-90.226
16.055
-96.267
13.195
-82.264
14.963
47.655
-169.71
55.064
-170.28
39.607
-162.27
44.788
43.66
-153.3
50.92
-157.51
36.109
-145.16
41.332
16.681
-82.937
17.937
-88.755
14.461
-76.967
16.492
33.349
-134.85
37.442
-144.47
28.42
-127.79
32.279
25.361
-326.42
27.503
-449.42
22.334
-324.96
24.817
34.536
-121.4
40.379
-131.23
28.708
-116.39
32.915
32.371
-131.55
37.877
-156.52
27.301
-124.2
31.32
30.726
-488.87
33.606
-493.29
27.299
-374.57
29.528
38.14
-153.51
42.764
-158.27
32.372
-134.4
35.96
49.255
-167.59
56.102
-172.9
40.196
-145.95
45.994
42.662
-140.22
48.471
-144.12
35.433
-124.28
39.784
43.397
-142.08
49.31
-146.05
36.076
-125.72
40.494
15.449
-56.265
16.944
-56.88
14.923
-52.946
14.708
14.376
-73.329
15.667
-91.849
12.976
-67.66
13.842
130.71
-145.74
149.53
-138.61
85.011
-120.27
118.72
13.185
-63.049
14.415
-68.943
12.74
-57.435
12.663
12.989
-196.68
14.323
-197.77
10.957
-112.53
11.983
39.122
-100.82
44.625
-102.4
28.843
-82.987
34.84
30.834
-92.264
34.808
-94.483
24.625
-78.136
28.171
7.6239
-31.145
8.5488
-33.194
8.158
-30.915
7.938
22.366
-226.8
22.37
-226.81
16.468
-140.22
19.426
17.507
-140.38
17.509
-140.39
13.589
-118.84
15.706
B
-168.67
-39.938
-407.76
-216.75
-218.76
-306.79
-87.135
-159.74
-146.25
-80.303
-130.91
-326.75
-118.55
-130.76
-489.68
-151
-165.14
-138.33
-140.1
-55.324
-73.564
-146.03
-62.445
-155.06
-95.147
-88.282
-32.029
-198.86
-138.26
Equivalent two-phase to ground fault admittances at transmission network nodes.
B
-204.33
-40.379
-475.05
-250.05
-316.29
-369.34
-97.353
-182.14
-161.19
-88.871
-143.76
-446.5
-128.43
-140.87
-431.77
-146.07
-158.89
-133.98
-135.65
-55.198
-76.64
-127.33
-62.688
-154.74
-93.442
-86.989
-32.431
-226.12
-140.01
Table 31
6
G
15.268
7.3586
24.913
39.21
31.577
27.84
13.87
39.79
36.248
15.135
28.851
22.55
28.761
27.457
27.154
32.218
39.96
35.21
35.84
14.742
13.047
84.496
12.715
10.94
28.767
24.546
8.0053
16.616
12.8
B
-129.83
-38.742
-288.55
-208.67
-253.77
-257.83
-80.334
-158.3
-141.11
-74.793
-123.65
-263.63
-111.76
-120.52
-374.47
-134.32
-145.88
-124.24
-125.68
-53.005
-67.367
-120.53
-57.291
-112.51
-82.941
-78.086
-31.023
-138.29
-102.34
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
66 of 128
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
504
505
506
507
508
509
BusID
1
G
11.648
8.9466
12.546
24.738
22.504
25.507
7.2776
6.1611
5.2817
5.5762
24.165
18.049
17.703
24.716
30.342
6.822
B
-213.45
-139.26
-47.305
-196.14
-67.475
-75.257
-47.109
-35.611
-32.222
-32.221
-93.608
-141.19
-117.71
-114.72
-92.551
-25.099
Equivalent two phase to ground fault admittance (pu on 100 MVA)

Case
2
3
4
5
G
B
G
B
G
B
G
13.314
-213.89
13.316
-213.89
10.814
-167.61
11.871
9.6955
-139.65
9.6994
-139.66
8.7831
-108.04
9.0556
13.565
-47.793
13.57
-47.804
10.952
-43.351
12.429
28.597
-197.78
28.736
-197.89
19.84
-154.38
24.673
26.011
-68.231
26.048
-68.268
18.075
-61.409
22.403
29.78
-75.839
29.831
-75.882
20.1
-68.097
25.441
7.6357
-47.429
7.8056
-47.571
6.8038
-44.077
7.0765
6.4509
-35.874
6.631
-36.031
5.9489
-34.124
6.1019
5.3813
-32.305
5.6122
-32.496
5.0143
-31.148
5.1236
5.4607
-32.08
5.8808
-32.382
5.0312
-31.296
5.23
21.296
-95.43
24.952
-96.567
17.041
-85.525
20.287
13.684
-142.05
17.414
-146.57
14.993
-102.78
15.987
13.746
-130
17.738
-146.1
13.82
-67.606
14.936
19.005
-118.47
25.038
-125.31
18.206
-81.047
20.367
25.24
-94.552
30.535
-98.481
23.912
-72.421
26.265
5.3368
-24.439
5.8701
-25.36
5.9811
-23.889
6.0365
B
-211.92
-138.49
-46.752
-196.38
-67.367
-75.242
-46.804
-36.179
-32.467
-32.138
-90.332
-131.4
-87.204
-98.821
-83.334
-24.57
6
G
10.685
9.0933
10.98
19.939
18.107
20.148
6.7474
6.048
5.0609
5.0644
18.654
12.457
11.927
15.74
18.36
5.8146
B
-128.84
-133.28
-43.291
-155.32
-61.653
-68.423
-44.043
-34.928
-31.641
-31.546
-63.539
-125.71
-82.455
-92.163
-75.178
-24.067
Appendix III Benchmark comparison between Mudpack

and PSS/E models of the 14-generator system
The small-signal stability analysis in this report is conducted with Mudpack [14]. Mudpack is
an interactive software package for investigating the small-signal dynamic performance of large
multi-machine power systems. It forms the linearized differential and algebraic equations of the
power system based on an exact analytical evaluation of the partial derivatives of the non-linear
system equations, rather than on the numerical estimation methods used in some other tools.
Based on the linearized system model Mudpack computes and graphically displays the eigenvalues, mode-shapes, participation factors; computes and graphically displays time- and frequency-responses; computes and graphically displays transfer-function residues and performs
a number of other specialized tasks associated with the tuning of stabilizers and investigation of
the interactions between stabilizers and generators.
We employ the widely used PSS/E software package [1] for power flow and transient stability
analysis.
As a precursor to performing transient stability studies on the simplified 14-generator model of
South East Australian power system we establish through a number of benchmark tests that the
small-signal performance of the PSS/E model of the system agrees closely with that of the
Mudpack model.
As stated in Appendix II.2.1.1 in PSS/E the frequency dependence of network parameters is
represented by setting the simulation parameter NETFRQ = 1. This ensures that a consistent formulation of the generator rotor equations of motion in PSS/E.
All benchmark studies are conducted with the PSSs in-service with their design damping gain
of De = 20 pu on the machine MVA rating. (Comparison of PSS/E and Mudpack responses
with the PSSs out-of-service is ill-advised because the system is unstable without PSSs. Consequently, non-linear behaviour of the system will play a significant role in the PSS/E step responses as the oscillations grow in amplitude.)
III.1
Generator voltage-reference step-responses
For study case 1, with all PSSs in service at their design damping gain of 20.0 pu, a 0.5% step
increase in the voltage reference is applied to the AVR of generator HPS_1 and the perturbations in the power output (P), rotor-speed (W), stator-voltage (Vt), reactive-power output (Q),
generator field voltage (Ef) and generator field current (If) are monitored. This test is conducted
in both PSS/E and Mudpack. As shown in Figure 28 the responses obtained with the two packages are practically identical. Such voltage-reference step-response tests are useful in verifying
that the local mode behaviour obtained with the respective simulation packages are consistent.
Similar tests have been performed for all 14 generators in all six study cases and there is similarly very close agreement between the PSS/E and Mudpack responses. A selection of these
results is presented in Figures 29 to 41. A complete set of the 14 x 6 = 84 plots is provided in
the form of a PDF file as part of the DataPackage. Furthermore, to aid the reader in benchmarking their own implementation of the model, the step-response time-series data is also provided
in the DataPackage for a selection of the voltage-reference step-response tests.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
67 of 128
W.HPS_1 (x10
5
3
Time (s)
2
Mudpack
1
0
0
PSS/E
File: CMP_Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_HPS_1.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 22:35:15
Time (s)
3
0
0.1
0.2
Time (s)
5
5
pu)
5
4
1
Time (s)
4
3
2
1
Vt.HPS_1 (x10
Ef.HPS_1 (pu)
pu)
5
0
20
10
Time (s)
5
4
3
Time (s)
2
1
0
5
10
Q.HPS_1 (Mvar)

Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_HPS_1; 0.5% step on Vref.HPS_1;
If.HPS_1 (x102 pu)
P.HPS_1 (MW)
Figure 28 Case 1, Vref.HPS_1 step-response benchmark comparison between PSS/E (with

NETFRQ = 1) and Mudpack. A 0.5% step increase in the voltage-reference of the AVR of generator HPS_1 is applied and the perturbations in the electrical power output (P), rotor-speed
(W), stator-voltage (Vt), reactive-power output (Q), generator field-voltage (Ef) and field-current (If) of HPS_1 are compared.
68 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Figure 29 As for Figure 28 but for Case 2 and generator BPS_2.
Vt.BPS_2 (x10
0.5
0.5
50
50
pu)
P.BPS_2 (MW)
Ef.BPS_2 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_BPS_2.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 23:28:53
PSS/E

Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_BPS_2; 0.5% step on Vref.BPS_2;
20
40
Mudpack
20
W.BPS_2 (x104 pu)

Q.BPS_2 (Mvar)
If.BPS_2 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
69 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 30 As for Figure 28 but for Case 3 and generator EPS_2.
P.EPS_2 (MW)
0.1
0.2
10
pu)
Vt.EPS_2 (x10
Ef.EPS_2 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case03_NETFRQ_VrefStep_EPS_2.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:38:22
PSS/E

Case03_NETFRQ_VrefStep_EPS_2; 0.5% step on Vref.EPS_2;
pu)
4
W.EPS_2 (x10
Q.EPS_2 (Mvar)
Mudpack
50
50
1.5
0.5
If.EPS_2 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
70 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 31 As for Figure 28 but for Case 4 and generator VPS_2.
Vt.VPS_2 (x10
0.5
0.5
20
20
pu)
P.VPS_2 (MW)
Ef.VPS_2 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case04_NETFRQ_VrefStep_VPS_2.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:40:01
PSS/E

Case04_NETFRQ_VrefStep_VPS_2; 0.5% step on Vref.VPS_2;
20
40
Mudpack
20
W.VPS_2 (x104 pu)

Q.VPS_2 (Mvar)
If.VPS_2 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
71 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 32 As for Figure 28 but for Case 5 and generator MPS_2.
P.MPS_2 (MW)
20
40
0.5
0.5
20
Vt.MPS_2 (x103 pu)
Ef.MPS_2 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case05_NETFRQ_VrefStep_MPS_2.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:42:11
PSS/E

Case05_NETFRQ_VrefStep_MPS_2; 0.5% step on Vref.MPS_2;
20
40
Mudpack
20
W.MPS_2 (x104 pu)

Q.MPS_2 (Mvar)
If.MPS_2 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
72 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 33 As for Figure 28 but for Case 6 and generator LPS_3.
0.5
0.5
10
10
20
pu)
Vt.LPS_3 (x10
P.LPS_3 (MW)
Ef.LPS_3 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case06_NETFRQ_VrefStep_LPS_3.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:44:11
PSS/E

Case06_NETFRQ_VrefStep_LPS_3; 0.5% step on Vref.LPS_3;
10
20
Mudpack
10
W.LPS_3 (x104 pu)

Q.LPS_3 (Mvar)
If.LPS_3 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
73 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 34 As for Figure 28 but for Case 1 and generator YPS_3.
P.YPS_3 (MW)
0.2
10
0.2
Vt.YPS_3 (x103 pu)
Ef.YPS_3 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_YPS_3.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 22:57:35
PSS/E

Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_YPS_3; 0.5% step on Vref.YPS_3;
pu)
5
W.YPS_3 (x10
5
Mudpack
10
20
30
10
Q.YPS_3 (Mvar)
If.YPS_3 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
74 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 35 As for Figure 28 but for Case 2 and generator TPS_4.
P.TPS_4 (MW)
10
Vt.TPS_4 (x103 pu)
pu)
Ef.TPS_4 (x10
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_TPS_4.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:48:02
PSS/E

Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_TPS_4; 0.5% step on Vref.TPS_4;
W.TPS_4 (x104 pu)
0
Mudpack
10
20
30
1.5
0.5
Q.TPS_4 (Mvar)
If.TPS_4 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
75 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 36 As for Figure 28 but for Case 3 and generator CPS_4.
P.CPS_4 (MW)
0.1
0.2
pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case03_NETFRQ_VrefStep_CPS_4.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:50:56
PSS/E

Case03_NETFRQ_VrefStep_CPS_4; 0.5% step on Vref.CPS_4;
Mudpack
0.5
10
10
20
1.5
0.5
1.5
Vt.CPS_4 (x10
Ef.CPS_4 (pu)
pu)
4
W.CPS_4 (x10
Q.CPS_4 (Mvar)
pu)
If.CPS_4 (x10
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
76 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 37 As for Figure 28 but for Case 4 and generator SPS_4.
Vt.SPS_4 (x10
0.5
0.5
10
10
20
pu)
P.SPS_4 (MW)
Ef.SPS_4 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case04_NETFRQ_VrefStep_SPS_4.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:53:12
PSS/E

Case04_NETFRQ_VrefStep_SPS_4; 0.5% step on Vref.SPS_4;
W.SPS_4 (x104 pu)
Q.SPS_4 (Mvar)
If.SPS_4 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
77 of 128
Mudpack
10
15
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 38 As for Figure 28 but for Case 5 and generator GPS_4.
Vt.GPS_4 (x10
0.5
0.5
10
10
20
pu)
P.GPS_4 (MW)
Ef.GPS_4 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case05_NETFRQ_VrefStep_GPS_4.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:55:09
PSS/E

Case05_NETFRQ_VrefStep_GPS_4; 0.5% step on Vref.GPS_4;
W.GPS_4 (x104 pu)
Q.GPS_4 (Mvar)
Mudpack
10
20
If.GPS_4 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
78 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 39 As for Figure 28 but for Case 6 and generator NPS_5.
P.NPS_5 (MW)
0.5
10
0.5
Vt.NPS_5 (x103 pu)
Ef.NPS_5 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case06_NETFRQ_VrefStep_NPS_5.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:57:07
PSS/E

Case06_NETFRQ_VrefStep_NPS_5; 0.5% step on Vref.NPS_5;
W.NPS_5 (x104 pu)
Q.NPS_5 (Mvar)
If.NPS_5 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
79 of 128
Mudpack
10
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 40 As for Figure 28 but for Case 1 and generator TPS_5.
0.1
0.2
P.TPS_5 (MW)
pu)
Vt.TPS_5 (x10
Ef.TPS_5 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_TPS_5.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 23:22:04
PSS/E

Case01_NETFRQ_VrefStep_TPS_5; 0.5% step on Vref.TPS_5;
pu)
5
W.TPS_5 (x10
5
Mudpack
10
20
30
10
Q.TPS_5 (Mvar)
If.TPS_5 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
80 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 41 As for Figure 28 but for Case 2 and generator PPS_5.
P.PPS_5 (MW)
0.2
0.4
10
pu)
Vt.PPS_5 (x10
Ef.PPS_5 (pu)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
File: CMP_Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_PPS_5.eps
Tue, 18Feb2014 06:58:41
PSS/E

Case02_NETFRQ_VrefStep_PPS_5; 0.5% step on Vref.PPS_5;
W.PPS_5 (x104 pu)
Q.PPS_5 (Mvar)
Mudpack
10
20
If.PPS_5 (x102 pu)
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
81 of 128
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
III.2 Mechanical power step-responses to verify consistency of inter-area

modes
For study case 1, with all PSSs in service at their design damping gain of 20.0 pu, a +10 MW
step is applied to the mechanical power input of the GPS_4 machine and a compensating
-10 MW step is applied to the NPS_5 machine. Since these two machines are located at either
end of the system the interarea modes of oscillation are excited and the power flow in the inter-regional tie-lines contain significant inter-area modal components. Thus, the perturbations
in the total line-power flow in the circuits between buses 410 & 413 (P.LN42); 217 & 102
(P.LN23); and 509 & 315 (P.LN53) are monitored. This test, which is conducted in PSS/E and
Mudpack, is intended to verify that the inter-area mode behaviour obtained with the respective
simulation packages are consistent. As shown in Figure 42 the responses obtained with the two
packages are practically identical (with PSS/E NETFRQ = 1).
The results of similar tests conducted for cases 2 to 6 are shown in Figures 43 to 47 respectively
and they reveal similarly very close agreement between the PSS/E and Mudpack responses.
The time-series data for these results are also provided in the DataPackage.
82 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

P.LN42 (MW)
20
10
0
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
10
0
10
20
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 14:56:24
Figure 42 Case 1. Benchmark comparison between PSS/E (with NETFRQ = 1) and Mudpack. Step change in mechanical power input of +10 MW applied to GPS_4 and a compensating
change of -10 MW applied to NPS_5. Powerflow in interconnectors between areas 2 &4
(P.LN42); areas 2 & 3 (P.LN23) and areas 5 & 3 (P.LN53) are compared.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
83 of 128

P.LN42 (MW)
20
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 14:57:53
Figure 43 As for Figure 42 but for Case 2.
84 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

P.LN42 (MW)
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
15
10
5
0
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
20
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 14:59:07
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
85 of 128

P.LN42 (MW)
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
20
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 15:00:45
86 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

P.LN42 (MW)
20
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
20
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 15:02:37
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
87 of 128

P.LN42 (MW)
20
15
10
5
0
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
P.LN23 (MW)
20
10
0
10
P.LN53 (MW)
0
5
10
15
20
PSS/E
Mudpack
Mon, 17Feb2014 15:03:54
III.3 Benchmark comparison of the generator P-Vr characteristics computed by PSS/E and Mudpack
The P-Vr characteristics of the fourteen generators are computed in PSS/E for Case 2 and compared in Figures 48 to 61 with the corresponding P-Vr characteristics computed using Mudpack.
There is very close agreement between the characteristics computed by the respective packages.
In order to highlight any differences between the characteristics in the range of electromechanical modal frequencies the magnitude characteristics are displayed in absolute units, rather than
in dB.
88 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
These results demonstrate that the implementation of the electromagnetic behaviour of the generator models and of the AVR/exciter models in the respective simulation packages are practically identical.
To the authors knowledge the PSS/E software package does not include built-in facilities for
computation of frequency-responses. A tool, AUPSSEFRTOOL, developed at Adelaide University as a PSS/E plug-in has been used to compute the P-Vr characteristics within the
PSS/E program. A paper describing this tool is in preparation at time of writing. It should be
mentioned at this point that the accuracy of the frequency responses computed in PSS/E are
sensitive to the integration time-step and to the amplitude of the sinusoidal perturbation applied
to the voltage-reference.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
89 of 128

Simplified 14 generator model of the SE Australian system. Case 2.
PVr characteristic for HPS_1. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
Magnitude (pu on MBASE)
1.5
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
150
PSS/E
Mudpack
180
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_HPS_1_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:03:13
Figure 48 HPS_1 P-Vr characteristic benchmark comparison between Mudpack and PSS/E.
90 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for BPS_2. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
45
90
135
180
PSS/E
Mudpack
225
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_BPS_2_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:03:23
Figure 49 As for Figure 48 but for generator BPS_2.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
91 of 128

PVr characteristic for EPS_2. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
0
1
10
10
10
10
0
45
Phase (deg.)
90
135
180
225
270
PSS/E
Mudpack
315
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_EPS_2_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:03:35
Figure 50 As for Figure 48 but for generator EPS_2.
92 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for VPS_2. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
PSS/E
Mudpack
150
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_VPS_2_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:03:47
Figure 51 As for Figure 48 but for generator VPS_2.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
93 of 128

PVr characteristic for MPS_2. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
45
90
135
180
PSS/E
Mudpack
225
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_MPS_2_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:00
Figure 52 As for Figure 48 but for generator MPS_2.
94 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for LPS_3. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
150
PSS/E
Mudpack
180
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_LPS_3_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:11
Figure 53 As for Figure 48 but for generator LPS_3.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
95 of 128

PVr characteristic for YPS_3. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
45
90
135
180
225
PSS/E
Mudpack
270
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_YPS_3_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:23
Figure 54 As for Figure 48 but for generator YPS_3.
96 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for TPS_4. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
0
30
Phase (deg.)
60
90
120
150
180
PSS/E
Mudpack
210
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_TPS_4_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:35
Figure 55 As for Figure 48 but for generator TPS_4.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
97 of 128

PVr characteristic for CPS_4. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
150
PSS/E
Mudpack
180
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_CPS_4_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:47
Figure 56 As for Figure 48 but for generator CPS_4.
98 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for SPS_4. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
30
Phase (deg.)
0
30
60
90
120
PSS/E
Mudpack
150
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_SPS_4_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:04:59
Figure 57 As for Figure 48 but for generator SPS_4.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
99 of 128

PVr characteristic for GPS_4. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
150
PSS/E
Mudpack
180
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_GPS_4_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:05:12
Figure 58 As for Figure 48 but for generator GPS_4.
100 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for NPS_5. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
45
90
135
180
225
PSS/E
Mudpack
270
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_NPS_5_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:05:23
Figure 59 As for Figure 48 but for generator NPS_5.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
101 of 128

PVr characteristic for TPS_5. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
45
90
135
180
PSS/E
Mudpack
225
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_TPS_5_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:05:35
Figure 60 As for Figure 48 but for generator TPS_5.
102 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

PVr characteristic for PPS_5. Benchmark comparison between Mudpack & PSS/E.
0
1
10
10
10
10
Phase (deg.)
30
60
90
120
150
PSS/E
Mudpack
180
1
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/s)
File: PVRbenchmark_Case02_PPS_5_MagPU.eps
Wed, 22Jan2014 19:05:47
Figure 61 As for Figure 48 but for generator PPS_5.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
103 of 128
Appendix IV
PSS/E Transient Stability Analysis
The confirmation in Appendix III of the very close agreement between the small-signal performance of the PSS/E implementation of the simplified 14-generator model of the South East
Australian system and that of the original Mudpack implementation provides a firm basis for
analysing the transient stability performance of the model with the PSS/E package. Nevertheless, it is desirable that the transient stability results presented in the following are independently
validated in another transient-stability analysis package.
The transient stability studies conducted in this report are with the PSSs in-service with their
design damping gains of De = 20.0 pu on the generator MVA base.
All PSS/E studies are conducted including the frequency dependence of the network parameters (i.e. with NETFRQ = 1).
IV.1
Representation of faults in PSS/E studies
IV.1.1 Type of fault

As mentioned earlier, in the Australian National Electricity Rules (NER) [18], a three-phase to
ground fault is not generally considered to be a credible transmission system contingency event
for lines operating at or above 220 kV. Rather, solid two-phase to ground faults are normally
considered to be the most severe credible type of transmission system fault.
Thus, in accordance with the above practice, when assessing the transient-stability performance
of the 14-generator model the response to solid two-phase to ground faults are considered.
As described in Appendix II.4 a two-phase to ground fault at node F is represented by connecting an equivalent fault admittance Y fe = Y 0 + Y 2 to node F in the detailed positive-phase
sequence representation of the system. The equivalent fault admittance represents the combined
effect of the zero- and negative-phase sequence networks as seen from the fault location.
The equivalent fault admittances for two-phase to ground faults at each high-voltage
(>= 275 kV) node in the system are listed in Table 31 for each of the six study scenarios.
IV.1.2 Fault clearance times
For faults at 275 and 330 kV nodes the fault clearance time (Tc) is 100 ms; for 500 kV faults
the clearance time is 80 ms. These clearance times are in accord with the primary protection
clearance times specified in Clause S5.1a.8 (Fault clearance times) of the NER [18].
IV.1.3 Fault clearance
Two types of fault clearance are analysed: (i) the fault is cleared by disconnecting the equivalent
fault admittance after the elapse of the applicable fault clearance time; (ii) the fault is cleared,
after the elapse of the applicable fault clearance time, by simultaneously disconnecting both the
equivalent fault admittance and the transmission element (line or transformer) on which the
fault is deemed to have occurred.
104 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
As mentioned earlier, since the model does not include turbine/governor models events involving the disconnection of generators or loads are not and should not be considered.
IV.2 Two-phase to ground faults on the high-voltage terminals of the generator step-up transformers.
Referring to Figure 62 a two-phase to ground fault at node h is analysed.
a
n
g
h
Figure 62 Network for describing faults applied to the high-voltage terminals of generator
step-up transformers.
In the first study the application of the fault is represented by connecting the applicable equivalent fault admittance to h at time Tf = 0.5 s. The fault is then simply cleared at time
Tc = Tf + Tc where Tc is the fault clearance time in Appendix IV.1.2.
In the second study it is assumed that the fault is applied immediately adjacent to bus h on the
lowest-impedance circuit between nodes h and a. It is cleared by disconnecting both the
equivalent fault admittance and the faulted circuit at time Tc = Tf + Tc.
In the third and subsequent studies, faults are successively applied to the remaining circuits connected to h with the exception of the generator step-up transformer between nodes g and h.
For each of these faults the responses of the following variables associated with the generator
connected to node g are displayed: inertia-weighted rotor-angle (DEL), rotor speed perturbation (W), electrical power output (P), stator voltage (Vt), generator field voltage (Ef) and PSS
output signal (Vs). Note that the inertia-weighted rotor-angles should not be relied on to provide
modal information; rather divergence of this variable provides clear evidence of transient instability.
Inspection of the Ef and Vs responses reveals if there is prolonged limiting of the exciter and/or
PSS outputs following the fault.
Such studies have been conducted for each of the fourteen generators in each of the six study
cases. The results for Case 2 are displayed for each of the fourteen generators in Figures 63 to
76. The time-series data for these results and for the other five cases are provided in the DataPackage (i.e. a total of 6 x 49 = 294 studies).
It is found that the system is transiently stable for each of the faults analysed.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
105 of 128

Simplified 14 generator model of the SE Australian power system;
Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 102 for 100ms; Monitor HPS_1 variables.
6
40
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
35
45
50
55
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.4
1.2
6
VT (pu)
P (x102 MW)
4
2
0
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
10
0.1
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0.05
5
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
F102_NoTrip
10
0.1
F102_Trip_217_3
F102_Trip_309_1
File: FaultStudy_Case02_G101_F102_G101_AllVars.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:16:13
Figure 63 Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the 330 kV bus 102 on the high-voltage side of the HPS_1 generator step-up transformer at t = 0.5s. The fault is cleared 100 ms later.
The responses to the following clearance scenarios are displayed: (i) fault cleared without
switching any network elements; (ii) trip circuit 3 between nodes 102 and 217; (iii) trip circuit
1 between nodes 102 and 309. The responses of the following HPS_1 generator variables are
displayed: inertia weighted rotor angle (DEL); rotor-speed perturbation (W); electrical power
output (P); stator-voltage (Vt); generator field voltage (Ef); PSS output signal (Vs).
106 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 206 for 100ms; Monitor BPS_2 variables.
20
10
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
10
0
10
20
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
30
3
2
1
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
10
0.1
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0.05
5
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F206_NoTrip
F206_Trip_207_1
F206_Trip_205_1
F206_Trip_212_1
F206_Trip_215_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:18:00
Figure 64 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator BPS_2 and a fault applied to bus 206.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
107 of 128

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 209 for 100ms; Monitor EPS_2 variables.
1.5
40
20
0
20
W (x102 pu)
DEL (deg.)
60
0.5
0
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
0.1
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0.05
3
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F209_NoTrip
F209_Trip_210_1
F209_Trip_207_1
F209_Trip_212_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:20:09
Figure 65 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator EPS_2 and a fault applied to bus 209.
108 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
10
1.5
W (x102 pu)
DEL (deg.)

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 208 for 100ms; Monitor VPS_2 variables.
10
20
4
6
Time (s)
0
0.5
10
2.5
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
30
0.5
1.5
1
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
15
0.15
10
0.1
0.05
0
5
0.6
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
4
6
Time (s)
F208_NoTrip
10
0.05
F208_Trip_207_1
F208_Trip_211_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:21:41
Figure 66 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator VPS_2 and a fault applied to bus 208.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
109 of 128

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 215 for 100ms; Monitor MPS_2 variables.
W (x103 pu)
10
10
20
P (x103 MW)
30
4
6
Time (s)
10
2.5
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
DEL (deg.)
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
10
0.1
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0.05
5
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F215_NoTrip
F215_Trip_216_1
F215_Trip_206_1
F215_Trip_217_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:23:38
Figure 67 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator MPS_2 and fault applied to bus 215.
110 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 303 for 80ms; Monitor LPS_3 variables.
70
1.5
1
W (x102 pu)
DEL (deg.)
60
50
40
0.5
0
30
20
4
6
Time (s)
0.5
10
4
2
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
0.4
10
0.1
30
0.05
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0.6
40
20
10
0
0.05
0
10
4
6
Time (s)
1.2
1.4
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
4
6
Time (s)
F303_NoTrip
10
0.1
F303_Trip_304_1
F303_Trip_305_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:25:17
Figure 68 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator LPS_3 and a fault applied to bus 303.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
111 of 128

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 312 for 100ms; Monitor YPS_3 variables.
10
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
80
60
40
20
4
6
Time (s)
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.2
VT (pu)
1.5
1
0.5
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
3.5
0.1
0.05
2.5
2
1.5
1.4
VS (pu)
P (x103 MW)
EF (pu)
10
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F312_NoTrip
F312_Trip_313_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:26:23
Figure 69 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator YPS_3 and a fault applied to bus 312.
112 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
20
1.5
30
W (x102 pu)
DEL (deg.)

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 410 for 100ms; Monitor TPS_4 variables.
40
50
60
0
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
2.5
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
70
0.5
1.5
1
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
15
0.1
10
0.05
5
0
5
0.6
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F410_NoTrip
F410_Trip_411_1
F410_Trip_408_1
F410_Trip_412_1
F410_Trip_413_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:29:12
Figure 70 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator TPS_4 and a fault applied to bus 410.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
113 of 128
10
10
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 408 for 100ms; Monitor CPS_4 variables.
10
20
30
4
6
Time (s)
0
5
10
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
1.5
0.5
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
15
0.1
10
0.05
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
5
0
5
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F408_NoTrip
F408_Trip_407_1
F408_Trip_405_1
F408_Trip_410_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:31:05
Figure 71 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator CPS_4 and a fault applied to bus 408.
114 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
10
1.5
W (x102 pu)
DEL (deg.)

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 407 for 100ms; Monitor SPS_4 variables.
10
20
30
0
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
2.5
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
40
0.5
1.5
1
0.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
15
0.1
10
0.05
5
0
5
0.6
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
F407_NoTrip
10
0.1
F407_Trip_406_1
F407_Trip_408_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:32:30
Figure 72 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator SPS_4 and a fault applied to bus 407.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
115 of 128

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 405 for 100ms; Monitor GPS_4 variables.
10
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
20
20
40
4
6
Time (s)
2.5
1.4
1.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
6
Time (s)
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
0.4
10
0.1
5
VS (pu)
0.05
0
5
0
0.05
10
15
0.6
10
EF (pu)
10
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
60
4
6
Time (s)
10
0.1
F405_NoTrip
F405_Trip_408_1
F405_Trip_406_1
F405_Trip_409_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:34:23
Figure 73 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator GPS_4 and a fault applied to bus 405.
116 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 504 for 100ms; Monitor NPS_5 variables.
10
1.1
5
W (x103 pu)
DEL (x102 deg.)
1.2
1
0.9
0.8
0
5
0.7
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
10
1.2
VT (pu)
1.4
P (x102 MW)
10
6
4
2
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
0.1
0.05
2
1
0
0.6
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
0
0.05
4
6
Time (s)
F504_NoTrip
10
0.1
F504_Trip_507_1
F504_Trip_508_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:35:40
Figure 74 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator NPS_5 and a fault applied to bus 504.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
117 of 128

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 505 for 100ms; Monitor TPS_5 variables.
10
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
100
80
60
40
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.5
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1.4
1.2
VT (pu)
P (x103 MW)
0.5
1
0.8
0.6
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
20
0.1
0.05
VS (pu)
EF (pu)
15
10
5
0.05
0
5
4
6
Time (s)
F505_NoTrip
10
0.1
F505_Trip_507_1
F505_Trip_508_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:36:53
Figure 75 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator TPS_5 and a fault applied to bus 505.
118 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Case02; Two phase to ground fault at bus 506 for 100ms; Monitor PPS_5 variables.
90
W (x103 pu)
DEL (deg.)
100
80
70
60
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
10
1.4
1.2
6
4
2
0
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
4
6
Time (s)
10
1
0.8
4
6
Time (s)
0.4
10
20
15
10
5
0
0.6
VS (x102 pu)
EF (pu)
0
2
VT (pu)
P (x102 MW)
50
4
6
Time (s)
F506_NoTrip
10
2
0
2
F506_Trip_507_1
F506_Trip_508_1
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:38:00
Figure 76 Case 2. Similar to Figure 63 but for generator PPS_5 and a fault applied to bus 506.
IV.3
Two-phase to ground faults at other transmission system buses
Apart from the faults applied at the high-voltage terminals of the generator step-up transformers, two-phase to ground faults are similarly analysed at the other 31 nodes in the high-voltage
transmission network. The only difference is in the presentation of the results. For each fault at
other transmission buses the inertia-weighted rotor-angles (DEL), rotor-speed perturbations
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
119 of 128
(W) and stator-voltages (Vt) of each of the fourteen generators are displayed. Note that the inertia-weighted rotor-angles should not be relied on to provide modal information; rather divergence of this variable provides clear evidence of transient instability. For each case, studies are
conducted for a total of 115 fault scenarios 31 are bus faults which are cleared without switching a network element; and 84 are faults in which a circuit element (transmission line or transformer) is disconnected to clear the fault.
Results are presented for the following two fault scenarios in Case 2:
1.
A two-phase to ground fault applied to the 275 kV #1 circuit between buses 507 and 509
immediately adjacent to bus 507 at time t = 0.5 s. The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. The generator variables are displayed in Figure 77. In addition, the terminal voltage, susceptance and reactive power outputs of all five SVCs are displayed in
Figure 78. In Figure 79 the powerflow on the interconnectors from area 2 to 4
(P.LN_413_410); from area 3 to 2 (P.LN_102_217); and from area 5 to 3 (P.LN_509_315)
are displayed. The system is transiently stable.
2.
A two-phase to ground fault is applied to the 275 kV #1 circuit between buses 410 and 413
immediately adjacent to bus 413 at time t = 0.5 s. The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. Results, in the same format as above, are displayed for this fault in Figures 80 to 82. The system is transiently stable.
It is found that the system is transiently stable for each of the 6 x 115 = 690 faults analysed.
120 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Simplified 14 generator model of the SE Australian power system; Case02.
Two phase to ground fault at bus 507 cleared in 100ms by tripping 5075091.
DEL (x102 deg.)
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
W (x10
pu)
10
1.4
Vt (pu)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
HPS_1
VPS_2
YPS_3
SPS_4
TPS_5
BPS_2
MPS_2
TPS_4
GPS_4
PPS_5
EPS_2
LPS_3
CPS_4
NPS_5
File: NetworkFaultStudy_Case02_F507_Trip_509_1_DWV.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 19:11:08
Figure 77 Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the 275 kV #1 circuit between buses
507 and 509 immediately adjacent to bus 507 at time t = 0.5 s. The fault is cleared 100 ms later
by tripping the circuit. The inertia-weighted rotor-angles (DEL), rotor-speed perturbations (W)
and stator-voltages (Vt) of all 14 generators are displayed.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
121 of 128

Simplified 14generator model of the SE Australian power system.
Case02; 2phg fault at bus 507 cleared in 100 ms by tripping 5075091
SVC voltage (pu)
1.5
1
0.5
SVC reactive power (x102 Mvar) SVC susceptance (x102 Mvar)
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
6
4
2
0
2
6
4
2
0
2
ASVC_2
RSVC_3
BSVC_4
PSVC_5
SSVC_5
File: Case02_F507_Trip_509_1_SVCResponses.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 19:05:24
Figure 78 [Continuation of Figure 77] Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the
275 kV #1 circuit between buses 507 and 509 immediately adjacent to bus 507 at time t = 0.5 s.
The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. The terminal voltage, susceptance and
reactive power output of all five SVCs are displayed.
122 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

Interconnector Power Flow (x103 MW)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
LN_413_410
LN_102_217
LN_509_315
0.2
0
5
Time (s)
10
File: Case02_F507_Trip_509_1_TielineResponses.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 19:08:33
Figure 79 Continuation of Figure 77] Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the
The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. The interconnector power flows are displayed.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
123 of 128

Simplified 14 generator model of the SE Australian power system; Case02.
Two phase to ground fault at bus 413 cleared in 100ms by tripping 4134101.
100
DEL (deg.)
50
0
50
100
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
5
Time (s)
10
W (x103 pu)
4
2
0
2
4
1.05
Vt (pu)
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
HPS_1
VPS_2
YPS_3
SPS_4
TPS_5
BPS_2
MPS_2
TPS_4
GPS_4
PPS_5
EPS_2
LPS_3
CPS_4
NPS_5
File: NetworkFaultStudy_Case02_F413_Trip_410_1_DWV.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:07:46
Figure 80 Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the 275 kV #1 circuit between buses
410 and 413 immediately adjacent to bus 413 at time t = 0.5 s. The fault is cleared 100 ms later
by tripping the circuit. The inertia weighted rotor angles (DEL), rotor-speed perturbations (W)
and stator-voltages (Vt) of all 14 generators are displayed.
124 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm

SVC voltage (pu)
1.5
0.5
SVC reactive power (x103 Mvar) SVC susceptance (x103 Mvar)
0.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.5
Time (s)
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
1
Time (s)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
1
Time (s)
ASVC_2
RSVC_3
BSVC_4
PSVC_5
SSVC_5
File: Case02_F410_Trip_413_1_SVCResponses.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:04:41
Figure 81 [Continuation of Figure 80] Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the
The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. The terminal voltage, susceptance and
reactive power output of all five SVCs are displayed.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
125 of 128

Interconnector Power Flow (x103 MW)
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
LN_413_410
LN_102_217
LN_509_315
0.2
0
5
Time (s)
10
File: Case02_F410_Trip_413_1_TielineResponses.eps
Mon, 17Feb2014 21:02:58
Figure 82 Continuation of Figure 80] Case 2. Two-phase to ground fault applied to the
The fault is cleared 100 ms later by tripping the circuit. The interconnector power flows are displayed.
126 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
Appendix V Model data and results package

V.1
Online sources of data and results
The data and results listed below are available from the following web-sites:
1.
http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/groups/PCON/PowerSystems/IEEE/AU14G/Ver04
2.
<DJV: IEEE website??>
If you have any problems downloading the data please contact David.Vowles@adelaide.edu.au.
V.2
Model data
The archive file AU14GenModelData_Ver04.zip is available for download from the websites
listed in Appendix V.1. It contains the loadflow data for the six study cases in PSS/E loadflow
raw data format (version 29); the dynamics model data in PSS/E and Mudpack formats; and
the network sequence data in PSS/E compatible format and loadflow solution reports. Refer
to the file AU14GenModelData_Ver04_Contents.pdf in the archive for further information on
its contents.
V.3
State-space models and eigenanalysis results in Matlab format
The archive file AU14GenModel_StateSpaceAndEigen_Matlab_Ver04.zip is available for

download from the websites listed in Appendix V.1. It contains the following Matlab *.mat
files, generated by a small-signal analysis package [14], are provided for Cases 1 & 6, (i) with
no PSSs in service, and (ii) with PSSs in service:
1.
the ABCD matrices of the system are in files:

Case#_PSSs_Off_ABCD_Rev3_Matlab.mat; and
Case#_PSSs_On_ABCD_Rev3_Matlab.mat;
2.
the eigenvalues, the eigenvectors and participation factors are in:

Case#_PSSs_Off_Eigs_Rev3_Matlab.mat; and
Case#_PSSs_On_Eigs_Rev3_Matlab.mat,
where # is the case number, 1 or 6.

Refer to AU14GenModel_StateSpaceAndEigen_Matlab_Ver04_Contents.pdf in the archive
for further information on its contents.
V.4
Small-signal time-response results
The archive file AU14GenModel_SmallSignal_TimeResponse_Results_Ver04.zip is available

for download from the websites listed in Appendix V.1. It contains in Matlab and CSV format
time-series data from the Mudpack and PSS/E step-response tests reported in Appendices III.1
and III.2. It also contains PDF files displaying the results of the step-response tests. A Matlab
mfile is also provided to assist the user to graphically display time series data. Refer to the file
AU14GenModel_SmallSignal_TimeResponse_Results_Ver04_Contents.pdf in the archive for
further information on its contents.
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
127 of 128
V.5
PSS/E transient stability analysis results
The archive file AU14GenModel_TransientStabilityResults_Ver04.zip is available for download from the websites listed in Appendix V.1. It contains in Matlab and CSV format time-series
data from the PSS/E transient-stability tests reported in Appendix IV. It also contains PDF
files displaying the results of the transient-stability studies. A Matlab mfile is also provided to
assist the user to graphically display time series data. Refer to the file AU14GenModel_TransientStabilityResults_Ver04_Contents.pdf in the archive for further information on its contents.
128 of 128
14 June 2014 5:02 pm
B.1
Appendix B - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by

Prof. Claudio Canizares and Dr. Behnam Tamimi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
IEEE Task Force on Benchmark

Systems for Stability Controls:
Australian Test System
Behnam Tamimi and Claudio A. Caizares
12 March 2015
B. Tamimi and C. A. Caizares
University of Waterloo
I. Introduction
Small-perturbation and transient stability analyses are performed for a simplified model of the Australian
power system using the DSA Tools [1], as part of the work of the IEEE Task Force on Benchmark
Systems for Stability Controls. This report and its accompanying files1 can serve as a benchmark for
future similar studies. The DSA Tools include four components, namely, PSAT, SSAT, VSAT, and
TSAT, to perform power flow, small-perturbation stability, voltage stability, and transient stability
analyses, respectively.
Two other studies on this system have been reported in [2] and [3]. The focus in [2] is smallperturbation stability (eigenvalue) analysis of the system under different loading conditions, whereas
time-domain simulations which examine the transient stability of the system for different disturbances are
mainly reported in [3].
The report is organized as follows: First, the test system is briefly described; then, the transient
stability simulations with TSAT and the studied scenarios/disturbances from [2] are presented and
discussed; finally, the results of eigenvalue analyses using SSAT are described.
II. System Description

This test system represents a simplified model of the eastern and southern Australian networks [2], [3].
There are 19 generators in the system synchronized at 50 Hz. The grid includes 59 buses and 104 lines
with 15 kV to 500 kV voltage levels. Six power flow cases summarized in Table 1 are considered in the
following sections to examine the system performance under different loading conditions. Note that Case
6 and Case 3 have the lowest and the highest loading levels, respectively.
Table 1. Summary of the six power flow cases studied.

Generators [MW]
Loads [MVA]
Case 1
23013.71
22300 + j 2462
Case 2
21568.69
21000 + j 2251
Case 3
25411.13
24800 + j 2760
Case 4
15038.15
14806 + j 1595
Case 5
19041.64
18597 + j 1920
Case 6
14828.54
14631 + j 1595
III. Time-domain Simulations

Time-domain simulations are carried out using TSAT, based on the data provided in [2]. All the dynamic
models used in [2] are recognized by TSAT and are directly imported into its environment. However, to
1
Available [Online], http://www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee/index.htm
avoid input data modifications, the automatic data-correction option is disabled and a small integration
time-step (1 ms) is used, so that lower limits on the TSAT models time-constants are not enforced.
Three following disturbances are simulated in the study, with a duration of 10 s for all of them:
A. Two-phase-to-ground fault at Bus 209 at = 0.5 s, and cleared in 100 ms without disconnecting any
circuit elements.
B. Two-phase-to-ground fault at Bus 303 at = 0.5 s, and cleared in 80 ms without disconnecting any
circuit elements.
C. Two-phase-to-ground fault at Bus 506 at = 0.5 s, and cleared in 100 ms without disconnecting any
circuit elements.
Case 2 is used for the simulations, with the generator stabilizers in service. Various variables for
generators, including stabilizer outputs, and SVCs are plotted and presented in the appendix, which
includes sixty selected (based on the proximity of fault locations) graphs comparing TSAT and PSS/E
results. The results match well with the ones reported in [2]. The differences can be attributed to some
small model differences between PSS/E and TSAT. Figures 1(a) - 1(d) show the results at Bus 101 for
Disturbance A.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 1. Time-domain simulation results at generator Bus 101 for Disturbance A.
IV. Eigenvalue Analyses

Eigenvalue analyses are performed for the system using SSAT following the studies presented in [2].
Similar to the time-domain simulation studies, all the models are imported from the files provided with
[2], with SSAT recognizing all dynamic models. In SSAT, static loads are assumed to be constant power
by default; in [2], on the other hand, the loads were modeled as constant impedance. However, for
eigenvalue calculations, both yield the same results for the same operating point (power flow solution)
since loads are static. Therefore, the default SSAT load model is used in these studies, so that the same
PSS/E database can be used without changes, otherwise modifications to the input data set are required.
The examination of un-damped oscillations is of interest for these studies. Thus, a window is
defined to examine the eigenvalues within a desired range, i.e. close to the imaginary axis or the righthand side (e.g. in the range of 1 10, 20 20. Since there are six power flow cases and the PSSs
can be on or off, there are 6 2 = 12 cases to be studied. The results for all the twelve cases are
provided in an attached file in MS Excel format, showing the real and imaginary parts of the computed
eigenvalues, as well as their damping ratios and frequencies, and associated dominant state variables. In
these results, it can be observed that one or two zero (or very small) eigenvalues are present in all cases.
One of these eigenvalues is due to the lack of an angle reference in the system; the other one corresponds
to the rotor speeds, and is present because speed governors are not modeled and all generator damping
factors are assumed to be zero [4].
The results associated with Cases 3 and 6 (highest and lowest loading levels) with and without
stabilizers are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The damping effect of the stabilizers is clearly seen
in both cases, as the eigenvalues move to the left side of the 10%-damping line due to the stabilizers.
The results are almost identical to the ones presented in [2].
Figure 2. Case 3 eigenvalues with and without stabilizers.
Figure 3. Case 6 eigenvalues with and without stabilizers.
V. References
[1] DSA Tools Reference Manual, [online] Available: http://www.dsatools.com ver. 10.
[2] Mike Gibbard and David Vowles, Simplified 14-generator model of the SE Australian power
system, IEEE Task Force on Benchmark Systems for Stability Controls, June 2014.
[3] Leonardo Lima, Report on the 14-generator system (Australian reduced model), IEEE Task
Force on Benchmark Systems for Stability Controls, June 2013.
[4] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, Mc Graw Hill, EPRI Power System Engineering
Series, 1994.
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
IEEE Task Force on Benchmark Systems for Stability

Controls:
Australian Test System
Appendix: Time-domain results
Contingency A
7
Contingency A
8
Contingency A
9
Contingency A
10
Contingency A
11
Contingency A
12
Contingency A
13
Contingency A
14
Contingency A
15
Contingency A
16
Contingency B
17
Contingency B
18
Contingency B
19
Contingency B
20
Contingency B
21
Contingency B
22
Contingency B
23
Contingency B
24
Contingency B
25
Contingency B
26
Contingency C
27
Contingency C
28
Contingency C
29
Contingency C
30
Contingency C
31
Contingency C
32
Contingency C
33
Contingency C
34
Contingency C
35
Contingency C
36
C.1
Appendix C - Report on the 2-area (4-generator) system by Dr. Leonardo

Lima and Dinemayer Silva

Stability Controls
Report on the 2-Areas, 4-generators system
Version 6 July 1st, 2015
Leonardo Lima
Senior Member
Kestrel Power Engineering
leo@kestrelpower.com
Dinemayer Silva
Member
Siemens PTI
dinemayer.silva@siemens.com
Benchmark System 4 PSS/E Setup and Results
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.
Power Flow ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.
Dynamic Simulation Models ................................................................................................. 6
4.
3.1.
Synchronous Machines ................................................................................................. 6
3.2.
Excitation Systems ........................................................................................................ 9
3.3.
DC Rotating Excitation System .................................................................................. 10
3.4.
Static Excitation System.............................................................................................. 10
3.5.
Power System Stabilizers ............................................................................................ 12
Time Domain Simulation Results ....................................................................................... 15

4.1.
System without AVR Constant Field Voltage ......................................................... 15
4.1.1.
4.2.
50 MVAr Reactor at Mid-Point........................................................................... 17
4.2.2.
Steps in Vref ......................................................................................................... 18
ESDC1A with KA=200 ................................................................................................ 19
4.3.1.
4.3.2.
Steps in Vref ......................................................................................................... 20
4.4.
ESST1A with TGR...................................................................................................... 21
4.4.1.
4.4.2.
Steps in Vref ......................................................................................................... 22
4.5.
ESST1A without TGR ................................................................................................ 23
4.5.1.
4.5.2.
Steps in Vref ........................................................................................................ 24
4.6.
ESST1A without TGR with Original PSS .................................................................. 25
4.6.1.
4.6.2.
Steps in Vref ......................................................................................................... 26
4.7.
6.
ESDC1A with KA=20 .................................................................................................. 17
4.2.1.
4.3.
5.
ESST1A without TGR with Modified PSS ................................................................. 27
4.7.1.
4.7.2.
Steps in Vref ........................................................................................................ 28
Modal Analysis ................................................................................................................... 29

5.1.
PSS/E LSYSAN .......................................................................................................... 29
5.2.
PSSPLT ....................................................................................................................... 39
5.3.
Impact of Generator Saturation ................................................................................... 45
References ........................................................................................................................... 49
1. Introduction
This report describes the data setup and nonlinear stability study carried over with the 4generators, two-areas, system proposed in [1] using the Siemens PTIs PSS/E software [2]. The
main objectives of this report are to document the data setup and to provide some validation of
such data, comparing (to the extent possible) the results obtained with a time-domain nonlinear
simulation with the eigenvalue analysis shown in [1].
It should be noted that simplified versions of this system have been used in the past [3-4],
but the data shown in this report corresponds to that presented in Example 12.6 of [1].
2. Power Flow
The power flow solution is shown in Figure 1, with the one line diagram of the system. The
bus data, including the voltage magnitudes and angles from the power flow solution, are shown
in Table 1. The transmission line data is shown in Table 2. The data is provided in percent
considering a system MVA base of 100 MVA. All transmission lines are 230 kV lines. The
lines are represented by sections and the charging shown in Table 2 corresponds to the total
line charging.
area interchange = 400.3 MW
-455.8
24.2
0.978
3.5
1.010
10.3
-195.4
6.1
0.0
967.0
-184.7
100.0
24.3
-24.3
195.4
-24.3
53.6
-190.7
53.6
0.0
1
0.949
-18.8
-330.2
0.961
-4.9
26.8
468.7
-461.9
41.0
26.8
-461.9
41.0
1767.0
17.5
468.7
-700.0
26.8
-115.3
44.9
-719.1
-89.9
1
1.008
-13.6
1
0.983
-23.9
0.971
-32.4
IEEE BENCHMARK SYSTEM VII

HTTP://WWW.SEL.EESC.USP.BR/IEEE/
FRI, JUL 03 2015 9:30
2
GEN G2
359.5
17.5
100.0
44.9
-353.1
234.6
700.0
1
GEN G1
200.2
24.3
-190.7
1.010
-17.2
Bus - Voltage (pu)/Angle

Branch - MW/Mvar
Equipment - MW/Mvar
kV: >0.000<=20.000
<=200.000
1.030
-7.0
4
GEN G4
1
1
Figure 1: Case 1 Power Flow Solution

Table 1: Bus Data and Power Flow Solution
Bus
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Bus Name
GEN G1
GEN G2
GEN G3
GEN G4
G1
G2
LOAD A
MID POINT
LOAD B
G4
G3
Base kV
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
230.0
Bus
type
PV
PV
swing
PV
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
Voltage
(pu)
1.0300
1.0100
1.0300
1.0100
1.0065
0.9781
0.9610
0.9486
0.9714
0.9835
1.0083
Angle
(deg)
20.07
10.31
-7.00
-17.19
13.61
3.52
-4.89
-18.76
-32.35
-23.94
-13.63
176.0
42.9
6.1
195.4
719.1
462.5
-145.5
-195.4
359.5
719.1
-700.0
24.2
700.0
185.0
1
1.006
13.6
234.6R
700.0
700.0
1.030
20.1
185.0R
42.9
200.2
-353.1
176.0R
8.3
41.0
24.2
-455.8
468.7
202.1
51.3
42.9
462.5
11
G3
10
G4
-461.9
700.0
-102.6
8.3
-343.8
9
LOAD B
8
MID POINT
-455.8
700.0
350.0
462.5
202.1R
-343.8
51.3
-700.0
7
LOAD A
6
G2
5
G1
350.0
3
GEN G3
Table 2: Transmission Line Data
From
Bus
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
To
Bus
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
ckt
id
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
R
(%)
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.50
X
(%)
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
Charging
(%)
2.1875
2.1875
0.5833
0.5833
0.5833
19.2500
19.2500
19.2500
19.2500
0.5833
0.5833
0.5833
2.1875
2.1875
Length
(km)
25
25
10
10
10
110
110
110
110
10
10
10
25
25
The only difference regarding the data as presented in [1] is the introduction of multiple
parallel circuits, so results considering weaker transmission system conditions might be
investigated.
The generator step-up transformers (GSU) are explicitly represented in the case. The GSUs
are all rated 900 MVA and have a leakage reactance of 15% on the transformer base. Winding
resistance and magnetizing currents are neglected. Table 3 presents the GSU data.
There are two loads, directly connected to the 230 kV buses 7 and 9. The associated data is
given in Table 4. These loads are represented, in the dynamic simulation, with a constant current
characteristic for the active power and a constant admittance characteristic for the reactive
power (100%I, 100%Z for P and Q, respectively).
Capacitor banks are also connected to the 230 kV buses 7 and 9. The values for these
capacitors at nominal voltage (1.0 pu voltage) are shown in Table 5.
The complete PSS/E [2] report with all power flows for this system is given in Table 6.
Table 3: Generator Step- Up Transformer Data (on Transformer MVA Base)
From
Bus
1
2
3
4
To
Bus
5
6
11
10
R
(%)
0
0
0
0
X
(%)
15
15
15
15
MVA
Base
900
900
900
900
tap
(pu)
1
1
1
1
Table 4: Load Data
P
(MW)
967
1767
Bus
7
9
Q
(MVAr)
100
100
Table 5: Capacitor Bank Data
Bus
7
9
Q
(MVAr)
200
350
Table 6: PSS/E Power Flow Results

X---- FROM BUS ---X
BUS# X-- NAME --X
VOLT
PU/KV
1 GEN G1
1.0300
20.600
20.1
700.0
185.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
5 G1
1
700.0
185.0 1.000UN
2 GEN G2
1.0100
20.200
10.3
700.0
234.6R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
6 G2
1
700.0
234.6 1.000UN
3 GEN G3
1.0300
20.600
-7.0
719.1
176.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
11 G3
1
719.1
176.0 1.000UN
4 GEN G4
1.0100
20.200
-17.2
700.0
202.0R
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
10 G4
1
700.0
202.0 1.000UN
5 G1
1.0065
231.49
13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6 G2
0.9781
224.97
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7 LOAD A
0.9610
221.04
-4.9
0.0
0.0
967.0
100.0
8 MID POINT
0.9486
218.18
-18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9 LOAD B
0.9714
223.42
-32.4
0.0
0.0
1767.0
100.0
10 G4
0.9835
226.20
-23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11 G3
1.0083
231.90
-13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
1 GEN G1
1
-700.0 -102.6 1.000LK
6 G2
1
350.0
51.3
6 G2
2
350.0
51.3
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
2 GEN G2
1
-700.0 -145.5 1.000LK
5 G1
1
-343.8
8.3
5 G1
2
-343.8
8.3
7 LOAD A
1
462.5
42.9
7 LOAD A
2
462.5
42.9
7 LOAD A
3
462.5
42.9
0.0 --------------------------------------------------184.7
6 G2
1
-455.8
24.2
6 G2
2
-455.8
24.2
6 G2
3
-455.8
24.2
8 MID POINT
1
200.2
6.1
8 MID POINT
2
200.2
6.1
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
7 LOAD A
1
-195.4
24.3
7 LOAD A
2
-195.4
24.3
9 LOAD B
1
195.4
-24.3
9 LOAD B
2
195.4
-24.3
0.0 --------------------------------------------------330.2
8 MID POINT
1
-190.7
53.6
8 MID POINT
2
-190.7
53.6
10 G4
1
-461.9
41.0
10 G4
2
-461.9
41.0
10 G4
3
-461.9
41.0
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
4 GEN G4
1
-700.0 -115.3 1.000LK
9 LOAD B
1
468.7
26.8
9 LOAD B
2
468.7
26.8
9 LOAD B
3
468.7
26.8
11 G3
1
-353.1
17.5
11 G3
2
-353.1
17.5
0.0 -------------------------------------------------0.0
3 GEN G3
1
-719.1
-89.9 1.000LK
10 G4
1
359.5
44.9
10 G4
2
359.5
44.9
ANGLE
GEN
LOAD
SHUNT X---- TO BUS -----X
BUS# X-- NAME --X CKT
MW
MVAR
TRANSFORMER
RATIO
3. Dynamic Simulation Models

The models and associated parameters for the dynamic simulation models used in this
PSS/E setup are described in this Section. All generation units are considered identical and will
be represented by the same dynamic models and parameters, with exception of the inertias.
3.1.
Synchronous Machines
The generator model to represent the round rotor units is the PSS/E model GENROE,
shown in the block diagram in Figure 2. Details about the implementation of the model are
available in the software documentation [2]. This is a 6th order dynamic model with the
saturation function represented as a geometric (exponential) function. Table 7 provides the
parameters for this model and all data are the same for all generators in the system, with the
exception of the inertia constants.
The representation of the saturation of the generators has some impact on the results of a
small-signal (linearized) analysis of the system performance. On the other hand, the proper
representation of saturation is extremely important for transient stability and the determination
of rated and ceiling conditions (minimum and maximum generator field current and generator
field voltage) for the excitation system. Figure 3 presents the calculated generator open circuit
saturation curve, based on the data in Table 7. As mentioned before, the saturation function is
represented by a geometric function in the PSS/E GENROE model.
The calculated rated field current for this generator model is 2.66 pu (considering 0.85 rated
power factor). This calculation comprises the initialization of the generator model at full (rated)
power output, considering their rated power factor. It should be noted that in PSS/E models, due
to the choice of base values for generator field voltage and generator field current, these
variables are numerically the same, in steady state, when expressed in per unit.
Figure 4 shows the calculated capability curve for the generators, based on the data in Table
7.

Table 7: Dynamic Model Data for Round Rotor Units (PSS/E GENROE Model)
PARAMETERS
Unit
Description
Symbol
Value
MVA
MBASE
900
s
T'do
8.0
s
T''do
0.03
s
T'qo
0.4
s
T''qo
0.05
MW.s/MVA
Inertia
H
pu
Speed damping
D
0
pu
Xd
1.8
pu
Xq
1.70
pu
X'd
0.3
pu
X'q
0.55
pu
X''d = X''q
0.25
pu
Leakage reactance
X
0.20

S(1.0)
0.0392

S(1.2)
0.2672
Notes:
Units 1 and 2 have inertias H = 6.50, while units 3 and 4 have inertias H = 6.175
Figure 2: Block Diagram for the PSS/E Model GENROE
1.2
1.0 pu
1.0 pu
1.0392 pu
Terminal Voltage (pu)
0.8
0.4
Saturation Curve
Air-Gap Line
0.5
1.0
Field Current (pu)
1.5
Figure 3: Generator Open Circuit Saturation Curve
2.0
1000
800
rated field current 2.66 pu
600
400
Reactive Power (MVAr)
0.85 pf
200
Active Power (MW)

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900 1000
0.95 pf
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Figure 4: Generator Capability Curve
3.2.
Excitation Systems
Following the results presented in [1], this report will present simulation results with
different representations/models for the excitation system of the generators.
The first set of results is associated with all generators in manual control (constant generator
field voltage). Therefore, in PSS/E there will be no explicit excitation system model, as PSS/E
assumes constant generator field voltage when no dynamic model for the excitation system is
available.
10
The second set of results is related to a low gain, relatively slow DC rotating exciter. This
excitation system is represented by the IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) DC1A [5], corresponding to the
PSS/E model ESDC1A [1]. A variation regarding the results in [1] will be introduced in this
report, where the steady state gain of the AVR in this DC rotating excitation system is increased
tenfold.
A relatively fast (high initial response) static excitation system will be used in the next three
sets of results: an AVR with transient gain reduction, then the AVR without such transient gain
reduction, and finally the AVR without transient gain reduction with an active power system
stabilizer (PSS).
3.3.
DC Rotating Excitation System
The block diagram of the PSS/E model ESDC1A [2] is shown in Figure 5. The parameters
for the model are presented in Table 8.
3.4.
Static Excitation System
The block diagram of the PSS/E model ESST1A [2] is shown in Figure 6. The transient
gain reduction will be implemented by the lead-lag block with parameters TC and TB, so the
parameters TC1, TB1, KF and TF are not applicable and have been set accordingly. Similarly, the
generator field current limit represented by the parameters KLR and ILR is not considered in the
results presented in this report. The parameters for the ESST1A model are presented in Table 9.
V UEL
V RMAX
VS
EC
(pu)
+
1
1 +sTR VC
1 +sTC
+ -
1 +sTB
HV
Gate
KA
1 +sTA
VR
V RMIN
VREF
0.
V FE
+
VF
E FD
1
sTE
KE
+
sK F
1 +sTF1
Figure 5: Block Diagram for the PSS/E Model ESDC1A
11
Table 8: Dynamic Model Data for DC Rotating Excitation Systems (PSS/E Model ESDC1A)
PARAMETERS
Description
Max. AVR output
Min. AVR output
Switch
Value
0.05
20
0.055
0
0
5
3
1
0.36
0.125
1.8
0
3
0.1
4
0.3
Symbol
TR
KA
TA
TB
TC
VRmax
VRmin
KE
TE
KF
TF1
E1
SE(E1)
E2
SE(E2)
Unit
s
pu
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
s
pu
pu
Notes:
Results will be presented with gain KA=20 and also KA=200.
The parameter switch is specific to the PSS/E implementation of this model and it is
not part of the Standard definition of the DC1A model. It might not be needed in other
software.
Saturation for the rotating DC exciter was not provided in [1]. Typical saturation values
are assumed.
VUEL
VUEL
ALTERNATIVE
UEL INPUTS
VS
VS
ALTERNATIVE
STABILIZER INPUTS
VUEL
VIMax
VC
VRef
VT VRMax -K CIFD
VAMax
+
+
-V
VI
HV
GATE
1 + sTC 1 + sTC1
1 + sTB 1 + sTB1
KA
1 + sTA
VAMin
IMin
VA
LV
GATE
HV
GATE
EFD
VT VRMin
VOEL
sK F
1 + sTF
KLR
0
ILR
Figure 6: Block Diagram for the PSS/E Model ESST1A
IFD
12
Table 9: Dynamic Model Data for Static Excitation Systems (PSS/E Model ESST1A)
PARAMETERS
Description
Symbol
TR
Max. voltage error
VImax
Min. voltage error
VImin
TC
TB
TC1
TB1
KA
Max. AVR output
VAmax
Min. AVR output
VAmin
VRmax
VRmin
KC
KF
TF
KLR
ILR
Value
0.01
99
99
1
1
0
0
200
0
4
4
4
4
0
0
1
0
3
Unit
s
pu
pu
s
s
s
s
pu
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
s
pu
pu
Notes:
This data corresponds to the case without transient gain reduction (TGR). The
parameter TB should be set to 10 seconds for the cases considering transient gain
reduction.
3.5.
Power System Stabilizers
The IEEE Std. 421.5(2005) model PSS1A [5] will be used to represent the power system
stabilizers. The block diagram of the PSS/E model IEEEST [2] is shown in Figure 7. The
parameters for the IEEEST model are presented in Table 10.
The output limits were set to +/ 5%, while the logic to switch off the PSS for voltages
These stabilizers are used with the excitation system represented by the ESST1A model
without transient gain reduction (TGR). The PSS transfer function and, in particular, the phase
compensation would have to be adjusted for application with any of the other excitation system
models presented in this benchmark system.
Figure 8 presents the calculated phase requirement for the PSS (the phase characteristic of
the GEP(s) transfer function [6]), and the phase characteristic of the PSS proposed in [1]. It can
be seen that the original PSS does not provide sufficient phase lead, particularly at the
frequencies associated with the local mode of oscillation of the generator (above 1 Hz). This is
consistent with the results presented in [1], where the frequency of the local mode of oscillation
increases when the PSS is in service.
A modified tuning for the PSS transfer function is proposed here, with significant more
phase lead particularly in the frequency range associated with the local mode of oscillation.
Figure 8 shows that this new PSS transfer function is a much closer match to the actual phase
13
requirement given by GEP(s), within 30o of the actual compensation requirement as suggested
in [6].
Input
Signal
1 +A 5S+A 6S 2
1 +sT1
1 +sT3
(1 +A 1S+A 2S 2 ) (1 +A 3S+A 4S 2 )
1 +sT2
1 +sT4
KS
L SMAX
Output Limiter
V S = V SS , if (VCU > V CT >V CL)
sT5
VSS
1 +sT6
V S = 0, if (VCT < V CL)
VOTHSG
V S = 0, if (VCT < V CU)
L SMIN
Figure 7: Block Diagram for the PSS/E Model IEEEST

Table 10: Dynamic Model Data for Power System Stabilizers (PSS/E Model IEEEST)
PARAMETERS
Description
PSS gain
PSS max. output
PSS min. output
Symbol
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
KS
LSmax
LSmin
VCU
VCL
Original
Values
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05
0.02
3
5.4
10
10
20
0.05
0.05
0
0
New
Values
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.015
0.08
0.015
10
10
10
0.05
0.05
0
0
Unit
s
s
s
s
s
s
pu
pu
pu
pu
pu
14
120
calculated GEP(s) compensation requirement

original PSS phase compensation
new PSS phase compensation
Phase (degrees)
90
60
30
0
0.1
1
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8: PSS Phase Compensation Characteristics
10
15
4. Time Domain Simulation Results

The results presented in this report correspond to time-domain simulations of different
disturbances. The main objective associated with the selection of these disturbances was to
assess the system damping and the effectiveness of the proposed stabilizers in providing
damping to these oscillations.
The first set of simulations comprise the connection of a 50 MVAr reactor at the mid-point
of the system (bus #8) at t=1.0 second. The reactor is disconnected 100 ms later, without any
changes in the system topology. This is a very small disturbance, and as such leads to results
that correspond to the linear response of the system. Furthermore, given the location where the
disturbance is applied, it tends to excite primarily the inter-area oscillation.
The second set of simulations correspond to simultaneous changes in voltage reference in
all generator units, applied at t=1.0 second. The applied step changes are as follows:
GENERATOR
G1
G2
G3
G4
STEP IN Vref
+3%
1%
3%
+1%
These changes in voltage reference were selected in order to excite not only the inter-area
oscillation mode but also the other electromechanical modes in the system.
4.1.
System without AVR Constant Field Voltage
The results in this Section correspond to the results in [1] with a manual excitation control.
Since there is no automatic voltage regulator (AVR), the steps in voltage reference cannot be
applied, so only the results corresponding to the 50 MVAr reactor at the mid-point are
presented.
4.1.1. 50 MVAr Reactor at Mid-Point
Figure 9 presents the PSS/E results (time domain simulation) of the 50 MVAr reactor
disturbance, when the excitation systems are operated in manual control (constant field voltage).
The results in Figure 9 are the electrical power outputs of the four machines, in per unit of the
system MVA base (100 MVA).
16
Figure 9: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with Manual Excitation Control
4.2.
17
ESDC1A with KA=20
The results in this Section correspond to the results in [1] with the self-excited dc exciter,
represented in PSS/E by the ESDC1A model presented in Section 1.2.1 (gain KA=20 pu).
Figure 10 shows the electrical power output of the generators (100 MVA base) for the
50 MVAr reactor disturbance (ESDC1A model with KA=20 pu).
Figure 10: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESDC1A Model (KA=20)
18
4.2.2. Steps in Vref

Figure 11 shows the electrical power output of the generators (100 MVA base) for the step
changes in voltage reference, when the excitation systems represented by the ESDC1A model,
considering the gain KA=20 pu.
Figure 11: Step in Voltage References with ESDC1A Model (KA=20)
4.3.
19
ESDC1A with KA=200
The results in this Section correspond to the results in [1] with the self-excited dc exciter,
represented in PSS/E by the ESDC1A model presented in Section 1.2.1 (gain KA=200 pu).
50 MVAr reactor disturbance (ESDC1A model with KA=200 pu).
Figure 12: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESDC1A Model (KA=200)
20

changes in voltage reference, when the excitation systems represented by the ESDC1A model,
considering the gain KA=200 pu.
Figure 13: Step in Voltage References with ESDC1A Model (KA=200)
4.4.
21
ESST1A with TGR
The results in this Section correspond to the results in [1] with the static excitation system,
represented in PSS/E by the ESST1A model presented in Section 1.2.2 (time constant TB=10 s).
50 MVAr reactor disturbance (ESST1A model with TB=10 s).
Figure 14: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESST1A Model with TGR
22

changes in voltage reference, when the excitation systems represented by the ESST1A model,
considering the gain TB=10 s.
Figure 15: Step in Voltage References with ESST1A Model with TGR
4.5.
23
ESST1A without TGR
represented in PSS/E by the ESST1A model presented in Section 1.2.2 (time constant TB=1 s).
50 MVAr reactor disturbance (ESST1A model with TB=1 s).
Figure 16: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESST1A Model without TGR
24

changes in voltage reference, when the excitation systems represented by the ESST1A model,
considering the gain TB=1 s.
Figure 17: Step in Voltage References with ESST1A Model without TGR
4.6.
25
ESST1A without TGR with Original PSS
represented in PSS/E by the ESST1A model presented in Section 1.2.2 (time constant TB=1 s)
and considering the original PSS parameters as described in Section 1.3.
Figure 16 shows the power output of the generators for the 50 MVAr reactor disturbance.
Figure 18: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESST1A Model without TGR and Original PSS
26

changes in voltage reference.
Figure 19: Step in Voltage References with ESST1A Model without TGR and Original PSS
4.7.
27
ESST1A without TGR with Modified PSS
represented in PSS/E by the ESST1A model presented in Section 1.2.2 (time constant TB=1 s)
and considering the modified PSS parameters proposed in Section 1.3.
Figure 20: 50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance with ESST1A Model without TGR and Modified PSS
28
Figure 21: Step in Voltage References with ESST1A Model without TGR and Modified PSS
29
5. Modal Analysis
5.1.
PSS/E LSYSAN
PSS/E can build a numerical approximation for the linearized system model. This
approximation is obtained by numerical disturbances applied to the states of the nonlinear
model, so the resulting precision of the numerical approximation is a function of the applied
disturbance.
The results obtained with this tool might not be as accurate as the results that can be
obtained from linearized models built with analytical linearization techniques, so the results
(eigenvalues and eigenvectors) presented in this section cannot be taken as an absolute (precise)
reference. On the other hand, it would be an interesting exercise to compare these results with
those obtained from analytical methods.
The PSS/E activity ASTR allows the definition of the disturbance to be used, and also the
state variables and input/output variables that will be used in building a (linearized) state
equation for modal analysis, as shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22: PSS/E Window for Activity ASTR (Linearized State Equation)
30
Once the linearized state equations have been numerically calculated, the auxiliary program
LSYSAN 1 can be used for the modal analysis.
It should be noted that the PSS/E case associated with Section 2.5 (ESST1A model without
TGR, no PSS) has 44 states, corresponding to 6 states per generator, plus 5 states per excitation
system (ESST1A model). On the other hand, the data for the ESST1A model has been set (see
Table 9) with TA=TC1=TB1=KF=0, so only two state variables in each ESST1A model are
active, i.e., are part of the system dynamic response: the state associated with the voltage
measurement time constant TR and the state associated with the lead-lag block with parameters
TC and TB.
The program LSYSAN was able to automatically identify (and eliminate from the linearized
state equations) the state variables associated with the time constant TA in the four ESST1A
models in the system. Thus, LSYSAN calculated the eigenvalues of a linearized system of order
40, as shown Table 11. The other state variables that are redundant (not active due to the
selected values for the parameters in the model) are still part of the state equations. Each of
these redundant states will result in an eigenvalue equal to 1, as highlighted in Table 11 .
Also, it is important to notice that the system data does not contain an infinite bus and
PSS/E uses angles referred to the synchronous frame of reference (absolute angles), not relative
angles between machines, or between machines and an infinite bus. Furthermore, there are no
speed governor models in the system data, so all generators are represented as having constant
mechanical power from the turbine. Therefore, the linearized system model contains two
eigenvalues at the origin, associated with the rigid-body motion of the system [7]. Numerical
calculations, both in the determination of the linearized state equations and the EISPACK
routines for the QR method, result in a pair of eigenvalues close to the origin, but not exactly
zero (highlighted in Table 11). Sometimes these eigenvalues, due to the numerical issues
described above, are even shown with a positive real part, which might be misinterpreted as an
unstable mode. These modes should be ignored and cannot be misinterpreted as an
electromechanical oscillation mode, particularly an unstable mode. All it takes is to determine
the speed mode-shape for this mode (eigenvector elements associated with the rotor speed
deviation of the generators) and the analyst will see that the mode-shape shows all components
with the same phase and magnitude, clearly indicating that this is the rigid-body motion of the
system, all units accelerating together.
Table 12 presents the eigenvector associated with mode #5 in Table 11. The components of
the eigenvector associated with the rotor speed deviation of the generators (state K+4 of the
model GENROE) are highlighted. It can be seen that this mode is related with machines 1 and 4
oscillating in phase opposition to machines 2 and 3. Moreover, the relative magnitudes of these
eigenvector components indicate that this mode corresponds (mostly) to the oscillation between
machines 3 and 4. The fact that this mode is an oscillation between machines 3 and 4 becomes
obvious when looking at the relative participation factors for this mode, shown in Table 13.
Provided as part of the PSS/E installation, for users with the proper license. Consult the software vendor
if you are not sure about your license.
31
model GENROE) are highlighted. It can be seen that this mode is (mostly) the oscillation
between machines 1 and 2, as clearly shown by the participation factors in Table 15.
model GENROE) are highlighted. It can be seen that this mode is the inter-area mode, with
machines 1 and 2 oscillating against machines 3 and 4. Considering the relative magnitudes of
these eigenvector components, the inter-area mode is somewhat more observable in the
importing area (generators 3 and 4). The relative participation factors in Table 17 show that all
four units participate in this oscillation mode, with slightly more observability and controlability
on the units in the importing area.
Table 18 corresponds to the eigenvector associated with mode #11 in Table 11 and it can be
seen that the components of the eigenvector associated with rotor speed deviation of the
generators (highlighted) have practically the same phase, the indication that this is the rigid
body mode, as described above.
32
Table 11: Eigenvalues Calculated with PSS/E Program LSYSAN

COMPLEX EIGENVALUES:
NO.
1
2
REAL
-18.119
-18.119
IMAG
22.262
-22.262
DAMP
0.63124
0.63124
FREQ
3.5431
3.5431
3
4
-19.167
-19.167
16.532
-16.532
0.75724
0.75724
2.6311
2.6311
5 -0.66058
6 -0.66058
7.2907
-7.2907
0.90236E-01
0.90236E-01
1.1604
1.1604
7 -0.65639
8 -0.65639
7.0881
-7.0881
0.92210E-01
0.92210E-01
1.1281
1.1281
3.8361
-3.8361
-0.16840E-03
-0.16840E-03
0.61054
0.61054
9
10
0.64617E-03
0.64617E-03
11 -0.28446E-01 0.80374E-01
12 -0.28446E-01 -0.80374E-01
REAL EIGENVALUES:
NO.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
REAL
-97.447
-97.389
-95.600
-94.467
-36.297
-36.200
-31.617
-30.678
-25.254
-24.357
-16.818
-15.953
-3.6304
-3.5340
-3.3135
-3.2842
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
-1.0000
TIME CONSTANT
0.10262E-01
0.10268E-01
0.10460E-01
0.10586E-01
0.27550E-01
0.27625E-01
0.31628E-01
0.32597E-01
0.39598E-01
0.41057E-01
0.59461E-01
0.62682E-01
0.27545
0.28296
0.30179
0.30449
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.33364
0.33364
0.12792E-01
0.12792E-01
33
Table 12: Eigenvector Calculated with PSS/E Program LSYSAN for Mode #5
EIGENVALUE
ROW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
5: REAL=
DAMP=
-0.66058
IMAG=
0.90236E-01 FREQ=
X--- VECTOR ELEMENT ---X

MAGNITUDE
PHASE
0.19592E-01 -23.884
0.34422E-01 -61.870
0.12763E-01 -176.57
0.59303E-01 -30.047
0.33976E-02
86.700
0.17497
-8.4770
0.55303E-01 -146.60
0.38783E-01
102.49
0.25895E-01 -124.26
0.66405E-01
139.87
0.42271E-02 -86.616
0.21768
178.21
0.21400
-175.06
0.11930
112.51
0.54508E-01
175.54
0.22165
147.92
0.17545E-01 -88.884
0.90351
175.94
0.11370
103.45
0.24404
-66.045
0.19437
134.07
0.39142
-32.350
0.19418E-01
95.177
1.0000
0.0000
0.65227E-02 -131.75
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.15153E-01
117.79
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.62847E-01
87.260
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.24736E-01
26.409
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
STATE
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
7.2907
1.1604
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
BUS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
X----- NAME -----X
ID
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
34
Table 13: Relative Participation Factors Calculated with PSS/E Program LSYSAN for Mode #5
NORMALIZED PARTICIPATION FACTORS FOR MODE
FACTOR
1.00000
0.99928
0.82994
0.82930
0.13109
0.11943
0.11232
0.06230
0.05871
0.05824
0.04037
0.04034
0.01833
0.01832
0.01189
0.00880
0.00629
0.00364
0.00340
0.00340
0.00332
0.00193
0.00178
0.00111
0.00043
0.00033
0.00009
0.00008
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ROW
23
24
17
18
20
13
22
19
14
16
11
12
5
6
21
33
7
8
37
15
10
2
4
1
29
9
25
3
31
30
28
27
26
40
39
38
36
35
34
32
STATE
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+1
K
K+3
K
K+1
K+3
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+2
K
K
K+1
K
K+2
K+3
K+1
K+3
K
K
K+2
K
K+2
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
5: -0.66058
BUS
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
4
3
2
2
4
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
7.2907
X----- NAME -----X

GEN G4
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G1
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G4
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G3
20.000
GEN G2
20.000
ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
35
EIGENVALUE
ROW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
7: REAL=
DAMP=
-0.65639
IMAG=
0.92210E-01 FREQ=

MAGNITUDE
PHASE
0.18930
-170.48
0.14218
116.04
0.33462E-01 -159.24
0.25376
150.20
0.17559E-01 -86.802
0.92993
177.91
0.10921
84.714
0.23755
-65.703
0.16242
129.42
0.38205
-32.365
0.18882E-01
95.291
1.0000
0.0000
0.42190E-01 -143.53
0.22907E-01
144.52
0.11378E-01 -152.44
0.42333E-01
179.42
0.34616E-02 -57.699
0.18333
-152.99
0.24313E-01
159.85
0.31238E-01 -33.506
0.32708E-01
166.02
0.48241E-01 -0.40388
0.21223E-02
130.85
0.11240
35.564
0.53270E-01
90.079
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.21164E-01 -0.68033
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.12050E-01
118.79
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.64398E-02
79.346
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
STATE
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
7.0881
1.1281
BUS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
X----- NAME -----X
ID
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
36
FACTOR
1.00000
0.99926
0.85261
0.85199
0.12671
0.10786
0.09957
0.06985
0.06596
0.05868
0.04558
0.04554
0.01862
0.01861
0.00948
0.00703
0.00622
0.00319
0.00311
0.00285
0.00280
0.00228
0.00203
0.00191
0.00045
0.00030
0.00018
0.00013
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ROW
11
12
5
6
8
10
1
2
4
7
17
18
23
24
9
25
13
14
16
29
20
22
19
3
33
21
15
37
31
30
28
27
26
40
39
38
36
35
34
32
STATE
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+1
K+3
K
K+1
K+3
K
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+2
K
K
K+1
K+3
K
K+1
K+3
K
K+2
K
K+2
K+2
K
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
BUS
7: -0.65639
X-- NAME --X

2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
2 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
2 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
1 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
2 GEN
ID
G2
G2
G1
G1
G2
G2
G1
G1
G1
G2
G3
G3
G4
G4
G2
G1
G3
G3
G3
G2
G4
G4
G4
G1
G3
G4
G3
G4
G2
G2
G1
G1
G1
G4
G4
G4
G3
G3
G3
G2
7.0881
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
37
EIGENVALUE
ROW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
9: REAL=
DAMP=
0.64617E-03 IMAG=
-0.16840E-03 FREQ=

MAGNITUDE
PHASE
0.15161
173.09
0.16606E-01
14.014
0.95891E-01
165.58
0.17763E-01
81.067
0.83922E-02 -100.94
0.82473
169.07
0.25589
158.66
0.82312E-01 -64.728
0.19836
144.92
0.95749E-01 -53.104
0.59052E-02 -89.479
0.58033
-179.47
0.30072E-01
90.912
0.82204E-01 -51.165
0.55905E-01
134.61
0.12286
-32.017
0.10176E-01
89.990
1.0000
0.0000
0.73132E-01
130.31
0.10633
-56.573
0.10084
134.98
0.15149
-38.018
0.93171E-02
87.142
0.91562
-2.8485
0.24354E-01
70.038
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.42509E-01
59.639
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.14633E-02
19.536
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.10261E-01
49.336
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3.8361
0.61054
STATE
MODEL
BUS
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
X----- NAME -----X
ID
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
38
FACTOR
1.00000
0.99986
0.84740
0.84729
0.84029
0.84018
0.52350
0.52344
0.11696
0.05480
0.05069
0.04270
0.03779
0.03522
0.03111
0.02695
0.02143
0.00927
0.00878
0.00587
0.00485
0.00458
0.00241
0.00225
0.00220
0.00112
0.00094
0.00011
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
ROW
18
17
24
23
6
5
12
11
7
1
20
14
8
22
16
19
10
13
2
9
29
4
21
3
25
15
37
33
31
30
28
27
26
40
39
38
36
35
34
32
STATE
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+4
K+5
K+4
K
K
K+1
K+1
K+1
K+3
K+3
K
K+3
K
K+1
K+2
K
K+3
K+2
K+2
K
K+2
K
K
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
K+2
K+1
K+4
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
BUS
9:
0.64617E-03
X-- NAME --X

3 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
2 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
2 GEN
3 GEN
1 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
4 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
3 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
2 GEN
2 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
1 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
4 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
3 GEN
2 GEN
ID
G3
G3
G4
G4
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G1
G4
G3
G2
G4
G3
G4
G2
G3
G1
G2
G2
G1
G4
G1
G1
G3
G4
G3
G2
G2
G1
G1
G1
G4
G4
G4
G3
G3
G3
G2
3.8361
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
39
EIGENVALUE
ROW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11: REAL=
DAMP=
X--- VECTOR
MAGNITUDE
0.58873E-02
0.40065E-02
0.52644E-02
0.49813E-02
0.22615E-03
1.0000
0.68345E-02
0.45170E-02
0.60773E-02
0.56001E-02
0.22550E-03
0.99714
0.24227E-02
0.16116E-02
0.21571E-02
0.19979E-02
0.22589E-03
0.99877
0.12133E-02
0.87161E-03
0.10347E-02
0.11019E-02
0.22592E-03
0.99892
0.11317E-03
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.78409E-04
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.43968E-04
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.18509E-04
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5.2.
-0.28446E-01 IMAG=
0.33364
FREQ=
ELEMENT ---X
PHASE
-0.62087
178.61
-0.90546
178.96
109.48
0.0000
-0.59659
178.61
-0.87527
178.96
109.49
0.50360E-03
-0.68215
178.68
-0.93353
179.04
109.49
-0.71651E-02
-0.49801E-02
179.38
-0.19490
179.76
109.48
-0.92475E-02
-170.09
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-163.16
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-169.49
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
-167.22
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
STATE
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+3
K+4
K+5
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
K
K+1
K+2
K+4
0.80374E-01
0.12792E-01
MODEL
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
GENROE
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
ESST1A
BUS
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
X----- NAME -----X
ID
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G4
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G4
G4
G4
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
PSSPLT
The plotting package PSSPLT provided with the PSS/E installation [2] has a modal analysis
function that can be used to obtain a numerical approximation of the oscillation modes observed
in a time domain curve, such as the time domain simulation results from PSS/E. This modal
analysis tool has a Prony method as well as a least square curve fit. The user has to select a time
domain curve to be used for the analysis, as well as the time interval for the analysis and the
order of the approximation, via the window shown in Figure 23.
The least square methods allow a scan for different orders of linear approximation, a useful
tool to determine the best possible approximation. Figure 23 shows the options to be selected to
determine the best fit from a 15th order equivalent to a 45th order equivalent, while Figure 24
presents the options related with the modal analysis calculation for the chosen equivalent system
order.
40
Table 19 shows the results of the modal analysis scan, searching for the best fit as a function of
the order of the equivalent system. It can be seen that the minimum error is associated with a
36thorder system.
Figure 23: PSSPLT Window for Modal Analysis Scan to Determine Order of Best Equivalent
Table 20 shows the results of the modal analysis calculations with a given equivalent system
order, usually the best fit determined by as shown above.
The user should always remember that this is a numerical approach, therefore the results are
sensitive to numerical issues and user selections. The mode highlighted in blue is a good
example, as it is associated with a pole in the origin, representing a step function in the time
domain. This mode is always present, when the initial and final points of the selected curve, in
the given time window (time range) are not identical. The curve fit procedure would understand
(and represent) this change as a step change in the response and, as such, introduce this mode at
the origin, with the appropriate magnitude to match the difference between the values of initial
and final points. This mode should be disregarded, for all practical purposes.
The two modes highlighted in yellow are reasonable (numerical) approximations to the modes
#5 and #9, obtained with LSYSAN and shown in Table 11. It is also notable that mode #7 in
Table 11 is not present in these results: generator G1 has limited participation in that mode, thus
the observability of that mode in the electrical power output of generator G1 (selected trace for
this analysis) is quite small.
41
The remaining modes have relatively small magnitudes, with exception of the the 3rd
component. This 3rd component has a relatively high frequency (above 3 Hz) and is very well
damped, corresponding to a time domain response that disappears very fast.
The time domain response of the equivalent system can be generated and plotted on top of the
original curve, the selected curve for the modal analysis. Figure 25 shows the PSSPLT interface
for selecting the modes for plotting. In this example, only the highlighted modes in Table 20
were selected. Figure 26 presents the time domain response of the reduced order equivalent
system (5th order system) in blue, with the original trace from the nonlinear time domain
simulation in PSS/E shown in black. It is a very good match, with some error introduced at the
very beginning of the plot (less than 0.5 seconds).
Despite the difficulties associated with numerical methods, particularly potential inaccuracies,
the results obtained with these tools are quite consistent and provide the correct qualitative
information regarding oscillation frequencies, damping or these modes, and relative
participation factors.
Table 19: PSSPLT Scan of Modal Equivalents

NUMBER OF SELECTED DATA POINTS IS
SELECT AN NPLT OF
EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF
801 AND TIME STEP IS 0.012
8 TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POINTS TO ABOUT 100

DATA POINTS IS
ORDER
% ERROR
SIGNAL/NOISE
-----------------------------------15
93.71
0.07
16
82.46
1.54
17
78.88
1.63
18
56.34
4.47
19
40.91
7.08
20
25.30
11.07
21
14.17
14.99
22
19.40
12.96
23
8.716
20.20
24
11.22
18.00
25
11.89
17.58
26
5.465
24.58
27
9.238
20.06
28
3.963
27.85
29
4.116
26.95
30
7.888
21.71
31
3.037
30.04
32
14.31
16.65
33
9.399
20.08
34
7.099
22.73
35
3.631
28.64
36
2.112
32.61
37
3.826
27.42
38
3.258
29.38
39
3.287
29.30
40
9.174
20.37
41
2.163
32.41
42
6.183
23.84
43
4.771
26.03
44
3.276
29.35
45
2.317
32.61
267 AND EFFECTIVE TIME STEP IS 0.037
42
Figure 24: PSSPLT Window for Modal Analysis Calculation with a Specific Equivalent System Order
Table 20: Results of the Modal Analysis Calculations with the Equivalent System of 36th Order
CHANNEL: CHNL# 5: [POWR
TIME INTERVAL:
1.2000
1[GEN G1
- 11.1998 SEC.
20.000]1]
MODAL COMPONENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMP.
EIGENVALUE
EIGENVECTOR
NO
REAL
IMAGINARY
MAGNITUDE
ANGLE
REMARKS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
0.635793E-05
-6.9996
-2
-0.575326
7.05087
0.12623E-01
-112.24
FREQ.:
1.122 HZ.
3
-15.1229
19.9601
0.91841E-02
97.49
FREQ.:
3.177 HZ.
4
0.376434E-01
3.82388
0.87685E-02
-67.89
FREQ.:
0.609 HZ.
5
-1.88157
13.5899
0.26695E-03
60.48
FREQ.:
2.163 HZ.
6
-1.96054
24.1774
0.15576E-03
-63.89
FREQ.:
3.848 HZ.
7
-0.999003
29.2507
0.56638E-04
51.75
FREQ.:
4.655 HZ.
8
-1.53119
19.2763
0.52868E-04
-166.83
FREQ.:
3.068 HZ.
9
-0.669758
34.8902
0.31107E-04
143.42
FREQ.:
5.553 HZ.
10
-1.15286
41.5950
0.17379E-04
-150.87
FREQ.:
6.620 HZ.
PERC. ERROR:
2.112
SIGNAL/NOISE:
32.61
METHODS: EIGENVALUE - LEAST SQUARE,
ORDER: 36
EIGENVECTOR - LEAST SQUARE
Figure 25: PSSPLT Window for Time Domain Plot of Modal Analysis Equivalent Response
43
44
Figure 26: Time Domain Plot of Original Curve and Modal Analysis Equivalent Response
5.3.
45
Impact of Generator Saturation
As mentioned in Section 1.1, the representation of the magnetic saturation in the

synchronous machine impacts the small-signal stability results.
To show the impact of the magnetic saturation in the small-signal stability results, the
simulations with the ESST1A model without TGR (see Sections 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7) were repeated
with the magnetic saturation of the generator models being ignored.
Figure 27 presents the electrical power output of the four generators in the case, for the
disturbance considering the 50 MVAr reactor applied at the mid-point of the system, for the
case without PSS (see Section 2.5.1). The black traces correspond to the original simulation,
considering the magnetic saturation as described in Section 1.1. The blue traces are the
simulation results when the magnetic saturation is neglected on all machines. It can be seen that
the damping and even the frequency of the inter-area electromechanical mode of oscillation has
been affected by this modeling decision. This impact is even more visible in the rotor speed
deviations shown in Figure 28.
On the other hand, the impact of neglecting magnetic saturation almost vanishes in the case
where the PSS are in service. The power output of the generators following the step changes in
voltage references, for the case where the PSS are in service (see Section 2.6.2), is shown in
Figure 29.
Thus, two basic conclusions can be drawn:
a) Modeling differences, such as the representation of the magnetic saturation in the
synchronous machine, will have some impact on the small-signal stability results. This
impact is more visible and significant for unstable or poorly damped oscillation modes
(critical modes), as relatively small differences in the damping ratio of the oscillation
will have more pronounced effect on the time domain results;
b) These differences in modeling, leading to differences in numerical values for the
calculated eigenvalues, do not affect the overall conceptual analysis (relative modeshapes and participation factors, for instance) and do not significantly impact the tuning
and performance of the PSS. With properly tuned PSS, resulting in better damping for
all electromechanical modes, the modeling differences are practically negligible.
46
Figure 27: Electrical Power Output Comparison (50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance)
Figure 28: Speed Deviation Comparison (50 MVAr Reactor Disturbance)
47
48
Figure 29: Electrical Power Output Comparison with PSS (Voltage Reference Disturbance)
49
6. References
[1] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw Hill, 1994.
[2] Siemens PTI, PSS/E 32.0 Online Documentation, June 2009.
[3] M. Klein, G. J. Rogers and P. Kundur, A Fundamental Study of Inter-Area Oscillations,
IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 914-921, August 1991.
[4] M. Klein, G. J. Rogers, S. Moorty and P. Kundur, Analytical Investigation of Factors
Influencing Power System Stabilizers Performance, IEEE Trans. On Energy Conversion, vol.
7, no. 3, pp. 382-390, September 1992.
Studies, IEEE Standard 421.5(2005), April 2006.
[6] F. P. de Mello and C. Concordia, Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected
by Excitation Control, IEEE Trans. On Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.PAS-88, no.4,
pp.316-329, April 1969.
[7] N. Martins and L. Lima, Eigenvalue and Frequency Domain Analysis of Small-Signal
Electromechanical Stability Problems, in Eigenanalysis and Frequency Domain Methos for
System Dynamic Performance, IEEE Special Publication 90TH0292-3-PWR, 1989.
D.1
Appendix D - Report on the New England Test System by Prof. Ian Hiskens
and Jonas Kersulis
IEEE PES Task Force on Benchmark Systems for Stability Controls

Ian Hiskens
November 19, 2013
Abstract
This report summarizes a study of an IEEE 10-generator, 39-bus system. Three types of analysis
were performed: load flow, small disturbance analysis, and dynamic simulation. All analysis was carried
out using MATLAB, and this reports objective is to demonstrate how to use MATLAB to obtain results that
are comparable to benchmark results from other analysis methods. Data from other methods may be
found on the website www.sel.eesc.usp.br/ieee.
Contents
1 System Model
1.1 Generators . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.1 State Variable Model .
1.1.2 Model Parameters . .
1.1.3 AVR Model . . . . . .
1.1.4 AVR Parameters . . .
1.1.5 PSS Model . . . . . .
1.1.6 PSS Parameters . . .
1.1.7 Governor Model . . .
1.2 Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Load Model . . . . . .
1.2.2 Load Parameters . . .
1.3 Lines and Transformers . . .
1.4 Power and Voltage Setpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
10
2 Load Flow Results
11
3 Small Disturbance Analysis
12
4 Dynamic Simulation
13
5 Appendix
5.1 Accessing Simulation Data with
5.1.1 Variable Indexing . . . .
5.1.2 Example Application . .
5.2 Contents of file 39bus.out . . .
R
MATLAB
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
15
15
16
18
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
4
6
12
13
List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
IEEE 39-bus network . . . . . . . . . . .

AVR block diagram . . . . . . . . . . .
PSS block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . .
Graphical depiction of Eigenvalues . . .
(in radians) versus time for generators
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Report: 39-bus system (New England Reduced Model)
6
7
(in percent per-unit) for generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents of file 39bus.out (Page 1 of 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
19
List of Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Generator inertia data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Generator data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Generator AVR parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Generator PSS parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Generator setpoint data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Active and reactive power draws for all loads at initial voltage .
Network data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power and voltage setpoint data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power flow results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Eigenvalues calculated through small disturbance analysis . . .
R
Mapping from MATLAB
files to simulation data . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
The IEEE 39-bus system analyzed in this report is commonly known as the 10-machine New-England
Power System. This systems parameters are specified in a paper by T. Athay et al[1] and are published in
a book titled Energy Function Analysis for Power System Stability[2]. A diagram of the system is shown
in Figure 1, and system models and parameters are introduced in the following section.
G8
<37>
G10
<25>
<26>
<28>
<29>
<30>
<27>
<2>
<18>
<38>
<17>
G9
<24>
<1>
G6
<3>
<16>
<35>
<15>
G1
<4>
<39>
<21>
<22>
<14>
<5>
<6>
<12>
<19>
<23>
<7>
<13>
<20>
<36>
<11>
<8>
<31>
<10>
<34>
<33>
G7
<9>
G2
<32>
G5
G3
Figure 1: IEEE 39-bus network
G4
<Bus #>
1
1.1
1.1.1
System Model
Generators
State Variable Model
Generator analysis was carried out using a fourth-order model, as defined in the equations below. Equations
1 through 4 model the generator, while the remaining equations relate various parameters. Parameter values
for the model are shown in Table 2 on the system base MVA. For more information on this generator model
and its parameters, refer to Sauer and Pai pages 101-103 [3].
1
E q0 = 0 (Eq0 (xd x0d )Id + Ef d )
Tdo
1
E d0 = 0 (Ed0 + (xq x0q )Iq )
Tqo
=
(2)
(3)
1
(Tmech (d Iq q Id ) D )
=
M
(4)
0 = ra Id + q + Vd
(5)
0 = ra Iq d + Vq
(6)
d x0d Id + Eq0
q x0q Iq Ed0
(8)
0 = Vd sin + Vq cos Vr
(9)
0=
0=
1.1.2
(1)
(7)
0 = Vq sin Vd cos Vi
(10)
0 = Id sin + Iq cos Ir
(11)
0 = Iq sin Id cos Ii
(12)
Model Parameters
Generator inertia data is given in Table 1. Note that the per unit conversion for M associated with is in
0
for Unit 10 from 0.0 to 0.10.
radians per second. Also, we changed the value of Tqo
Table 1: Generator inertia data
Unit No.
M=2*H
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2 500.0/(120)
2 30.3/(120)
2 35.8/(120)
2 28.6/(120)
2 26.0/(120)
2 34.8/(120)
2 26.4/(120)
2 24.3/(120)
2 34.5/(120)
2 42.0/(120)
All other generator parameters are set according to Table 2.
Table 2: Generator data

Unit No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1.3
Ra
x0d
x0q
xd
xq
0
Tdo
0
Tqo
xl
500
30.3
35.8
28.6
26
34.8
26.4
24.3
34.5
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.006
0.0697
0.0531
0.0436
0.132
0.05
0.049
0.057
0.057
0.031
0.008
0.17
0.0876
0.166
0.166
0.0814
0.186
0.0911
0.0587
0.008
0.02
0.295
0.2495
0.262
0.67
0.254
0.295
0.29
0.2106
0.1
0.019
0.282
0.237
0.258
0.62
0.241
0.292
0.28
0.205
0.069
7
6.56
5.7
5.69
5.4
7.3
5.66
6.7
4.79
10.2
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.44
0.4
1.5
0.41
1.96
0
0.003
0.035
0.0304
0.0295
0.054
0.0224
0.0322
0.028
0.0298
0.0125
AVR Model
All generators in the system are equipped with automatic voltage regulators (AVRs). We chose to use static
AVRs with Ef d limiters. The model for this controller is shown in Figure 2 below.
AVR type smp_lim
Figure 2: AVR block diagram
AVR parameters are related according to equations 13 to 24.

1
V f =
(VT Vf )
TR
1
(KA xtgr Ef d )
E f d =
TA
x i = xerr xtgr
(
0
when t > 0
V REF =
VT Vsetpoint
when t < 0
Upper Limit
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
Lower Limit
1.1.4
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
0 = VT2 (Vr2 + Vi2 )
(17)
0 = TB xtgr TC xerr xi
(18)
0 = xerr (VREF + VP SS Vf )
(19)
0 = Ef d Ef d
(
0 = Upper Limit Switch 1
Detector < 0
0 = Upper Limit Detector Ef d Ef d,Max
(
0 = Upper Limit Switch
Detector > 0
0 = Upper Limit Detector (KA xtgr Ef d )
(
0 = Lower Limit Switch 1
Detector > 0
0 = Lower Limit Detector Ef d Ef d,Min
(
0 = Lower Limit Switch
Detector < 0
0 = Lower Limit Detector (KA xtgr Ef d )
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
AVR Parameters
AVR parameters, as defined in the previous section, are specified in Table 3.

Table 3: Generator AVR parameters
1.1.5
Unit No.
TR
KA
TA
TB
TC
Vsetpoint
Ef d,Max
Ef d,Min
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
0.015
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0300
0.9820
0.9831
0.9972
1.0123
1.0493
1.0635
1.0278
1.0265
1.0475
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
PSS Model
Each generator in the system is equipped with a and type PSS with two phase shift blocks. The model
for this PSS is shown in Figure 3 below.
PSS type conv
Figure 3: PSS block diagram

PSS parameters are related according to equations 25 to 33.
VW
TW
x P = VW VP
(26)
x Q = VP Vout
(27)
x W =
1.1.6
(25)
0 = KP SS VW xW
(28)
0 = VP T2 VW T1 xP
(29)
0 = Vout T4 VP T3 xQ
(30)
0 = xP SS,Max Vout (VP SS,Max Vout )
(31)
0 = Vout xP SS,Min (Vout VP SS,Min )
when (VP SS,Max Vout ) < 0

VP SS xP SS,Max
0 = VP SS xP SS,Min
when (Vout VP SS,Min ) < 0
VP SS Vout
otherwise
(32)
(33)
PSS Parameters
PSS parameters defined in the previous section are specified according to Table 4.
Table 4: Generator PSS parameters
1.1.7
Unit No.
TW
T1
T2
T3
T4
VP SS,Max
VP SS,Min
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.0/(120)
0.5/(120)
0.5/(120)
2.0/(120)
1.0/(120)
4.0/(120)
7.5/(120)
2.0/(120)
2.0/(120)
1.0/(120)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
0.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.20
0.50
0.05
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
Governor Model
No governor dynamics are included in our analysis, and each generators mechanical torque is assumed to be
constant. Since Unit 2 is the angle reference and resides at the swing node, Pset point is determined by the
power flow initialization. The value of Pset point is given for each generator in Table 5 on the system base of
100 MVA.
Table 5: Generator setpoint data
1.2
1.2.1
Unit No.
Pset point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10.00
6.50
6.32
5.08
6.50
5.60
5.40
8.30
2.50
Loads
Load Model
We use a constant impedance load model in our analysis. Loads modeled this way are voltage dependent
and behave according to the following equations.
0 = P0 + Vr Ir + Vi Ii
if t < 0 0 = Q0 + Vi Ir Vr Ii
V = (Vr2 + Vi2 )2

0 = P0 VV0
+ Vr Ir + Vi Ii

if t > 0 0 = Q0 V
+ Vi Ir + Vr Ii
V0
V = (V 2 + V 2 )2
r
i
1.2.2
(34)
(35)
Load Parameters
Table 6 contains load behavior at initial voltage. Due to the voltage dependence discussed above, these
values may not be accurate after voltages change.
Table 6: Active and reactive power draws for all loads at initial voltage
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
39
1.3
Load
P [PU] Q [pu]
0.000
0.000
3.220
5.000
0.000
0.000
2.338
5.220
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.075
0.000
0.000
3.200
3.290
0.000
1.580
0.000
6.280
2.740
0.000
2.475
3.086
2.240
1.390
2.810
2.060
2.835
0.092
11.040
0.000
0.000
0.024
1.840
0.000
0.000
0.840
1.760
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.880
0.000
0.000
1.530
0.323
0.000
0.300
0.000
1.030
1.150
0.000
0.846
-0.920
0.472
0.170
0.755
0.276
0.269
0.046
2.500
Lines and Transformers
Network data for the system is shown in Table 7. As with generator data, all values are given on the system
base MVA at 60 Hz.
Table 7: Network data

Line Data
From Bus
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
10
13
14
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
21
22
23
25
26
26
26
28
12
12
6
10
19
20
22
23
25
2
29
19
To Bus
2
39
3
25
4
18
5
14
6
8
7
11
8
9
39
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
21
24
18
27
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
29
11
13
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
30
38
20
R
0.0035
0.001
0.0013
0.007
0.0013
0.0011
0.0008
0.0008
0.0002
0.0008
0.0006
0.0007
0.0004
0.0023
0.001
0.0004
0.0004
0.0009
0.0018
0.0009
0.0007
0.0016
0.0008
0.0003
0.0007
0.0013
0.0008
0.0006
0.0022
0.0032
0.0014
0.0043
0.0057
0.0014
0.0016
0.0016
0
0
0.0007
0.0009
0
0.0005
0.0006
0
0.0008
0.0007
Transformer Tap
X
0.0411
0.025
0.0151
0.0086
0.0213
0.0133
0.0128
0.0129
0.0026
0.0112
0.0092
0.0082
0.0046
0.0363
0.025
0.0043
0.0043
0.0101
0.0217
0.0094
0.0089
0.0195
0.0135
0.0059
0.0082
0.0173
0.014
0.0096
0.035
0.0323
0.0147
0.0474
0.0625
0.0151
0.0435
0.0435
0.025
0.02
0.0142
0.018
0.0143
0.0272
0.0232
0.0181
0.0156
0.0138
B
0.6987
0.75
0.2572
0.146
0.2214
0.2138
0.1342
0.1382
0.0434
0.1476
0.113
0.1389
0.078
0.3804
1.2
0.0729
0.0729
0.1723
0.366
0.171
0.1342
0.304
0.2548
0.068
0.1319
0.3216
0.2565
0.1846
0.361
0.513
0.2396
0.7802
1.029
0.249
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Magnitude
1.006
1.006
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.009
1.025
1
1.025
1.025
1.025
1.06
Angle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
1.4
Power and Voltage Setpoints
Table 8 contains power and voltage setpoint data, specified on the system MVA base. Note that Generator
2 is the swing node, and Generator 1 represents the aggregation of a large number of generators.
Table 8: Power and voltage setpoint data

Bus
Type
Voltage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PQ
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
PV
[PU]
1.0475
0.982
0.9831
0.9972
1.0123
1.0493
1.0635
1.0278
1.0265
1.03
Load
MW
0
0
322
500
0
0
233.8
522
0
0
0
7.5
0
0
320
329
0
158
0
628
274
0
247.5
308.6
224
139
281
206
283.5
0
9.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1104
MVar
0
0
2.4
184
0
0
84
176
0
0
0
88
0
0
153
32.3
0
30
0
103
115
0
84.6
-92
47.2
17
75.5
27.6
26.9
0
4.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
Generator
MW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
650
632
508
650
560
540
830
1000
MVar
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Unit No.
Gen10
Gen2
Gen3
Gen4
Gen5
Gen6
Gen7
Gen8
Gen9
Gen1
This completes the description of the system and its model. The remainder of this report focuses on
the three analyses performed on the system: load flow, small signal stability assessment via Eigenvalue
calculation, and numerical simulation. The results of load flow analysis are presented in the next section.
11
Load Flow Results
Load flow for the system was calculated using MATLAB. The results are in Table 9. Note that all voltages,
active power values, and reactive power values are given in per unit on the system MVA base.
For a more complete description of power flow, including flow on each line, see Section 5.2 in the Appendix.
Table 9: Power flow results
Bus
Angle [deg]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
1.0474
1.0487
1.0302
1.0039
1.0053
1.0077
0.997
0.996
1.0282
1.0172
1.0127
1.0002
1.0143
1.0117
1.0154
1.0318
1.0336
1.0309
1.0499
0.9912
1.0318
1.0498
1.0448
1.0373
1.0576
1.0521
1.0377
1.0501
1.0499
1.0475
0.982
0.9831
0.9972
1.0123
1.0493
1.0635
1.0278
1.0265
1.03
-8.44
-5.75
-8.6
-9.61
-8.61
-7.95
-10.12
-10.62
-10.32
-5.43
-6.28
-6.24
-6.1
-7.66
-7.74
-6.19
-7.3
-8.22
-1.02
-2.01
-3.78
0.67
0.47
-6.07
-4.36
-5.53
-7.5
-2.01
0.74
-3.33
0
2.57
4.19
3.17
5.63
8.32
2.42
7.81
-10.05
Bus Total
P
0
0
-322
-500
0
0
-233.8
-522
0
0
0
-7.5
0
0
-320
-329
0
-158
0
-628
-274
0
-247.5
-308.6
-224
-139
-281
-206
-283.5
250
511.61
650
632
508
650
560
540
830
-104
Q
0
0
-2.4
-184
0
0
-84
-176
0
0
0
-88
0
0
-153
-32.3
0
-30
0
-103
-115
0
-84.6
92.2
-47.2
-17
-75.5
-27.6
-26.9
146.16
193.65
205.14
109.91
165.76
212.41
101.17
0.44
22.84
-161.7
Load
Generator
P
0
0
-322
-500
0
0
-233.8
-522
0
0
0
-7.5
0
0
-320
-329
0
-158
0
-628
-274
0
-247.5
-308.6
-224
-139
-281
-206
-283.5
Q
0
0
-2.4
-184
0
0
-84
-176
0
0
0
-88
0
0
-153
-32.3
0
-30
0
-103
-115
0
-84.6
92.2
-47.2
-17
-75.5
-27.6
-26.9
-9.2
-4.6
-1104
-250
Unit No.
250
520.81
650
632
508
650
560
540
830
1000
146.16
198.25
205.14
109.91
165.76
212.41
101.17
0.44
22.84
88.28
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
12
Small Disturbance Analysis
Small signal stability was assessed by calculating Eigenvalues of the system. To find Eigenvalues, we first
calculated reduced A matrices as follows:
x = f (x, y) | 0 = g(x, y)
Differential eq.
Algebraic eq.
x = fx x + fy y | 0 = gx x + gy y
Linearize:
x = (fx fy gy1 gx ) x
Eliminate algebraic equations:
Reduced A matrices
Eigenvalues, which correspond to machine oscillatory modes, are calculated from the reduced A matrices.
Some Eigenvalues of our system are given in Table 10 below. To access all Eigenvalues calculated in our
analysis, see Section 5.1 in the Appendix.
Table 10: Eigenvalues calculated through small disturbance analysis
Index
Real part
Imaginary part
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
57
-2.553
-1.8494
-1.5817
-2.5633
-1.8626
-1.3118
-1.8437
-1.523
-2.9563
j10.566
j10.028
j8.5503
j8.6706
j7.4388
j7.1081
j7.0812
j6.3180
j2.5076
The Eigenvalues in Table 10 are plotted in Figure 4.

12
11
27
29
10
Imaginary Axis
33
31
35
39
37
41
6
57
2
3.5
2.5
1.5
Real Axis
Figure 4: Graphical depiction of Eigenvalues
Student Version of MATLAB
13
Dynamic Simulation
Dynamic simulation was performed for a three-phase fault at Bus 16 occurring at t = 0.5s. The fault
impedance is 0.001 PU, and it is cleared at t = 0.7s. The simulation method used was numerical trapezoidal
integration with a time step of 20 ms.
Figure 5 shows the generator state as a function of time for the ten generators, with Unit 1 as the
angle reference. Figure 6 on the following page shows the generator state as a function of time for the ten
generators.
Gen2
3
0.5
Delta [rad]
Delta [rad]
Gen1
1
0
0.5
1
1
0
1
10
10
10
10
10
4
6
Time [sec]
10
Gen4
3
Delta [rad]
Delta [rad]
Gen3
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
10
Gen5
Gen6
3
Delta [rad]
Delta [rad]
4
2
0
2
2
1
0
1
10
4
Gen8
Delta [rad]
Delta [rad]
Gen7
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
10
Gen9
Gen10
2
Delta [rad]
Delta [rad]
1
0
1
4
6
Time [sec]
10
1
0
1
Figure 5: (in radians) versus time for generators

Student Version of MATLAB
14
Gen1
Gen2
1.5
Omega [% PU]
Omega [% PU]
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
10
10
10
10
10
4
6
Time [sec]
10
Gen3
Gen4
2
Omega [% PU]
Omega [% PU]
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0
1
10
Gen5
Gen6
2
Omega [% PU]
Omega [% PU]
4
2
0
2
1
0
1
10
Gen7
Gen8
1
Omega [% PU]
Omega [% PU]
2
1
0
1
0.5
0
0.5
10
Gen9
Gen10
1.5
Omega [% PU]
Omega [% PU]
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
4
6
Time [sec]
10
1
0.5
0
0.5
Figure 6: (in percent per-unit) for generators

of MATLAB
To generate these and other figures from the MATLAB files availableStudent
on theVersion
website,
see Accessing Simulation Data with MATLAB in the appendix.
15
Appendix
5.1
R
Accessing Simulation Data with MATLAB
R
There are seven MATLAB
.mat files available for download. Each .mat file has a csv counterpart for
those who prefer to work with Excel or another CSV-friendly program (the procedure described here may
be adapted for such programs). Each file is described below.
time.mat is a row vector with 677 elements. This vector represents the simulation time period with
increments of 20ms. To observe the variation of any model variable with respect to time, simply plot
the corresponding row of x.mat or y.mat versus time.mat.
x.mat contains 209 row vectors, each corresponding to a model state variable. See Table 11.
x0.mat contains 209 elements corresponding to initial values of model state variables. It is indexed the
same as x.mat.
y.mat contains 617 row vectors, each corresponding to a non-state variable in the model. See Table
11.
y0.mat contains 617 elements corresponding to initial values of non-state variables. It is indexed the
same as y.mat.
Aeig.mat contains 209 complex elements corresponding to system Eigenvalues. To obtain any entry
of Table 10, one need only extract the element of Aeig corresponding to that entrys Index. Of course,
there are many more Eigenvalues stored in Aeig than those listed in Table 10, and all Eigenvalues may
be easily plotted so long as care is taken in isolating the real and imaginary parts.
Ared.mat is a 209-by-209 variable containing reduced A matrix data for the system. (Reduced A
matrices are discussed in Section 3.)
Model state variables are stored in x.mat while non-state variables are located in y.mat. Table 11
maps from these files to specific model variables by specifying the range of variables corresponding to each
component of the model. The order of variables within a components range is discussed in the next five
subsections.
R
Table 11: Mapping from MATLAB
files to simulation data
5.1.1
Model
Model ID
x range
from
to
y range
from
to
Description
Generator
G1
G10
1
37
4
49
1
118
13
130
4 x states and 13 y variables
AVR
G1
G10
110
155
114
159
438
537
448
547
PSS
G1
G10
160
205
164
209
548
611
554
617
Load
Bus1
Bus39
47
107
48
108
303
423
306
426

(x states are real and reactive power)
Network
Bus1
Bus39
131
283
134
286
4 y variables
Variable Indexing
This section defines all variables contained in the MATLAB files. When writing code to extract specific variables,
refer to this section to determine which indices to use.
16
Generator Variables (See Section 1.1.1)
x1
x2
x3
x4
AVR Variables
:
:
:
:
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
y6
y7
y8
y9
y10
y11
y12
y13
Eq0
Ed0
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Vr
Vi
Ir
Ii
Vd
Vq
Id
Iq
d
q
Ef d
Tmech
(See Section 1.1.3)
x1
x2
x3
x4
:
:
:
:
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
y6
y7
y8
y9
y10
y11
Vf
Ef d
xi
VREF
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Vr
Vi
VT
VP SS
xerr
xtgr
Ef d
Upper Limit Detector
Lower Limit Detector
Upper Limit Switch
Lower Limit Switch
PSS Variables (See Section 1.1.5)
x1
x2
x3
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
y6
y7
: xW
: xP
: xQ
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(input)
VW
VP
Vout
VP SS
VP SS,Max Vout
Vout VP SS,Min
Load Variables (See Section 1.2.1)

x1
x2
: P
: Q
y1
y2
y3
y4
:
:
:
:
Vr
Vi
Ir
Ii
Network Variables (See ??) Network variables are indexed in the MATLAB files as follows:
5.1.2
Example Application
The code below will generate Figures 5 and 6. By modifying or adapting this code, the reader may plot or
manipulate any variables in x.mat and y.mat.
(Note: The placeholders TIMEPATH, XPATH, and YPATH should be replaced with paths to the
respective files on your computer.)
%% Import Data
% Import time.mat
newData = load(-mat, TIMEPATH\time.mat);
% Create new variables in the base workspace from those fields.
vars = fieldnames(newData);
for i = 1:length(vars)
assignin(base, vars{i}, newData.(vars{i}));
end
% Import x.mat
newData = load(-mat, XPATH\x.mat);
end
% Import y.mat
newData = load(-mat, YPATH\y.mat);
end
clear newData, clear vars
%% Plot x or y vs. time
% Plot omega vs time
figure(name,Generator Omega vs Time)
for i = 1:10
subplot(5,2,i);
p = plot(time,x(i*4 - 0,:)./4,k); % Note factor of 1/4
set(p,LineWidth,1);
figtitle = strcat(Gen,num2str(i));
title(figtitle)
if or(i==9,i==10)
xlabel(Time [sec])
end
ylabel(Omega [% PU])
grid on
end
% Plot delta vs time
figure(name,Generator Delta vs Time)
for i = 1:10
subplot(5,2,i);
p = plot(time,x(i*4 - 1,:)-x(3,:),k); % Subtract Unit 1 (angle reference)
set(p,LineWidth,1);
17
18
figtitle = strcat(Gen,num2str(i));
title(figtitle)
if or(i==9,i==10)
xlabel(Time [sec])
end
ylabel(Delta [rad])
grid on
end
5.2
Contents of file 39bus.out
The next four pages show the contents of the file 39bus.out. This file contains power flow data with enough
granularity to observe flows on all lines.
BUS Bus1
100.0 1.0474PU
104.7KV
BUS Bus10
100.0 1.0172PU
101.7KV
BUS Bus11
100.0 1.0127PU
101.3KV
BUS Bus12
100.0 1.0002PU
100.0KV
BUS Bus13
100.0 1.0143PU
101.4KV
BUS Bus14
100.0 1.0117PU
101.2KV
BUS Bus15
100.0 1.0154PU
101.5KV
BUS Bus16
100.0 1.0318PU
103.2KV
BUS Bus17
100.0 1.0336PU
103.4KV
BUS Bus18
100.0 1.0309PU
103.1KV
BUS Bus19
100.0 1.0499PU
105.0KV
BUS Bus2
100.0 1.0487PU
104.9KV
BUS Bus20
100.0 0.9912PU
99.1KV
-8.44
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus2
100.0 1 -124.34 -28.32 127.52
0.50
-70.92
TO Gen39
100.0 1
124.34
28.32 127.52
0.18
-76.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.43
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus11
100.0 1
365.25
70.36 371.96
0.54
-1.74
TO Bus13
100.0 1
284.75
38.65 287.37
0.32
-4.07
TO Gen32
100.0 1 -650.00 -109.01 659.08
0.00
96.14 1.0700FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6.28
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus6
100.0 1
364.76
29.01 365.92
0.92
-3.43
TO Bus10
100.0 1 -364.71 -72.10 371.77
0.54
-1.74
TO Bus12
100.0 1
-0.06
43.09
43.09
0.03
0.79 1.0060UN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6.24
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
7.50
88.00
88.32
TO Bus11
100.0 1
0.09 -42.30
42.30
0.03
0.79 1.0060FX
TO Bus13
100.0 1
-7.59 -45.70
46.32
0.03
0.94 1.0060FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6.10
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus10
100.0 1 -284.43 -42.72 287.62
0.32
-4.07
TO Bus14
100.0 1
276.81
-3.92 276.84
0.67
-10.16
TO Bus12
100.0 1
7.62
46.64
47.26
0.03
0.94 1.0060UN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.66
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus4
100.0 1
271.01
42.41 274.31
0.59
-4.47
TO Bus13
100.0 1 -276.14
-6.23 276.21
0.67
-10.16
TO Bus15
100.0 1
5.14 -36.17
36.54
0.01
-37.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.74
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
320.00 153.00 354.70
TO Bus14
100.0 1
-5.13
-1.36
5.31
0.01
-37.53
TO Bus16
100.0 1 -314.87 -151.64 349.48
1.04
-7.02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6.19
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
329.00
32.30 330.58
TO Bus15
100.0 1
315.91 144.63 347.45
1.04
-7.02
TO Bus17
100.0 1
230.04 -43.63 234.14
0.36
-9.78
TO Bus19
100.0 1 -502.68 -48.08 504.97
3.81
13.54
TO Bus21
100.0 1 -329.60
13.03 329.85
0.82
-13.26
TO Bus24
100.0 1
-42.68 -98.24 107.11
0.03
-6.68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.30
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus16
100.0 1 -229.68
33.85 232.16
0.36
-9.78
TO Bus18
100.0 1
210.66
9.73 210.88
0.29
-10.63
TO Bus27
100.0 1
19.02 -43.58
47.55
0.01
-34.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8.22
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
158.00
30.00 160.82
TO Bus3
100.0 1
52.36
-9.64
53.24
0.03
-22.36
TO Bus17
100.0 1 -210.36 -20.36 211.35
0.29
-10.63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.02
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus16
100.0 1
506.49
61.62 510.22
3.81
13.54
TO Gen33
100.0 1 -629.10 -51.14 631.18
2.90
58.76 1.0700FX
TO Bus20
100.0 1
122.62 -10.48 123.06
0.11
2.13 1.0600FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.75
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus1
100.0 1
124.83 -42.60 131.90
0.50
-70.92
TO Bus3
100.0 1
364.26
92.24 375.76
1.70
-8.02
TO Bus25
100.0 1 -239.09
82.68 252.98
4.16
-11.08
TO Gen30
100.0 1 -250.00 -132.32 282.86
0.00
13.83 1.0250FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.01
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
628.00 103.00 636.39
Page 1
39bus.out
IEEE 39 bus test system
19
Figure 7: Contents of file 39bus.out (Page 1 of 4)
20
100.0 1.0318PU
103.2KV
BUS Bus22
100.0 1.0498PU
105.0KV
BUS Bus23
100.0 1.0448PU
104.5KV
BUS Bus24
100.0 1.0373PU
103.7KV
BUS Bus25
100.0 1.0576PU
105.8KV
BUS Bus26
100.0 1.0521PU
105.2KV
BUS Bus27
100.0 1.0377PU
103.8KV
BUS Bus28
100.0 1.0501PU
105.0KV
BUS Bus29
100.0 1.0499PU
105.0KV
BUS Bus3
100.0 1.0302PU
103.0KV
BUS Bus4
100.0 1.0039PU
100.4KV
BUS Bus5
100.0 1.0053PU
100.5KV
Contents of file 39bus.out (Page 2 of 4)
BUS Bus21
39bus.out
TO Gen34
100.0 1 -505.49 -115.61 518.54
2.51
50.16 1.0090FX
TO Bus19
100.0 1 -122.51
12.61 123.15
0.11
2.13 1.0600UN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.78
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
274.00 115.00 297.15
TO Bus16
100.0 1
330.42 -26.29 331.46
0.82
-13.26
TO Bus22
100.0 1 -604.42 -88.71 610.89
2.79
21.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.67
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus21
100.0 1
607.21 109.71 617.04
2.79
21.00
TO Bus23
100.0 1
42.80
41.97
59.94
0.02
-19.85
TO Gen35
100.0 1 -650.00 -151.68 667.46
0.00
60.73 1.0250FX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.47
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
247.50
84.60 261.56
TO Bus22
100.0 1
-42.77 -61.82
75.17
0.02
-19.85
TO Bus24
100.0 1
353.84
0.51 353.84
2.53
1.15
TO Gen36
100.0 1 -558.57 -23.30 559.05
1.43
77.88 1.0000FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6.07
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
308.60 -92.20 322.08
TO Bus16
100.0 1
42.71
91.56 101.04
0.03
-6.68
TO Bus23
100.0 1 -351.31
0.64 351.31
2.53
1.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4.36
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
224.00
47.20 228.92
TO Bus2
100.0 1
243.25 -93.76 260.70
4.16
-11.08
TO Bus26
100.0 1
71.09 -17.04
73.10
0.15
-55.58
TO Gen37
100.0 1 -538.34
63.60 542.09
1.66
64.04 1.0250FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.53
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
139.00
17.00 140.04
TO Bus25
100.0 1
-70.94 -38.54
80.73
0.15
-55.58
TO Bus27
100.0 1
262.95
68.67 271.77
0.96
-16.09
TO Bus28
100.0 1 -140.83 -21.69 142.49
0.79
-77.51
TO Bus29
100.0 1 -190.18 -25.44 191.88
1.91
-92.68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.50
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
281.00
75.50 290.97
TO Bus17
100.0 1
-19.01
9.26
21.14
0.01
-34.32
TO Bus26
100.0 1 -261.99 -84.76 275.36
0.96
-16.09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.01
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
206.00
27.60 207.84
TO Bus26
100.0 1
141.61 -55.82 152.22
0.79
-77.51
TO Bus29
100.0 1 -347.61
28.22 348.76
1.56
-10.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.74
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
283.50
26.90 284.77
TO Bus26
100.0 1
192.10 -67.24 203.53
1.91
-92.68
TO Bus28
100.0 1
349.17 -38.88 351.33
1.56
-10.67
TO Gen38
100.0 1 -824.77
79.23 828.56
5.23
102.07 1.0250FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8.60
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
322.00
2.40 322.01
TO Bus2
100.0 1 -362.56 -100.26 376.16
1.70
-8.02
TO Bus4
100.0 1
92.89 110.58 144.42
0.29
-18.17
TO Bus18
100.0 1
-52.33 -12.72
53.86
0.03
-22.36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9.61
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
500.00 184.00 532.78
TO Bus3
100.0 1
-92.60 -128.75 158.59
0.29
-18.17
TO Bus5
100.0 1 -136.98
-8.37 137.24
0.15
-11.16
TO Bus14
100.0 1 -270.41 -46.88 274.45
0.59
-4.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8.61
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus4
100.0 1
137.13
-2.79 137.16
0.15
-11.16
TO Bus6
100.0 1 -454.42 -55.95 457.85
0.41
0.99
TO Bus8
100.0 1
317.29
58.74 322.68
0.83
-3.14
Page 2
100.0 1.0077PU
100.8KV
BUS Bus7
100.0 0.9970PU
99.7KV
BUS Bus8
100.0 0.9960PU
99.6KV
BUS Bus9
100.0 1.0282PU
102.8KV
BUS Gen30
100.0 1.0475PU
104.8KV
BUS Gen31
100.0 0.9820PU
98.2KV
BUS Gen32
100.0 0.9831PU
98.3KV
BUS Gen33
100.0 0.9972PU
99.7KV
BUS Gen34
100.0 1.0123PU
101.2KV
BUS Gen35
100.0 1.0493PU
104.9KV
BUS Gen36
100.0 1.0635PU
106.4KV
BUS Gen37
100.0 1.0278PU
102.8KV
BUS Gen38
100.0 1.0265PU
102.6KV
BUS Gen39
100.0 1.0300PU
103.0KV
39bus.out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus5
100.0 1
454.84
56.94 458.39
0.41
0.99
TO Bus7
100.0 1
420.62
91.57 430.47
1.10
5.53
TO Bus11
100.0 1 -363.85 -32.44 365.29
0.92
-3.43
TO Gen31
100.0 1 -511.61 -116.07 524.61
0.00
77.58 1.0700FX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10.12
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
233.80
84.00 248.43
TO Bus6
100.0 1 -419.52 -86.04 428.25
1.10
5.53
TO Bus8
100.0 1
185.72
2.04 185.73
0.14
-6.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10.62
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
522.00 176.00 550.87
TO Bus5
100.0 1 -316.46 -61.88 322.45
0.83
-3.14
TO Bus7
100.0 1 -185.58
-8.19 185.76
0.14
-6.15
TO Bus9
100.0 1
-19.96 -105.94 107.80
0.18
-36.06
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10.32
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
TO Bus8
100.0 1
20.15
69.88
72.73
0.18
-36.06
TO Gen39
100.0 1
-20.15 -69.88
72.73
0.00
-126.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.33
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
250.00 146.16 289.59 ( 250.00
0.00)
TO Bus2
100.0 1
250.00 146.16 289.59
0.00
13.83 1.0250UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0.00
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
9.20
4.60
10.29
GENERATION
520.81 198.25 557.27 (
0.00
0.00)
TO Bus6
100.0 1
511.61 193.65 547.03
0.00
77.58 1.0700UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.57
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
650.00 205.15 681.60 ( 650.00
0.00)
TO Bus10
100.0 1
650.00 205.15 681.60
0.00
96.14 1.0700UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4.19
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
632.00 109.91 641.49 ( 632.00
0.00)
TO Bus19
100.0 1
632.00 109.91 641.49
2.90
58.76 1.0700UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3.18
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
508.00 165.76 534.36 ( 508.00
0.00)
TO Bus20
100.0 1
508.00 165.76 534.36
2.51
50.16 1.0090UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.63
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
650.00 212.41 683.83 ( 650.00
0.00)
TO Bus22
100.0 1
650.00 212.41 683.83
0.00
60.73 1.0250UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8.32
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
560.00 101.17 569.07 ( 560.00
0.00)
TO Bus23
100.0 1
560.00 101.17 569.07
1.43
77.88 1.0000UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.42
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
540.00
0.44 540.00 ( 540.00
0.00)
TO Bus25
100.0 1
540.00
0.44 540.00
1.66
64.04 1.0250UN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.81
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
GENERATION
830.00
22.84 830.31 ( 830.00
0.00)
TO Bus29
100.0 1
830.00
22.84 830.31
5.23
102.07 1.0250UN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10.05
CKT
MW
MVAR
MVA
MW(NOM) MVR(NOM)
MW(LOSS) MVAR(LOSS)
TAP
LOAD
1104.00 250.00 1131.95
GENERATION
1000.00
88.28 1003.89 (1000.00
0.00)
TO Bus1
100.0 1 -124.15 -104.61 162.35
0.18
-76.30
TO Bus9
100.0 1
20.15 -57.10
60.56
0.00
-126.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7.95
BUS Bus6
SYSTEM TOTALS
------ -----Page 3
21
22
39bus.out
GENERATION
LOAD
LOSSES
BUS SHUNTS
LINE SHUNTS
SWITCHED SHUNTS
MISMATCH
MW
6140.81
6097.10
43.71
0.00
0.00
MVAR
1250.37
1408.90
-158.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
BASE MVA : 100.0

TOLERANCE: 0.000100 PU
SLACK BUSES
----- ----Gen31
100.0
Page 4
23
References
[1]
T. Athay, R. Podmore, and S. Virmani. A Practical Method for the Direct Analysis of Transient
Stability. In: IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems PAS-98 (2 Mar. 1979), pp. 573
584.
[2]
M. A. Pai. Energy function analysis for power system stability. The Kluwer international series in
engineering and computer science. Power electronics and power systems. Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1989.
[3]
Peter W Sauer and M. A Pai. Power system dynamics and stability. English. Champaign, IL.: Stipes
Publishing L.L.C., 2006.
E.1
Appendix E - Report on the New England Test System by Luc Gerin-Lajoie

Stability Controls
Report on the EMTP-RV 39-bus system
(New England Reduced Model)
Version 1.5 - Mars 04, 2015
Author: Luc Grin-Lajoie
Contributor: O. Saad, J. Mahseredjian
The present report refers to a small-signal stability study carried over the New England reduced
order model using the EMTP-RV package. This report has the objective to show how the simulation
of this system must be done using this package in order to get results that are comparable (and
exhibit a good match with respect to the electromechanical modes). To facilitate the
comprehension, this report is divided in three sections (according to the software to be used):
Load Flow ;
Time Domain Simulation of the Nonlinear Model;
To use the EMTP-RV software, a GUI (EMTPWorks) is requiring to entering data. All components
as line, transformer, load, machine and AVR have them own data forms.
Transformer and synchronous machines use mainly units in pu. Line, load and all others S.I. unit
(, H, F, W, VAR or Wb). Consequently some assumptions for impedance translations are
required.
1. Models and parameters

1.1 Line
Two line components are used in this benchmark: Constant Parameter Line (/km) and PI(/).
Both use direct and zero sequence impedance; CP line require length. From the p.u. unit, the
flowing assumptions are defined for these two components in EMTP.
R0/R1=10, L0/L1=3, B0/B1=0,6 and L1(ohm)/km = 0,373
For simplification aspect, except one or two all the 500kV lines use the same Z1 and Z0 /km
based on the line2-3; only the lengths are different to respect de X1 parameter. The parameters are
documented in Appendix A.
EMTP-RV
39-bus system (New England Reduced Model)
1.2 Generator transformers

The transformer rated power and impedances are change as following. The voltages ratio are
500/20 kV for all transformers of the machines and 500/25 kV for the two 450MVA transformers of
the loads.
Rated Power
Rated Power
12
11
100
0.0016
0.0435
450
0.0072
0.196
12
13
100
0.0016
0.0435
450
0.0072
0.196
31
100
0.025
1000
0.250
10
32
100
0.02
1000
0.200
19
33
100
0.0007
0.0142
1000
0.007
0.142
20
34
100
0.0009
0.018
600
0.0054
0.108
22
35
100
0.0143
1000
0.143
23
36
100
0.0005
0.0272
1000
0.005
0.272
25
37
100
0.0006
0.0232
1000
0.006
0.232
30
100
0.0181
1000
0.181
29
38
100
0.0008
0.0156
1000
0.008
0.156
19
20
100
0.0007
0.0138
1400
0.0098
0.1932
1.3 Loads
In time-domain, this load model is an exponential load [1]. A controlled current source gives
power in parallel of the R-L component to satisfy the equations bellow.
V (t )
P(t ) = Pic
Vic
K pV
V (t )
Q(t ) = Qic
Vic
K qV
(1 + K pf f )
(1 + T p1 s )
(1 + T p 2 s )
Load39
Expon
LF
The parameters are unique for all loads:

// Static behavior
Kpv = 1, Kqv = 1.8, Kpf = 0, Kqf = 0
// Dynamic behavior
Tp1 = 0, Tp2 = 0, Tq1 = 0, Tq2 = 0
(1 + K qf f )
(1 + Tq1 s )
(1 + Tq 2 s )
Report
1.4 Generators
The 39-bus system is composed by 10 generators, and all of them are represented by a
synchronous machine (SM). The help document of this component is given in Appendix. The
connection in the drawing between the LF-device, SM and theirs AVR is as bellow. The power
ratings of the machine are changed. The 100MVA value cannot be used in time-domain when LFdevice asks 500MW. The table 3 indicates the news values.
B38
AVR_Gov
20kV
1000MVA
PVbus:LF1
SM1
AVR+Gov
?m
-exst1
-pss1a
-ieeeg1
xfo
2
1
1.03/_-23.6
SM
-30
tap=1.025pu
512.5/20
LF1
P=830MW
V=20.530kVRMSLL LF
SM:SM1
Figure 1- Connection in EMTPWorks for LF-device, SM/AVR and transformer
Table 3: Generator parameters
Unit
No.
Rated
Power
10000
5.000 0.000 0.600 0.800 2.000 1.900
7.000
0.700 0.300
1000
3.030 0.000 0.697 1.700 2.950 2.820
6.560
1.500 0.350
1000
3.580 0.000 0.531 0.876 2.495 2.370
5.700
1.500 0.304
1000
2.860 0.000 0.436 1.660 2.620 2.580
5.690
1.500 0.295
600
4.333 0.000 0.792 0.996 4.020 3.720
5.400
0.440 0.324
1000
3.480 0.000 0.500 0.814 2.540 2.410
7.300
0.400 0.224
1000
2.640 0.000 0.490 1.860 2.950 2.920
5.660
1.500 0.322
1000
2.430 0.000 0.570 0.911 2.900 2.800
6.700
0.410 0.280
1000
3.450 0.000 0.570 0.587 2.106 2.050
4.790
1.960 0.298
10
1000
4.200 0.000 0.310 0.080 1.000 0.690 10.200 0.000 0.125
Ra
x'd
x'q
xd
xq
T'do
T'qo
xl
EMTP-RV
1.5 Controllers
All generators in this system are equipped with automatic voltage regulators [2], power system
stabilizers [2] and governor [3]. The governor doesnt change the mechanical power Pm during
fault and after. They will work only if perturbation is a load or generator disconnection. These
generators use the same controller model, only altering the corresponding parameter values
according to the specifications given in the website.
1.5.1
PSS pss1a
pss1a
Figure 2- PSS1a control schema in EMTPWorks
1.5.2
Voltage regulator (exc ST1)

Efss
Efd_min
Efd_max
Vt
Vaux
Ef
exciter st1 (pu)
Report
exciter ST1 (pu)

Reference: IEEE Standard 421.5, 1982.
Vref initialization
Efss
Vin_ic
1
#Ka#
hold(t0)
Efss
+
+
Vref
hold(t0)
dynamics
Efd_max
1
1 + sTr
hold(t0)
+
!h?s
+
+
+
-
Ve
#Vimax#
Ve_lim
#Vimin#
1 + sTc
1 + sTb
Efd_min
Vef
!h
Ka
1 + sTa
Vr
f(t)
Vr
!h
?s
f(t)
Vc_ic
sK f
Vf
1 + sT f
Vaux
Efd_max
Efd
Vc
Vt
Figure 3 EXCST1 control schema in EMTPWorks
Efd_min
Ef
EMTP-RV
1.5.3
Governor ieeeg1
GOV_1
g_pos
Pm
PmHP
PmLP
Pm_ic
delta_w
(HP)
ieeeg1
governor / turbine IEEEG1 (pu)

initialization
Hold t0
Pm_ic
Pm_ic
hld1
g_pos
+
PmHP
dynamics
+
delta_w
+
-
#Uo#
1
#T3#
rc rv
#Pmin# g_pos
Governor output
#K7#
+
f(s)
1
#Uc#
#K5#
#K3#
#K1#
#Pmax#
!h?s
T4
f(s)
!h
T5
f(s)
!h
T6
#K2#
f(s)
!h
T7
#K4#
#K8#
#K6#
Figure 4 IEEEG1 control schema in EMTPWorks
1.5.4
+
Pm
Pm
?s
+
+
+
!h
AVR/GOV parameters
The parameters are documented in Appendix B. The governor parameters-set is unique for all
machines.
PmLP
Report
2. Results
2.1 Load Flow
The load flow of the 39-bus system was calculated using the EMTP-RV software. The electrical
network equations are solved using complex phasors. The active (source) devices are only the
Load-Flow devices (LF-devices). They could be Slack, PQ or PV. A load device is used to enter PQ
load constraint equations, np and nq could be set between 0 and 2. For the present case, np=nq=0
(constant power).
2.1.1
Generator
Table 1: Results of the load flow calculation for the generators
Reference
Case
EMTP
Unit No.
P(MW)
V(pu)
P(MW)
V(kVRMSLL)
Q(MVAR)
Bus id
1000.0
1.030
1000.00
1.03
222.0
39
2 (slack)
520.8
0.982
539.41
0.98
254.0
31
650.0
0.983
650.00
0.98
260.0
32
632.0
0.997
632.00
1.00
147.0
33
508.0
1.012
508.00
1.01
203.0
34
650.0
1.049
650.00
1.05
255.0
35
560.0
1.064
560.00
1.06
135.0
36
540.0
1.028
540.00
1.03
38.0
37
830.0
1.027
830.00
1.03
76.0
38
10
250.0
1.048
250.00
1.04
178.0
30
EMTP-RV
2.1.2
Bus
The results obtained by this load flow calculation can be analyzed from 2. It is shows on the
drawing too. When comparing these results to the ones provided in the website, it is possible to
observe a very good match between them. Note the 30 differences caused by the Yd transformers.
Table 2: Results of the load flow calculation for the bus.
Reference
Case
Bus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
V [PU]
1.047
1.049
1.030
1.004
1.005
1.008
0.997
0.996
1.028
1.017
1.013
1.000
1.014
1.012
1.015
1.032
1.034
1.031
1.050
0.991
1.032
1.050
1.045
1.037
1.058
1.052
1.038
1.050
1.050
EMTP
Angle
[deg]
-8.44
-5.75
-8.60
-9.61
-8.61
-7.95
-10.12
-10.62
-10.32
-5.43
-6.28
-6.24
-6.10
-7.66
-7.74
-6.19
-7.30
-8.22
-1.02
-2.01
-3.78
0.67
0.47
-6.07
-4.36
-5.53
-7.50
-2.01
0.74
V1 [PU]
1.04
1.04
1.01
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
1.02
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.04
0.98
1.02
1.04
1.04
1.02
1.05
1.04
1.02
1.04
1.04
Angle
[deg]
-9.8
-7.1
-9.9
-10.8
-9.6
-8.9
-11.2
-11.7
-11.6
-6.4
-7.2
-37.3
-7.1
-8.8
-9.1
-7.6
8.7
-9.6
-2.4
-3.4
-5.1
-0.7
-0.9
-7.5
-5.7
-6.9
-8.9
-3.4
-0.7
Report
2.2 Timedomain solution

Steady-state solution. The electrical network equations are solved using complex phasors. All
devices are given a lumped circuit model. This option can be used in the stand-alone mode or for
initializing the time-domain solution. The control system devices are disconnected and not solved.
Some nonlinear devices are linearized or disconnected. All devices have a specific steady state
model.
Time-domain solution. The electrical network and control system equations are solved using a
numerical integration technique. All nonlinear devices are solved simultaneously with network
equations. A Newton method is used when nonlinear devices exist. The solution can optionally start
from the steady-state solution for initializing the network variables and achieving quick steady-state
conditions in time-domain waveforms. The steady-state conditions provide the solution for the
time-point t=0. The user can also optionally manually initialize state-variables. The first timedomain solution is found at t = t or t = t / 2 depending on the selected numerical integration
method explained below.
The time-domain solution in EMTP-RV is performed after the Load-flow solution and the
Steady-State Solution. That give a perfect three phases solution at 0+. The total simulation time was
20 s and the integration step was 100 ms
2.2.1
Perturbation
The applied perturbation was a three-phase-to-ground fault at bus 16, on t = 0.5 s, with a fault
impedance of 1.0 and a duration of 0,1 s.
2.2.2
Output request
The angle of generator 1 (placed at bus 39) was taken as a reference for angle differences.
Electric power (Pe), Field voltage (Efd), the output of PSS (Vaux) and Omega are also showed.
10
EMTP-RV
Figure 5 - Rotor angles of generators 1 to 10 respectively, referenced to generator 1.
Report
Figure 6 - Rotor speed.
11
12
EMTP-RV
Figure 7 Total electric power.
Report
13
2.3 Modal analysis

The modal analysis is performed for the number of ten synchronous machines from small-signal
perturbations results in time-domain [1]. These curves where imported in MATLAB to perform
[A,B,C,D] state-space matrices with minimum acceptable error. The input Vs (PSS output)
which is added to Vref and the output Pe are the transfer function of the state-space system. The
superimposed results bellow confirms the quality in term of calibration of the state-space
matrices. Note that the system is not a total of ten individual SISO (Single Input Single Output)
but one MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) including oscillations mode between
synchronous machines.
With the validated state-space matrices, for each synchronous machine a Bode Diagram
is generated as shown in the Figure 9. Afterword for each main oscillations mode, eight
in this case, the polar plots are generated according to the observable and controllable
vectors (see Figure 10). These plots indicates whish machine take the lead in term of
effect on the oscillation mode.
Figure 8 Comparison of EMTP and state-space matrices

1.
L. Grin-Lajoie. Plant Identification and tuning controls An EMTP case. Presented at the Internal
Conference on Power Systems Transient (IPST09) in Kyoto, Japan, 2009.
14
EMTP-RV
Report
15
16
EMTP-RV
Figure 9 Impulse response and Bode diagram for each generator.
Report
17
18
EMTP-RV
Figure 10 Polar observability and controllability plots for the principal modes.
Report
19
3. Conclusions
A benchmark of the 39bus system in EMTP-RV was developing for this TF. The results
seem very close to the originals dynamics results.
This benchmark in EMTP-RV / EMTPWorks may perform all these study type:
-
Drawing, what you see is what you get.

Power device
Control device
Load-Flow
Stability with the three sequence admittance
Short-circuit analysis
EMTP-RV
20
39 BUS SYSTEM (New England System)
Appendix A lines data

R1(pu)
X1(pu)
B1(pu)
km
R1(ohm/km)
X1(ohm/km)
B1(uS/km)
R0(ohm/km)
X0(ohm/km)
B0(uS/km)
0.0035
0.0411
0.6987
275.5
0.032
0.373
1.015
0.318
1.119
0.609
39
0.001
0.025
0.75
167.6
0.015
0.373
1.790
0.149
1.119
1.074
0.0013
0.0151
0.2572
101.2
0.032
0.373
1.017
0.321
1.119
0.610
25
0.007
0.0086
0.146
57.6
0.304
0.373
1.013
3.036
1.119
0.608
0.0013
0.0213
0.2214
142.8
0.023
0.373
0.620
0.228
1.119
0.372
18
0.0011
0.0133
0.2138
89.1
0.031
0.373
0.959
0.308
1.119
0.576
0.0008
0.0128
0.1342
85.8
0.023
0.373
0.626
0.233
1.119
0.375
14
0.0008
0.0129
0.1382
86.5
0.023
0.373
0.639
0.231
1.119
0.384
0.0002
0.0026
0.0434
17.4
0.029
0.373
0.996
0.287
1.119
0.598
0.0008
0.0112
0.1476
75.1
0.027
0.373
0.786
0.266
1.119
0.472
0.0006
0.0092
0.113
61.7
0.024
0.373
0.733
0.243
1.119
0.440
11
0.0007
0.0082
0.1389
55.0
0.032
0.373
1.011
0.318
1.119
0.607
0.0004
0.0046
0.078
30.8
0.032
0.373
1.012
0.324
1.119
0.607
0.0023
0.0363
0.3804
243.3
0.024
0.373
0.625
0.236
1.119
0.375
39
0.001
0.025
1.2
167.6
0.015
0.373
2.865
0.149
1.119
1.719
10
11
0.0004
0.0043
0.0729
28.8
0.035
0.373
1.012
0.347
1.119
0.607
10
13
0.0004
0.0043
0.0729
28.8
0.035
0.373
1.012
0.347
1.119
0.607
13
14
0.0009
0.0101
0.1723
67.7
0.033
0.373
1.018
0.332
1.119
0.611
14
15
0.0018
0.0217
0.366
145.4
0.031
0.373
1.007
0.309
1.119
0.604
15
16
0.0009
0.0094
0.171
63.0
0.036
0.373
1.086
0.357
1.119
0.651
EMTP-RV
21
39 BUS SYSTEM (New England System)
16
17
0.0007
0.0089
0.1342
59.7
0.029
0.373
0.900
0.293
1.119
0.540
16
19
0.0016
0.0195
0.304
130.7
0.031
0.373
0.930
0.306
1.119
0.558
16
21
0.0008
0.0135
0.2548
90.5
0.022
0.373
1.126
0.221
1.119
0.676
16
24
0.0003
0.0059
0.068
39.5
0.019
0.373
0.688
0.190
1.119
0.413
17
18
0.0007
0.0082
0.1319
55.0
0.032
0.373
0.960
0.318
1.119
0.576
17
27
0.0013
0.0173
0.3216
116.0
0.028
0.373
1.109
0.280
1.119
0.666
21
22
0.0008
0.014
0.2565
93.8
0.021
0.373
1.093
0.213
1.119
0.656
22
23
0.0006
0.0096
0.1846
64.3
0.023
0.373
1.148
0.233
1.119
0.689
23
24
0.0022
0.035
0.361
234.6
0.023
0.373
0.616
0.234
1.119
0.369
25
26
0.0032
0.0323
0.513
216.5
0.037
0.373
0.948
0.370
1.119
0.569
26
27
0.0014
0.0147
0.2396
98.5
0.036
0.373
0.973
0.355
1.119
0.584
26
28
0.0043
0.0474
0.7802
317.7
0.034
0.373
0.982
0.338
1.119
0.589
26
28
29
29
0.0057
0.0014
0.0625
0.0151
1.029
0.249
418.9
101.2
0.034
0.035
0.373
0.373
0.983
0.984
0.340
0.346
1.119
1.119
0.590
0.590
Appendix B AVR parameters

Machine no1.
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0
// voltage meter time constant [s]

// control error high limit [pu(V_base)]
// control error low limit [pu(V_base)]
// transient filter lead time constant [s]
// transient filter lag time constant [s]
// regulator gain (incl base conv V_base/Efd_base)
// regulator time constant [s]
// regulator high limit
// regulator low limit
// transformer fed systems
// feedback gain (incl base conv Efd_base/V_base)
// feedback time constant [s]
// Stabilizer Input selection

// 1 - rotor speed deviation (SM device Omega_1 only)
// 2 - bus frequency deviation
// 3 - electrical power
// 4 - accelerating power
pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 5.0
// lead time constant no1
pss1a_T2 = 0.6
// lag time constant no1
pss1a_T3 = 3.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.5
pss1a_T5 = 10
// washout time constant
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
// transducer time constant
pss1a_Ks = 1
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
// Maximum output limit
pss1a_Vstmin = -0.20
// Minimum output limit
pss1a_A1=0,pss1a_A2=0
// High frequency filter coefficients
Appendixes
// Governor-turbine parameters (IEEEG1)

ieeeg1_K
= 20
//
ieeeg1_T1
= 0.0
//
ieeeg1_T2
=0
//
ieeeg1_T3
= 0.075
//
ieeeg1_Uo
= 0.6786
//
ieeeg1_Uc
= -1.0
// gate min closing speed (pu@SM_MVABASE)
ieeeg1_Pmax
= 0.90
//
ieeeg1_Pmin
= 0.0
//
ieeeg1_T4
= 0.3
// Steam flow time cst(s)
ieeeg1_K1
= 0.2
// Fraction of LP mech power
ieeeg1_K2
=0
// Fraction of HP mech power
ieeeg1_T5
= 10
// First reheater time cst
ieeeg1_K3
= 0.4
ieeeg1_K4
=0
ieeeg1_T6
= 0.6
// Second reheater time cst
ieeeg1_K5
= 0.4
ieeeg1_K6
=0
ieeeg1_T7
=0
// Crossover reheater time cst
ieeeg1_K7
=0
ieeeg1_K8
=0
23
24
Appendixes
Machine no.2
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 5.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.4
pss1a_T3 = 1.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.1
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 0.5
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Appendixes
25
Machine no.3
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 3.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.2
pss1a_T3 = 2.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.2
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 0.5
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Machine no4
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0

26
Appendixes

pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 1.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.1
pss1a_T3 = 1.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.3
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 2
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Machine no.5
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 1.5
pss1a_T2 = 0.2
pss1a_T3 = 1.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.1
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 1
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Appendixes
27
Machine no.6
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 0.5
pss1a_T2 = 0.1
pss1a_T3 = 0.5
pss1a_T4 = 0.05
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 4
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Machine no.7
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0

28
Appendixes

pss1a_InputSelec=1
// Stabilizer PSS1A
pss1a_T1 = 0.2
pss1a_T2 = 0.02
pss1a_T3 = 0.5
pss1a_T4 = 0.1
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 7.5
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Machine no8
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 1.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.2
pss1a_T3 = 1.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.1
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 2
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Appendixes
29
pss1a_A1=0, pss1a_A2=0
Machine no.9
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0


pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 1.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.5
pss1a_T3 = 2.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.1
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 2
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
pss1a_A1=0, pss1a_A2=0
Machine no.10
// Exciter ST1
st1_Tr = 0.01
st1_Vimax = 0.1
st1_Vimin = -0.1
st1_Tc = 1
st1_Tb = 10
st1_Ka = 200
st1_Ta = 0.015
st1_Vrmax = 5
st1_Vrmin = -5
st1_Kc=0
st1_Kf = 0.0
st1_Tf = 1.0

30

pss1a_InputSelec=1
pss1a_T1 = 1.0
pss1a_T2 = 0.05
pss1a_T3 = 3.0
pss1a_T4 = 0.5
pss1a_T5 = 10
pss1a_T6 = 0.0
pss1a_Ks = 1
// gain
pss1a_Vstmax = 0.20
Appendixes
Appendixes
31
Appendix C Reference
[1] IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance. Load Representation for
Dynamic Performance Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No. 2, May 1993
[2] IEEE Standard 421.5, 1982.
[3] HYDRAULIC TURBINE AND TURBINE CONTROL MODELS FOR SYSTEM PYNAMIC
STUDIES. Working Group on Prime Mover and Energy Supply. Models for System Dynamic
Performance Studies. Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 7, NO. 1, February 1992

PESTR18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PESTR18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PESTR18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE Power & Energy Society

Benchmark Systems for

IEEE 2015 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

IEEE PES Task Force on Benchmark Systems for

Rodrigo Ramos, Chair

Jhonatan dos Santos

August 12th, 2015

Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 4

Choice and Validation of the Benchmark Systems .......................................................... 5

Data Sets for the Benchmark Systems............................................................................. 14

5.1. Data for the 3MIB System ................................................................................................. 14

5.2. Data for the Brazilian 7-bus Equivalent Model ............................................................... 35

5.3. Data for the 2-area (4-generator) system ......................................................................... 54

5.4. Data for the 39-bus (New England) System ..................................................................... 66

5.5. Data for the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model................................................ 80

5.6. Data for the 68-bus (NETS/NYPS) System ...................................................................... 95

References ........................................................................................................................ 114

Appendix A - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by Profs. David

Appendix B - Report on the Simplified Australian 14-Generator Model by Prof. Claudio

4. Choice and Validation of the Benchmark Systems

Coordination of multiple stabilizers to damp

4.1. The Three-Machine versus Infinite-Bus System (3MIB)

Figure 4.1: The Three-Machine Infinite-Bus system (3MIB)

Figure 4.2: The Brazilian 7-bus equivalent system

This system highlights

The ends of these root-locus

4.3. The Two-Area, 4-Generator System

Figure 4.3: The 2-area, 4-generator system

Figure 4.4: The New England system

4.6. The 68-bus (New England/New York Interconnection) System

Figure 4.6:The 68-bus system

5. Data Sets for the Benchmark Systems

5.1. Data for the 3MIB System

5.1.1. Power Flow Data

Table 5.2: Transmission Line Data (100 MVA Base)

Table 5.3: Generator Step- Up Transformer Data (100 MVA Base)

Table 5.4: Load Data

ZIP Load Parameters

X--- LOSSES ---X

X--- LOSSES ---X

X--- LOSSES ---X

X--- LOSSES ---X

X--- LOSSES ---X

X--- LOSSES ---X

5.1.2. Dynamic Data

Figure 5.4: Block Diagram for the Excitation System model

Table 5.8: Dynamic Model Data for the Excitation Systems

V S = 0, if (VCT < V CL)

V S = 0, if (VCT < V CU)

Figure 5.5: Block Diagram for the PSS1A model

Table 5.9: Parameters for the PSS1A Power System Stabilizers

5.1.3. Selected Results and Validation

Regarding the mode shape figures in Figure 5.7:

5.2. Data for the Brazilian 7-bus Equivalent Model

IEEE BENCHMARK SYSTEM

Bus - VOLTAGE (PU)/ANGLE

Figure 5.21: One-line diagram of Benchmark Model #2

Table 5.11: Bus Loads

Table 5.12: Shunt Data

= ( ( ) + )

= ( ( ) )