Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Inaugural IEEE PES 2005 Conference and Exposition in Africa

Durban, South Africa, 11-15 July 2005

An Investigation into the Capabilities of MATLAB Power System Toolbox for Small Signal Stability Analysis in Power Systems
M. Ntombela, K.K. Kaberere, K.A. Folly and A. I. Petroianu, SMIEEE
Abstract--With the advancing of computing power there has been a lot of power system simulation software packages developed. There exists a need for researchers to evaluate the capabilities of these tools so users can make informed decisions on which tool to purchase. The paper presents the capabilities of MATLAB Power System Toolbox (PST) for linear analysis. The eigenvalues obtained from PST are compared to those obtained in the book entitled Power System Stability and Control by Prabha Kundur. Index Terms--Small-signal stability analysis, power system dynamics, eigenvalues, power system components modeling.

I. INTRODUCTION Power systems are capital intensive big complex systems. It is thus of high risk and often difficult to conduct experiments on such complex systems. With the increase in demand of electricity power systems engineers are forced to operate these systems at their limits with very narrow stability margins which often require the installation of special stabilizing controls whose design rely heavily on the analysis of the linearized system. The advancement of data processing capabilities of computers has led to the development of many power system simulation tools. This makes it difficult for users to decide which package best suites their area of interest or application. Learning the many different tools available would be time consuming and uneconomical. There exists a need that the capabilities of these simulation tools be published so as to assist the users in making an informed decision as to which simulation package to use. Stability studies for power system planning, operation and control rely immensely on computer based power system simulation tools. Simulation tools use mathematical models that predict the dynamic performance of the system. It is crucial that these power system models be modelled accurately to predict the actual performance of the system. Small signal stability is the ability of the system to maintain synchronism under small disturbances which occur continually on the system due to the small variations in loads and generation or other small disturbances on the system. A disturbance is considered to be small if the equations that give the response of the system may be linearized for the purpose of analysis [1].

Linear analysis is a powerful technique to study whether a power system is stable or not. The eigenvalues obtained from linear analysis give a complete picture of the stability of the system [1]-[3]. This paper presents an investigation into the capabilities of MATLAB power system toolbox for small signal stability analysis in power systems. The small signal stability of the single machine infinite bus system is investigated. The frequency domain results are validated by performing the step response of the system (time domain). The paper is organised as follows: x Description of the MATLAB Power System Toolbox software package is discussed in section II. x Power system component models available in Power System Toolbox are discussed in section III and V. x Description of the single machine infinite bus test system is discussed in section IV. x Case studies are formulated and discussed in section VI. x Data representation, input data and output representation is discussed in section VII. x Conclusions, possible reasons for the differences in results are discussed in section VIII.

II. DESCRIPTION OF POWER SYSTEM TOOLBOX (PST) Power System Toolbox is a collection of MATLAB files that can perform loadflow, transient stability analysis and small signal stability analysis. Although a loadflow is important in its own right it is required in power system dynamics studies to initialize the dynamic models. These dynamic models are coded as MATLAB functions in PST [4], [5]. III. POWER SYSTEM COMPONENTS MODELS AVAILABLE IN PST There are many component models in PST. See Appendix for a list of all the models available in PST. For the purposes of this paper only the component models employed for the single machine infinite bus test system are discussed in detail.

0-7803-9327-9/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

242

A. Generator Models 1) Classical model The classical generator model is referred to as the electromechanical model in PST. This model models the generator as a constant voltage behind a transient reactance. The classical model is characterised by two states as shown in table 1. 2) Fourth order model The 4th order model referred to as the transient model in PST. This model models a synchronous machine with the voltage behind the transient reactance. The 4th order model extends on the classical model by including the effects of the field winding and one damper winding on the d-axis. The 4th order model is usually used for academic purposes and will not be discussed further. 3) Sixth order model The 6th order model is referred to as the subtransient model in PST. This model models a synchronous machine with the voltage behind subtransient reactance. The 6th order model extends on the classical model by including the effects of the field winding, damper windings, one on the d-axis and two damper windings on the q-axis. The second damper winding on the q-axis improves the accuracy in modelling multiple paths for circulating eddy currents [10]. This model is characterised by six states as shown in table 1. In practice it is common that all generators within the zone of the power system being studied are represented by the sixth order model and generators far from the area of interest (modeled as the external network or infinite bus) are modeled using the classical model. It has been found in [6] that the 6th order model for round rotor generators and the 5th order model for salient pole generators are adequate for small signal stability studies. This paper only focuses on the classical and detailed generator models i.e. the 2nd order and the 6th order models. Table 1 below summarizes the states found in each model.
TABLE I. A table of generator states characterizing the different order models in PST. A 1 indicates a state is present and a if not.

C. Power System Stabilizer Model The PSS model has two lead-lag blocks and an option of either a speed or power input. D. Transmission Line The S -model is used to model the transmission lines.

IV. THE SINGLE MACHINE INFINITE BUS TEST SYSTEM (SMIB) In this paper we examine the small signal stability of the single machine infinite bus system in [1] using PST. The small signal stability is investigated using a different simulation tool in [1]. The results obtained in PST are compared to those in [1].

Fig. 1. The SMIB

Figure 1 shows a thermal generating station consisting of four 555 MVA, 24kV, 60 Hz units represented as one 2220 MVA generating unit G1. The network reactances are in per unit on a 24 kV base. The transformer is a step up transformer operated a 24 kV on the primary and secondary. The transformer has an impedance X t j 0.15 . The lines L1 and L2 have impedances of j0.5 and j0.93 respectively. The objective of the case studies carried out in this paper is to investigate the capabilities of PST on the small signal stability analysis of the test system following a loss of L2. The post-fault system operating condition is: P 0.9 Q 0.3 VT 1.036q V B 0.9950q .

V. MODELING OF COMPONENTS IN PST SPECIFIC TO THE SMIB A. Modelling the Synchronous Generator There are two well-accepted methods of modelling the synchronous machine commonly used in power systems which are the coupled-circuit method and the operationalimpedance method [7]. To this day the synchronous machine is represented by two coupled equivalent circuits with time invariant parameters thanks to Parks Transformation. Additional short

B. Excitation System Models See Appendix for the three excitation system models available in PST.

243

circuited rotor windings are included in the model to represent the damper windings. In the coupled-circuit method the machine is represented by an equivalent circuit with two d- and q-axis rotor windings shown in figure 1(a) and figure 1(b) respectively. Usually synchronous machine data is specified in terms of its subtransient and transient reactances ' ' " and time constants ( X d , X d , Td 0 , Td 0 , etc) often referred to as derived parameters of the machine. The derived parameters of the machine can be obtained from the manufacturers or field experiments. The derived parameters are then converted to an equivalent set of coupled-circuit parameters ( X ad , X l , R fd , X fd , etc)[7]. This method is used in the recently developed software package called MATNETEIG developed by the same company that developed PST. The authors are currently researching on this new software package.
ra id Vd xl xf iad xad rkd rf if ikd Vf

xkd

Fig. 3. Operational-impedance generator model

Fig. 2(a). D-axis equivalent circuit


ra xl

iq
Vq

iaq

xkq2

xkq1
ikq2

xaq rkq2

ikq1

r kq1

Fig. 2(b). Q-axis equivalent circuit

The operational-impedance method models the machine directly in terms of the derived parameters. PST uses the operational-impedance method. The representation of the machine is shown in figure 3.

Both these generator models are 6th order generator models. It has been found in [7] that provided the saturation is neglected the two models should give identical results. There is no standard or accepted method of representing generator saturation in small-signal stability however certain precautions need to be taken when doing so [7]. These are discussed in detail in chapter 6 of [7]. In PST these precautions were taken into consideration and the user should be well aware of the limitations superimposed by the method of modelling the saturation used. Generally the only saturation data available for a machine is its open circuit characteristic. It is common practice in small signal stability studies to assume that the d-axis saturation characteristic of the loaded generator is the same as the open circuit characteristic. In PST the user is required to input the two saturation parameters S(1.0) and S(1.2). When using the open circuit characteristic when the generator is loaded an operating point must be identified. The voltage behind the subtransient reactance is used in identifying the operating point in PST. This method often assumes that for round rotor machines the d-axis and q-axis saturation characteristics are the same and that X d
" " . Several Xq

investigations listed in [7] reveal that this is not the case, the q-axis of round rotor machines saturates significantly more than d-axis leading to errors in the calculation of the initial rotor angle and field excitation. When using PST the user should be aware of this limitation.

244

B. Modelling the Excitation System and Power System Stabilizer The exciter model used in the single machine infinite bus test system obtained from [1] closely matches the simplified exciter model in PST. For the purposes of this research the simplified exciter model was studied. Figure 3 obtained from [11] shows the block diagram of the thyristor exciter model with AVR (referred to as the simplified exciter model in PST) and a PSS.

E. Modeling the infinite bus The infinite bus is modelled as a voltage behind a transient reactance in PST i.e. using the classical generator model. The classical generator modelling the infinite bus should be specified in PST using the ibus_con matrix. The parameters that have to be specified for the infinite bus are: x The MVA rating of the infinite bus, this should be high relative to other machines in the system x x The x d must be around the common values i.e. 0.2 ~ 0.3. The value of the inertia constant H does not influence the results obtained.
'

VI. CASE STUDIES The following case studies were conducted: x Small signal performance of the system with the generator modelled using the classical model. x Small signal performance of the system with the generator modelled using the 6th order model. Three cases have been considered: o System under manual control with the effects of saturation taken into consideration. o System with AVR in service. o System with AVR and PSS. A. SMIB with the Classical Generator Model. The SMIB in [1] was simulated in PST. See Appendix for the generator data. The results obtained very closely matched those in [1] as shown in table II.
TABLE II. Eigenvalues of the SMIB, generator modelled with the classical model

Fig. 4. Thyristor excitation system with AVR and PSS

Transfer functions of exciter models and power system stabilizers can be validated by performing frequency domain experiments complimented by time domain experiments. As mentioned in the introduction the model for the power system stabilizer in PST is shown in figure 5.

Fig. 5. Power system stabilizer model in PST

The difference between the model shown in figure 4 and the model shown in figure 5 is that: K in fig. 5 is equal to KSTAB*TW in fig 4. C. Modeling transmission lines The S -model is used in the modelling of the lines. D. Modeling the load The modelling of the load is a significant factor that contributes to the accurate prediction of the system eigenvalues/damping [1], [7]. Therefore modelling of loads should be done with great care. In this paper the test system under investigation has no loads. The author is working on the well known two-area four-generator system with loads. The load in PST can be modelled as constant power active or reactive, constant impedance, constant current or a combination of the three.

B. SMIB with the Sixth Order Generator Model under Manual Control and Effects of Saturation taken into consideration. See Appendix for the generator data. The two saturation parameters were calculated to be: S (1.0) 0.124 , S (1.2) 0.413 Table III shows the eigenvalues obtained in PST are compared against those obtained in [1].
TABLE III. Eigenvalues

of the SMIB with generator modelled with 6th order model.

245

Power System Stabilizer in service with the effects of Saturation taken into consideration. See Appendix for the power system stabilizer parameters. The eigenvalues obtained in PST are compared against those documented in [1] on table V.

C. SMIB with the Sixth Order Generator Model with Automatic Voltage Regulation and the Effects of Saturation taken into consideration. See Appendix for the excitation system parameters. Table IV shows the eigenvalues obtained in PST compared against obtained in [1].
Table IV. Eigenvalues of the SMIB 6 order generator model with AVR in service.
th

Table V. Eigenvalues of the SMIB 6 order generator model with AVR and PSS in service.

th

A step response can also be performed in PST to complement the frequency domain results. Figure 6 shows the step response of this system. The poorly damped oscillatory mode seen in the frequency domain is evident in the time domain. The oscillations on figure 7 have a period of approximately 0.85 giving a frequency of 1.176 which corresponds to the frequency of the oscillatory mode.

A step response of this system with AVR and PSS was also performed. Figure 7 shows the response of the system. The frequency domain depicts that all the modes are well damped. The time domain step response complements this. All the oscillations are well damped.
0.14

0.12

0.1
0.5

0.4

0.3

. u . p n i e g a t l o v l a n i m r e t

0.08

0.06

0.04

. u . p n i e g a t l o v l a n i m r e t

0.2

0.02

0.1

0.5

1.5

2 2.5 3 time in seconds

3.5

4.5

Fig. 8. Step response of the SMIB with AVR and PSS.

-0.1

-0.2

0.5

1.5

2.5 time in seconds

3.5

4.5

Fig. 7. Step response of the SMIB with AVR

D. SMIB with Generator Modelled with the Sixth Order Generator Model under Automatic Voltage Control and a

E. Analysis and Presentation of Results. The prediction of system eigenvalues is not exactly the same i.e. the eigenvalues obtained in PST are not exactly the same as those obtained in [1]. Possible reasons for the differences in results obtained in PST and those obtained in [1] is discussed in [11]. Furthermore some of the conclusions drawn in [7], [8] are that the noticeable difference in the prediction of system eigenvalues is affected to a large extent by the generator models, the load models the different

246

approaches in constructing the state matrix. The A, B, C and D matrices are accessible. The right and left eigenvectors are accessible. A matrix of participation factors and a matrix of normalised participation factors are accessible. The damping ratios and frequencies of the system eigenvalues are accessible. The states and the order of states used in generator modelling are also accessible.

experiment results. This would be done relatively easy in PST since the component models are coded as MATLAB functions.

IX. APPENDIX Models available in PST: Generator Models x mac_em electromechanical (classical) model x mac_tra model including the transient effect x mac_sub model including the subtransient effect x mac_ib a generator as infinite bus model x Excitation system models x smpexc simplified exciter model x exc_dc12 IEEE type DC1 and DC2 models x exc_st3 IEEE type ST3 model x Power system stabilizer model pss x Simplified turbine governor model tg x Induction motor model mac_ind x Induction generator model mac_igen x Static VAR compensator model svc x HVDC line model dc_line, dc_cont x Non-conforming load model nc_load Generator model data for the classical model is as follows: ' X d 0.3 H 3.5MW .s / MVA , Generator model data for the 6th order model is as follows: ' X l 0.16 X d 1.81 X d 0.3 Ra 0.003 , , , , " " ' X q 1.76 X d 0.23 Td 0 8s Td 0 0.03s , , , , ' " ' " Tq 0 1s Tq 0 0.07 s X q 0.65 X q 0.25 , , , , H 3.5MW .s / MVA Power system stabilizer parameters are as follows: K STAB 9.5 TW 1.4 s T1 0.154 s T2 0.033s , , , Excitation system parameters are as follows: K A 200 TR 0.02 s , .

VII. DATA REPRESENTATION IN PST PST is not a graphical intensive package. The structure or the topology of the power system is entered in matrix format. The bus and line matrices define the structure of the system in PST. The different power system component model parameters are contained in matrices. This can be tiresome when dealing with huge systems with a lot of buses and interconnections. The package comes with the advantage that it runs on the MATLAB environment so it is relatively easy to extract and plot all the system variables. Unlike in other tools where only the A matrix is accessible the four important matrices i.e. the A, B, C and matrices, in small signal stability are available in PST. VIII. CONCLUSIONS MATLAB PST is on par with the other software packages since it uses the recommended models. However it should also be noted that there are very few standard IEEE power system component models available in PST. The new package MATNETEIG has been improved in this regard. The fact that the software runs on the MATLAB environment makes it easy for users to customise power system component models and improve on the modelling detail of a standard model to more closely match the real system under being modelled. Another advantage of PST superimposed by the computational abilities of MATLAB is that a system with up to 200 buses can be simulated. PST falls short when it comes to the user interface. Computer have become more and more graphically intensive since the human brain works better with pictures than numbers, strings and characters there is a lot of room for improvement in this regard. A lot of work has been done by the CIGRE TASK FORCE 38.01.07 on identifying the factors which are important to modelling power systems for the accurate simulation of power system oscillations and is documented in [7]. Most these models recommended for use in small signal stability studies have been validated with field experiments. In some cases the models validated in [7] were adjusted to include more detail to make them closely match the field

REFERENCES
[1] [2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, 1994. J. G. Slootweg, J. Persson, A. M. van Voorden, G. C. Paap ,W. L. Kling, A Study of the Eigenvalue Analysis Capabilities of Power

247

System Dynamics Simulation Software, 14th PSCC, Sevilla, 24th 28th June, 2002. [3] K. R. Padiyar, Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control, John Wiley & Sons, 1996. [4] Graham Rogers, Joe Chow/Cherry Tree Scientific Software, Power System Toolbox version 2.0 Dynamic Tutorials and Functions, 2003 [5] Graham Rogers, Joe Chow/Cherry Tree Scientific Software, Power System Toolbox version 2.0 Loadflow Tutorial and Functions, 2003 [6] IEEE Guide for Synchronous Generator Modelling Practices in Stability Analysis, IEEE Std 1110-1991. [7] Task Force 07 of Advisory Group 01 of Study Committee 38, Analysis and Control of Power System Oscillations, Final report, December 1996, CIGRE [8] J. Persson, J. G. Slootweg, L. Rouco, L. Sder, and W. L. Kling, A Comparison of Eigenvalues Obtained with Two Dynamic Simulation Software Packages, Accepted for presentation at 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, 23rd 26th June, Bologna, Italy, Paper 0-78037967-5/03. [9] Graham Rogers, Power System Oscillations, Kluwel Academic Publishers, 2000 [10] Emil Johansson, Jonas Persson, Lars Lindkvist, Lennart Soder, Location of Eigenvalues Influenced by Different Models of Synchronous Machine presented at the Sixth IASTED International Conference POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, May 13-15, 2002, Marina del Rey California, USA. [11] K. K. Kaberere, K. A. Folly, M. Ntombela, A. I. Petroianu, Comparative Analysis and Numerical Validation of Industrial-Grade Power System Simulation Tools: Application to Small-Signal Stability.

248