Anda di halaman 1dari 6

2010 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon2010), Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Line Voltage Stability Calculations in Power Systems

F.A. Althowibi M.W. Mustafa Department of Electrical Power Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia,
Abstract- voltage instability and voltage collapses are increasingly attracting worldwide interest. Operating power system closer to its stability limits, transferring large amounts of powers from long distance and an inadequate supply of reactive power contribute to system voltage instability and eventually to voltage collapse. Accurate calculations of voltage stability, precise prediction of voltage collapse points and low time consumption of procedures computation are essential needs for operators to take the necessary actions to prevent such system incidents. Although several methods have been used in voltage stability analysis, successful avoidance of power system collapse is based on accuracy, rapid indication and very low calculation time. This paper presents a competent method for conducting line voltage stability analysis in power systems. This newly developed method is accurate, fast, simple, and theoretically proven for calculating voltage stability at each individual line and finding accurate voltage collapse points. Voltage stability margins based on line analysis can be easily calculated, providing an indication of how far the line(s) is from its severe load condition and permitting separate analysis if one line is highly stressed. The proposed method was demonstrated on the IEEE 57-bus system and compared with existing methods to show its efficiency. Keywords: voltage collapse, line voltage stability index, voltage stability analysis



Modern power systems have been recently operating close to network stability limits due to deregulation in the electricity market and the complex nature of establishing new transmission lines, causing violation in system voltage profile limits. Operating power systems under such condition initiates a sequence of voltage instability points leading power system to voltage collapse events. Inadequate reactive power supplies may also contribute to system voltage collapse and, then to electricity blackouts. Several electricity blackouts were registered globally. Examples include France in 1978, Sweden in 1983, in Japan in 1987 [1], in the USA in 1996 and 2003 [2,3], Italy in 2003[3], and England in 2003[3]. Avoiding voltage collapse events are achievable. Voltage profiles in power system operations can be maintained within acceptable levels to improve the security and reliability of power systems and prevent the

occurrences of voltage collapse. Operating further than those limits results in voltage instability and ultimately to voltage collapse. A sudden increase of reactive power demands may be responsible for such incidents if there is a shortage in reactive power supply. Hence, adequate reserve of reactive powers and quick dynamic supplies are the successful remedial actions needed to avoid voltage collapse occurrences. The concepts of voltage stability, voltage instability and voltage collapse are defined clearly in [4]. Voltage stability problems have drawn the most attention of research recently, and these problems have been classified into dynamic and static analysis. Dynamic analysis has been used to conduct voltage stability analysis since voltage instability is classified as a dynamic phenomenon; carrying out a large disturbance, long-term disturbance, short-term disturbance or transit disturbance. Nevertheless, the static analysis has been used as of late to comprehensively study voltage stability problem. This analysis is accurate and less complex as it requires low computation time to carry out system stability analysis, particularly when handling short load disturbances. Several methods were developed over the past two decades to conduct static voltage stability analysis. These methods can be divided into four groups. Some methods utilize the systematic Jacobian matrix to determine the exact values of voltage collapse [5-10] while (ii) others determine the bifurcation point to predict voltage stability margins [11]. (iii) Mmaximum load determination enables assessment of proximity to voltage collapse [12] while (iv) scalar indices can be calculated as a part of line voltage stability; which are: line stability index (Lmn) [13], line stability factor, (LQP) [14], fast voltage stability index (FVSI) [15], and voltage collapse proximity index [16]. In recent years, Arya et al. [17] developed a line voltage stability index used to devise a protective scheme against voltage collapse. The index halves at a collapse point and can be implemented easily in a distant relay to give an alarm or tripping signal indicating that the power system has entered an insecure zone. All of the methods described above have their limitations. Some methods are only suitable for specific applications, while others are too complex, consuming so much time running through their procedures that it may be too late to avoid voltage collapse occurrences. Accuracy levels also vary from one to another which is an essential factor for voltage collapse avoidance.

978-1-4244-8946-6/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE 396

This paper presents a new method to calculate line voltage stability, connected between nodes k and m, indicating how far the line is from its outage condition and collapse point. The proposed index is simple and accurate in terms of conducting swift voltage stability analysis, providing the reduced calculating time needed to prevent voltage collapse. The proposed method can be easily used in on-line applications, allowing operators to take action to avoid such incidents. This method has been demonstrated on the IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) Test System to show its effectiveness and efficiency. This paper is organized as follows: the theoretical basis of the proposed method is introduced in Section II while line stability index method is reviewed in Section III. IV presents the results and discussion while Section V presents the paper final conclusions.

The real and imaginary parts can be separated from equation (3) as:

Re : Pm = Vm Vk Ykm cos( m ) Vm Ykm cos( ) (4) Im : Qm = Vm Vk Ykm sin( m ) + Vm Ykm sin( ) (5)
Substituting equation (4) into equation (3) to establish a relationship between Vk and Qm yields:

Vm Vk Ykm cos( m ) Vm Ykm cos( ) jQm = Vm Vk Ykm ( m ) Vm Ykm

2 Vm Vm Vk

(sin( m ) + (sin( ))


Qm =0 (sin( ) )




Since m is very small, it is assumed to be zero seeking equation simplification, then the whole term of (sin(m)/sin() ) is eliminated and yields,

Consider a simple line power system as illustrated in Fig.1, which can be extended to an n-line power system.
Pk +jQk Pm +jQm


Vm Vk +

Qm =0 Ym (sin( ) )

Since Bkm=Ykm.sin (), the new equation can be rewritten as

bus k

bus m

Vm VmVk +

Qm =0 Bkm



(G +jB)km

By taking the quadratic of Vm, the root of Vm is expressed as:

Fig. 1 Simple line power system

+ Vk Vk Vm = 2

4 Qm Bkm


Where: Vk ,Vm = sending and receiving voltages at system buses k, m. = sending and receiving voltages angle at system bus k and m Pk, Pm = sending and receiving real powers at buses Qk ,Qm =sending and receiving reactive powers at buses Ykm = (G+jB) line a admittance between bus k and m = line admittance angle r+jx = line impedance between bus k and m When bus k is taken as a reference bus, the line current, ILine , is calculated by: (1) I Line = (Vk Vm )Ykm The ILine also can be determined by using the receiving apparent power at bus m, given as:
I Line Sm = V m (Pm jQ m ) = V m m

Eq. (8) gives one distinct real root or two equal roots of Vm if (=b2 4ac) is discriminated to zero. The discriminated real roots of Vm can be expressed as 2 4Qm Vk B 0 (9) km 4Q m 1 Bkm Vk 2 The Vm varies from zero to one indicating the real root limitation and can be used as voltage stability limits. The voltage real root must be greater than zero and lower than one, otherwise the voltage stability are compromised; this proves that the developed equation determines voltage stability at each line and predicts system voltage collapse, named as voltage reactive power index at line, VQILine , and expressed as

VQI Line =

4Qm Bkm Vk




Rearranging equation (1) and (2) yields:

Pm jQm = VmVk Ykm ( m ) Vm Ykm



Once the value of VQILine approaches unity, the voltage stability reaches stability limits. Voltage instability occurs when VQILine is beyond stability limits. VQILine determines


how far the power system is from instability or collapse point.

The real and imaginary parts can be separated from equation (11) as:
Pm = Vk Vm Z
Vk Vm Z

cos( k + m )
sin( k + m )

Vm Z
Vm Z

cos( )

(13) (14)



Qm =

sin( )

Lets =k-m and Vm is given as This section briefly discusses line stability index, Lmn [15] which is used as a base method for comparison purposes with the proposed method, VQILine. Lmn is a line power index used to calculate line voltage stability. This index detects the stressed condition of power system lines and determines the weak areas susceptible to voltage collapse, providing online system stability prediction. A single line of an interconnected network is illustrated in Figure1, which can be expanded to n-lines forming a grid network [15] expressed as
Sm =
Sk =

Vm =

Vk sin( )

(Vk sin( ))2 (4 XQm )

2 sin( )


The root of the real receiving voltage varies from zero to one indicating the real root limitation which can be expressed as
(Vk sin( ) )2 4 XQm 0 . 4 XQm (V sin( ) )2 = Lmn 1 k


Once the value Lmn exceeds one, the system reaches voltage collapse point. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Vk Vm Z
Vk Z

( k + m )
Vk Vm Z

Vm Z

(11) (12)

( k + m )

This section demonstrates an implementation of the proposed method, VQILine, on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) to conduct line voltage stability analysis. VQILine and line To
15 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 32 35 36 37 38 39 40 38 41

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

1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 9 9 13 13 1 1 1 3 4 4 5 7 10 11 12 12 12

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 15 18 18 6 8 12 13 13 16 17

0.0371 0.0893 0.0022 0.0299 0.0397 0.0055 0.0503 0.0387 0.0089 0.0363 0.1093 0.0272 0.0394 0.0388 0.0138 0.088 0.027 0.0257 0.1307 0.1307 0.0184 0.0515 0.0759 0.0024 0.0958 0.0573 0.1288

0.0397 0.0952 0.0023 0.036 0.0425 0.0057 0.0538 0.0392 0.0092 0.0395 0.1141 0.0298 0.0432 0.0437 0.0138 0.0883 0.0274 0.0278 0.1314 0.1314 0.0224 0.0547 0.0803 0.0026 0.1055 0.0609 0.1416

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

14 18 19 21 21 22 23 24 24 24 26 27 28 7 25 30 31 32 34 34 35 36 37 37 36 22 11

0 0.0457 0.0165 0.0043 0.0007 0.0033 0.0318 0.2444 0.2444 0.0116 0.063 0.0257 0.0217 0.0568 0.0406 0.0525 0.0433 0.0037 0.1924 0.0176 0.019 0.0132 0.0429 0.0025 0.0006 0.0065

0 0.0641 0.0234 0.0043 0.001 0.0047 0.0451 0.2468 0.2468 0.0116 0.092 0.0373 0.0333 0.0569 0.0577 0.0735 0.0641 0.008 0.194 0.0256 0.0315 0.0216 0.062 0.0035 0.0009 0.0093 0.1686

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

41 41 38 15 14 46 47 48 49 50 10 13 29 52 53 54 11 44 40 56 56 39 57 38 38 9

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 51 49 52 53 54 55 43 45 56 41 42 57 56 49 48 55 Total

0.0874 0.1064 0.0155 0.0467 0.0549 0.0477 0.0045 0.0277 0.005 0.0902 0.0448 0.1668 0.0603 0.0222 0.0492 0.0603 0.05 0.0431 0.0155 0.0473 0.0172 0.0887 0.0095 0.0475 0.0198 0.0487 4.0478

0.1146 0.1067 0.0196 0.0468 0.055 0.0523 0.0073 0.0391 0.0068 0.1287 0.0448 0.1673 0.0927 0.0349 0.0823 0.0976 0.05 0.0566 0.0155 0.09 0.0232 0.0889 0.0136 0.0675 0.0282 0.0487 4.6483


Table 1 VQILine and Lmn at normal Condition on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) system


stability index, Lmn were compared to measure VQILines relative efficiency, because they share similar characteristics. Several loading scenarios were observed, in which loading scenarios were progressively increased until the power system collapsed.

system collapsed. The results show close similarities between VQILine, and Lmn on voltage stability indications at each individual line with load increase, recording a collapse point at rate k= 0.375. As seen in Subfigures 2(a) to 2(h), VQILine and Lmn at Lines 6, 35, 36, 41, 46, 54, 55 and 62 have very similar voltage stability outcomes. Voltage stability
VQILine Lmn Line outage VQILine Lmn Line outage

VQILine Lmn

VQILine Lmn

Collapse point

Line outage

VQILine Lmn VQILine Lmn

VQILine Lmn Line outage

VQILine Lmn Line outage


Line outage

Line outage





Fig.2 First scenario, VQILine and Lmn vs. load factor k on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) system (a) At line 35, (b) at line 36, (c) at line 46, (d) at line 54, (e) at line 6, (f) at line 41, (g) at line 56, (h) at line 62


Normal Load scenario on 14-bus system

margins at all lines are also almost identical, with very similar voltage collapse points. B. Load increase at selected bus 25 The procedure described above was repeated by subjecting the 57-bus IEEE system to gradual load increase at only bus 25 until the system collapsed. Figure 3 shows the occurrence of voltage collapse at loading rate k =4.4, at which VQILine and Lmn methods passed voltage stability limits. Voltage stability indications at Line 35, 36, 46 and 54 using both methods are shown in Subfigures 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) respectively. Similar results were obtained on voltage stability margins and voltage collapse points, suggesting that VQILine is a powerful tool for line voltage
VQILine Lmn VQILine Line Lmn mn

Table1 shows a comparison between VQILine and Lmn to check the performance of the proposed method on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) and validate its accuracy in a normal load condition. The comparison outcomes show VQILine had very similar voltage stability results at each individual line, recording 4.0478 and 4.6483for the total summation of VQILine and Lmn respectively. A difference of only 0.6005 k load rate difference was recorded between the total summations of two methods confirming their similarity of outcomes. 2. Load scenarios on power systems

This part discusses the accuracy of VQILine with load increase until power system approaches collapse state. Despite the fact that load is, at least partially, considered to be a dynamic phenomenon, the loads in this application as a whole were assumed to be constant and subject to gradual increases in steps of 0.01 units until the system voltage collapsed. As such, system voltage indications were easily calculated and voltage collapse points were predicted. Two load scenarios were considered in this study. In the first scenario, the system loads were increased at all buses at once with identical rate k until the system voltage collapsed. In the second, the loads were increased in the system at the rate of one bus a second. For both load scenarios, the power factors were assumed to remain constant. Figures 2 to 4 show the performance of the proposed method, VQILine, versus Lmn on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) for two loading scenarios. A. Load increase at all buses In Figure 2, VQILine, and Lmn illustrate the first loading scenario, in which the 57-bus system was subjected to simultaneous steady load increase at all buses until the

Collapse point

Collapse point

VQI Line VQI Line L mn L mn VQI VQI Line Line L L mn mn


Line outage Line outage

(c) (c) Fig.3 Second scenario, VQILine and Lmn vs. load factor k on IEEE (57bus, 80 lines) system (a) At line 35, (b) at line 36, (c) at line 46, (d) at line 54

stability analyses. The difference between VQILine and Lmn is a clear indication of different accuracy level (see section 3). 3. Determination of VQILine accuracy:


This section discusses the accuracy level of VQILine against Lmn in terms of voltage stability indications and margins, line outages and voltage collapse predictions in critical lines. Figure 4 illustrates the first loading scenario in an IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) system, showing the performance of the proposed method in the critical lines. VQILine, Lmn and the receiving voltage at that line, Vm, were compared to check the accuracy point of voltage collapse, voltage stability indications and the status of line outage. While VQILine and Lmn vary from zero to 1 along with load increase rate k, Vm decreases gradually until reaches its voltage security limits or voltage collapse state. VQILine, Lmn and Vm are illustrated (in red, blue and black respectively).
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.1 1

results. VQILine is planned to have a direct connection between line sending voltages and line receiving reactive powers along with formula simplicity while Lmn is still more complex. VQILine permits more efficient and quicker stability analysis than Lmn, particularly when a power system is subjected to a sudden increase in reactive power demands. Thus, the proposed method, VQILine, is superior to its predecessors in its accuracy, simplicity, speed of calculations and low computation time, indicating that it is an influential tool for static voltage stability analyses. VQILine is accurate, fast and simple allocating voltage stability at all lines as well as predicting precisely the system voltage collapse point. V. CONCLUSIONS

VQILine Lmn Vm at bus(25)

0.8 0.6 0.4

VQILine Lmn Vm at bus(25)

Collapse Point at
0.2 Load Factor k 0.3 0.4

0.2 0 0 0.1

Collapse Point at
0.2 Load Factor k 0.3 0.4


Collapse Point

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

VQILine Lmn Vm at bus(32)

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

VQILine Lmn Vm at bus(43)

Collapse Point
0.1 0.2 Load Factor k 0.3 0.4

0 0 0.1 0.2 Load Factor k 0.3 0.4

(c) (d) Fig.4 First scenario, VQILine ,Lmn and Vm vs. load factor k on IEEE (57-bus, 80 lines) system (a) VQILine and Lmn at line (35) and Vm at bus (25) (b) VQILine and Lmn at line (36) and Vm at bus (25), (c) VQILine and Lmn at line (46) and Vm at bus (32), (d) VQILine and Lmn at line (54) and Vm at bus (43)

The results show that there are slight differences in terms of voltage stability indications and voltage collapse predictions among the three methods in critical Lines 35, 36, 46 and 54. Subfigures 4(a) to 4(d) show the VQILine and Lmn reached unity as the Vm at bus 4 passed its stability limits at loading rate k=0.375. VQILine has very similar results compared to Lmn method along with gradual load increase in those critical lines. The results also show that in these subfigures VQILine and Lmn predicted voltage collapse similarly to what Vm predicted at those buses; which implies VQILine accurately determines voltage stability indications, voltage stability margins and precisely predicts voltage collapse at critical lines. 4. Overall results: The overall results show that VQILine has almost identical voltage stability indications at each individual line and very similar voltage stability margins and system voltage collapse points compared to Lmn method. Both methods in system critical lines were compared to line receiving voltages, Vm at those particular lines to validate VQILine accuracy of voltage stability indications, margins and voltage collapse points. The outcomes show VQILine had very close locations to voltage collapse points yielding more accurate in voltage stability analysis and voltage collapse

This paper presented a novel voltage stability analysis based on transmission line system, accurately determining voltage stability analysis at each line and precisely predicting the points of voltage collapse on power systems. The proposed method, VQILine, indicates how far the line is from a severe load condition or collapse point, permitting separate analysis if one line is highly stressed. VQILine is designed to have a direct association between sending line voltages and line receiving reactive powers, giving more efficient stability analysis, particularly when a power system is subjected to an unexpected increase in load reactive powers. The accuracy of VQILine to carry out line voltage stability analysis and predict voltage collapse were tested, showing almost identical voltage stability margins and the same system voltage collapse points when compared to the existing methods. An earlier line collapse/outage might be forced to be out by large amounts of transferring powers, due to long distance, or caused by reactive power being insufficient to supply the required demands. The results show VQILine is superior to its predecessors in its simplicity, speed of calculations, accuracy and low computation time, factors vital to the prevention of power system collapse. VQILine was demonstrated on the IEEE 57-bus and compared with existing method to show its efficiency.



Voltage stability of power system: concepts, analytic tools, and industry experience, IEEE Committee, vol. IEEE/PES 93TH0358-2-PWR, 1990. [2] C.W. Taylor, Improving grid behavior, IEEE Spectr., vol.36, pp.40-45, 1999. [3] M. Klaric, I. Kuzle and S. TesnjK, Under voltage load shedding using global voltage collapse, IEEE PES Power System Conference and Exposition, vol.1, pp.453-459, 2004. [4] P. Kundur, J. Paserba, V. Ajjarapu, G. Andersson, A. Bose, C. Canizares, N. Hatziargyriou, D. Hill, A. Stankovic, C. Taylor, T. Van Cutsem and V. Vittal, Definition and classification of power system stability IEEE/CIGRE joint task force on stability terms and definitions, Power Systems, IEEE Trans. vol. 19, pp. 1387 1401, 2004.















A. Venikov, V.A. Stroev, V.I Idelchick, and V.I. Tarasov, Estimation of electric power system steadystate stability in load flow calculations, IEEE Trans. on PAS, vol. PAS-94, No.3, pp. 1034-041, May 1975. Y.H Hong, C.T Pan, and W.W Lin, Fast calculation of voltage stability index, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 12, No. 4, November 1997. B. Gao, G.K. Morison, and P. Kundur, Voltage stability evaluation using modal analysis, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol.7, Issue:.4, pp. 529-1542, Nov.1992. N. Flatabo, R. Ognedal, and T. Carlsen, Voltage stability condition in a power transmission system calculated by sensitivity methods,IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. PWRS-5, N0,4, pp. 1286-1293, Nov. 1990. C.L. DeMarco, and T.J. Overbye, An energy based security measure for assessing vulnerability to voltage collapse, IEEE Trans on Power Systems, vol.5, pp.582591, May 1990. L. Zhuo, The impedance analyses of heavy load node in voltage stability studies, CSEE Proceedings, vol. 20, pp: 35-39, Apr. 2000. A. Semlyen, et al., Calculation of the extreme loading condition of a power system for the assessment of voltage stability, IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol:6, Issue: 1, pp.307-315, Feb. 1991. V. Balamourougan, T.S. Sidhu, and M.S. Sachdev, A technique for real time detection of voltage collapse in power systems, Eighth IEE International Conf. Developments in Power system protection, vol: 2, pp. 639-642, 2004. M. Moghavvemi, F.M. Omar, Technique for contingency monitoring and voltage collapse prediction, IEEE Proceeding on Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 145, pp. 634-640, November 1998. A. Mohamed, G.B. Jasmon, and S. Yusoff, A static voltage collapse indicator using line stability factors, Journal of Industrial Technology, vol:7, pp. 73-85, 1989. M. Ismail, and T. K. Rahman, Estimation of maximum loadability in power systems by using fast voltage stability index (FVSI), Journal of Power and Engineering Systems, vol: 25,pp. 181-189, 2005. M. Moghavvemi, and O. Faruque, Real-time contingency evaluation and ranking technique, IEEE Proceeding on Generation,Transmission and Distribution, vol. 145, Sept. 1998. L.D. Arya, S.C Choube, and M. Shrivastava, Technique for voltage stability assessment using newly developed line voltage stability index,Energy Conversion and Management, vol.49, pp. 267275, 2008.

M. W. Mustafa received his B.Eng degree (1988), M.Sc (1993) and PhD (1997) from University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. His research interest includes power system stability, deregulated power system, FACTS, power quality and power system distribution automation. He is currently Head of Electrical Power Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

VII. BIOGRAPHIES F. A. Althowibi received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from College of Technology, Saudi Arabia in 2000 and the degree of M.S. from University of Queensland, Australia in 2006. He is currently pursuing PhD degree at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.