0 cos

2
=
L
r s
L
r
L
X
V V
X
V
kP ) 2 ( cos
2

L
r s
L
r
L
X
V V
X
V
kP + =
) 3 ( cos
2

L
r s
L
s
G
X
V V
X
V
Q =
0 cos
2
= +
L
r s
L
s
G
X
V V
X
V
Q
0 sin =
L
r s
L
X
V V
P
) 1 ( sin
L
r s
L
X
V V
P =
Contingency Evaluation for Voltage Security
Assessment of Power Systems

Mudathir F. Akorede
1
, Hashim Hizam
1
, Ishak Aris
1
, and Mohd Zainal Ab Kadir
1

1
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
makorede@ieee.org, hashim@eng.upm.edu.my, ishak@eng.upm.edu.my, mzainal@eng.upm.edu.my


Abstract The demand for electricity is expected to continue to
increase given the recent world population projection of about 30
% increase in the next three decades. Consequently power
systems are equally expected to be more heavily loaded than
before. Unfortunately the environmental and economic
constraints restrict the expansion of the existing power system
facilities. This scenario requires a constant attention since it
could result to voltage collapse which could in turn lead to a total
blackout. This paper presents the procedure required to carry
out a contingency assessment and ranking of the load buses and
lines of power systems for voltage security. This would ensure
that power systems are operated above a desired voltage stability
margin to forestall voltage collapse. The impact of single line
outage contingency on the static voltage stability margin, as well
as the available transfer capability across the areas of the test
system, are examined in the paper.
Keywords-contingency evaluation; voltage security; voltage
collapse proximity indicator; critical line ranking; line outage
I. INTRODUCTION
As of 10th July, 2009, the world population was estimated
by the United States Census Bureau at 6.77 billion. This figure
is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040 [1]. Given
this trend, power systems are expected to be more heavily
loaded while there are many environmental and economic
constraints, preventing the construction of new or upgrading of
the existing generation and transmission capacities. In this
circumstance, such power systems would be operating close to
their stability limits, the consequence of which is voltage
collapse that could lead to a complete blackout. To forestall
this undesirable scenario, a constant attention is required to
monitor the performance of the power systems to ensure they
are operated above a desired level of voltage stability margin.
Contingency evaluation and ranking is an important
component of voltage stability analysis, as it determines the
contingency that may bring about system instability in
accordance to voltage stability criteria [2]. The basic objective
of screening and ranking of system contingencies is to estimate
quickly and accurately the voltage stability margin for all likely
contingencies. A margin to voltage collapse is defined as the
largest load change that a power system can sustain at a
particular bus or buses from a well defined operating point
prior to bifurcation point.
Saddle node bifurcation (SNB) is one of the commonest
types of methods used to determine voltage stability limits in
power systems. In determining the SNB point of a system, a
number of approaches have been adopted. For example, Greene
[3] proposed sensitivity analysis of the pre-contingency
conditions to avoid voltage collapse on the system. Also,
Yorino et al [4] used a fast computation method to evaluate the
load power margin with respect to saddle node bifurcation.
Also, the use of the reactive power reserves was proposed as an
index for evaluation of the voltage stability of post-contingency
system [5]. In [6], the improved voltage stability index L
1
was
adopted as a fast and accurate tool to trace the SNB point,
regardless of the type of load model. This takes care of the
limitations of the index-L proposed by Kessel [7] that is only
suitable for constant power type of load. Fast curve fitting
method was proposed by Ejebe et al [2] to calculate the limit of
the nose curve. However, this study adopts voltage collapse
proximity indicator (VCPI) method proposed by Chen et al [8],
to carry out the screening and ranking of the test system buses;
after which the critical lines are determined by linearly
increasing the loads. These steps are necessary to be able to
determine the proximity of a given power system to voltage
instability and the necessary control actions that may be taken
to prevent voltage collapse.
II. VOLTAGE STABILITY ASSESSMENT
Fig. 1 depicts one-line schematic diagram of a
transmission line between two buses of a power system.







The power flow model of this line can be represented by eqns
(1), (2) and (3).






where
s r
= , P
G
= P
L
(lossless line i.e. R

= 0),
and Q
L
= kP
L
(for constant power factor loads)

The solutions to these power flow equations, with an increase
in P
L
can be plotted to give PV curves or QV curves for the
Proceedings of 2009 ,((( Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD 2009),
16-18 Nov. 2009, UPM Serdang, Malaysia
Fig.1 One-line Schematic Diagram of a Transmission Line.
Infinite Bus
R + jXL
PL + jQL
s s
V
r r
V
978-1-4244-5187-6/09/$26.00 2009 IEEE
345
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA. Downloaded on April 23,2010 at 10:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

( )
) 7 (
1
2
1
2
2

+
=

i
Q
i
G j
j
G
i
G j
j
G
i
sw G
VCPI
P
Q
P
Q
P
P
i
S
VCPI

) 4 (
L i
j
j
G
i
Q
i
Q
Q
VCPI
G

) 5 (
L i
j
j
G
i
S
i
S
S
VCPI
G

system. Fig. 2 presents the PV curves of the power flow

solution when generator limits are neglected. Any attempt to
increase P
L
(Q
L
) beyond point A in the figure would result in a



















system voltage collapse. The maximum loading points are
depicted in the figure with A and C. Different PV and QV
curves can be computed based on the system parameters
chosen to do so. Examples of these curves produced by
maintaining constant, the sending end voltage, while the load
at the receiving end is varied at a constant power factor, could
be found in [9]. Each curve shows the maximum power that
can be transferred at a particular power factor.


























Fig. 3 presents a flowchart that summarises the steps
involved in the on-line voltage stability analysis (VSA) of a
power system at both normal and contingency conditions. The
VSA tool receives the input data of the current state of the
power system from a real-time database.
Voltage stability assessment of the current operating point
in Fig. 3 is necessary to enable the system engineer know the
voltage stability status of the system. The outcome of this
assessment determines the next line of action. If the result of
the assessment is positive, i.e. the system is secured at the
present operating point, the next step would be to initiate some
credible contingencies, such as line outages and critical loading
conditions, which would be analysed further. The large list of
contingencies is screened and ranked with respect to their
margins to voltage collapse, using any fast and accurate
ranking algorithm available. Finally, the contingencies flagged
as potentially harmful to the systems stability are investigated
further using tools like continuation power flow (CPF) and
consequently develop some control schemes to be executed in
either a pre-contingency or post-contingency mode.
III. VOLTAGE COLLAPSE PROXIMITY INDICATOR (VCPI)
VCPI proposed by Chen [8] is used to identify weak load
buses and areas in the power network. Considering reactive
power only, the VCPI for i load bus is defined as:



where:
G
is a set of generator buses

L
is set a of load buses
Q
G
j
is a small increase in reactive generation j
Q
i
is a small increase in load reactive power
The rationale behind this definition in eqn (4) is that voltage is
the most affected by reactive power. For a voltage stability
system, all VCPI
Q
i
will have a value grater than but close to
unity, whereas a system close to voltage collapse would have
at least one VCPI
Q
i
large, approaching infinity at the point of
collapse. In other words, the weakest bus in the network
would have the maximum value of VCPI. However, since
VCPI
Q
i
is only valid for loads with an appreciable reactive
component Q
i
, this index would give a misleading result for
unity power factor loads. In such a situation, a complex power
index VCPI
S
i
would be a better indicator. It is defined as



where S
i
is a small increase in load complex power at node
i. As mentioned earlier, the weakest node x in the system has


However, eqn (5) can further be expanded to yield eqn (7).
Derivation of the latter equation is not considered in this paper
due to the brevity of space; interested reader could consult [8].



System
Secured?
Contingency
Evaluation
Contingency Screening
& Ranking
Selection of
Contingency
Remedial/Preventive
Action
VSA of the Current
Operating Point
Real-time
Database of the
System
VSA
Database
Yes
No
Fig. 3 On-line Voltage Stability Assessment Flowchart
i L
{ } ) 6 ( max
i
S
x
S
VCPI VCPI =
V
r


(
p
u
)

Fig. 2 PV Curve of a load bus
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Total Real Power, P (pu)
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Operating Point
Contingency
A
.
B
.
.C
346
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA. Downloaded on April 23,2010 at 10:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

IV.
V. APPLICATION TO TEST SYSTEM
The above method is applied to the Nigerian 24-bus 330 kV
transmission grid shown in Fig 4. The national grid is presently
an interconnection of 7 generating stations, 24 buses and 26
transmission lines at 330 kV. Although upgrading of the said
transmission grid to a 30-bus system is about completion now,
the authors of this paper decided to adopt the 24-bus system
since the required data of the 30-bus system has not been made
available yet. The basecase active and reactive power demands
of the case study system are 2831 MW and 1441 MVars
respectively.



















The system is partitioned into 4 areas connected by 5 tie lines
to enable monitoring of critical tie-lines at the interface of the
areas for congestion relief. The general connection between the
areas is depicted in Fig. 5.









Using MATPOWER package run in MATLAB
environment, several load flow studies are carried out on the
case study system. From the basecase, the loads are linearly
increased at a constant power factor, on a step of 10 % and
simulated until the system under study is allowed to attain a
critically loading condition at 120 % of the basecase. It should
be noted that loss of lines 1-9, 2-9, 4-20, 7-21, and 17-21 are
not considered in this study since each would result in
islanding.
To assess the impacts of branch outage on the system, the
critical branches are outaged one by one to calculate the
available transfer capability (ATC) between the areas in the test
system. This is necessary for electricity transactions in the
present day deregulation of the energy market.
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Using the results of the load flow simulations carried out on
the heavily loaded test system, VCPI is computed for all load
buses. Based on this, the weak buses of the system are screened
and ranked as presented in Table 1. Thereafter, single loss of
lines is imposed on the critical lines of the network under
study, to monitor inter-tie congestion. Tables 2 and 3 present
the ranking of the critical lines in the basecase and at critical
loading condition of the test system respectively. The ranking
is based on power loss criterion.





















Fig. 4 Test System Topology.
1
3
13 12
10
15
18 17
21
7
6
16
2
8
14
19
20
4
24
23
22
5
9
11
AREA 1
AREA 2
AREA 4
AREA 3



Rank LOL PLoss (MW) QLoss (MVar)
1 3-9 severe severe
2 14-19 45.085 338.86
3 5-16 40.815 306.71
4 14-16 39.814 299.22
5 14-20 39.689 298.26
6 6-16 38.453 289.00
7 19-20 38.171 286.85
8 16-20 37.815 284.17
9 6-22 37.986 285.45
10 5-22 37.172 279.34
Basecase - 37.126 278.99
TABLE 2 CRITICAL LINES RANKING RESULTS (BASECASE)
Fig. 5 System Area Connection with Transmission Corridors
AREA 1
AREA 2
AREA 4
AREA 3
14
19
17
20
16
16
14
TABLE 1 WEAK LOAD BUSES RANKING
Rank Bus VCPIS
i

1 13 44.8094
2 18 15.6598
3 17 7.2714
4 12 6.9716
5 10 5.8103
6 23 5.3242
7 15 4.8626
8 16 4.3422
9 11 3.7055
10 22 3.6850
11 19 3.5769
12 20 3.3290
13 21 2.9796
14 8 2.6773
15 24 2.5746
16 14 2.3534
17 3 2.3326
18 9 2.0784
19 4 1.8672
20 7 1.4456
21 6 1.3140
347
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA. Downloaded on April 23,2010 at 10:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Observation of Table 4 reveals that outage of some critical
branches leads to overload of some other tie lines in the
system. It is also observed that line 16-17 is the only tie-line
that does not appear as a critical line in Tables 2 and 3.
However, this line is critical to area 4 since it is the only inter-
tie line through which power could be transferred from area 3
to area 4 (see Fig. 5). Loss of this line would create serious
voltage instability in area 4 since it relies heavily on area 3 in
order to meet all its load demands without load shedding.









































VII. CONCLUSION
To avert voltage collapse on power systems, this paper has
presented the procedure required to carry out a contingency
assessment and ranking of the critical load buses and system
branches for voltage security. This is necessary to ensure that
power systems are operated above a desired voltage stability
margin to forestall voltage collapse. The impacts of single line
outages as well as the available transfer capability between
areas in the test system were examined in the text. The
simulation results obtained in the study revealed that loss of
critical lines results in overload of some branches on the power
system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
M. F. Akorede thanks Prof. U. O. Aliyu of ATBU, Bauchi,
Nigeria and Prof. J. O. Ojo of TTU, USA for the assistance in
obtaining the complete data of the case study power system.
REFERENCES
[1] "International Data Base (IDB) World Population." Available online:
www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/
[2] G. C. Ejebe, G. D. Irisarri, S. Mokhtari, O. Obadina, P. Ristanovic, and
J. Tong, "Methods for contingency screening and ranking for voltage
stabilityanalysis of power systems," 1995.
[3] S. Greene, I. Dobson, and F. L. Alvarado, "Contingency ranking for
voltage collapse via sensitivities from asingle nose curve," IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 14, pp. 232-240, 1999.
[4] N. Yorino, H. Q. Li, S. Harada, A. Ohta, and H. Sasaki, "A method of
voltage stability evaluation for branch and generator outage
contingencies," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 19, pp. 252-
259, 2004.
[5] T. Van Cutsem, C. Moisse, and R. Mailhot, "Determination of secure
operating limits with respect to voltage collapse," IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 14, pp. 327-335, 1999.
[6] J. Hongjie, Y. Xiaodan, and Y. Yixin, "An improved voltage stability
index and its application," International Journal of Electrical Power and
Energy Systems, vol. 27, pp. 567-574, 2005.
[7] P. Kessel and H. Glavitsch, "Estimating the voltage stability of a power
system," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 1, pp. 346-354,
1986.
[8] Y. L. Chen, C. W. Chang, and C. C. Liu, "Efficient methods for
identifying weak nodes in electrical powernetworks," IEE Proceedings-
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 142, pp. 317-322, 1995.
[9] L. L. Grigsby, Power system stability and control: CRC Press, 2007.


Rank LOL PLoss (MW) QLoss (MVar)
1 14-19 111.175 835.41
2 14-16 101.931 765.98
3 14-20 95.116 714.63
4 19-20 91.247 685.55
5 5-16 86.589 650.52
6 16-20 84.264 633.05
7 6-16 83.959 630.78
8 6-22 83.787 629.46
9 5-22 82.818 622.19
10 3-9 75.168 564.78
Basecase - 82.797 622.03
TABLE 3 CRITICAL LINES RANKING RESULTS (CRITICAL LOADING)

A
T
C

(
M
W
)


L
O
L



3
-
9

3
5
7
.
7
9

2
1
4
.
9
3

2
5
0
.
8
1

5
.
5
0

3
4
1
.
5
3

1
1
7
0
.
5
6

L
O
L



5
-
2
2

3
5
7
.
8
0

2
1
4
.
9
2

2
5
0
.
8
0

5
.
4
7

3
4
1
.
5
3

1
1
7
0
.
5
2

L
O
L

6
-
2
2

3
5
8
.
0
4

2
1
5
.
1
2

2
5
1
.
2
3

5
.
0
4

3
4
1
.
5
3

1
1
7
0
.
9
6

L
O
L

6
-
1
6

3
5
8
.
1
3

2
1
5
.
1
9

2
5
1
.
2
3

4
.
9
1

3
4
1
.
5
4

1
1
7
1
.
0

L
O
L




1
6
-
2
0

3
6
1
.
4
9

2
1
7
.
7
6

2
4
5
.
4
2

0
.
0

3
4
1
.
5
9

1
1
6
6
.
2
6

L
O
L






5
-
1
6

3
5
8
.
9
4

2
1
5
.
8
4

2
5
2
.
1
1

3
.
5
4

3
4
1
.
5
8

1
1
7
2
.
0
1

L
O
L




1
9
-
2
0

1
6
7
.
3
0

3
2
0
.
8
3

3
3
3
.
7
5

8
7
.
9
8

3
4
1
.
5
5

1
2
5
1
.
4
1

L
O
L




1
4
-
2
0

4
9
2
.
8
1

0
.
0

3
3
6
.
2
4

9
0
.
4
3

3
4
1
.
5
6

1
2
6
1
.
0
4

L
O
L

1
4
-
1
6

5
0
2
.
4
8

3
3
0
.
4
4

0
.
0

-
2
4
8
.
5
6

3
4
1
.
5
6

9
2
5
.
9
2

L
O
L

1
4
-
1
9

0
.
0

4
1
4
.
7
5

4
1
1
.
1
4

1
6
4
.
2
1

3
4
1
.
8
5

9
2
0
.
8
1

A
T
C

(
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
)

(
M
W
)

3
5
7
.
7
9

2
1
4
.
9
2

2
5
0
.
7
9

5
.
4
8

3
4
1
.
5
3

1
1
7
0
.
5
1

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

M
a
r
g
i
n

(
M
W
)

2
7
.
3
0

1
6
.
0
0

8
.
4
0

1
2
.
2
0

3
1
.
7
0

-

A
T
C

B
a
s
e
c
a
s
e

(
M
W
)

2
0
7
.
5
0

1
0
5
.
2
6

1
0
6
.
9
2

2
9
.
7
5

2
4
2
.
5
0

6
9
1
.
9
3

T
i
e

L
i
n
e

1
4
-
1
9

1
4
-
2
0

1
4
-
1
6

1
6
-
2
0

1
6
-
1
7

-

A
r
e
a


P
a
i
r

1





2

1




2

1




3

2




3

3




4

T
o
t
a
l

T
A
B
L
E

4

C
O
M
P
U
T
A
T
I
O
N

O
F

A
T
C

B
E
T
W
E
E
N

A
R
E
A
S

O
F

T
H
E

T
E
S
T

S
Y
S
T
E
M

348
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA. Downloaded on April 23,2010 at 10:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.