The European Physical Journal Special Topics

, Volume 225, Issue 3, pp 609–625

The impact of model detail on power grid resilience measures

  • S. Auer
  • K. Kleis
  • P. Schultz
  • J. Kurths
  • F. Hellmann
Regular Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Health, Energy & Extreme Events in a Changing Climate

Abstract

Extreme events are a challenge to natural as well as man-made systems. For critical infrastructure like power grids, we need to understand their resilience against large disturbances. Recently, new measures of the resilience of dynamical systems have been developed in the complex system literature. Basin stability and survivability respectively assess the asymptotic and transient behavior of a system when subjected to arbitrary, localized but large perturbations in frequency and phase. To employ these methods that assess power grid resilience, we need to choose a certain model detail of the power grid. For the grid topology we considered the Scandinavian grid and an ensemble of power grids generated with a random growth model. So far the most popular model that has been studied is the classical swing equation model for the frequency response of generators and motors. In this paper we study a more sophisticated model of synchronous machines that also takes voltage dynamics into account, and compare it to the previously studied model. This model has been found to give an accurate picture of the long term evolution of synchronous machines in the engineering literature for post fault studies. We find evidence that some stable fix points of the swing equation become unstable when we add voltage dynamics. If this occurs the asymptotic behavior of the system can be dramatically altered, and basin stability estimates obtained with the swing equation can be dramatically wrong. We also find that the survivability does not change significantly when taking the voltage dynamics into account. Further, the limit cycle type asymptotic behaviour is strongly correlated with transient voltages that violate typical operational voltage bounds. Thus, transient voltage bounds are dominated by transient frequency bounds and play no large role for realistic parameters.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P.J. Menck, J. Heitzig, N. Marwan, J. Kurths, Nature Phys. 9, 89 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Hellmann, P. Schultz, C. Grabow, J. Heitzig, J. Kurths, ArXiv e-prints [1506.01257] (2015)
  3. 3.
    P. Sauer, A. Pai, Power System Dynamics and Stability (Stipes Publishing L.L.C., 2006), ISBN 9781588746733, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yWi9PAAACAAJ
  4. 4.
    T. Weckesser, H. Jóhannsson, J. Ostergaard, Impact of model detail of synchronous machines on real-time transient stability assessment, in Bulk Power System Dynamics and Control-IX Optimization, Security and Control of the Emerging Power Grid (IREP), 2013 IREP Symposium (IEEE, 2013), p. 1Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Schmietendorf, J. Peinke, R. Friedrich, O. Kamps, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 223, 2577 (2014), ISSN 1951-6355, http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2014-02209-8 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Nishikawa, A.E. Motter, New J. Phys. 17 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.M. Anderson, A.A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability (Wiley-IEEE Press, 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P.J. Menck, J. Heitzig, J. Kurths, H.J. Schellnhuber, Nature Comm. 5, (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Schultz, J. Heitzig, J. Kurths, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 223, 2593 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Kundur, N.J. Balu, M.G. Lauby, Power system stability and control, Vol. 7 (McGraw-hill New York, 1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Pavella, D. Ernst, D. Ruiz-Vega, Transient stability of power systems: a unified approach to assessment and control, Vol. 581 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Machowski, J. Bialek, J. Bumby, Power system dynamics: stability and control (John Wiley & Sons, 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.M. Pecora, T.L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2109 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Acharyya, R.E. Amritkar, Synchronization of coupled nonidentical dynamical systems (2012), 1111.5408
  15. 15.
    M. Pai, K. Padiyar, C. Radhakrishna, Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on (12), 5027 (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.L. Willems, J.C. Willems, Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on (5), 795 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.R. Bergen, D.J. Hill, Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on (1), 25 (1981)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ENTSO-E, Network Code for Requirements for Grid Connection Applicable to all Generators (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.J. Menck, J. Kurths, Topological identification of weak points in power grids, in Nonlinear Dynamics of Electronic Systems, Proceedings of NDES 2012 (VDE, 2012), p. 1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bundesnetzagentur, Tech. rep., Bundesnetzagentur (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences and Springer 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Auer
    • 1
    • 2
  • K. Kleis
    • 3
  • P. Schultz
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Kurths
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    • 5
  • F. Hellmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsHumboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Oldenburg UniversityOldenburgGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  5. 5.Department of Control TheoryNizhny Novgorod State UniversityNizhny NovgorodRussia

Personalised recommendations