380KV Contingency Scan

The Turkish Grid have many transmission lines with 380 KV voltage level.
The total
number of 380 KV transmission lines is 161 line. A set of contingencies related to
these lines was built, this set of contingencies have 302 contingencies. After running
this contingency set on the Turkish Power System, the following contingencies were
insecure:
67
68
133
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
170
171
172
173
174
175
177
179
185
187
188
189
191
193
194
195
196
197
198
213
273
286
288
291
292
301
-4.85*
-9.98*
-81.02*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.19*
-77.94*
-71.25*
-79.01*
-71.24*
-77.19*
-78.65*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-78.71*
-78.03*
-79.71*
-78.03*
-79.49*
-79.51*
-79.49*
-78.03*
-79.49*
-79.71*
-79.49*
-78.03*
-78.03*
-77.94*
-77.94*
-64.81*
-81.02*
-77.94*
59.46
57.37
25.86
59.98
59.99
59.98
59.98
59.99
59.98
59.97
59.98
52.72
53.73
52.53
59.97
51.93
59.98
59.98
59.98
52.87
59.82
59.84
59.82
59.83
59.84
59.83
59.82
59.83
59.84
59.83
59.82
59.82
53.79
53.79
53.04
25.86
53.79
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
Insecure
4ZETES 380.
4OSMANCA 380.
4KONYA_KAPI 380.
4SEYDISEHIR 380.
4OYMAPINAR 380.
4SEYDISEHIR 380.
4VARSAK 380.
4OYMAPINAR 380.
4VARSAK 380.
4AKSA380 380.
4VARSAK 380.
4DEN_AFY_RE 380.
4DENIZLI 380.
4DEN_AFY_RE 380.
4AKSA380 380.
4DENIZLI 380.
4SEYDISEHIR 380.
4SEYDISEHIR 380.
4SEYDISEHIR 380.
4DENIZLI 380.
4KAYABASI 380.
4ALTINKAYA 380.
4KAYABASI 380.
4CARSAMBA 380.
4HUGURLU 380.
4CARSAMBA 380.
4KAYABASI 380.
4CARSAMBA 380.
4ALTINKAYA 380.
4CARSAMBA 380.
4KAYABASI 380.
4KAYABASI 380.
4URGUP_SKM 380.
4URGUP_SKM 380.
4KONYA_4 380.
4KONYA_KAPI 380.
4URGUP_SKM 380.
232610 231110
231110 232610
420511 422010
510010 510210
510210 510010
510010 510110
510110 510010
510210 510110
510110 510210
514310 510110
510110 514310
520111 520010
520110 520111
520111 520110
514310 520110
520110 514310
510010 420910
510010 420510
510010 520010
520110 330310
612710 610410
610410 612710
612710 612310
620610 620210
620910 620610
620610 620910
612710 620610
620610 612710
610410 620610
620610 610410
612710 810510
612710 410510
410311 810710
410311 810610
420510 420511
420511 420510
410311 410312
Contingencies 67, and 68:

Generators (23015 GEN_4ZETES 20.0), and (23016 GEN_4ZETES 20.0) are running
out if synchronism after the fault, as shown in Figure 1. The left graph related to
contingency 67, while the right one related to contingency 68. The cause of that is,
these two big generators are connected to the network by this line, and after
tripping the line they will be isolated from the network, causing the instability. These
two generators are the second biggest generators in the Turkish Grid.
Generator angle (degrees)
840
830
666
660
492
490
318
320
144
150
-30
-20
0.000
0.166
0.332
0.497
0.663
0.829
0.000
0.166
0.332
0.497
0.663
0.829
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Figure 1: System Response for Contingencies 67, and 68

This contingency is causing a tripping of a main transmission line with a series
capacitor in it, the system response was terminated early as shown in Figure 2, left
side. To solve this problem then the Max Generator Speed Deviation setting in TSAT
is increased to 1 p.u instead of 0.1 p.u. The result system response is shown in
Figure 2, right side. The system behavior after the fault shows an interesting
separation between the generators, the generators can be divided into 3 main
groups (or 6 groups). As a result, this contingency can be considered as an
interesting contingency for more investigation.
51
32000
38
25400
25
18800
13
12200
-0
5600
-13
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
-1000
0.000
0.528
Time (sec)
1.057
1.585
2.113
2.642
Time (sec)
Figure 2: System Response for Contingencies 133, and 292 for different TSAT setting
Contingencies 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166:

The simulation was terminated at early stage directly after the fault was applied, as
shown in Figure 3, left side. For solving that as mentioned before the Max Generator
Speed deviation was increased to 1 p.u instead of 0.1 p.u. The simulation result is
shown in Figure 3, right side. From Figure 3, it can be seen that this fault is causing
the three generators connected to bus (510210 4OYMAPINAR 380) to run out of
synchronism, these generators are:
51068GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51069GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51070GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51
3900
38
3100
25
2300
13
1500
-0
700
-13
0.000
0.021
0.042
0.064
0.085
Time (sec)
0.106
-100
0.000
0.087
0.173
0.260
0.347
0.433
Time (sec)
Figure 3: System Response for Contingencies 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, and 166

The simulation was terminated at early stage directly after the fault was applied, as
shown in Figure 4, and Figure 5 left side. For solving that as mentioned before the
Max Generator Speed deviation was increased to 1 p.u instead of 0.1 p.u. The
system responded in a different way for both contingencies, although both
contingencies are related to the same transmission line.
For contingency 167, the system response was stable as shown in Figure 4, right
side. On the other hand, the system response was unstable for contingency 168, as
shown in Figure 5, right side. The generators caused instability for contingency 168
were as follows:
51068GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51069GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51070GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51101GEN_AKDENIZ_ENJ
The contingency 168 can be considered as interesting in some way for our research.
51
80
38
56
25
32
13
-0
-16
-13
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
-40
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Figure 4: System Response for Contingencies 167 for different TSAT setting
51
12000
38
9400
25
6800
13
4200
-0
1600
-13
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
Time (sec)
-1000
0.000
0.207
0.415
0.622
0.830
1.037
Time (sec)
Figure 5: System Response for Contingencies 168 for different TSAT setting
Contingencies 170, 171, and 172:

This fault is causing a tripping of transmission line with a shunt inductance
(203.7MVAr). The simulation was terminated at an early stage as shown in Figure 6,
left side. From Figure 6, left side, we can say that the system is insecure because of
1 generator running away from synchronism, that generator is (521461 G-DENIZLCM
6.30). On the other hand if we tried to force TSAT to advance the simulation after
that to check the system response at later stages by increasing the Max Generator
Speed deviation to 1 p.u instead of 0.1 p.u., the system was secure as shown in
Figure 6, right side.
From the previous result, it can be seen that if the simulation terminated at early
stages directly after the fault, then more investigation is needed to make sure that
the contingency under study is indeed insecure.
73
80
56
58
38
36
21
14
-8
-14
0.000
0.037
0.073
0.110
0.147
0.183
-30
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Figure 6: System Response for Contingencies 170, 171, and 172 for different TSAT setting,
left insecure, right secure

This fault is happening in a tie line connecting Area 51 and Area 52. For the normal
settings of TSAT related to Max Generator Speed Deviation settings as 0.1 p.u, the
system response was insecure, and terminated at early stage for both contingencies
as shown in Figure 7. But if this setting was increased to 1 p.u, then the system
response was secure, as shown in Figure 8!
51
110
38
84
25
58
13
32
-0
-13
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
Time (sec)
0.08
0.10
-20
0.000
0.041
0.082
0.122
0.163
0.204
Time (sec)
Figure 7: System Response for Contingencies 173, and 174 for TSAT Max Generator Speed
Deviation as 0.1 p.u
80
110
48
76
16
42
-16
-48
-26
-80
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
-60
5.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
Contingencies 175, 177, and 179:

These contingencies is related to tie lines connecting bus (510010 4SEYDISEHIR
380) in Area 51, to different areas, Area 42, Area 42, and Area 52 respectively. The
same scenario is repeating here, the system response is terminated at early stage,
and for that the Max Generator Speed Deviation was increased to 1 p.u. The system
response for these contingencies shows that the insecurity is caused by three
generators, as shown in Figures 9, 10, and 11 respectively. These generators are:
51068GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51069GEN_4OYMAPINAR
51070GEN_4OYMAPINAR
63000
50200
37400
24600
11800
-1000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Figure 9: System Response for Contingencies 175 for TSAT Max Generator Speed Deviation
as 1 p.u

4600
3660
2720
1780
840
-100
0.000
0.099
0.198
0.297
0.397
0.496
Time (sec)
as 1 p.u
4600
3660
2720
1780
840
-100
0.000
0.099
0.198
0.297
0.397
0.496
Time (sec)
as 1 p.u
Contingency 185:
This fault is happening in a tie line connecting Area 52 and Area 33. For the normal
settings of TSAT related to Max Generator Speed Deviation settings as 0.1 p.u, the
system response was insecure, and terminated at early stage for both contingencies
as shown in Figure 12, left side. But if this setting was increased to 1 p.u, then the
system response was secure, as shown in Figure 12, right side!
110
110
84
76
58
42
32
-26
-20
0.000
0.041
0.082
0.122
0.163
0.204
-60
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Figure 12: System Response for Contingencies 185 for different TSAT Max Generator Speed
Deviation setting
Contingencies 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 213,
and 273:
For all these contingencies the simulation terminated directly at the time when the
fault applied to the system, and TSAT indicated all these contingencies as insecure.
For investigating the system response after the fault applied, the simulation is
forced to be advanced by increasing the Max Generator Speed Deviation up to 1 p.u
instead of 0.1 p.u, the results are shown in Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18,
respectively. For all the mentioned contingencies, 4 generators were causing the
instability, these generators are:
62031GEN_4HUGURLU
62031GEN_4HUGURLU
62032GEN_4HUGURLU
62032GEN_4HUGURLU
510
73000
404
58200
298
43400
192
28600
86
13800
-20
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Time (sec)
4.00
5.00
-1000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
510
920
404
732
298
544
192
356
86
168
-20
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-20
0.000
0.037
0.073
Time (sec)
0.110
0.147
0.183
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
920
920
732
732
544
544
356
356
168
168
-20
0.000
0.037
0.073
0.110
0.147
0.183
-20
0.000
0.037
0.073
Time (sec)
0.110
0.147
0.183
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
520
74000
412
59000
304
44000
196
29000
88
14000
-20
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Time (sec)
4.00
5.00
-1000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
72000
73000
57400
58200
42800
43400
28200
28600
13600
13800
-1000
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-1000
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
510
510
404
404
298
298
192
192
86
86
-20
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-20
Time (sec)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
Contingencies 286, 288, 291, and 301:

For all these contingencies the simulation terminated directly at the time when the
fault applied to the system, and TSAT indicated all these contingencies as insecure.
For investigating the system response after the fault applied, the simulation is
forced to be advanced by increasing the Max Generator Speed Deviation up to 1 p.u
instead of 0.1 p.u, the results are shown in Figures 19, and 20, respectively. The
system response was secure for all the contingencies.
90
90
54
54
18
18
-18
-18
-54
-54
-90
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
-90
0.00
1.00
2.00
Time (sec)
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
90
90
66
54
42
18
18
-18
-6
-54
-30
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
Time (sec)
4.00
5.00
-90
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time (sec)
Deviation as 1 p.u
Conclusion
From the previous results, it can be said that for all the 380 KV transmission lines,
only three contingencies can be considered as critical, and it needs more
investigations and studies on them. These contingencies are as follows:
133 -81.02*
25.86 Insecure 4KONYA_KAPI 380.
420511 422010
168 -77.94*
59.98 Insecure 4VARSAK 380.
510110 514310
292 -81.02*
25.86 Insecure 4KONYA_KAPI 380.
420511 420510
Another thing to be noticed is that for any contingency that is terminated at early
stage from its simulation, it needs more investigations on it. For TSAT simulation
program, the Max Generator Speed Deviation setting should be increased beyond its
default value of 0.1 p.u to check the security of each of these contingencies that are
terminating in early stage of the simulation.

380KV Contingency Scan

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

380KV Contingency Scan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Turkish Grid have many transmission lines with 380 KV voltage level.

Contingencies 67, and 68:

Generator angle (degrees)

Figure 1: System Response for Contingencies 67, and 68

Contingencies 133, and 292:

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and 166:

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 167, and 168:

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 170, 171, and 172:

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 173, and 174:

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 175, 177, and 179:

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Contingencies 286, 288, 291, and 301:

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

Generator angle (degrees)

You might also like