Representative static load models for transient

stability analysis: development and examination

Y. Li, H.-D. Chiang, B.-K. Choi, Y.-T. Chen, D.-H. Huang and M.G. Lauby

Abstract: Load representation has a significant impact on power system analysis and control
results. Currently, static load models are still popular in power industry for transient stability analy-
sis. Dynamic load models are recommended in both industry and academia for possible improve-
ment in analysis accuracy. The accuracy of using static (nonlinear) load models with suitably
identified parameters for transient stability analysis is examined. Numerical studies conducted
using on-line measurement data indicate that static load models, as compared with induction
motor load models, are acceptable for modelling real power behaviours during disturbances and
hence are adequate for transient stability analysis. Using multiple sets of on-line measurements,
representative model parameters of five static nonlinear load models are derived and their perform-
ance in modelling dynamic behaviours of both real and reactive powers is compared. A method is
presented to determine a representative set of parameters of static (nonlinear) load models for each
loading condition.

1 Introduction improvement of accuracy. The incorporation of dynamic

Load modelling has a significant impact on power system
analysis and control results. Adequate representation of
loads may result in considerable savings in system
reinforcement costs and increase the operation flexibility,
whereas inaccurate load models may lead to a power
system being operated in modes that result in system col-
lapse or separation [1]. Because of its importance, the
subject of load modelling has drawn significant research
and development efforts from both academia and power
industry.
There are two classes of approaches for developing load
models: component-based approach and measurement-
based approach. The component-based approach builds a
load model using detailed information about all the individ-
ual components at each load bus. The measurement-based
approach involves placing measurement systems at the
load buses for which load models are to be developed.
The measurement-based approach has the advantage of
direct measurement of actual load behaviours. To take
advantage of the attractive features offered by the
measurement-based approach, an on-line transient data
recording system was developed at the Taiwan Power
Company to investigate the actual load behaviours during
system disturbances [2 4].
At present, static load models are still commonly used in
power industry for transient stability analysis. Dynamic
load models, which can capture dynamic responses of the
loads to disturbances, are recommended for possible
# The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2007
doi:10.1049/iet-gtd:20060044
Paper first received 1st February and in revised form 2nd August 2006
Y. Li, H.-D. Chiang and B.-K. Choi are with School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Y.-T. Chen and D.-H. Huang are with the System Planning Department, Taiwan
Power Company, Taipei, Republic of China
M.G. Lauby is with the EPRI International, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA
E-mail: y1347@cornell.edu
422
load models, however, increases the dimension of system
representation for power system dynamic simulation.
This paper examines the accuracy of modelling real
power behaviours by static load models and the adequacy
of using static load models for transient stability analysis.
Numerical studies conducted in this paper using on-line
measurement data indicate that static load models, as com-
pared with induction motor load models, are acceptable for
modelling real power behaviours during disturbance and
hence are adequate for transient stability analysis. The
associated parameters of five static load models, PSS/E
static model [5], ZIP model [6], exponential model [6],
EPRI model [7] and the composite ZIP-exponential model
[7], are derived using a total of 11 sets of measurement
data. Among the five static load model structures, the expo-
nential model offers reliable and consistent results. The per-
formance of two static load models and two dynamic load
models in modelling real power behaviours is compared.
Compared with static load models, dynamic load models
under study slightly improve the results in modelling real
power behaviours at the expense of increasing the system
dimension. A method is presented to determine a represen-
tative set of parameters of static load models for each
loading condition.
2 Preliminaries
Nine sets of self-acting monitoring systems are currently
installed at primary substations and distribution substations
of the Taiwan power system. When a (natural) system dis-
turbance occurs, the monitoring system at relevant substa-
tion is triggered automatically to record the three-phase
currents and voltages of the substation (i.e. the load bus)
and store the data on a local computer. Currently, there
are 18 predefined trigger types such as voltage level viola-
tion, frequency limit violation and so on. The discrete
Fourier transformation technique is used to transform the
recorded data into phasor form. The voltage and current
phasors at each substation are then used to compute real
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2007, 1, (3), pp. 422 431
and reactive power at the substation. The recorder system In this paper, five representative static models were selected
records signals that correspond to voltage variations from for study.
0.5 to 1.2 pu, current variations from 0.1 to 1.0 pu and
frequency variations from 55 to 65 Hz. The sampling rate
of the data recorder system can be flexibly adjusted and 3.1 PSS/E static model
the sampling rate of measurement data in our studies was
3840 Hz per channel (16 channels in parallel) with all In this model, real and reactive power part of the load is
channels being sampled at the same frequency. represented by (1) and (2) which are both voltage and
Input and output data for the study models should be frequency dependent
properly defined for load model developments. For develop-
n1
n2
n3 !
ing both static (nonlinear) and dynamic load models, input V V V
data is defined as voltage magnitude, frequency deviation PL P0 a1 a2 a3 1 a7 Df
V0 V0 V0
whereas output data is defined as real and reactive power
of the load. The real and reactive powers are calculated 1
from the measurement using the positive sequence

n4
n5
n6 !
method. A set of measurement (three-phase voltage and V V V
current) and its corresponding computed real and reactive QL Q0 a4 a5 a6 1 a8 Df
V0 V0 V0
power are shown in Fig. 1. Although it is recognised that
there is still an ongoing issue over the definition of reactive 2
power for unbalanced cases, we use the same definition as
the balanced case.
where a1 a8 , n1 n6 are the parameters to be estimated. And
a1 a2 a3 1, a4 a5 a6 1 when V V0.

3 Static load model structures 3.2 ZIP model

There are a considerable number of static load models pro- ZIP Model is a static load model that represents the power
posed in the literature for transient stability analysis; relationship to voltage magnitude as a polynomial equation
however, several of them have similar model structures. multiplied by frequency dependent term, usually in the

Fig. 1 Real and reactive power calculation using positive sequence method
a and b Positive sequence voltage and current
c Computed real power
d Computed reactive power

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007 423

following form 3.5 ZIP-exponential model

"

1 # This model is a composite model of ZIP model and expo-

V 2 V nential model
PL P0 p1 p2 p3 1 Kpf Df 3
V0 V0
2
"
 # P V

1 1  Kpi Kpc Kp1 Kp2
V 2 V P0 V0
QL Q0 q 1 q2 q3 1 Kqf Df 4

npv1
V0 V0 V V
Kpi Kpc Kp1
V0 V0

npv2
where p1 and q1 are the constant impedance load par- V
 1 Kpf 1 Df Kp2 1 Kpf 2 Df 9
ameters, p2 and q2 are the constant current load parameters, V0
p3 and q3 are the constant power load parameters and Kpf
2
Q V
and Kqf are the frequency sensitivity parameters. And 1  Kqi Kqc Kq1 Kq2
p1 p2 p3 1.0, q1 q2 q3 1.0 when V V0. Q0 V0


nqv1
V V
Kqi Kqc Kq1
V0 V0
3.3 Exponential model
nqv2
V
 1 Kqf 1 Df Kq2 1 kqf 2 Df 10
Real and reactive power during restoration reveals exponen- V0
tial characteristics. This observation motivates the con-
sideration of exponential load model expressed in the where Kpi and Kqi are the constant current parts of the total
following form load, Kpc and Kqc the constant power parts of the total load
and Kp1 , Kpf1 , npv1, Kp2 , Kpf2, npv2, Kq1 , Kqf1 , nqv1, Kq2 ,

Kqf2 and nqv2 the parameters of exponential part of the
V KpV total load.
PL P0 1 Kpf Df 5
V0
4 Parameter estimation

KqV
V
QL Q0 1 Kqf Df 6 Once a model structure is specified, load modelling
V0 becomes a parameter estimation problem. Measurement-
based approach for developing static load models can then
where KpV is the voltage-dependent parameter of real be described by the following steps.
power and KqV the voltage-dependent parameter of reactive
power. Step 1: Obtain a set of input output data derived from a set
of measurement data taken at a load bus of the power
system under study.
Step 2: Select a static load model structure.
3.4 EPRI model Step 3: Estimate its parameters using a suitable method and
estimation criterion.
This model is used for dynamic studies in established stab- Step 4: Evaluate the derived static load model using the esti-
ility programs (e.g. EPRIs LOADSYN and ETMSP mation criterion.
packages). Step 5: If the criterion is not met, take remedial actions; for
example, try another estimation method, or try another
(
Kpv1
Kpv2 ) model structure and repeat step 3; otherwise, the estimated
V V parameter values with the associated static model structure
PL P0 Pa1 1 Kpf 1 Df
1  Pa1
V0 V0 constitute a static load model.

7 Our proposed identification process of static load models

(
Kqv1 h is illustrated in Fig. 2. We next describe some compu-
V i
Q 
0 tational schemes behind these steps.
QL P0 Qa1 1 Kq f 1 Df  Qa1
V0 P0 The parameter estimation task is formulated as a non-
) linear least squares problem

Kqv2
V
 1 Kq f 2 Df
8 1X n
V0 min 1P p min 12 p
p p 2 k1 Pk

where Pa1 is the frequency dependent fraction of real load, 1X n

min 1Q p min 12 p 11
Qa1 the reactive load coefficient of uncompensated reactive p p 2 k1 Qk
load to real power load, Kpv1 and Kpv2 are the voltage expo-
nents for frequency-dependent and frequency-independent s:t: gp 0
real power load, Kqv1 and Kqv2 the voltage exponents hp  0
for the uncompensated and compensated reactive power
load, Kpf1 and Kpf2 the frequency sensitivity coefficients where p is a vector of model parameters to be estimated and
for real and uncompensated reactive power load and n the total number of sampling points used for estimation.
Kqf2 is the frequency sensitivity coefficient for reactive 1Pk( p) and 1Qk(p) are errors between the measured value
compensation. and the model output value of real and reactive powers at
424 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007
 Obtain measuremant
We split them into two parts: one part containing S 2 1
data form power system sets to be used for parameter estimation and the other part
is used for model validation. This procedure is repeated
for each run. After all S runs are finished, the validation
Prepare input and output data errors are then averaged. It has been shown that the general-
ity and validity of load models can be improved with the
cross-validation technique.
Select a static load
model structure
5 Static load model identification

Estimate parameters of the model

In this section, the proposed load model identification
scheme is applied to the five static model structures to
derive suitable parameter values for each model structure.
Evaluate the model The issues of estimation accuracy and model complexity
are examined to evaluate the estimation performance of
each static model.
No Eleven sets of measurement data belong to certain
Criterion is met? Take remedy actions
loading conditions are selected from the data recording
Yes system installed at an industrial substation, Panchiao substa-
Accept the load model structure tion, of Taiwan power system. On the basis of the recording
and parameters time of each measurement data set, we classified the loading
conditions into four categories: summer peak (SP), summer
Fig. 2 Measurement-based static load model identification medium (SM), summer light (SL) and winter light (WL).
scheme Table 1 summarises 11 sets of measurements at Panchiao
substation.
the kth sampling point. g(p) and h(p) represent equality and These sets of measurements were selected from a larger
inequality constraints for p. number of measurements, the range of voltage magnitudes
To solve the above parameter estimation problem, the variation lies between 5.2% and 16.5% with respect to its
well-known Newton-like method is applied. Since the use pre-disturbance steady-state value. The variation of real
of Newtons method to obtain the parameters can suffer power is in the range of 10.0 32.5% whereas the variation
from ill-conditioned Hessian matrix and can be unsatisfac- of reactive power is generally large (more than 60%).
tory in many instances [8], quasi-Newton methods are We first present the parameter estimation results of the
used in this paper. Among the quasi-Newton methods, a five static load models using measurement set 7 in which
modified algorithm of Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb and a large voltage swing occurred. Three-phase voltage and
Shanno (BFGS) is considered to be reliable and well current measurement of set 7 are shown in Fig. 3. In
accepted [8, 9]. It should, however, be noted that the appli- Section 6, measurement data obtained in SM loading con-
cation of any gradient-based optimisation method can dition, SM1 and SM2, are chosen to compare the perform-
potentially lead to a local optimum other than a global ance of static load models and dynamic load models in
optimal solution [10]. One alternative is the application of modelling real power behaviours during disturbance. In
a global optimisation technique to solve problem (11). Section 7, four measurement sets under SL loading con-
After estimation of model parameters, the model dition, SL1 SL4, and four measurement sets under WL
response is simulated with measured input for the validation loading condition, WL1 WL4, are used to derive represen-
of the developed load model. The residual calculation tative load model parameters for different loading
is used for evaluating and validating the accuracy of the conditions.
developed model by the following popular indices Table 2 lists the estimated value of parameters that mini-
mises the error function for the five static models. The
 P 1=2
1=n nk1 12Pk p obtained value may be a local optimal solution of (11).
sP  P 1=2  100%;
1=n nk1 P2k
Table 1: Eleven measurements sets at Panchiao
 P 1=2 substation
1=n nk1 12Qk p
sQ  P 1=2  100% 12 No. Time Loading Voltage Real power
1=n nk1 Q2k
Month Day Hour condition variation, % variation, %
where Pk , Qk are the measured values of real and reactive
1 8 2 00:24 SL1 5.6 10.4
power at the kth sampling point, respectively. If both sP
and sQ are less than desired values, the developed load 2 8 2 00:39 SL2 5.5 10.0
model is then acceptable; otherwise, remedial actions 3 8 2 01:43 SL3 5.5 10.6
should be taken, such as try another estimation algorithm 4 8 2 02:39 SL4 5.2 10.5
for accurate parameter values or try another model 5 8 9 11:34 SM1 9.1 26.4
structure. 6 6 18 11:03 SM2 11.4 12.4
It is desirable to validate the model on a different set of
7 6 19 14:38 SP1 16.5 25.8
measurement data (called validation data), since parameter
variance error could not be detected from the data used for 8 1 11 04:27 WL1 9.0 21.0
parameter estimation (called training data). When multiple 9 1 11 06:06 WL2 9.1 21.8
sets of measurement data are available, we can use the 10 1 10 03:08 WL3 12.6 32.5
cross validation technique for model validation. Suppose 11 1 6 06:51 WL4 9.8 25.0
that there are S(2) sets of measurement data available.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007 425
Fig. 3 Voltage and current profile of a substation during SP

For PSS/E model, the requirements that each parameter
cannot be negative and that the summation of parameters
is equal to 1.0 are imposed during the parameter estimation
procedure. For ZIP model, the requirements that all par-
ameters except q2 must be non-negative and that the sum-
mation of parameters is equal to 1.0 are imposed during
the parameter estimation procedure.
We observe from the estimation results that there are
seven parameters to be estimated for PSS/E model. The
relative error in modelling real power behaviour is very sat-
isfactory, only 0.74%. In contrast, the relative error in mod-
elling reactive power behaviours is much larger and
unsatisfactory. This indicates that the PSS/E load model
is inadequate for describing the reactive power behaviour
during disturbance.
For ZIP model structure, the number of parameters is
four. The relative error in modelling real power behaviours
Table 2: Estimation results of static models
Parameters Relative
error, %
PSS/E
[a1 a3 , n1 n3 , a7] [0.334, 0.334, 0.332, 0.759, 0.759, 0.74
0.759, 0.338]
[a4 a6 , n4 n6 , a8] [0.333, 0.333, 0.333, 4.547, 4.547, 20.64
4.547, 6.371]
ZIP
[ p1 p3 , Kpf] [0.189, 0.42, 0.391, 0.3398] 0.75
[q1 q3 , Kqf] [2.0, 21.0, 0.0, 3.355] 16.81
exponential
[Kpv , Kpf] [0.772, 0.331] 0.76
[Kqv , Kqf] [4.522, 6.479] 20.63
EPRI
[Pa1 , Kpv1 , Kpf1 , Kpv2] [0.015, 21.134, 18.753, 0.795] 0.74
[Qa1 , Kqv1 , Kqf1 , Kqf2 , Kqv2] [1.023, 212.118, 2.814, 12.61
2.771, 212.732]
ZIP-exponential
[Kpi , Kpc , Kp1 , Kp2 , npv1, Kpf 1 , npv 2, Kpf 2] [0.6545, 0, 0.75
0.2941, 0.2999, 1.0, 0.5647, 1.0, 0.5711]
[Kqi , Kqc , Kq1 , Kq2 , nqv1, Kqf 1 , nqv 2, Kqf 2] [0, 21, 1, 19.51
1, 2.5562, 2.8596, 2.5553, 2.8618]
is also very satisfactory, 0.75%. It has been found that the
relative errors in modelling reactive power behaviours are
also large but less than that of PSS/E model.
The parameter number of exponential model is the least
among five static load models under study, only two. The
accuracy of modelling real power is close to other static
load models, 0.76%. Moreover, we observe that the expo-
nential load model gives only single parameter lying
within a reasonable range; hence, the issue of local
optimal solution does not exist in this case.
The number of parameters of EPRI model to be estimated
is four. The relative error of modelling real power is similar
to other static models, 0.74%, whereas the relative error of
modelling reactive power is smaller than other static
models, 12.61%. The ZIP-exponential model has eight par-
ameters and the relative error in modelling real power is
0.75%, whereas the relative error of modelling reactive
power is similar to other static models, 19.51%.
In the above analysis, the amount of data used for the par-
ameter estimation corresponds to the window length 2 s,
shown in Fig. 3. Pre-disturbance period is 0 0.5 s transient
period is 0.5 1.5 s and post-disturbance is 1.5 2 s. If this
window length is varied, the parameter estimation results
are shown in Table 3, taking exponential model as an
example.
In Table 3, the first row gives parameters and relative
errors when window length is 2 s, from 0 to 2 s. The second
row gives parameters and relative errors when window
length is 4 s, from 0 to 4 s. A long post-disturbance period
is covered. The third row gives parameters and relative
errors when window length is 0.5 s, from 1 to 1.5 s, in
which a partial transient period is included.
Table 3: Estimation results of exponential model with
different window length
Window Parameter Relative
length, s error, %
2 (0 2) [Kpv , Kpf] 0.772, 0.331 0.76
[Kqv , Kqf] 4.522, 6.479 20.63
4 (0 4) [Kpv , Kpf] 0.765, 0.315 0.69
[Kqv , Kqf] 4.243, 6.065 15.73
0.5 (11.5) [Kpv , Kpf] 0.776, 0.378 1.10
[Kqv , Kqf] 10.059, 17.501 25.44

426 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

 From the estimation results, we observe that when the Real Power Modeling - ZIP Model
Relative Error (%) - 0.79
window length is less than the length of transient period, 9
derived parameters of real power are similar to whereas
derived parameters of reactive power are much different 8.8
from those when window length is 2 s. Relative error of
real power increases from 0.76% to 1.10% and that of reac- 8.6
tive power increases from 20.63% to 25.44%. It indicates

Real power in p.u.

that the window should cover the entire transient period 8.4
for accurate load model parameters.
Another observation is that when the windows cover a 8.2
long post-disturbance period, the derived model parameters
are similar, whereas the relative errors decrease with the 8
size of window. For instance, the relative error of real
power decreases from 0.76% to 0.69% and that of reactive 7.8 Measured P
power decreases from 20.63% to 15.73%. According to Modeled P
(12), one can observe that the summation of measured 7.6
power increases whereas the summation of difference 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds
between measured power and modelled power is almost
same when a longer post-disturbance is covered. Therefore
Fig. 4 Modelled real power behaviour by ZIP model: corre-
relative errors decrease when window covers longer sponding relative error is 0.79%
post-disturbance period.
Overall, all the static load models under study are
acceptable for modelling real power behaviours during behaviours. Fig. 4 shows the measured real power and
disturbance (the relative errors are , 1%). For modelling modelled real power behaviours of ZIP model. And Fig. 5
reactive power behaviours, static load models are shows the measured real power and modelled real power
inadequate. Among the five static load models, we notice behaviours of exponential model.
that the exponential load model is very promising since it
gives reliable and consistently accurate solution and only 6.2 Induction motor load models
has two parameters to be estimated. Therefore from the
viewpoint of modelling real power behaviours during Induction motor load is an important component of power
disturbance, the static load models with suitably identified system dynamic loads. A first-order linear model for small
parameters are acceptable. Since transient stability analysis induction motor was derived in Lesieutre et al. [11]
is mainly concerned with real power behaviours of loads

dDPd dDV
during and after a disturbance, our study supports that DPd Tpp Kpv DV Tpv
appropriate static load models with suitably identified dt dt 13
parameters can be used for transient stability analysis. DQd Kqv DV Kqp DPd

6 Modelling dynamic behaviours of real power
One key goal in this study is to compare the performance of
static load models and dynamic load models in modelling
real power behaviours during disturbance. In this section,
the performance of ZIP model, exponential model, first-
order induction motor load model and third-order induction
motor load model in modelling real power behaviours is
compared. Two sets of measurement data obtained in SM
loading condition are chosen: one set of data is used to esti-
mate model parameters and simulate real power behaviours
during disturbance and the other set of data is used to
The total number of parameters to be estimated is five:
p [Tpp , Tpv , Kpv , Kqv , Kqp]T.
A third-order linear induction motor load model was
developed in Chiang et al. [12]. The total number
of parameters to be estimated is nine: p [Rs , Rr , Xs , Xm ,
Xr , H, T0 , vr0 , b]T.
The parameter values and the relative errors of first-order
and third-order induction motor load models in modelling
dynamic behaviours of real power are given in Table 5.
Real Power Modeling - Exponential Model
9
Relative Error (%) - 0.70

validate the performance of the derived load models.

8.8
6.1 Static models
8.6
Table 4 lists the parameter values and the relative error of
Real Power in p.u.

ZIP and exponential models in modelling real power 8.4

Table 4: Modelling results of ZIP and exponential 8.2

models
8
Parameters Relative
error, % 7.8
Measured P
Modeled P
ZIP 7.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
[ p1 p3 , Kpf] [0.1452, 0.6908, 0.1688, 0.2217] 0.79 time in seconds
exponential
[Kpv , Kpf] [0.859, 0.2074] 0.70 Fig. 5 Modelled real power behaviour by exponential model:
corresponding relative error is 0.70%

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007 427

Table 5: Modelling results of first-order and third-order Real Power Modeling - 3rd-order Induction Motor
Relative Error (%) - 0.56
induction motor load model 9

Parameters Relative 8.8

error %
8.6
first-order

Real Power in p.u.

[Tpp , Tpv , Kpv , Kqv , Kqp] [0.336, 0.1198, 6.8152, 0.62 8.4
211.7404, 1.4405]
third-order 8.2
[Rs , Rr , Xs , Xm , Xr , H, T0 , vr0 , b [0.0126, 0.56
0.00184, 0.00102, 0.346, 0.0252, 0.885, 15.56, 8

364.23, 12.176]
7.8 Measured P
Modeled P

Figs. 6 and 7 display the measured and modelled real power 7.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
behaviours of first-order and third-order induction motor time in seconds
load models. The relative error of first-order induction
motor load model is 0.62% and of third-order induction Fig. 7 Modelled real power behaviour by third-order induction
motor load model is 0.56%. motor model: corresponding relative error is 0.56%
A comparison of relative errors in modelling real power
by different load models is shown in Fig. 8. It is noticed Relative Errors of Modeling Real Power (%)

that in modelling dynamic behaviours of real power, 0.85

0.8
third-order induction motor load model gives the most accu-
0.75
rate result, first-order induction motor load model and expo- 0.7
nential model take the second and third places and ZIP 0.65
model gives a very slightly worse result. However, the 0.6
difference of the relative errors between third-order induc- 0.55

tion motor load model and ZIP model is ,0.25%. More
cases will be given in the next section to confirm this
observation.
How to model dynamic behaviours of real power during a
disturbance is a long-standing issue. This issue includes the
appropriateness of using a static nonlinear load model for
modelling real power behaviours during a disturbance.
Although the adoption of a dynamic load model such as
the third-order induction motor load model may slightly
improve the accuracy of modelling real power, it should
be recognised that a dynamic load model will increase the
dimension of system representation for power system
dynamic analysis and simulation. For example, Taiwan
power system is a medium-sized isolated power system.
The number of load buses is around 500. Applying different
load models for system dynamic simulation, the percentages
of system dimension increase are shown in Table 6. Here,
Real Power Modeling - 1st-order Induction Motor
Relative Error (%) - 0.62
9
8.9
0.5
ZIP Exponential 1st-order 3rd-order
Fig. 8 Comparison of modelling real power by different load
models
only the increase in the dimension of differential equations
is considered. It clearly shows the extent that dynamic load
models increase the dimension of system representation.
The more complicated a dynamic load model is, the more
system dimension it increases.
Overall, induction motor load models slightly increase
results in modelling real power behaviours, as compared
with ZIP and exponential models, at the expense of the
increase of system dimension. From a viewpoint of captur-
ing dynamic behaviours of real power during disturbance,
static nonlinear load models with suitably identified par-
ameters are acceptable and hence can be used for transient
stability analysis.
7 Representative parameter values

Since a set of parameters is obtained based on a given indi-

8.7
vidual measurement data set, the question of how to deter-
8.5
mine a representative set of parameters for a specific
loading condition arises when multiple measurement data
Real Power in p.u.

8.3
sets are available pertained to the loading condition. It is

8.1 Table 6: Percentages of system dimension increase for

different load models
7.9
Load model System dimension
7.7 Measured P increase
Modeled P
7.5 ZIP 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds exponential 0
first-order induction motor 12.5%
Fig. 6 Modelled real power behaviour by first-order induction third-order induction motor 37.5%
motor model: corresponding relative error is 0.62%

428 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

hence desirable to develop a set of representative par-
ameters for a load model structure that collectively can be
used for a loading condition under study. To this end, a
method is presented in this section to derive a representative
set of load parameters for each loading condition.
When multiple measurement data sets are available (e.g.
m measurement data sets), a representative set of parameters
of a certain loading condition can be developed by minimis-
ing the following error function that is a weighted sum of
individual mismatch error of m measurement data sets
X
m
p arg min wi 1i p
p
i1
where wi is a weighting factor for ith error function
1i ( p) . 1i( p) can be calculated according to (11). This for-
mulation is a weighted nonlinear least squares problem and
by introducing weighting factor wi , the importance of each
measurement data set can be emphasized. For simplicity, wi
is fixed to unity in this study.
Table 7 gives representative sets of parameters of expo-
nential model for SL and WL loading conditions, respect-
ively. The second column gives representative parameter
values of different loading conditions. And the relative mis-
match errors and average error are listed in the third to the
seventh column when applying the representative parameters
to four measurement data sets of each loading condition.
In Table 1, voltage dips of different measurement sets are
given. Under SL loading condition, SL1 has the largest
voltage dip whereas SL4 has the smallest voltage dip.
Under WL loading condition, WL3 has the largest voltage
dip whereas WL1 has the smallest voltage dip. However,
the load model with the representative parameters does not
give the smallest relative error under SL1 or WL3 and the
largest error under SL4 or WL1. It appears that there is no
direct correlation between voltage dip and relative errors.
The representative real and reactive power models for SL
and WL are shown in (14) and (15). The average errors in
modelling real power behaviours are 0.55% and 0.90%.
The average errors in modelling reactive power behaviours
are 8.68% and 9.32%.

0:836
V than ZIP model and exponential model. Since transient stab-
SL: PL P0 1 0:386Df ;
V0

9:4
V static load models are adequate for transient stability
QL Q0 1 7:468Df 14
V0

1:174
V
WL: PL P0 1 0:419Df ;
V0

11:953
V
QL Q0 1 3:094Df 15
V0
Hence, a set of representative parameters for a specific
loading condition has been obtained. The effectiveness
of the representative parameters is verified using different
measurement sets taken at the loading condition.
Fig. 9 show the real and reactive power behaviours of
exponential model of WL1 WL4 measurement data sets.
Again, it shows that static load models are adequate in
modelling real power behaviours (relative error ranges
from 0.7% to 1.1%) and can be used for transient stability
analysis.
13
8 Conclusions
In this paper, the adequacy of using static load models
for transient stability analysis is examined. Model par-
ameters of five static nonlinear load models are derived
with multiple sets of on-line measurements, and their
performances in modelling real and reactive power beha-
viours are compared. From the numerical studies, we have
the following.
1. Static nonlinear load models can be developed to
approximate the dynamic behaviours of real power.
Hence, static load models can be suitable for transient stab-
ility analysis; this development of static load models,
however, requires accurate parameter estimation based on
multiple measurement data.
2. For modelling real power behaviour, all five static
models under study give similar relative errors. The expo-
nential load model is very promising since it gives reliable
and consistently accurate solutions and only has two
parameters to be estimated.
3. In modelling real power behaviours, third-order induc-
tion motor load model gives the most accurate result,
first-order induction motor load model and exponential
model take the second and third places and the ZIP model
give a very slightly worse result. However, the difference
of the relative errors between third-order induction motor
load model and ZIP model is very small, less than 0.25%.
4. In modelling real power behaviours, induction motor
load model, does not give much more accurate results
ility analysis is mainly concerned with real power beha-
viours of load during and after a disturbance, appropriate
analysis.
5. Adopting dynamic load models in transient stability
analysis increases system dimension and can significantly
require computing effort for power system dynamic
simulation. This may limit the application of dynamic
load models in situations where computation speed is
critical.

Table 7: Representative sets of parameters of exponential model for two loading conditions

A set of parameters Relative error in real power, % 1avg (p) (%)

[Kp v ,Kp f] S/WL1 S/WL2 S/WL3 S/WL4

SL [0.836, 0.386] 0.59 0.55 0.53 0.55 0.55

WL [1.174, 0.419] 0.95 0.70 1.07 0.86 0.90

A set of parameters Relative error in reactive power, % 1avg (p) (%)

[Kqv ,Kqf] S/WL1 S/WL2 S/WL3 S/WL4
SL [9.400, 7.468] 8.47 9.88 9.77 6.58 8.68
WL [11.953, 3.094] 10.83 10.63 8.83 6.99 9.32

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007 429

 Real Power Modeling - Exponential Model Reactive Power Modeling - Exponential Model
Relative Error (%) - 0.95 Relative Error (%) - 10.83
3.9 0.7

3.8 0.6

3.7 0.5

Reactive Power in p.u.

3.6 0.4

Real Power in p.u.

3.5 0.3

3.4 0.2

3.3 0.1

3.2 0

3.1 Measured P -0.1 Measured Q

Modeled P Modeled Q
3 -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds time in seconds
a
Real Power Modeling - Exponential Model Reactive Power Modeling - Exponential Model
Relative Error (%) - 0.70 Relative Error (%) - 10.63
3.9 0.7

3.8 0.6

3.7 0.5

3.6 0.4

Reactive Power in p.u.

Real Power in p.u.

3.5 0.3

3.4 0.2

3.3 0.1

3.2 0

3.1 -0.1

3 Measured P -0.2 Measured Q

Modeled P Modeled Q
-0.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds time in seconds
b
Real Power Modeling - Exponential Model Reactive Power Modeling - Exponential Model
Relative Error (%) - 1.07 Relative Error (%) - 8.83
4.5 1.2
4.4
1
4.2
0.8
Reactive Power in p.u.

4
Real Power in p.u.

0.6

3.8
0.4

3.6
0.2

3.4 0

3.2 Measured P -0.2 Measured Q

Modeled P Modeled Q
3 -0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds time in second
c
Real Power Modeling - Exponential Model Reactive Power Modeling - Exponential Model
Relative Error (%) - 0.86 Relative Error (%) - 6.99
4.8 1.2

4.6 1

4.4 0.8
Reactive Power in p.u.
Real Power in p.u.

4.2 0.6

4 0.4

3.8 0.2

3.6 Measured P 0
Measured Q
Modeled P Modeled Q
3.4 -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
time in seconds time in seconds
d

Fig. 9 Modelled real and reactive power behaviours of exponential model of WL1 WL4 measurement data sets
a WL1: relative errors of modelled real and reactive powers are 0.95% and 10.83%, respectively
b WL2: relative errors of modelled real and reactive powers are 0.70% and 10.63%, respectively
c WL3: relative errors of modelled real and reactive powers are 1.07% and 8.83%, respectively
d WL4: relative errors of modelled real and reactive powers are 0.86% and 6.99%, respectively

430 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

6. From a practical viewpoint, it is desirable to develop a
representative set of parameters for a load model structure
that can capture the load behaviour for a specific loading
condition. To this end, a method is presented in this paper
to derive a representative set of load parameters for a
static load model structure for a loading condition.
7. Load models are derived for each substation using the
measurement-based approach. This decoupled approach
is applicable to any power system, medium-size or large
scale, or to more complex systems.
9 References
1 CIGRE Task Force 38.02.05: Load modeling and dynamics, Electra,
1990, (130), pp. 122141
2 Chiou, C.-Y., Huang, C.-H., Chiang, H.-D., and Yuan, J.-L.:
Development of a micro-processor-based transient data recording
system for load behavior analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1993,
8, (1), pp. 1622
3 Wang, J.-C., Chiang, H.-D., Chang, C.-L., and Liu, A.-H.:
Development of a frequency-dependent composite load model
using the measurement approach, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1994,
9, (3), pp. 1546 1556
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007
4 Lin, C.-J., Chen, Y.-T., Chiang, H.-D., and Wang, J.-C.: Dynamic
load models in power systems using the measurement approach,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1993, 8, (1), pp. 309 315
5 Tseng, K.-H., Kao, W.-S., and Lin, J.-R.: Load model effects on
distance relay settings, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2003, 18, (4),
pp. 11401146
6 Kundur, P.: Power system stability and control (McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, 1994)
7 IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic
PerformanceBibliography on load models for power flow and
dynamic performance simulation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1995,
10, (1), pp. 523538
8 Dias, L.G., and El-Hawary, M.E.: Nonlinear parameter estimation
experiments for static load modeling in electric power systems, IEE
Proc., 1989, 136, (2), pp. 68 77
9 Fletcher, R.: Practical methods of optimization (John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1987, 2nd edn.)
10 Knyazkin, V., Canizares, C.A., and Soder, L.H.: On the parameter
estimation and modeling of aggregate power system loads, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2004, 19, (2), pp. 10231031
11 Lesieutre, B.C., Sauer, P.W., and Pai, M.A.: Development
and comparative study of induction machine based dynamic P, Q
load models, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1995, 10, (1), pp. 182191
12 Chiang, H.-D., Wang, J.-C., Huang, C.-T., Chen, Y.-T., and Huang,
C.-H.: Development of a dynamic ZIP-motor load model from
on-line field measurements, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.,
1997, 19, (7), pp. 459 468
431