Oscillations-Aware Frequency Security Assessment via Efficient Worst-Case Frequency Nadir Computation

Abstract

Frequency security assessment following major disturbances has long been one of the central tasks in power system operations. The standard approach is to study the center of inertia frequency, an aggregate signal for an entire system, to avoid analyzing the frequency signal at individual buses. However, as the amount of low-inertia renewable resources in a grid increases, the center of inertia frequency is becoming too coarse to provide reliable frequency security assessment. In this paper, we propose an efficient algorithm to determine the worst-case frequency nadir across all buses for bounded power disturbances, as well as identify the power disturbances leading to that severest scenario. The proposed algorithm allows oscillations-aware frequency security assessment without conducting exhaustive simulations and intractable analysis.

Y. Jiang and B. Zhang are partially supported by NSF award ECCS-2153937.

I Introduction

Frequency security assessment following major disturbances is an important problem in power system operations. In compact power systems where the whole system can be modelled as an equivalent synchronous machine, there is a relatively complete understanding of the frequency dynamics, with explicit formulas derived for quantities such as frequency nadir and rate of change of frequency [jiangtps2021]. However, for power systems whose inter-machine oscillations are unignorable, the frequency security assessment becomes challenging as the magnitude and location of oscillations depend on a number of factors, including inertia, dam**, spatial shape of the excitation, network connectivity, and other operating conditions.

One approach to reduce the size of the problem is to study the center of inertia (COI) frequency, which is the inertia-weighted average of the frequency signals at individual buses [milano2017rotor, azizi2020local]. This approach works well when all buses exhibit a relatively coherent frequency response [Min2021lcss]. However, as increased amount of low-inertia renewable resources located in remote areas enter the grid through long transmission lines, it becomes insufficient to only consider the COI frequency since significant oscillations can occur which makes the transient frequencies on individual buses deviate drastically from the COI frequency.

Large oscillations can become a major obstacle towards power system stability, which makes them receive extensive attention from the power engineering community (see [klein1991fundamental, rogers2000, aboul1996dam**, rafique2022bibliographic] and references within). However, the fact that oscillations present a variety of highly-coupled interaction among individual buses makes it nontrivial to provide analytical results in large-scale power systems. For example, although it has been widely realized that the transmission network topology and line parameters play prominent roles in spatiotemporal dynamics of oscillations, their exact impact on system oscillatory behavior is far from well-understood. Therefore, dynamical simulations are typically needed to study the impact of network structure and parameters changes [rogers2000, Gautam2009TPS, Pagnier2019Plos, zhangtseoscillation], which is inefficient since the number of possible scenarios that needs to be simulated can be significant before one can gain insight. A recent effort to avoid dynamical simulations is by providing a conservative analytical boundary for individual oscillatory bus frequencies under any given power disturbances [Khamisov2024TPS], whose cumbersome expressions, however, make it still hard to reveal the system level tolerance to arbitrary bounded power disturbances without running extensive numerical tests.

Recently, techniques and results directly providing analytical insights on oscillations at weak grid conditions have gained renewed interest, which are typically done by investigating the network Laplacian [guo2018cdc, rouco1998eigenvalue, Minl4dc23cluster] or adjacency [AllibhoyOJCSoscillation] matrix. These approaches have uncovered many interesting patterns, but they cannot yet answer some specific power system operational questions. For instance, an important question is to find the worst-case oscillations (in terms of frequency nadir) for bounded power disturbances, which can serve as more reliable frequency security assessment in power systems with high renewables than the COI frequency. However, there is no existing guideline on how to do this beyond exhaustive simulations or conservative bounds from spectral graph theory.

In this paper, we propose an efficient worst-case frequency nadir computation algorithm, which enables us to conduct oscillations-aware frequency security assessment without the need for exhaustive simulations and intractable analysis. Moreover, we demonstrate that what allocation of power disturbances will lead to the worst-case frequency nadir varies with the network connectivity. Particularly, we show the worstness of evenly injected disturbances in homogeneous power networks with strong connectivity. As for more practical settings, one can resort to our proposed algorithm to avoid exhaustive simulations and intractable analysis.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the power system model and formalizes the worst-case frequency nadir problem. Section III derives an efficient algorithm to solve this problem, where a proportionality assumption on generation unit parameters is used to ease the problem. Section LABEL:sec:homo-case illustrates, through theoretical analyses on power networks with homogeneous generation units, the high dependency of the worst-case frequency nadir on network connectivity. Section LABEL:sec:simulation validates the performance of our algorithm through detailed simulations. Section LABEL:sec:conclusion gathers our conclusions and outlook.

II Modeling Approach and Problem Formulation

In this section, we describe the power system model used in this paper and motivate the worst-case frequency nadir problem we aim to solve.

II-A Power System Model

We consider a connected power network composed of $n$ buses indexed by $i\in\mathcal{N}:=\{1,\dots,n\}$ and transmission lines denoted by unordered pairs $\{i,j\}\in\mathcal{E}\subset\{\{i,j\}:i,j\in\mathcal{N},i\neq j\}$, whose linearized dynamics around an operating point is shown in Fig.1. This is a standard model and interested readers can refer to [Zhao:2013ts] for details on the linearization procedure. The system is modeled as a feedback interconnection of bus dynamics and network dynamics [pm2019preprint, jiang2021tac, jiang2021lcss], where the input and output are the power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}:=\left(p_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$) and the bus frequency deviations from the nominal value $\boldsymbol{\omega}:=\left(\omega_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$), respectively.

Figure 1: Block diagram of power network.

The bus dynamics that map the net bus power imbalance $\boldsymbol{p}_{\mathrm{n}}:=\left(p_{\mathrm{n},i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$) to the frequency deviations $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ can be described by a diagonal transfer matrix $\hat{\boldsymbol{G}}(s):=\mathrm{diag}\left(\hat{g}_{i}(s),i\in\mathcal{N}\right)$ whose diagonal element $\hat{g}_{i}(s)$ represents the transfer function of a generation unit on bus $i$, say a synchronous generator or a grid-forming inverter. A standard example typically includes inertia $m_{i}>0$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{s}$) and dam** $d_{i}>0$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$) terms, i.e.,

$$\hat{g}_{i}(s)=\dfrac{1}{m_{i}s+d_{i}}\,,\quad\forall i\in\mathcal{N}\,.$$ (1)

Then, we have

$$\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(s)=\hat{\boldsymbol{G}}(s)\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_{\mathrm{n}}(s)\,,$$ (2)

where $\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(s)$ and $\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_{\mathrm{n}}(s)$ denote the Laplace transforms of $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ and $\boldsymbol{p}_{\mathrm{n}}$, respectively.

The network dynamics characterizes the relationship between the fluctuations in power drained into the transmission network $\boldsymbol{p}_{\mathrm{e}}:=\left(p_{\mathrm{e},i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$) and the frequency deviations $\boldsymbol{\omega}$, which is given by a linearized model of the power flow equations [Purchala2005dc-flow]:

$$\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}_{\mathrm{e}}(s)=\frac{\boldsymbol{L}_{\mathrm{B}}}{s}\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(s)\;,$$ (3)

where the matrix $\boldsymbol{L}_{\mathrm{B}}:=\left[L_{\mathrm{B},{ij}}\right]\in^{n\times n}$ is an undirected weighted Laplacian matrix of the network whose $ij$th element is

$$\boldsymbol{L}_{\mathrm{B},{ij}}=\Omega_{0}\partial_{\theta_{j}}{\sum_{l=1}^{n}|V_{i}||V_{l}|B_{il}\sin(\theta_{i}-\theta_{l})}\Bigr{|}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}=\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}}.$$

Here, $\boldsymbol{\theta}:=\left(\theta_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ are the voltage angles with $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{0}$ being the equilibrium angles (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{rad}$), $|V_{i}|$ is the (constant) voltage magnitude at bus $i$ (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$), $B_{ij}$ is the line $\{i,j\}$ susceptance (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$), and $\Omega_{0}:=2\pi F_{0}$ is the nominal frequency (in $\text{\,}\mathrm{rad}\mathrm{/}\mathrm{s}$) with $F_{0}$ being $50\text{\,}\mathrm{Hz}$ or $60\text{\,}\mathrm{Hz}$ depending on the particular system.

We are interested in the closed-loop response of frequency deviations $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ following power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}$ in the power network shown in Fig. 1. This can be obtained by combining (2) and (3) through the relation $\boldsymbol{p}_{\mathrm{n}}=\boldsymbol{p}-\boldsymbol{p}_{\mathrm{e}}$ as

$$\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(s)=\left(\boldsymbol{I}_{n}+\hat{\boldsymbol{G}}(s)\frac{\boldsymbol{L}_{\mathrm{B}}}{s}\right)^{-1}\hat{\boldsymbol{G}}(s)\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}(s)\,.$$ (4)

However, although (4) is a closed-form expression, it is difficult to work with since the size of the matrices and vectors involved could be quite high. A standard simplification is to work with the center of inertia (COI) frequency, defined as

$$\bar{\omega}:=\dfrac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}m_{i}\omega_{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}m_{i}}\,,$$ (5)

which is the inertia-weighted average of individual bus frequencies. The COI frequency is a good representative of the system frequency response if the power network is tightly-connected [Min2021lcss]. However, as more renewable resources are integrated, especially at edges of the power network, significant oscillatory behavior could occur. Thus, it becomes insufficient to only consider the COI frequency.

II-B Illustrative Example of Frequency Oscillations

(a) All buses are tightly-connected

(b) Bus $1$ is weakly-connected from buses $2$ and $3$

Figure 2: A $3$-bus example showing that COI frequency is insufficient for frequency security assessment since the oscillations due to weak connectivity can make the transient frequencies on individual buses deviate drastically from the COI frequency.

To see this, we provide a toy $3$-bus power network example in Fig. 2 to show different types of oscillatory behaviors. Basically, we compare the frequency responses of the system with strong and weak network connectivity by varying the line impedance parameters on the same network topology, where the same generation units are deployed and the same power disturbances are applied in two cases for a fair comparison. When sudden power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}=[-0.1689,0,0]^{T}\mathds{U}_{t\geq 0}$ $\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$ occur at $t=$1\text{\,}\mathrm{s}$$, the trajectories of the frequencies are as shown in Fig. 2.

For the more tightly-connected system in Fig. 2(a), the frequency trajectories at all buses closely track each other, even though the disturbance is only at bus $1$. In this case, the COI frequency acts as a good proxy of the nodal frequencies. In contrast, the frequency trajectories in Fig. 2(b) exhibit significant oscillations against each other with large nadirs while the COI frequency is well-behaved. Therefore, relying just on the COI frequency could lead to an erroneous conclusion about the frequency security of the system. Of course, the behavior in Fig. 2(b) is not unexpected since bus $1$ is “weakly” connected with the other buses. However, as the power network gets larger, it is more challenging to draw intuitive conclusions, which makes additional analysis techniques become necessary.

II-C Oscillations-Aware Frequency Security Assessment

To provide quantitative tools for frequency security assessment, we focus on the metric of frequency nadir in the rest of the paper, which is defined as the maximum frequency deviation from the nominal frequency at each bus during a transient response, i.e., $\max_{t\geq 0}|\omega_{i}(t)|$. Since a too large frequency nadir could trigger undesired protection measures and even cause cascading failures, its value is crucial to frequency security. For example, the maximum allowed frequency nadir is $800\text{\,}\mathrm{mHz}$ ($0.016\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$ on a $50\text{\,}\mathrm{Hz}$ base) for the European system [Knap2016size] and $500\text{\,}\mathrm{mHz}$ ($0.01\text{\,}\mathrm{p.u.}$ on a $50\text{\,}\mathrm{Hz}$ base) for the Great Britain system [NG2016, NG2016standard].

To make a power network more reliable, our first order of business involves securing its frequency response against unanticipated power disturbances. That is, we would like to prejudge whether the frequency nadir on each bus would stay in the allowed threshold for any step power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}=\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\mathds{U}_{t\geq 0}$ with $\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\in^{n}$ being arbitrary up to a norm constraint $\|\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\|\leq\rho$ for some $\rho>0$. Compactly, this asks for the solution of the following worst-case frequency nadir problem:

$$\max_{\begin{subarray}{c}\boldsymbol{p}=\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\mathds{U}_{t\geq 0}\\ \left\{\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\in^{n}\!\,\middle|\,\mathopen{}\!\|\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\|\leq\rho\right\}\end{subarray}}\!\!\!\!\!\! \max_{i\in\mathcal{N}}\ \ \max_{t>0}|\omega_{i}(t)| \mathrm{s.t.}\quad\mathrm{dynamics}\ \eqref{eq:twp}\,,$$ (8)

which is computationally challenging due to the nested maximums over all power disturbance profiles, all buses, and all time.

Our goal is to design an efficient algorithm to solve the above problem. This is in general challenging due to the high complexity of frequency dynamics. Nevertheless, when the parameters of generation units satisfy a commonly used proportionality assumption [guo2018cdc, pm2019preprint, jiang2021tac], the frequency responses can be decomposed in a way that allows us to solve (8) efficiently. Moreover, for certain types of networks, (8) can be solved analytically, providing interesting intuition about the spatial and temporal behavior of oscillations.

III Efficient Worst-Case Frequency Nadir Algorithm for Proportional Power Networks

In this section, we show that, under a simplifying assumption, it is possible to decompose the frequency dynamics, which enables us to propose an efficient algorithm to solve the worst-case frequency nadir problem formulated in Section II-C.

III-A Modal Decomposition of Frequency Dynamics

The example in Section II-B shows that the frequency nadir of a power network is a result of interference between the frequency oscillations at each bus, which can have a complicated dependence on the parameters and topology of the network. Hence, a better evaluation of the worst-case frequency nadir requires a deeper understanding of frequency oscillations. However, since the oscillations present a variety of highly-coupled interactions between individual buses, it is challenging to solve (8) in large-scale power systems with heterogeneous generation units. To make the analysis tractable, we consider proportionality as a reasonable first-cut approximation to heterogeneity [pm2019preprint], under which the frequency dynamics (4) are decoupled and thus the problem (8) can be solved efficiently. Hence, we adopt the following assumption in the rest of this paper:

Assumption 1 (Proportionality).

There exists a group of proportional parameters $r_{i}>0$, $i\in\mathcal{N}$, such that

$$\hat{g}_{i}(s)=\dfrac{\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)}{r_{i}}\,,$$

where $\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)$ is called the representative generation unit.

For example, for the case where $\hat{g}_{i}(s)$ has (1) as its model, Assumption 1 is satisfied provided that inertia and dam** are both proportional to $r_{i}$. That is, $\forall i\in\mathcal{N}$, $\exists r_{i}>0$ such that $m_{i}=r_{i}m$ and $d_{i}=r_{i}d$ for some $m$ and $d$, i.e.,

$$\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)=\dfrac{1}{ms+d}\,.$$ (9)

Remark 1 (Proportionality extensions).

The practical relevance of Assumption 1 is justified in many empirical studies. For example, [oakridge2013] shows that, at least in regards of order of magnitude, Assumption 1 is a reasonable first-cut approximation to heterogeneity. In fact, the heterogeneous case can be considered as a diagonal perturbation from the ideal proportional case [pm2019preprint, Section VI-A]. Thus, the results derived from proportional power networks can be extended to networks with heterogeneous generation units. In this case, the performance can be assessed through a robustness analysis, which is an interesting direction for further research.

Under Assumption 1, it has been well-established that the dynamics in (4) can be decoupled as [pm2019preprint, jiang2021tac]

$$\hat{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(s)=\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{V}\mathrm{diag}\left(\hat{z}_{k}(s),k\in\mathcal{N}\right)\boldsymbol{V}^{T}\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}(s)\;,$$ (10)

with

$$\hat{z}_{k}(s):=\frac{s\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)}{s+\lambda_{k}\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)}\;,\quad\forall k\in\mathcal{N}\,,$$ (11)

where $\boldsymbol{R}:=\mathrm{diag}\left(r_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n\times n}$ is the proportionality matrix and

$$\boldsymbol{V}\!:=\!\begin{bmatrix}\boldsymbol{v}_{1}\!:=\!(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\!r_{i})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbbold{1}_{n}\!&\!\boldsymbol{v}_{2}&\!\cdots\!&\boldsymbol{v}_{n}\end{bmatrix}\!\!\in\!^{n\times n}$$ (13)

satisfying $\boldsymbol{V}^{T}\boldsymbol{V}=\boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{V}^{T}=\boldsymbol{I}_{n}$ is an orthonormal matrix whose columns $\boldsymbol{v}_{k}:=\left(v_{k,i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ are unit eigenvectors associated with the scaled Laplacian matrix

$$\boldsymbol{L}:=\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{L}_{\mathrm{B}}\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\in^{n\times n}$$ (14)

such that $\boldsymbol{L}=\boldsymbol{V}\mathrm{diag}\left(\lambda_{k},k\in\mathcal{N}\right)\boldsymbol{V}^{T}$ with $\lambda_{k}$ being the $k$th eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{L}$ ordered non-decreasingly $(0=\lambda_{1}<\lambda_{2}\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_{n})$.

Note that $\boldsymbol{V}$ has orthonormal columns $\boldsymbol{v}_{k}$, $\forall k\in\mathcal{N}$, which are automatically linearly independent [Horn2012MA, Theorem 2.1.2]. It readily follows that $\boldsymbol{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}$, $\forall k\in\mathcal{N}$, are linearly independent as well since $\boldsymbol{R}$ is nonsingular by its construction. Thus, the $n$ linearly independent vectors $\boldsymbol{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}$, $\forall k\in\mathcal{N}$, form a basis that spans ${}^{n}$. This implies that any step power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}=\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\mathds{U}_{t\geq 0}$ that the power network undergoes can always be decomposed along this basis, i.e., $\exists\boldsymbol{\alpha}:=\left(\alpha_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)\in^{n}$ such that

$$\boldsymbol{u}_{0}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\alpha_{k}\boldsymbol{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}=\boldsymbol{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{\alpha}\,.$$ (15)

Combining (10) and (15) via $\hat{\boldsymbol{p}}(s)=\boldsymbol{u}_{0}/s$ yields the following decomposition of frequency responses along the scaled Laplacian eigenvectors.

Lemma 1 (Decomposition along scaled Laplacian eigenvectors).

Under Assumption 1, if the power network in Fig. 1 undergoes step power disturbances $\boldsymbol{p}=\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\mathds{U}_{t\geq 0}$, then the frequency responses can be decoupled into

$${\boldsymbol{\omega}}(t)= \sum_{k=1}^{n}\alpha_{k}h_{k}(t)\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}$$ (16)

$$= \ \dfrac{\alpha_{1}h_{1}(t)}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}r_{i}}}\mathbbold{1}_{n}+\sum_{k=2}^{n}\alpha_{k}h_{k}(t)\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}\,,$$ (17)

where

$$\boldsymbol{\alpha}:= \left(\alpha_{i},i\in\mathcal{N}\right)=\boldsymbol{V}^{T}\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{u}_{0}\,,$$ (18)

$$h_{k}(t):= \ \mathscr{L}^{-1}\left\{\frac{\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)}{s+\lambda_{k}\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)}\right\}\;,\quad\forall k\in\mathcal{N}\,.$$ (19)

Proof.

See the Appendix LABEL:app:lem1-pf. ∎

Lemma 1 makes the physical interpretation of modal decomposition more clear. We can observe from (16) that the frequency responses are a linear combination of independent modes along the directions dictated by the scaled Laplacian eigenvectors. For example, $h_{k}(t)$ captures the frequency response of the power network along $\boldsymbol{R}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\boldsymbol{v}_{k}$ to step power disturbances. Particularly, as shown in (17), the first mode actually characterizes the common behavior among individual buses as a scaled step response of the representative generation unit $\hat{g}_{\mathrm{o}}(s)$ while the remaining modes represent the oscillations among them. In fact, one can easily show by a similar argument as in [pm2019preprint] that the common behavior is the $r_{i}$-weighted average of individual bus frequencies, i.e., $(\sum_{i=1}^{n}r_{i}\omega_{i})/(\sum_{i=1}^{n}r_{i})$, which is exactly the COI frequency defined in (5) if $\hat{g}_{i}(s)$ has (1) as its model. Therefore, the modal decomposition in (17) confirms our intuition that the COI frequency becomes insufficient for frequency security assessment in a power network where those oscillatory modes are unignorable.

III-B Worst-Case Frequency Nadir Algorithm

The decoupled frequency dynamics (16) derived in Section III-A enables us to propose an efficient algorithm summarized in Algorithm LABEL:alg:Nadir to solve the worst-case frequency nadir problem (8) in Section II-C. We now explain the rationale behind Algorithm LABEL:alg:Nadir in detail.