Ranking of power system contingencies based on a risk quantification criterion

Contingency analysis is an integral part of modern energy management system. Traditionally, contingencies are analyzed to check a predefined, deterministic set of limit violations. Contingencies are then ranked according to the severity of the violations. However, this approach treats all contingency events equally likely; as far as the probability of occurrence is concerned. This paper describes a ranking approach that accounts for both the severity and likelihood of the underlying system contingencies. A risk-based contingency ranking (RCR) metric is developed which incorporates limit violations associated with bus voltages and transmission line thermal limits along with their failure rates. The proposed approach is applied to the IEEE 14 bus system and IEEE RTS 24 bus system. A comparison is carried out between the traditional contingency ranking based on severity only and the proposed approach using the RCR metric. The merits and limitations of each approach are further discussed in light of the current operating practices of power systems which include a growing number of uncertainties.

[1]  L. Bertling,et al.  Probabilistic security assessment for power system operations , 2004, IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004..

[2]  Mohamed A. El-Sharkawi,et al.  Large scale dynamic security screening and ranking using neural networks , 1997 .

[3]  Pierluigi Mancarella,et al.  The Grid: Stronger, Bigger, Smarter? , 2015 .

[4]  Mohamed Shaaban,et al.  Operational security criterion of a smart grid , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy.

[5]  Fernando L. Alvarado,et al.  Contingency ranking for voltage collapse via sensitivities from a single nose curve , 1999 .

[6]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[7]  R. Stephenson.  A and V , 1962, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  Wenyuan Li,et al.  Risk Assessment Of Power Systems: Models, Methods, and Applications , 2004 .

[9]  G. Ejebe,et al.  Automatic Contingency Selection , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems.

[10]  O. Alsac,et al.  Security analysis and optimization , 1987, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[11]  Thomas J. Overbye,et al.  Interactive 3D Visualization of Power System Information , 2003 .

[12]  Dick Duffey,et al.  Power Generation , 1932, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers.

[13]  Philip G. Hill,et al.  Power generation , 1927, Journal of the A.I.E.E..

[14]  Peter W. Sauer,et al.  A Sparse Representation Approach to Online Estimation of Power System Distribution Factors , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[15]  Dilson Amancio Alves,et al.  Assessment of branch outage contingencies using the continuation method , 2014 .

[16]  James S. Thorp,et al.  The effect of load model composition on N-1 contingency ranking , 2015, 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT).

[17]  James D. McCalley,et al.  Online risk-based security assessment , 2002 .

[18]  Pierluigi Mancarella,et al.  The Grid: Stronger, Bigger, Smarter?: Presenting a Conceptual Framework of Power System Resilience , 2015, IEEE Power and Energy Magazine.

[19]  M. Shaaban.  Risk-based security assessment in smart power grids , 2011, 2011 IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Middle East.

[20]  A. Invernizzi,et al.  Power system security assessment: a position paper , 1997 .

[21]  Nilanjan Ray Chaudhuri,et al.  Fast contingency screening and ranking for small signal stability assessment , 2014, 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting | Conference & Exposition.

[22]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.