# Proving a Concept of Flexible Under-Frequency Load Shedding with Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methods

#### 2.1. Innovative Use of Rate-of-Change-of-Frequency

_{LIM}). For this purpose, an assumption is made that if none of the frequency control/protection functionalities intervene, the f(t) variation will follow the same trend as indicated by the respective RoCoF(t) measurement at the same instant. The local nature of the EPS frequency dynamics that follows an active power imbalance ΔP incident means that in a selected point in time, the calculated M(t) is different in every busbar in the system (due to the oscillating nature of the EPS [20]). In Figure 1a, the blue and yellow curves depict the EPS frequency response to two unequal ΔP incidents (ΔP

_{1}and ΔP

_{2}respectively) assumed to have taken place in the same busbar. At moment t = t

_{1}, respective RoCoF(t

_{1}) indicates different M(t

_{1}) values, depending on the underlying ΔP incident. It is clear from Figure 1a that ΔP

_{1}caused a less serious frequency excursion compared to ΔP

_{2}. This manifests in a larger M(t

_{1}) value, an indicator of having more time before f

_{LIM}is reached.

_{LIM}) in the lower left part of the diagram (blue curve) or (ii) far away from the ordinate axis in the right-hand side of the diagram (yellow curve). This conclusion makes one able to define a new, double-criteria UFLS tripping function for each UFLS stage. The first criterion remains identical to conventional UFLS, being the violation of a predefined frequency threshold f

_{thr}. The second criterion, on the other hand, is a violation of a predefined stability threshold M

_{thr}and is monitored independently of the first. Only when both tripping criteria are simultaneously fulfilled, the trip signal is generated. A simplified logical diagram of the process is presented in Figure 2 since the detailed version is a subject to an international patent application submitted by the University of Ljubljana.

_{thr}criterion not being violated simultaneously in different locations. This can be seen as if one is dealing with a much larger number of UFLS stages, which can eventually manifest as a fine-tuning of UFLS (further explained in the continuation of this paper).

#### 2.2. Intelligent Electronic Device

_{S}), high accuracy and short response times, input/output (I/O) ports and real-time processing. By modifying the external quantities according to the needs of the innovative UFLS method, we obtained a fully functional IED device that is ready for deployment.

#### 2.3. Rate-of-Change-of-Frequency Filtering

_{S}. To decrease the noise, we could lower F

_{S}, but this would lead to a slower response of the UFLS system depending on RoCoF. This is why it is of utmost importance to find the optimal response of the UFLS system while still getting meaningful values for RoCoF. In Figure 4, the 200-ms-long windowing function was added to the RoCoF calculation (to both the PMU-IED and the PMU-COMM) that averages all samples (moving average) in the window. Averaging reduces the system response capabilities since, with a longer window, it passes only the DC component in its limit in the frequency domain. As seen in Figure 4, the moving average filter greatly improves the RoCoF reported by both devices. On the other hand, this is achieved on account of having a higher output delay (around half of the window length, i.e., ≈100 ms, which can be noticed as a shift of the PMU-IED and PMU-COMM curves with respect to the PMU-RTDS), which is also reflected in the f(t)-M(t) diagram (Figure 4b).

_{S}(50 Hz) and the noise reduction is related to the square root of points used in the window [23].

## 3. Experimental Setup

#### 3.1. HIL Setup—Overview

#### 3.1.1. Real-Time Digital Simulator

#### 3.1.2. Omicron CMS-156 Amplifier

#### 3.2. HIL Setup—Intelligent Electronic Device

_{LIM}and all threshold values (f

_{thr}and M

_{thr}) can be provided separately, together with window widths for filtering described in Figure 7.

#### 3.3. HIL Setup—Electric Power System

_{x}-UFLS where subscript “x” represents the number of the corresponding busbar. The seventh partition, however, represents the remaining aggregation of all the consumers not included in the UFLS scheme (L

_{x}-S). Second, an infinite power source was additionally introduced to the model, busbar 4, to be more specific. Its disconnection was considered the main event causing active power deficit conditions in the newly formed island. With this, many different power conditions can be simulated by changing the steady-state production of all three generating units prior to the main event. An infinite power source in all cases supplies/consumes enough power to meet the power balance in a steady-state. Once disconnected, an EPS island is formed with a certain imbalance between the production and the consumption of active and reactive powers. In this paper, circumstances with a lack of active power were simulated, which cause an EPS frequency to decay and consequently trigger UFLS.

_{5}on busbar 5 and was able to disconnect loads L

_{5}-UFLS according to Table 1. The other two load busbars (6 and 8) were monitored and controlled with a PMU-RTDS component within a simulated environment, fed by voltages U

_{6}and U

_{8}, respectively.

## 4. Results

_{thr}are taken from the Slovenian Grid code [27], and additional frequency stability margin thresholds M

_{thr}are selected with a one-second span between them since the analysis showed there are no special differences when selected otherwise.

_{LIM}.

_{thr}and M

_{thr}values are set to same values for all three devices participating in a UFLS scheme, the variety of calculated M(t) values is much higher across the network than the variety of calculated f(t) values. With three load busses, we therefore introduced three ‘’substages’’ for each of the UFLS stages, which can be seen as fine-tuning power imbalance with UFLS. Furthermore, in systems with more load busses, even finer tuning could be achieved due to those inherently introduced substages.

_{LIM}and, consequently, the M criterion of the fifth stage would have been triggered.

_{thr}) and it is vital to be aware that this is also the case with innovative UFLS. The initial concern with the innovative UFLS scheme was related to extreme scenarios, in which the curve on the f(t)-M(t) plane is expected to make a rather abrupt jump from the upper right corner (steady-state conditions) to the upper left corner of the diagram once power imbalance appears. The delayed recognition of such critical conditions due to two additional moving average filters (Figure 7) could, therefore, translate into f

_{thr}of a certain stage being violated before the corresponding M

_{thr}. This would in turn be observed as shedding at lower frequency compared to a conventional UFLS scheme. However, our testing proved that even when dealing with an extreme initial RoCoF $(\cong $−10 Hz/s), the M

_{thr}criterion is still violated sufficiently prior to the f

_{thr}criterion. In Table 2, the actual frequency at which the M

_{thr}was met is given for each UFLS stage. Evidently, M criteria of all UFLS stages were met before the frequency even reached the f

_{thr}value of the first UFLS stage (0.483 Hz margin in a worst-case scenario—see the last column in Table 2). This proves that the innovative UFLS scheme would respond to such an extreme event identically as the conventional scheme, with no additional time delay.

## 5. Conclusions

## 6. Patents

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- H2020 Migrate. Available online: https://www.h2020-migrate.eu/ (accessed on 14 May 2020).
- Winter, W.; Elkington, K.; Bareux, G.; Kostevc, J. Pushing the Limits: Europe’s New Grid: Innovative Tools to Combat Transmission Bottlenecks and Reduced Inertia. IEEE Power Energy. Mag.
**2015**, 13, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anderson, P.M. Power System Control and Stability, 2nd ed.; Wiley-IEEE Press: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-471-23862-1. [Google Scholar]
- Pulgar-Painemal, H.; Wang, Y.; Silva-Saravia, H. On Inertia Distribution, Inter-Area Oscillations and Location of Electronically-Interfaced Resources. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2018**, 33, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bidram, A.; Davoudi, A. Hierarchical Structure of Microgrids Control System. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
**2012**, 3, 1963–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, S.; Tang, F.; Shao, Y.; Liao, Q. Adaptive Under-Frequency Load Shedding Scheme in System Integrated with High Wind Power Penetration: Impacts and Improvements. Energies
**2017**, 10, 1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Małkowski, R.; Nieznański, J. Underfrequency Load Shedding: An Innovative Algorithm Based on Fuzzy Logic. Energies
**2020**, 13, 1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sigrist, L. A UFLS Scheme for Small Isolated Power Systems Using Rate-of-Change of Frequency. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2015**, 30, 2192–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hong, Y.-Y.; Nguyen, M.-T. Multiobjective Multiscenario Under-Frequency Load Shedding in a Standalone Power System. IEEE Syst. J.
**2020**, 14, 2759–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Banijamali, S.S.; Amraee, T. Semi-Adaptive Setting of Under Frequency Load Shedding Relays Considering Credible Generation Outage Scenarios. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.
**2019**, 34, 1098–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Potel, B.; Cadoux, F.; De Alvaro Garcia, L.; Debusschere, V. Clustering-based method for the feeder selection to improve the characteristics of load shedding. IET Smart Grid
**2019**, 2, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shekari, T.; Gholami, A.; Aminifar, F.; Sanaye-Pasand, M. An Adaptive Wide-Area Load Shedding Scheme Incorporating Power System Real-Time Limitations. IEEE Syst. J.
**2018**, 12, 759–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zuo, Y.; Frigo, G.; Derviškadić, A.; Paolone, M. Impact of Synchrophasor Estimation Algorithms in ROCOF-Based Under-Frequency Load-Shedding. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2020**, 35, 1305–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - He, P.; Wen, B.; Wang, H. Decentralized Adaptive Under Frequency Load Shedding Scheme Based on Load Information. IEEE Access
**2019**, 7, 52007–52014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tofis, Y.; Timotheou, S.; Kyriakides, E. Minimal Load Shedding Using the Swing Equation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2017**, 32, 2466–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jallad, J.; Mekhilef, S.; Mokhlis, H.; Laghari, J.A. Improved UFLS with consideration of power deficit during shedding process and flexible load selection. IET Renew. Power Gener.
**2018**, 12, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rudez, U.; Mihalic, R. RoCoF-based Improvement of Conventional Under-Frequency Load Shedding. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech, Milan, Italy, 23–27 June 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Maglia, M.F.; Olama, M.M.; Ollis, B. Hardware-in-the-loop Testing of Signal Temporal Logic Frequency Control in a Microgrid. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Power Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT), Washington, DC, USA, 17–20 February 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- SimTec—PSS SINCAL Platform. Available online: http://www.simtec-gmbh.at/sites_en/platform.asp (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Rudez, U.; Mihalic, R. Monitoring the First Frequency Derivative to Improve Adaptive Underfrequency Load-Shedding Schemes. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
**2011**, 26, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - IEEE/IEC Approved Draft International Standard—Measuring Relays and Protection Equipment—Part 118-1: Synchrophasor for Power System—Measurements; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1 January 2018; pp. 1–75. ISBN 978-1-5044-4682-2.
- Eriksson, R.; Modig, N.; Elkington, K. Synthetic inertia versus fast frequency response: A definition. IET Renew. Power Gener.
**2018**, 12, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smith, S.W. The Scientist & Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal Processing, 1st ed.; California Technical Pub: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-0-9660176-3-2. [Google Scholar]
- IEEE Standard for Synchrophasor Measurements for Power Systems. IEEE Std. C371181-2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 28 December 2011; pp. 1–61. ISBN 978-0-7381-6811-1. [CrossRef]
- IEEE Standard for Synchrophasor Data Transfer for Power Systems. IEEE Std C371182-2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 28 December 2011; pp. 1–53. ISBN 978-0-7381-6813-5. [CrossRef]
- RSCAD: Real-Time Simulation Software Package. Available online: http://knowledge.rtds.com/hc/en-us/articles/360046352893 (accessed on 16 June 2020).
- ELES d.o.o. Sistemska Obratovalna Navodila Za Prenosni Sistem Električne Energije Republike Slovenije; ELES d.o.o.: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Santos, A.Q.; Monaro, R.M.; Coury, D.V.; Oleskovicz, M. New scoring metric for load shedding in multi-control area systems. Transm. Distrib. IET Gener.
**2017**, 11, 1179–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Matthewman, S.; Byrd, H. Blackouts: A Sociology of Electrical Power Failure. Soc. Space
**2013**, 2, 31–55. [Google Scholar] - Sigrist, L.; Rouco, L.; Echavarren, F.M. A review of the state of the art of UFLS schemes for isolated power systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
**2018**, 99, 525–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**EPS frequency f(t) response to different ΔP incidents (

**a**) and the corresponding frequency versus frequency stability margin diagram (

**b**).

**Figure 3.**The RoCoF(t) report of three applied sources (PMU-IED, PMU-COMM and PMU-RTDS) after an RTDS simulation of an active power deficit (

**a**) and a corresponding frequency versus frequency stability margin diagram (

**b**).

**Figure 4.**The improvement in reported RoCoF(t) after applying a moving average filter to the PMU-IED and the PMU-COMM (

**a**), and a corresponding frequency versus frequency stability margin diagram (

**b**).

**Figure 5.**The RoCoF(t) report of three applied sources (PMU-IED, PMU-COMM and PMU-RTDS) after the RTDS simulation of an active power deficit and three UFLS interventions (

**a**) and a corresponding frequency versus frequency stability margin diagram (

**b**).

**Figure 6.**The improvement in reported RoCoF dynamics after applying a median filter to the PMU-IED and the PMU-COMM (

**a**), a corresponding frequency versus frequency stability margin diagram (

**b**).

**Figure 9.**A single-line diagram of a IEEE 9-bus test system [3], used for the RTDS HIL testing.

**Figure 10.**Overview of HIL results extracted from the entire set of 66 simulated cases; the total amount of disconnected consumption in percentages (

**a**) and recorded RoCoF after the last UFLS intervention (

**b**).

**Figure 11.**A time-domain response of the EPS frequency f(t) (

**a**) and RoCoF(t) (

**b**), corresponding to simulation case 49.

**Table 1.**Conventional UFLS setting (frequency thresholds f

_{thr}) along with supplemented frequency stability margin (M

_{thr}) thresholds.

UFLS Stage Number | ${\mathit{f}}_{\mathbf{t}\mathbf{h}\mathbf{r}}\text{}\left[\mathbf{Hz}\right]$ | ${\mathit{M}}_{\mathbf{t}\mathbf{h}\mathbf{r}}\text{}\left[\mathbf{s}\right]$ | EPS Load Decrease [%] |
---|---|---|---|

1. | 49.0 | 6.0 | 10 |

2. | 48.8 | 5.0 | 10 |

3. | 48.6 | 4.0 | 10 |

4. | 48.4 | 3.0 | 10 |

5. | 48.2 | 2.0 | 10 |

6. | 48.1 | 1.0 | 5 |

UFLS Stage Number | ${\mathit{f}}_{\mathbf{t}\mathbf{h}\mathbf{r}}\text{}\left[\mathbf{Hz}\right]$ | Frequency at Which M_{thr} Criterion Is Met [Hz] | Margin [Hz] |
---|---|---|---|

1. | 49.0 | 49.4830 | 0.4830 |

2. | 48.8 | 49.4830 | 0.6830 |

3. | 48.6 | 49.4623 | 0.8623 |

4. | 48.4 | 49.4623 | 1.0623 |

5. | 48.2 | 49.4364 | 1.2364 |

6. | 48.1 | 49.3415 | 1.2415 |

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sodin, D.; Ilievska, R.; Čampa, A.; Smolnikar, M.; Rudez, U.
Proving a Concept of Flexible Under-Frequency Load Shedding with Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing. *Energies* **2020**, *13*, 3607.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143607

**AMA Style**

Sodin D, Ilievska R, Čampa A, Smolnikar M, Rudez U.
Proving a Concept of Flexible Under-Frequency Load Shedding with Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing. *Energies*. 2020; 13(14):3607.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143607

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sodin, Denis, Rajne Ilievska, Andrej Čampa, Miha Smolnikar, and Urban Rudez.
2020. "Proving a Concept of Flexible Under-Frequency Load Shedding with Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing" *Energies* 13, no. 14: 3607.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143607