Approximating a Power Swing and Out-of-Step Condition for Field Testing

By
Jason Buneo and Dhanabal Mani
Megger, Ltd
Jason.Buneo@megger.com
Dhanabal.Mani@megger.com
Abstract
Testing a power swing or out-of-step scenario on modern protective relays can be a tricky task. Past
methods of testing power swing and out of step conditions have often involved imprecise methods of
applying voltages and currents to simulate impedances seen by the relay. By manually ramping the
impedance trajectory, or playing several vector states where a specific impedance was applied, it was
possible to initiate a power swing block or out-of-step trip in a protective device. However, with more
advanced algorithms implemented into modern protective relays, previous methods of testing might
not work.

One method that has proven to work is applying a simulation of the power system, complete with all of
the necessary sources and impedances of the elements under study. The output of the simulation
can then be stored in a format suitable for field testing such as COMTRADE. This format can be
played to the protective relays and the response measured. Although this method is effective, it can
be daunting to personnel who may be required to test these schemes, but who may not have a
background in power system protection or simulation. It is for this reason that a simplified method of
testing power swing and out of step conditions without the use of complex simulations is desired.

This paper will talk about a non-traditional method of that utilizes the superposition of two waveforms
of dissimilar frequencies to achieve a power swing and out-of-step condition. The rate of change of
impedance can be controlled as well as the minimum and maximum impedances, the number of pole
slips, as well as the starting phase angle relationships. These parameters can be manipulated via
basic formulas suitable for beginning field personnel.

Background and Theory

Power swing or out-of-step conditions are generally caused by unexpected changes in a power
transmission system such as faults, load shedding, power plant trip outs, etc. In some cases, the
power swing may be stable and return to normal operating conditions after a set period of time. In
other cases, the swing may be unstable, and can cause serious damage to the generator sources on
the system. In order to properly protect the generator and transmission system, protective relays
employ various methods to determine if a swing is stable or unstable. [1]

For engineers and technicians who need to test protective relays, either for commissioning, or
maintenance purposes, the out-of-step and power swing functions can prove to be intimidating.
Generally, testing these functions involves setting up a model of the power system and varying the
parameters to yield a power swing or out-of-step condition seen by a protective relay. While
desirable, this sort of testing might not always be available to personnel out in the field. In many
cases, the person testing this function may need to improvise methods that are less than ideal to
verify its operation. Some of these methods involved manually ramping the impedance trajectory, or
playing several vector states where a specific impedance was applied at each state to simulate an
impedance locus travelling across the R-X plane of the measurement zones. However, as protective
relays have adopted more advanced algorithms, these on the fly methods will no longer work. The
relay is looking for a smooth transition between the measurement zones, and if it does not see it, then
it will not block the power swing or trip on the out-of-step.

For most protective relays that contain power swing and out-of-step protection elements, their
functions are governed by either resistive blinders or mho/quad characteristics in the R-X plane. The
method of the actual detection may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, but some form of
characteristic is usually present. Examples of these characteristics are shown in Figures1 and 2.
Figure 1. Single Blinder Scheme with Impedance Characteristic [2]

Figure 2. Multiple Characteristic Scheme [3]

In order to satisfy the conditions for the power swing and out-of-step algorithms currently in use, a
new method is proposed. By superimposing two waveforms of similar frequencies, a smooth
impedance ramp can be achieved. This method is similar to a two source model in that both sources
have similar frequencies and amplitudes. The rate of change of impedance can be controlled as well
as the minimum and maximum impedances, the number of pole slips, as well as the starting phase
angle relationships. The characteristic equation of the output waveform for the voltage and current is
as follows:

Eq. 1 𝑓𝑓𝐼𝐼,𝑉𝑉 (𝑡𝑡) = (𝐴𝐴1 sin(𝜔𝜔1 𝑡𝑡 + 𝜑𝜑1 )) + 𝐴𝐴2 sin(𝜔𝜔2 𝑡𝑡 + 𝜑𝜑2 )

Where:
A1 = Magnitude of the first current/voltage source in RMS values
ω1 = 2π*FrequencySource1 , (Frequency is in Hz, ω1 is in rad/s)
φ1 = Initial phase angle of current/voltage source 1 in degrees
A2 = Magnitude of the second current/voltage source in RMS values
ω2 = 2π*FrequencySource2 , (Frequency is in Hz, ω2 is in rad/s)
φ2 = Initial phase angle of current/voltage source 2 in degrees
t = the time of the event in seconds

Using arbitrary values for Equation 1, Figure 3 shows the plot of a voltage and current waveform with
the following parameters:
V1= 49.5 V, V2=19.5 V, I1=16.725A, I2=13.275A, F1=60 Hz, F2 = 59 Hz, φ1Current = 0°, φ2Current = 0°,
φ1Voltage = 0°, φ2Voltage = 0°

Figure 3. Superimposed voltage and current waveforms

Both the voltage and current waveforms decrease and increase at the same time and remain in phase
for the duration of the waveform plot. This is not the behavior of a power swing or out-of-step
condition. To change this, the phase current needs to be offset by 180°. The option is to either
change either φ1Current or φ2Current. By changing φ1Current, the phase angle will initially start 180° out of
phase and then slowly come back into phase, then go back out, and repeat indefinitely. Since it is
desirable to control the phase angle from the start, φ2Current will be set to 180°. This will allow the two
waveforms to start in phase and then slowly go out of phase and come back into phase, and repeat.
A plot of the waveforms with the appropriate phase shift is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Plot of voltage and current waveforms with current offset by 180°

In Figure 4, the voltage and current start in phase, then about a quarter of the way through the swing,
it goes out of phase by 90°, then comes back into phase, then goes out of phase by -90° at ¾ of the
swing, and back into phase at the end of the swing. This is the general form of the power swing
waveform.
Applying the Method

Power Swing
To apply a power swing, the following parameters need to be defined first.

1. The Maximum Impedance, Zmax, of the Power Swing/Out-of-Step needs to be defined. This
will be based on the outer most characteristic that is tracking the impedance. It is
recommended that the maximum impedance be greater than the largest blinder/characteristic
impedance, but not so large that the trajectory of the swing exits the characteristic
prematurely. A secondary maximum impedance, Zmax2, can also be defined. This would be
the maximum impedance that would be just inside the blinders or characteristic defined by the
relay.
2. The Minimum Impedance, Zmin, of the Power Swing/Out-of-Step will be the stopping point of
the swing/step within the blinders/characteristic.
3. The Source Frequencies will determine how long of a duration a single power swing or out-of-
step condition will be. The source frequencies will also factor in determining the rate of
change of the trajectory of the impedance. The larger the difference in frequency between
the two sources, the faster the swing/step, and the smaller the difference, the slower the
swing/step.
4. The Starting Phase Angle needs to be defined so that proper loading conditions can be
simulated properly.

Here is how to create a power swing with a maximum impedance of 15 Ω, a minimum impedance of 1
Ω, a Source 1 Frequency of 60 Hz, a Source 2 Frequency of 59 Hz, and a starting Phase Angle of 0°.
The first parameter that we can determine is how long a complete power swing cycle will take, tSwing.
This is giving by Eq. 2.
1
Eq. 2 𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = (𝑠𝑠)
𝑓𝑓1 −𝑓𝑓2

1
Eq. 3 𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = = 1 𝑠𝑠
60−59

When applying this method to any type of test routine, tSwing should be the maximum time set for how
long the swing should be applied. If multiple turns are desired, then maximum time would be the
number of turns times tSwing.

Next will be solving for the currents and voltages that should be applied to the relay. To start, only the
A phase voltages and currents will be discussed. B and C phases are identical to A, with only the
appropriate phase shifts taking place. A nominal voltage should be defined for the maximum
impedance, and a fault voltage should be defined for the minimum impedance. Take care in choosing
a fault voltage because some of the impedances could still be quite large, with large being defined as
around 15 Ω or greater. If the fault voltage is too small, negative valued currents would end up being
calculated to create the correct conditions. If that is the case, increase the fault voltage until the
currents are at an acceptable level. As a rule of thumb the nominal voltage, Vnom, is 69 V line-to-
ground, and the fault voltage, Vfault, is around 30 V line-to-ground.

The value of Vfault can change depending on the impedance and the current required from the test set.
The moniker of Vfault can also be a little misleading. A power swing event may not necessarily require
the extreme values of traditional fault voltages. The swing of impedance may only go from a large
value to a slightly smaller value. Such would be the case if the user wanted to swing from 89Ω to 50
Ω. The required fault voltage would not be much less than what was required for starting impedance.
The equations for the two voltages for phase a are shown in the following equations.
𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛−𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Eq. 4 𝑉𝑉1 = 𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + � �
2

69−30
Eq. 5 𝑉𝑉1 = 30 + � � = 49.5 𝑉𝑉
2

𝑉𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛−𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Eq. 6 𝑉𝑉2 = � �
2
 69−30
Eq. 7 𝑉𝑉2 = � � = 19.5 𝑉𝑉
2

Then the two currents for I1 and I2 will be solved.

𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑉𝑉
𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 � �−� 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 �
𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Eq. 8 𝐼𝐼1 = �� �−� ��
𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2

30 69
69 � 1 �−�15�
Eq. 9 𝐼𝐼1 = �� � − � �� = 17.3 𝐴𝐴
1 2

𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑉𝑉
� �−� 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 �
𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Eq. 10 𝐼𝐼2 = � �
2

69 69
� 1 �−�15�
Eq. 11 𝐼𝐼2 = � � = 12.7 𝐴𝐴
2

Other parameters can now be solved such as the rate of change of impedance. Since the swing goes
from a maximum impedance to a minimum and back again, the rate should only be calculated based
on the time it takes to go from the maximum to the minimum. This is shown in Eq. 12.

𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 −𝑍𝑍𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
� �
𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
Eq. 12 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 =
2

15−1
� 1 �
Eq. 13 𝑍𝑍𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = = 7 Ω/𝑠𝑠
2

When starting in the pre-fault mode for testing, it is handy to be at the same current level as the
starting current for the swing so that there are no discontinuities when the ramp begins. This is
minimum current, which is shown in Eq. 14.

Eq. 14 𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 𝐼𝐼1 − 𝐼𝐼2

Eq. 15 𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 17.3 − 12.7 = 4.6 𝐴𝐴

For practical applications, three states can be used to simulate a pre-fault, fault and post-fault state.
Additional States can be added as well such as including a fault during a swing or out-of-step
condition. Figure 5 shows a captured waveform from a protective relay during a power swing block
condition. The impedance locus entered the outer characteristic and oscillated for two turns before
exiting and returning to a stable condition.
Figure 5. Event record of a power swing block with multiple turns

Figure 6 show a power swing trip condition where the impedance locus has entered the protective
characteristics and remains inside the inner characteristic for the duration of the turns. Upon exiting
the power swing trip function is triggered in the relay.

Figure 6. Power swing trip condition with multiple turns

While the bulk of this testing method has been shown, there are other parameters that would be
useful to the user in determining what is occurring during the test. One parameter would be the
impedance trajectory of the power swing. This should be plotted in the R-X plane so the user can
trace the locus path. The instantaneous impedance, Z, is calculated, followed by the phase angle, θ.
The instantaneous impedance, Z, is defined in Equation 16.
 𝑉𝑉
Eq. 16 𝑍𝑍 =
𝐼𝐼

The phase angle, θ, is defined in Equation 17.

(𝑡𝑡𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 −𝑡𝑡𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 )
Eq. 17 𝜃𝜃 = 1
𝑓𝑓∗360

Where:
tVzero = time of the voltage magnitude zero crossing in seconds
tIzero = time of the current magnitude zero crossing in seconds
f = frequency of the waveform in Hz

The phase angle of power swing is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Phase angle of the power swing in degrees vs time in seconds

The frequency of two superimposed waveforms will not be constant. Signal processing techniques
should be used to take and accurate measurement of the frequency as well as the phase angle.
Equation 18 is given as a reference and will not provide a very accurate phase angle unless a very
large sampling rate is used to determine the zero crossing of the waveform.

Once the impedance and phase angle are known, then the resistance, R, and reactance, X, of the
impedance can be determined as shown in Equations 18 and 19 respectively.

Eq. 18 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑍𝑍 ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐θ

Eq. 19 𝑋𝑋 = 𝑍𝑍 ∗ 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

Once the resistance and reactance are determined, they can be plotted. This is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Trajectory of impedance during a power swing

The trajectory starts out at the maximum impedance of 15 Ω and travels in an arc towards the
minimum impedance of 1 Ω, and then circles back towards 15 Ω. The process will repeat if the swing
is unstable. To simulate an unstable swing, simply increase the duration of the swing in even
multiples.

Out-of-Step
Applying an out-of-step condition is very similar to applying a power swing condition. The only
difference is that instead of the impedance turning around when the minimum impedance trajectory is
reached, the trajectory will continue through the origin and exit out of the other side of the
characteristic. In order to achieve this a few things need to be done first.
The total time of the out of step condition will be the same as the total time for a power swing, tSwing.
However, the changes need to be made at the halfway point of the total time in order to create an out-
of-step. This time is important, so it will be called, tevent, and is equal to ½ the time of tSwing as shown
in Eq. 20.
𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
Eq. 20 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
2

At time tevent, the frequency and phase angles of currents I1 and I2 need to be swapped. This will
create a waveform that will continue to a phase angle difference between the voltage and current of
180°. All other calculations are the same.

The waveform in Figure 9 is very similar to that of Figure 5 and 6, but convey two totally different
things. The difference is in the phase angle relationship between the voltage and current. Where the
power swing would have a maximum phase angle difference of 90°, the out-of-step condition has a
maximum phase angle difference of 180°. The phase angle relationship over time is shown in Figure
10.
Figure 9. Waveform capture of an out-of-step condition

Figure 10. Phase angle relationship of the out-of-step condition vs time

The impedance trajectory is also split. Instead of the circular path of the power swing, the return
portion of the trajectory is flipped 180° so that it continues to the other side of where the relay
characteristics would be located. This is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Impedance trajectory of out-of-step condition

The trajectory of the out-of-step impedance is different than what would be normally seen in a more
sophisticated simulation scenario. The almost sinusoidal path is a result of the phase angle being tied
to the natural slip frequency between the two superimposed waveforms. This, however, does not
detract from its ability to successfully test an out-of-step function.

Conclusions
A non-traditional method of that utilizes the superposition of two waveforms of dissimilar frequencies
to achieve a power swing and out-of-step condition has been discussed. This method vastly
simplifies the often complex routines of power system simulation to provide a field applicable
approach to testing these functions. The parameters needed to control the test were derived from
straight forward algebraic equations. The rate of change of impedance can be controlled as well as
the minimum and maximum impedances, the number of pole slips, as well as the starting phase angle
relationships.

References
1. Power Swing and Out-of-Step Considerations on Transmission Lines, A report to the Power
System Relaying Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, Working Group D6, 2005
2. SEL-700G Generator and Intertie Protection Relays Instruction Manual, 2011
3. D60 Line Distance Protection System Instruction Manual, Revision 5.7X, GEK-113519B, 2010