1

Smart Transmission Network Emergency Control

arXiv:1511.03996v1 [cs.SY] 12 Nov 2015

Thanh Long Vu, Member, IEEE, Hsiao-Dong Chiang, FIEEE, and Konstantin Turitsyn, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Power systems normally operate at their stable
operating conditions where the power supply and demand are
balanced. In emergency situations, the operators proceed to cut
a suitable amount of loads to rebalance the supply-demand and
hopefully stabilize the system. This traditional emergency control
scheme results in interrupted service with severely economic
damages to customers. In order to provide seamless electricity
service to customers, this paper proposes a viable alternative
for traditional remedial controls of power grids by exploiting
the plentiful transmission facilities. In particular, we consider
two emergency control schemes involving adjustment of the
susceptance of a number of selected transmission lines to drive
either fault-on dynamics or post-fault dynamics, and thereby stabilize the system under emergency situations. The corresponding
emergency control problems will be formulated and partly solved
in some specific cases. Simple numerical simulation will be used
to illustrate the concept of this paper.

I. I NTRODUCTION
High penetration of intermittent renewables, large volume
of power storage and EVs, and increasing load demand are
pushing the aging US power grid to its physical limits.
Consequently, the stressed system is especially vulnerable to
large disturbances. The current emergency controls are based
on remedial actions [1], [2], special protection systems (SPS)
[3], [4] and load shedding [5], [6] to quickly rebalance power
and hopefully stabilize the system. However, some of these
emergency actions rely on interrupting electricity service to
customers. The unexpected service loss is extremely harmful
to customers since it may lead to enormously high economic
damage. In addition, the protective devices are usually only effective for individual elements, but less effective in preventing
the grid from collapse. For example, the recent major blackouts
witness the inability of operators in preventing the grid from
cascading failures [7], regardless the good performance of the
individual protective devices. The underlying reason is the lack
of coordination among protective devices and the difference
in their timescales, which together make them incapable to
maintain the grid stability. This calls for system-level solutions
for emergency control of power grids.
On the other hand we note that the US electric infrastructure currently contains approximately 642,000 miles of
high-voltage transmission lines and almost 6.3 million miles
of electricity distribution lines, incorporated with plentiful
control equipments such as FACTS devices. The key idea of
this paper is to extract more value out of the existing transmission and distribution facilities to stabilize power systems
under emergency situations. Particularly, we propose to use
Thanh Long Vu and Konstantin Turitsyn are with the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, 02139 USA, email: {longvu, turitsyn}@mit.edu. Hsiao-Dong Chiang
is with School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, USA, email: chiang@ece.cornell.edu.

FACTS devices to adjust susceptances of a number of selected
transmission lines to drive the fault-on dynamics or post-fault
dynamics and thereby stabilize the power system.
To this end, this paper will formulate two emergency transmission control problems: one involves controlling the faulton dynamics to maintain the transient stability of the system
following a line tripping and the other involves controlling the
post-fault dynamics to stabilize a given fault-cleared state that
is otherwise possibly unstable. As a first step, we will sketch
ways to solve these emergency control problems in specific
cases by applying our recently introduced quadratic Lyapunov
function-based transient stability certificate [8], [9]. In particular, we present sufficient conditions for the susceptance values
such that when applied to the fault-on dynamics or post-fault
dynamics, the fault-cleared state will stay inside the region of
attraction of the post-fault equilibrium point. Remarkably, the
sufficient conditions are formulated as a set of linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs), which can be solved quickly by advanced
network structure-exploiting convex optimization solvers [10].
As such, the proposed emergency control schemes can be
scalable to large-scale power systems.
II. N ETWORK M ODEL AND E MERGENCY C ONTROL
P ROBLEMS
A. Network Model
In this paper we consider the standard structure-preserving
model to describe components and dynamics in power systems
[11]. This model naturally incorporates the dynamics of generators’ rotor angle as well as response of load power output
to frequency deviation. Mathematically, the grid is described
by an undirected graph A(N , E), where N = {1, 2, . . . , |N |}
is the set of buses and E ⊆ N × N is the set of transmission
lines connecting those buses. Here, |A| denotes the number
of elements in the set A. The sets of generator buses and
load buses are denoted by G and L. We assume that the grid
is lossless with constant voltage magnitudes Vk , k ∈ N , and
the reactive powers are ignored. Then, the structure-preserving
model of the system is given by:
X
mk δ¨k + dk δ˙k +
akj sin(δk − δj ) =Pmk , k ∈ G,
(1a)
j∈Nk

dk δ˙k +

X

akj sin(δk − δj ) = − Pd0k , k ∈ L, (1b)

j∈Nk

where, the equations (1a) represent the dynamics at generator
buses and the equations (1b) the dynamics at load buses.
In these equations, with k ∈ G then mk > 0 is the
dimensionless moment of inertia of the generator, dk > 0
is the term representing primary frequency controller action
on the governor, Pmk is the input shaft power producing the
mechanical torque acting on the rotor, and Pek is the effective

2

dimensionless electrical power output of the k th generator.
With k ∈ L then dk > 0 is the constant frequency coefficient
of load and Pd0k is the nominal load. Here, akj = Vk Vj Bkj ,
where Bkj is the (normalized) susceptance of the transmission
line {k, j} connecting the k th bus and j th bus, Nk is the set
of neighboring buses of the k th bus. Note that the system
described by equations (1) has many stationary points charac∗
terized by the angle differences δkj
= δk∗ − δj∗ that solve the
following system of power-flow like equations:
X
∗
akj sin(δkj
) = Pk , k ∈ N ,
(2)
j∈Nk

where Pk = Pmk , k ∈ G, and Pk = −Pd0k , k ∈ L.
B. Emergency Control Problems
In normal conditions, a power grid operates at a stable
equilibrium point of the pre-fault dynamics. Under emergency
situations caused by a fault, the system evolves according to
the fault-on dynamics laws and moves away from the pre∗
fault equilibrium point δpre
to a fault-cleared state δ0 =
δf ault−cleared at the clearing time τclearing . Our emergency
control objective is to make sure that post-fault dynamics is
stable. i.e. there exists a stable post-fault equilibrium point
∗
whose region of attraction (i.e. stability region) contains
δpost
the fault-cleared state. We consider two control schemes to
achieve this objective: (i) adjusting the fault-on dynamics and
(ii) adjusting the post-fault dynamics. Both schemes are based
on changing the susceptance of some selected transmission
lines through FACTS devices.
For the fault-on dynamics controlling, we consider the case
when a system is being at the stable equilibrium point and
then one line is tripped. We will adjust susceptances of some
selected transmission lines such that the fault-on trajectory
does not deviate too much from the equilibrium point. Hence,
when the line is reclosed at the clearing time τclearing , the
fault-cleared state will still stay inside the region of attraction
of the equilibrium point, i.e. the post-fault dynamics is stable.
(P1) Emergency Control on Fault-on Dynamics Given a
fault causing tripping of line {u, v} and the post-fault
∗
equilibrium point δpost
, determine the feasible values for
susceptances of selected transmission lines such that the
fault-cleared state δ0 (τclearing ) at the given clearing time
τclearing is always inside the nominal region of attraction
∗
of the post-fault equilibrium point δpost
.
For the post-fault dynamics controlling, we are interested in
the case, showed in Fig. 1, when a given post-fault dynamics is
possibly unstable as the fault-cleared state δ0 may stay outside
∗
the region of attraction of the equilibrium point δold
. Yet by
changing the susceptance of a number of transmission lines,
we can obtain a new post-fault dynamics with new equilibrium
∗
point δnew
whose region of attraction contains the fault-cleared
state δ0 , and therefore the new post-fault dynamics is stable.
(P2) Emergency Control on Post-fault Dynamics: Given a
fault-cleared state δ0 , determine the feasible values for
susceptances of selected transmission lines such that the
fault-cleared state δ0 is inside the region of attraction of
∗
the new post-fault equilibrium point δnew
.

1
0.9

RoAold

0.8

RoAnew

0.7

δ ∗new

0.6

δ ∗old

0.5

δf ault−cleared

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fig. 1. Stability-driven smart transmission control: the fault-cleared state
δf ault−cleared is made stable by changing post-fault dynamics through
adjusting susceptances of selected transmission lines

III. Q UADRATIC LYAPUNOV F UNCTION - BASED
T RANSIENT S TABILITY C ERTIFICATE
In this section, we recall our recently introduced quadratic
Lyapunov function-based transient stability certificate [8] for
power systems with the post-fault equilibrium point δ ∗ , which
will be instrumental to designing emergency controls in
the next sections. To this end, we separate the nonlinear
couplings and the linear terminal system in (1). Consider
the state vector x = [x1 , x2 , x3 ]T , which is composed of
the vector of generator’s angle deviations from equilibrium
∗ T
x1 = [δ1 − δ1∗ , . . . , δ|G| − δ|G|
] , their angular velocities
T
x2 = [δ̇1 , . . . , δ̇|G| ] , and vector of load buses’ angle deviation
∗
∗
T
from equilibrium x3 = [δ|G|+1 − δ|G|+1
, . . . , δ|N | − δ|N
|] .
∗
Let the matrix C such that Cx = [(δkj − δkj
){k,j}∈E ]T .
Consider the vector of nonlinear interactions F in the simple
∗
trigonometric form: F (Cx) = [(sin δkj − sin δkj
){k,j}∈E ]T .
Denote the matrices of moment of inertia, frequency controller action on governor, and frequency coefficient of load
as M1 = diag(m1 , . . . , m|G| ), D1 = diag(d1 , . . . , d|G| ) and
M = diag(m1 , . . . , m|G| , d|G|+1 , . . . , d|N | ). Then, the power
system (1) can be then expressed as follows:
ẋ = Ax − BF (Cx),

(3)

with the matrices A, B given by the following expression:


Om×m
Im×m
Om×n−m
A =  Om×m
−M1−1 D1
Om×n−m  ,
On−m×m
On−m×m
On−m×n−m


Om×|E| ; S1 M −1 E T S; S2 M −1 E T S ,
and B =
where n = |N |, m = |G|, S = diag(akj ){k,j}∈E , S1 =
[Im×m Om×n−m ], S2 = [On−m×m In−m×n−m ].
The construction of quadratic Lyapunov function is based
on the bounding of the nonlinear term F by linear functions
of the angular differences. Particularly, we observe that for all
values of δkj = δk − δj staying inside the polytope P defined
by the inequalities |δkj | ≤ π/2, we have:
∗ 2
∗
∗
∗ 2
g(δkj − δkj
) ≤ (δkj − δkj
)(sin δkj − sin δkj
) ≤ (δkj − δkj
)

3

∗
∗
where g = min{k,j}∈E (1 − sin |δkj
|)/(π/2 − |δkj
|). With δ ∗
staying inside the polytope ∆(γ), 0 < γ < π/2, defined by
δkj ≤ γ, we can take the gain g = (1 − sin γ)(π/2 − γ).
For each transmission line {k, j} connecting generator
buses k and j, define the corresponding flow-in boundary
in
segment ∂Pkj
of the polytope P by equations/in-equations
|δkj | = π/2 and δkj δ̇kj < 0, and the flow-out boundary
out
segment ∂Pkj
by |δkj | = π/2 and δkj δ̇kj ≥ 0. Consider
the qudratic Lyapunov function V (x) = xT P x and define the
following minimum value of the Lyapunov function V (x) over
the flow-out boundary ∂P out as:

Vmin =

minout V (x),

x∈∂P

(4)

out
where ∂P out is the union of ∂Pkj
over all the transmission
lines {k, j} ∈ E connecting generator buses. We have the
following result, which is a corollary of Theorem 1 in [8].
Hence, the proof is omitted.
Theorem 1: Consider a power system with the post-fault
equilibrium point δ ∗ ∈ ∆(γ) and the fault-cleared state x0
staying in the polytope P. Assume that there exists a positive
definite matrix P such that


(1 − g)2 T
T
C C PB  ≤ 0
 Ā P + P Ā +
(5)
4
BT P
−I

1
and V (x0 ) < Vmin , where Ā = A − (1 + g)BC. Then, the
2
system trajectory of (1) will converge from the fault-cleared
state x0 to the stable equilibrium point δ ∗ .
Therefore, a sufficient condition for the transient stability of
the post-fault dynamics is the existence of a positive definite
matrix P satisfying the LMI (5) and the Lyapunov function
at the fault-cleared state is small than the critical value Vmin
defined as in (4). We will utilize this condition to design the
emergency controls in the next sections.
IV. FAULT- ON E MERGENCY C ONTROL D ESIGN
A. Control design
In this section, we solve the problem (P1), in which
we maintain the power systems transient stability when a
fault causes tripping of a line {u, v}. We will adjust the
susceptances of some transmission lines during the fault-on
dynamics. Applying Theorem 1, our objective is that: given
a positive definite matrix P satisfying the LMI (5), find the
susceptances of the selected transmission lines such that the
fault-cleared state x0 satisfies V (x0 ) < Vmin .
Note that the changing susceptances only affect the matrix
B, and then the fault-on dynamics with the tuned susceptances
is described by
ẋF = AxF − B(s)F (CxF ) + B(s)D{u,v} sin δFuv ,

(6)

where D{u,v} is the vector to extract the {u, v} element from
the vector of nonlinear interactions F, while B(s) is the new
system matrix B obtained after the susceptances are changed.
We have the following result the proof of which is in the
Appendix VIII.

Theorem 2: Assume that there exist a positive definite
matrix P of size (|N | + |G|) satisfying the LMI (5). Let
τclearing
where Vmin is defined as in (4). Assume that
µ=
Vmin
there exist feasible values for the susceptance of selected
transmission lines and a positive definite matrix P̃ such that
(1 − g)2 T
C C + P̃ B(s)B(s)T P̃
4
T
+ µP̃ B(s)D{u,v} D{u,v}
B(s)T P̃ ≤ 0,
(7)

Ā(s)T P̃ + P̃ Ā(s) +

and
P̃ ≥ P

(8)

1
where Ā(s) = A − (1 + g)B(s)C. Then, the fault-cleared
2
state x0 = xF (τclearing ) resulted from the fault-on dynamics
(6) is still inside the region of attraction of the post-fault
equilibrium point δ ∗ , and the post-fault dynamics following
the tripping and reclosing of the line {u, v} will return to the
original stable operating condition.
Note that with fixed value of the susceptances, the inequality
(7) can be rewritten by the following LMI with variable P̃ :

(1 − g)2 T
T
C
C
P̃
B̄(s)
P̃
+
P̃
Ā(s)
+
Ā(s)
 ≤ 0, (9)

4
B̄(s)T P̃
−I
√
where B̄(s) = [B(s) µB(s)D{u,v} ]. Another way to solve
the inequality (7) is to take P̃ = P, and solve the LMI (9)
with variable as susceptances of selected transmission lines.


B. Procedure for Emergency Transmission Control on the
Fault-on Dynamics
We propose the following procedure to find suitable susceptance and execute fault-on emergency control:
1) Find a positive definite matrix P satisfying the LMI (5).
2) Calculate the minimum value Vmin defined as in (4).
τclearing
3) Let µ =
.
Vmin
4) Find the susceptances of selected transmission lines and
positive definite matrix P̃ satisfying the LMI (8)-(9) by
one of two ways described above.
5) If there is no such feasible values of susceptances and P̃ ,
then repeat from step 1).
6) If such values of susceptance and positive definite matrix
P̃ exist, then we keep these values during the time period
[0, τclearing ]. At the clearing time τclearing , the fault
is cleared and the susceptances of selected transmission
lines are tuned back to their initial values.
V. P OST-FAULT E MERGENCY C ONTROL D ESIGN
In this section, we solve the post-fault emergency control
(P2). Applying Theorem 1, to have a new stable post-fault
dynamics with initial state x0 , the tuned values of susceptances
need to satisfy three conditions:
∗
(i) There exists a new post-fault equilibrium point δnew
satisfying the power flow-like equations:
X
new
∗
Vk Vj Bkj
sin δnew
= Pk , ∀k ∈ N
(10)
kj
j∈Nk

4

(ii) There exists a positive definite matrix P satisfying the
LMI (5) where B = B(s) -the new matrix obtained after
the susceptance is changed.
(iii) The Lyapunov function V (x) = xT P x at the faultcleared state x0 (corresponding to δf ault−cleared ) satisfies
that V (x0 ) < Vmin where Vmin is defined in (4).
We consider the special case when the fault-cleared state is
a static point, i.e. δ̇f ault−cleared = 0 and the fault-cleared state
is only described by the angular δf ault−clearedkj . Instead of
choosing the susceptance first and then solve the power flowlike equation (10) to get the new equilibrium point, we use
a heuristic procedure in which we select the new equilibrium
point first and then find the susceptance from the power flowlike equation (10). Intuitively, to make sure that the faultcleared state stays inside the region of attraction of the new
equilibrium point, we need to select a desired equilibrium
point as near the fault-cleared state as possible.
We propose the equilibrium selection as illustrated in Fig.
2, where we select an equilibrium point between the old
equilibrium point and the fault-cleared state such that this
new equilibrium point is as near the fault-cleared state as
possible, while satisfying the constraints on the possible
changes of the susceptances. Note that if we allow the number
of adjustable transmission lines larger than or equal to n,
then possibly we can always find the suitable susceptances
satisfying the power flow-like equation (10). If the number
of adjustable transmission lines smaller than n, then we can
use the convex
to find the suitable susceptance
P optimizations
new
such that
V
V
B
sin
δf∗ault−clearedkj is near Pk
k
j
kj
j∈Nk
∗
(and thereforePδnew will be near δf∗ault−cleared ). Indeed, let
new
yk = Pk − j∈Nk Vk Vj Bkj
sin δf∗ault−clearedkj . Let the
set of possible susceptance be S. Then we can have the
optimization problem:
min

n
X

yk2

(11)

k=1

s.t.{Bkj } ∈ S
When the acceptable set S is defined by linear constraints, by
solving the convex optimization problem (11) we can obtain
the suitable susceptances such that the new equilibrium point
is near δf ault−cleared . From these suitable susceptances, we
solve the power flow-like equation to get the new equilibrium
point. After such new equilibrium point is found, we can find
the positive definite matrix P satisfying conditions (ii) and
(iii) by using the adaptation algorithms presented in [9] such
that the stability region estimate corresponding with P will
contain the fault-cleared state δf ault−cleared .
VI. N UMERICAL VALIDATION
A. Fault-on Emergency Control on 3 Generator System
For illustrating the concept of this paper, we consider the
simple yet non-trivial system of three generators, one of which
is the renewable generator (generator 1) integrated with the
synchronverter. The susceptance of the transmission lines are
assumed at fixed values B12 = 0.739 p.u., B13 = 1.0958
p.u., and B23 = 1.245 p.u. Also, the inertia and damping

1

RoAold

0.8

RoAnew

0.6

∗
δnew

δ ∗old

δf ault−cleared

0.4
0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

∗
Fig. 2. Selection of the controlled post-fault equilibrium point δnew
such
that its region of attraction contains the the fault-cleared state δf ault−cleared

of all the generators at the normal working condition are
mk = 2 p.u., dk = 1 p.u. Assume that the line between
generators 1 and 3 is tripped, and then reclosed at the
clearing time τclearing = 100ms, and during the faulton dynamic stage the time-invariant terminal voltages and
mechanical torques are [V1 V2 V3 ] = [1.0566 1.0502 1.0170],
[P1 P2 P3 ] = [−0.2464 0.2086 0.0378]. The pre-fault
and post-fault equilibrium point is calculated from (2) as:
δ ∗ = [−0.6634 − 0.5046 − 0.5640 0 0 0]T . Hence, the
equilibrium point stays in the polytope |δkj | < π/10. Then,
g = (1 − sin(π/10))/(π/2 − π/10). Using CVX to solve the
LMI (5), we get the Lyapunov function with P as


2.8754 1.8587 1.9326 4.5165 4.3997
4.4179
 1.8587 2.8276 1.9805 4.4042 4.5088
4.4205 


 1.9326 1.9805 2.7536 4.4127 4.4248
4.4950 


 4.5165 4.4042 4.4127 18.0714 17.1319 17.2701 


 4.3997 4.5088 4.4248 17.1319 17.9994 17.3418 
4.4179 4.4205 4.4950 17.2701 17.3418 17.8613
Then the minimum value Vmin is Vmin = 0.9083 and thus
µ = τclearing /Vmin = 0.1101. Assume that we can adjust
the susceptance of transmission lines {1, 2} and {2, 3} within
50% deviation from their initial value. Let P̃ = P, then we can
solve the LMI (9)-(8) with variables B12 , B23 , and obtain the
∗
∗
optimum value of susceptances as B12
= 0.7199p.u., B23
=
1.2093p.u.. This means that there exist values of susceptances
to compensate for the dynamics deviation caused by the faulted
line ans thereby stabilize the power systems. This is confirmed
in Fig. 3, where we can see the Lyapunov function V (x) =
xT P x increases during the fault-on stage with feasible values
of susceptances and then decreases to 0 in the post-fault stage.
B. Post-Fault Emergency Control on 3 Generator System
Now assume that we have a given initial state δ0 =
δf ault−cleared = [0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0]T and we want to stabilize
the post-fault dynamics by adjusting the susceptances of the
transmission lines {1, 2} and {2, 3}. Assume that the acceptable ranges for these susceptances are 0.4 ≤ B12 ≤ 1, 0.6 ≤
B23 ≤ 1.8 (p.u.). Solving the convex optimization (11) with
∗
the desired equilibrium point δdesired
= δf ault−cleared , we
∗
∗
obtain B12 = 0.4, B23 = 1.2 p.u. Using these new susceptances, we can calculate from the power flow-like equations
∗
the new equilibrium point as δnew
= [−0.1403 0.0766 −

5

Lyapunov Function V(x)

−5

5

x 10

VIII. A PPENDIX
Consider the Lyapunov function for the fault-on dynamics
Ṽ (x) = xT P̃ x. Similar to the proof of Theorem 3 in [8],
From the inequality (7) we can show that
Ṽ˙ (x ) ≤ 1/µ, ∀x ∈ P
(12)

4
3

Fault−on stage
2

F

Post−fault stage
1
0
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

time (s)
Fig. 3. Variations of the quadratic Lyapunov function V (x) = xT P x =
(δ − δ ∗ )T P (δ − δ ∗ ) during the post-fault and fault-on dynamics

0.0118 0 0 0]T . Using the adaptation algorithm in [9], we
can find the Lyapunov function V (x) = xT P x such that the
stability region estimate corresponding with P contains the
fault-cleared state δf ault−cleared in which the matrix P is

0.9881 −0.0522 0.0227 0.7076
0.5895 0.6109
 −0.0522 0.9520 0.0588 0.5962
0.6979
0.6161

 0.0227
0.0588
0.8771
0.6132
0.6296
0.6901

 0.7076
0.5962 0.6132 11.5526 10.5799 10.7195

 0.5895
0.6979 0.6296 10.5799 11.4685 10.7746
0.6109
0.6161 0.6901 10.7195 10.7746 11.3194
VII. C ONCLUSIONS AND PATH FORWARD
This paper proposed novel emergency control schemes for
power grids by exploiting the plentiful transmission facilities.
Particularly, we formulated two emergency control problems to
maintain the transient stability of power systems: one involves
the fault-on controlling to stabilize power systems following
a given line tripping by intelligently and the other involves
directly controlling the post-fault dynamics such that a given
fault-cleared state stays inside the region of attraction of the
new post-fault equilibrium point. In both problems, we applied
our recently introduced quadratic Lyapunov function-based
transient stability certificate [8] to give sufficient conditions for
the adjusted susceptance of the selected transmission lines. We
showed that these problems can be solved through a number of
convex optimizations in the form of linear matrix inequalities,
which can be quickly solved by using advanced sparsityexploiting SDP solvers [10].
There are still many issues need to be addressed to make
these novel emergency control schemes ready for industrial
employment. Particularly, we need to take into account the
computation and regulation delays, either by offline scanning
contingencies and calculating the emergency actions before
hand, or by allowing specific delayed time for computation.
Future works would demonstrate the proposed emergency
control scheme on large IEEE prototypes and large dynamic
realistic power systems with renewable generation at various
locations and with different levels of renewable penetration.
Also, a combination of the proposed method in this paper with
the controlling UEP method [12], [13] promises to give us
a less conservative, but simulation-free method for designing
remedial actions from smart transmission facilities.

F

Now assume that xF (τclearing ) is not in the set R. Note
that the boundary of R is constituted of the segments on flowin boundary ∂P in and the segments on the sublevel sets of the
Lyapunov function. It is easy to see that the flow-in boundary
∂P in prevents the fault-on dynamics (6) from escaping R.
Therefore, the fault-on trajectory can only escape R through
the segments which belong to sublevel set of V (x). Denote
τ be the first time at which the fault-on trajectory meets one
of the boundary segments which belong to sublevel set of the
Lyapunov function V (x). Hence xF (t) ∈ R, ∀0 ≤ t ≤ τ and
V (xF (τ )) = Vmin . Noting (12) and R ⊂ P, we have
τclearing
τ
<
= Vmin
(13)
µ
µ

Note that xF (0) is the pre-fault equilibrium point, and thus


equals to post-fault equilibrium point. Hence Ṽ (xF (0)) = 0.

.

Therefore,
Ṽ (xF (τ )) < Vmin . Since P̃ ≥ P, we have


V (xF (τ )) ≤ Ṽ (xF (τ )) < Vmin , a contradiction.


Ṽ (xF (τ )) − Ṽ (xF (0)) ≤

R EFERENCES
[1] C. Lu and M. Unum, “Interactive simulation of branch outages with
remedial action on a personal computer for the study of security analysis
[of power systems],” Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 1266–1271, Aug 1991.
[2] A. Shrestha, V. Cecchi, and R. Cox, “Dynamic remedial action scheme
using online transient stability analysis,” in North American Power
Symposium (NAPS), 2014, Sept 2014, pp. 1–6.
[3] P. Anderson and B. LeReverend, “Industry experience with special
protection schemes,” Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11,
no. 3, pp. 1166–1179, Aug 1996.
[4] W. Fu, S. Zhao, J. McCalley, V. Vittal, and N. Abi-Samra, “Risk assessment for special protection systems,” Power Systems, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 63–72, Feb 2002.
[5] S. Nirenberg, D. McInnis, and K. Sparks, “Fast acting load shedding,”
Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 873–877, May
1992.
[6] A. Zin, H. Hafiz, and M. Aziz, “A review of under-frequency load
shedding scheme on tnb system,” in Power and Energy Conference,
2004. PECon 2004. Proceedings. National, Nov 2004, pp. 170–174.
[7] “Final report on the august 14, 2003 blackout in the
united states and canada: Causes and recommendations,”
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/BlackoutFinalWeb.pdf.
[8] T. L. Vu and K. Turitsyn, “A Framework for Robust Assessment of
Power Grid Stability and Resiliency,” Automatic Control, IEEE Trans.,
2015, in revision, available: arXiv:1504.04684.
[9] T. Vu and K. Turitsyn, “Lyapunov functions family approach to transient
stability assessment,” Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–9, 2015.
[10] R. Jabr, “Exploiting sparsity in sdp relaxations of the opf problem,”
Power Systems, IEEE Trans. on, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1138–1139, 2012.
[11] A. R. Bergen and D. J. Hill, “A structure preserving model for power
system stability analysis,” Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, no. 1, pp. 25–35, 1981.
[12] Y. Zou, M.-H. Yin, and H.-D. Chiang, “Theoretical foundation of
the controlling UEP method for direct transient-stability analysis of
network-preserving power system models,” Circuits and Systems I:
Fundamental Theory and Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 50,
no. 10, pp. 1324–1336, 2003.
[13] H. Chiang and L. Alberto, Stability Regions of Nonlinear Dynamical
Systems: Theory, Optimal Estimation and Applications. Cambridge
Press, Cambridge, UK, 2015.

