1

Transient Stability Assessment Using Individual
Machine Equal Area Criterion Part I: Unity Principle

arXiv:1712.00879v1 [eess.SP] 4 Dec 2017

Songyan Wang, Jilai Yu, Wei Zhang Member, IEEE

Abstract—Analyzing system trajectory from the perspective of
individual machines provides a distinctive angle to analyze the
transient stability of power systems. This two-paper series propose
a direct-time-domain method that is based on the individualmachine equal area criterion. In the first paper, by examining the
mapping between the trajectory and power-vs-angle curve of an
individual machine, the stability property to characterize a critical
machine is clarified. The mapping between the system trajectory and
individual-machine equal area criterion is established. Furthermore,
a unity principle between the individual-machine stability and system
stability is proposed. It is proved that the instability of the system can
be confirmed by finding any one unstable critical machine, thence,
the transient stability of a multimachine system can be monitored
in an individual-machine way in transient stability assessment.
Index Terms—transient stability, equal area criterion, individual
machine energy function, partial energy function

A BBREVIATION
COI
CCT
CDSP
CUEP
DLP
DSP
EAC
IEEAC
IMEAC
IMEF
IVCS
LOSP
OMIB
PEF
TSA
UEP

Center of inertia
Critical clearing time
DSP of the critical stable machine
Controlling UEP
Dynamic liberation point
Dynamic stationary point
Equal area criterion
Integrated extended EAC
Individual-machine EAC
Individual machine energy function
Individual machine-virtual COI machine system
Loss-of-synchronism point
One-machine-infinite-bus
Partial energy function
Transient stability assessment
Unstable equilibrium point

early work, Lyapunov method was proved to yield conservative
results [1]. Hereafter, direct methods such as CUEP method,
sustained fault method and IEEAC method had received considerable attention and achieved advances [2]–[5]. These methods
monitor transient behaviors of all machines in the system in
TSA, which are also named as global methods. Unlike global
methods, some transient stability analysts incline to observe the
power system transient stability from a distinctive individualmachine angle as “the instability of a multi-machine system is
determined by the motion of some unstable critical machines if
more than one machine tends to lose synchronism” [6]. Stimulated
by this concept of individual-machine perspective, Vittal and
Fouad [7], [8] stated that the instability of the system depends
on the transient energy of individual machines and IMEF was
proposed. Stanton [9], [10] performed a detailed machine-bymachine analysis of a multi-machine instability, and PEF was
used to quantify the energy of a local control action. Later, EAC
of the critical machine is applied in PEF method to identify
system stability [12]. Rastgoufard et al. [13] used an IMEF
in synchronous reference to determine the transient stability
of a multimachine system. Haque [14] proposed an efficient
individual-machine method to compute the CCT of the system
under transients. Ando and Iwamoto [15] presented a potential
energy ridge which can be used to predict the single-machine
stability. Among all these works of individual-machine methods,
the PEF method is quite representative and can be seen as a
milestone because Ref. [10], [11] initially explained fundamental
theories and also provided some valuable underlying hypothesis
regarding the individual-machine methods. Although individualmachine methods were proved to be effective for the stability
analysis, these methods were at a standstill for decades. The
reason is that some crucial concepts of the individual-machine
methods were missing or were illustrated in an unsystematic
and tutorial form, leaving confusions unclarified and controversial
problems unsolved when they are used for TSA.

I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Literature Review

B. Scope and contribution of the paper

In the last decades, great efforts have been made to the
application of direct methods in the transient stability analysis. In

In this two-paper series a direct-time-domain method that is
based on individual-machine equal area criterion (IMEAC) is
proposed. The first paper systematically clarifies the mechanism
of the proposed method to monitor the transient stability of a
multi-machine system. The companion paper applies the proposed
method for TSA and CCT computation. In this paper, based on
the actual trajectory of the system trajectory during transients, the
Kimbark curve of a critical machine is first analyzed, and then

S. Wang is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin 150001, China (e-mail: wangsongyan@163.com).
J. Yu is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China (e-mail: yupwrs@hit.edu.cn).
W. Zhang is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin 150001, China (e-mail: wzps@hit.edu.cn).

2

II. I NDIVIDUAL -M ACHINE E QUAL A REA C RITERION
A. Equation of Motion of an individual machine
Conventionally, for a direct method that is based on COI
reference, “an individual machine” should be precisely expressed
as “an individual machine in COI reference”. For a n-machine


    




IMEAC is proved to strictly hold for a critical machine. Second,
following trajectory stability theory the concept of individualmachine trajectory (IMT) is proposed, and the mapping between
system trajectory and Kimbark curve of an individual machine is
established. In the end of the paper, the unity principle between
individual-machine stability and system stability is proposed.
It shows that IMT of any one unstable critical machine can
drive system trajectory to go unstable, thence, and the transient
stability of a multi-machine system can be monitored in an
individual-machine way during TSA. Contributions of this paper
are summarized as follows:
(i) Following trajectory stability theory, this paper explains the
mechanism of the transient stability of a multi-machine system
from an individual-machine angle. The transient instability of the
system can be determined by the instability of any one unstable
critical machine;
(ii) Some mistakes about stability-characterization of a critical
machine in Ref. [10], [11] are corrected in this paper;
(iii) The unity principle explicitly explains the relationship
between individual-machine stability and system stability is proposed. This may release the potential of the usage of individualmachine monitoring in TSA.
In this paper we only discuss the first-swing stability of a
critical machine, and swing stability in this paper only depicts
the stability state of a critical machine when the velocity of
the machine reaches zero, rather than following the conventional
global concept. Three test systems are applied in this two-paper
series. Test System-1 (TS-1) is a modified IEEE 39-bus system.
In TS-1 the inertia constant of Unit 39 is modified to 200 p.u.
from 1000 p.u.; Test System-2 (TS-2) is the standard IEEE
118-bus system. Test System-3 (TS-3) is a practical 2766-bus
interconnected system. All faults are three phase short-circuits
faults which occurred at 0 s and they are cleared without line
switching. Fault types in this two-paper series are described
in the form of [test-system, fault location, fault-on time]. The
simulations of TS-1 and that of TS-2 are fully based on the
classical model given in [5]. The simulations of TS-3 are based on
complicated dynamic models, and the parameters of this system
can be found in the companion paper.
The remaining paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
IMEAC of a critical machine is analyzed. In Section III, the
Kimbark curves of both critical machines and non-critical machines that rely on actual system trajectory in the multi-machine
system are analyzed. In Section IV, the mapping between IMT
and the Kimbark curve of a critical machine is established. In
Section V, the unity principle of system stability and stability of
a critical machine is depicted in the sense of IMT. In Section
VI, an example about the application of the proposed method is
demonstrated. Conclusions are provided in Section VII.

 



   








 





Fig. 1: Trajectory of the virtual COI machine [TS-1, bus-34, 0.202s]

system with rotor angle δi and inertia constant Mi , the motion of
an individual machine i in the synchronous reference is governed
by differential equations:
(
δ˙i = ωi
(1)
Mi ω̇i = Pmi − Pei
Position of the COI of the system is defined by:

n
P
1

M i δi

δ̇COI = MT

i=1


n
P
M i ωi
ωCOI = M1T

i=1


n
P


PCOI =
(Pmi − Pei )

(2)

i=1

where MT =

n
P

Mi .

i=1

From (2), the motion of COI is determined by:
(
δ̇COI = ωCOI
MT ω̇COI = PCOI

(3)

Eqn. (3) indicates that COI can also be seen as a virtual
“machine” with its own equation of motion being described as the
aggregated motion of all machines in the system.The trajectory
of the virtual COI machine in synchronous reference is shown in
Fig. 1.
Following (1) and (3), since machine i and COI are two
“single” machines with interactions, a two-machine subsystem
can be formed by using these two machines, which is defined as
a SVCS, as shown in Fig. 1.
Since machine i and COI are two “individual” machines with
interactions, a two-machine system which is named as Individual
machine-virtual COI machine system (IVCS) can be formed by
these two machines, as in Fig. 2. The relative trajectory between
a critical machine and the virtual COI machine in an IVCS is
shown in Fig. 3.

3


 


 

 










 

Fig. 2: Two-machine system formed by machine i and virtual COI
machine.







  



   






   
    
  














Since EAC only strictly holds in the OMIB system and the twomachine system, the above analysis given in Section II.A is of
value because it indicates that EAC strictly holds for an individual
machine as the IVCS is a precise two-machine system.
Following (4), we have:
(5)

Along the actual fault-on trajectory until fault clearing, we have

θi0

(F )

(F )

(fi

)dθi =

Z

ω̃ic

Mi ω̃i dω̃i

0
ω̃ij

where fi corresponds to fi during fault-on period.
Eqn. (6) can be further expressed as:

 #  $  # % 







 

 " 

   
    
  







" %

!
 









Fig. 4: Simulations of the fault [TS-1, bus-34, 0.202s]. (a) Kimbark
curve of Machine 34. (b) System trajectory

1
2
Mi ω˜ic =
2

Z

c
θij

θi0

(F )

{0 − (−fi

)}dθi

(7)

Along the actual post-fault trajectory after fault clearing, we
have:

B. Strict EAC characteristic of an individual machine

θic







Following (1) and (3) , the relative motion between machine i
and the virtual COI machine
( of the SVCS can be given as:
θ̇i = ω̃i
(4)
Mi ω̃˙ i = fi
where
Mi
PCOI
fi = Pmi − Pei − M
T
θi = δi − δCOI
ω̃i = ωi − ωCOI
Eq. (4) depicts the separation of an individual machine with
respect to the COI of all machines in the system, which is
substantially identical to the motion of an individual machine
in COI reference. Therefore, each individual machine in COI
reference should be precisely depicted as an IVCS that is formed
by a “pair” of machines. Yet, in this paper for historical reasons
the “individual machine” or “critical machine” is still used in
default for simplification.

Z





Fig. 3: The instability of the relative trajectory between a critical
machine and the virtual COI machine [TS-1, bus-34, 0.202s]. (a) an
IVCS in synchronous reference. (b) an individual machine in COI
reference

fi dθi = Mi ω̃i dω̃i



  

(6)

Z

θi

θic

(P F )

(P F )

fi

dθi =

Z

ω˜i

ω˜ic

Mi ω̃i dω̃i

(8)

corresponds to fi during post-fault period.
where fi
Eqn. (8) can be further expressed as:
Z θi
1
1
˜(c) 2
(P F )
− 0}dθi + Mi ω̃i 2
{−fi
=
M i ωi
(9)
2
2
θic
Substituting (7) into (9) yields:
c
Z θi
Z θij
1
(P F )
(F )
−0}dθi (10)
{−fi
{0−(−fi )}dθi = Mi ω̃i 2 +
2
θic
θi0
A typical Kimbark curve [11] (power-vs-angle curve) of an
unstable critical machine that is formulated with the actual
simulated system trajectory in the θi − fi space is shown in Fig.
4 (a). The rotor angles of the system are shown in Fig. 4 (b).

4

III. K IMBARK C URVE

OF AN I NDIVIDUAL









  

Assume the Kimbark curve of the machine reaches the liberation point (P3) as in Fig. 4. Under this circumstance, both integral
parts in (9) can be seen as “areas”, and the difference between the
acceleration area and the deceleration area is the residual “K.E.”
of the machine at the liberation point (P3). Therefore, the machine
can be judged as unstable as long as the acceleration area is larger
than the deceleration area (i.e., the residual K.E. is positive at the
liberation point), and the machine can be judged as stable if the
acceleration area is equal to the deceleration area (i.e., the residual
K.E. is strictly zero at the liberation point). This fully proves that
EAC strictly holds for an individual machine.
In power system transient stability analysis, critical machines
are those a few severely disturbed machines, which are most possible to separate from the system, while non-critical machines are
those slightly disturbed machines and they oscillate during postfault period. Therefore, the transient behavior and corresponding
Kimbark curve of a critical machine will be quite different from
that of a non-critical machine, which will be analyzed in following
sections. In this two-paper series the identification of the critical
machines is fully based on the methodologies that were proposed
in Ref [6] and [14] which consider critical machines as those
severely disturbed machines with advanced angles [6] and high
acceleration ratios [14].

 











 
     
  













 


 









M ACHINE

A. Kimbark Curve of an Unstable Critical Machin
From numerous simulations, the representative Kimbark curve
of a critical machine going unstable is shown in Fig. 5 (a). The
corresponding system trajectory is shown in Fig. 5 (b). Machines
33, 34 and 39 are critical machines for the fault [TS-1, bus-34,
0.219s].
From Fig. 5 (a), a critical machine firstly accelerates from P1 to
P2 during fault-on period, then it decelerates from P2 to P3 after
fault is cleared. Once system trajectory goes across P3, the critical
machine will accelerate in COI reference and then separate from
the system. Thus P3 can be defined as dynamic liberation point
(DLP) of this unstable critical machine [10].
Specifically, some critical machines may have negative velocity
after fault clearing and finally anti-accelerates with time. In this
case the Kimbark curve of the critical machine would seem to be
“rotated”, as shown in Fig. 6 (a).
From Figs. 4-6, the unstable case of the critical machine can
be characterized by the occurrence of the DLP with fi of the
machine being zero:
w̃i 6= 0, fi = 0

(11)

Eq. ?? corrects the instability characterization of the critical
machine in Ref. [10], [11] because these two papers neglected
the anti-accelerating case as shown in Fig. 6 (a).
Following EAC, when couple machines go unstable, we have:
AACCij > ADECij

(12)


Fig. 5: Simulations of the fault [TS-1, bus-34, 0.219s]. (a) Kimbark
curve of Machine 34. (b) System trajectory

where
R θc
˜(c) 2
(F )
AACCij = θ0i (−fi )dθi = 21 Mi ωi
R θiDLP
(F )
ADECij = θci (−fi )dθi
i
Notice that only the mismatch fi of machine i is zero while
mismatch of other machines are not zero at DLPi . For more than
one critical machines that go unstable after fault clearing, each
critical machine corresponds to its unique DLP.
From analysis above, the Kimbark curve of an unstable critical machine has a clear “accelerating-decelerating-accelerating”
characteristic. Since the Kimbark curve is formulated from actual
simulated system trajectory, the Kimbark curve of an unstable
critical machine and its corresponding DLP varies with the change
of the faults. For instance, DLP34 in Fig. 4 (a) is different from
that in Fig. 5 (a) if the system is subject to a different fault.
The Kimbark curve of an individual machine in the proposed
method is a bit similar to that of the OMIB system as in the
IEEAC method and SIME method. However, we emphasize that
the EAC in the proposed method is strictly based on the Kimbark
curve of an individual machine in COI reference, which is quite

5




 




  
  










 










  









Fig. 7: Simulations of the fault [TS-1, bus-34, 0.180s]. (a-c) Kimbark
curves of Machines 33, 34 and 39. (d) System trajectory

From Fig. 7, the stable case of the critical machine can be
characterized by the occurrence of the DSP with the velocity of
the machine being zero:
w̃i = 0, fi 6= 0


Fig. 6: Simulations of the fault [TS-1, bus-3, 0.580s]. (a) Kimbark
curve of Machine 39. (b) System trajectory

different from that in IEEAC method and SIME method that is
based on the equivalent OMIB system in a multi-machine system.

B. Kimbark Curve of a Stable Critical Machine
From simulations, representative Kimbark curves of critical
machines being stable are shown in Figs. 7 (a-c). The system
trajectory is shown in Fig. 7 (d). Machines 33, 34 and 39 are
critical machines for the fault [TS-1, bus-34, 0.180s].
From Figs. 7(a-c), for a stable critical machine, the machine
first accelerates from P1 to P2 during fault-on period, then it
decelerates and the velocity of the machine then reaches zero
at P3. Therefore, the machine never goes across DLP, i.e., −fi
will not intersect with horizontal zero line. Instead, −fi might
turn upward or turn downward because the oscillation of other
machines may impede backtracking of the system trajectory. In
this way the critical machine will not separate from the system
and is maintained stable in the first swing, thus P3 with zero
velocity and the maximum angle can be defined as the dynamic
stationary point (DSP) of the critical machine.

(13)

Eq. (13) corrects the stability characterization of the critical
machine in Ref. [10, 11] because these two papers neglected the
anti-accelerating case as in Fig. 7 (c).
Following IMEAC, when a critical machine is stable, we have:
AACCij = ADECij

(14)

where
R θDSP
(F )
AACCij = θci (−fi )dθi
i
In the Kimbark curve of the stable critical machine, DSP is
the inflection point where −fi turns upward or downward. DSP
describes first swing stability of a critical machine. At DSP of the
stable critical machine i, only the velocity of the critical machine
i is zero while the velocity of other machines are nonzero. For
the case that more than one critical machines are stable after
fault clearing, each critical machine corresponds to its unique
DSP. The Kimbark curve of a stable critical machine has a clear
“accelerating-decelerating” characteristic before DSP occurs, and
the DSP of a stable critical machine will vary with the change of
the faults.
C. Kimbark Curve of a Critical-stable Critical Machine
Following stable and unstable characterization of a critical
machine, once the critical machine is critical stable, the machine
is still “stable” and −fi will inflect at the DSP of the critical
stable machine (CDSP). However, the CDSP is special because it

6







&'63  UDG



 UDG

f SX



'/3 















T


UDG



 





T





T



IV. M APPING

 UDGt V



'63



T





WLPH V





BETWEEN

T RAJECTORY AND K IMBARK C URVE
M ACHINE

OF AN I NDIVIDUAL

A. Individual Machine Trajectory






stability of a critical machine. Therefore, the foremost crucial
work for the multi-machine transient stability analysis is to depict
the relationship between the stability of the system and that
of critical machines, which will be analyzed in the following
sections.

 UDGt V
&'63



'63 

Fig. 9: Rotor angles of the system [TS-1, bus-2, 0.430s]

˄D˅

 UDG

'/3 

'63 
UDGt V
  

WLPH V







˄E˅
Fig. 8: Simulations of the fault [TS-1, bus-34, 0.201s]. (a) Kimbark
curve of the Machine 34. (b) System trajectory

just falls in the zero horizontal line, which describes the critically
stable state of the machine. Therefore, the critical stable case of
a critical machine is characterized by:
w̃i = 0, fi = 0

(15)

The Kimbark curve of a critical stable machine and corresponding system trajectory are shown in Figs. 8 (a) and (b), respectively.
In this case Machine 34 is critical stable while Machines 33 and
39 are stable.
D. Kimbark Curve of a Non-critical Machine
Since non-critical machines are majorities that are slightly
disturbed by faults, non-critical machines generally maintain synchronism during post-fault period. In other words, the non-critical
machines may oscillate with time, and the Kimbark curves of noncritical machines do not have a clear “accelerating-decelerating”
characteristic compared with that of critical machines.
The distinctive feature of the Kimbark curve of the critical
machine reveals the potential of using IMEAC when judging the

Theoretically, the transient stability of the system should be
explicitly expressed as the transient stability of the “system
trajectory”. If a system goes unstable, the separation of machines
in the system would occur along time horizon. In this paper, the
variation of the rotor angle of an individual machine along time
horizon is defined as the “individual-machine trajectory” (IMT).
A simulation case to demonstrate the system trajectory and IMTs
is shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Machines 37, 38 and 39 are critical
machines in this case.
The IMTs in Fig. 10 reveal a commonly observed phenomenon
in the power transient stability, i.e., after fault clearing the IMTs
of critical machines fluctuate most severely, and they are most
possible to separate from the system. Comparatively, IMTs of
non-critical machines fluctuate slightly and these machines hardly
separate from the system. Depicting the variation of the IMT in a
mathematical form, the IMT of a critical machine going unstable
is identical to the rotor angle of the machine in COI reference
going infinite with time, which can be expressed as:
Z t
ω̃i dt| = +∞ t = +∞
(16)
|θi,t | = |
t0

Comparatively, the IMT of a critical machine being stable is
identical to the rotor angle of the machine in COI reference being
bounded with time, Zwhich can be denoted as:
t

ω̃i dt| < θibound

|θi,t | = |

t ∈ (0, +∞)

(17)

t0

where θibound is the upper bound of θi,t .
Based on the analysis above, the original thinking of trajectory
stability of the system can be merited as below:

7



T LVGHJ DWVDQGLV

 





WLPH V




  





WLPH V







'/3 '



E





 UDG



,07 LVVWDEOH





'63







WLPH V

F







'/3



t V

,07



TLVERXQGHGZLWKWLPH


 

'/3 









'/3


T LV GHJDWVDQGLV
GHJDWV

D



 UDG



GHJDWV

,07JRHVXQVWDEOH



f  SX





'/3





T f VSDFH



,07JRHVXQVWDEOH

UDG





 UDG





WLPH V



 



T  UDG

Fig. 11: 3DKC of an unstable critical machine in a multi-machine
system [TS-1, bus-34, 0.202s].

WKH,07IOXFWXDWHVYHU\VOLJKWO\ZLWKWLPH


t
T  VSDFH



G

Fig. 10: IMTs of individual machines [TS-1, bus-2, 0.430s]. (a-d) IMTs
of Machines 37, 38, 39 and 32.

(i) If IMTs of all critical machines are bounded, the separation
of machines in the system is impossible to occur, and system can
maintain stable (Fig 10 (c)).
(ii) If IMTs of some critical machines go infinite along with
time, the separation of machines in the system is certain to occur,
and the system would go unstable (Figs 10 (a,b)).
(iii) The IMTs of non-critical machines always fluctuate
slightly and they hardly separate from the system, thus IMTs of
non-critical machines are unable to cause system to go unstable
(Fig 10 (d)).
The statements above can be seen as the foundation of the
proposed method. From the angle of the trajectory stability, the
slight fluctuations of the IMTs of the non-critical machines have
no effect to the instability of the system. Comparatively, those
severely fluctuated IMTs of critical machines are most possible
to go infinite and cause system to go unstable. Therefore, the
following criterion is proposed for TSA:
“The system operator may only monitor stability of IMTs of
critical machines during post-fault transient period. Furthermore,
the prime objective of the system operator is to find out the IMTs
of unstable critical machines among all critical machines in the
system, because only IMTs of unstable critical machines may
cause system to go unstable.”
B. 3-dimensional Kimbark Curve of a Critical Machine
In transient stability analysis, a significant defect of observing
IMT is that the transient behavior of the machine is quite difficult
to be depicted. To solve this problem, it is necessary to map the
stability analysis of the IMT in the t − θi space to the θi − fi
space wherein IMEAC can be used to analyze the individualmachine stability. In order to demonstrate the mapping between
IMT and IMEAC, a 3-dimensional Kimbark curve (3DKC) of a
critical machine in the t − θi − fi space is proposed in this paper,

as shown in Fig. 11. All parameters in the 3DKC of the machine
are fully formulated from the actual simulated system trajectory.
From Fig. 11, by using the 3DKC of the critical machine, the
IMT of the critical machine in the t − θi space is mapped to the
Kimbark curve of the machine in the θi −fi space, and the stability
of a critical machine can be easily measured by the occurrence of
DLP or DSP in the Kimbark curve of this machine. This proves
that the stability of IMT of a critical machine can be identified
via IMEAC.
We extend the concept of the 3DKC of an individual machine
to the stability evaluation of a system with n machines. Following
the definition of IMT, it is obvious that the system trajectory can
be seen as the “set” that comprises of IMTs of all individual
machines in the system. The mappings between system trajectory
and 3DKCs of all individual machines in the system are shown
in Fig. 12.
V. U NITY P RINCIPLE
A. Only-one-machine Monitoring
From analysis in Section 4, since the instability of the system
is determined by IMTs of unstable critical machines, the system
operators can monitor the IMT of each critical machine in the
system in parallel to identify the real unstable critical machine.
Then one question emerges: could the instability of the system
be evaluated if the system operator does not monitor all critical
machines?
We extend the trajectory monitoring to an extreme “only-onemachine” way. Taking the case in Fig. 10 for example, one can
find that the IMTs of critical machines 37 and 38 both go unstable.
Assume under an extreme circumstance that the system operator
knows ten machines are operating in the system. However, he
only focuses on Machine 37 and does not observe all the other
machines in the system, as shown in Fig. 13. Under this extreme
“only-one-machine monitoring” circumstance, could the system
still be defined as unstable?
Fig. 13 intuitively demonstrates the mechanism of using
IMEAC for TSA. From the figure, the system trajectory comprises

8

Fig. 12: Mappings between system trajectory and 3DKCs of all individual machines in the system [TS-1, bus-34, 0.202s]

of n IMTs and each machine’s IMT corresponds to its unique
3DKC, thus the system trajectory can be easily mapped into n
3DKCs. Among all 3DKCs, considering that only IMTs of critical
machines may cause the instability of the system, the system
operators only need to observe 3DKCs of critical machines by
neglecting that of non-critical machines. Inside 3DKC of each
critical machine, the stability of the machine is evaluated via
IMEAC (i.e., the occurrence of DLP or DSP). Once one or more
critical machines are found to go unstable, the system can be
judged as unstable according to the trajectory stability theory.
From Fig. 13 one can see, in COI reference DLP37 occurs at
0.777s and θ37 reaches 687 deg. at 1.500s. Under this extreme
individual-machine monitoring circumstance, although IMTs of
all the other machines in the system are not monitored, it is
quite obvious that the system cannot be maintained stable because
IMT37 keeps separating from the system with time.
Theorem: Transient instability of any one IMT determines the
transient instability of the system trajectory.
Proof: Using Reductio-ad-absurdum, assume the system is

Fig. 13: Monitoring IMT of only one unstable machine [TS-1, bus-2,
0.430s]

9

TABLE I: ACCELERATION



Generator
37
38
39
30
31

OHDGLQJ/263 V\VWHPVWDUWVVHSDUDWLQJDW'/3

UDG

ODJJLQJ/263


'/3




'/3

 WLPH V









Fig. 14: Multiple LOSPs in a multimachine system [TS-1, bus-2,
0.430s]

stable when an IMT in the system already goes infinite with time.
Following trajectory stability theory, this assumption is contradict
to the sufficient and necessary condition such that the system
should maintain stable, i.e., IMTs of all machines in the system
should be bounded along time horizon (Section IV), thus theorem
holds.
Following analysis above, the unity of individual-machine
stability and system stability can be expressed as:
(I) The system can be judged as stable if all critical machines
are stable. (II) The system can be judged as unstable as long as
any one critical machine is found to go unstable.
Principles I and II substantially illustrates the unity of
individual-machine stability and system stability. Especially, Principle II is of interest because it reflects that the transient stability
of a multi-machine system may be monitored in an individualmachine way, and the instability of the system can be determined
by any one unstable critical machine without monitoring all
critical machines in the system. This provides a quite novel
individual-machine angle for transient stability analysis in TSA.
B. Occurrence of Multiple LOSPs of the System
Following unity principle, since each unstable critical machine
may cause system to go unstable, the DLP of each unstable critical
machine can be seen as the LOSP of the system. Therefore,
multiple LOSPs might exist along post-fault system trajectory if
more than one critical machines goes unstable, and these LOSPs
can be classified as below:
Leading LOSP: The leading LOSP is defined as the first
occurred DLP along time horizon;
Lagging LOSP: The lagging LOSP is defined as the DLP that
occurs later than the leading LOSP.
From definitions above, the system can be judged as unstable
once the leading LOSP or the lagging LOSPs occur. However,
the leading LOSP is certainly the most valuable for the system
operators because the system starts separating at this point, as
shown in Fig. 14.
C. Machine-by-machine Stability Judgement
In actual TSA environment, the system operator may monitor
each critical machine in parallel once fault is cleared, and
the stability of a critical machine can be identified once the

POWER OF MACHINES AT

fi (p.u.)
0.00
-2.48
-3.59
1.53
0.55

Generator
32
33
34
35
36

DLP3 7

fi (p.u.)
0.77
0.04
1.14
1.31
0.70

corresponding DLP or DSP occurs in the Kimbark curve. Yet,
since DSPs and DLPs occur one after another along post-fault
system trajectory as analyzed in Section II, the stability of critical
machines in the system can only be identified in a “machine-bymachine” way along time horizon. Furthermore, during this process the system can be judged as unstable immediately once the
leading LOSP occurs without waiting for the stability judgements
of the rest of critical machines. Detailed analysis will be provided
in the next section.
VI. C ASE S TUDIES
A. Parallel Monitoring
The case [TS-1, bus-2, 0.430s] is provided here to demonstrate
the machine-by-machine stability judgement when using proposed
method in TSA. The simulated system trajectory is shown in Fig.
15.
In Fig. 15, once fault is cleared, Machines 37, 38 and 39 are
identified as critical machines. Therefore, the system operator
monitors IMTs of these three critical machines in parallel by
neglecting that of non-critical machines. Along time horizon the
system operator can focus on following instants.
DLP38 occurs (0.614s): Machine 38 is judged as unstable.
DSP39 occurs (0.686s): Machine 39 is judged as stable.
DLP37 occurs (0.777s): Machine 37 is judged as unstable.
The stability of the system is judged as below:
DLP38 occurs (0.614s): DLP38 is defined as leading LOSP,
and the system is judged as unstable.
DLP37 occurs (0.777s): DLP37 is defined as lagging LOSP,
yet the system has already gone unstable for a while.
From analysis above, DLP38 and DLP37 are the leading LOSP
and lagging LOSP, respectively. fi s of all machines in the system
at the instant of the occurrence of DLP37 (0.777s) are shown in
Table I.
From Table I one can see, at 0.777s only f37 is zero while fi of
other machines are not zero, thus DLP3 7 is only the acceleration
point of Machine 37, which is meaningless to the stability analysis
of other critical machines in the system.
B. Only-one-machine Monitoring
For the case given in Fig. 15, assume that the system operator
monitors only one critical machine and misses monitoring the
other two critical machines. Under such circumstance, three
different cases are shown as below:
a) Only Machine 38 is monitored
In this case the system can be judged as unstable by the
only monitored unstable Machine 38 via unity principle, and the
leading LOSP can be obtained.
b) Only Machine 37 is monitored

10



IDXOWRQSHULRG

SRVWIDXOWSHULRG

 UDG



0DFKLQH

FXUUHQWLQVWDQW


0DFKLQH





0DFKLQH







WLPH V







Fig. 15: Demonstration of parallel monitoring [TS-1, bus-2, 0.430s]

In this case the system can also be judged as unstable by
the only monitored unstable Machine 37. Yet, the leading LOSP
cannot be obtained. Only lagging LOSP can be obtained.
c) Only Machine 39 is monitored
In this case the system operator cannot confirm that the system
is stable or not by the only-monitored stable Machine 39, and the
rest of critical machines still need to be monitored to confirm
the instability of the system. The individual-machine monitoring
cases above indicate that each critical machine’s “status” for
transient stability analysis in the system is different, which will
be analyzed in the companion paper.
VII. C ONCLUSION

AND DISCUSSION

Through the analysis of this paper, one can conclude following:
(i) EAC is proved to strictly hold for a critical machine.
The Kimbark curve of a critical machine exhibits a strong
“accelerating-decelerating” characteristic.
(ii) The critical machines are most possible to separate from
the system, and the system operator may only focus on analyzing
the stability of critical machines.
(iii) A critical machine going unstable in θi − fi space is
identical to the IMT of the critical machine going unstable in
t − θi space.
(iv) The unity principle indicates that monitoring the transient
stability of the multi-machine system can be treated from an
individual-machine angle, and transient instability of the multimachine system can be determined by any one unstable critical
machine.
In the companion paper, the application of the IMEAC and
individual-machine stability judgement will be analyzed, which
may demonstrate the effectiveness of using proposed method in
TSA.

R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

A. A. Fouad, “Stability theory-criteria for transient stability,” in Proc. Conf.
on System Engineering for Power: Status and Prospects, Henniker, NH,
1975.
T. Athay, R. Podmore, and S. Virmani, “A practical method for direct
analysis of transient stability,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Syst. vol.
PAS-98, pp. 573-584, 1979.
N. Kakimoto, Y. Ohsawa, and M.Hayashi, “Transient stability analysis of
electric power system via Lur’s type Lyapunov function, Part I New critical
value for transient stability,” Trans. IEE of Japan, Vol. 98, no. 5-6, pp. 63-71,
1978.
Y. Xue, Th. Van Cutsem, and M.Ribbens-Pavella, “Extended Equal Area
Criterion Justifications, Generalizations, Applications,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 44-52, 1989.
C. Jakpattanajit, A. Yokoyama, and N. Hoonchareon, “Enhancing SmallSignal and Transient Stability Performances in Power Systems with Integrated Energy Function and Functional Sensitivity,” IEEJ Trans, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 15-22, 2016.
A. A. Fouad and S.E. Stanton, “Transient stability of a multi-machine power
system Part I and II,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Syst. vol. PAS-100,
pp. 3408-3424, 1981.
V. Vittal, “Power system transient stability using critical energy of individual
machines,” Ph.D dissertation, Iowa State University, 1982.
A. Michel, A. A. Fouad, and V. Vittal, “Power system transient stability
using individual machine energy functions,” IEEE Trans. on Circuits Syst.
vol. CAS-30, no. 5, pp. 266-276, 1983.
S. E. Stanton, “Assessment of the stability of a multi-machine power system
by the transient energy margin,” Ph.D dissertation, Iowa State University,
1982.
S. E. Stanton and W. P. Dykas, “Analysis of a local transient control action
by partial energy functions,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. vol. 4, no. 3, pp.
996-1002, 1989.
S. E. Stanton, “Transient stability monitoring for electric power systems
using a partial energy function,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. vol. 4, no. 4, pp.
1389-1396, 1989.
S.E. Stanton, C. Slivinsky, K. Martin, and J. Nordstrom, “Application
of phasor measurements and partial energy analysis in stabilizing large
disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 297-306, 1995.
P. Rastgoufard, A. Yazdankhah, and R. A. Schlueter, “Multi-machine equal
area based power system transient stability measure,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst. vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 188-196, 1988.

11

[14] M. H. Haque, “Further developments of the equal-area criterion for multimachine power systems,” Elec. Power Syst. Research, vol. 33, pp. 175183,1995.

[15] R. Ando and S. Iwamoto, “Highly reliable transient stability solution method
using energy function,” IEE Trans. Japan,, vol. 108, no. 4, 1988.

