Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, 2018, 6, 106-124

http://www.scirp.org/journal/jpee
ISSN Online: 2327-5901
ISSN Print: 2327-588X

Steady State Simulation of 33 kV Power Grid

Kiu Han Teck, Nader Barsoum

Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

How to cite this paper: Teck, K.H. and Abstract

Barsoum, N. (2018) Steady State Simulation
of 33 kV Power Grid. Journal of Power and An example is presented in this paper relating to power problems in Sandakan
Energy Engineering, 6, 106-124. power network. Sandakan is a suburb in east coast of Sabah state of Malaysia.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 The problems were reported with power flow and N-1 contingency in terms of
blackout after main grid supply outages with overload and high fault current
Received: May 31, 2018
Accepted: June 26, 2018 on distribution system. This paper focuses on analysis of steady state stability
Published: June 29, 2018 of 33 kV power grid using load flow, contingency analysis and voltage stability
(P-V Curve). The analysis is done by using industrial grade power software
Copyright © 2018 by authors and called Power System Simulation for Engineers (PSS/E). The power flow result
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
showed that there are three generators generating out of limits. Contingency
Commons Attribution International results showed that three transformer branches and three distribution branches
License (CC BY 4.0). are affected. There are nine weakest buses that violate contingency voltage
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ deviation criterion and cannot withstand more load power when N-1-1 case
Open Access in the branch of bus 8 to bus 28 is under outage.

Keywords
Load Flow, Contingency Analysis, PV Curve, Voltage Stability, Overload,
Voltage Deviation Violation

1. Introduction
In Sabah grid, the power demand is increasing annually but the generated capac-
ities is less than the power demand, especially in the east coast [1]. The current
equipments in transmission system such as electricity cable are getting old and
are found operated closer to their limits of stability and cannot withstand with
increased power supply [2]. Due to these, the grid system is exposed to distur-
bances or contingencies which can cause system collapse and blackout. Sabah
faced two major serious blackouts [1]. The most severe blackout happened in
2014 for 10 hours of state-wide blackout. The collapse is triggered by flashover
which is from conductor of 132 KV transmission line. Another one is blackout
in the whole east coast due to outage of 275 KV transmission line.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 Jun. 29, 2018 106 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering
 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

As stated in Sabah grid Code [3], most of transmission lines, distribution and
transformers fulfil N-1 contingency requirement, but in fact studies showed that
there is no N-1 contingency in aging existing transformer and existing line con-
figuration [2]. Therefore, when N-1 contingency happens, overload conditions
occur on those transformers, distribution and transmission lines.
Contingency analysis has been developed by [4] using sensitivity factors to
approximate power flow on branches whereas voltage performance index is used
by [5] to approximate the contingency voltage on a certain bus in a power sys-
tem. For voltage stability part, [6] reviewed four commonly used voltage stability
analysis tools which are PV/QV curve analysis, L index, Modal analysis and
V/Vo index. Authors have done comparison of accuracy results on IEEE bus
power system.
This paper focuses on steady state stability for distribution level of power grid.
Thus, 33 KV Sandakan network of Sabah Grid System is chosen to simulate
steady state stability which consists of load flow simulation, contingency simula-
tion and P-V curve. Contingency scenarios are created to test its overall steady
state stability of the grid in terms of contingency voltage deviation violation and
percentage overload. Moreover, P-V analysis is performed to determine the
weakest buses in the network. The process of analysing the stability can be
daunting and challenging if the power network is highly complex, large size and
non-linear. The process takes a lot of time in the calculations to access all the
power variables and contingencies [7]. Therefore, a Power System Simulation for
Engineers (PSS/E) software is utilized to perform all power flow computations in
this steady state analysis.

2. Existing N-1 Network

The existing model of power system network shown in Figure 1 is modelled by
using (PSS/E).This network is disconnected from the main grid power supply,
especially the supply from 275 KV transmission line. Therefore, in that case, the
network itself is assumed as N-1 under outages of main grid and is considered as
external N-1 condition. Date of bus names, Transformers, generators, loads and
branches regarding powers and impedances are given in the tables at the Ap-
pendix.
The grid system has the following major components:
1) Buses: 34 (27 of them are connected)
2) Loads: 24 (22 of them are in service)
3) Branches: 40 (29 out of 32 distribution branches and 8 transformer
branches are in service)
4) Fixed shunts: 6 (5 of them are in service)
5) Generators (machines): 8 (6 of them are in service)

3. Load Flow Analysis

Load flow analysis is used to calculate voltage, current flows, active and reactive

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 107 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Figure 1. Existing power network drawn in PSS/E.

powers, power losses for generators, load and generator buses, distribution and
transformer branches, and loads in the Power network. There are two types of
solutions in PSS/E: Newton Raphson and Gauss Seidel load flows. Due to com-
plexity and large number of buses in N-1 power network, Newton Raphson is
chosen due to faster converging rate and repetitive complicated computation of
Jacobian matrix and its minimal sensitivity. For contingency cases, Fixed Slope
Decoupled load flow which is part of Newton Raphson created by Siemens
Company is chosen as it performs better in difficult and complicated cases

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 108 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

compared to other types of methods.

There are four power elements that load flow used to calculate. These are:
1) Generators (swing buses): generated active and reactive power flows
2) Distribution and transformer branches: current flows, active and reactive
power flows, percentage voltage drop, power factor, and power losses.
3) Buses (load buses and generator buses): bus voltage, active and reactive
power flows, and current flows.
4) Loads: active and reactive power flows, current flows, and percentage load-
ing.
Table 1 shows the power flow results of generated active power and reactive
power for each in-service generating unit which act as swing bus. Pmax and Pmin
are the maximum and minimum generated capacity for each generator. Same
goes to Qmin and Qmax which represent reactive power capacity. With respect to
PGen, all generators generated within their active power and reactive power lim-
its except for generators named KB_6.6, SB_6.6, and BN_11.
Table 2 shows the total generated power by all generators before and after the

Table 1. Generators results.

PGen Pmax Pmin QGen Qmax Qmin

Bus No. Bus Name Base kV
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MVAr) (MVAr) (MVAr)

1 KB_6.6 6.6000 24.6 10.0 0.0 5.9 7.3 0.5

2 SB_6.6 6.6000 25.0 10.0 0.0 8.1 7.3 0.5

23 GN_11 11.000 5.0 37.0 20.0 1.6 24.8 −14.7

28 BN_11 11.000 27.3 20.0 0.0 12.1 21.2 −15.2

29 LD1_11 11.000 7.6 15.0 8.0 2.6 11.4 −8.5

32 LD2_11 11.000 7.6 15.0 8.0 2.6 11.4 −8.5

33 LD3_11 11.000 7.5 15.0 8.0 1.6 11.4 −8.5

34 LD4_11 11.000 7.5 15.0 8.0 1.6 11.4 −8.5

Table 2. Total generated power in sandakan before and after N-1 outage.

PGen (MW) PGen (MW) Active Power

Bus No. Bus Name Base kV
(After Outage) (Before Outage) Capacity (MW)

1 KB_6.6 6.6000 24.6 10.00 10.0

2 SB_6.6 6.6000 25.0 10.00 10.0

23 GN_11 11.000 5.0 14.76 37.0

28 BN_11 11.000 27.3 15.00 20.0

29 LD1_11 11.000 7.6 9.50 15.0

32 LD2_11 11.000 7.6 9.50 15.0

33 LD3_11 11.000 7.5 15.00 15.0

34 LD4_11 11.000 7.5 15.00 15.0

TOTAL 112.10 98.76 137.00

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 109 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

main supply outage from 275 KV transmission line with respect to the total gen-
erated capacity. The table shows that the power demand increase by 13.34 MW
from 98.76 MW after the outage, but they are within the total generated capacity.
Table 3 shows the load flow results for all in-service branches (transformer
and distribution). Note: DB is distribution branch, TB is transformer branch.
Transformer branches are found higher active and reactive power losses, higher
percent of voltage drop, higher current flows and higher active and reactive
power flows than that in distribution branches. Only transformer branches have
higher loadings problem compared to distribution branches. For distribution
branches, DB10_1 is recorded with highest power losses. For transformer
branches, TB3 is recorded with highest reactive power loss and TB5 and TB6
share the highest active power losses. TB2 is recorded with highest percent of
voltage drop among all branches, followed by DB2_1 and DB2_2. DB14_1,
DB14_2, DB17_1 and DB17_2 are recorded with zero among all variables.
Table 4 and Table 5 show the load flow results for all in-service buses. Load
buses are represented by bus code 1 while generator buses are represented by bus
code 2. UB_33 and BM_33 are recoded zero in active and reactive power flows
and current flows due to no loads connected to them. Generator buses are rec-
orded higher current flows compared to load buses. All bus voltages are within
contingency voltage range stated by Distribution Code of Energy Commission.
The voltage range is from 0.9 pu to 1.1pu. That means all bus voltages are safe
and secure under N-1 case which is disconnected from main grid supply.
This load flow analysis shows that all bus voltages are slightly higher than
100% and 2 load buses are overloaded as well as 3 generators generating out of
limits.

4. Contingency Analysis
To compute the branch power flows after certain level of outage, contingency
sensitivity factors are used to approximate the change in line flows and the
changes in generation in a power system. It is one of fastest way to calculate
possible overloads in a power system network. The main two sensitivity factors
are Generation Shift Factors (GSF) and Line Outage Distribution Factors
(LODF).
For GSF part, the generation factor is defined as changes in power flow in par-
ticular line when a change in power generation at reference bus occurs.
Generation shift factors,
∆PFl
α li = (1)
∆PGi

where ∆PFl = changes in power flow on lth line

∆PGi = changes in generation which takes place on ith bus
For LODF, the line outage distribution factor is defined as the change in pow-
er flow on ith line during pre-contingency line flow on 𝑙𝑙 th line.
Line outage distribution factors,

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 110 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table 3. Distribution and transformer branch results.

Branches MW Flows MVAr Flows % Voltage Drop kW Losses kVAr Losses

DB1_1 13.606 3.741 0 0.002 0.196

DB1_2 13.3 1.644 0 0.002 0.176

DB2_1 12.004 6.544 2.25 30.998 557

DB2_2 12.004 6.544 2.25 30.998 557

DB3 13.752 7.036 0 0.002 0.234

DB4_1 7.457 0.646 0.22 13.641 36.767

DB4_2 7.457 0.646 0.22 13.641 36.767

DB5_1 9.328 4.194 0.95 11.233 195

DB5_2 9.328 4.194 0.95 11.233 195

DB6_1 13.406 1.646 0.75 35.109 632

DB6_2 13.406 1.646 0.75 35.109 632

DB7_1 6.187 −3.415 0.08 9.547 29.333

DB7_2 6.187 −3.415 0.08 9.547 29.333

DB8_1 6.225 −3.339 0.05 27.673 47.071

DB8_2 6.225 −3.339 0.05 27.673 47.071

DB9_1 6.907 −1.432 0.08 9.47 15.861

DB9_2 6.907 −1.432 0.08 9.47 15.861

DB10_1 12.132 −5.175 0.07 83.315 225

DB11_1 9.181 −3.916 0.04 30.672 82.668

DB12_1 22.751 2.229 0.09 16.57 34.142

DB12_2 22.751 2.229 0.09 16.57 34.142

DB13_1 9.212 −3.833 0.03 32.376 87.261

DB14_1 0 0 0 0 0

DB14_2 0 0 0 0 0

DB15_1 10.072 4.878 0 0.001 0.123

DB16_1 9.423 4.565 0.01 0.393 1.058

DB16_2 9.423 4.565 0.01 0.393 1.058
DB17_1 0 0 0 0 0
DB17_2 0 0 0 0 0
TB1 13.368 2.902 2.09 67.639 1258
TB2 13.68 5.136 3.59 74.983 1395
TB3 26.747 9.69 3.8 29.418 3530
TB4 12.879 1.094 0.76 49.758 925
TB5 11.549 2.247 1.65 81.776 629
TB6 11.549 2.247 1.65 81.776 629
TB7 11.361 1.21 1.15 77.846 599

TB8 11.361 1.21 1.15 77.846 599

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 111 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table 4. Load flows results for all in-service buses.

Buses Bus Code Bus Voltage (pu) MW Loading MVAr Loading Amp Loading

BM_33 1 1.0316 0 0 0

BN_11 2 1.049 26.747 9.69 1423

BS_33 1 1.011 26.718 12.293 508.9

GN_11 2 1.04 12.879 1.094 652.3

KB_6.6 2 1.03 13.368 2.902 1162

KB_33 1 1.0091 13.3 1.644 232.4

KG_33 1 1.0329 12.394 6.772 239.2

LD1_11 2 1.049 11.549 2.247 588.7

LD2_11 2 1.049 11.549 2.247 588.7

LD3_11 2 1.044 11.361 1.21 574.4

LD4_11 2 1.044 11.361 1.21 574.4

LD_33 1 1.0337 12.375 12.823 301.6

LK_33 1 1.009 18.845 9.127 363.1

LP_33 1 1.0325 45.501 4.459 774.7

MS_33 1 1.0316 13.796 9.578 284.8

PI_33 1 1.0324 34.143 12.907 618.6

SA_33 1 1.0316 45.468 13.087 802.4

SB_3.3 1 1.0091 13.606 3.741 244.6

SB_6.6 2 1.045 13.68 5.136 1223

SC_33 1 1.032 9.212 3.833 169.2

SD2_33 1 1.0091 45.658 12.421 820.4

SD_33 1 1.0091 23.946 11.973 464.2

SM_33 1 0.9993 14.887 7.21 289.6

SR_33 1 1.009 10.072 4.878 194

TS_33 1 1.0016 45.375 16.043 840.7

UB_33 1 1.032 0 0 0

∆PFl
dli = (2)
Pi o

where ∆PFl = changes in power flow on 𝑙𝑙 th line

Pi o = Power line flow on ith line before contingency of ith line
In PSS/E software, the process of performing contingency analysis is done
automatically and comprehensively without manually tripping each line. Before
carrying out N-1 contingency analysis, three types of files are created. They are
*mon.file, *sub.file and *con.file. Each file is described in Table 6. Figure 2
shows the process of creating these files.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 112 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table 5. Load flow results for all in-service loads.

Load Buses Id MW Flows (kW) MVAr Flows (kVAr) Current Flows % PF % Loading

SD_33 1 2573 1246 49.57 90 99.1

SD_33 2 2879 1395 55.47 89.99 99.1

SD_33 3 4460 2160 85.92 90 99.1

SD_33 4 282 136 5.428 90.07 99.1

TS_33 1 17,289 8373 335.6 90 99.8

TS_33 2 13,172 6379 255.7 90 99.8

SM_33 1 10,415 5044 202.6 90 100.1

SM_33 2 4472 2166 86.99 90 100.1

BS_33 1 2181 1056 41.93 90 98.9

BS_33 2 5881 2848 113.1 90 98.9

LD_33 1 6849 3317 128.8 90 96.7

LD_33 2 5526 2676 103.9 90 96.7

PI_33 1 4497 2178 84.68 90 96.9

PI_33 2 3382 1638 63.68 90 96.9

MS_33 1 6947 3365 130.9 90 96.9

MS_33 2 6849 3317 129.1 90 96.9

SR_33 1 4031 1952 77.66 90 99.1

SR_33 2 6041 2926 116.4 90 99.1

LK_33 1 5416 2623 104.3 90 99.1

LK_33 2 3357 1626 64.68 90 99.1

SD2_33 1 −5000 0 86.69 100 99.1

TS_33 1 0 −6019 105.1 0 −

SM_33 1 0 −5992 104.9 0 −
BS_33 1 0 −6133 106.1 0 −

LD_33 1 0 −12823 217 0 −

PI_33 3 0 −3197 54.18 0 −

MS_33 3 0 −9578 162.4 0 −

Table 6. Three types of PSS/E files with descriptions.

File Type Description

It informs load flow simulator the branches needed to be monitored when N-1
*mon.file contingency happens. It also monitors and records the bus voltages within specific
ranges or outside the range.

It tells load flow analysis to consider and perform at specific zone. It includes all
*sub.file
involved power network elements in the case study.

It is used to trip line or power elements to create contingency scenarios. Three types
*con.file of contingencies: N-0 (system intact), N-1 (single power element outage) and N-2
(two power elements outage). In this case, N-1 is chosen.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 113 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Figure 2. Process of creating these files.

Before doing any N-1 contingency analysis, it is compulsory to comply the

contingency voltage range is set within ±10% of nominal voltage at steady state
level for 33 kV distribution network. Since the nominal voltage is 1.0 pu, there-
fore the range is from 0.9 pu to 1.1pu. Besides, there are two types of contingen-
cy case analyzed as follows:
1) External contingency (N-1): is the power network cut off supply from main
grid
2) Internal contingency (N-1-1): is another contingency happens after exter-
nal contingency occurred
Branch flows and overload condition are determined for affected branches in
every contingency case. Also, determines the buses that violate the contingency
voltage deviation criterion which is the changes in voltage cannot rise more than
0.06 pu and drop more than 0.03 pu.
From Table 7, transformer branches which are marked in italic are recorded
higher than that in distribution branches. The most severe overload cases hap-
pen on the transformer branches near to SB_6.6 and KB_6.6 generators. This is
because the lost generation from incomer main grid is supplied by these two
supplies, causing them to generate more power demand.
In the contingency analysis, all branches except six branches are considered
safe and remained unaffected throughout all contingency cases (N-1-1 and N-1).
Table 8 shows that the list of 31 unaffected branches out of 37 branches involved
in contingency analysis. The branches highlighted in italic are transformer
branches and the rest are distribution branches.
There is no contingency voltage deviation violation report in all contingency
cases except for case when outage of transformer branch bus 8 to bus 28. The
bus that cannot withstand N-1 or N-1-1 is if they violate the voltage deviation
criterion. The violation case can be shown visually in Figure 3. The affected
buses highlighted in red are the buses that cannot withstand N-1. The transfor-
mer branch outage is highlighted in black. Table 9 shows the affected buses
during the contingency case named SINGLE 8-28 with their respective contin-
gency voltage, initial voltage, and the voltage deviation limits.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 114 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table 7. List of affected branches with respective total number of involved cases and overload percent.

Affected Branches
No. of Cases Involved Overload Percent
From Bus To Bus
Id from Total 38 contingency Cases Ranges (%)
No Name No Name
1 KB_6.6 4 KB_33 1 38 174.0 - 228.1
2 SB_6.6 3 SB_33 1 38 173.4 - 238.3
6 TS_33 8 BS_33 2 1 110.2
8 BS_33 28 BN_11 1 38 110.5 - 142.0
14 SA_33 16 LP_33 1 8 101.8 - 165.0
14 SA_33 16 LP_33 2 8 101.8 - 165.0

Figure 3. N-1-1 case with affected buses when outage of transformer branch from bus 8 to bus 28.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 115 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table 8. List of unaffected branches throughout all contingency cases (N-1 and N-1-1
cases).

Unaffected Branches

From Bus To Bus

Id
No. Name No. Name

16 LP_33 29 LD1_11 1

16 LP_33 32 LD2_11 1

16 LP_33 33 LD3_11 1

16 LP_33 34 LD4_11 1

11 PI_33 23 GN_11 1

3 SB_33 26 SD2_33 1

4 KB_33 26 SD2_33 2

5 SD_33 14 SA_33 1

5 SD_33 14 SA_33 2

5 SD_33 26 SD2_33 1

6 TS_33 7 SM_33 1

6 TS_33 7 SM_33 2

6 TS_33 8 BS_33 1

6 TS_33 8 BS_33 2

6 TS_33 26 SD2_33 1

6 TS_33 26 SD2_33 2

9 KG_33 10 LD_33 1

9 KG_33 10 LD_33 2

9 KG_33 11 PI_33 1

9 KG_33 11 PI_33 2

11 PI_33 12 MS_33 1

11 PI_33 12 MS_33 2

11 PI_33 14 SA_33 1

11 PI_33 18 SC_33 1

14 SA_33 16 LP_33 1

14 SA_33 16 LP_33 2

14 SA_33 18 SC_33 1

14 SA_33 20 BM_33 1

14 SA_33 20 BM_33 2
15 SR_33 17 LK_33 1
17 LK_33 26 SD2_33 1
17 LK_33 26 SD2_33 2
18 SC_33 19 UB_33 1
18 SC_33 19 UB_33 2

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 116 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Contingency results showed 3 transformer branches and 2 distribution

branches are affected.

5. P-V (Load Power-Load Voltage) Curve Analysis

P-V curve is commonly used as voltage stability analysis tool to analyze maxi-
mum additional load power that a bus can sustain before its voltage collapses,
after the load power exceeds its power limits. Figure 4 shows a simple P-V
curve. When load power exceeds the power limit of a bus, the bus voltage will
start to drop until reaching the critical point, which is voltage collapse point
when the bus reaches the maximum additional power. PSS/E is able to simulate
different P-V curve for different level of contingency. So, in this paper, P-V
curve is simulated for external contingency and internal contingency cases for all
26 in-service buses. The maximum additional power transfer and voltage col-
lapse point are recorded for each buses in every contingency cases.
All buses are simulated with P-V curves for every contingency case. Thus, 988
(38 contingency cases X 26 buses) P-V curves are simulated. Table 10 shows the
list of number of contingency cases with the overall maximum additional power
transfer among all buses. Among 38 contingency cases, 15 of them are recorded
with the highest maximum additional power transfer with 312.50 MW, followed

Table 9. Contingency voltage deviation violation reports.

Bus V-Cont V-Init V-Rise V-Drop

Contingency Label Bus No.
Name (pu) (pu) (pu) (pu)

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 3 SB_33 0.97276 1.00406 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 4 KB_33 0.97276 1.00406 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 5 SD_33 0.97276 1.00406 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 6 TS_33 0.93054 0.98853 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 7 SM_33 0.92785 0.98622 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 8 BS_33 0.93149 1.00015 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 15 SR_33 0.97268 1.00398 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 17 LK_33 0.97268 1.00398 0.06000 0.03000

DEVIATION SINGLE 8-28 26 SD2_33 0.97276 1.00406 0.06000 0.03000

Figure 4. PV curve.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 117 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

by 6 cases with 306.25 MW and 5 cases with 287.50 MW. The only one case with
the lowest maximum additional power transfer (143.75 MW) happened when
outage of transformer branch from bus 8 to bus 28. That means all buses can
only withstand incremental power transfer up to 143.75 MW when this outage
happens. That is why this case has only voltage violation cases, referring to
Table 8. They cannot withstand higher power flows compared to other cases.
Among all P-V curves, almost all buses except generator buses have their vol-
tage collapse point at below 0.9 pu. That is not reasonable that the steady state
operating voltage is within 10% of the nominal voltage, from 0.9 pu to 1.1 pu.
Since the weakest case is SINGLE 8-28 (1), in order to determine weakest buses,
the maximum incremental power transfer at 0.9 pu of the nominal voltage is de-
termined for each bus. Any voltage which is outside of the tolerance is not ac-
ceptable. Figure 5 shows the finding of maximum additional power transfer at

Table 10. List of number of contingency cases and the maximum additional power transfer.

No. of contingency cases Maximum Additional Power Transfer (MW)

1 143.75
1 218.75
2 243.75
4 256.25
2 268.75
5 287.50
2 293.75
6 306.25
15 312.50

Figure 5. Maximum additional power transfer at 0.9 pu in PV curve.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 118 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

0.9 pu. Table 11 shows the maximum additional power transfer at 0.9 pu for
each bus with respective voltage collapse point at contingency case named
SINGLE 8-28.
From Table 11, the generator buses (KB_6.6, SB_6.6, BN_11, GN_11,
LD1_11, LD2_11, LD3_11 and LD4_11) have maintained constant bus voltage
along all incremental power transfer. This is because no losses involved when the
generators generate the output voltage to the nearest buses. The loss will be very
small. Any bus that withstand below 50% of the 143.75 MW is considered as
weakest buses. Therefore, the weakest buses are SB_33, KB_33, SD_33, TS_33,

Table 11. List of all buses with their respective maximum additional power transfer at 0.9
puin weakest contingency case (Single 8-28).

Maximum Incremental Power Flow Voltage Collapse

Bus No. Bus Name
(MW) at 0.9 pu Point (pu)

1 KB_6.6 143.75 1.030

2 SB_6.6 143.75 1.045

9 KG_33 80 0.812

10 LD_33 80 0.807

11 PI_33 83 0.827

12 MS_33 86 0.821

14 SA_33 92 0.843

28 BN_11 143.75 1.049

29 LD1_11 143.75 1.049

32 LD2_11 143.75 1.049

33 LD3_11 143.75 1.044

34 LD4_11 143.75 1.044

18 SC_33 91 0.834

19 UB_33 91 0.834

20 BM_33 92 0.843

23 GN_11 143.75 1.040

16 LP_33 98 0.850

3 SB_33 26 0.618

4 KB_33 26 0.618

5 SD_33 26 0.618

6 TS_33 8 0.349

7 SM_33 6 0.334

8 BS_33 8 0.333

15 SR_33 29 0.618

17 LK_33 29 0.618

26 SD2_33 27 0.618

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 119 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

SM_33, BS_33, SR_33, LK_33, and SD2_33. The results from P-V actually corre-
late with the Contingency Voltage Violation results shown in Table 9.

6. Conclusions
Sandakan power network has serious overload condition on generating units
compared to other distribution lines. This paper shows that 3 generators out of 8
are generating out of the limits. For all loads, a vast majority of loads are margi-
nally overload. There are 9 weakest buses determined at weakest N-1-1 contin-
gency case via P-V curve and Contingency analysis. The buses are found
dropped out of the contingency voltage deviation criterion and can withstand
smaller power transfer after the power exceeds their bus power limit.
Contingency analysis is a very important and useful tool in planning the un-
planned electrical outages. It can predict the future power system conditions
under outages. It evaluates how many those buses survive under outages and
those didn’t. In this case, PSS/E is able to perform contingency analysis within
seconds and provide with accurate results. To improve its stability, two types of
FACTS devices are recommended: UPFC and STATCOM. UPFC is used to
compensate power flows to reduce overload condition whereas STATCOM is
used to maintain bus voltage for better voltage profile.

References
[1] (2015) Sabah Electricity Outlook 2015. Energy Commission Malaysia, 1-60.
[2] Songkin, M., Barsoum, N.N., Wong, F. and Lim, P.Y. (2017) A Study on Sabah Grid
System Stability. 2017 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Automatic Control
and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS 2017), 207-212.
[3] Grid Code for Sabah and Labuan (Amendments) 2017 (2017) Energy Commission
Malaysia (Suruhanjaya Tenaga Malaysia). 1-206.
[4] Satyanarayana, B., Deepak, J. and Khyati, D. (2016) Contingency Analysis of Power
System by Using Voltage and Active Power Performance Index. 1st IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and Energy Systems
(ICPEICES), 1-5.
[5] Roman, V. and Lucie, N. (2015) Sensitivity Factors for Contingency Analysis. Insti-
tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE), 1-5.
[6] Reis, C., Andrade, A. and Maciel, F.P. (2009) Voltage Stability Analysis of Electrical
Power System. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE), 244-248.
[7] Barsoum, N., Asok, C.B., SzuKwong, D.T. and Kit, C.G.T. (2017) Effect of Distri-
buted Generators on Stability in a limited bus Power Grid System. Journal of Power
and Energy Engineering, Scientific Research Publishing, 5, 74-91.

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 120 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Appendix
Table A1. Buses Data Used in PSS/E.

Bus No. Bus Name Bus Code Base kV Voltage (pu) Angle (deg)

1 KB_6.6 −2 6.6 1.0085 −15.28

2 SB_6.6 −2 6.6 1.0085 −15.28

3 SB_33 1 33.0 0.9594 −19.51

4 KB_33 1 33.0 0.9594 −19.51

5 SD_33 1 33.0 0.9594 −19.51

6 TS_33 1 33.0 0.9524 −23.99

7 SM_33 1 33.0 0.9499 −24.28

8 BS_33 1 33.0 0.9709 −23.60

9 KG_33 1 33.0 0.9543 −25.46

10 LD_33 1 33.0 0.9545 −25.73

11 PI_33 1 33.0 0.9549 −24.88

12 MS_33 1 33.0 0.9538 −25.07

13 TR_33 4 33.0 1.0000 0.00

14 SA_33 1 33.0 0.9615 −23.11

15 SR_33 1 33.0 0.9593 −19.52

16 LP_33 1 33.0 0.9615 −23.11

17 LK_33 1 33.0 0.9593 −19.52

18 SC_33 1 33.0 0.9580 −24.01

19 UB_33 1 33.0 0.9580 −24.01

20 BM_33 1 33.0 0.9615 −23.11

21 SI_33 4 33.0 1.0000 0.00

22 KG_11 4 11.0 1.0000 0.00

23 GN_11 2 11.0 0.9549 −54.88

24 SG2_11 4 11.0 1.0000 0.00

25 SG1_11 4 11.0 1.0000 0.00

26 SD2_33 1 33.0 0.9594 −19.51

27 BS_33 4 33.0 1.0000 0.00

28 BN_11 2 11.0 1.0490 10.42

29 LD1_11 2 11.0 0.9615 −23.11

30 BG_33 4 33.0 1.0000 0.00

31 B8_11 4 11.0 1.0000 0.00

32 LD2_11 2 11.0 0.9615 −23.11

33 LD3_11 2 11.0 0.9615 −23.11

34 LD4_11 2 11.0 0.9615 −23.11

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 121 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table A2. Transformer branch data used in PSS/E.

Transformer Branches
Tap Winding
From Bus To Bus
Id Positions MVA Base
No Name No Name

1 KB_6.6 4 KB_33 1 8 14.0

2 SB_6.6 3 SB_33 1 8 14.0

8 BS_33 28 BN_11 1 5 25.0

11 PI_33 23 GN_11 1 13 20.0

16 LP_33 29 LD1_11 1 5 20.0

16 LP_33 32 LD2_11 1 5 20.0

16 LP_33 33 LD3_11 1 5 20.0

16 LP_33 34 LD4_11 1 5 20.0

Table A3. Machines data used in PSS/E.

Bus Bus Bus PGen PMax PMin QGen QMax QMin

No. Name Code (MW) (MW) (MW) (Mvar) (Mvar) (Mvar)

1 KB_6.6 2 10.00 10.0 0.0 7.31 7.31 0.50

2 SB_6.6 2 10.00 10.0 0.0 7.31 7.31 0.50

23 GN_11 2 14.76 19.0 10.0 12.39 12.39 −7.35

23 GN_11 2 15.00 18.0 10.0 8.56 12.39 −7.35

24 SG2_11 4 25.00 10.0 0.0 −3.003 7.00 −5.00

25 SG1_11 4 25.00 10.0 0.0 1.525 7.00 −5.00

28 BN_11 2 15.00 20.0 0.0 17.468 21.24 −5.22

29 LD1_11 2 9.00 15.0 8.0 6.648 11.40 −8.50

32 LD2_11 2 9.50 15.0 8.0 6.603 11.40 −8.50

33 LD3_11 2 15.00 15.0 8.0 10.185 11.40 −8.50

34 LD4_11 2 15.00 15.0 8.0 7.224 11.40 −8.50

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 122 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

 K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table A4. Load data used in PSS/E.

Bus No. Bus Name Id Pload (MW) Qload (Mvar)

5 SD_33 1 2.5730 1.2460

5 SD_33 2 2.8790 1.3950

5 SD_33 3 4.4600 2.1600

5 SD_33 4 0.2820 0.1360

6 TS_33 1 17.2890 8.3730

6 TS_33 2 13.1720 6.3790

7 SM_33 1 10.4150 5.0440

7 SM_33 2 4.4720 2.1660

8 BS_33 1 2.1810 1.0560

8 BS_33 2 5.8810 2.8480

8 BS_33 3 0.0000 0.0000

10 LD_33 1 6.8490 3.3170

10 LD_33 2 5.5260 2.6760

11 PI_33 1 4.4970 2.1780

11 PI_33 2 3.3820 1.6380

12 MS_33 1 6.9470 3.3650

12 MS_33 2 6.8490 3.3170

15 SR_33 1 4.0310 1.9520

15 SR_33 2 6.0410 2.9260

17 LK_33 1 5.4160 2.6230

17 LK_33 2 3.3570 1.6260

26 SD2_33 99 -5.0000 0.0000

27 BS_33 99 -10.0000 0.0000

30 BG_33 99 -2.0000 0.0000

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 123 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering

K. H. Teck, N. Barsoum

Table A5. Branch/distribution line data used in PSS/E.

Distribution Branches
RATE1 Length
From Bus To Bus Line R (pu) Line X (pu)
Id (MVA) (mile)
No Name No Name

3 SB_33 26 SD2_33 1 36.0 36.0 0.000000 0.000100

4 KB_33 26 SD2_33 2 36.0 36.0 0.000000 0.000100

5 SD_33 14 SA_33 1 36.0 9.0 0.017631 0.333357

5 SD_33 14 SA_33 2 36.0 9.0 0.017631 0.333357

5 SD_33 26 SD2_33 1 36.0 36.0 0.000000 0.000100

6 TS_33 7 SM_33 1 35.5 6.7 0.024425 0.065831

6 TS_33 7 SM_33 2 35.5 6.7 0.024425 0.065831

6 TS_33 8 BS_33 1 18.0 5.6 0.010970 0.207422

6 TS_33 8 BS_33 2 18.0 5.6 0.010970 0.207422

6 TS_33 26 SD2_33 1 36.0 10.0 0.019590 0.370397

6 TS_33 26 SD2_33 2 36.0 10.0 0.019590 0.370397

8 BS_33 9 KG_33 1 32.6 0.7 0.005039 0.007713

8 BS_33 9 KG_33 2 32.6 0.7 0.005039 0.007713

9 KG_33 10 LD_33 1 43.7 6.7 0.020426 0.062755

9 KG_33 10 LD_33 2 43.7 6.7 0.020426 0.062755

9 KG_33 11 PI_33 1 18.0 3.5 0.059158 0.125699

9 KG_33 11 PI_33 2 18.0 3.5 0.059158 0.125699

11 PI_33 12 MS_33 1 18.0 1.2 0.020283 0.043097

11 PI_33 12 MS_33 2 18.0 1.2 0.020283 0.043097

11 PI_33 14 SA_33 1 35.5 14.0 0.051038 0.137557

11 PI_33 18 SC_33 1 35.5 9.0 0.032810 0.088430

12 MS_33 27 BS_33 1 0.0 36.0 0.000000 0.000100

14 SA_33 16 LP_33 1 18.0 0.2 0.003380 0.007183

14 SA_33 16 LP_33 2 18.0 0.2 0.003380 0.007183

14 SA_33 18 SC_33 1 35.5 9.5 0.034633 0.093343

14 SA_33 20 BM_33 1 35.5 9.0 0.032810 0.088430

14 SA_33 20 BM_33 2 35.5 9.0 0.032810 0.088430

15 SR_33 17 LK_33 1 36.0 0.0 0.000000 0.000100

17 LK_33 26 SD2_33 1 35.5 0.1 0.000365 0.000983

17 LK_33 26 SD2_33 2 35.5 0.1 0.000365 0.000983

18 SC_33 19 UB_33 1 35.5 0.0 0.000000 0.000100

18 SC_33 19 UB_33 2 35.5 0.0 0.000000 0.000100

DOI: 10.4236/jpee.2018.66007 124 Journal of Power and Energy Engineering