This framework identifies parameters of synchronous generators, improving stability analysis methods for power systems.
As modern power systems grow increasingly complex, there is a pressing need for stability analysis methods capable of handling nonlinear dynamics while providing physically meaningful and reliable stability indices. Port-Hamiltonian (PH) frameworks have emerged as strong candidates in this regard, offering inherently stable formulations, energy-consistent representations, and modular plug-and-play scalability. However, the practical deployment of PH-based stability analysis remains hindered by the absence of reliable, high-fidelity parameter identification methods that rely on sensor measurements to capture system dynamics while remaining compatible with PH model structures. This paper addresses that gap by proposing a comprehensive three-stage data-driven identification framework for PH modeling of synchronous generators—the central dynamic component of any power system. While the IEEE Standard 115 provides established procedures for transient parameter identification, it exhibits fundamental limitations when applied to PH modeling, including single-scenario identifiability constraints, noise-sensitive derivative-based formulations that amplify sensor measurement errors, and the inability to decouple generator-internal damping from grid contributions. The proposed framework resolves these limitations through multi-scenario excitation using sensor-acquired voltage and current signals, derivative-free state consistency optimization, and physics-based regularization that enforces PH structure preservation. Complete identification of eight key parameters (H, D, Xd, Xq, Xd′, Xq′, Tdo′, Tqo′) is achieved with errors ranging from 1.26% to 9.10%, and validation confirms RMS rotor angle errors below 1.2° and speed errors below 0.15%, demonstrating suitability for transient stability analysis, passivity-based control design, and oscillation damping assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peykarporsan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: