Towards Probabilistic Dynamic Security Assessment and Enhancement of Large Power Systems

Fr\'ed\'eric Sabot; Pierre-Etienne Labeau; Pierre Henneaux

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Towards Probabilistic Dynamic Security Assessment and Enhancement of Large Power Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a per-contingency stopping criterion with a coverage-aware standard-error bound that guarantees each contingency's risk estimate is accurate to a user-selected fraction of total risk, and demonstrates on a 73-bus test…

desk verdict A honest, well-engineered PDSA pipeline with a genuinely useful coverage-aware stopping rule; the main caveat is that the protection-parameter uncertainty is handled with only five draws per scenario, so the advertised per-contingency error bound doesn't fully cover that source. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01147 v1 pith:2K32XNAJ submitted 2025-05-02 eess.SY cs.SY

Frédéric Sabot , Pierre-Etienne Labeau , Pierre Henneaux This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords probabilisticdynamicsecurityassessmentcascadingoutagesprotectionuncertaintyMonteCarlostoppingcriterioncoverage-awarestandarderrorN-2contingenciesinterpretablemachinelearninggridriskranking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that probabilistic dynamic security assessment can be made both statistically trustworthy and computationally manageable by setting a per-contingency accuracy target rather than a single target on total risk. It derives a coverage-aware bound on the standard error of each contingency's risk estimate, so sampling stops only when every contingency's estimated risk is known to within a user-chosen fraction of total risk. On a 73-bus reliability test system, the method identifies ten contingencies that together account for more than 40% of total risk at roughly 400 core-hours. It also screens secure scenarios, handles protection-timing uncertainty with targeted Monte Carlo draws, and uses interpretable machine learning to trace critical contingencies to root causes such as high wind output on a specific line.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coverage-aware standard-error bound of Eq. (7). The first term under the square root is the usual sample-variance term; the second term, $3\beta_i^2/N_i^2$ with $\beta_i = M_C - \tilde{\mu}_i$, is an upper bound on the bias caused by potentially missing unsecure operating regions during sampling. This coverage term is what lets the stopping criterion $SE_i \le \epsilon R$ claim statistical accuracy for each contingency even when most sampled operating conditions show zero consequences. Secondary machinery includes the screening chain (Extended Equal Area critical clearing times, a short-circuit-power voltage indicator, and frequency criteria) and the protection-sensitivity indicator from prior work, which decides whether a scenario needs extra Monte Carlo draws of protection parameters.

What would settle it

Re-run the assessment on the 73-bus test system for the ten critical contingencies using, say, fifty Monte Carlo protection-parameter draws per protection-sensitive scenario instead of five, and compare the per-contingency risk estimates. If any estimate changes by more than $\epsilon R$, the claimed per-contingency accuracy guarantee does not hold as stated; alternatively, exhaustively enumerate protection parameter values for a single sensitive scenario and compare the true mean consequence with the five-draw estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eq. (7), $SE_i \le f_i \sqrt{\tilde{\sigma}_i^2 / N_i + 3 \beta_i^2 / N_i^2}$, is a valid upper bound on the standard error of the estimated risk of each contingency $i$ when operating conditions are sampled, where the second term under the square root bounds the bias from unobserved unsecure operating regions. Combined with the stopping criterion $SE_i \le \epsilon R$ of Eq. (1), this guarantees, with 95% confidence, that the estimated risk of every considered contingency differs from the true risk by less than a user-selected fraction of the total risk $R$. In the demonstration on the 73-bus reliability test system, this correctly ranks the most critical contingencies and identifies ten contingencies responsible for over 40% of total risk. The method also accounts for cascade uncertainty by using a prior indicator to classify scenarios as protection-timing-sensitive and running additional Monte Carlo draws only for those scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the pre-screening indicator from earlier work correctly identifies every scenario where protection-system timing can change the outcome, and that five random draws of protection parameters are enough to estimate the average consequences of each such scenario; if that assumption fails, the reported per-contingency accuracy could be an underestimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Planners can rank contingencies by risk with a quantified error bar and focus enhancement measures, such as new lines, series capacitors, system integrity protection schemes, or curtailment, on the few contingencies driving most risk.
For most contingencies the coverage term dominates the standard error, so crude Monte Carlo sampling is the most efficient way to meet the per-contingency target; variance-reduction techniques only pay off after the condition in Eq. (8) holds.
Screening by stability indicators roughly halves computation time in the demonstration while missing only about 4% of total risk, and better indicators would push toward the theoretical factor-20 speed-up.
On a large grid with about 12,000 contingencies, the same approach is estimated to need around 60,000 core-hours, roughly 18,000 euros of rented high-performance computing time, with subsequent runs much cheaper.
Interpretable SVM boundary rules, such as a specific line being critical when wind production is high and total load is low, give planners a direct handle on which operating conditions to avoid or mitigate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: the same coverage-aware stopping bound could be applied to any Monte Carlo risk assessment decomposed into categories, such as earthquake, wildfire, or cyber events, where missing one rare category biases the total; the criterion tells the analyst when enough samples have been drawn per category to trust the ranking.
Inference: the five-draw protection-parameter estimator is the part most likely to fail as protection systems and fast cascades become more complex; a direct variance check over draws, with adaptive increases when variance is high, would be a cheap safeguard and is testable on the existing test system.
Inference: the SVM root-cause rules implicitly define preventive redispatch constraints; one could test them by re-dispatching the 73-bus system to keep the identified features inside the secure region and re-running the probabilistic assessment to measure the resulting risk reduction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The headline is that this is a genuinely useful methods paper. The new thing is the coverage-aware standard error bound in Eq. (7), which adds a term that penalizes small sample sizes when no unsecure regions have been observed. Using that bound as a per-contingency stopping rule is a real improvement over the usual practice of stopping on the sample variance alone, which can be zero for rare blackout scenarios. The demonstration on RTS-GMLC is careful: the authors report computation times, screening speed-ups, the 4% missed risk, and the ten contingencies carrying over 40% of risk. The SVM root-cause analysis is simple but interpretable, and the wind-farm example checks out. The paper is honest about its limitations (unwanted trips, better indicators needed). Data and code are available.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The five Monte Carlo draws of protection parameters for protection-sensitive scenarios are the biggest one. The paper reports that 408 of 834 such scenarios had different consequences across draws, but gives no variance or convergence analysis for the five-draw mean. Since Eq. (7) treats each scenario's consequence as exact, the claimed per-contingency error bound does not actually cover the protection-parameter source of uncertainty. For contingencies that include many protection-sensitive scenarios, the total risk estimate could be biased. The authors justify five draws as a practical compromise, but they should at least report a standard error or show that the results are stable with more draws.

The screening step's 4% missed risk is also sensitive to the hand-set CCT margin, as Table III shows, so the reported accuracy is specific to that choice. The large-grid scalability figures are extrapolated from assumed simulation counts, not measured, so they should be read as rough estimates.

None of this undercuts the core statistical result. The derivation in Section II-B is internally consistent, and the coverage term is a useful conceptual contribution. The citation pattern is appropriate; the self-citation [23] is used for the protection-sensitivity indicator, not for the main claim.

This paper deserves a serious referee. I would engage with it, and I'd advise the authors to add a variance analysis for the protection-parameter draws and a sensitivity check on the CCT margin. If those are addressed, the methodology would be quite solid.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a complete probabilistic dynamic security assessment (PDSA) methodology for power systems, comprising: (i) generation of a database of plausible operating conditions via weather-driven Monte Carlo years, a market model, and SCOPF; (ii) per-contingency Monte Carlo sampling with a statistical stopping criterion; (iii) optional screening of secure scenarios using stability indicators; (iv) handling of protection-parameter uncertainty during fast cascades using an indicator from prior work and five Monte Carlo draws per sensitive scenario; and (v) interpretable machine-learning models (SVMs with sequential feature selection) to identify root causes and suggest security enhancements. The method is demonstrated on the 73-bus RTS-GMLC system, considering 114 delayed-clearing N-1 contingencies and 594 N-2 contingencies. The central claims are that the stopping criterion (Eqs. (1) and (7)) guarantees a user-selected statistical error on each contingency's risk contribution, that screening reduces computation time by about a factor of two with only 4% missed risk, and that the ten most critical contingencies (contributing over 40% of total risk) are correctly identified at roughly 400 core-hours of computation.

Significance. If the statistical guarantees hold, this is a valuable contribution to the probabilistic security assessment literature, which is currently of high practical interest given new European regulatory requirements. The paper's coverage-aware SE bound (Eq. (7)) addresses a genuine flaw in naive variance-based stopping rules and is conservative in spirit, which is a real strength. The explicit treatment of protection-parameter uncertainty during fast cascades and the use of interpretable ML for security enhancement are also worthwhile. The paper ships reproducible data and algorithms, and it is honest about the limitations of the screening process. The central statistical derivation is internally consistent and is not circular: the risk estimate and its error are both computed from the same simulations, which is standard Monte Carlo error estimation. However, two specific gaps, detailed in the major comments, prevent the paper's central claim from being fully substantiated as written.

major comments (2)

[II-D, IV-C] The per-contingency standard-error guarantee in Eq. (7) does not account for the Monte Carlo error introduced by estimating scenario consequences from only five protection-parameter draws. For the 834 unsecure scenarios flagged as protection-sensitive, the consequence used in the risk estimate is the average over these five draws, and the paper states that 408 of them yield different consequences across draws. Yet no standard error, confidence interval, or convergence diagnostic is reported for these five-draw averages. Because Eq. (7) computes the sample variance σ~_i^2 over operating-condition scenario means and treats each mean as an exact observation, it understates the true statistical error of the risk estimate. Consequently, the stopping criterion (1) can terminate while the actual risk for a contingency remains outside the claimed tolerance. This is a load-bearing gap in the paper's central statistical claim; the authors should either provide a variance/convergence analysis for the five draws or explicitly incorporate this source of error into the SE bound.
[II-C, Table II] The screening process misses 4.0% of the total risk overall and 6.4% of the N-2 risk (Table II), and this systematic downward bias is not reflected in the per-contingency SE bound (Eqs. (1) and (7)). The central claim is that the stopping criterion guarantees SE_i ≤ εR for every contingency; a missed-risk fraction of the same order as the user-selected tolerance (ε = 1% in the study) means that individual contingency risk estimates can be biased by more than the claimed statistical error, especially for N-2 contingencies where the missed fraction is larger. The paper acknowledges this as 'limited impact on accuracy', but the guarantee should be qualified: either the screening-induced bias should be explicitly reserved within the SE budget, or the guaranteed accuracy should be stated conditionally on scenarios that pass the screening. This is necessary for the stated per-contingency guarantee to be technically correct.

minor comments (5)

[IV-D, Table IV] Table IV is internally inconsistent: the ten listed risks sum to 9.93 M€/y, and adding the 'Others' entry of 12.4 M€/y gives 22.33 M€/y, exceeding the total risk of 21.0 M€/y reported in Table I. The 'Others' value should be approximately 11.07 M€/y.
[II-B, Eq. (11)] In Eq. (11), the quantities σ~, β, and N for the total risk are not explicitly defined; please add their definitions, mirroring the per-contingency definitions in Eqs. (5)-(7).
[III] The phrases 'a 0.1 chance' and 'a 0.01 chance' should be expressed as probabilities (0.1 and 0.01) for precision.
[II-D] The sentence 'The second set is however not connected to circuit breakers to not affect the system evolution' is grammatically awkward; consider rewording for clarity.
[II-C] The discussion of inverter-based generators modelled as synchronous machines with an inertia 1/K_i would benefit from a brief explanation of the units and meaning of K_i, as it appears without definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the per-contingency SE bound and stopping criterion are derived from the Monte Carlo sample itself in the standard way, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (7) follows algebraically from the binomial bound on the probability of observing no consequences (pi < 3/N_i), the definition beta_i^2 = (MC - tilde_mu_i)^2, and the standard Monte Carlo standard-error expression; it is not an identity with the target risk, and the stopping criterion SE_i <= epsilon R is a conventional adaptive Monte Carlo rule rather than a tautology. The screening evaluation in Table II is benchmarked against a no-screening PDSA performed with the same simulator, so the reported missed risk is an internally measured quantity, not a prediction forced by the screening model. The protection-sensitivity indicator is imported from the authors prior work [23], and Section IV-C uses five protection-parameter draws without a convergence or variance check; these are genuine validation and scope limitations for the uncertain-protection component, but they are correctness concerns, not circular reasoning. The self-citation is not a uniqueness theorem, does not feed back into Eqs. (1)-(11), and does not make the headline risk numbers equal to an input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the five-draw choice is an unexamined constant, not a fitted value. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central risk estimates depend on user-set thresholds (epsilon, CCT margin, protection MC count) and assumptions inherited from GARPUR, RTS-GMLC dynamic models, and prior protection-indicator work [23]. No new physical entities are introduced. The coverage bound uses the same simulation data as the risk estimate, which is standard Monte Carlo error estimation rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (4)

epsilon (stopping-criterion threshold) = 0.01
User-selected target in Eq. (1); controls required sample count and computational cost directly.
CCT margin = 50 ms
Added to EEA critical clearing time during screening (Section II-C); Table III shows missed-risk varies from 0.3% to 16.6% with this margin.
Protection-uncertainty sample count = 5
Each protection-sensitive scenario is simulated five times with random protection parameters (Section IV-C); no convergence check is reported.
Frequency stability thresholds = RoCoF < 0.4 Hz/s, generation loss < 70% of primary reserve
Chosen from preliminary simulations on the test system (Section II-C); used to screen frequency-secure scenarios.

assumptions (6)

standard math Rule of three bound pi < 3/Ni for zero observed consequences at 95% confidence
Used to derive the coverage term in Eqs. (3)-(7); standard binomial confidence approximation.
domain assumption GARPUR-based operating-condition database is representative of likely grid states
Section II-A delegates state realism to MC years, a market model, and SCOPF; the final risk estimates inherit any bias in this database.
domain assumption Dynamic and protection models added to RTS-GMLC are adequate
Section III uses generator models from [27],[28] and protection schemes from [23] without validation against measured events.
domain assumption Consequences are bounded by a complete blackout cost of 500 M€
Eq. (4) uses MC as worst-case consequence for the coverage bias bound; higher societal costs would make the bound optimistic.
domain assumption The protection-uncertainty indicator [23] correctly identifies scenarios whose cascade path is sensitive to protection timing
Section II-D makes cascade-sensitivity screening load-bearing but does not reproduce or independently verify the indicator.
ad hoc to paper Inverter-based generators modeled as negative loads for EEA transient stability screening
Section II-C introduces this modeling choice for the screening step; it affects CCT estimates and therefore the false-negative rate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Probabilistic Dynamic Security Assessment and Enhancement of Large Power Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2K32XNAJ

@misc{pith2026250501147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Probabilistic Dynamic Security Assessment and Enhancement of Large Power Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2K32XNAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01147}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes a novel methodology for probabilistic dynamic security assessment and enhancement of power systems that considers load and generation variability, N-2 contingencies, and uncertain cascade propagation caused by uncertain protection system behaviour. In this methodology, a database of likely operating conditions is generated via weather data, a market model and a model of operators' preventive actions. System states are sampled from this database and contingencies are applied to them to perform the security assessment. Rigorous statistical indicators are proposed to decide how many biased and unbiased samples to simulate to reach a target accuracy on the statistical error on the estimated risk from individual contingencies. Optionally, a screening of contingencies can be performed to limit the computational burden of the analysis. Finally, interpretable machine learning techniques are used to identify the root causes of the risk from critical contingencies, to ease the interpretation of the results, and to help with security enhancement. The method is demonstrated on the 73-bus reliability test system, and the scalability to large power systems (with thousands of buses) is also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01147 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Prediction of the relevance of protection-related uncertainties using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Market dispatch for a typical day in January (left) and July (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Number of sampled operating conditions and statistical accuracy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Number of sampled operating conditions and statistical accuracy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Risk of the 15 most critical contingencies and associated SE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Safe (green dots) and unsafe (red crosses) operating conditions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[23]

Handling protection-related uncertainties in simulations of fast cascading outages,

F. Sabot, P.-E. Labeau, and P. Henneaux, “Handling protection-related uncertainties in simulations of fast cascading outages,” in 2023 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe) , 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Reliability indices for use in bulk power supply adequacy evaluation,

Power Systems Engineering Committee, “Reliability indices for use in bulk power supply adequacy evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems , vol. PAS-97, no. 4, pp. 1097–1103, 1978

work page 1978
[2]

Review of the current status of tools and techniques for risk-based and probabilistic planning in power systems,

CIGRE Working Group C4.601, “Review of the current status of tools and techniques for risk-based and probabilistic planning in power systems,” CIGRE, Tech. Rep., 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Risk assessment of cascading outages: Methodologies and challenges,

M. Vaiman et al., “Risk assessment of cascading outages: Methodologies and challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 631–641, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

ACER, “Decision no 07/2019 of the agency for the cooperation of energy regulators of 19 june 2019 on all the TSOs’ proposal for the methodology for coordinating operation security analysis.”

work page 2019
[5]

All TSOs biennial progress report on operational probabilistic coordinated security assessment and risk management,

ENTSO-E, “All TSOs biennial progress report on operational probabilistic coordinated security assessment and risk management,” ENTSO-E, Tech. Rep., 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Current practices, drivers and barriers for new reliability standards,

GARPUR Consortium, “Current practices, drivers and barriers for new reliability standards,” Deliverable 1.2, 7th framework programme, EU Commission grant agreement 608570, Tech. Rep., 2013

work page 2013
[7]

Benchmarking quasi-steady state cascading outage analysis methodologies,

P. Henneaux et al. , “Benchmarking quasi-steady state cascading outage analysis methodologies,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) , 2018

work page 2018

Show all 33 references

[8]

Observed acceleration of cascading outages,

M. Noebels, I. Dobson, and M. Panteli, “Observed acceleration of cascading outages,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 3821–3824, 2021

2021
[9]

A two-level probabilistic risk assessment of cascading outages,

P. Henneaux, P.-E. Labeau, J.-C. Maun, and L. Haarla, “A two-level probabilistic risk assessment of cascading outages,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 2393–2403, 2016

2016
[10]

A method for variance-based sensitivity analysis of cascading failures,

A. S. C. Leavy, G. A. Nakas, and P. N. Papadopoulos, “A method for variance-based sensitivity analysis of cascading failures,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , 2022

2022
[11]

Implementation of a massively parallel dynamic security assessment platform for large-scale grids,

I. Konstantelos et al. , “Implementation of a massively parallel dynamic security assessment platform for large-scale grids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1417–1426, 2017

2017
[12]

Generating quality datasets for real-time security assessment: Balancing historically relevant and rare feasible operating conditions,

A.-A. B. Bugaje, J. L. Cremer, and G. Strbac, “Generating quality datasets for real-time security assessment: Balancing historically relevant and rare feasible operating conditions,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , vol. 154, p. 109427, 2023

2023
[13]

A dataset generation toolbox for dynamic security assessment: On the role of the security boundary,

B. Giraud, L. Charles, A. M. Nakiganda, J. V orwerk, and S. Chatzivasileiadis, “A dataset generation toolbox for dynamic security assessment: On the role of the security boundary,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09513

2025 arXiv
[14]

Enhanced, risk-based system development process: A case study from the Belgian transmission network,

W. Bukhsh, K. Bell, A. Vergnol, A. Weynants, and J. Sprooten, “Enhanced, risk-based system development process: A case study from the Belgian transmission network,” in 2018 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), 2018

2018
[15]

Upgrading of the decision-making process for system development,

GARPUR Consortium, “Upgrading of the decision-making process for system development,” Deliverable 4.2, 7th framework programme, EU Commission grant agreement 608570, Tech. Rep., 2017

2017
[16]

ACER decision on the ERAA methodology: Annex I methodol- ogy for the European resource adequacy assessment,

ACER, “ACER decision on the ERAA methodology: Annex I methodol- ogy for the European resource adequacy assessment,” 2019

2019
[17]

Adequacy and flexibility study for belgium 2022-2032,

Elia, “Adequacy and flexibility study for belgium 2022-2032,” Elia, Tech. Rep., 2021

2022
[18]

Evaluating composite approaches to modelling high-dimensional stochastic variables in power systems,

M. Sun, I. Konstantelos, S. Tindemans, and G. Strbac, “Evaluating composite approaches to modelling high-dimensional stochastic variables in power systems,” in 2016 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), 2016

2016
[19]

Extended equal area criterion revisited: A direct method for fast transient stability analysis,

A. Bahmanyar, D. Ernst, Y . Vanaubel, Q. Gemine, C. Pache, and P. Panciatici, “Extended equal area criterion revisited: A direct method for fast transient stability analysis,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 21, 2021

2021
[20]

Identification of the critical cluster of generators by during fault angle trajectory estimation for transient stability analysis,

A. Bahmanyar et al. , “Identification of the critical cluster of generators by during fault angle trajectory estimation for transient stability analysis,” in 2024 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC) , 2024

2024
[21]

Transient stability analysis and stability margin evaluation of phase- locked loop synchronised converter-based generators,

W. Wang, G. M. Huang, D. Ramasubramanian, and E. Farantatos, “Transient stability analysis and stability margin evaluation of phase- locked loop synchronised converter-based generators,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution , vol. 14, 2020

2020
[22]

Simplified angle and voltage stability criteria for power system planning based on the short-circuit power,

J. Machowski, P. Kacejko, S. Robak, P. Miller, and M. Wancerz, “Simplified angle and voltage stability criteria for power system planning based on the short-circuit power,” International Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 3096–3108, 2015

2015
[24]

Decision tree approach to power systems security assessment,

L. Wehenkel and M. Pavella, “Decision tree approach to power systems security assessment,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 13–36, 1993

1993
[25]

The IEEE reliability test system: A proposed 2019 update,

C. Barrows et al. , “The IEEE reliability test system: A proposed 2019 update,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 119– 127, 2020. 12

2019
[26]

A novel matching formula- tion for startup costs in unit commitment,

B. Knueven, J. Ostrowski, and J.-P. Watson, “A novel matching formula- tion for startup costs in unit commitment,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, 2020

2020
[27]

Vittal, J

V . Vittal, J. McCalley, P. Anderson, and A. Fouad, Power System Control and Stability , ser. IEEE Press Series on Power and Energy Systems. Wiley, 2019

2019
[28]

Reduced-order modelling of active distribution networks for large-disturbance simulations,

G. Chaspierre, “Reduced-order modelling of active distribution networks for large-disturbance simulations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universit´e de Li`ege, 2020

2020
[29]

S. H. Horowitz and P. G. Arun, Power System Relaying , 4th ed. Wiley, 2014

2014
[30]

Protection des r ´eseaux de transport et de r ´epartition : pr´esentation - D4800,

B. Calmet, “Protection des r ´eseaux de transport et de r ´epartition : pr´esentation - D4800,” Technique de l’ing ´enieur, 2009

2009
[31]

Haarla, M

L. Haarla, M. Koskinen, R. Hirvonen, and P.-E. Labeau, Transmission grid security: A PSA approach . London: Springer-Verlag, 2011, vol. 46

2011
[32]

Towards an open-source solution using Modelica for time-domain simulation of power systems,

A. Guironnet, M. Saugier, S. Petitrenaud, F. Xavier, and P. Panciatici, “Towards an open-source solution using Modelica for time-domain simulation of power systems,” in 2018 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe) , 2018

2018
[33]

Probabilistic security analysis of optimal transmission switching,

P. Henneaux and D. S. Kirschen, “Probabilistic security analysis of optimal transmission switching,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 508–517, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Handling protection-related uncertainties in simulations of fast cascading outages,

F. Sabot, P.-E. Labeau, and P. Henneaux, “Handling protection-related uncertainties in simulations of fast cascading outages,” in 2023 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe) , 2023

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Reliability indices for use in bulk power supply adequacy evaluation,

Power Systems Engineering Committee, “Reliability indices for use in bulk power supply adequacy evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems , vol. PAS-97, no. 4, pp. 1097–1103, 1978

work page 1978

[3] [2]

Review of the current status of tools and techniques for risk-based and probabilistic planning in power systems,

CIGRE Working Group C4.601, “Review of the current status of tools and techniques for risk-based and probabilistic planning in power systems,” CIGRE, Tech. Rep., 2010

work page 2010

[4] [3]

Risk assessment of cascading outages: Methodologies and challenges,

M. Vaiman et al., “Risk assessment of cascading outages: Methodologies and challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 631–641, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [4]

ACER, “Decision no 07/2019 of the agency for the cooperation of energy regulators of 19 june 2019 on all the TSOs’ proposal for the methodology for coordinating operation security analysis.”

work page 2019

[6] [5]

All TSOs biennial progress report on operational probabilistic coordinated security assessment and risk management,

ENTSO-E, “All TSOs biennial progress report on operational probabilistic coordinated security assessment and risk management,” ENTSO-E, Tech. Rep., 2021

work page 2021

[7] [6]

Current practices, drivers and barriers for new reliability standards,

GARPUR Consortium, “Current practices, drivers and barriers for new reliability standards,” Deliverable 1.2, 7th framework programme, EU Commission grant agreement 608570, Tech. Rep., 2013

work page 2013

[8] [7]

Benchmarking quasi-steady state cascading outage analysis methodologies,

P. Henneaux et al. , “Benchmarking quasi-steady state cascading outage analysis methodologies,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS) , 2018

work page 2018