Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Governors for hydro-turbine speed control in power

generation: a SIMO robust design approach
_
Ilyas Eker *

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Gaziantep, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
Received 20 February 2003; received in revised form 7 August 2003; accepted 12 November 2003

Abstract
This paper presents a robust single-input multi-output design approach for governors for speed control
of hydro-turbines. A nonlinear turbine model is developed to include effects of water hammer, travelling
waves and inelastic water penstocks. Norm bounded uncertainties and disturbances are briefly discussed to
investigate measures of robustness. The polynomial robust H1 optimisation method is used in design. The
robust governor ensures that the overall system remains asymptotically stable for all norm bounded
uncertainties and permanent system oscillations. Results are compared with conventional PI and PID
designs and presented in the time and frequency domains. It is demonstrated that the proposed robust
governor improves the performance significantly even in the presence of uncertainties.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Governors; Hydro-turbine; SIMO systems; Robustness; Speed control

1. Introduction

Governors have been used to control turbine speed in the primary units of power systems [1].
Nonlinear plant characteristics, load changes and disturbances have ensured that design of the
governors remains a challenging and important problem [1–6]. Increasing number of intercon-
nections, development of large generating units, higher transmission voltages and power demand
necessitate revision of the design of governors. This requires use of advanced control techniques
and control structures in order to realise the full potential of the plant over a wide range of
operating conditions to capture the full plant characteristics [4,6,7].

*
Tel.: +90-342-3601200x2135; fax: +90-342-360-11-00.
_ Eker).
E-mail address: ilyas@gantep.edu.tr (I.

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2003.11.008
2208 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

Nomenclature

R set of all real numbers

R(Æ) set of all real rational functions
R[Æ] set of finite polynomials with real coefficients
Rþ [Æ] set of finite polynomials with real coefficients that satisfy fri 2 R; i ¼ 1; . . . ; ng (strictly
stable polynomials)
Rm m [Æ] set of polynomial (m m) matrices

The usual single-input single-output (SISO) classical control theory with nominal plant models
has been commonly used in the design of linear time invariant governors [1,2]. The use of sup-
plementary feedback signals to improve the performance of the turbine speed changed the control
structure to multi-variable [3,8]. However, the classical control theory provides no systematic
design methodology for multi-variable controllers [9]. Single-input multi-output (SIMO) control
systems are special types of multi-variable systems [10]. Several variables can be controlled using a
single actuator [11]. A SIMO design approach has been applied to furnace temperature control
[11], generator terminal voltage control [10], and turbine speed control [12], with significantly
improved performance.
In recent years, there has been considerable interest in application of robust control and
adaptive control to governor design problems [6,7,13,14]. However, there are still some practical
problems for adaptive control to overcome for long term operation of power systems in real time
applications [15]. Robustness can be achieved using dynamic weighting functions of the H1 design
method in the presence of system uncertainties [16]. The method has a systematic design algorithm
and several advantages over the classical and conventional optimal design methods [11,16]. In the
present paper, a SIMO robust governor design approach is proposed using the H1 control design
method. Plant parameter uncertainties are used to investigate stability robustness. Performance
robustness is achieved using dynamic weighting functions. Simulation results demonstrate that the
proposed robust governor improves the performance significantly compared with the usual PI and
PID designs.

2. SIMO control system

The SIMO governor control diagram is illustrated in Fig. 1, where U ðsÞ is the input and DxðsÞ,
DGðsÞ, DPm ðsÞ and DdðsÞ are the incremental speed, gate position, turbine power and load angle
deviations from their steady state values, respectively. DdðsÞ, DGðsÞ and DPm ðsÞ are used as the
supplementary feedback signals to improve system performance. Gs ðsÞ denotes the pilot and gate
servo motor model. The turbine and generator models are represented by Gt ðsÞ and Gg ðsÞ,
respectively. Gw ðsÞ, GL ðsÞ, Gd ðsÞ and Gdo ðsÞ are the input water, output load, permanent speed and
load angle disturbance models, respectively. Gd ðsÞ designates an integral of the speed. The water,
turbine, load power, speed and load angle disturbance inputs are denoted by d1 , d2 , d3 , d4 and d5 ,
respectively. Dxref designates the set point for Dx.
 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2209

Load angle
d1 d3 d4
(Water flow/head) (Load) (Oscillating disturbance) d 5
Governor
U(s)
Ca(s) input Gw(s) d 2 GL(s) Gd(s) Gdo(s)
Servo Turbine Generator
ref + ∆G + - + ∆ω +
∆ω
Cb(s) Gs(s) Gt(s) Gg(s) G (s)
_ + _ _
δ ∆δ
∆Pm
Cc(s)

Cd(s)
Gate position
Power
Speed

Fig. 1. SIMO governor control block diagram.

3. Hydraulic system model

The important relationship in a hydro-turbine speed control problem is between the per unit
head ðHt Þ at the turbine inlet and the water velocity ðV Þ in the penstock [1,2,17]. Water hammer
may occur due to the velocity variations of the water in the penstocks. A pressure wave is
propagated because of the elasticity of the steel in the penstock and the compressibility of the
water. Assuming a uniform conduit supplied from a large reservoir, the ratio of the incremental
head ðDHt Þ to the incremental water velocity ðDV Þ at the turbine inlet is given by [1,13,17,18]:
DHt ðsÞ
¼
Xp
0:5Zp tanhðTe sÞ ð1Þ
DV ðsÞ
where Xp denotes the friction factor of the penstock, Te is the wave travel time and Zp is the
normalised hydraulic surge impedance, Zp , which can be given as [1,13,17]:
Tw
Zp ¼ ð2Þ
Te
where Tw is the water starting time. The water starting time Tw and wave travel time Te are given as
[1,13,18]:
LQbase L
Tw ¼ ; Te ¼ ð3Þ
Ht-base Ap g a

where L and Ap are the length and the cross-sectional area of the penstock, respectively, Ht-base and
Qbase are the per unit base values of the water column head and the water flow rate, respectively, g
is the acceleration due to gravity and a is the water wave velocity. The friction factor ðXp Þ is
dependent on the friction coefficient ðkp Þ and the steady state velocity ðV0 Þ of the water as
Xp ¼ 2kp jV0 j. The hyperbolic function in Eq. (1) may be represented using the infinite product
expansions [17,18]:
2210 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.
Q1 h  sTe 2 i
sTe
n¼1 1 þ np
tanhðTe sÞ ¼   2 ð4Þ
Q1 2sTe
n¼1 1 þ ð2n
1Þp

The incremental water velocity ðDV Þ and the incremental mechanical power ðDPm Þ are given by
[13,17]:
DV ðsÞ ¼ 0:5 DHt ðsÞ þ DGðsÞ ð5Þ

DPm ðsÞ ¼ DHt ðsÞ þ DGðsÞ ð6Þ

The turbine model Gt ðsÞ can be obtained by combining Eqs. (1), (5) and (6) in terms of a dis-
tributed parameter system that covers the effects of water hammer, head loss caused by friction
and inelastic penstock [13,18]:
1
Xp
Zp tanhðTe sÞ
Gt ðsÞ ¼ ð7Þ
1 þ 0:5Xp þ 0:5Zp tanhðTe sÞ
The generator model may be given as [1,5,12]:
ð2Hs þ DÞ DxðsÞ ¼ DPm ðsÞ
DPLOAD ðsÞ ð8Þ
where H is the inertia, D is the generator damping and DPLOAD is the incremental load power. The
servo motor model Gs ðsÞ is given by [19]:
1
Gs ðsÞ ¼ ð9Þ
ðTp s þ 1ÞðTs s þ 1Þ
where Tp and Ts are the pilot and gate servo motor time constants, respectively. The range of the
system parameters is assumed to be [13,18]:
~ 1 ; Ts 2 ½C2 ; C
Tp 2 ½C1 ; C ~ 2 ; Tw 2 ½C3 ; C
~ 3 ; Te 2 ½C4 ; C
~ 4 ; H 2 ½C5 ; C
~ 5 ; D 2 ½C6 ; C
~ 6
where Ci and C ~ i are the lower and upper bounds of the plant parameters, respectively, Ci ; C ~ i 2 R.

4. SIMO control design strategy

It is assumed that the models (Gs ðsÞ, Gt ðsÞ, Gg ðsÞ and Gd ðsÞ) are free of unstable hidden modes,
and the disturbance models (Gw ðsÞ, Gd ðsÞ, GL ðsÞ and Gdo ðsÞ) are asymptotically stable. The dis-
turbance signals di are also assumed to be zero mean, statistically independent and stationary
white driving noise sources with finite variance, E½di ðtÞ ¼ 0. The covariances of these signals,
without loss of generality, are assumed to be unity for the worstcase conditions [7,13,16]. The
design of the controllers (Ca ðsÞ, Cb ðsÞ, Cc ðsÞ and Cd ðsÞ) should be achieved simultaneously.

4.1. SIMO plant

The plant and disturbance models should be arranged for SIMO design. Consider the gate
position loop:
DGðsÞ ¼ Gs ðsÞU ðsÞ þ Gw ðsÞd1 ðsÞ ð10Þ
 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2211

The mechanical power is obtained as:

DPm ðsÞ ¼ Gt ðsÞ DGðsÞ þ d2 ðsÞ ð11Þ
Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (11) gives:
DPm ðsÞ ¼ Gt ðsÞGs ðsÞU ðsÞ þ Gt ðsÞGw ðsÞd1 ðsÞ þ d2 ðsÞ ð12Þ
The turbine speed and load angle are given, respectively, as:
DxðsÞ ¼ Gt ðsÞGs ðsÞGg ðsÞU ðsÞ þ db ðsÞ ð13Þ

DdðsÞ ¼ Gd ðsÞGt ðsÞGs ðsÞGg ðsÞU ðsÞ þ dc ðsÞ ð14Þ

where db ðsÞ ¼ Gg ðsÞðGt ðsÞGw ðsÞd1 ðsÞ þ d2 ðsÞÞ
GL ðsÞGg ðsÞd3 ðsÞ þ Go ðsÞd4 ðsÞ and dc ðsÞ ¼ Gd ðsÞdb ðsÞþ
Gdo ðsÞd5 ðsÞ.
The system is formulated using Eqs. (10) and (12)–(14) as:
DY ðsÞ ¼ Wp ðsÞUðsÞ þ Wd ðsÞdðsÞ ð15Þ
where DY ðsÞ is the output and dðsÞ is the disturbance,
DY ðsÞ ¼ ½ DGðsÞ DPm ðsÞ DxðsÞ DdðsÞ T ; dðsÞ ¼ ½ d1 ðsÞ d2 ðsÞ d3 ðsÞ d4 ðsÞ d5 ðsÞ T
The plant model Wp ðsÞ and disturbance model Wd ðsÞ in Eq. (15) can be given as:
2 3 2 3
G1 ðsÞ Gd11 0 0 0 0
6 G2 ðsÞ 7 6 Gd21 Gd22 0 0 0 7
Wp ðsÞ ¼ 6 7 6
4 G3 ðsÞ 5; Wd ðsÞ ¼ 4 Gd31 Gd32 Gd33 Gd34
7 ð16Þ
0 5
G4 ðsÞ Gd41 Gd42 Gd43 Gd44 Gd45
where Gi ðsÞ and Gdij ðsÞ are the transfer functions, Gi ðsÞ, Gdij ðsÞ 2 RðsÞ. The open loop system
given in Eq. (15) should be re-arranged for the SIMO design procedure as:
2 3 2 3 2 32 3
DGðsÞ G1 ðsÞ Gd1 ðsÞ d~1 ðsÞ
6 DPm ðsÞ 7 6 G2 ðsÞ 7 6 Gd2 ðsÞ 76 d~2 ðsÞ 7
6 7 6 7 6 76 7
4 DxðsÞ 5 ¼ 4 G3 ðsÞ 5UðsÞ þ 4 Gd3 ðsÞ 54 d~3 ðsÞ 5 ð17Þ
DdðsÞ G4 ðsÞ Gd4 ðsÞ d~4 ðsÞ
where the disturbance inputs d~1 ðsÞ, d~2 ðsÞ, d~3 ðsÞ and d~4 ðsÞ are assumed to be unity variance, zero
mean and independent white noise signals corresponding to each loop. Gd1 ðsÞ, Gd2 ðsÞ, Gd3 ðsÞ and
Gd4 ðsÞ represent new disturbance models obtained by the spectral factorisation theorem [13,18]:
X
n¼4 X
m¼5
Gdi /di Gdi ¼ Gdij /dij Gdij ð18Þ
i¼1 j¼1

where the disturbance covariances, /di ðsÞ, and /dij ðsÞ are assumed to be unity for the worst case.

4.2. Robustness evaluation of SIMO systems

Any plant model in practice is an inaccurate representation of the true plant [20]. Robust
control addresses this model mismatch by defining a set of plants in which the true plant is an
element [21]. The plant with uncertainty is illustrated in Fig. 2. In robust control, the true plant
2212 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

∆
∆

Wo
To
u y
Co

Fig. 2. The plant with feedback controller and uncertainty loop.

e ðW
ðWp Þ is covered by a set of plants W e 2 Rrx1 ðsÞÞ that can be represented by the nominal plant
Wo and a set of stable norm bounded uncertainties D [22]:
W eg
e ¼ ff ðWo ; DÞ; Wo ; Wp 2 W ð19Þ
The finite dimensional linear time invariant controller Co should be designed to stabilise all plants
within the set W e . The uncertainty D is assumed to consist of the set of diagonal uncertainties
Dk ðDk 2 DÞ. It represents uncertainties associated with either a parameter or a component of the
plant (e.g. unmodelled dynamics or nonlinearity) as:
8 0 1 9
>
> D1 0 >
>
>
< B C >
=
B D 2 C
D ¼ D : Dk 2 D and Dk ¼ B .. C; jDi ðjxÞj < 1 8x 2 R ð20Þ
>
> @ . A >
>
>
: >
;
0 Dr
The nominal closed loop system To is assumed to be stable and is given by:
To ðsÞ ¼ Wo ðsÞCo ðsÞðI þ Wo ðsÞCo ðsÞÞ
1 2 Rr r ðsÞ
Using the Nyquist D contour, it is determined that the closed loop SIMO system given in Fig. 2
is stable for all uncertainties in the set of D if the following condition is satisfied:
kTo Dk1 ¼ sup jTo ðjxÞDðjxÞj < 1 ð21Þ
8x2R
kDi k1 <1

5. SIMO governor design

For illustration, we consider a nominal hydro-turbine system data for robust design [1,13]. The
range of the plant parameters for a typical turbine is chosen to introduce uncertainty into the
system as [1,5,13,17,23]:
Tp 2 ½ 0:005 0:02 ; Ts 2 ½ 0:05 0:5 ; Tw 2 ½ 0:5 4 ; H 2 ½ 2 6:6 ;
D 2 ½0 1 ; Te 2 ½ 0:2 0:5
The turbine model presented with the infinite product expansions may be approximated by a
lumped parameter equivalent by retaining an appropriate number of terms of the expansions. For
 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2213

most power system stability studies, this approximation should be adequate for short to medium
length penstocks [17].
The turbine models for n ¼ 0; 1; 2; 3 are calculated as shown in Fig. 3. The magnitude versus
frequency plots of the turbine transfer function are shown in Fig. 3(a), and the corresponding
phase characteristics are shown in Fig. 3(b). It is seen that the classical first order model corre-
sponding to n ¼ 0 is valid up to about 1.0 rad/s. With the fundamental component of the water
column represented by n ¼ 1, the lumped parameter approximation is valid up to 10 rad/s. Then,
the third order nominal turbine model can be used in the present design for this particular
example as [13,18]:

0:28246s3 þ 0:71265s2
15:6028s þ 9:8413
Gt ðsÞjn¼1 ¼
0:14123s3 þ 0:71572s2 þ 7:80143s þ 9:8837

6
n=0
n=1
5 n=2
Magnitude (dB)

n=3
4

0
(a)
-1 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec)

-200

-400
Phase (deg)

-600 n=0
n=1
-800 n=2
n=3

-1000

-1200
(b)
-1400
-2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 3. (a) Magnitude versus frequency response of turbine models. (b) Phase versus frequency response of turbine
models.
2214 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

It is known that the inter-area oscillations affect the governing unit [1,7,17]. Then, the speed
disturbance model Gd ðsÞ is assumed to include the inter-area modes up to 0.5 Hz. and may be
given [12,13,24] as:
1
Gd ðsÞ ¼
s þ 2pfo
where fo is the oscillating disturbance frequency. The water head does not show significant
variations in a dam constructed for hydraulic power generation. Then, the water disturbance
model Gw ðsÞ can be assumed to be unity, that is, it is effective at all frequencies, Gw ðsÞ ¼ 1. The
load angle disturbance model, Gdo ðsÞ may also be assumed to be effective at all frequencies
ðGdo ðsÞ ¼ 1Þ, since the variations on the load side are reflected to the load disturbance model. The
unknown mechanical power disturbance d2 can be considered as the friction among the rotational
and fixed components of the turbine-generator.

5.1. SIMO design theory

The polynomial multi-variable H1 design method can be used to solve the present problem by
improving the theory for SIMO systems [12,16]. The design theory minimizes the following cost
function based on the H1 norm with the systems of m inputs and r outputs:
J ¼ kX k1 ð22Þ
where X ðsÞ ¼ Wr ðQe Uee þ Gc Uue þ Uue Gc þ Rc Uuu ÞWr and Wr is the minimum phase stable real
rational robustness weighting function, Wr ¼ Br A
1 r 2 R
m m
ðsÞ. Qe is the error weighting function,
Qe ðsÞ ¼ Pc Pc 2 R ðsÞ, Rc is the control weighting function, Rc ðsÞ ¼ Fc Fc 2 Rm m ðsÞ, Gc is the cross
 r r

weighting function, Gc ðsÞ ¼ Pc Fc 2 Rm r ðsÞ, Uee is the error signal spectrum, Uuu is the control
signal spectrum, and Uue and Ueu are spectra between the error and control signals and vice versa.
The real rational dynamic weighting functions Pc ðsÞ and Fc ðsÞ can be parameterised for SIMO
systems to shape the closed loop response and to achieve the design requirements as:


1 Pcn1 Pcn2 Pcnr
Pc ¼ Pcn ðsÞPcd ðsÞ ¼  ð23Þ
Pcd1 Pcn2 Pcnr

Fcn ðsÞ ðs þ kc11 Þ

Fc ¼ ¼q ð24Þ
Fcd ðsÞ ðkc21 s þ kc22 Þ
where the dynamic weighting function are Pc 2 R1 r 1 r
þ ðsÞ, Fc 2 Rþ ½s , Pcn 2 Rþ ðsÞ, Pcd 2 R
r r
ðsÞ,
Pcni ðsÞ ¼ s þ kei1 , Pcdi ðsÞ ¼ kei2 s þ ei ði ¼ 1; . . . ; rÞ, Pcni ðsÞ,Pcdi ðsÞ 2 Rþ ½s and kei1 , kei2 , kc11 , kc21 , kc22 ,
q, ei are positive tuning parameters. The polynomial matrix Pcd ðsÞ is assumed to be diagonal, and
the diagonal elements are strictly Hurwitz. Then, the real rational optimal controller in Youla
form is given by:

Fcd Cn1 Fcd Cn2 Fcd Cnr
Co ¼  ð25Þ
Pcd1 Cd1 Pcd2 Cd2 Pcdr Cdr
where Cni ðsÞ and Cdi ðsÞ are strictly Hurwitz polynomials. Some guidelines about selecting the
weighting functions were given in Refs. [11,12,16]. The main issue is that the dynamic weighting
 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2215

elements may be chosen to penalise the error and control signals in specific frequency ranges. The
selection of weighting function parameters is experienced in the present case that:

(i) q varies the activity of the control signal.

(ii) Fcd ðsÞ appears in the numerator of each controller (Eq. (25)), so this can be used to introduce
a lead term at a specific frequency if needed.
(iii) The high frequency roll-off controller is achieved with the control weighting polynomial
Fcn ðsÞ. This increases the controller denominator order, and the positive constant kc11 influ-
ences the closed loop performance so that the bandwidth of the loop is adjusted.
(iv) Integral action is achieved by the error weighting Pcd ðsÞ whose elements appear in the related
controller denominator (see Eq. (25)). The positive constant kei2 determines the amount of
integral action. Increasing kei2 causes a decrease in the gain of the related controller and vice
versa.
(v) The error weighting polynomial matrix Pcn ðsÞ ¼ ½s þ ke11    s þ ker1 is used to penalise the
error signal over a specified frequency range and to improve the transient performance of the
loop.

5.2. Governor design objectives

The performance requirements and specifications for a control system are usually given in terms
of open and closed loop time and frequency domain responses. Each loop has different require-
ments in SIMO design, since the present governor uses the speed and supplementary signals. Some
general guidelines were given in Refs. [12,23]. For the controllers, the following may be given: (i)
A high frequency roll-off property is needed in all controllers to attenuate shaft torsional oscil-
lations, measurement noise and other high frequency modes. Low gain in high frequencies is
obtained by this property. (ii) The main controller Cb ðsÞ should include an integral action for zero
steady state speed error. (iii) The integral action is not needed in controllers Ca ðsÞ, Cc ðsÞ and Cd ðsÞ
unless these controllers introduce significant steadystate speed error. (iv) The transient perfor-
mance could be improved by controllers Ca ðsÞ, Cc ðsÞ and Cd ðsÞ. (v) The robust design should be
based on the nominal plant parameters and the test for robustness should be satisfied in order to
make the system insensitive to the uncertainties. (vi) The time and frequency domain character-
istics of the compensated system should be reasonable to ensure stability of the closed loop, for
example, overshoot is very important and not desired in the response of such systems [23].
The present robust SIMO governor design procedure is as follows:

Step 1: Find the range of the system parameters.

Step 2: Choose the nominal parameters for the system and decide on the bound of the uncertain-
ties.
Step 3: Choose the tuning parameters of the dynamic weighting functions given in Eqs. (23) and
(24).
Step 4: Calculate the optimal controllers. Then, check the overall open and closed loop system
requirements, specifications and robustness (Eq. (21)) to be satisfied. Otherwise, go to
step 2 and change the tuning parameters until the desired robustness and performance
specifications are achieved.
2216 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

The weighting functions chosen for the present design to satisfy the design objectives are:
0:6ðs þ 5Þ
Fc ðsÞ ¼
1
2 3
1
 1 0 0 0
6 0 0:1s þ 10
10 0 07
Pc ðsÞ ¼ 1 0:1ðs þ 0:6Þ ðs þ 1Þ 0:005ðs þ 1Þ 6
40
7
0 1 05
0 0 0 1

6. System responses

Extensive frequency domain and time domain analyses were performed to evaluate the closed
loop performance and effectiveness of the proposed robust design. All these analyses indicated
that the robust governor provides the required stability and performance specifications. The
frequency response characteristics permit more insight into the tuning of control systems when
compared to time domain responses [9]. The results show that the gain and phase margins and
bandwidth are significantly improved such that 35.6 dB of gain margin and 82° of phase margin
were obtained in the proposed design as illustrated in Fig. 4. The response also showed that the
phase margin is significantly improved at the critical frequency of inter-area modes between 1.5
and 6 rad/s. On the other hand, 7.7 and 9.9 dB of gain margins for the PI and PID designs were
obtained, respectively. The bandwidth was also higher in the present design, 1.57 rad/s, while it
was 0.55 rad/s for the PI design and 0.18 rad/s for the PID design. The larger bandwidth denoted
a larger system operation range. The specifications are presented in Table 1.
Time domain responses are illustrated in Fig. 5 for a step set point speed signal change. The
results are presented in Table 2. Better results were obtained in the H1 design, especially the

Bode Diagram
50
Magnitude(dB)

-50

-100
0
Phase (deg)

-90
80
-270
-360

-450 -2 -1 1 2
0
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 4. Compensated system open loop frequency response.

 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2217

Table 1
Frequency domain specifications
Specifications PI PID H1
Gain margin 7.7 dB 9.3 dB 35.6 dB
Gain crossover frequency 0.22 rad/s 0.128 rad/s 0.121 rad/s
Phase margin 39° 41° 82°
Phase crossover frequency 0.57 rad/s 1.67 rad/s 6.82 rad/s
Bandwidth 0.55 rad/s 0.18 rad/s 1.57 rad/s

1.4

1.2

1
Speed step response

0.8

0.6

0.4 H-inf
PI
0.2 PID

-0.2

-0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s)

Fig. 5. Response of the system for step set point signal change.

Table 2
Time domain specifications
Specifications PI PID H1
Delay time 2.55 s 2.18 s 2.58 s
Rise time 3.58 s 7.2 s 2.44 s
Overshoot 26.65% 34.1% 0.1%
Settling time (1%) 25 s 87 s 6.41 s

overshoot was significantly improved to 0.1%, while it was 26.65% for the PI design and 34.91%
for the PID design. So, the classical designs are not acceptable, since such large overshoots upset
the operation of the turbine.

6.1. Robustness test response

The maximum and minimum values of the plant parameters were used to obtain the level of
the present uncertainty. The robustness test given in Eq. (21) was performed, and its frequency
2218 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

-10

Magnitude (dB)
-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70
-2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)

Fig. 6. Response of the robustness test.

response is illustrated in Fig. 6. The result showed that the maximum value is less than 0 dB or
k  k1 ¼ 0:83 < 1, and this satisfies the condition given in Eq. (21).

6.2. Load power rejection responses

The load test is an important design criterion, and a step load change may provide an indication
of the system stability [1,5,6]. A step load change of 0.1 in magnitude ðd3 ðtÞ ¼ 0:1Þ was applied to
the system, and the time domain responses for the classical and optimal design cases are illustrated

0.02

0.01

-0.01
Load rejection

-0.02
H-inf
P ID
-0.03 PI

-0.04

-0.05

-0.06

-0.07
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Load rejection for a step load disturbance, d3 .

 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2219

Fig. 8. Applied load changes.

Fig. 9. Changes in the gate positions for (a) PI, (b) PID, (c) H1 .

in Fig. 7. The robust control design provided good load rejection. The turbine speed was
reduced to 0.042 in magnitude in the robust design, and the transient signal damped at around
50 s.
Random load variations are applied at the disturbance input d3 as shown in Fig. 8, and the
responses of the gate positions and turbine speeds are illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively.
Such a load signal was obtained in the Matlab–Simulink Toolbox by generating a random noise
signal with a variance of 0.005 that is superimposed on a signal obtained by integrating another
random noise signal of variance 0.01 with a frequency of 30 Hz. These plots support the
conclusion that the present design provides a very satisfactory regulation for random variations
in the load, noise rejection and operation, but the responses of the PI and PID designs, which
are noisy and larger in magnitude, are not acceptable for such a highly non-minimum phase
plant.
2220 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I.

Fig. 10. Responses of the turbine speed for (a) PI, (b) PID, (c) H1 .

7. Conclusions

Developments in power systems have necessitated that the design aspects of the governors for
hydro-turbine speed control be revised. In the present study, a SIMO robust design approach for
the governors was presented for hydro-turbine speed control to improve the system performance.
It was shown that the proposed SIMO design method is capable of providing a mechanism to deal
with the varying system dynamics and uncertainties, while also improving the closed loop system
specifications. The approach also provided the use of supplementary signals obtained from the
system variables.
The robust design theory polynomial H1 , was motivated to meet certain design objectives. The
dynamic weighting functions were parameterised and the use of these parameters in the robust
design procedure was described briefly to obtain the desired governor, such that the effects of the
parameters were explained in terms of the controllers and the closed loop system performance
specifications.
The performance of the robust governor in the presence of uncertainties and permanent system
oscillations was evaluated by including effect of uncertainty and oscillating disturbance in the
robust design procedure. Data obtained in the literature were used to demonstrate the use of the
proposed robust SIMO design. Stability margins in the present design were improved to provide
satisfactory performance for a variety of operating conditions. The SIMO design was achieved in a
coordinated fashion. Simulation studies showed the advantages of the proposed design approach.
 _ Eker / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2207–2221
I. 2221

References

[1] IEEE Working Group. Hydraulic turbine and turbine control models for system dynamic studies. IEEE Trans
Power Syst Apparatus 1992;7(1):167–79.
[2] Hannett LN, Fardanesh B. Field test to validate hydro turbine-governor model structure and parameters. IEEE
Trans Power Syst 1994;9(4):1744–51.
[3] Saleh RAF, Bolton HR. Comparison of an adaptive stabilizer and a fuzzy logic stabilizer for superconducting
generator governor control. Electric Power Syst Res 2001;57:65–71.
[4] Mansoor SP, Jones DI, Bradley DA, Aris FC, Jones GR. Reproducing oscillatory behaviour of a hydroelectric
power station by computer simulation. Control Eng Practice 2000;8:1261–72.
[5] EEE Committee Report. Dynamic models for steam and hydro turbines in power system studies. IEEE Trans
Power Syst Apparatus 1972;128–39.
[6] Bourles H, Colledani F, Houry MP. Robust continuous speed governor control for small-signal and transient
stability. IEEE Trans Power Syst Apparatus 1997;12(1):129–35.
_ Aydın IS
[7] Eker I, _ ß . Governors for hydroturbines: new control schemes and robust designs. In: Proc 36th Universities
Power Engineering Conference (UPEC2001), Power Generation Part-3A University of Wales Swansea, 12–14
September, Swansea, UK, 2001.
[8] Soket IS, Limebeer DJN, Macdonald DC. Turbine generator laboratory model tests to damp torsional oscillations
with supplementary signals. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 1993;8(1):85–91.
[9] IEEE Tutorial Course Text. Power system stabilization via excitation control, 81 EHO 175-0 PWR., 1980.
_ Robust multivariable H1 automatic voltage regulator design for synchronous generators. 30th Universities
[10] Eker I.
Power Engineering Conference (UPEC95), 5–7 September, The University of Greenwich, London, UK, 1995.
p. 473–76.
_ Johnson MA. New aspects of cascade and multi-loop process control. Trans IChemE, Part-A, Chem Eng
[11] Eker I,
Res Des 1996;74(1):38–54.
_ Aydın IS
[12] Eker I, _ ß . Design of multi-loop multivariable cascaded hydro-governors. In: Proc. 36th Universities Power
Engineering Conference (UPEC2001), Power Generation Part-3A, University of Wales Swansea, 12–14
September, Swansea, UK, 2001.
[13] Eker I, _ Tumay M. Robust multivariable-cascade governors for hydro turbine controls. Electrical Eng
2002;84(4):229–37.
[14] Swidenbank E, Brown MD, Flynn D. Self-tuning turbine generator control for power plant. Mechatronics
1999;9:513–37.
[15] Eker I,_ Aydın IS _ ß . Adaptive mutli-loop governors. In Proc. 36th Universities Power Engineering Conference
(UPEC2001), Power Generation Part-3A, University of Wales Swansea, 12–14 September, Swansea, UK, 2001.
[16] Grimble MJ. Robust industrial control. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[17] Khundur P. Power system stability and control. McGraw-Hill; 1994.
[18] Eker I._ Hydro-turbine models for robust governor designs in hydro-power generation. In: 2nd International
Conference on Responsive Manufacturing, University of Gaziantep, 26–28 June, 2002. p. 609–913.
[19] Yu YN. Electric power system dynamics. Academic Press; 1983.
[20] Kwakernaak H. Robust control and H1 -optimisation––Tutorial Paper. Automatica 1993;29(2):255–73.
[21] Morari M, Zafiriou E. Robust process control. Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1989.
[22] Venini P. Robust control of uncertain systems. Comput Struct 1998;67:165–74.
[23] Orelind G, Wozniak L, Medanic J, Whittemore T. Optimal PID gain schedule for hydro generators––Design and
application. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 1989;3:300–7.
_ Aydın IS
[24] Eker I, _ ß . Design and performance requirements for improved governor control. In: International Thermal
Energy Congress, C _
ß esßme, Izmir, 8–12 July, 2001. p. 221–6.