Power system stabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping of low-frequency oscillations. The design of PSS for a single machine connected to an infinite bus using periodic output feedback is proposed. The non-linear model of a machine is linearised at different operating points and 16 linear plant models are obtained.
Power system stabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping of low-frequency oscillations. The design of PSS for a single machine connected to an infinite bus using periodic output feedback is proposed. The non-linear model of a machine is linearised at different operating points and 16 linear plant models are obtained.
Power system stabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping of low-frequency oscillations. The design of PSS for a single machine connected to an infinite bus using periodic output feedback is proposed. The non-linear model of a machine is linearised at different operating points and 16 linear plant models are obtained.
Design of power system stabiliser for single-machine
system using robust periodic output feedback
controller R. Gupta, B. Bandyopadhyay and A.M. Kulkarni Abstract: Power systemstabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping of low-frequency oscillations. The design of PSS for a single machine connected to an infinite bus using periodic output feedback is proposed. The non-linear model of a machine is linearised at different operating points and 16 linear plant models are obtained. For each of these plants an output injection gain is obtained using the LQR technique. A robust periodic output feedback gain which realises these output gains is obtained using an LMI approach. This robust periodic output control is applied to a non-linear plant model of the machine at different operating (equilibrium) points. This method does not require the complete set of states of the systemfor feedback and is easily implementable. 1 Introduction I n the late 1950s and early 1960s most of the new generating units added to electric utility systems were equipped with continuously acting voltage regulators. As these units came to constitute a larger percentage of generating capacity, i t became apparent that the voltage regulator action had a detrimental impact upon the dynamical stability (or_ perhaps more accurately, steady- state stability) of the power system. Oscillations of small magnitude and low frequency often persist for long periods of time and in some cases can hinder power-transfer capability. Power system stabilisers were developed to aid in damping these oscillations via modulation of the generator excitation. The art and science of applying power system stabilisers has been developed over the past 30 to 35 years since the first widespread application to the Western systems of the United States. This development has brought an improvement i n the use of various tuning techniques and input signals and in the ability to deal with turbine-generator-shaft torsional modes of vibrations [I ]. Power systemstabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping of electric power systems during low-frequency oscillations. Several methods are used in the design of PSSs. Among the classical methods used are the phase-compensation method and the root-focus meth- od. Recently, modem control methods have been used by several researchers to take advantage of optimal control techniques. These methods utilise a state-space representa- tion of the power-systemmodel to calculate a gain matrix IEE, 2003 IEE Promedi ngs online no. ZN30113 doi: I 0. 1~9/ i pgi d~on3~ I I 3 Online publishing dab: 10 February 2lM3. Wpcr received loth May 2002 R. Gupta and B. Bandyopadhyay are wi th the Syrtcms and Control En@ncenng. IIT Bombay, Mumbai 400076. India A.M. Kulksmi i s with the Depmment of Electical En@neeting. IIT Bombay. Mumbai 400076, India IEE PrOc-Gmer. T " n f . Di t l ri h.. VoL ISO, No 2, March 20013 which, when applied as a state feedback control, will minimise a given prescribed objective function [2]. In recent years there have been several attempts at designin& power systemstabilisers using H , based robust control techniques. In this approach, the uncertainty in the chosen systemis modelled in tenns of hounds on frequency response. A H, optimal controller is then synthesised which guarantees robust stability of the closed-loop system. However, this will lead to dynamic output feedback, which, though feasible, leads to a higher-order feedback system[3]. In practice. not all of the states are available for measurement. In the state feedback method the optimal control law requires the design of a state observer. This increases the implementation cost and reduces the reliability of the control system. There is another disadvantage of the observer-based control system. Even a slight variation in the model parameters from their nominal values may result in significant degradation of the closed-loop perfonnancc. Hence it is desirable to opt for an output feedback design. However. the static-output-feedback problem is one of the most investigated problems in control theory The complete pole assignment and guaranteed closed-loop stability are not obtained by using static output feedback. Another approach to the pole-placement problem is to consider the potential of time-varying periodic output feedback. It was shown by Chammas and Leondes [4] that a controllable and obsetvable plant was discrete time pole assignable by periodically time-varying piecewise constant output feed- back. Since the feedback gains are piecewise constant, their method could be easily implemented and indicated a new possibility. Such a control law can stabilise a much larger class of systems than the static output feedback [%I. This paper proposes the design of a robust power system stabiliser for a single-machine systemusing periodic output feedback. 2 Power system stabilisers 2.1 Basic concept The basic function of a power systemstabiliser is to extend stability limits by modulating generator excitation to provide damping to the oscillation of synchronous machine 211 rotors relative to one another. The oscillations of concern typically occur in the frequency range of-approx:imately 0.2 to 3.0 Hz, and insufficient damping of these oscilla- tions may limit the ability to transmit power. To provide damping, the stabiliser must produce a component of electrical torque which is in phase with the reference- voltage variations. The implementation details differ depending upon the stabiliser input signal employed. However, for any input signal, the transfer function of the stabiliser must compensate for the gain and phase: of the excitation system, the generator and the power :system, which collectively determine the transfer function from the stabiliser output to the component of electrical torque, which can he modulated via the excitation system [I]. 2.2 Performance objectives Power system stabilisers can extend power transfer stability limits which are characterised by lightly damped or spontaneously growing oscillations in the 0.2 to 2.5Hz frequency range. This is accomplished via excitation control, providing damping to the systems oscillation modes. Consequently, what is important is the stabilisers ability to enhance damping under the least stable condi- tions, i.e., the performance conditions. Additional damp- ing is primarily required in cases of weak transmission and heavy load, as occurs, for example, when attempting to transmit power over long transmission lines from the remote generating plants or when the link between systems is relatively weak. Contingencies such as line outage often precipitate such conditions. Hence, systems which normally have adequate damping can often benefit from stabilisers under such conditions. It is important to realise that the stabiliser is intended to provide damping for small excursions about a steady-state operating point rather than to enhance transient stability, i.e., the ability to recover from a severe disturbance. In fact, the stabiliser will often have a harmful effect on transient stability by attempting to pull the generator field out of ceiling too early in response to a fault. The stabiliser output is generally limited, to prevent serious impact on transient stability, hut stabiliser tuning also has a significant impact on the system performance following a large disturbance [2]. 2.3 Classical stabiliser implementation procedure Implementation of a power system stabiliser implies adjustment of its frequency characteristic and gain to produce the desired damping of the system oscillations in the frequency range 0.2 to 3.0 Hz. The transfer function of a generic power system stabiliser may beexpressed a:; where K, represents the stabiliser gain and .FILT(S) represents the combined transfer function of torsional filter and input-signal transducer. The stabiliser frequency charactenstic is adjusted by varying the time constants T,,,, TI, T,, T, and T,. It will be noted that the stabiliser transfer function includes the effect of both the input-signal transducer gain at turbine-generator- shaft torsional frequencies. These effects, dictated hy other considerations, must be considered in addition to the plant. A power system stabiliser can be most effectively applied if it is tuned with an understanding of the associated power characteristics and the function to he performed by the stabiliser. A knowledge of the modes of power-system oscillation for which the stabiliser is to provide damping helps in establishing the range of frequencies over which the 212 stabiliser must operate. Simple analytical models, such as that of a single machine connected to an infinite bus, can he useful in determining the frequencies of local-mode oscillations during the planning stage of a new plant. It is also desirable to establish the weak power system conditions and associated loading condition for which stable operation is expected, as the adequacy of the power system stabiliser application will be determined under these performance conditions. Since the limiting gain of some stabilisers, viz., those having an input signal from speed or power, occurs with a strong transmission system, it is necessary to establish the strongest credible system as the tuning condition for these stabilisers. Experience suggests that designing a stabiliser for satisfactory operation with an external system reactance ranging from 20% to 80% on the unit rating will ensure robust performance [7]. 3 State-space model of single-machine system From the block diagram shown in Fig. 1, the following state-space equations for the entire system can be derived using the Heffron-Phillip model: [8-10] i =AX +B( d Vef +d V, ) ( 2) I K1 I Fig. 1 Block diagram of Single Machine where x r =[LIS LIS, LIE:, dE,a] [ O wa 0 0 B =[ O 0 0 %] c = [O 1 0 01 The damping term D is included in the swing equation. The eigenvalues of the matrix should lie in LHP in the s-plane in order for the system to he stable. The effect of various parameters (for example Kb&TE) can be examined from an eigenvalue analysis. I t is to he noted that the elements of A are dependent on the operating condition. 4 The problem of pole assignment by piecewise cons- tant output feedback was studied by Chammas and Leondes [4] for linear time-invariant systems with infrequent Review of periodic output feedback IEE Proc-Genrr Tronvn. DiWih., Vof. 150, Nu 2, Mudr ZW3 observation. They showed that, by use of periodically time- varying piecewise constant output feedback gain, the poles of the discrete-time control system could he assigned arbitrarily (within the natural restriction that they be located symmetrically in relation to the real axis) [4-61. Consider a discrete time-invariant system with sampling interval T seconds: x ( k +I ) =b T x ( k ) +rru(k) (7) J@) =Cx ( k ) (8) where XB R", UF. W, YE Rp and &, i-, and C are constant matrices of appropriate dimensions. The following control law is applied to this system. The output is measured at time f = k T , k=0,1, .... We will consider constant hold functions because they are more suitable for implementation. An output sampling interval is divided into N subinteivals of length A =T/ N, and the hold function is assumed constant on these subintervals. Thus the control law becomes: u ( t ) =KI y ( k ? ) , k r +l A < t < k r + ( l + l)A;K;+,v =K, (9) for I =O. 1, ... Note that a sequence of N gi n matrices {KO, Kl , ..., ICN-,}, when substituted in (9), generates a time-varying piecewise constant output feedback gain K(t ) for O<I <T. Consider the following system, which is obtained by sampling the system in (8) at sampling interval A =T/ N and which is dcnoted by (a, f, C) : x ( k +1) =Qx ( k ) +i-u(k) (10) Y( k) =Cx(k) ( 11) A useful properly of the control law in (9) is given by the following lemma: Assume (GZ, C) is observable and (@, r) iscontrollable with controllability index v such that N>v, then it is possible to choose a gain sequence Kt such that the closed-loop system, sampled over 7, takes the desired self- conjugate set of eigenvalues. Define then a state-space representation for the system sampled over T is X ( ~ T +T ) =QNx( k?) +ru (12) JG) =Cx ( k ) (13) where r =[@'"-'T,. . . , r] substituted for u(kr), the closed-loop system becomes Applying periodic output feedback in (9). i.e., Ky(kr) is x(kT f T ) =(a" +f KC) x( ki ) (14) The problem has now taken the form of a static-output- feedback problem. Equation (14) suggests that an output injection matrix G befound such that where p 0 denotes the spectral radius. By observability one can choose an output injection gain G to achieve any desired self-conjugate set of eigenvalues for the closed-loop matrix (bN+ GC), and from N>v it follows that one can IEE Pro.-Gener. Tronrm. Dirtrii,. VW 150, No. 2, March 2W3 p(@" +GC) <1 (15) find a periodic output feedback gain which realises the output injection gain G by solving for K. 5 Multi-model synthesis For multi-model representation of a plant, it is necessary to design a controller which will robustly stabilise the multi- model system. Multi-model representation of plants can be devised in Several ways. When a non-linear system has to be stabilised at different operating points, we seek to obtain linear models at those operating points. Even for para- metrically uncertain linear systems, different linear models can be obtained for extreme points of the parameters. The models are used for stabilisation of the uncertain system. Let us consider a family of plants S = {A; , B;, Ci}, defined by: T K = C ('6) X =Aix i Bju (17) y = C ; x i =1, ..., A4 (18) By sampling at the rate of I/A weobtain a family of discrete systems {@,T,Cj}. Assume that (@;"; Ci ) are observable. We can then find output injection gains C, such that ( @y +C;C;) has the required set of poles. Now consider the augmented system defined below: re, o ... o 1 r r , 1 G = . 1 : GAM I The linear equation has a solution if (6, r ) is controllable with controllability index V, and N 2 V. This periodic output feedback gain realises the desired G, for all plants in the family. It has been shown in [5] that the controllability of individual plants generically implies that the augmented system is control- lable. The controller obtained from the above equation Will produce the desired behaviour, hut might require excessive control action. To reduce this gain effect we relax the condition that (19) has to satisfy exactly and include a constraint on the gain. Thus we consider the following inequations: I/ Ti K- G; l I<pi , i = I , ..., M These can be formulated with in the framework of linear matrix inequalities as follows: (20) In this form, the Matlab LMI Tool Box [I 11can beused for synthesis. The periodic output feedback controller obtained by the above method requires only constant gains and is hence 213 Plant 5 0.5 Plant 1 0.15 ~ o,lo . Pgo =0.4, xe =0.2 0.05 - Withoutc0ntrollr:r a Q o - = o with controller -0.5 I 0 5 10 15 20 0 .5 10 15 20 -0.05 -0.10 with controllei Fig. 2 Open and clused loop impul.se re.s,mne.r of lineurised system fin plant 1 4 r 0 5 10 time, s plant 1 :control input Pgo =0.4, Xe =0.2 -0.10' 0 5 10 15 20 time, s lime. s time. s Fig. 3 Open unrl closed loop responses uf nonlinear system fur curiou.7 operaring conditiuns easier to implement. The example of the dynamics of a single-machine system connected to an infinite bus is used to demonstrate the method. Here, 16 linear models are obtained by linearising the non-linear model of a single- machine system with a different power level (Psp) and extemal line inductance (x,). 6 Casestudy The 16 plants corresponding to a linearised plant at different operating conditions of a single-machine system connected to an infinite bus are considered for designing a robust periodic output feedback controller using the LMI 214 approach in the Matlab software. Then controller gains are applied to simulate a non-linear plant of a single-machine system connected to an infinite bus at different operating points. 6.7 Example The discrete models of different plants with a different power level (P4) and different external line inductance (x,) are obtained for the sampling time T =0.5 s and are given in the Appendix. The output matrix for the slip input is given as C, =[ O I O O] ( 22) 1.5.5 Proc-Gener Tnrrmrrr Dorrib.. Vol ISO, No. 2. Mwr h ZW3 0.2 0.1 g ~0.1 -0.2 Using the method discussed in Section 5. stabilising output injection gain matrices are obtained for all 16 plants. The initial condition is zero. Using the LMI approach, (20), (21) are solved using different values of p in order to find the gain matrix K. The robust periodic output feedback gain K is obtained as K =[ -75.5647 105.3353 -68.8612 16.6909 -0.94791' (23) The open-loop and closed-loop responses with impulse disturbance for some of the linear models are shown in Fig. 2. 6.2 Simulation with non-linear plant at different operating points A SIMULINK-based block diagram including all the non- linear blocks is generated. The slip of the machine is taken as output. The output slip signal with gain Kand a limiter is added to the &, signal, which is used to provide additional damping. It is used to damp out the small signal disturbances by modulating the generator excitation. The output must be limited to prevent the PSS acting to counter the action ofthe AVR. Different operating points are taken as the different plants. The disturbance considered is a self- clearing fault at the generator terminal which was cleared after 0.1 second. Therefore, the control law applied takes more time to stabilise the output than with linear models because a limiter is used with the input signal in non-linear model simulations. Simulation results at different operating points (P4) and different external line inductance (1,) are given in Figs. 3 and 4 without controller and with controller along with the required control input as the modulating voltage. 7 Conclusions In this paper, a design scheme was developed for a robust power system stabiliser for a single-machine system /E Pr oc. -Coi ~r . Trmt.vt8. Diririh.. Vol. 150, No. 2, Morel? ZIX13 P - 2 0. x , =o. 2 - : without ;J cantrol l er I 0 - -0.5 -1.0 - with Controllei connected to an infinite bus using periodic output feedback. The slip signal is taken as output and the periodic output feedback control is applied at an appropriate sampling rate. This method is more general in nature than the static output feedback method, and also the control inputs for these plants are required of small magnitudes. It is found that the robust controller designed provides good damping enhancement for various operating points of a single-machine system connected to an infinite bus. The method described is being extended to multi-machine systems. 0.05 a .- 1 0 . -0.05 8 References I LARSEN. E.V.. and SWANN. D.A.: 'Applying power system stabilizers Part I: gcneral concepts', IEEE Tronr Power Appm Sysi.. 1981. 100, (6). pp. 3017-30242 2 LARSEN. E.V.. and SWANN. D.A.: 'Applying power system stabilizers Piirt I I : performance objective and tuning concepts', IEEE Tram. Pwe r Appur. Sm. 1981. 100. (6). pp. 3025-3033 HUANG, T.L.. CHES. S.C.. HWANG, T.Y.. and YANG. W.T.: 'Pou'er s ys i m output feedback stabilizer design via optimal subeipiistructure assignment' Eleclr, Power Sjrt. Res., 1991, 21. pp. 107-114 4 CHAMMAS. A.B.. and LEONDES. C.T.: 'Pole assiinment by piecewis? constant oulpui feedback'. 1nl. J. Cim,ml. 1979. 29. "" 11-18 3 I Pgo=1.0,xe=0.4 - without controller -1.0 with controller -0.2 ,.I. -. 5 WERNER, H., and FURUTA. K.: 'Simultaneous stabilization based on output measurement'. Kvbemriiko. 1995. 31. pp. 39Hl I 6 PATRE. B.M.. BANDYOI'ADHYAY. 8.. and WERNER. H.: 'Control af discrete two-time scale systcmby using pi m constant penodic output feedback'. Spi. Sci.. 1997. 23, pp. 23-37 LARSEN. E.V., and SWANN. D.A.:, 'Applying power system stabilizers Part 111: practical consideration'. IEEE Twu. Power 8 PADIYAR, K.R.: 'Powcr system dynamics: stability and contrd (Interline Publishing Pnvale Ltd.. Bangalore. 1996) 9 HEFFRON. W.G.. and PHILLIPS. R.A.: 'Effect of a modem amplidyne voltagc regulator on underercited operation of large turbine generators', Al EE Tram, 1952, 71. (3). pp. 692497 DEMELLD. F.D., and CONCORDI A. C.: 'Concepts of synchronous machine stability as iiNeectedby excitation contrd IEEE Trms. Pon.er. Appur. Sysr.. 1969. 88. pp. 316-329 GAHI NET. P., NEMIKOVSKI. A.. LAUR, A.J., and CHILALI. M.: 'LMI Control Toolbox Cor use with Matlah' (The Mathworks Inc.. Natick, MA. 1995) 7 ~p p ~r . s p. 19x1, IM. (fi), pp. 303544ti 10 I I 215 9 Appendix Plant parameters The following parameters are used for simulation cf the 16 plants: (see Table 1). Tabl e1 H=5, rd0=6s, D=O.O, K~=100, TE=0.02s,xe=0.2p.u. ~ Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8 Plant 9 Plant 10 Plant 11 Plant 12 Plant 13 Plant 14 Plant 15 Plant 16 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.75 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0170 1.1624 1.4336 1.1624 1.5772 1.6342 1.6263 1.6117 1.6263 1.6117 1.5911 1.4977 1.4414 1.3197 1.2087 1.3288 1.1239 1.2983 1.5855 1.2983 1.7402 1.8588 1.8752 1.8883 1.8752 1.8883 1.8987 1.9174 1.6126 1.5042 1.4107 1.7402 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.2889 0.3081 0.3263 0.3436 0.3600 K4 KS 1.4385 0.0643 1.6618 0.0577 2.0294 0.0194 1.6618 0.0577 2.2274 -0.0309 2.3792 -0.1130 2.4003 -0.1328 2.4170 -0.1524 2.4003 -0.1328 2.4170 -0.1524 2.4303 -0.1717 2.4543 -0.1878 2.0641 -0.0469 1.9254 -0.0641 1.8057 -0.0820 1.7009 -0.1002 0.3291 x, 0.3083 x. 0.2628 % 0.3308 x, 0.2300 % 0.1988 x, 0.1939 % 0.1898 % 0.1939 % 0.1898 % 0.1866 % 0.1805 % 0.2681 1.25% 0.3020 1.5% 0.3326 1.75% 0.3608 2& 216