Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 June 1981
APPLYING POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS
PART III: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3034
ABSTRACT
The practical considerations associated with applying
system stabilizers are addressed in this final
part of the paper. Procedures are described whereby
the tuning concepts developed in Part II may be
implemented in the field. An approach is described
for determining the "plant" characteristics for which
Guidelines are prea stabilizer must compensate.
sented for adjustment of stabilizer parameters,
inclduing frequency- response, gain, and output limits.
Techniques are described for verification of
proper stabilizer set-up.
where
power
INTRODUCTION
This portion of a three-part paper deals with
practical aspects of applying power system stabilizers.
Guidelines are presented for tuning the three types of
stabilizers described in Part I, viz., utilizing speed,
frequency, or power input, which enable the user to
achieve satisfactory stabilizer performance with limited
effort. These guidelines are based on field experience
[1,2,3,], including that of others reported in the
literature [4,5,6,7], and extensive analytical studies
leading to- the concepts described in Parts I and II of
this paper.
potential difficulties
80
SM
560-3
paper
are discussed.
recommended
and
approved by
the
Power
PSS
KS
KS
(1 +sT )(I
sT2)(1
(1
+
+
+
sT3)
sT4) FILT(s)
(1)
stabilizer gain
and
input
tor-
signal
Performance Criteria
1.
Less than 90
possible.
2.
System Condition
The stabilizer should be adjusted to give the above
characteristic for the condition which represents the
highest stabilizer loop gain and greatest phase lag.
For all three types of stabilizers (i.e., speed input,
frequency input, and power input), full load on the
generator yields the highest loop gain. For speed and
power input stabilizers, the strongest ac system presents the highest loop gain and greatest phase lag. For
frequency input stabilizers, the highest loop gain
occurs with the weakest ac transmission system, but as
noted in Figure 3 of Part I, increases only slightly for
external reactance greater than about 40 percent.
Plant Identification
GEP(s)
where
= AT
ep/Epss
GEP(s)
T
ep
pss
(2)
the plant through which
stabilizer must operate.
the
due
Since
3035
This measurement is often obtained by introducing
sinusoidal signals into the voltage summing junction of
the regulator and utilizing a transfer function analyzer
to determine the gain and phase of the resulting terminal voltage variations with respect to the driving
signal. Recently, techniques have been developed to
utilize noise signals which are processed by digital
computer based instrumentation to identify this transfer
function [8]. Such techniques hold promise for simplifying field measurements of this type in the future.
3036
likely
prove to be a
tests in the future.
Setting Gain
SPE ED
.05%
rIp l%V M
TORSIONAL INTERACTION
The potential for interaction between'power system
stabilizers and turbine-generator shaft torsional modes
of vibration was observed by Ontario Hydro at their
Lambton station [10], and subsequently by the authors'
Company at Salt River Project's Navajo station [3].
Analysis has revealed that such interaction can occur on
nearly all modern excitation systems as they have relatively high gain at high frequencies. A stabilizertorsional instability with a high response ratio excitation system may result in shaft damage, particularly
at light generator loads where the inherent mechanical
damping is small. Even if shaft damage does not occur,
such an instability can cause saturation of the stabilizer output causing it to be ineffective, and possibly
also cause saturation of the voltage regulator resulting
in loss of synchronism and tripping the unit. It is
imperative that stabilizers do not induce torsional
instabilities.
3037
shift characteristics at low frequencies were
close to the equivalent used in Part II for the torsional filtering, i.e.,
phase
(3)
Hence, attainment of the performance shown by the analytical results in Part II is ensured. The characteristic of equation 3 is also a good approximation of the
filter for two-pole units described in [3].
Alternative Input Signals
The research leading to the torsional filter design
for four-pole units involved consideration of speed,
frequency, and a combination of power and speed as
stabilizer input signals. The relative torsional interaction characteristics associated with each of these
input signals is worth noting here.
Speed input stabilizers generally require the
greatest amount of torsional attenuation. Although the
filtering requirements could be minimized by positioning
a speed sensor at an appropriate location on the turbine-generator shaft, for ease of installation it is
desirable to utilize a speed pickup mounted at either
end of the shaft, usually the front standard. The
torsional mode-shapes of typical turbine-generators
indicate that there is less torsional motion at the
generator than at the ends of the shaft. As a consequence, the frequency input signal, which is comparable
to a speed pickup on the generator rotor, typically has
a lower torsional frequency content than a speed signal
taken from the front standard or exciter. On some untts
this can amount to a 20 db difference in torsional
attenuation requirements. In addition, as noted in Part
II, the tuning of a frequency input stabilizer need not
accommodate the higher frequency local modes, including
intraplant modes of oscillation, which results in approximately 8 db less torsional interaction than a speed
input stabilizer having a pickup mounted on the generator shaft.
3038
2.
3.
Pa
NOTE:
ACCELERATING POWER Po - M s w Pm Pe
APPROXIMATE MECH. POWER Pm (M s w + Pe) Fm(s)
APPROXIMATE ACCEL. POWER P Pm- Pe
:
Aeref
(A)
(B)
(C)
Imperfect compensation of mechanical power variations with a power input stabilizer, including transient
variation due to filtering of the simulated mechanical
power signal, will result in some transient voltage
offsets during fast mechanical power changes. Three
situations are of concern:
1.
Rapid
3039
NOTE:
f (Hz)
10
20 30 50
In anticipation of using ac frequency as a stabilizer input, a new frequency transducer has been developed and tested at several locations, including that
where the author's Company has experienced the most
severe noise. Figure 3 shows frequency spectrums* as
measured on signals taken from (a) shaft speed, (b) the
new transducer, and (c) a zero crossing detector frequency transducer with and without 60 Hz bandpass filtering on the ac voltage (intended to minimize aliasing). As expected, the frequency signal is less sensitive to local and torsional modes of oscillation than
the speed signal, but has more noise in the frequency
range from 10 to 50 Hz. The new frequency transducer
has considerably less noise than the zero crossing type,
even when the latter is augmented by a filter.
1.0
WITH AC FILTERS
2 3
f (Hz)
(B) TERMINAL BUS FREQUENCY,
NEW TRANSDUCER
f (Hz)
(A) SHAFT SPEED
NO AC FILTER
NO
FILTER
WITH
KFILTERj
I0.0
T IME -
SEC
LOCATION
a)
input.)
b)
2.
3040
cuitry and input signals to compensate for the effects
It is difficult to
of mechanical power variations.
compensate perfectly for mechanical power variations,
and imperfect compensation introduces the potential for
other system interactions. These must be resolved to
ensure successful application of a power input stabilizer, and may require custom designs tailored to specific installations.
Noise on the power system can have an adverse
effect on stabilizer performance. Some stabilizer types
are more susceptible to noise problems than others.
Historically the frequency input stabilizer using zero
crossing detection to measure frequency has performed
poorly in the presence of noise caused by large intermittent loads such as arc furnaces. However, a new
frequency t-ransducer has been developed which promises
to significantly reduce the impact of this noise on the
measured frequency signal.
Further, the filtering
required to minimize torsional interaction also significantly reduces the effect of power system noise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1)
P.H. Beagles, E.V. Larsen, "Field Test and Analytical Experience with Dynamic Stability of a Loosely
Interconnected Power System", Paper A 78 519-1
presented at IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Los Angeles,
July 1978.
2)
3)
8)
9)
316-329.
10)
W. Watson, M.E. Coultes, "Static Exciter Stabilizing Signals on Large Generators - Mechanical Problems", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-92, Jan./Feb. 1973,
pp. 205-212.
11)
F.P. deMello, L.N. Hannett, J.M. Undrill, "Practical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from
Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97,
Sept./Oct. 1978, pp. 1515-1522.
APPENDIX A - MEASUREMENT OF GEP(s)
ATm
183-190.
4)
5)
6)
7)
P.
F.R.
AET
3041
wb
(Ala)
K
le
2
=,GEP(s)[ /K _K
hEt/ EPSS =GEP(s){K6/K2 K5 Wb/[Ms
AE /AE
where
K1 (s) =
e
*(Defined
(Alb)
(s)]
+
22
1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I20
800T
(s)]j(A2)AES
WbK(s)
K
400
inertia.
PSS
effective
synchronizing
torque
coefficient,
T
including
demagnetizing effects, amortisseur
circuits, voltage regulator characteristics, and electrical loads.
e/86,
Wb
Pt
DE /8E'
K
-5
in
8E t /86
I -400
I -80 _
-1I60o
-200_,
0.01
istics:
1.
2.
0.05
0.1
(a)
0.2
FREQUENCY
0.5
(Hz)
STRONG SYSTEM
1.0
2.0
5.0
10
2.0
5.0
Xe 0.2 p u1
1200 L
800
0.02
[9])
GEP(j)
1I200
K* = 8T/8E'
AEP/AEpss
ATe
AEPSS
40
Oa
CD
GEN(jw)
-80
I
< 120 _
a-
1600
-2000
-240
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.
0.2
0.5
P.
(b) WEAKSYSTEM (Xe 0.6p.u.)
3042
Combined Discussion 1, 2, 3
C. Concordia (Consulting Engineer, Venice, Florida): The function of a
Power System Stabilizer (PSS) is to provide more positive damping in
order to improve stability in those cases when negative damping determines the stability limit. (As it often does when high-response generator
voltage regulators are used.dl1) Since the PSS operates through the
voltage regulator and excitation system as well as the generator field,
which at the frequencies of interest have an appreciable phase lag; since
the object is to produce a damping torque, or a variation of torque
roughly in phase with generating-unit speed; since this is accomplished
by controlling the field flux; and since it is always easier to produce a
phase lag rather than a phase lead; it would seem that the ideal signal
would be acceleration, which always leads speed by 900, rather than
speed itself. Thus, electrical active power (measured in the direction of
rotation), which is an approximation to electrical torque, which in turn
is an approximation to accelerating torque and thus to acceleration
itself, would seem to be a better signal than speed, which might be, and
has often been, considered as the obvious one. This argument is even
more persuasive when one considers older voltage regulating systems,
where some phase advance may be required even with the
"accelerating" power signal. (Of course, in these cases the voltage
regulation does not produce so much negative damping anyway.) This
argument has led me to prefer power as the signal right from the beginning, in spite of its drawbacks.
If one insists on using a signal that looks more like speed, it has long
been appreciated (and the authors have strongly confirmed) that frequency has the great advantage over speed, that it behaves more or less
like speed for the oscillation modes of most interest, but is greatly attenuated for higher-frequency modes corresponding to oscillations between nearby generators. Since these modes are usually not subjected to
so much negative damping because of the smaller voltage regulator
response, and in addition may have appreciable positive amortisseur
damping, the PSS is not likely to be needed for them. Thus, the PSS
design is made easier by the smaller range for which it must function effectively.
In view of these considerations, I have never understood why speed
seems to have been chosen in so many cases for the PSS input. Either
power or frequency would be better. (I and my coauthor may be accused of having advocated speed in the authors' reference 2 of Part I
(reference 3 of Part II and reference 9 of Part III); but, at least for my
own part, this was not at all intended, and in fact, was specifically
disclaimed in the paper.)
This has been said without regard to the possible effect of the PSS on
generating-unit torsional oscillations. When this problem came to light,
it became evident that, with a speed-fed PSS, about as much effort had
to be expended to ensure that the PSS did not do the wrong thing in the
higher-frequency torsional range as to ensure effective operation in the
intended range of usefulness. To me, this seemed finally to have given
the speed signal the coup-de-grace. It became apparent that there are
many speeds, and it is not always easy to find that any particular one is
appropriate. It is true that filters have been applied, but this added further complication to a device that is often itself regarded as a complication by operators.
In comparing the two remaining signals, power and frequency, we
must point out that power also has the ability to be summed for nearby
generators (easily in the case of generators in the same power stations,
but not generally so easily as frequency). Also, we believe that frequency will require some signal filtering that will aggravate the already 90
phase penalty that it suffers relative to power. On the other hand, use of
electrical power may require some (very approximate) signal of
mechanical input power. (Incidentally, we feel that the power-input
PSS will require a washout, since a perfect steady-state compensation
for power change is not conceivable to us, but we do not share the
authors' fear that the desynchronizing effect may have to be serious or
even appreciable. In our opinion, the authors PSSp example, equation
6, Part II, should have included an appropriate washout to be more
realistic.)
REFERENCE
F. P de Mello and J. M. Undrill (Power Technologies Inc., Schenectady, NY): The authors are to be congratulated on the preparation of
an excellent discussion of stabilization through excitation control.
Although there are a few points of emphasis with which we take issue as
noted further, this three part paper makes a significant contribution on
the subject, covering the many aspects to be considered in stabilizer application and, more importantly, relating cause and effect through a
searching analysis of the basic process and controls.
3043
REFERENCES
1. F. P. de Mello, "The Effects of Control," tutorial paper on
"Modern Concepts of Power System Dynamics," IEEE Tutorial
70M62-PWR.
2. F. P. de Mello and C. Concordia, "Concepts of Synchronous
Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-88, April
1969, pp. 316-329.
3. J. M. Undrill and T. E. Kostyniak, "Subsynchronous Oscillations:
Part I, Comprehensive Stability Analysis," IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95, pp. 1446-1455.
4. J. M. Undrill and F. P. de Mello, "Subsynchronous Oscillations:
Part II, Shaft System Dynamic Interactions," IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95, pp. 1456-1464.
5. F. P. de Mello, L. N. Hannett and J. M. Undrill, "Practical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from Accelerating Power,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.
PAS-97, Sept./Oct. 1978, pp. 1515-1522.
D. C. Lee, P.
We use power system stabilizers almost exclusively to damp machinesystem (local) modes and in our system we do not have a conflict between the requirements of local and inter-area modes. Our investigations
show that the use of transient gain reduction (TGR) does not contribute
to any significant improvements to the damping of local, exciter and
torsional modes [A]. Reduction of transient exciter gain is usually unacceptable due to transient stability considerations. We allow for a
stabilizer out of service condition by designing the system to
automatically transfer to either a manual control or an alternate
regulator in case of stabilizer failure. Even without this feature, loss of
stabilizer on one unit at a plant with several units would not lead to
dynamic instability.
While we are not in favour of universal use of TGR, we have justified
its application in specific cases. We have used TGR on a hydraulic unit
equipped with a thyristor exciter. The other units in the station have
slow rotating exciters and we found it necessary to use TGR with the
thyristor exciter to ensure dynamic stability in the event of loss of the
stabilizer signal. High transient performance was not a requirement at
this station and there was no provision for regulator transfer in the
event of loss of stabilizing signal. We have also recommended the use of
TGR in one situation where a unit must operate into both very high and
extremely low impedance systems [B].
With a low regulator transient gain in the neighborhood of 20 pu
Efd/pu Etref, stabilizer output limits of 0.1 pu Etref used by the
authors could be restrictive for high frequency excursions where Et can
not respond. In our applications with nearly 10 times higher regulator
gain, we use a positive limit of about 0.2 pu to ensure maximum contribution of the stabilizer. This is complemented by a terminal voltage
limiter which prevents the terminal voltage from exceeding a set level.
On the negative side, a stabilizer output limit of 0.05 to 0.1 pu is used.
This allows sufficient control range while reducing the probability of a
unit trip for failure of a stabilizer component driving the output signal
to the negative limit.
We would suggest that the power based stabilizer configuration used
for the example in this paper is not directly comparable with the speed
based stabilizer considered. The power based stabilizer transfer function, given by equation 6 of part II, can be manipulated to a speed based stabilizer of the form:
0.5s
(1+0.25s)
(1+0.5s)
(1+0.5s) (1+0.05s)
(1+0. 06s)
Of particular significance is the effective 0.5s "washout". The low
value of this time constant may be a contributing factor to the stability
of the low frequency voltage regulator mode and the cause of the poor
showing of this system in the transient comparison tests.
The effect of mechanical power variation in the system shown in
Figure 2 of part III can be mitigated to the extent desired by suitable
choice of Em(s). In the limiting case, this could be a full blown torsional
K
filter. In practice, universal filters can be chosen which will allow very
3044
fast mechanical power change with minimal terminal voltage disturbance and no governor interaction.
Could the authors elaborate on their concern for torsional interaction
with power input stabilizer when applied to four-pole units. We have a
similar stabilizer in operation on our 750 MW, 1800 RPM nuclear units
equipped with thyristor exciters. For these units the lowest torsional frequency is 9 Hz and the local mode frequency is about 0.8 Hz. Our experience shows that with thyristor exciters there is no need to use torsional filters for stabilizers using accelerating power as input even for
four-pole units. Is there anything inherent with the GENERREX excitation system that causes this concern?
REFERENCES
A. P. Kundur, D. C. Lee, H. M. Zein El-Din, Closure of "Power
System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and
On-site Validation", paper no. F80227-9, presented at the IEEE
PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, Feb. 3-8, 1980.
B. D. C. Lee, P. Kundur, H. M. Zein El-Din, discussion of M.
Mobarak, D. H. Thorne and E. Hill, "Contrast of Power System
Stabilizer Performance on Hydro and Thermal Units", paper no. F
79 659-4, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, July
15-20, 1979
Manuscript received July 29, 1980.
stabilizer.
The paper contains a collection of interesting arguments concerning
the adequacy of the different input signals for the stabilizer. Each
choice of one such signal is shown to have its own advantages and
drawbacks. Considering the same arguments, the discussors feel that a
combined feedback of power and frequency or power and speed provides better results [A]. This case has not been considered in the paper.
One of the main disadvantages in using power feedback alone is that the
required integrating characteristic (lag/lead) causes adverse effects in
case of mechanical power variations. This troublesome lag/lead term is
not necessary when an additional frequency signal is used, thus reducing the detrimental effect to a great extent. The combined use of power
and frequency also eliminates the need for differential terms (lead/lag)
in the frequency or speed feedback, which attenuates the noise problems due to high gains at high frequencies. The authors of the paper did
not deal with the combined use of two feedback signals in their paper,
and may have some comments which would be most appreciated.
When power feedback is used alone, the detrimental influence of the
PSS during mechanical power variations may be reduced by an alternative signal connection. The improvement is obtained by inserting the
PSS signal after the AVR compensator instead of the input summing
point. The integrating characteristic of the AVR compensator is thus
bypassed. Damping values are the same when the transfer function is
adjusted properly. Did the authors make any tests with this circuit arrangement?
As to the tuning of the PSS, we see some advantage in partitioning
the transfer function into two parts with individually adjustable gain
values, permitting adjustment of gain and phase. This form of transfer
function lends itself to the use of the so-called "Domain Separation"
method of optimization, which yields the optimum gain values, the attainable damping, the sensitivity of gain variations upon damping and a
check on the stability of the so-called exciter mode at very moderate
computer costs. Do the authors have any comments to this tuning
method?
Optimal damping of electromechanical oscillations is a well accepted
criterion for tuning a stabilizer. This performance goal may result in
high stabilizer gains, however, which is regarded as a drawback by some
utilities. The high gains may indeed produce unnecessary deviations in
the excitation voltage which give rise to fluctuations in the terminal
voltage. In steady state situations where stability is not really critical the
gains may be reduced for smoother voltage control. This suggests a kind
of adaptive tuning of the stabilizer gains. The question remains open,
however, as to how much effort is justified in trying to avoid these
voltage fluctuations. The discussors would be pleased to know the
authors opinion on this matter.
REFERENCE
3045
stabilizers. For oscillation frequencies beyond the voltage regulator
bandwidth, the variation in GEP is due only to variations in K2, which
increases with system strength. Below the crossover frequency of the
voltage regulator, it is further amplified by a reduction in K6 as the
system becomes stronger. As was emhasized in the paper, there exists a
"tuning condition" for the stabilizer under which one must be sure no
undesirable interactions exist and which therefore determines the maximum gain of the stabilizer. The "performance condition" under which
the stabilizer must provide damping is not necessarily the same as the
tuning condition. For speed and power input stabilizers, the tuning condition is with a strong ac transmission system since this gives the highest
loop gain, whereas the performance condition is with a weak transmission system where the impact of the stabilizer is attenuated due to a
reduction in GEP(s). This is illustrated in Figures 4 and 6 of Part 2 of
the paper.
We did consider the use of a compensated frequency signal synthesized from terminal conditions, as proposed by de Mello and Undrill.
While this certainly gives more flexibility in designing a stabilizer to add
damping to a specific mode, we found that the use of terminal frequency or frequency from the high side of the generator step-up transformer
gives a reasonably good compromise between the disadvantages of
generator shaft speed resulting from compensating with X = XQ, and
the reduction in performance arising from sensing a signal too far out in
the system. We disagree with de Mello and Undrill's comments regarding the "filtering" of torsional modes when using frequency input. It is
true that a frequency-based stabilizer requires less torsional filtering
than a speed-based device, but for the torsional interaction
phenomenon, ac bus frequency can be considered as primarily proportional to the speed of the generator shaft. The proportionality constant
used for filter design depends on the worst case situation; for terminal
frequency, the worst case would be with a weak external transmission
system since this yields the strongest coupling to generator shaft speed,
with Af 0.8 ACOG. For a synthesized signal obtained from terminal
conditions, compensating for the subtransient reactance yields Af
A(OG in the torsional frequency range. Compensation for the
quadrature-axis reactance XQ will yield a coupling factor greater than
unity for strong transmission systems and hence more torsi6nal interaction than using generator shaft speed. The benefits gained with respect
to torsional filtering requirements by utilizing a frequency signal is twofold: 1) The generator shaft speed generally has less torsional motion
than either the front or rear standard positions, and 2) because of the
self-compensating nature with respect to transmission strength, tuning
of the frequency input stabilizer yields a lower bandwidth than a speed
input stabilizer having equivalent response in the performance condition.
Both Concordia and de Mello commented on our discussion of power
input stabilizers in Part 1. In this discussion, we were trying to provide a
theory for stabilizer application based on an equivalent damping path
from speed to torque. Such a theory allows for analysis of both electromechanical oscillations and torsional interaction. In hindsight,
however, this is probably not the best way to present the concepts. We
offer the following comments in clarification. For analysis of the interaction of the stabilizer with system modes of oscillation below a few
Hz, Equations Cl and C2 are applicable. The stabilizer design follows
that of the speed input stabilizer design, taking advantage of the inherent 900 phase lead indicated by Equation C2, once a measure of
mechanical power has been obtained to satisfy Equation Cl.
accel
Pn
(C1)
(C2)
s 2HwG
For analysis of torsional interaction, however, the correct accelerating
power experienced by the generator mass must be used, as per Equation
C3.
paccel
@G[KTG()T
KGE(EG
(C3)
Pe
for
this
The assumptions behind Equations Cl and C2 are invalid
situation, and the more comprehensive theory must be utilized to
analyze the effective damping path from speed back through torque
caused by the stabilizer. This analysis method requires that one consider
a speed change being the initiating event (even though it is caused by a
disturbance elsewhere which finally causes the speed change), and a torque change caused by the stabilizer resulting from the speed change.
We agree with de Mello and Undrill that a Te! a is not a scalar, and
point that they missed the indicated functional dependency of Kle(s) on
frequency. This is intended to be a transfer function having a similar
eG)
3046
REFE1RENCE
[Cl]
E. V. Larsen, W. W. Price, "MANSTAB/POSSIM Power System Dynamic Analysis Programs...", IEEE PICA Proceedings,
1977, pp. 350-359.
Manuscript received February 17, 1980.