Design of decentralised load-frequency regulators

for interconnected power systems

T. Hiyama, D.Eng.

Indexing terms: Load and voltage regulation, Power systems and plant, Modelling

Abstract: The paper presents a new method of designing decentralised load-frequency regulators for inter-
connected power systems. Within the framework of this method, the interconnected mutliarea power
system is decomposed into several subsystems, each of which is controlled separately by a decentralised
regulator. Each subsystem consists of one area and its external equivalent in a simplified form. A decentra-
lised control law for the study area is introduced by using a quadratic performance index. Feedback gains of
the decentralised regulator, which minimise the index, are determined by a Newton-Raphson iterative
algorithm. The proposed method is applied to an interconnected longitudinal 4-area system, and the effects
of the proposed regulator are examined by digital simulations and associated sensitivity analysis of the
system. Furthermore, a suitable means for preventing excessive control action is also considered involving a
significant system nonlinearity, i.e. some generation rate constraint.

1 Introduction
The load-frequency control (LFC) problem has been one of
the major subjects concerning power-system engineers, and is
becoming much more significant today in accordance with
increasing size and complexity of interconnected power
systems. In the analysis of large interconnected systems, the
growth in size and complexity of such systems presents a
number of difficulties from the viewpoint of required com-
putation time and computer memory.
Until now much research [13] has been carried out into
the LFC problem, using modern control theory, but futher
consideration may be required because, formerly, oversim-
plified models have been used for the analysis, i.e. only
nonreheated steam plants have been taken into account, and
only two areas have been considered. Also significant system
nonlinearities, i.e. generation rate constraints and limitations
of generation for different sorts of plants used for load-
frequency regulation, have been ignored, and nonmeasurable
quantities have been used for feedback signals.
Furthermore, it is also recognised that the implementation
of a centralised load-frequency control poses many difficulties,
for example difficulties in telemetering required data to the
centralised regulator, when the size and complexity of the
interconnected systems increase. In recent years, significant
efforts [4, 5] have been made to establish suitable decentra-
lised regulators for such large interconnected systems.
The purpose of this paper is to present a new method of
designing decentralised load-frequency regulators for large
interconnected power systems. Within the framework of this
method, the interconnected multiarea power system is
decomposed into several subsystems, each of which is con-
trolled separately by a decentralised regulator. Each subsystem
contains one area and its external equivalent in a simplified
form. The parameters of the equivalent are estimated by a well
known estimation technique [6].
Decentralised control law for a study area is introduced by
a quadratic performance index for the mathematical model of
the study area. Feedback gains of the regulator, which mini-
mise the index, are determined by a Newton-Raphson iterative
algorithm based on the 1st- and 2nd-order sensitivities of the
index with respect to the feedback gains. The regulator con-
sidered in this paper is based on the conventional tie-line bias
control (TBC), which is used by most utilities of the present
day. The regulator consists of a conventional integral control
Paper 1715C (P9, Pll), first received 2nd March and in revised form
7th October 1981
The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Kumamoto
University, Kumamoto 860, Japan
part and additional proportional and derivative control parts
with the area control error (ACE) used as the feedback signal.
By including the conventional integral control part, the
proposed regulator guarantees the zero steady-state error in
both frequency and tie-line power.
The proposed method is applied to an interconnected
longitudinal 4-area system, and the effects of the regulator are
examined under various conditions of the system. In order to
make the analysis more realistic, the effects of the significant
system nonlinearities, for example the generation rate con-
straint [7], are taken into account. Furthermore, a practical
means of preventing the excessive and unnecessary control
action is also investigated involving the constraint.
The results prove that the proposed method is very useful
for designing decentralised regulators of large interconnected
power systems.
2 Representation of mathematical model
In this study, an interconnected longitudinal 4-area system,
shown in Fig. 1, is considered to be a sample interconnected
system.
tie 12 tie 23 tie 34
AP . = 7 AP,. ..
ei L tie ik
k
Fig. 1 Sample 4-area system
2.1 Model 1
In model 1, all the areas consist of the nonreheated steam
plant with the same characteristics. The constants are indicated
in Table 1 [1]. An external equivalent in a simplified form is
selected for the external area model of the study area, as
shown in Fig. 2. The parameter values of the equivalent are
estimated by a well known estimation technique [6].
In a power system having steam plants, power generation
can change, only at a specified maximum rate [7]. The gener-
ation rate constraint for the study area is considered by adding
a limiter to the governor, as shown in Fig. 2, i.e. the maximum
rate of valve opening or closing speed is restricted by the
limiter. Here, it must be noted that the generation rate con-
straints, and the control actions, for the external areas are
ignored for simplicity throughout the present work.
The decentralised regulator for the study area is also
illustrated in Fig. 2. The regulator is constructed of a con-

IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982 0143- 7046/82/010017+ 07 $01.50/0 17
 Table 1 : Constants for model 1
Tv( 0.1 s = governor time constant
Tfi 0.3 s = turbine time constant
H* = 5.0 s, H, = 2Hf/f0 (p.u.MWs/Hz) = inertia constant
Di = 0.00833 p.u.MW/Hz = load-frequency constant
/?, = 2.4 Hz/p.u.MW = regulation
f0 = 60.0 Hz = nominal frequency
Tjj = 0.5 p.u.MW/Hz s = synchronising coefficient between /th
and/th area
fl,. = i//? { + Dt = 0.425 p.u.MW/Hz = frequency bias
P^IPfj = 1.0 = capacity ratio between /th and/th areas
Parameters of external equivalent
H*s, He - 2He/f0 p.u.MWs/Hz = inertia constant
r,-e p.u.MW/Hz s = synchronising coefficient between study area and
its external equivalent
De p.u.MW/Hz = load-frequency constant involving regulation rate
governor
study area ( i th area) Af e
/ external equivalent
-h,
s
B. At,
-h2
9?
j
-sh3
Fig. 2 Block diagram for model 1
a Block diagram of study area with its external equivalent
b Block diagram of decentralised regulator
ventional integral control part, and additional proportional
and derivative control parts, with the area control error used
as the input signal.
2.2 Model 2
In a practical situation, each area has the different sorts of
plants, i.e. steam and hydro plants, that may be used for the
load-frequency regulation of each area. In addition, modern
steam plants are of the reheated type. In order to make the
analysis more realistic, the model [8], shown in Fig. 3, is
used for the study area model. For simplicity the situations in
the external areas are the same as those in model 1.
The generation rate constraint for the steam plant of the
study area is also considered by adding a limiter to the governor
of the plant equally as model 1. The generation rate constraint
for the hydro plant is not taken into account, because that
for the hydro plant may be less significant than that for the
steam plant.
The block diagram of the regulator is also illustrated in
Fig. 3. The construction of the regulator is almost the same
as that in model 1. Here, it must be noted that the parameters,
kx and k2, present the load allocation to the steam and
hydro plants, respectively. Their values must be specified as
18
Table 2: Constants of study area for model 2
Khi = 0.5 = reheat coefficient, Kti 1 ACW = 0.5
Tn ~ 6-0 s = reheat time constant
a,- =1.8 Hz/p.u.MW = regulation rate of hydro plant
Mi = 24.0 Hz/p.u.MW = hydro governor temporary droop
characteristic
7"di = 4.0 s = time constant for temporary droop
Tgi = 0.6 = hydro governor time constant
T~wi = 1.0 s = water starting time
kl = 0.7, k2 = 0.3 = load allocation for steam and hydro plants
Bi = MRi + Mai + Dt - 0.981 p.u.MW/Hz = frequency bias
kx + k2 = 1.0, on considering the economic load dispatch and
the generation capacity of each sort of plant.
The constants for the study area are indicated in Table 2.
As shown in this Table, the 50% reheated steam plant is used
for the steam plant model, and the load allocation to each
plant is assumed as follows: 70% to the steam plant and 30%
to the hydro plant, by considering the recent trends in power
system, i.e. the decreasing percentages of the capacity in hydro
plants, and the increasing percentages of the capacity in base
loaded nuclear plants.
hydrogovernor
Fig. 3 Block diagram for model 2
a Block diagram for study area
b Block diagram of decentralised regulator
2.3 State equations for model 1 and model 2
The state equations of the study area with its external equiv-
alent are stated in vector form as follows:
x = A(h)x
(1)
where x, A and h are the state vector, the system matrix, and
the feedback gain vector, respectively.
The state vector x is
x = [APai,APei,Afi,APvi,APti,Afe]T (2)
for model 1, and
x = [APai, APei, Afh APvi, APthi, APm,
APghAPdhAPwi,Afe]T (3)
for model 2, where T denotes the transpose.
IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982
 The feedback gain vector h is power, following a step load change, should be guaranteed so
that load changes should be picked up within their own area.
h = [/*i,fc 2 ,/* 3 ] T (4) (b) The transient state error in both frequency and tieiine
for model 1, and power must be small.
(c) The excessive and unnecessary control action should be
(5) prevented in order to reduce the regulation cost.
for model 2. Furthermore, the term APai is To satisfy the specification (a) the conventional integral con-
trol has been used by most of the utilities. The regulator con-
Ap
ai = -ht J AACEtdt (6) sidered in this study is also based on the conventional integral
control as described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
(7) To satisfy the specifications, the following performance
indices are introduced:
= area control error
where Bt is the frequency bias of the study area. (14)'

3 Determination of optimal regulator gains for model 1, and

3.1 Mathematical description
By being associated with the system described by eqn. 1, a = \ (15)
quadratic performance index J is considered
for model 2. In eqn. 15, only the rate of change of high-
xTQxdt (8) pressure turbine output, i.e. APthi, is contained in the index,
because that of the low-pressure turbine output may be suf-
where Q is a positive definite or positive semidefinite symmetric ficiently small in comparison with that of the high-pressure
matrix. The gain vector h for the regulator of the study area turbine. The generation rate of the steam plant, and also the
is determined, so that the above index may be minimised. regulation action, may be much restricted by increasing the
The above problem can be replaced by the following para- weight q in eqns. 14 and 15. The above indices are minimised
meter optimisation problem [9]: by using the Newton-Raphson algorithm described in the
preceding Section.
min/ = Tr[KX0] (9)
h

subject to the following Lyapunov equation: 4 Numerical results

ATK + KA = -Q (10) In this work, area 2 in the sample system, shown in Fig. 1, is
considered to be a study area.
where Tr [ ] is the trace operator, and K denotes the positive
definite solution matrix of eqn. 10. The matrix Xo in eqn. 9 4.1 Example for model 1
is stated by
4.1.1 Parameter estimation of external equivalent: The para-
(11) meters of the external equivalent for area 2 have been esti-
mated through a well known estimation technique [6] by
x0 = initial value of state vector*.
using simulated values of the sample 4-area system for a pulsed
The necessary conditions for optimality are given by load change in area 2. The results are as follows:
H* = 2.7355 s, De = 0.8926 p.u.MW/Hz,
= 0 (12)
8ht Tie = 1.1677 p.u.MW/Hs
for all /. where the regulator action and the generation rate constraints
The regulator gain h can be modified recursively by a for all areas are neglected here.
Newton-Raphson algorithm along the direction of correction Figs. Aa and 4b indicate the responses following a pulsed
Ah, determined by the following equation until the optimality load change, and also following a step-load change, in area 2,
conditions in eqn. 12 are satisfied: respectively. As shown in these Figures, the external equiv-
Ah = -M~ld alent with these parameter values can be used as an external
(13)
area model for area 2, when various types of load change may
2 2
8J 8K be taken into account.
= Tr -
[ShjShj
4.1.2 Determination of regulator gains: The regulator gains for
= (*,/) element of Jacobian matrix M area 2 have been determined by minimising the index in eqn.
14. The results are indicated in Table 3. These gains have been
obtained through five to seven times iterations. In the calcu-
lation, the vector x0 in eqn. 11 is selected by considering a
step-load change AL in area 2 as follows:
= / th element of column vector d
* 0 = [- AL,0,0,- AL,- AL,0]T
3.2 Con trol purposes and performance indices
In order to determine the optimal gains for the regulator, the where the value of AL is specified to 1.0 for simplicity, because
following specifications for load-frequency regulation are the system considered is linear.
taken into account [7, 10]: The global optimality of these gains has been checked
(a) The zero steady-state error in both frequency and tieiine through the numerical experiments, by initiating the iterative

IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. I, JANUARY 1982 19

 Table 3: Optimal gains for regulator of area 2 Table 4 : 1st-order sensitivities of index J with respect to parameter
changes of external equivalent
q = 1.0
Sensitivity (7= 1.0 q= 10.0
h3 J
Initial Optimal Initial Optimal
Initial gains 0.1 0.0 0.0 7.4531 gains gains gains gains
Optimal gains 1.1735 0.0995 0.2223 2.6545
0.2235* 2.6545* 8J/8Tie - 1.6070 - 0.6563 - 7.0371 - 3.4540
1.1775* - 0.0999*
SJI8HI - 0.4492 0.0985 0.9662 0.2134
q= 10.0
8J/8De - 1.4292 0.2909 2.6260 0.7751
Initial gains 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.933
Optimal gains 0.3699 - 6.3634 -6.0132 7.6274
0.3671* -0.3633* -0.0143* 7.6274* 4.1.5 Control effects with generation rate constraint: As
"denotes the value obtained using different initial gains ht h2 = h3 =
described in Section 2.1, the generation rate for the steam
1.0 plant can be restricted by adding a limiter to the governor. Fig.
7 illustrates the responses of area 2 under a generation rate
0.02
0.01 I 0.015
N
X 0 & 0.010
(M

J 0.005
* - 0 01

-0.02 6 8 10
time, s
0 01 0.010r
i j
0 V 2 A 6 fi _ .19
K, -0 01 < -0.010 time, s
time, s
\ J
-0.C2 - 0.020 L

-0.03
Fig. 4 Responses obtained using external equivalent for area 2 0.015
Generation rate constraints and control action for all areas are not q = 1.0
considered 0.010
using detailed 4-area model >=
using external equivalent
a Pulsed load change APj2 = 0.01 p.u.MW for 0.5 s
0.005
7/*- q = 100
b Step load change APj2 = 0.01 p.u.MW
1/ 1 i i i

calculation with different initial gains. The results are also

indicated in Table 3.
The regulator with the initial gains, i.e. hx = 0 . 1 , and
^2 = ^3 = 0-0 [7], is a conventional integral regulator.

4.1.3 Control effects without generation rate constraint: Fig. 5

indicates the control effects achieved by the regulator, with
the optimal or initial gains under a step-load change in area 2.
The damping of oscillation is much improved, and the tran-
sient error in both frequency and tie-line power is also much
reduced, by the regulator with the optimal gains. The control
action and the generation rate are much restricted by increasing
the weight q in eqn. 14, as shown in the Figure. Furthermore,
the simulated values achieved using the external equivalent are
almost equivalent to those achieved using the detailed 4-area
model, even if some control action for area 2 is taken into
account.
4.1.4 Associated sensitivity analysis: The lst-order sensitivies
of the index/, with respect to the parameters//1 ,De and Tie of
the external equivalent, are indicated in Table 4. The values of
the index / associated with the changes of these parameter
values are also illustrated in Fig. 6. As indicated in the Table
and Figure, the regulator with the optimal gains is very insen-
sitive to the parameter changes of the equivalent.
The parameter values of the equivalent may vary when the
operating condition, and the configuration, of the external
areas are changed, and also when some control actions for the
external areas are considered. Accordingly, the regulator with
the optimal gains may be a robust regulator for the above
situations.
Fig. 5 Control effects without generation rate constraint under
step-load change A.Pj2 = 0.01 p.u.MW
using detailed 4-area model
using external equivalent
a Area 2: with conventional regulator
Areas 1, 3 and 4: without regulator
b Area 2: with optimal regulator
Areas 1, 3 and 4: without regulator
limitation of 10% per minute [7]. In this case, the banded
values imposed by the limiter are specified as follows:
|APUI-| <APvmax, APvmax = 0.1/60.0p.u.MW/s
because the rate of change of steam valve position is considered
to be nearly equal to the generation rate in this case.
As shown in Fig. 7, the satisfactory performance is obtained
by the regulator with the optimal gains for q = 10.0, but the
performance achieved by the regulator for q = 1.0 is unsatis-
factory, contrary to the results shown in Fig. 5. Namely, the
regulator for q = 1.0 gives the excessive control action to area
2 [7]. Here it must be noted that the magnitude of the integral
gain hx becomes higher for the smaller weight q. Accordingly,
it is recognised that the excessive control action may be
introduced by the regulator with the larger integral gain,
because the integrated area control error may exceed the
proper value during the period in which the power generation

20 IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982

 25 is restricted by the constraint. When the generation rate con-
straint is taken into account, the weight q must be specified to
relatively larger values in order to prevent the excessive control
H* = 2.7355 s
action.
20 = 0.8926p-u.MW/Hz
4.1.6 Adaptive regulation by limiter
As indicated in an earlier Section, the lower integral gain,
which is used by the present day utilities, may be preferred
I '5 [7], but the settling time may become longer for the lower
"o integral gain when the power generation is not restricted by
a. the constraint.
In order to prevent the excessive and unnecessary control
10 action, and also to achieve the shorter settling time, it is
required to modify the regulator gains adaptively in accordance
with the size of load change. But, the adaptive tuning of the
gains may be difficult because of the difficulty in estimating
the size.
An alternative adaptive regulation may be accomplished by
n 1.0 2.0 adding a limiter to the integral control part of the regulator,
o T Je ,p.u.MW/Hzs as shown in Fig. 8. The limiter restricts the magnitude of the
a input signal to the integral control part so that the excessive
control action may be prevented. The function of the limiter
may be equivalent, to modify the integral gain to be smaller
20 for the larger input signal, i.e. the area control error [10]. The
banded values imposed by the limiter are specified to satisfy
the following condition:

^ 15 H* = 2.7355 s
Tje= 1.1677 p.u.MW/Hz s so that the rate of the output from the integral control part
should not exceed the maximum rate of the governor output.
Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate the effects of the limiter added to
10 that of the integral control. The regulator for q=\.O acts
satisfactorily on adding the limiter, i.e. the excessive control

0.02
0.8926
1 - 0.01
1.0 2.0
De,p.u.MW/Hz 10 12 14 16 18 20
b

25
Tie = 1.1677 p.u.MW/Hz s
n =0.8926 p.u.MW/Hz
-0.04 L
20
Fig. 7 Control effects with a generation rate constraint under step
load change APh = 0.01 p.u.MW
Area 2: generation rate constraint of 10% per minute
a With conventional regulator
S 15 b With optimal regulator for q = 1.0
c With optimal regulator for q = 10.0
Areas 1, 3 and 4: without constraints and regulators
using detailed 4-area model
using external equivalent
10

amax
5- 2.7355

t L_
h
1
A ACE-
10 20
/ s

-AP
a max
Fig. 6 Variation of index J associated with parameter value changes L
of external equivalent for area 2
limiter
regulator with optimal gains
regulator with initial gains Fig. 8 Limiter for preventing excessive control action

JEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982 21

action is completely prevented, and the decreased settling Table 5: Optimal gains for regulator of area 2 (model 2)
time is achieved, by the limiter. q= 10.0
In addition, the responses achieved using the external
equivalent are almost equivalent to those achieved using the h
i h2 hs J

detailed 4-area model, as shown in Figs. 7 and 9. Initial gains 0. 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2553
Optimal gains 0. 5269 0.0634 0.0655 - 0 . 9 4 7 1 - 0 . 8 0 3 7 5.9100

Accordingly, the following relationships may be satisfied:

APthi+APm^APthi

time.s thi **hi^**vi

0.02r
The banded values, imposed by the limiter added to the
governor, are selected to restrict the generation rate by 10%
per minute as follows: APvmax = 0.2/60.0 p.u.MW/s. Further-
-0.02 time.s more, the banded values, imposed by the limiter added to the
integral control part, are specified in the same manner,
-O.WL described in Section 4.1.6 as follows:
Fig. 9 Effects of limiter added to integral control part under step
load change &Ph = 0.01 p.u.MW
Area 2: generation rate constraint of 10% per minute Figs. 1 la and b indicate the responses of area 2 following
a With conventional regulator a step-load change, and a ramp load change of 0.1/60.0
b With optimal regulator for q = 1.0
Areas 1, 3 and 4: without constraints and regulators p.u.MW/s for 6 s, respectively. The ramp load change presents
using detailed 4-area model the fast load change like the morning pick up, and the step
using external equivalent load change indicates the loss of a generator.
The performance is satisfactory; i.e. the excessive control
action is prevented, and the shorter settling time is achieved,
by the regulator with the optimal gains. Furthermore, the
dynamics of the external areas are also well presented by the
external equivalent.

5 Conclusion
In this paper a new method of designing a decentralised
regulator has been proposed, and the effects of the proposed

Fig. 10 Effects of limiter under step load change APi2=0.04

p.u.MW
Area 2: generation rate constraint of 10% per minute
a With conventional regulator
b With optimal regulator for q = 1.0
Areas 1, 3 and 4: without constraints and regulators
with limiter
without limiter

4.2 Example for model 2

In this case, the same parameter values indicated in Section 4.1.1
are used for the external equivalent of area 2, because the
situations of the external areas are assumed to be completely
equal to those in model 1, as described in Sections 2.1 and
2.2.
The optimal gains of the regulator are indicated in Table 5.
These gains have been obtained through six times iterations by
minimising the index in eqn. 15, where the weight q is speci-
fied to 10.0. In the calculation, the vector x0 in eqn. 11 is
selected by considering a step-load change AL in area 2 as
follows:
Fig. 11 Control effects by optimal and conventional regulators for
x0 = [-AZ,, 0 , 0 , - ^ AL,-&!#, A ^ - A ^ A Z , , area 2 {model 2)
-k2AL,0,-k2AL,0]T Area 2: generation rate constraint of 10% per minute for steam plant
a Conventional regulator with limiter
b Optimal regulator with limiter
where AL is specified as 1.0. Areas 1, 3 and 4: without constraints and regulators
In model 2, the rate of change of the low-pressure turbine using detailed 4-area model
output is sufficiently small in comparison with that of the using external equivalent
a Step load change A/j2 = 0.01 p.u.MW
high-pressure turbine. b Ramp load change 0.1/60.0 p.u.MW/s for 6 s

22 IEEPROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982

regulator have been examined under various conditions. The
following results have been obtained by analysis for a sample
4-area system:
(a) The external equivalent in a simplified form has been
used efficiently for both determining the optimal regulator
gains of the study area, and simulating the study area.
(b) The regulator with the optimal gains is insensitive to
the changes of the parameter values of the external equivalent.
This fact indicates that the regulator is a robust regulator for
the changes of the operating condition, and the configuration,
of the external areas.
(c) The proposed regulator with the limiter can act satis-
factorily even when some generation rate constraint is taken
into account, i.e. the excessive control action is prevented, and
the shorter settling time is achieved, by the regulator.
H.A., and APLEVICH, J.D.: 'Microalternator experiments to verify
physical readability of simulated optimal controllers and associated
sensitivity studies', IEEE Trans., 1978, PAS-97, pp. 649-658
10 BOSE, A., and ATIYYAH, I.: 'Regulation error in load-frequency
control', ibid., 1980, PAS-99, pp. 650-657
11 BARNETT, S., and STOREY, C : 'Matrix methods in stability
theory' (Nelson, London, 1970)
8 Appendix
8.1 Lyapunov equations for computing the 1st- and
2nd-order sensitivity terms in eqn. 13
Lyapunov equations for determining the 1st- and 2nd-order
sensitivity terms in eqn. 13 are introduced from eqn. 10 as
follows: for the lst-order sensitivity terms
T8K 8K
(16)

6 Acknowledgment
The author is grateful to Prof. T. Suyama for his kind discussion
about this work.
and for the 2nd-order sensitivity terms

7 References (17)
5a5/3
1 FOSHA, C.E., and ELGARD, O.I.: 'The megawatt-frequency con-
trol problem: A new approach via optimal control theory', IEEE
Trans., 1970, PAS-89, pp. 563-567 Qap =
2 CALOVIC, M.: 'Linear regulator design for a load and frequency 5a5|3 5a50
control', ibid., 1972, PAS-91, pp. 2271-2285
3 MOORTHI, V.R., and AGGARWAL, R.P.: 'Suboptimal and near- 8AT 8K 8K 8A 8AT 8K 8K 8A
j j j J
optimal control of a load-frequency-control system', Proc. IEE,
1972, 119, (11), pp. 1653-1660 5a 5/3 5/3 5a 5/3 5a 5a 5/3
4 VENKATESWARLU, K., and MAHALANABIS, A.K.: 'Design of where the terms a and /3 denote the regulator gains hit and also
decentralised load-frequency regulators', ibid., 1977, 124, (9),
pp. 817-821 present the parameters of the external equivalent as described
5 BENGIAMIN, N.N., and CHAN, W.C.: 'Multilevel load-frequency in Section 4.1.4.
control of interconnected power systems', ibid., 1978, 125, (6), In the numerical calculation [11], first the Lyapunov
pp. 521-526 eqn. 10 is solved, then eqns. 16 and 17 are solved successively
6 YU, Y.N., EL-SHARKAWI, M.A., and WVONG, M.D.: 'Estimation using the solution matrices K, 8K/8oc, and 5AT/5/3.
of unknown large power system dynamics', IEEE Trans., 1979,
PAS-98, pp. 279-289 The computation time required for calculating the 1st- and
7 NANDA, J., and KAUL, B.L.: 'Automatic generation control of an 2nd-order sensitivities is much reduced, because all the
interconnected power system', Proc. IEE, 1978, 125, (9), pp. equations have the same coefficient matrix A. Moreover, the
385-390 matrices 8A/8oc, 5/4/5/3, and 52/4/5a5/3 are sparse, so the sparse
8 CUNO, B.: 'A new design technique for automatic generation
control'. Proceedings of the 7th PSCC, 1981^pp. 677-681 matrix techniques can be used for the storage and for the
9 ANDERSON, J.H., HUTCHISON, M.H., WILSON, W.J., ZOHDY, computation.

IEE PROC, Vol. 129, Pt. C, No. 1, JANUARY 1982 23