2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

Small Signal Stability Enhancement of Power System

with GA Optimized PD type PSS and AVR Control
Bidyadhar Rout1 , B.B. Pati2 , Ashribad Pattnaik
Department of Electrical Engineering
VSSUT, Burla, Odisha, India
1
[email protected]
2
[email protected]

Abstract—The small signal oscillatory instability is improved extensively used for tuning PSS and auxiliary controller based
by adding sufficient damping torque for electromechanical modes FACTS parameters.
of oscillations. The Heffron- Philips (HP) model which is
equivalent linearization model of single machine infinite bus In this paper, the coordination of PD type PSS and AVR are
(SMIB) is considered for small signal stability. The power system regulated and controller parameters are tuned using genetic
stabilizer (PSS) with automatic voltage regulator (AVR) in algorithm to enhance the small signal stability of responses .The
synchronous generator produces sufficient damping torque and robustness of the controllers are studied through the dominant
synchronizing torque so as to destabilize the small signal eigen values at different loading conditions The Heffron Philips
instability during small change in system variables. This paper model is considered for SMIB power system. The design
presents the control design of PD based PSS which supplements problem is to optimize the controller parameters so as to
the damping torque and reduces the transient oscillations by minimize the objective function in term of the integral time
reducing setting time at constant damping ratio in system absolute error (ITAE).
response. The controller parameters are tuned with Genetic
Algorithm (GA) so as to minimize the speed deviation as objective The next part of this paper is to brief idea about the genetic
function. The effectiveness of the controller is verified through algorithm, PD type PSS structure description, mathematical
time domain analysis at different loading conditions. The whole model of system dynamics, results and analysis are shown in
work is carried out under MATLAB environment platform. subsequent part of this paper.

Keywords- heffron philips model; PSS; proportional derivative II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
controller; genetic algorithm optimization; small signal stability The classical generator model is shown in Fig.1 where the
I. INTRODUCTION resistances of transmission line and stator winding of generator
are neglected. To avoid the inconvenience due to presence of
The basic need of modern power system is to provide the self-inductances in stator windings, mutual inductances
power demand as required by the consumer with more secure between different phases and field windings which changes
and reliable. To meet the required load demands, the power with time, the generator model is simplified by considering the
systems are interconnected which introduces the d-q axes and superimposes with the rotor rotating together.
electromechanical low frequency oscillations. Such low Considering the is the generated voltage behind transient
frequency oscillations may also appear due to small reactance , is the external reactance of transmission line,
disturbances in electrical or mechanical input. Persistence of the rotor angle δ by which leads to infinite bus voltage
such oscillations restricts the power flow, which may leads to
and terminal voltage of the generator is considered as the
power system instability or may create shaft fatigue due to sub-
nonlinear dynamic of power system is linearized and made as
synchronous resonance [1]. Combined effect of AVR and PSS
Heffron Philips model. Heffron-Philips model in Fig. 2
damps out the system oscillations of SMIB as well as multi-
describes the linear model of classical model of generator and
machines [2]. For very large scale power systems, Flexible AC
excitation control system. The small signal stability is studied
Transmission Systems (FACTS) are added with the
from 3rd order linear dynamic model as obtained in equations
conventional AVR and PSS to give supplementary damping
(1-3).
control signals [3-4]. Design of PSS and its role of damping are
reported in [5-9]. The classical controllers such as proportional E B∠ 00
derivative and Integral (PID), Conventional lead-lag structure E '∠ δ E t
PSS, pole-placement technique, has been designed and E fd
X '
d
X E

employed for damping out oscillations and enhancement of

overall system stability [10-13]. The large computational Generator
burdens, fast convergence and avoidance of local minima E t Infinite-bus
−
problem are overcome by various optimization methods such as Exciter & V ref
genetic algorithms (GA) [14-15], Differential Evolution (DE) AVR +
[16] and particle swarm optimization (PSO) [17-18] are
Fig. 1. A single machine connected to a infinite bus system

978-1-5386-1686-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

Δ δ = ω 0 Δ ω (1) K1

ΔPm − ΔPe − DΔω Δ Tm - Δ T e1

Δω = (2) 1 Δω 2π f Δδ
2H + 2Hs
s
-
Δ Te 2 Plant
K3 K3K4 K5
ΔEq' = ΔEfd − Δδ (3) K2
1+ sTdo' 1+ sTdo' K 4

Δ V ref
In this work, the field dynamic includes the control input Δ E q' 1 - ΔE fd
-
50 +
Δ U which is generated from proposed PD based PSS 0.04s + K3
+ 0 .0 5 s + 1
+
Field Circuit -
controller is Amplifier

K A (Δ Vref − ΔEt + Δ U) − Δ E fd K6
ΔE fd = (4)
TA ΔU
PD-PSS
Controller
The electromagnetic torque or power Δ P e is related to the
Fig. 2. Linearized simulink model of SMIB
constant coefficient K 1 , K 2 shown as
are the coefficients factors from governing the machine
Δ Pe = K 1 Δ δ + K 2 Δ E q' (5) dynamics and the values of K1 − K 6 are calculated from the
initial conditions of the given systems [4]. The initial conditions
The component of torque or power K1 = K s is called as of the system are shown in appendix I in this paper.
synchronizing torque coefficient and K 2 = K D called as
damping III. CONTROL STRUCTURE OF PD-PSS
torque coefficient component. These component can The PD type PSS controller in Fig.3 consists of proportional
Δ Pe with constant Δ E q' and K = ΔPe with and derivative controller with single stage power system
be found as K 1 = Δ δ 2
ΔE ' q stabilizer. PD is included with PSS to improve damping as well
constant rotor angle δ . The change of stator q-axis voltage as stability of the system. The control strategy is to study the
Δ E q' or field flux variation Δ ψ f d is determined by field small signal stability of the dynamic responses when the system
circuit dynamics as is subjected to small deviation in mechanical loading. A speed
sensor of time constant 0.65ms. is taken as time delay as the
K3   KA   controller is far away from the sensor. A single stage lead
ΔEq' =  ΔE fd   − K 4 Δδ  (6) compensator for PSS is chosen for the system structure. The
1 + sT3   1 + sT A   stabilizing gain K s , time constants T1 and T 2 for PSS and
When the field voltage is constant i.e. Δ E fd = 0 , the field , for PD controller are optimized with GA algorithm. The
wash out block whose time constant is 2 sec eliminates the
flux varies due to change of Δ δ through K 4 called as effect high noise during steady state operation. The speed deviation
of field flux linkage on system stability at constant field voltage. Δ ω is considered as control input to the proposed PD type
This represents the demagnetizing effect of armature reaction. PSS controller. The output from the controller is the required
The constant coefficients K 2 , K 3 and K 4 are always positive. field voltage which is given to the excitation of AVR
With including AVR and exciter, the generator terminal voltage system.
is shown as
Input
' Signal
ΔEt = K 5Δδ + K 6ΔEq (7)
Derivative Gain Filter Stabilising gain 1-Stage Lead-Lag
Δω 1 + + Emfdax
Kd  100  K 2s 1 + sT1
The coefficient K 6 is positive whereas K 5 may be 1+0.065s − s 1+ 2s 1 + sT2
+ ΔU
Washout block Emfdin
positive or negative depending upon operating condition and Sensor time 1
external network of the system. The field voltage controls the delay s Integrator
terminal voltage with control input  as Kp
ΔE fd = Δ E t + Δ V ref + Δ U (8)
Proportional Gain

 is the per unit (p.u.) speed deviation,  is base speed in Fig. 3. Control Structure of PD-PSS
(rad/sec),  is the change in reference voltage applied to
A. Control Objectives:
AVR.  control input generated from proposed PD based PSS
controller is fed to the field system. The constants K 1 − K 6 In present study, an integral time absolute error of the speed
signals is taken as the objective function.
2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

IV. OVERVIEW OF GENETIC ALGORITHM

The objective function is expressed as The object of using Genetic Algorithm in this paper is to
find the optimal values of PD-PSS controller parameters to
t = t sim
improve the system responses during abnormal conditions. This
J =  Δ ω .t . d t (9) algorithm considers the minimization of objective function so
t=0 that the optimized parameters gives the best individuals
solution. Genetic algorithm starts with a set of solutions
Where, is time range of the simulation Integral of randomly for initialization in the solution space, called as
Time weighted Absolute value of Error (ITAE) is chosen as population of individuals which is encoded as binary bits of
objective function. Minimization of the objective function string called chromosomes. In this paper, the set of parameters
improves the settling and damping ratios of the responses. ( K p , K d , K s , T1 and T2 ) of PD-PSS controller are considered as
However, the minimization of objective function is subjected to chromosomes and each parameter is treated as genes of the
constraint of controller parameters chromosomes. The fitness of each chromosome or individual is
evaluated following minimization of error criterion (ITAE) and
K min
p ≤ K p ≤ K pmax , K dmin ≤ K d ≤ K dmax (10) the fittest individual is selected for next generation in next
population. Fittest selected individuals are taken for further
T1min ≤ T1 ≤ T1max , T2min ≤ T2 ≤ T2max reproduction or crossover at each generation with suitable
mutation factor to modify the genes of the individual to create
Where, PD-PSS controller gain and time constants are new generation. This algorithm continues till identifying the
selected in the range of individuals with optimizing fitness values and discarding the
lower fitness from the populations. The population size of the
0 ≤ K p ≤ 5 , 0 ≤ K d ≤ 1 , 0 ≤ K s ≤ 20 and 0.01 ≤ T1 , T2 ≤ 1 proposed algorithm is taken as 10 and the maximum generation
chosen is of 50.The details of GA is given in [14].

TABLE I. TIME DOMAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF SYSTEM RESPONSE FOR 10% CHANGE IN MECHANICAL INPUT AT DIFFERENT LOADINGS
Settling time in (sec) for
Dominant Eigen Value Damping Ratio (Zeta) rotor angle (2%
Loading tolerance)
No Controller PSS PD-PSS PSS PD-PSS PSS PD-PSS
0.8 (Nom) 0.0149 ± 7.1307i -5.0786 ± 29.1127i -6.6028 ± 26.2756i 0.17 0.24 1.19 0.39
0.5 (Light) -0.3419 ± 6.5320i -3.5701 ± 4.8004i -5.0689 ± 5.7364i 0.20 0.26 1.12 0.94
1.1(Heavy) 0.4822 ± 7.1749i -3.9573 ± 27.4792i -5.0120 ± 23.5928i 0.14 0.20 1.08 0.41

TABLE II. GA OPTIMIZED CONTROLLER PARAMETERS OF PSS AND PD TYPE PSS AT 0.8 NOMINAL LOADING

Controller KS T1 T2 Kp Kd ITAE×10-4
PSS 19.2603 0.7419 0.6152 - - 3.65
PD-PSS 6.1367 0.3438 0.3213 3.6945 0.1276 3.04

TABLE II. TIME DOMAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF SYSTEM RESPONSE FOR 10% CHANGE IN REFERENCE VOLTAGE INPUT AT DIFFERENT
LOADINGS
Settling time in (sec) for
Dominant Eigen Value Damping Ratio (Zeta)
Loading  (2% tolerance)
No Controller PSS PD-PSS PSS PD-PSS PSS PD-PSS
0.8 (Nom) 0.1263 ± 7.1836i -7.1405 ± 29.1886i -8.6198 ± 8.9373i 0.17 0.24 1.25 0.85
0.5 (Light) -0.0067 ± 5.9849i -7.4809 ± 32.0436i -8.1862 ± 30.1639i 0.19 0.26 1.29 1.10
1.1(Heavy) 0.4822 ± 7.1749i -9.1029 ± 27.2617i -10.2081 ± 11.4624i 0.15 0.20 1.27 0.95

Scenario 2. Light loading of 0.5 p.u. with 10% change in

V. RESULTS mechanical input. The results obtained in scenario 2 are
Scenario 1. Nominal load of 0.8 p.u. with 10% change in shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
mechanical input. The results obtained in scenario 1 are given
Scenario 3 Heavy loading of 1.1 p.u. with 10% change in
in Figs. 4-6
mechanical input. The results obtained in scenario 3 are
shown in Figs. 9-11.
2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

Scenario 4. Nominal loading with 10% change in electrical Fig. 7. Change in rotor angle in p.u.
reference input. The results obtained in scenario 4 are shown
in Figs. 12 and 13.

Fig. 8. Generator terminal voltage in p.u.

Fig. 4. Rotor angle deviation in p.u.

Fig. 9. Speed deviation in p.u

Fig. 5. Generator terminal voltage in p.u.

Fig. 10. Change in terminal voltage in p.u

Fig. 6. Electrical power in p.u

.
Fig. 11. Electrical power in p.u.
2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

Scenario 3 shows the speed deviation, change in voltage

and change in electrical power in Fig. 9, 10 and 11
respectively for mechanical input at heavy loading condition.
It is seen from all responses that, the proposed controller is
more effective than PSS and maintains its stability and
robustness.
Scenario 4: Nominal and heavy loading with 10% chanhe
in electrical reference input.
With the same linearized Heffron Philips of SMIB
system, electrical reference input voltage is disturbed while
keeping the mechanical input as unchanged. Now, at various
loading conditions, the system responses are studied in Fig.
12 and 13 respectively. The detail time domain responses of
Fig. 12. Change in terminal voltage in p.u. at nominal loading PSS and PD type PSS for change in reference voltage are
indicated in table 3. It is observed that, the closed loop poles,
the settling time for PD type PSS has been significantly
improved.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this simulation work, the time domain analysis are
carried out for linearized Heffron Philips model of SMIB
systems under the MATLAB platform. Various system
responses under different constraints are studied with 10%
change in mechanical and excitation reference inputs.
Keeping natural frequency constants, settling time are
reduced and damping ratio is improved for various responses
using proposed PD-PSS controller. It is observed from Table-
II that, the GA optimized time constant for zero in transfer
Fig. 13. Change in terminal voltage in p.u.at heavy loading
function is greater than the time constant for pole in the
combined PD-PSS controller which is the basic significance
A. Result Analysis
of the lead compensator. The combined PD-PSS controller
Scenario 1, 2:(Mechanical Input) Nominal loading generates the positive phase angle and compensates the
(0.8 p.u , δ 0 = 1.4 p.u.) , Light Loading (0.5 p.u, δ 0 = 0.83 p.u.) unstable system by shifting the dominant poles to more
negative in s-plane effectively following mechanical as well
The linearized SMIB is perturbed by 10% change in as electrical disturbances. In summary, the transient
mechanical input at 1 sec while reference voltage is responses for small signal stability is enhanced through PSS-
unchanged. The, rotor angle, change in terminal voltage and PD controller and future work may be extended in multi-
change in electrical power were investigated in Fig. 4, 5, and machines Heffron–Philips model to study both steady and
6 respectively in scenario 1. In all the figure it is observed transient responses with lead-lag type PD-PSS controller and
that, the electromechanical responses happens to be unstable comparison of the responses may be made with various
for no controller (NC) as one of the eigen value is falling on recent developed heuristics optimized techniques.
the right half of the complex plane using PSS and PD type
PSS controller, the unstable eigen value is shifted to the left Appendix
side of the complex s-plane which it turns damps out the
system oscillation immediately and stabilization holds good. Pt = 0.8 p.u., Qt = 0.6 p.u., X e = 0.4 p.u., Tdo' = 6 sec , H = 4 sec ,
However, PD type PSS shows its superiority over PSS as seen δ 0 = 1.1126 p.u., f = 60 Hz , ω0 = 2π f0 , E fd 0 = 1.7282 p.u.,
in Table I. The dominant eigen value of 0.8 nominal loading T = 0.05sec K1 = 0.5902
for PSS controller is -5.0786 ± 29.1127i where as the K A = 50 , A , , K 2 = 0.8802 , K 3 = 0.4667 ,
dominant pole of PD type PSS controller is improved by - K 4 = 1.1267
, K 5 = −0.1421 , K 6 = 0.5427 , TW = 2s , X d = 1 p.u.,
6.6028 ± 26.2756i . The light load (0.5 p.u.) and heavy
X q = 1.55 p.u., X d' = 0.32 p.u., X q' = 1.55 p.u.
loading (1 p.u) are tested in the same SMIB machine at 10%
change in mechanical input. The corresponding time domain
responses are noted down in the table 1 and in every cases, it References
is observed that, settling times are improved significantly [1] M. G. Jolfaei, Adel M. Sharaf, S. M. Shariatmadar and M. B. Poudeh,
with respect to dominant poles in PD based PSS controller “A hybrid PSS–SSSC GA-stabilization scheme for damping power
and maintains the robustness of the small signal stability. The system small signal oscillations,” Electrical Power and Energy
GA optimized controller parameters are shown in table-2. Systems vol.75, pp. 337–344, February 2016.
2018 Recent Advances on Engineering, Technology and Computational Sciences (RAETCS)

[2] H. Bourles, S. Peres, T. Margotin and M.P. Houry, “Analysis and

Design of Robust co-ordinated AVR/PSS,” IEEE transaction on Power
system, Vol-13, no.2, pp. 568-575, May 1998.
[3] R.M. Mathur, andR.K .Varma. “Thyristor-based FACTS controllers
for electrical transmission systems,” IEEE Press, A John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. Publication, New York: Springer; 2005.
[4] N.G. Hingorani and L. Gyugyi, “Understanding FACTS: Concepts and
Technology of Flexible AC Transmission Systems,” IEEE Press, New
York, 2000.
[5] P.W. Sauer and M.A. Pai. “Power system dynamics and stability,” NJ,
PrenticevHall: Englewood Cliffs; 1998, pp. 270-276.
[6] F.P. DeMello and C. Concordia “Concepts of synchronous machine
stability as affected by excitation control,” IEEE Trans Power
ApplSyst; PAS- 88, no-4, pp. 316–329, April 1969.
[7] S. Abe and A. Doi, “New power system stabilizer synthesis in multi
machine power systems,” IEEE Trans Power ApplSyst PAS-102(12),
pp. 3910–3918. December 1983.
[8] P. Kundur “Power system stability and control,” Tata-McGraw-Hill;
2006, pp. 766-781.
[9] M. Karrari and O.P. Malik “Identification of Heffron-Phillips model
parameters for synchronous generators using online measurements,”
IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib, Vol. 151, No. 3, pp. 313-320, May
2004.
[10] E.V. Larsen and D.A. Swann “Applying power system stabilizers,”
IEEE Trans Power ApplSyst; PAS100 (6), pp. 3017–46, June 1981.
[11] P. Kundur, M. Klein, G.J. Rogers and M.S. Zywno, “Application of
power system stabilizers for enhancement of overall system stability,”
IEEE Trans Power Syst; vol. 4, no.2, pp. 614–26, May 1989.
[12] W. G. Heffron and R. A. Phillips, “Effect of a Modern Amplidyne
Voltage Regulator on Underexcited Operation of Large Turbine
Generators,” AIEE Impulse Testing of Power Transformers, pp-692-
697, August 1952.
[13] M.A.Abido, “Pole placement technique for PSS and
TCSCbasedstabilizerdesign using simulated annealing, ”International
Journal of Electrical Power Systems Research, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 543–
554, November 2000.
[14] D. DevarajandB. Selvabala, “Real-coded genetic algorithm and fuzzy
logic approach for real-time tuning of proportional–integral–derivative
controller in automatic voltage regulator system,” IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, Vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 641–649, 2009.
[15] Y.L. Abdel-Magid, M.A. Abido, S. Al-Baiyat and A.H. Mantawy,
“Simultaneous stabilization of multi machine power systems via
genetic algorithms,” IEEE Trans Power Sys; vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1428–
39, November 1999.
[16] S. Panda, “Robust coordinated design of multiple and multi-type
damping controller using differential evolution algorithm,” Int. J.
Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1018-1030,
May 2011.
[17] [17] M.A. Abido, “Optimal design of power system stabilizers using
particle swarm optimization,” IEEE Trans Energy Convers; vol. 17, no.
3, pp. 406–13, November 2002.
[18] Z.L. Gaing, “A particle swarm optimization approach for optimum
design of PID controller in AVR system,” IEEE Trans Energy Convers;
vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 384–91, June 2004.