Design of power system stabiliser for singlemachine
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 lowfrequency oscillations. The design of PSS for a single machine connected to an infinite bus
using periodic output feedback is proposed. The nonlinear 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 nonlinear 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 powertransfer 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 turbinegeneratorshaft torsional modes of
vibrations [I ].
Power systemstabilisers (PSS) are added to excitation
systems to enhance the damping of electric power systems
during lowfrequency oscillations. Several methods are used
in the design of PSSs. Among the classical methods used are
the phasecompensation method and the rootfocus meth
od. Recently, modem control methods have been used by
several researchers to take advantage of optimal control
techniques. These methods utilise a statespace representa
tion of the powersystemmodel 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 PrOcGmer. 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 closedloop system.
However, this will lead to dynamic output feedback, which,
though feasible, leads to a higherorder 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
observerbased control system. Even a slight variation in the
model parameters from their nominal values may result in
significant degradation of the closedloop perfonnancc.
Hence it is desirable to opt for an output feedback design.
However. the staticoutputfeedback problem is one of the
most investigated problems in control theory The complete
pole assignment and guaranteed closedloop stability are
not obtained by using static output feedback. Another
approach to the poleplacement problem is to consider the
potential of timevarying periodic output feedback. It was
shown by Chammas and Leondes [4] that a controllable
and obsetvable plant was discrete time pole assignable by
periodically timevarying 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 singlemachine 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 ofapprox: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 steadystate
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 inputsignal 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 inputsignal transducer gain at turbinegenerator
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 powersystem
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 localmode
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 Statespace model of singlemachine system
From the block diagram shown in Fig. 1, the following
statespace equations for the entire system can be derived
using the HeffronPhillip model: [810]
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 splane 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 timeinvariant systems with infrequent
Review of periodic output feedback
IEE ProcGenrr 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 discretetime control system could he assigned
arbitrarily (within the natural restriction that they
be located symmetrically in relation to the real axis)
[461.
Consider a discrete timeinvariant 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 timevarying
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 ) +iu(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
closedloop system, sampled over 7, takes the desired self
conjugate set of eigenvalues.
Define
then a statespace 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 closedloop 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 staticoutput
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 selfconjugate set of eigenvalues for the closedloop
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 Multimodel synthesis
For multimodel representation of a plant, it is necessary to
design a controller which will robustly stabilise the multi
model system. Multimodel representation of plants can be
devised in Several ways. When a nonlinear 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
singlemachine system connected to an infinite bus is used to
demonstrate the method. Here, 16 linear models are
obtained by linearising the nonlinear 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 singlemachine 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 nonlinear plant of a singlemachine
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 ProcGener 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 openloop and closedloop responses with impulse
disturbance for some of the linear models are shown in
Fig. 2.
6.2 Simulation with nonlinear plant at different
operating points
A SIMULINKbased 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 nonlinear
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 singlemachine 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
singlemachine system connected to an infinite bus. The
method described is being extended to multimachine
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. 301730242
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. 30253033
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.
107114
4 CHAMMAS. A.B.. and LEONDES. C.T.: 'Pole assiinment by
piecewis? constant oulpui feedback'. 1nl. J. Cim,ml. 1979. 29.
"" 1118
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 twotime scale systcmby using pi m constant
penodic output feedback'. Spi. Sci.. 1997. 23, pp. 2337
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. 316329
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