1306

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2000

On the Robust LQG Control of TCSC for Damping Power System Oscillations
Kwang M. Son, Member, IEEE and Jong K. Park, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractThis paper deals with the application of the LQG (Linear Quadratic Gaussian) technique to the design of the robust TCSC (Thyristor Controlled Series Compensator) controller for power system oscillation damping enhancement. This paper discusses each process involved in the LQG design technique applied to the TCSC damping controller design. This paper also discusses the pitfalls in applying the LTR (Loop Transfer Recovery) technique to reserve the robustness of the LQG damping controller. The robustness of the designed controller is verified by nonlinear power system simulation, which shows that the controller is effective for damping power system oscillations. Index TermsFACTS (Flexible AC Transmission Systems), LQG (Linear Quadratic Gaussian) Control, LTR (Loop Transfer Recovery) method, power system oscillation damping, TCSC (Thyristor Controlled Series Compensatory).

I. INTRODUCTION ECENTLY FACTS (Flexible AC Transmission System) devices are developed with more flexibility for controlling power system dynamics for secure operation of power systems [1], [2]. Among them, TCSC (Thyristor Controlled Series Compensatory is effective for damping power system oscillations [3], [4]. So various techniques have been proposed for controlling TCSC to improve power system oscillations [5], [6]. The environment of TCSC is somewhat different from the conventional PSS (Power System Stabilizer) in that in many cases it is installed in the transmission line center rather than load or generator side. In view of this, the following are to be noted in the application of the TCSC for damping enhancement. Since it is installed on a tie-line rather than a local generator, TCSC can effectively control multi-modes simultaneously. Conventional damping controllers using lead-lag blocks can have difficulty in regulating multiple oscillation modes simultaneously in the system with multiple oscillation modes. The multivariable-type controller can resolve this problem due to its degree of freedom in controlling each mode independently. While a signal effective for damping local mode is available from the generator bus side for the conventional PSS, an effective signal for the TCSC requires communication with the generator side. The locally measurable signals such as line current, real power are too sensitive to the
Manuscript received May 3, 1999; revised December 20, 1999. K. M. Son is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Dong-Eui University, San 24, Kaya-dong, Pusanjin-ku, Pusan, 614-714, Korea (e-mail: kmson@hyomin.dongeui.ac.kr). J. K. Park is with the School of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Shilim-dong, Kwanak-ku, Seoul, 151-742, Korea. Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8950(00)10364-5.

TCSC action. It has been shown that the frequency of a synthesized remote voltage can be considered as a good choice for the TCSC damping controller design [7]. The above observations lead us to adopt the LQG technique as a damping controller of TCSC for its multi-mode controllability and the systematic design procedure. Previous application of the LQG technique to power systems mainly focused on regulating local modes with excitation control [8]. This paper presents an LQG damping controller design procedure to reflect the above considerations. Local signals are considered as an input signal. Model order reduction for the controller design and its characteristics are discussed. Robustness aspect is also considered. Loop Transfer Recovery (LTR) method is a systematic procedure developed by Doyle to guarantee the robustness of the LQG controller [9]. Applying this technique to the TCSC damping problem, however, requires some care. It can happen that the controller input signalwhich is an output of the controlled power systemdamp out, but the oscillation modes are not damped out at all. This paper analyzes this phenomenon from simulation results. Time domain nonlinear power system simulations are performed for the verification of the designed controller. II. LQG CONTROLLER Let the plant to be controlled be as follows

(1) respectively. where and are vectors with dimension ] is stabilizable, the standard LQ regulator If the system [ cost functional can be defined as (2) Here, is a positive semi-definite state weighting matrix and is a positive definite control weighting matrix. The optimal control problem is to find the control law minimizing the cost functional (2) under the constraint (1). The optimal control not only exits uniquely but also can be realized as a feedback form of (3) if all state variables can be measured. (3) Here, is the unique positive definite solution of the following control algebraic Riccati equation (4)

08858950/00$10.00 2000 IEEE

SON AND PARK: ON THE ROBUST LQG CONTROL OF TCSC FOR DAMPING POWER SYSTEM OSCILLATIONS

1307

Measuring all state variables is difficult to implement. By output feedback this shortcoming can be overcome. One way to do so is to design by the LQG method. When only output can be measured, with the above design plant model (1), we construct a model based compensator which has the following dynamics.

(5) In LQG method, the plant is assumed to have the following form

(6)
Fig. 1. A Sample Power System. TABLE I MODE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SYSTEM

is white Gaussian process noise with the intensity Here, is white Gaussian measurement noise with matrix , and the covariance . Let the covariance of the state estimation error be , then the optimal estimation problem is to find optimal gain matrix of (5) which minimizes trace of subject to algebraic constraints. ] is detectable, is the unique, symmetric, and posiIf [ tive semi-definite solution of the following filter algebraic Riccati equation. (7) can be computed from the equation (8)

III. POWER SYSTEM MODEL A. Power System Dynamic Models Including TCSC for Controller Design In order to consider the effects of flux decay dynamics and damper winding, the two axis generator model is used, and IEEE type I exciter is adopted. The notation is standard as in [10]. The mechanical input torque is assumed to be constant. Here, time is in the second, rotor angle is in radian and the other variables are per unit values. (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) In this paper, TCSC is represented as a first order dynamic model as in [11]. Reference input being set to a point controlling steady state power flow, the supplementary input is controlled to stabilize the disturbed power system. When a fault occurs, the reference input should not be adjusted until transients die

out sufficiently in order not to interact with the supplementary damping control. The model can be written as follows. (16) where is the impedance of TCSC, is a reference input, and is a supplementary input respectively. B. Sample Power System A model power system for TCSC controller design is the three-machine nine-bus system in Fig. 1. Machine parameters are listed on Tables IV and V in the Appendix. This system has two modes that have poor damping, which have high participation in the oscillation of the rotor angles of the generators. Table I shows that mode 1 and 2 are closely related to the rotor angle oscillations. It should be investigated whether large generators have leverage over several modes. In this system controlling them improves the damping of the oscillations. Residue analysis shows that the line between bus 6 and bus 9 is a good candidate for TCSC installation for damping [12]. This paper also assumes that TCSC is installed in the middle of the line between buses 6 and 9. The reactance of the line is 0.243 pu which is compensated by the mechanical series capacitor by 30% (0.073 pu). The TCSC also has a capacity 30% of

1308

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2000

Fig. 3. LQG control can relocate the locations of zeros.

Fig. 2. Mode observabilities of each input signal.

the line reactance( 0.073 pu). Prior to fault, the TCSC is set to be 0 pu. IV. CONTROLLER DESIGN PROCEDURE A. Input Signal Selection The following quantities measurable at the TCSC bus are considered as an input signal to the controller. Line Real Power Line Current Line Reactive Power Voltage of the TCSC to neutral
Fig. 4. Error bounds of reduced order models.

The mode observability as defined in [13] can be a guideline in selecting the input signal. Fig. 2 shows the mode observabilities of each input signal. Although the real power and current is sensitive to the TCSC (mode 13 is closely related to the TCSC dynamics), they also exhibit oscillation dynamics well (mode 1 and 2). In the voltage and reactive power, however, the exciter and flux decay dynamics (mode 611) are dominant over the oscillation modes (mode 1 and 2). Therefore, real power through the TCSC is selected as an input to the controller. The order of the resulting state space model of the power system dynamic model is 21, and the states are given as

technique has a capability to design the TFL by tuning the parameters and , which means that the zeros can be relocated for improving the oscillation modes as shown in Fig. 3. Non-minimum phase zeros are not unusual in the power system models, which act as an obstacle for improving the lightly damped modes. But according to the optimal root loci, the closed loop poles go to the mirror image, about the -axis, of any nonminimum phase zeros of the TFL. So there is little possibility of de-stabilizing the closed loop system with increasing gain in the LQG control. C. Model Order Reduction As the scale of the power system dynamic model increases, the order of the corresponding LQG controller increases. Model order reduction is crucial in order to avoid the possible numerical ill-condition problem when solving the high order matrix Riccati equation in the off-line design process. The online computation burden is also reduced by the reduced order LQG controller. The optimal Hankel norm approximation technique is used in getting a reduced order model for controller design. It gives the optimal reduced order model that minimize the error bound of the frequency response between the nominal and the reduced order model for the specified order [14]. It blends well with the LQG design in that it is numerically efficient and the given error bound can be used as a criterion to decide the order of the reduction. Fig. 4 shows the error bound between the 21st order nominal power system model and the reduced order model. It can be concluded from Fig. 4 that 5th order reduced order model is a good choice without causing much error. The following are to be noted for reduced order model.

The output is

, and the input is

B. Comments on the Classical Control and the LQG Control Fig. 3 shows the pole-zero pattern of the open loop plant when the real power is taken as an output to be fed to the controller. Two zeros and in the Fig. 3are located near the domand . The conventional technique inant oscillation mode requires a care in increasing gain when zeros are located near the controlled poles as in Fig. 3. The LQG controller, however, obeys the rule of the optimal root loci rather than the conventional root loci [9]. The LQG technique is superior to the conventional techniques in the following points. The optimal root loci is based on the Target Feedback Loop (TFL) rather than the open loop plant. The LQG

SON AND PARK: ON THE ROBUST LQG CONTROL OF TCSC FOR DAMPING POWER SYSTEM OSCILLATIONS

1309

TABLE II MODE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE NOMINAL ORDER MODEL

AND

REDUCED

Fig. 6. Robustness boundary of the closed loop system (a) due to model order reduction only (b) due to model order reduction and operating point change. Fig. 5. Functional block diagram of the LQG damping control.

Table II shows that dominant oscillation modes are well retained in the reduced order model without much error. The order of the reduced order model (5th order) is equal to the sum of the modes closely related to dominant oscillation modes and the mode of TCSC. It can be deduced that since the mode related to the TCSC is very fast, it can be neglected in the reduced order model. Neglecting it, however, causes significant error. Its dynamics are important, which is evident from the mode observability value shown in Fig. 2. The modes that remain in the reduced order model have high mode observability values as shown in Fig. 2. So the appropriate selection of the controller input signal exhibiting relevant dynamics is also important in getting relevant reduced order model. D. Input Signal Filtering Since the real power is an algebraic combination of the current and voltage, it can change discontinuously from the abrupt change of the network condition. To avoid the problem of saturation of the controller, the frequency of the input signal should be limited below some specified bandwidth. This paper uses the following low pass filter as a signal conditioner. Since the frequency range of low frequency oscillations is about 12 Hz, the low frequency gain and the bandwidth used in this paper are ) about 3.5 Hz and 13 dB respectively. ( (17) The functional block diagram of the LQG control is shown in Fig. 5. Since the LQG controller should have a complete copy of the design plant model, its dimension should be 6 with the addition of the signal filter. E. Weighting Matrices Selection Since the correspondence of the states between the nominal and the reduced order models is not clear, participation factor analysis is performed for the reduced order model. The results are closely related to the oscillation show that states modes 1 and 2 as shown in Table I. Since the participation analysis on the original model indicate that the states participate

nearly equally to the oscillations, weighting on them are equally set to be 1, and others 0.1. The parameter is related to the amount of the control input. The value is selected not to saturate the TCSC compensation excessively. So the and are selected as diag (18)

In using LQG theory as a method for synthesizing controllers, , and are considered as tuning parameters which are to be adjusted until a satisfactory design is obtained, rather than as representations of aspects of the real problem [15]. Filter param, and where . Tuning eters are set parameters is usually carried out in a trial and error manner. The above value can be a good initial guess for further fine tuning. F. Robustness Against Modeling Error Main causes of error between the design model and the real world are thought to be 1) The controller is designed based on the reduced order model. 2) Power systems undergo much operating point change even in a day. So, the controller should also function under changed operating conditions. From the stability robustness condition in the Appendix, the closed loop TF (transfer function) should be below the reciprocal of the error TF, which can be called the robustness boundary, for all frequencies. In Fig. 6, curve (a) shows the robustness boundary when the LQG controller is designed based on the reduced order model and it is installed in the original power system model. Curve (b) shows the robustness boundary when the operating point changesthe demand of all buses increases 10% with constant power factor. The following observations are noteworthy. 1) The distance between the error reciprocal TF and the closed loop TF can be viewed as a robustness margin. Fig. 6 shows that changing operating condition results in further reduction of the robust margin due to the model order reduction only. The reduction of the robustness margin arise due to operating point change, network configuration change, etc. Since the margin is based on linearized power system model, it should be set considering inherent nonlinearities. 2) The robustness margin is smallest near the oscillation frequency around 1 Hz, which acts as a constraint for increasing gain.

1310

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2000

Fig. 7.

Rotor angle oscillations in nominal case ( ).

Fig. 10.

Rotor angle oscillations in off-nominal case ( ). TABLE III CLOSED LOOP EIGENVALUES FOR EACH CASE

Fig. 8.

Rotor angle oscillations in nominal case ( ).

Fig. 11.

Capacitive reactance of TCSC for each case.

Fig. 9. Rotor angle oscillations in off-nominal case ( ).

Figs. 7 and 8 show the nominal case, and Figs. 9 and 10 show the off-nominal case, both of which demonstrate that the damping of poorly damped oscillation in the test system was improved satisfactorily. Table III shows that damping of the oscillation modes become worse as the load increases. Both the eigen-analysis and time domain nonlinear simulations show that designed controller still works well while the operating condition changes. V. APPLYING LOOP TRANSFER RECOVERY TECHNIQUE A. Loop Transfer Recovery (LTR) Method While the LQR loops guarantee infinite upward gain margin and 60 phase margin, the LQG controller has the weakness that it loses the robustness the LQR regulator has. LQG/LTR controller has the same structure as LQG regulator, but has a special design procedure called a Loop Transfer Recovery (LTR) [9]. The LTR fixes some of the LQG design parameters and changes others in a very special way resulting in robustness of the LQG regulator to be recovered to that of the LQR regulator. LQG/LTR design procedure is as follows: The first stage finds controller gain matrix , where design parameters are and . These design parameters are adjusted

3) Decreasing , which is equivalent to increasing gain, enhances the performance of the controller but reduces the robustness margin. Compromise between the performance and the robustness depends on the designers decision. G. Time Domain Simulations (Nonlinear Verification) To evaluate the performance of LQG controller designed by the proposed approach, a three-phase short-circuit fault was applied at bus 7. This fault was cleared after 3-cycles without system configuration change. Designed controller is tested on both nominal and off-nominal case. The off-nominal case assumes the demand of all buses increases 10% with constant power factor.

SON AND PARK: ON THE ROBUST LQG CONTROL OF TCSC FOR DAMPING POWER SYSTEM OSCILLATIONS

1311

Fig. 14. Capacitive reactance of TCSC with LTR control. Fig. 12. Rotor angle oscillations with and without LTR control.

Fig. 15.

Block diagram of LQG and LTR control.

Fig. 13.

Real power oscillations with LTR control (P ).

for satisfying the given performance specifications such as damping of dominant oscillation mode and the robustness. The second stage, which is called LTR stage, solves the , and Kalman filter problem with putting . LTR is achieved as approaches zero. B. Results by LTR matrices the same as the LQG case, the parameter With is decreases to to perform LTR. Comparing Figs. 12 and 13 reveals that while the real power oscillations are damped out, the rotor angle oscillations do not damp out at all. The controller thinks that the oscillations are damped out because the output, which is an input to the controller, settles down. But its internal states are still oscillating. Fig. 14 shows that with LTR control, the TCSC control action is excessively oscillatory and saturated. C. Analysis of the Results by LTR Fig. 15 shows transfer function of each block of LQG concreates an approxitrol. When LTR occurs, controller . That is, some poles of mate inverse of the plant cancel the zeros of , which implies approximate pole/zero cancellation. has lightly-damped It has been reported that if the plant zeros, applying LTR method requires some care [9]. The lightlydamped zeros also function as an obstacle to the classical design. The consequence of this is the slow convergence of the

LTR process. Also, because LTR requires pole/zero cancellations for plant inversion, the very oscillatory modes are unobservable from the measured output. The location of zeros depends on matrices and in (1), which in turn, are determined from the type of the control device, the quantity being measured as an input to the controller and the installation site. Unhappily, Fig. 3 shows that the given plant has lightly damped zeros and that are located near the lightly-damped poles. This is the consequence of selecting the installation site and the real power measurement. Above mentioned alternatives in the model system for TCSC control do not seem to give better results because of the inherent characteristics of the system. A different set of signals or the combination of them should be sought for improved LTR application. Another problem in real situations is that the pole-zero cancellation is only approximate. When the power systems undergo transient situation, the error is amplified to make the controller interact to this excessively. Such a situation can occur that output may be smooth but some internal state variables may be quite oscillatory. Controls can also be very oscillatory. Designers must be careful when the plant has light-damped zeros near the imaginary axis, anticipate this possibility and be certain that the physical feedback design is good with these oscillations. VI. CONCLUSION This paper presents a procedure to design LQG control of TCSC for damping multi-machine power system oscillations. The paper presents initial results for applying LQG technique to designing TCSC damping controllers of large-scale power systems. The results also show that difficulties can arise in applying the LTR technique to the TCSC damping controller depending on the nature of the controlled system.

1312

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 15, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2000

TABLE IV MACHINE PARAMETERS

TABLE V EXCITER PARAMETERS

APPENDIX The discrepancy between the nominal and actual models due to the above mentioned errors can be defined by (19) where is the nominal model, is the actual model, and is the multiplicative modeling error. Under the modeling error (19) it can be derived from the Nyquist stability criterion that if the closed loop transfer funcsatisfies (20), then the closed loop system is stable in tion spite of the modeling error defined in (19), [9]. for all (20)

[3] L. Angquist, B. Lundin, and J. Samuelsson, Power oscillation damping using controlled reactive power compensationA comparison between series and shunt approaches, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 687700, May 1993. [4] M. Noroozian and G. Andersson, Damping of power system oscillations by use of controllable components, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 20462054, Oct. 1994. [5] G. N. Taranto and J. H. Chow, A robust frequency domain optimization technique for tuning series compensation damping controllers, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 12191225, Aug. 1995. [6] N. Yang, Q. Liu, and J. D. McCalley, TCSC controller design for damping interarea oscillations, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 13041310, Nov. 1998. [7] E. V. Larsen, J. J. Paserba, and J. H. Chow, Concepts for design of FACTS controllers to damp power swings, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 948956, May 1995. [8] M. C. Menelaou and D. C. Macdonald, Supplementary signals to improve transient stability on-line application to a micro-generators, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-101, no. 9, pp. 35433550, 1982. [9] B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore, Optimal ControlLinear Quadratic Methods: Prentice-Hall, 1989. [10] P. M. Anderson and A. A. Foud, Power System Control and Stability: IEEE Press, 1994. [11] J. J. Paserba, N. W. Miller, E. V. Larsen, and R. J. Piwko, A thyristor controlled series compensation model for power system stability analysis, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 14711478, July 1995. [12] X. R. Chen, N. C. Pahalawaththa, U. D. Annakkage, and C. S. Kumble, Controlled series compensation for improving the stability of multimachine power systems, IEE ProceedingsGener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 361366, July 1995. [13] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control: McGraw-Hill, 1994. [14] K. Glover, All optimal Hankel-norm approximations of linear multivariable systems and their L error bounds, International Journal of Control, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 11151193, 1984. [15] J. M. Maciejowski, Multivariable Feedback Design: Addison Wesley, 1989.

Kwang M. Son was born in Masan, Korea in 1966. He received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Seoul National University, Korea in 1989, 1991 and 1996, respectively. He is currently an Assistant Professor of Dong-Eui University, Korea. His research interests include control of flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS).

Machine and exciter parameters are listed in Table IV and Table V. REFERENCES
[1] CIGRE Task Force 38.01.07, Analysis and Control of Power System Oscillations,, Ref. no. 111, CIGRE Technical Brochure, Dec. 1996. [2] CIGRE and IEEE Working Groups on FACTS, FACTS Overview, IEEE Power Engineering Society, 95TP108, Apr. 1995. Jong K. Park received the B.S. degree from Seoul National University, Korea in 1973 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Tokyo, Japan in 1979 and 1982, respectively. He is a Professor of School of Electrical Engineering at Seoul National University, Korea. His present research interests are flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS), electromagnetic environment and application of Artificial Intelligence techniques to power systems.