XXXII NATIONAL SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, NSC 2008, December 17-19, 2008
DESIGN OF OPTIMAL AND INTEGRAL CONTROLLERS FOR
AGC OF TWO AREA INTERCONNECTED POWER SYSTEM
S.K. Sinha1, Dr. R Prasad2 and Dr. R. N. Patel3
Abstract- In this work Automatic Generation
Control (AGC) of two-area interconnected power
system has been studied. As a consequence of
continually load variation the frequency and tie-
line power deviate over time and these transients
are to be minimized using different controllers. An
optimal controller has been designed to ascertain
zero steady state frequency deviation and tie-line
power flow deviation under all operating
conditions. For the same two-area system an
integral controller has also been designed and the
performance of the two types of controllers has
been compared. The simulation results indicate
that better control performance in terms of
overshoot and settling time can be obtained by
optimal controller.
Keywords- Automatic generation control, Tie line
power deviation, Frequency deviation, Optimal
controller, Integral controller.
NOMENCLATURE
f = Nominal frequency
∆f1 , ∆f 2 = Deviation in frequency of area 1 & 2
∆Ptie = Tie-line power deviation
b1 , b2 = Frequency bias constants of area 1 & 2
R1 , R2 = Governor speed regulation parameters of
area 1 & 2
Tsg1 , Tsg 2 = Governor time constants of area 1 & 2
Tt1 , Tt 2 = Turbine time constants of area 1 & 2
Tps1 , Tps 2 = Power system time constants of area 1 & 2
K ps1 , K ps 2 = Power system gains of area 1 & 2
K1 , K 2 = Optimal controller gains of area 1 & 2
K I 1 , K I 2 = Integral controller gains of area 1 & 2
∆ PG 1 , ∆ PG 2 = Turbine power output in area 1 & 2
∆PD1 , ∆PD 2 = Change in load in area 1 & 2
∆PC1, ∆PC 2 = Commanded change in power in area 1
&2
ACE = Area control error
I. INTRODUCTION
The normal operation of an interconnected multi-area
power system requires that each area maintains the
load and generation balance. These systems
experience deviations in nominal system frequency
and scheduled power exchanges to other areas with
change in load. This is normally achieved by means
1
Assistant Professor, College of Engineering, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) – 247 667
2
Associate Professor, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) – 247 667
3
Reader, Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai
236
of changing speed changer position of the governor
by a controller. This automatic control of frequency
deviation and tie-line deviation is called automatic
generation control (AGC). AGC tries to achieve this
balance by maintaining the system frequency and the
tie line flows at their scheduled values. The AGC
action is guided by the area control error (ACE),
which is a function of system frequency and tie line
flows. The ACE represents a mismatch between area
load and generation taking into account any
interchange agreement with the neighboring areas[1],
[2].In the load frequency control problem, frequency
and tie-line power should be kept as near scheduled
value as possible which is difficult to achieve due to
fluctuating nature of load[3],[4].
This paper presents the AGC for a two area
thermal system. A simulation model for AGC studies
of such a system has been proposed here. The AGC
performance of a two area test system has been
studied with two types of controllers viz. optimal
controller and integral controller. The performance
comparison of the two controllers has been done in
which the optimal controller performs much better as
compared to the conventional integral controller.
II. DESIGN OF OPTIMAL CONTROLLER FOR
TWO AREA SYSTEM
In order to design an optimal controller for a two area
thermal-thermal system, u1 and u2 control inputs are
created by a linear combination of all the system
states. The outputs of all the blocks having either an
integrator or a time constant are defined as state
variables. There are nine state variables for the
considered system[2],[5].The state model is
formulated by writing the differential equation
representing each individual block of figure in terms
of state variable.
In the block diagram (Fig.1), following are
defined;
x1 = ∆f1 ; x2 = ∆PG1 ; x4 = ∆f 2 ; x5 = ∆PG 2 ;
x8 = ∫ ACE1 dt ; x9 = ∫ ACE2 dt
u1 = ∆Pc1 ; u2 = ∆Pc 2 ; w1 = ∆PD1 ; w2 = ∆PD 2
From the block diagram,
x1 + Tps1 x&1 = K ps1 ( x2 − x7 − w1 )
Hence,
1 K ps1 K ps1 K ps1
x&1 = − x1 + x2 − x7 − w1 (1)
Tps1 Tps1 Tps1 Tps1
1 1
Similarly, x&2 = − x2 + x3 (2)
Tt1 Tt1
 Figure 1: Block Diagram of Two Area power system with optimal controller
1 1 1  − K ps1 Tps1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
x&3 = − x1 − x3 + u1 (3) FT = 
R1Tsg1 Tsg1 Tsg1  0 0 0 − K ps 2 Tps 2 0 0 0 0 0 

1 K ps 2 a12 K ps 2 K ps 2
x&4 = − x4 + x5 + x7 − w2 (4) In the optimal control scheme the control inputs
Tps 2 Tps 2 T ps 2 Tps 2 u1 and u2 are generated by means of feedback from
1 1 all the nine states with feedback constants to be
x&5 = − x5 + x6 (5)
Tt 2 Tt 2 determined in accordance with an optimal criterion.
The standard form in optimal control theory is
1 1 1
x&6 = − x4 − x6 + u2 (6) x& = Ax + Bu which does not contain the disturbance
R2 Tsg 2 Tsg 2 Tsg 2
term Fw present in the equation. Further, a constant
x&7 = 2πT12 x1 − 2πT12 x4 (7) disturbance vector w would drive some of the
x&8 = b1 x1 + x7 (8) system states and the control vector u to constant
x&9 = b2 x4 − a12 x7 (9) steady values; while cost function employed in
optimal control requires that the system state and
The above nine equations can be organized in the
control vectors have zero steady state value for the
following vector matrix form as:
cost function to have a minimum.
x& = Ax + Bu + Fw
For full state feedback, the control vector u is
Where x is state vector, u is control vector and w
constructed by a linear combination of all states, i.e.
is disturbance vector [6]. u = − Kx
The matrices A, B & F are obtained as below:
where K is the feedback matrix.
 −1 K ps1 − K ps1  The feedback matrix K is to be determined so
 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Tps1 T ps1 Tps1  that a certain performance index J is minimized
  In MATLAB, this can be obtained by LQR
 0 −1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 (Linear Quadratic Regulator) by the following
 Tt1 Tt1 
 −1 −1  function
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 R1Tsg1 Tsg1  K = lqr ( A, B, Q, R)
  The state-feedback law u = − Kx minimizes the
 −1 K ps 2 a12 K ps 2 
A= 0 0 0
Tps 2 Tps 2
0
Tps 2
0 0
cost function ( J )
 
 0 −1 1 ∝
0 0 0 0 0 0 J = 1 / 2( ∫ x' T Q x' + u' T R u' )dt (10)
 Tt 2 Tt 2 
  0
 0 −1 −1
0 0 0 0 0 0 Where, x ' and u ' are transient state terms.
 R T Tsg 2 
 2 sg 2 
 2πT12 0 0 −2πT
12
0 0 0 0 0
From J , Q & R can be obtained through the
 b 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
 1
 following design considerations.
 0 0 0 b 0 0 − a12 0 0
2  (i) Excursions of ACEs about the steady
values are minimized.
0 0 1 Tsg1 0 0 0 0 0 0
BT =  (ii) Excursions of ∫ACE dt about the steady
 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tsg 2 0 0 0 values are minimized.
(iii) Excursions of control vector about the

237
 steady values are minimized. IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
With the help of Fig.1 J can be written as
1∝ ' For two area thermal-thermal system the following
2 ∫0
J= [( x7 + b1 x1' )2 + ( − a12 x7' + b2 x'4 )2
(11) data are taken [9], [10]
f = 60 Hz
+ ( x8' 2 + x9' 2 ) + k(u1' 2 + u'22 )] dt
Tsg1 = Tsg 2 = 0.08 sec
From the expression of J, Q and R can be Tt1 = Tt 2 = 0.3sec
obtained as follows. H1 = H 2 = 5 sec
b12 0 0 0 0 0 b1 0 0
  D1 = D2 = 8.33 x10−3 puMW / Hz
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R1 = R2 = 2.4 Hz / puMW
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Pr1 = Pr 2 = 2000 MW
0 0 0 b2 2
0 0 −a12 b2 0 0
Ptie ,max = 200 MW

Q= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b1 = b2 = D + = 0.425
 b 0 0 −a b 0 R
 1 12 2 0 1 + a122 0 0  From the above we can calculate K ps and Tps by
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
  the following relations
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
K ps = ; hence K ps1 = K ps 2 = 120
R = KI = symmetric matrix D
2H
Tps = ; hence Tps1 = Tps 2 = 20 sec
III. INTEGRAL CONTROLLER DESIGN Df
MATLAB is used to find the values of A, B, Q and
The optimal controllers are now replaced with R.
integral controllers in both the areas as shown in Fig.
2. The optimization of gain of integral controller has
been done using ISE technique [7], [8].1% step
perturbation is considered in area 1 while keeping

Figure 2: Block diagram of two area power system with integral controller
area 2 uncontrolled. For different values of gain, the  −0.0500 6.0000 0 0 0 0 −6.0000 0 0 
 0 −3.3333 3.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 
cost function J given as ∫ (∆f12 + ∆f 22 + ∆ptie
2
)dt is 
 −5.2083 0 −12.5000 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
calculated. The value of integral controller gain K I 1  0 0 0 −0.0500 6.0000 0 6.0000 0 0
A= 0 0 0 0 −3.3333 3.3333 0 0 0
for which J has minimum value is the optimum 
−5.2083 −12.5000

 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
value of integral controller gain for area 1. The  0.5250 0 0 −0.5250 0 0 0 0 0
 
controller gain of area 2 is found in similar manner  0.4250 0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 0 0 
 
which is same as that of area 1 because the two areas  0 0 0 0.4250 0 0 −1.0000 0 0 
are similar.

238
 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1
BT =  
0 0 0 0 0 12.5 0 0 0
0
 0.1806 0 0 0 0 0 0.4250 0 0

del f1(Hz)
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 -0.1
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 0.1806 0 0 −0.4250 0 0  -0.2
Q= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  f1integral
  f1optimal
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  -0.3
 0.4250 0 0 −0.4250 0 0 2.0000 0 0 
0 5 10 15 20
  Time (sec.)
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 0 
  Figure 4: Change in frequency of Area 1
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0000 
0.2
1 0 
R=  0.1
0 1 

del f2(Hz)
Computer solution for feedback matrix 0
K obtained is obtained as
 0.4223 0.6579 0.1620 −0.0.766 −0.1122 −0.0255 −0.168 1.00 0.00
K= 
I. -0.1
f2integral
−0.0766 −0.1112 −0.0255 0.4223 0.6579 0.1620 0.168 0.00 1.00 f2optimal
-0.2
IV. INTEGRAL CONTROLLER GAIN 0 5 10 15 20
The optimum values of gain of integral Time (sec)
controllers found by ISE technique for both the areas Figure 5: Change in frequency of Area 2
0.02
are calculated as 0.64 which is also evident from the
plot of K I 1 and J as given in Fig.3 0
del Ptie(pu MW)

-0.02

-0.04
TieIntegral
TieOpt
-0.06
0 5 10 15 20
Time(sec)
Figure 6: Change in Tie Line Power

(b) 1% Step Load Perturbation in Area 2

0.05

Figure 3: Plot of K I 1 vs. J

del f1(Hz)

-0.05

V. COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL AND INTEGRAL -0.1

CONTROLLERS
-0.15
Comparison of performance of Integral and F1Opt
Optimal controllers have been shown in the form of -0.2
F1intgral

graphs in Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 for 1% step load 0 5 10 15 20

Time(sec)
perturbation in area 1 and Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 for
Figure 7: Change in frequency of Area 1
1% step load perturbation in area 2. Comparison of 0.1
magnitude of frequency deviation and the time taken
to damp out oscillations for the two controllers 0
clearly reveal that optimal controller provides better
del f2(Hz)

dynamic responses over the conventional integral -0.1

controller. The settling time of the system is very less
in case of optimal controller as compared to that in -0.2
F2Opt
case of integral controller.
F2intgral
-0.3
(a) 1% Step Load Perturbation in Area1 0 5 10 15 20
Time(sec)
Figure 8: Change in frequency of Area 2

239
 0.06
TieIntegral
TieOpt
0.04
del Ptie
0.02
0 [2] D. P. Kothari and I. J. Nagrath, Power System
-0.02
0 5 10 15
Time(sec)
Figure 9: Change in Tie Line Power
The summary of observations from the results in
Fig. 4 to Fig. 9 is as follows:
1. For 1% step load perturbation in area 1,
Fig.4 shows, the settling is 13.82 seconds
when integral controllers are used in both
the areas whereas it reduces to 5.34 seconds
when both the controllers are replaced by
optimal controllers. From Fig.5, frequency
deviation and settling time in area 2 can be
observed. Again the deviation in frequency
and settling time are less when optimal
controllers are used in both the areas. The
system settles in 14.38 seconds when the
controllers used are of integral type and it
reduces to 6.83 seconds when the controllers
are replaced by optimal type.
2. The tie line power deviation also stabilizes
fast in case when optimal controllers are
used in both the areas (7.85 seconds) than
when controllers are replaced by integral
type (14.60 seconds).
Except for the magnitude of frequency
deviations, tie-line power deviations and
settling time, the conclusions obtained for
1% step load perturbation in area 2 are same
as found above for area 1.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In the present work a two area thermal- thermal
system has been studied with a view to design an
optimal controller, to study the dynamic performance
of the system and to compare its performance with
that of conventional integral controller. Instead of
using explicit parameter identification, the optimal
controller uses only the available information of the
model states and output. The computer simulation on
two area thermal system show better control
performance in terms of overshoot and settling time
by optimal controller as compared to conventional
integral controller.
REFERENCES
[1] Ibraheem, Prabhat Kumar and D. P. Kothari “Recent
Philosophies of Automatic Generation Control
Strategies in Power Systems”, IEEE Trans. on Power
System, Vol. 20, No.1, pp. 346-357, Feb 2005.
Engineering, 2nd ed. McGraw – Hill, Year 2007.
[3] O. I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory: An
20 Introduction, TMH Publishing Co. Ltd, Year 1983.
[4] O.I.Elgerd and C.E.Fosha,“Optimum megawatt-
frequency control of multiarea electric energy
systems” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol.PAS 89, No.4, April 1970, pp. 556-563
[5] C.E.Fosha and O.I.Elgerd,“The megawatt-frequency
control problem: a new approach via optimal control
theory” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol.PAS 89, No.4, April 1970,pp. 563-577
[6] M.l.kothari and J.Nanda, “Application of optimal
control strategy to automatic generation control of a
hydrothermal system’, IEE proc., vol.135, No.4, July
1988, pp. 268-274.
[7] G. G. Bhise, M. L. Kothari and J. Nanda, “Optimum
Selection of Hydro governor parameters for Automatic
Generation Control of a Hydrothermal System.” IEE
2nd International Conference on Advances in Power
System Control, Operation and Management, Hong
Kong, pp.910-915, Dec. 1993
[8] K. C. Divya and P. S. N. Rao, “A Simulation Model
for AGC Studies of Hydro-Hydro Systems” Electrical
Power and Energy Systems 27, pp. 335-342, 2005
[9] C. T. Pan and C. M. Liaw, “An adaptive controller for
power system load-frequency control”, IEEE Trans.
on Power System, Vol. 4, No.1, pp.122-128, Feb 1989
[10] J. Nanda and A. Mangla, “Automatic Generation
Control of an interconnected Hydro-Thermal System
Using Conventional Integral and Fuzzy logic
Controller” IEEE International Conference on Electric
Utility Deregulation and Power Technologies, pp.
372-377, April 2004.
240