You are on page 1of 18

> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr.

Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 1

LQR Tuning of Power System Stabilizer for

Damping Oscillations
N. Magaji, and M, Wazir, Mustafa. Faculty, of Electrical Engineering
University Teknologi Malaysia

Abstract— Power System Stabilizers (PSS) are added to excitation systems to enhance the damping
during low frequency oscillations. In this paper, the design of PSS for single machine connected to an
infinite bus using optimal control techniques is considered. A method for shifting the unstable open-
loop poles to optimum positions is presented. In each step of this approach, I solve a first-order or a
second-order linear matrix Lyapunov equation for shifting unstable pole. This presented method
yields a solution, which is optimal with respect to a quadratic performance index. The attractive
feature of this method is that it enables solutions to complex problem to be easily found without
solving any non-linear algebraic Riccati equation. The gain feedback is calculated one time only and
it works over wide range of operating conditions. A comparison between the effect of the PSS based
on conventional approach, and the proposed Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR ) is reported using
MATLAB/SIMULINK for simulation.

Index Terms— K-constants, LQR, SMIB, PSS and Power system oscillations.


Power systems experience low-frequency oscillations due to disturbances. These low frequency oscillations
are related to the small signal stability of a power system. The phenomenon of stability of synchronous
machine under small perturbations is explored by examining the case of a single machine connected to an
infinite bus system (SMIB). The analysis of SMIB [1] gives physical insight into the problem of low
frequency oscillations. These low frequency oscillations are classified into local mode, inter area mode and
torsional mode of oscillations. The SMIB system is predominant in local mode low frequency oscillations.
These oscillations may sustain and grow to cause system separation if no adequate damping is available. In
recent years, modern control theory has been applied to PSS design problems. These include optimal
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 2

control, adaptive control, variable structure control, and intelligent control.

Despite the potential of modern control techniques with different structures, power system utilities still
prefer the conventional lead-lag PSS structure. The reasons behind that might be the ease of on-line tuning
and the lack of assurance of the stability related to some adaptive or variable structure techniques.
The main objective of this paper is to evaluate a control technique, to design a damping controller for
power system stabilizer (PSS). This paper uses LQR control approach to design a PSS [2]. An expression
for synchronizing and damping torque coefficients with optimal controller is established.


A single machine-infinite bus (SMIB) system is considered for the present investigations. A machine
connected to a large system through a transmission line may be reduced to a SMIB system, by using
Thevenin’s equivalent of the transmission network external to the machine. Because of the relative size of
the system to which the machine is supplying power, the dynamics associated with machine will cause
virtually no change in the voltage and frequency of the Thevenin’s voltage (infinite bus voltage). The
Thevenin equivalent impedance shall henceforth be referred to as equivalent impedance (i.e. Re+jXe).
The synchronous machine is described as the fourth order model. The two-axis synchronous machine
representation with a field circuit in the direct axis but with out damper windings is considered for the
analysis. The equations describing the steady state operation of a synchronous generator connected to an
infinite bus through an external reactance can be Linearized about any particular operating point as

d 2 
Tm Te 2H (1)
dt 2

Te K 1K 2 E q' (2)

K3 K K
E 'q  E fd  3 ' 4  (3)
1 sTd 0K 3
1 sT d 0K 3

Vt K 5K 6 E q' (4)

The K-constants are given in appendix. The interaction between the speed and voltage control equations
of the machine is expressed in terms of six constants k 1-k6.[3] These constants with the exception of k 3,
which is only a function of the ratio of impedance, are dependent upon the actual real and reactive power
loading as well as the excitation levels in the machine.
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 3

Conventional PSS comprising cascade connected lead networks with generator angular speed deviation
(Δw) as input signal has been considered. Fig.1 shows the Linearized model of the single machine infinite
bus (SMIB) connected to large system which is linearized around the operating points.
From the transfer function block diagram, the following state variables are chosen for single machine
system. The Linearized differential equations can be written in the form state space form as
X (t ) Ax(t ) Bu(t ) (5)

X 
 E q ’ E fd 
t   (6)

 0 B 0 0 
 D M K 1 M 
K 2M 0 
A=   (7)
 K 4 0 1 K 3 T ' do 1 T do 

 

 K A TA 
K5 0 
K A TA 
K6 
-1 T A 

0    
0    
 
0 , x  
B= Eq (8)
   
K A  
E FD 
 
T A   

y []T (9)

System state matrix A is a function of the system parameters, which depend on operating conditions.
Control matrix B depends on system parameters only. Control signal u is the PSS output. From the
operating conditions and the corresponding parameters of the system considered, the system eigenvalues are


The exciter considered here is only having the gain of K A and the time constant of TA. The typical PSS
consists of a washout function, a phase compensator (lead/lag functions), and a gain. It is well known that
the performance of the PSS is mostly affected by the phase compensator and the gain. Therefore, these are
the main focus of the tuning process. Two first order phase compensation blocks are considered. If the
degree of compensation required is small, a single first-order block may be used. Generally small under
compensation is preferable so that the PSS does not contribute to the negative synchronizing torque
Washout function (Tw) has the value of anywhere in the range of 1 to 20 seconds [4, 10]. The main
considerations are that it should be long enough to pass stabilizing signals at the frequencies of interest
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 4

relatively unchanged, but not so long that it leads to undesirable generator voltage excursions as a result of
stabilizer action during system- islanding conditions. For local mode of oscillations in the range of 0.8 to 2
Hz, a wash out of 1.5 sec is satisfactory. From the view point of low-frequency interarea oscillations, a
wash out time constant of 10 seconds or higher is desirable, since low- time constants result in significant
phase lead at low frequencies [5].
The stabilizer gain K has an important effect on damping of rotor oscillations. The value of the gain is
chosen by examining the effect for a wide range of values. The damping increases with an increase in
stabilizer gain up to a certain point beyond which further increase in gain results in a decrease in damping.
Ideally, the stabilizer gain should be set at a value corresponding to maximum damping. However the gain
is often limited by other considerations. The transfer function model of the SMIB system with the PSS is
given in Fig.2.
The transfer function of PSS is given by
10s 1 sT1 1 sT3
H1 ( s) K* *( )( ) (10)
(1 10s) 1 T2 s 1 T4 s

K—PSS gain
T w—washout time constant
T 1-T4---phase lead time constants
A low value of T2=T4=0.05 second is chosen from the consideration of physical realization. Tw=10 sec is
chosen in order to ensure that the phase shift and gain contributed by the wash out block for the range of
oscillation frequencies normally encountered is negligible. The wash out time constant (Tw) is to prevent
steady state voltage off sets as system frequency changes. By considering two identical cascades connected
lead-lag networks for the PSS H1(s) where T 1=T 3, the problem now reduces to the tuning of gain (K) and
T1 only. The parameters of the PSS obtained for the damping ratio of 0.3. The oscillation frequency is
generally about 0.8-2 Hz for the local mode of oscillations. In this SMIB system only local mode of
oscillations are considered for the tuning of PSS. The local mode of oscillation occurs when a machine
supplies power to a load center over long, weak transmission lines.

A. Conventional PSS design

The eigenvalues of the above A matrix are obtained using Matlab function eig.. It is evident from the open
loop eigenvalues, the system without PSS is unstable and therefore it is necessary to stabilize the system by
shifting these eigenvalues to the LHP and far off from the imaginary axis. The location of the desired
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 5

eigenvalues is calculated by choosing a damping factor ζfor the dominant root. The real part is -ζ
wn and the
imaginary part is wn  1 2 Where wn is the undamped natural frequency of the corresponding roots [6].

For the determination of PSS parameters a damping factor of ζ

=0.3 is chosen (maximum damping).
Corresponding to this damping factor the desired eigenvalues are obtained as.

1 n n 1 2 (11)

2 n n 1 2

It is to be noted here that the some of the eigenvalues need not be shifted since they are already in left hand
S-plane and satisfied the required damping. If any electromechanical modes of oscillations are present then
PSS needs to be added to enhance the dynamic stability of the system. By using Decentralized modal
control (DMC) algorithm the parameters of the conventional PSS are found [7, 11].


The LQR controller generates the parameters of the gain and the phase lead time constant by minimizing
the error criteria in eqn (14). Consider a linear system characterized by eqn. (5) where (A, B) is stabilizable.
We define the cost index then determine the matrix K of the LQR vector[9]
u Kx (13)
So in order to minimize the performance index

J ( x, u, Q, R) ( xT Qx uT Ru) dt, Q 0,R>0 (14)
Where Q and R are the positive-definite Hermitian or real symmetric matrix. Note that the second term on
the right side account for the expenditure of the energy on the control efforts. The matrix Q and R
determine the relative importance of the error and the expenditure of this energy. From the above equations
we get
 
J ( xT Qx xT KT RKx) dt  xT ( QxKT RK ) xdt (15)
0 0

where (A,Q1/2 ) is detectable and ( A – BK ) is stable. The linear quadratic regulation problem is to find a

control u Kx law such that and J is minimized, the solution is given by

K R 1B T P (16)

The controller K can be derived using parameter-optimization techniques, we set
xT (Q K T RK) x  ( xT Px) (17)
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 6

Then we obtain

x (Q K RK ) x x Px x Px

x T [( A BK )T P P ( A BK )]x

Comparing both sides of the above equation and note that this equation must hold true for any x, we require

( A BK )T P P ( A BK )] (Q K T RK ) (19)

R T T
Where T is a nonsingular matrix, and
T T 1 T T
A P PA [TK (T ) B P] 
[TK (TT )1 BT P ] PBR1 BT Q 0
The minimization J of with respect to K requires the minimization of

xT [TK (T T )1 BT P]T [TK (T T ) 1 BT P] x (22)

Which this equation is nonnegative, the minimum occurs when it is zero, or when

TK (T T )1 BT P (23)


K T 1(T T )1BT P R 1BT P (24)

Thus we get a control law as

u (t ) Kx (t ) R 
1BT Px (t ) (25)

In which P must satisfy the reduced Riccati equation:

PA A TP  1 TP Q
B  0 (26)

A. Weight Matrix Selection

The LQR design selects the weight matrix Q and R such that the performances of the closed loop system
can satisfy the desired requirements mentioned earlier.
The selection of Q and R is weakly connected to the performance specifications, and a certain amount of
trial and error is required with an interactive computer simulation before a satisfactory design results.
Now given these linear models we can use LQR or pole placement techniques to design full state feedback
controllers, u=-Kx.
The lqr function allows you to choose two parameters, R and Q, which will balance the relative importance
of the input and state in the cost function that you are trying to optimize. The simplest case is to assume
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 7

R=1, and Q=C'*C. Essentially, the lqr method allows for the control of all outputs. In this case, it is pretty
easy to do. The controller can be tuned by changing the nonzero elements in the Q matrix to get a desirable
response the Matlab function lqr can be used to derive optimal control gains for a continuous controller.

B. Numerical example

Consider the mathematical Linearized state space model which represents the power system in equation (5)-
(9) Choosing the machine parameters and nominal operating point as;

Machine (p.u):

x d = 1.70 , xd' = 0.245 xq = 1.64 , T d' 0 5 .9 s, D= 0.0, M=2H = 4.74 and f=60Hz

Transmission line (p.u):

re = 0.02, xe = 0.4
Exciter :
KA = 400 T A= 0.05 s Operating point: Vt0 Eb0 1.0 , KE=-0.17,TE=0.95 P0 = 1.0, Q0 = 0.1 and δ0 =
53.74 0
The A matrix given in Eq. (7) is evaluated as

 0 377 0 0 
 
0 0.3 0.1 0
A 
0.8 0 19.2 0.2
 
1361.5 0  2871.5 

Consider the mechanical torque is constant and the vector B is obtained as follows:

B 
0 0 0 8,000 

The open-loop poles are:

1,2  3.9054 j4.8082

=-41.52and 

The dominant poles 3 .9 0 5 4  j4 .8 0 8 2 can be rewritten as: 1,2  n  jn 1 2

Where ζ
: = damping coefficient; ωn = frequency. The real part of dominant pole from Eq. (13) is 3.905 and
imaginary part is j4.8082 which implies 0.6305 and n 4.8082rad / s  f=0.765Hz .Therefore this

electromechnical mode characterized by pair of eigenvalues 3.9054 ±j4.8082 is negatively damped. The
desired value of the damping coefficient to damp the oscillation of speed is obtained by optimum controller
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 8

after shifting the unstable poles from 3.6 ±j25.9 to optimum position that is -5.726±9.498.
Note; these values -5.726±9.498 are obtained by using Matlab function lqr by taking R=1 and Q=C’*C.
The dominant closed loop poles are now specified at ζ
=0.756 and ωn=9.497rad/s
The new system is now stable with LQR Controller in closed loop:


The Linearized incremental state space model for a single machine system with its voltage regulator with
four state variables has been developed. The single machine system without PSS is found unstable with
roots in RHP. The system dynamic response without PSS is simulated using Simulink for 0.05 p.u
disturbance in mechanical torque. MATLAB coding is used for conventional PSS design techniques, the
final values of gain (K), and phase lead time constant (T) as 16 and 0.2287 respectively are taking from [8]
and given to the Simulink block. While LQR PSS, design techniques obtain a vector of K from Matlab
function lqr are also given to the Simulink block. The dynamic response curves for the variables Δω, Δδ
and ΔEfd are taken from the Simulink. The system responses curves of open loop system, the conventional
PSS (CPSS), LQR based PSS are compared.
Shaft speed deviation is taken as the input to the all the PSSs. So the PSS is also called as delta-omega PSS.
The system dynamic response with PSS is simulated using these Simulink diagrams for 0.05 p.u step
change in mechanical torque ΔTm. The dynamic response curves for the variables change in speed deviation
(Δω), change in rotor angle deviation (Δδ
) and change in Exciter voltage deviation (ΔEfd) of the single
machine system with PSS are plotted for three different types of PSSs are shown in Figs. 3– 11. It is
observed that the oscillations in the system output variables with PSS are well suppressed. Table 1-3 shows
the eigenvalues of different load condition while Table 4-5 shows conventional PSS parameters and LQR
parameters for different load condition


Performance of fixed-gain CPSS is better for particular operating conditions. It may not yield satisfactory
results when there is a drastic change in the operating point.
The proposed PSS has robustness control property with power system operating points change and its
parameters variation and uncertainty
Dynamic response shows that the LQR based PSS has optimum response and the response is smooth and it
has less over shoot and settling time as compared to the open loop response and the traditional Lead-lag
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 9


In this study, an optimal control algorithm is proposed to the PSS design problem. The method is illustrated
by applying it to PSS controller design for damping oscillations.
The procedure is developed identifying the most effective optimum controller based on state feedback. A
numerical example illustrates the effectiveness of LQR damping performance by shifting all the negative
damping poles to positive damping poles.
The potential of the proposed design approach has been demonstrated by comparing the response curves of
various PSS (PSS) design techniques.
In addition, the simulation results show that the proposed LQR can work effectively and robustly over wide
range of loading conditions and system configurations


Derivation of K-constants
All the variables with subscript 0 are values of variables evaluated at their pre -disturbance steady-state operating
point from the known values of P 0 , Q 0 and Vt0.
P0V to
iq 0 = (27)
(P0 x q ) 2 (Vt 20 Q0 x q ) 2

vd 0 = iq 0 x q (28)

vqo = Vt 20 v t20 (29)

Q0 xq iq20
id 0 = (30)
vq 0

E q 0 = vq 0 id 0 xq (31)

E 0 = (vd 0 xeiq 0 )2 ( vq 0 xe id 0 )2 (32)

1 (vd 0 xeiq 0 )
0 = tan (33)
(v q 0 xe id 0 )

xq xd' E E cos 0
K1 = i E sin 0  q 0 0 (34)
xe xd' q0 0
xe xq

E0 sin 0
K2 = (35)
x e xd
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 10

xd' xe
K3 = (36)
xd xe

xq xd'
K4 = E 0 sin 0 (37)
xe x d'

xq vd0 xd' vq0

K5  E0 cos
0 E0 sin
xe xq Vt 0 xe 
0 (38)
xd' Vt 0

xe vq 0
K6 = (39)
xe x 'd Vt 0
All quantities are per unit on machine base.
D Damping Torque Coefficient
M Inertia constant
ω Angular speed
δ Rotor angle
Id, Iq Direct and quadrature components of armature current
Xd , X q Synchronous reactance in d and q axis
Xd ’, X q’ Direct axis and Quadrature axis transient reactance
EFD Equivalent excitation voltage
KA Exciter gain
TA Exciter time constant
Tm,T e Mechanical and Electrical torque
Tdo’ Field open circuit time constant.
Vd ,Vq Direct and quadrature components of terminal voltage
K1 Change in T e for a change in δwith constant flux linkages in the d axis
K2 Change in Te for a change in d axis flux linkages with constant δ
K3 Impedance factor
K4 Demagnetising effect of a change in rotor angle
K5 Change in Vt with change in rotor angle for constant E q’
K6 Change in Vt with change in E q’ constant rotor angle


[1] Y.L.Abdel-Maidand M.M. Dawoud, Tuning of Power system stabilizers using genetic algorithms, Electric
Power Systems Research,Vol. 39, Jul.(1996), pp. 137-143.
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 11

[2] L. Fan and A. Feliachi, Robust TCSC Control Design for Damping Inter-Area Oscillations, Power
Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 2001. IEEE Vol. 2, 15-19 July (2001), pp.784 - 789.
[3] J. Chow, J.Sanchez-Gasca, H. Ren and Sh. Wang, Power System damping Controller Design Using
Multiple Input Signals, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Volume 20, August( 2000) ,82-90.
[4] M.Klein, G.J.Rogers, S.Moorty, P.Kundur, Analytical investigation of factors influencing Power system
stabilizers performance, IEEE trans. On energy conversions, vol.7, Sep.(1992),No.3, pp. 382-390.
[5] Yao-nan, Qing-hua Li , Pole placement power system stabilizers design of an unstable nine- machine
system, IEEE transactions on power systems, Vol 5, (1990),No.2, pp.353-358.
[6] Bikash Pal , Balarko Chaudhuri Robust Control in power System power electronics and Power series
Editors. New York USA Springer 2005.
[7] M.E. Aboul-Ela, A.A. Salam, J.D. McCalley and A.A. Fouad, Damping Controller Design for Power
System Oscillations Using Global Signals, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 11, No2, May
(1996), pp. 767-773.
[8] K,R Padiyer Power System Dynamics Stability and Control page 279, Anshan Limited UK 2nd Edition
[9] Liqun Xing A Comparison of Pole Assignment & LQR Design Methods for Multivariable Control for
STATCOM Master Theses , Department of Mechanical Engineering, College Of Engineering, Florida
State University .2003.
[10] Joe H.Chow, George E.Boukarim and Alexander Murdoch, Power system stabilizers as undergraduate
control design projects, IEEE trans. on power systems, vol 19, Feb.(2004). Pp.144-151.
[11] A. Kazemi, and M. V. Sohforouzani Power System Damping Using Fuzzy Controlled FACTS Devices
International Conference on Power System Technology - POWERCON 2004 Singapore, 21-24 November
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 12


Tm 1 B 
2Hs s
K2 K5
K3 Vref
1 sTdoK3 1 sT E


Fig 1 Open loop model of SIMB using Heffron-Philips Constants

> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 13

Light load DW response

s p e e d d e v ia t io n



Conventional PSS
-0.01 NO PSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time in sampling of 0.1
Fig.3 ΔωVs time for Light load condition of the SMIB system.
Normal load DW esponse



p ed d ev ia tio n




-0.02 Conventional PSS
-0.025 LQR PSS
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time in 0.1 sampling

Fig. 4 ΔωVs time for normal load condition of the SMIB system
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 14

Heavy Load Speed deviation DW response

0.03 Conventional PSS
sp ee d d ev ia tion






0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time in 0.1 sampling
Fig. 5 ΔωVs time for Heavy load condition of the SMIB system
Light load DW response

speed deviation



Conventional PSS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time in sampling of 0.1
Fig.6 ΔδVs time for Light load condition of the SMIB system
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 15

Normal load angle deviation

Conventional PSS

A n g le d e viat io n



0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time 0.1 sampling

Fig.7 ΔδVs time for Normal load condition of the SMIB system
Heavy load Field voltage response


deviation in E'q voltage




0.2 CPSS


0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 8 ΔE’
q Vs time for Heavy load condition of the SMIB system
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 16

Normal load field voltage response


deviation in E'q voltage



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. 9 ΔE’
q Vs time for Normal load condition o f the SMIB system

Light load field voltage response


deviation in E'q voltage



0.4 No PSS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig. 10 ΔE’
q Vs time for light load condition of the SMIB system
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 17

Normal load Excitor voltage responseTime(s)



60 No PSS
Devition of Efd voltage





0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Fig. 11 ΔEfd Vs time for Normal load condition of the SMIB system
> Nuraddeen Magaji and Dr. Mohd Wazir bn Mustapha 18

Case P(pu) Q(pu)
1 Normal 1.0 0.1
2 Heavy 1.2 0.2
3 Light 0.2 0.05

Normal Heavy Light

3.9095±j4.815 3.89±j5.039 -1.676±j7.04

-41.529 -41.137 -48.199
-5.802 -6.177 12.202
Normal Heavy Light

-5.726 ±j9.498 -5.681 ±j9.439 -4.27±8.83

-41.529 -41.129 -48.197
-11.549 -11. 484 -13.23
T1=T3= 0.2287
K Normal Heavy Light
K1 0.8673 0.8472 1.7525 -79.5827
K2 -75.669 76.1599 - -0.7972 0.0038
K3 -0.5995 0.5805
K4 0.0031 0.0031

Nuraddeen Magaji
U3B 603 Kolege Perdana, 81310 UTM Skudai
Jahor, Malaysia
+60177739011, +607536745