XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

HYDROPOWER PLANTS FREQUENCY REGULATION PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT
Lucas M. da Silva* Rafael B. de Paiva João M. C. Soares Cristiano Bühler

REIVAX S/A Automação e Controle

Brazil
SUMMARY
The primary frequency regulation performance of generating units should be assessed for a correct hydroelectric
power system operation. This theme is relevant, especially nowadays, when misconceptions have been
disseminated regarding the assessment of primary frequency regulation. An example of these misconceptions is
the requirement that certain system operators in Latin America practice in relation to the active power response
time of a generating unit through the frequency disturbances of the electric system. It is proven that this type of
analysis is based on static criteria, incompatible with the dynamic and stable responses in an isolated system of
hydropower plants. Another investigated issue is the adoption of a control strategy of the speed governor with loop
switching for the fulfillment of an interconnected operating condition and another one for the isolated operation. It
is shown that only a control loop, adjusted according to isolated system criteria, presents the best performance
under any electric grid operative condition.
KEYWORDS - Frequency Control, Primary Frequency Regulation, Speed Governor and Isolated System
Simulation

1. INTRODUCTION
In a classic paper about Primary Frequency Regulation (PFR), Hovey [1] showed that an optimized adjustment of
a mechanical-hydraulic governor to an isolated operation also provided good performance in the interconnected
system. The mechanical-hydraulic governor at that time was equivalent to a Proportional-Integral control (PI),
performed by a feedback with mechanical damper (dashpot). The optimized adjustment of this governor, proposed
by Hovey, implies that, for a small load variation, the transient speed should be almost critically damped. Hovey
showed that the procedure of making a bypass in the dashpot, after the Synchronous Machine (SM) was
synchronized to the system, provided high gains and greater Speed Governor (SG) responsiveness and activity.
However, contrary to expectations, this practice caused instability in PFR. In this same paper, Hovey presented
practical formulas obtained from simulation, and validated in the field, which were based on the controlled process
main parameters: the time constant Tw, which determines the dynamics of a hydraulic turbine, and the 2H, which
defines the inertia of rotating parts. Hovey acknowledged that the formulas precision was affected by intrinsic non-
linear process factors. The disadvantages of having to rely on calculations, or model estimates, to define the
adjustments, were solved by Schleif [4], through an ingenious method called simulated isolation. This method
allowed adjustments to be practiced experimentally in the field with the unit interconnected to the grid. The IEEE [5]
and the IEC [6] standardized the isolated operation procedure as one of the criteria for the SG adjustment in
hydraulic turbines.
Concordia and Kirchmayer [2, 3], in the 1950s, presented mathematical models that aimed at understanding the
PFR dynamics of interconnected systems. De Mello [7] consolidated these models application in the control of
generation dynamics. In this same research area, one of the authors of this study showed [8] that the Speed
Governor optimum adjustment of a hydraulic turbine, for the isolated operation, led to the optimum operation in an
interconnected system if the turbines dynamics were similar. It was also demonstrated that the interconnected
system frequency regulation dynamics would remain close to the optimum case if the turbines dynamics varied
arbitrarily. In this case, the interconnected system worst eigenvalue, associated with the common frequency mode,
would be to the left of the worst eigenvalue of each system considered isolated. This finding reinforced the need to
apply a good adjustment, in an isolated system, of hydraulic turbines speed governors. In the same paper [8], it
was shown how a simple alteration in the SG control structure, PI or Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) type,
Corresponding author: Tel: +55 (48) 3027-3784, lucas.manso@reivax.com
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

would allow an independent path for power generation commands. This change in the SG control structure is known
as ramping, pre-opening curve or droop by-pass [9]. It allows the SG of a hydraulic turbine to meet the power take-
off and withdrawal requirements specified by a System Operator (SO) without the need for changes in the generator
control optimum adjustments.
This paper is structured as follows: Chapter 2 presents a review of the frequency regulation concepts; Chapter 3
applies these concepts to a multi-machine system, which analyzes control strategies with and without switching
and the static and dynamic criteria for the Speed Governor tuning control; Chapter 4 proposes the procedures that
a System Operator should adopt in the evaluation of a Generating Unit Primary Frequency Regulation. Finally,
chapter 5 presents the main conclusions.

2. PRIMARY FREQUENCY REGULATION CONCEPTS REVIEW

Primary Frequency Regulation, or Speed Regulation, is the first stage of control, which is performed by the Speed
Governor action of each generator through a disturbance in the power grid frequency. Its main purpose is the
system frequency control. It is an automatic response, which starts seconds after the disturbance, and can last for
minutes. Primary Frequency Regulation is not associated with centralized controls, such as secondary or tertiary
frequency responses, which must have a slower action than that of the primary one, acting to correct the system
frequency deviations.
INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM VERSUS ISOLATED SYSTEM MODELING
PFR studies are related to long-term stability in events which generate system frequency excursions. These studies
allow us to assume that electromechanical oscillations have already been damped, and that there is only the
common mode frequency oscillation in the event. Figure 1, below, shows the equivalent concentrated model. This
model is capable of reproducing only common mode frequency variations in the power system. It is an acceptable
representation for the analysis of the long-term stability of PFR [7, 9].

TM: Mechanical Torque

TE: Electric Torque
TS: Synchronizing Torque
∑2H: Equivalent Inertia
D: Natural Damping Coefficient
∆w: Frequency Deviation (or Speed)
Figure 1. Interconnected System: Figure 2. Isolated Operation
P(s): Speed Regulation System
Concentrated Model
In an interconnected system, governed by Figure 1, each generator has a contribution share in the PFR. This
contribution is given by the turbine generator set inertia, by the control action of the SG and by the mechanical
torque of the turbine output. Therefore, the individual analysis of the PFR of an interconnected operative unit cannot
be made due to the fact that the other generators are contributing to the same event. Because of this, the correct
analysis of the PFR of the unit must occur in the isolated operation. Figure 2, above, shows the isolated operation
model of the unit. In this case, frequency stability is an exclusive consequence of the unit control action in the
isolated operation. There is no participation of any other generators, fact that does not occur in an interconnected
analysis, and that can mitigate the perception of the SG performance.
PRIMARY FREQUENCY REGULATION PERFORMANCE IN INTERCONNECTED AND ISOLATED GRIDS
Two simplified models of speed regulation systems are proposed for the investigation of PFR performance, one of
a hydraulic turbine (Figure 3) and another of a gas turbine (Figure 4).
Bp = 0.05 pu/pu
T1 = 1.25 s Tp = 0.02 s
T2 = 0.12 s Tx = 0.1 pu/s
Kp = 2.70 pu/pu Tw = 2.5 s
Ti = 7.5 s

Figure 3. Linearized Control Model of a Hydraulic Turbine

2
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

Bp = 0.05 pu/pu Tp = 0.02 s

Kp = 20 pu/pu Tx = 1.0 pu/s
Ti = 1 s Tg = 0.3 s

Figure 4. Linearized Control Model of a Gas Turbine

The variable DW is equivalent to the frequency deviation, while TM is the mechanical torque. Figure 5 and Figure
6 show, respectively, the dynamic response to a load variation of 5% of the hydraulic and gas turbines, each one
in an isolated operation. The variable Y is equivalent to the actuator signal.

Figure 5. Isolated System of a Hydraulic Turbine Figure 6. Isolated System of a Gas Turbine
Both generators present a stable response, but depending on the hydraulic turbine characteristic, the frequency
excursion is larger, and its time response is much slower when compared to that of the gas turbine. It is impossible
to obtain a hydraulic turbine performance similar to the gas turbine performance in this case. A higher gain for the
hydraulic control destabilizes the PFR, as shown in Figure 7, in which a gain (Kp) was applied twice as high as the
one practiced in the stable condition.

Figure 7. Isolated System of a Hydraulic Turbine with a Speed Governor Higher Gain
As demonstrated by Hovey [1], the SG of a hydraulic turbine must operate with a reduced transient gain in order to
guarantee isolated operation stability depending on the characteristics of the process. This is the criterion for good
PFR according to the authors [1,2,3,4,7,8 and 9]. However, this finding is not so clear when the PFR response of
the unit in an interconnected system is analyzed.
One way to understand why this happens is by analyzing the response of the unit, through simulations, in the
interconnected operation. The scenario represents two hydraulic generators, G#1 and G#2, represented by the
diagram of Figure 3, operating in an interconnected system, according to the diagram in Figure 1. Three cases of
5% load disturbance are presented, in which the focus is the system frequency analysis in the mechanical torque
of the G#1. The difference of each case is in the size of G#1 in relation to G#2. For the first case, G#1 represents
1% of the nominal power of G#2, for the second case it is 50% in relation to G#2 and, for the third case, it is 90%.
In each case, the G#1 tuning performance control is compared, starting from the optimum value in an isolated
operation for a Kp = 2.7, and the multiple values of this gain. The G#2 Speed Governor adjustment is kept constant
with Kp = 2.7.

3
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

Figure 8. Case 1: G#1 = 1% Figure 9. Case 2: G#1 = 50% Figure 10. Case 3: G#1 = 90%
The three cases simulations confirm what was exposed in [8], where the adoption of the isolated operation stability
criterion for all generators will always present a stable interconnected system response for any type of operating
condition (black curves). On the other hand, a higher and unstable gain in isolated operations will reduce the stability
margins of the interconnected system. This fact is verified for the two times greater gain (2*Kp: blue curves). For
the operative condition of case 2 of Figure 9 above, this gain seems to be a reasonable choice. However, in another
operating condition, this same gain has destabilized the speed response of the system, as shown in case 3.
APPLICATION OF STATIC CONCEPTS IN THE PRIMARY FREQUENCY REGULATION ASSESMENT
Case 1, analyzed in Figure 8, exemplifies the origin of the interpretation by which a small size unit, when compared
to the size of the electric system, could adopt higher gains and, thus, contribute more effectively to the frequency
events of the system. This misunderstanding of PFR motivates the application of arbitrary adjustments to the SG
tuning, with high transient gains, and also the adoption of different control grids for the SG performance in isolated
and interconnected operations.
Figure 11 shows a real case of a system operator PFR evaluation, conducted in some Latin American countries.
The black curve represents the SG response of the hydraulic turbine with a stable gain in an isolated operation.
The blue curve is the response of the same unit, but with a larger and unstable gain in an isolated operation.

Figure 11 – PFR Analysis in a Hydraulic Turbine During a System Frequency Event

In this type of evaluation, the SO applies a visual inspection or some metric between the active power signal and
the frequency signal. The SO has the misperception that the most appropriate response is the one with the highest
gain due to the greater input of active power in the event. It is emphasized that this PFR interpretation is a static
criterion from the unit speed response point of view. In this type of event, the frequency, which is the SG control
variable, is being regulated by the equivalent of all other generators connected to the grid that have a much higher
proportion than the unit in question. That is, the authors affirm that it is impracticable to gauge the PFR performance
of the unit in this type of event. It is a wrong analysis criterion, which leads to unstable PFR adjustments of a
hydraulic turbine in the isolated operation, degrading the stability margin of the interconnected system.
Similarly, the PR-21 system procedure [10] analyzes the PFR by a frequency reference deviation in the speed
response of the unit, which has a certain time to provide and achieve the active power steady state. Figure 12
shows the hydraulic and gas turbines responses by a fixed deviation of 0.1% in the frequency reference. To achieve
4
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

a faster response time, the hydraulic turbine governor gain must be much higher. This PFR evaluation method is
antagonistic to the recommendations of most diverse authors [1,2,3,4,7,8,9] and norms [5,6], which condemn the
use of a high transient gain for the SG tuning in a hydroelectric power station, due to the instability in an isolated
operation and the stability margins degradation in the electric system.

Figure 12. Permanent Speed Droop Analysis Response. Frequency Deviation of 0.1%
It is important to note that the Brazilian National System Operator (ONS) does not apply, or suggests, the static
criteria reported here, that are adopted by certain Latin American System Operators.

3. PRIMARY FREQUENCY REGULATION SIMULATION IN A POWER SYSTEM

DETAILS OF THE SYSTEM

Long-term studies for PFR assessment require an adequate and detailed modeling of all system components,
especially turbines and their speed governors. Certain protection functions, such as special protection schemes,
are also of interest in this type of study and should be modeled, since the entire disturbance scenario can be altered
when actuated. The interconnected system investigated for the study of PFR is that of the Northern region of Brazil.
The simulation program is ANATEM, in which the mathematical models of the ONS base case [14] were used, with
changes in all Speed Governors of Northern Hydraulic Turbines. Three cases of the transmission line disconnection
between the Xingu Substation (SE) and the Tucuruí Substation are simulated, as shown in Figure 13, below. For
each case, a different dispatch is made for each hydraulic turbine. Table 1 shows the operating condition of each
unit. It should be noted that the bipolar, as well as the special control schemes, are turned off in these simulated
cases, so as to emphasize only PFR.

Figure 13. Analyzed Event: Northern Region Isolation

Table 1. Detail of Each Analyzed Case
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1, 2 and 3
Hydraulic Power Plant Thermal Power Plant
Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW
Balbina 2 70,0 2 70,0 2 70,0 Mauá Plant II 2 110,0
Coaracy Nunes 1 and 2 2 40,0 2 40,0 2 40,0 Manauara 4 64,5
Coaracy Nunes 3 1 28,0 1 28,0 1 28,0 Cristiano Rocha 3 49,0
Belo Monte 1 510,0 2 1000,0 1 450,0 Tambaqui - Plant I 11 33,0
Santo Antônio do Jari 2 230,0 3 348,3 1 116,0 Tambaqui - Plant II 10 30,0
Cachoeira Caldeirão 1 65,7 3 197,1 1 65,7 Flores 1 80,0
Ferreira Gomes 1 75,6 3 226,8 1 75,6 Irandu 1 25,0
Summary Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Ponta Negra 4 64,0
Thermal Generation [MW] 680,5 680,5 680,5 Jaraqui - Plant I 10 30,0
Hydraulic Generation [MW] 1019,3 1910,2 845,3 Jaraqui - Plant II 11 33,0
North System Load [MW] 1682,7 1682,7 1682,7 Aparecida Plant I 2 81,0
Load Rejection [MW] 17,1 908 -1569 Aparecida Plant II 2 81,0

5
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

SPEED ADJUSTMENT MODELING SYSTEM

Although the system is real, according to ANATEM base case [14], the simulation is fictitious due to the changes
applied. From the base case, the name of the plant, the power system data, the parameters of the MS, the thermal
power plants modeling, and the loads were maintained. However, all hydropower plants were standardized
according to the speed regulation system shown in Figure 14, in which only the TW and the actuators mechanical
rates were maintained with their original values.
Ref Y: Speed Control Signal
Ctrl: Actuator Control Signal
Y: Main actuator Position
W: Speed
Pe: Active Power
Figure 14. Hydraulic Turbine Speed Regulation System Structure
The nonlinear penstock and turbine model is shown in Figure 15. The turbine output model is the mechanical torque
that must be coupled in the SM. The actuator model is shown in Figure 16, while his control is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 15. Actuator Model

Figure 16. Nonlinear Hydraulic Turbine Model Figure 17. Actuator Control Model
Two strategies for the SG speed regulation are analyzed. Figure 18 presents the first strategy. It is an uncontrolled
speed response, with the dynamics determined by the PID governor and a permanent speed droop given by the
active power error (ΔPe). Figure 19 is related to the second strategy. There are two control systems: one to meet
the interconnected operation, with its dynamics determined by PID1 and with the power permanent speed droop;
another, with the objective of attending to the isolated operation, with its dynamics determined by PID2 and with
permanent speed droop. The switching between the control grids is performed by comparing the absolute frequency
deviation error (Δw) when it is higher than a given fixed parameter set in the SG (MAX).

Figure 18. Non-Switching Speed Governor Figure 19. Switching Speed Governor
The PID, PID1 and PID2 control systems are tuned by the proportional gain (Kp), by the integrator time constant
(Ti) and by the lead-lag compensation (T1 and T2). Permanent speed droop is determined by the Bp gain.
SPEED GOVERNOR ADJUSTMENT CRITERION IN HYDROPOWER SYSTEMS
Two normative criteria were adopted for the SG temporary speed droop in each unit: the PR-21 static and the
IEC/IEEE isolated operation. The goal was to evaluate the performance of these criteria in the proposed simulation
cases in a power system and the performance between the two control strategies. For the non-switching strategy,
the PID was adjusted according to the isolated operation criterion. For the switching strategy, PID1 had PR-21
adjustment and PID2 had the same non-switching PID tuning.

6
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

Isolated operation criterion: the technical literature presents mathematical formulas for the SG tuning due to the
controlled process parameters in a hydraulic turbine, particularly Tw and 2H, all aiming at the PFR stability in the
isolated operation. The formulas adopted were:
2𝐻 𝑇𝑤 𝑇1
𝐾𝑝 = (Eq.1) 𝑇𝑖 = 3,0 ∗ 𝑇𝑤 (Eq.2) 𝑇1 = 𝑇2 = (Eq.3)
1,5 ∗ 𝑇𝑤 2 10
These formulas are valid when the relation Y versus Pe is unitary, with the At gain of the penstock model (Figure
15) responsible for this relation. In practice, the At gain is a curve that influences the governor adjustment. Another
issue is the Tw parameter, which is responsible for the mechanical torque lag in relation to the actuator. This delay
varies with the turbinated flow, where the worst condition occurs with the generator operating at maximum load due
to the maximum flow. SG tuning should be done in this condition, which provides lower gains. At a low load,
performance is slower than the optimum, but, on the other hand, there are stable operation and optimum
performance at a high load. Modern governors allow adaptive gains due to the turbinated flow rate [15], which,
consequently, allow optimized responses in both high and low load.
Static criterion PR-21: SG tuning criterion according to PR-21 is summarized in Figure 20.

Given a fixed negative frequency

deviation, the generator must reach its
assigned power in less than 30s.

Figure 20. System Response: PR-21 [10]

For meeting the response time required in PR-21, the time constant (𝝉) of the speed response system must be less
than ten seconds. It is necessary to increase the transient gain to meet this requirement. The approximation of (𝝉)
in a hydraulic turbine is given by Eq.4.
𝑇𝑖 Typical Adjustment to attend PR.21:
𝜏 =1+ (Eq.4)
𝐾𝑝 ∗ 𝐵𝑝 ∗ 𝐴𝑡 Kp=10; Ti = 4; Bp = 0.05. For At =1: 𝜏 = 9s.
ADJUSTMENTS ADOPTED FOR THE SPEED GOVERNOR IN EACH HYDROPOWER PLANT
Each case is analyzed by comparing the strategies with and without switching, and the switching value is given for
1% and 5% deviations in frequency. Table 2 and Table 3 present the SG parameters used in the two strategies of
each simulated hydraulic turbine.
Table 2. Non-switching Speed Governor Parameters
Santo Ant. do Coaracy Nunes Coaracy
PID Setting Belo Monte Ferreira Gomes C. Caldeirão Balbina
Jari 1 and 2 Nunes 3
KP: PID 2,516 1,064 1,821 0,595 3,365 3,482 2,649
Ti: PID 7,599 10,995 6,525 10,695 3,855 3,165 3,765
T1: PID 1,267 1,833 1,088 1,783 0,643 0,528 0,628
T2: PID 0,127 0,183 0,109 0,178 0,064 0,053 0,063
BP: PID 0,050 0,050 0,050 0,050 0,050 0,050 0,050
Table 3. Switching Speed Governor Parameters
Ferreira Santo Ant. do Coaracy Nunes Coaracy Nunes
PID Setting Belo Monte C. Caldeirão Balbina
Gomes Jari 1 and 2 3
KP: PID1; PID 2 10; 2,516 10; 1,064 10; 1,821 10; 0,595 10; 3,365 10; 3,482 10; 2,649
Ti: PID1; PID 2 4,0; 7,599 4,0; 10,995 4,0; 6,525 4,0; 10,695 4,0; 3,855 4,0; 3,165 4,0; 3,765
T1: PID1; PID 2 1,0; 1,267 1,0; 1,833 1,0; 1,088 1,0; 1,783 1,0; 0,643 1,0; 0,528 1,0; 0,628
T2: PID1; PID 2 1,0; 0,127 1,0; 0,183 1,0; 0,109 1,0; 0,178 1,0; 0,064 1,0; 0,053 1,0; 0,063
BP: PID1; PID 2 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050 0,050; 0,050

7
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

It is observed that the PID2 has the same PID settings of the SG control grid, which has no switching, being of the
power statism type. This question of permanent statism does not alter the isolated system formulas used for the
transient statism tuning.
SIMULATION RESULTS
The first case represents a small generation deficit after the initial disturbance. The system frequency behavior is
shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22, in which the results of the two control strategies are presented.
Frequency [pu] Frequency [pu]
Non-Switching Control Non-Switching Control
Switching Control 1%
Switching Control 5%

Figure 21. Case 1 Simulation Figure 22. Case 1 Zoom: Non-Switching

The initial frequency deviation caused by the disturbance is less than 0.2%. The non-switched strategy regulated
the frequency of this system, with the shortest re-establishment time. In the switched structure, the PR-21
adjustment of PID1 caused instability in the system frequency, as seen by the increasing frequency oscillations.
These oscillations are only stabilized after switching the control grid from PID1 to PID2 when the frequency reaches
1% and 5%. Hydraulic generation was 60% for this case (Table 1). This proportion was sufficient to destabilize the
system frequency with the PR-21 adjustments.
The second case, Figure 23, shows the disturbance for the export of 908 MW, while the third case, Figure 24,
shows the disturbance for the import of 1,6 GW by the northern region.
Frequency [pu] Frequency [pu]
Non-Switching Control Non-Switching Control
Switching Control 1% Switching Control 1%
Switching Control 5% Switching Control 5%

Figure 23. Case 2 Simulation Figure 24. Case 3 Simulation

It is observed in case 2 that, just after the line has been opened, the system frequency excursions by almost 3%.
The SG with the non-switched strategy and the isolated operation adjustment operates steadily again, normalizing
the frequency of the system. The same happens for the SG that has a 1% switching, since the fast switching to the
PID2 guaranteed a performance equivalent to the SG which does not have switching. However, the SG with 5%
switching did not switch to the isolated control grid, acting unstable with the interconnected control grid.
In case 3, the system frequency excursions more than 10% soon after the line is opened. It is a frequency value
that causes a rapid commutation to the SG isolated control grid. The performance of the PID 2 system is stable, as
it is in the non-switched strategy SG.
From this analysis, the authors conclude that the non-switched control strategy, adjusted according to a
performance criterion in isolated operation, is the one that presents the best performance of speed response. The
switched structure does not bring benefits to PFR. For these switched governors, the authors recommend blocking
the switching and setting up the PID1 system according to isolated criteria. Regarding the static adjustment criterion
of the PR-21, it is verified that, regardless of the controller structure, this type of practice for the SG tuning decreases

8
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

the stability margin, which can collapse the system frequency regulation. In case 1, analyzed previously, with 60%
hydraulic generation, the PR-21 criterion for SG adjustment was sufficient to cause instability in the system.

4. PRIMARY FREQUENCY REGULATION EVALUATION METHOD

System Operators normally face problems regarding the PFR evaluation criterion of the unit that is interconnected
in its electrical system. Static methods, such as those mentioned in this paper, should be discarded because, as
seen, they harm PFR rather than helping it. The solution is in the IEEE and IEC standards, which suggest online
and offline isolated operation simulation tests to gauge the PFR of the unit.
Online isolated system simulation: The isolated operation simulation field test for tuning the temporary speed
droop of the hydraulic turbine speed governors consists of real-time emulation of the swing equation (Figure 2). The
main advantage of the online method is that its application in the field allows the temporary speed droop adjustment
in a safer and concrete way in relation to the result obtained by the tuning via offline simulation. This assertion is
due to the fact that all the intrinsic errors of the mathematical modeling of the speed regulation system present in
the offline test do not occur in the online test.
Offline isolated system simulation: The offline methodology consists of the speed response system simulation
of the unit in an isolated operation. Through this simulation, it is possible to obtain the temporary speed droop
optimum parameters to be applied in the SG. The only problem with this methodology is that it can only be applied
through the use of properly validated mathematical models.

Figure 25. Different Responses of the Same Hydraulic Turbine – Offline Isolated System Simulation
It is important to emphasize that the SO should not only require isolated operation stability as the criterion for
adjusting the SG of the unit, since performance is also fundamental. Figure 25, above, presents different responses
of the same hydraulic turbine by different PID adjustments. All the adjustments are stable in isolated operation, with
the fastest dynamic response being that required by the SO.
The example of Colombia's National Dispatch Center, which has successfully implemented system procedures to
verify the PFR performance requirements of each connected unit in the Colombian grid, should be highlighted. The
validation procedure of mathematical models [11] includes, among others, online and/or offline isolated operation
simulation tests to gauge the regulation of each hydraulic turbine. Another example of a performance verification
procedure is the use of periodic speed droop and dead band tests [12], which deal, from time to time, with the
emission, by the generation agent, of a test report confirming the speed droop and the dead band.

5. CONCLUSION
Long-term studies are fundamental for evaluating the performance of frequency response of a power system. These
studies require an adequate and detailed modeling of all components of this system, especially turbines and their
speed governors, which must be properly represented and validated. Certain protection functions such as thermal
turbine frequency protections and special protection schemes are also of interest in this type of study and must be
modeled since the entire disturbance scenario can be altered when actuated. However, the evaluation of a good
speed regulation performance of a hydraulic turbine is only possible through the isolated operation simulation test,
as IEEE [5] and IEC [6] suggest.
It is important to highlight that the system operator should not only require isolated operation stability as the criterion
for setting up the speed governor of a hydraulic turbine, since performance is also fundamental. In practice, due to
the lack of this requirement, what is observed is that many speed governors are adjusted in a stable way in an
isolated operation, but with slow responses. The authors also recommend that speed governors manufacturers

9
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

provide an analog test input which could be added to the speed reading in the speed response loop. This technical
requirement would facilitate the online isolated system simulation test execution and other verifications such as
permanent speed droop testing and speed governor dead band.
On the other hand, the authors do not recommend the PFR analysis criterion of the unit through the system
frequency events. The application of a visual inspection, or some metric between the active power signal and the
frequency signal in this type of event, leads to an erroneous perception in which the most adequate response is the
one with the highest gain due to the higher input of active power in the event. It is not feasible to measure the
performance of the PFR of the unit trough this analysis. It is a wrong criterion in the PFR analysis that can provide
arbitrary speed governor adjustments, which may result in the PFR instability of the hydraulic turbine in an isolated
operation and the degradation of the interconnected system stability margins. The PR-21 system procedure [10] is
the most serious of these requirements for PFR analysis. In order to meet the requirement of PR-21, the gain
practiced in the speed governor is much higher in relation to the gain that guarantees the stability in isolated
operation of a hydraulic turbine. PR-21 is an evaluation method which is distant from the recommendations of the
most diverse authors [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9] and norms [5, 6], which condemn the use of a high transient gain for
the speed governor tuning in a hydraulic power plant. In addition to the PFR stability problems, the higher speed
governors gains, especially those proposed by the PR-21, will cause a greater movement in the mechanical
actuators, which will bring several consequences to a hydraulic turbine, to mention: actuators life shortage
usefulness; increase in temperature of the hydraulic power unit; shorter intermittent time due to loss of hydraulic
power unit pressure; increased oil consumption; possibility of a shutdown due to low oil pressure and; finally,
mechanical turbine fatigue. In a situation of sustained frequency oscillation caused by poor frequency response,
the consequences are more severe due to the effects of penstock pressure that may exceed the technical limits of
the design. Added to this, in an eventual blackout, the recovering of the system is practically unfeasible by a
hydraulic power plant with this type of adjustment.
The authors also state that the control strategy of hydraulic turbines without switching, adjusted according to isolated
system criteria, is the one that presents the best performance of the speed response for any operational condition:
isolated, in the recovering of the system, and in the interconnected. On the other hand, the switched structure does
not bring benefits to PFR. According to the IEC and IEEE standards, the criterion for adjusting the control system
is valid for any operative condition. There is no need for system switching with different adjustments. Using control
system switching is a more complex strategy and may involve distinct and undue adjustments in the two control
systems. The authors recommend the blocking of switching and the adoption of adjustments according to the
criterion of isolated operation for the interconnected control system. Finally, the authors thank the ONS engineers,
Antonio F. da C. de Aquino, Paulo E. M. Quintão and José Mário M. Jr., for their support in the elaboration of
ANATEM base cases used in this paper and for the discussions generated.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] HOVEY, L. M. Optimum Adjustment of Hydro Governors on Manitoba Hydro System. 1962, AIEE pag. 581.
[2] CONCORDIA, C. et all.Tie-Line Power and Frequency Control of Electric Power Systems part I, II, III. AIEE. 1953-1954.
[3] CONCORDIA, C. et all.Effect of Speed-Governor Dead Band on tie-line power and frequency control performance. AIEE, 1957.
[4] SCHLEIF, F. R., ANGELL, R. R. Governor tests by simulated isolation of hydraulic turbine units. IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-87, Nº. 5, May, 1968.
[5] IEEE Std-1207. Guide for the Application of Turbine Governing Systems for Hydroelectric Generating Units.
[6] IEC 60308. Hydraulic turbines – Testing of control systems, January, 2005.
[7] MELLO, F. P. Dinâmica e Controle da Geração, Série PTI, Vol. 6, Santa Maria, RS, 1979.
[8] SOARES, J. M. Identificação experimental, Simulação e Ajuste de Reguladores de Velocidade de Usinas Hidrelétricas com
Verificação e Testes de Campo, Dissertação Mestrado, UFSM, 1982.
[9] KUNDUR, P. Power Systems Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc, january de 1994.
[10] COES SINAC, PR-21 - 30/12/2016. Avaiable in: http://www.coes.org.pe/Portal/MarcoNormativo/Procedimientos/Tecnicos
[11] CNO, Acuerdo nº 843, Colômbia, February, 2016. Available in: https://www.cno.org.co/content/acuerdo-843
[12] CNO, Acuerdo n° 747, Colômbia, May, 2015. Available in: https://www.cno.org.co/content/acuerdo-747
[13] ONS, Submódulo 3.6 Requisitos técnicos mínimos para a conexão às instalações de transmissão, February,2016.
[14] ONS, Base de dados do Anatem, February, 2018.
[15] MENARIM, H. A., et all.Aplicação de funções avançadas ao controle de velocidade na UHE Jirau, XXIV SNPTEE, Curitiba,
Brazil, 2017.

10
 XIV SYMPOSIUM OF SPECIALISTS IN ELECTRIC OPERATIONAL AND EXPANSION PLANNING

SEPTEMBER 30TH THRU OCTOBER 3RD OF 2018 / RECIFE / PE /BRASIL

7. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Lucas Manso da Silva graduated as Electrical Engineering in 2013 at the Federal University of
Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. He has been working at REIVAX Automation and Control since
2013 as field engineer (testing and commissioning of regulation systems), special studies
(modeling of generating units and controllers), electromechanical transient studies. He was born
in 1989 in São Paulo-SP, Brazil.
Rafael Bertolini de Paiva graduated as Electrical Engineering in 2009 at the Federal University
of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. He has been working at REIVAX Automation and Control since
2010 as field engineer (testing and commissioning of regulation systems and power system
protection), special studies (modeling of generating units and controllers), electromechanical
transient studies. He was born in 1982 in Florianopolis-SC, Brazil.
João Marcos de Castro Soares received the degree of master in Electrical Engineering in 1982
at the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil. He graduated as Electrical Engineer in
1976 at UFSM, Brazil. He worked in Eletrosul 1978-1987 as Hydraulic Power Plants. He founded
REIVAX in 1987, where is developed controllers of electric power generation: speed governors,
PSS, excitation systems. He was born in 1954 in Rosário do Sul-RS, Brazil.
Cristiano Buhler graduated as Electrical Engineering in 2006 at the Federal University of Santa
Catarina (UFSC), Brazil. He has been working at REIVAX Automation and Control since 2006
as field engineer (testing and commissioning of regulation systems), special studies (modeling
of generating units and controllers), electromechanical transient studies. He was born in 1983 in
Passo Fundo-RS, Brazil.

11