620
2, May 1993
TRANSIENT STABILITY ENHANCEMENT AND VOLTAGE REGULATION OF POWER SYSTEMS
Youyi Wang, David J. Hill, Richard H. Middleton
* Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Tsinghua University, Beijing 10008, P.R. China
ABSTRACT
Major objectives in power system control design are to prevent an
electric power system losing synchronismafter a large sudden fault
and to achieve good postfault regulation of the generator terminal
voltage. Important control ideas used to improve the transient sta-
bility of the power system are to rapidly increase excitation and to
decrease the mechanical input power at the same time as a fault
occurs. In this paper, we concentrate our attention on power sys-
tems after a symmetrical 3-phase short circuit fault. B using the
!
direct feedback linearization (DFL technique, a noverexcitation
controller and coordinated control er (excitation and fast valving
controller) are given. The simulation results show that the ower
system can keep transiently stable and achieve good ostfaut volt-
age re ulation with the nonlinear controllers. Thus tfey have pros-
pects for an industrial application.
Keywords: Power system control, transient stability, voltage regu-
lation, nonlinear systems.
1 INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we consider an important problem in power system
desi and analysis, namely, the transient stability problem. We
empfy nonlinear control theory to design controllers for power
systems to improve the transient stability and to achieve voltage
regulation.
To maintain a high degree of reliability, the effect of major disturb-
ances, such as a large sudden fault, must be considered in power
system design. The problem of designing controllers to prevent an
electric power system losing synchronismafter a large sudden fault
is of great importance in power system design. The main controls
used to prevent loss of synchronism are:
0 to insert a resistance at the terminals of the enerator
which makes an attem t to correct an imbafance be-
tween power generate!c and power transmitted;
0 to insert series capacitance which increases the power
transfer capability of a transmission line by reducing
the net reactance between the ends of the line;
0 to use circuit breakers with inde endent ole tripping
which can minimize the effect o r a fault g y operating
breakers independently;
0 to rapidly increase excitation;
0 to use fast valving to rapidly decrease the turbine mech-
anical input power.
The work done previously for the controls can be found in [ 114101.
In this paper, we shall discuss novel aspects of the design of con-
trollers for transient stability enhancement by increasing excita-
tion andlor decreasing the mechanical input power. More specifi-
cally, we want to:
0 design a controller for the excitation unit to rapidly in-
crease excitation when a fault occurs;
0 design a controller, called a coordinated controller, to
rapidly increase excitation and to rapidly decrease the
turbine mechanical input power when a fault occurs.
The usual stabilizer desi ns based on approximate linearization
models are not adequate for large disturbances. When a large fault
92 WM 113-1 PWRS A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Power System Engineering Committee of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation
at the IEEE/PES 1992 Winter Meeting, New York, New
York, January 26 - 30, 1992. Manus&tipt submitted
August 19, 1991; made available for printing
January 13, 1992.
0885-8950/93$03.000 1992 IEEE
. -
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 8, No.
Long Gao
Department of Automation
occurs, the behavior of the system changes a lot and in many cases
a linear controller can not maintain adequate stability.
Recently, to overcome this difficulty, several investigators (see for
I
example [12-15, 18, 19 ) have considered employing nonlinear
control theory. Most o these nonlinear controller designs for
power systems are based on the differential geometry approach
[ 161. In [ 12 a so-called Direct Feedback Linearization (DFL) ap-
b
proach has een applied to design a voltage regulator for a power
system.
In this pa er, we concentrate on improvement of the transient sta-
bility ant! voltage regulation of a single machine-infinite bus
power stem under the effects of a symmetrical3-phase short-cir-
cuit fa%. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
the dynamical model of a single machine-infinite bus ower sys-
tem. In Section 3, we consider a design strategy for noninear con-
trollers. Section 4 decribes the desi n of our new nonlinear vari-
able structure excitation controller. &mulation results obtained by
using our new nonlinear excitation controller are given in Section
5. A new nonlinear coordinated controller is proposed in Section
6. Section 7 shows simulation results obtained by using the nonlin-
ear coordinated controller. We conclude the paper in Section 8.
More complete details can be found in the report [20].
2 DYNAMICAL MODEL
In this section, we consider a simplified dynamical model of a
power system, namely, a single machine-infinite bus power system.
This model consists of a single generator connected through two
arallel transmission lines to a very large network approximated
gy an infinite bus. The model is shown in Fig. 2.1.
Generator
Fig. 2.1 Generator connected through transmission lines to
infinite bus
A model for the generator with both excitation and power control
loops can be written as follows after making standard assumptions
[ l l , 171.
Mechanical Equations
6 ( t ) = w(t) (1)
D
6 (f) = - -w(t)
2H
+ 22
2H
(P,(f) - P&)) (2)
where
S(t) the power angle of the generator;
w(t) the relative speed of the generator;
P,(t) the mechanical input power;
P,(f) the active electrical power delivered by the generator;
00 the synchronous machine speed; 00 = 2nfo
D the per unit damping constant; .
H the per unit inertia constant;
Generator Electrical Dynamics
hi ( t ) = (ELt)-E&))- 1 (3)
Tdo
where
Elf) the transient EMF in the quadrature axis of the
generator ;
E&) the EMF in the quadrature axis;
EAt) the equivalent EMF in the excitation coil;
_-
 621

T d the direct axis transient short circuit time constant the fraction of the faulted line to the left of the fault. If I = 0 ,the
lhrbine Dynamics fault is at the generator bus. I = 0.5 puts the fault in the middle
1 of the line, and so on. lbo different fault sequences are as follows:
P ,(f) = --P,(t)
TT
+ KT
-X&)
TT
(4) Fault sequence 1 (Temporary Fault)
where Stage 1 The system is in a prefault steady-state.
X&) the steam valve opening; Stage 2 A fault occurs at t = 0.1 sec.
TT the time constant of the turbine with typical numerical value Stage 3 The fault is removed b opening the breakers of the
of 0.2 to 2.0 sec; faulted line at f = 0.2Ysec.
KT the gain of the turbine: Stage 4 The transmission lines are restored at t = 1.4 sec.
lhrbine Valve Control Stage 5 The system is in a postfault-state.
Fault sequence 2 (Permanent Fault)
Stage 1 The system is in a prefault steady-state.
where
Pc(t) the input of the power control system; Stage 2 A fault occurs at t = 0.1 sec.
R the regulation constant in per unit, typically Stage 3 The fault is removed b opening the breakers of the
TG the time constant of the speed governor, typically around 0.2 faulted line at f = 0.2Ysec.
sec; Stage 4 The system is in a postfault-state.
KG the gain of the speed governor; K&T = 1; 3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF NONLINEAR CONTROLLERS
Electrical Equations
From the model given in Section 2, we know that the power system
model is nonlinear through the excitation loop. In this section, we
will discuss a design strategy by using direct feedback linearization
(DFL)to design nonlinear controllers.
Since Eh (t) is physically unmeasureable, we eliminate E$ (t) by
differentiating (8),and using (6), (l), (2) and (3) :
P e(f) = -sin
v, v, cos d(f)E,(f)w(f)
S(t)kq(t) + -
xds xdc
and

Then we have
1 v,.
K(t) = ${$~i(t)+ e+ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ( f ~ f g S ( (12)
f ) ) 1 / 2 P =
Th
1
+-
- ---Pe(t)
T h xds
{-sin d(f)[keuf

where + T)&(Xd -xrd+sin ~ ( r ) w ( t ) l +~ d ; )-

v, Eq(f)cos ~(f)0(f)}(13)
ZAf) the excitation current; xds u s
I&) the quadrature axis current; where
Q(t) the reactive power:
V,(f)the generator terminal voltage;
kc the gain of the excitation amplifier;
uAf) the input of the SCR amplifier of the generator;
x& = XT + XL + xd
X A = XT + X L + xh +TB~ E&) cos S(t)w(t)
XT the reactance of the transformer;
xd the direct ads reactance of the generator;
we get from (13)
xi the direct axis transient reactance of the generator;
XL the reactance of the transmission line;
Xs +
= XT X L
x d the mutual reactance between the excitation coil and the sta- Then the model (1) to (3) has been linearized. The linearized
tor coil; model through the excitation loop is
V, the infinite bus voltage. d (r) = w(r) (16)
In this a er we shall consider model data which is derived (via a
sim li&fmodel) from an eight-machine power system network
[l2[ad can be described by equations (1)to (12). The parameters
o f t e system under consideration are:
00 = 314.159rad/sec;D = 5.Op.u.; H = 4.0sec; Tm = 6.9 sec;k, = 1
R = 0.05 p . u . ; T ~= 0.2 sec.; TT = 2.0 sec ; KG = KT = 1 where vkt) is the new input. Note that the mapping (14) from uxt)
Xd = 1.863;~i = 0 . 2 5 7 ; ~ =~0.127 ; fo = 50Hz to vkt) is invertible, except when sin(&)) = 0 (which is not in the
The physical limits of the plant are: normal working region for a generator).
max Ik+(f)I = 1.8p.u. and 0 IXe(f)I1 Remark 3.1
The fault we consider in this paper is a symmetrical 3-phase short From the analysis above, we can see that when the com ensating
circuit fault which occurs on one of the transmission lines. law (14) is emplo ed the plant is linearized and the fnearized
XL( = 0.4853) is the total reactance of the transmission line. I is model is independknt of the operating point of the system. Thus
622
we expect the nonlinear controller to be more flexible, compared
with a linear controller, with regard to changes in nominal power
output from the generator.
After linearization, the most important problem we should con-
sidei is whether the compensatmg law is practically realizable.
Since. the power angle, S.(t), is frequently unavailable as a
measured signal, we use equations (9) and (10) to rewrite (14) as
vkt) = Iq(t){kcuf + TdO(xd -xb )Iq(t)o(t))
+ TBO [Q(O + ~v? 1 4 ) (19)
From (9) we have that Iq(t) is available since Pe(t) and I&) are
readily available measured variables. Also since Q ( f )and ~ ( t are
)
available, the compensating law is practically realizable and from
(19) we get
Remark 3.2
The nonlinear control law uxt) is well-defined if and only if
Iq(t) # 0. If Iq(t) = 0, from (9), we know that the non-zero
power angle S(t) = k x 180" where k is an integer. At normal op-
eratingpoint, the power angle is between 0" and 180' .Normally,
if the power angle reaches 180" ,it is not possible to maintain syn-
chronism. Therefore the working region for the power system is
0 < S(t) < 180" .
Remark 3.3
From the analysisabove we can see that the compensating law (20)
is sim le, practically realizable, and the linearization is valid over
the wiole working region.
Remark 3.4
After linearization, we can employ linear control theory, such as
LQ-optimal control theory, to design a feedback law
vjtt> = f(S(tX 4 t h Pe(t))
to give the desired stability and performance properties.
For coordinated control, we consider equations (16) - (18) in
combination with (4), (5); vht) and Pc(t) are the control inputs.
4 DESIGN OF A NEW DFL EXCITATION CONTROLLER
In this section, we shall concentrate on the design of a nonlinear
excitation controller to achieve both transient stability improve-
ment and the postfault performance of the generator terminal volt-
age V,(4 .
For this section, we make the following assumption:
0 The mechanical power input to the generator, P , , is
constant.
(i.e. the steam valve is not operated during the transient period).
In Section 6, we consider the case where the extra control variable,
Pc(t), is utilized, and hence P, will not be constant.
4.1 Motivation
From [ 121, we find that if we introduce the power angle S(t) in a
feedback controller, transient stability of the system can be greatly
im roved. In practice, we want to achieve both transient stability
eniancement and good ostfault performance of the system. In
this context, good postf!ult performance means that after the
transient period, we wish to control the excitation unit to regulate
the generator terminal voltage V,(t).The question now is whether
we can design a controller which achieves both objectives, i.e.
transient stability enhancement and good postfault performance,
when the power angle S(t) is available and introduced into a feed-
back law. The following exam le illustrates the difference between
these two "modes" of contro!
Example 4.1
Consider an electric power plant described as before, with operat-
ing point:
60 = 47',P,,o = 0.45 p.u. and 60= 1.0p.u.
We now compare two excitation control schemes given by [12];
these are called the DFL-LQ optimal controller and the DFLvolt-
age regulator which are obtained by use of DFL techniques and
linear optimal control theory. The DFL-LQ optimal controller is
+
vjl(t) = 19.3 (S(t) - SO) 6.43 w(t) - 47.6 (Pe(t) - P ~ O+) f'mo
(assuming that S(t) can be measured;)
the DFL voltage regulator is
vQ(t) = - 47.03 (V,(t)- Va) + 6.93 o(t)- 28.6 (Pe(t) - Pmo) + PmO
The DFL compensator is as in (20).
Note that the difference between vD(t) and vn(t) is that in v&)
the power angle S(t) is introduced into feedback, but in v&) the
generator terminal voltage V,(t) is in feedback.
Consider the behavior of the system with the fault sequence
2(A = 0.2). Simulation results are shown in Fig. 4.la and Fig.
Fig. 4.la Power angle d(r) response (11 =0.7 sec)
Nonlinear Voltage Regulator
New Excilalion Controller
I /
DFL-LQoptimal controller
1 2 3 4 S
Time (sec)
DFL-LQ optimal controller
1
/
*N
[w
e Excitation Controller
II - I Fig. 4.lb Generator terminal voltage (rl=O.7 sec)
? 1 2 ,
Tie-(sec)
From these simulation results, we can see that in the case where
the DFL-LQ optimal controller is em loyed, a better transient re-
sponse can be obtained, but the finafvalue of the generator ter-
minal voltage V,(t) is 1.05p . a . By comparison, the DFL voltage
regulator can achieve better postfault performance. In practice, we
usually require a better transient response in the transient period
and V,(t) = 1.0 p.u. in the postfault-state. So in the postfault
period if we want to achieve better performance of voltage regula-
tion, such as K(t) = l.Op.u., the generator terminal voltage V,(t)
should be introduced into the feedback law.
0
From the above example, we can see that using only a DFL-LQ
optimal controller or a DFLvoltage regulator, we can not achieve
both good transient response and good postfault performance. It
is clearly desirable to combine the best points from the above con-
trollers. This could be achieved if we use a DFL-LQ optimal con-
__
 623
troller to improve the transient stability of the system and use a The system is as mentioned before, except that in this case, the OP-
DFL voltage regulator to achieve the desired postfault regulation erating point is 60 = 72",P,,,o = 0.9 PA., and V I = 1.0 P.u..
of the generator terminal voltage V$) .
4 .2 Excitation Controller Design Fig. 5.la Power angle d(t) response for different 60
In Section 4.1, we outlined the idea of our new excitation con-
troller. Now we discuss the detailed design of the excitation con-
troller. We divide the time period of interest into two parts, the
transient period and the postfault period. In different periods, we
employ different control laws. The control sequence is
Step 1: The fault occurs at t = to and the feedback law is
v&) = - kai (S(t) - 60)- k,i o(0 - kpi ( P 4 0 - Pmo) + f'mo
Step 2: At t =t i the feedback law switches to
v&) = - kv2 (V, - va)- ko2 ~ ( t-)kp2 (f'e0) - f'mo) + f'mo
and the DFL compensator is as mentioned in (20). t l is called the
switch time which can determined by trial and error in simulation
after first-swing stability of the power angle and to can be easily

j.a,"-"*
Ij .a,"
4: I

determined, in practice, by the operation of protection equipment 8 i d 3 1 5

(i.e. the circuit breaker data). Time (sec)

To construct the feedback law vn(t) ,the power angle 6(t) should = 47'
be available. Since the power angle d(t) is difficult to measure, we
need to show how to construct the power angle d ( t ) from the
measurements available. One way to find the power angle d ( t ) is
to use a state observer to estimate d ( t ) . Here we will propose a
simple way to find the power angle 6 ( t ) .
From (1) we can construct a device, named a 6-detector
&t) = w(t) . We can introduce 8 into the feedback law. The only
disadvantage of the above 6 -detector is that it can not ensure that
6 approaches 6 asymptotically,i.e. the effect of incorrect initial
values in the6 -detector can not be eliminated. Since we only use
power angle as a feedback variable in the transient period, we do 1 2 3 4 5
not need this property. Time (sec)
Before a fault occurs, the system is in a prefault steady-state and Fig. 5.2a Power angle d(t) response (& = 79')
the operating point is known so that the value of the power angle
S(t) in the operating point, 60, is also known, but not exactly.
'lBI I\
When a fault occurs, we can set the initial value of the 6 -detector,
i.e. we can set 80 such that 8(0) = 60 = 60. In the next section,
we will test the effects of initial conditions of the 6 -detector. Nonlinear Voltage Regulator
5 SIMULATION RESULTS I
New Excitation Controller
In this section we shall show, through simulation results in different
cases, that transient stability improvement as well as good post-
fault performance of the system can be achieved by employing our
new DFL variable structure excitation controller. DFL-LQ optimal controller
First we shall continue our analysis in Example 4.1.
Example 5.1 70
1
0 z! i 6 i 10
The operating point and the fault sequence are as in Example 4.1. T i e (sec)
Firstly, we shall compare our new DFL excitation controller
DFL-LQ optimal controller
(tl = 0.7 sec) with the DFGLQ optimal controller and the DFL
voltage regulator [12]. Fig. 4.la and Fig 4.lb show the simulation
results. New Excitation Controller
We see that the new DFL variable structure excitation controller
proposed above im roves the transient stability as does the DFL-
LQ optimal controier, and achieves the postfault performance of
the generator terminal voltage V,(t) as does the DFL voltage regu- -m

lator. 9
Next we shall test the influence of initial conditions of the 6 -de- Fig. 5.2b Generator terminal voltage (& = 79')
tector. Different initial values of the 6 -detector
(60 = 42",47",52") are choosen. Fig. 5.la and Fig. 5.lb show
simulation results ( t l = 0.7 sec). 0
Now we consider an example of different operating point and the 1
fault sequence. 3 i i i a 10
Time (sec)
Example 5.2 Firstly, we repeat the test under the fault sequence in Example 5.1.
624
Fig. 5.2a and Fig. 5.2b show the comparison results (60 = 79" and
II = 0.5).
Consider the fault sequence 1. The responses of the power angle
under different faults (A = 0.5,0.1,0.08) are shown in Fig. 5.2~.
L = 0.08
h
Pig. 5 . k Power angle 6(r) response under different faults
.o
t
i i 4 ; ; ie
Time (sec)
0 - kmz(Pn1(t) - Pmo) + Pnto - kxZ (xE(t>- XTl) + Pmo
Remark 5.1
In example 5.1 we tested the influence of initial conditions of the
6-detector. The simulation results show that using the a-de-
tector in the feedback law are as good as those using the real power
angle cS(t) [2O].
Using the new DFL variable structure excitation controller ro-
posed in Section 4, the simulations show that we can achieve foth
transient stability'improvement and postfault performance of the
generator terminal voltage V,(t) .
From Fig. 5 . 2 we
~ can see that when a fault occurs close to the gen-
erator terminal (A = 0.08) the overall system, using only the exci-
tation controller, can not maintain synchronism, i.e. transient sta-
bility is lost, To improve the transient stability further, a
coordinated controller consisting of an excitation and a fast valvin
controller should be em loyed. Next we will discuss an approact
using nonlinear theory O F L ) to design such a coordinated con-
troller for power systems.
6 DESIGN OF A NEW DFL COORDINATED CONTROLLER
In Section 5, we saw that the DFL excitation controller can not
keep the +tern transiently stable in all fault sit.uations. Here we
concentrate duf attention on the design of a nonlinear cobrdinated
controller to overcome this difficulty.
The plaat we will consider can be described b equations (1) to
$12). By using the nonlinear compensating law &O), we obtain the
ollowing linearized plant:
x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
where
x(t) = [S(t) o(t)Pe(t) Pm(t) XE(r)lTand u(t) = [vkf)Pc(t)lT
1 0
T O 0 --_.
1
i Example 7.1
L Our control sequence is
Because of the mechanical behaviour of the steam valve, we expect
it comes into action only in the transient period. To ensure the sta-
bility of the overall system after the power control loop switches
off, the feedback control law is structured as follows:
r - l r
L J L
The feedback gain matrix can be obtained by using the following
design procedure
Step 1: Assume that the mechanical input power Prn(t) is con-
stant. Use the DFL linearization technique to linearize
the plant through the excitation loop. Then use linear
quadratic optimal theory to find a feedback control law
or the linearized model
V k t ) = - kdl (S(t) - 60)- kmi w(t) - kel - Prnd + P ~ O
and the control law for the nonlinear plant is as (20).
Step 2: Find the closed loop system through the excitation
loop. Then use linear quadratic optimal theory to fihd
feedback control law for the linearized model thrdugh
the power control loop
Pc(t) = - ka2 (44- 60) - km2 4)- ke2 (Pe(t) - f ' n d
Note that to achieve better postfault performance of the generator
terminal voltage V$), we use the DFL variable structure con-
troller proposed in Section 5 through the excitation loop.
The Control Sequence then is
Step 1: The fault occurs at t = t 0 and the feedback law is
- kd2 (&t) - 60) - km2 ~ ( 1 )- ke2 ( ~ e ( t ) - ~ n t o )
~ c ( t )=
- km2 (Pm(t) - Pmo) - kx2 (Xd4 - XEO) + Pmo
vfl(4 = - k61(&) - 60) - k,l 4 4- kpl (PAT) - Pmo) + Pmo
and u,Q) is as (20) (Note that at this step, we introduce the esti-
mates, 6(t),of the power angle S(t) in the control (and so relax
the generator terminal voltage V,(t). Both uxt) and Pc(t) are
being used to improve transient stability of the systeni).
Step 2: At t = f l the feedback law through the power control
loop switches to
P C ( 4 = Pmo
(Note that at this step, because of the niedhanical behaviour of the
turbine, after the system is transiedtly stable We remove the gov-
ernor input (the steam valve control) to reduce the cofitrol cost in
PC(t)).
Step 3: At t =t2 the feedback law switches to
V&) = - kv3 (W)
- b)- km3 M )- kp3 (Pe(t)- Prno) + Prno
and ukt) is as (20) and Pc(t) = Pm0 (Note that at this step, after
the system is in the post-transient period, we introduce the gener-
ator terminal voltage b(t) control (and so relax the power angle
d(t) control) to improve postfault regulation of the generator ter-
minal voltage V,(t)).
We here introduce the estimate of the power angle S(t), &t) ,in the
feedback law. This can be obtained by using the 6 - detector.
t l and t 2 are called the switch times which can be determined by
trial and error in simulation. to can also be obtained from the cir-
cuit breaker data (see Section 4.2).
7 SIMULATION RESULTS I1
In this section we will illustrate, through simulation fesults, how
both transient stability improvement and postfault performance of
the system can be achieved by enlploying our new DFL coordi-
nated controller in different cases.
The operating point is
do = 72";pntO= 0 . 9 p . ; bo= i.opu.
Step 1: The fault occurs at t=0.1 sec
 625

Pc(t) = 71.86 (A@) - do) - 60.47 ~ 9 t +) 32.39 (Pe(t) - P d )

n-1 = 0.001 The power angle d(f)
- 418.5 (P&) - P,,o) - 99.42 ( X d t )- XEO)+ P,,,o '2111 Fig. 7.lc

Vfi(t) = 19.3 (b(t)- do) + 6.43 ~ ( t- )47.6 (Pe(T)- Pmo) + Pmo

and ukt) is as (20)
Step 2: At t = 1.5 sec the feedback law switches to
Pc@) = Pntp
Step 3: At t = 1.5 sec the feedback law switches to
Pc(t) = P,,,o
) - 47.03(V,(f) - Vfl) + 6.93~(t)- 2.86(Pe(r) - f'd) + P ~ O
~ h ( t=
and uht) is as (20) and Pc(t) = Pm0 (Note that &f) is the output
of the 6 -detector.)
The simulations are made for the following cases (the Fault se- 4
quence 1 is considered): I 4 6 i 10
Case 1 Time (sec)
We compare the responses of the system with and without the
power input control. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 7.la Choose 80 = 79" and A = 0.5 . We show the simulation results
and Fig. 7.lb (bo = 79" and 1 = 0.1). in Fig. 7.ld and 7.le. From simulation results we see that our new
DFL coordinated controller can achieve both enhancement of
Fig. 7. la The power angle d(r)
transient stability and good postfault performance as well.
h
Nonlinear excitation controller Fig. 7.ld The power angle d(t)
h
Nonlinear excitation controller
k
Nonlinear coordinated controller

i i i 6 d 10
Tiine (sec)
I- --
a i 6 i 10
'lime (SCC)
Nonlinear coordinated controller

1 ,Nonlinear coordinated controller

"I~\)Nonlinear excitation controller --

?
4 Nonlinear excitation controller

e j 4 6 9 ia
Time (sec)
The simulation results show that new DFL coordinated controller
is effective in improving transient stability of the power system.
I 1
Case 2 I 2 4 6 i 10
Time (sec)
We now test the system responses under different faults
(1 = Q.5,0.1, and 0.001). Fig. 7.lc shows the results
(bo = 79").
The simulation shows that by using the new DFL coordinated con- 0
troller the system can maintain transient stability even in the case Remark 7.1
where a large sudden fault occurs close to the generator terminals. In this Section, through simulation results in different cases, we
Case 3 tested our new DFL coordinated controller and compared it with
In this case, we will consider a different fault sequence (i.e. fault the new DFL variable structure excitation controller proposed in
sequence 2) and test our new DFL coordinated controller. Section 4. We can see from the simulation results that
626
1. The new DFL coordinated controller can effectively improve
the transient stability of the power system. The system can
maintain transient stability even in the case where a large
sudden fault occurs close to the generator terminals
(1 = 0.001).
2. The new DFL coordinated controller can achieve better
transient stability results than the excitation controller irre-
spective of the operating point of the system and the fault se-
quence.
Remark 7.2
The report [20] gives many more simulation results for different
operating points and faults which confirm the above results.
8 CONCLUSIONS
New variable structure excitation and coordinated controllers for
a power system have been proposed in this paper to achieve both
transient stability enhancement and good postfault performance
of the generator terminal voltage q ( t ) . These are proposed as al-
ternatives to the usual AVR/PSS combination in generator con-
trol. Design procedures have been developed for the controllers.
The new controllers have been tested through simulation in differ-
ent cases and the controllers have been compared against each
other. The simulation results show that:
0 Both transient stability enhancement and good post-
fault performance of the generator terminal voltage
q ( t ) can be achieved;
They are independent of the operating point of the sys-
tem;
0 They are simple and effective.
The coordinated controller can maintain transient stability of the
system even when a large sudden fault occurs close to the gener-
ator terminals.
From the analysis in this paper, we see that to construct DFL con-
trollers we need to know the parameter XL in the transient period;
this may be hard in practice. In further work, we introduce adaptive
control approaches to design adaptive DFL controllers for power
systems to cope with the variation of XL [21].
This paper only presents preliminav results. More detailed gener-
ator and turbine models can be subjected to the same design tech-
ni ue. For instance, the effect of multi-stage turbines and limits in
va?ve movement need to be considered. The extent that the con-
troller absorbs the role of traditional PSS needs to be checked on
multimachine systems.
9 REFERENCES
[ 11 R. C. Bervall, Series Resistance Method of Increasing Transi-
ent Stability Limit, Trans.A.I.E.E., 1931, p.490-497.
[2] E.W. Kimbark, Improvement of System Stability by Switched
Series CaDacitors. IEEE Trans. Power ADD. Svstems.
, PAS-85.
1966, p.180-188.
1 .
[3] E.W. Kimbark, Improvement of Power System Stability by
Changes in the Network. IEEE Trans. Power ADD.Svstems.
PAS-88, 1969, p.773-781
1 . _I
[4] O.J.M. Smith, Power System Transient Control by Capacitor
Switching, IEEE Trans. Power App. Systems, PAS-88, 1969,
p.28-35.
[5] N.J. Balu, Fast Thrbine Valving and Inde endent Pole Trip-
p g Breaker Applications for Plant Stapility, IEEE Trans,
ower App. Systems, PAS-99, 1980, p.1330-1342.
[6] J. Meisel, A Sen and M. L. Gilles, Alleviation of a Transient
Stability Crisis Using Shunt Braking Resistors and Series Ca-
pacitors, Int. J Elect. Powerand Energy Systems, Vol. 3, 1980,
p.25-37.
[7] J. Zaborszky, A. K. Subramanian, T. J. Tarn and K. M. Lu,
A New State Space for Emergency Control in the Intercon-
nected Power Systems, IEEE Trans. Aut. Control, AC-22,
1977, p.505.
[8] J. Zaborszky, K. V. Prasad and K. W. Whang, Operation of
the Large Interconnected Power System by Decision and
Control, IEEE Trans, Power App. Systems, PAS-99, 1980,
p.37-45.
[9] J. Zaborszky, K. V. Prasad and K. W. Whang, Stabilizing
Control in Emergencies: Part 2: Control by Local Feedback,
IEEE Trans. Power App. Systems, PAS-100, 1981,
p.2381-2389.
[lo] J. Zaborszk , K. W. Whang, K. V. Prasad and I. N. Katz,
Local FeeAack Stabilization of Large Interconnected
Power Systems in Emergencies, Autornatica, Vol. 17,' 1981,
~.673-686
[ 111 k.M. Anderson and A. A. Fouad, Power System Control and
Stability, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1977.
[12] L. Gao, L. Chen, Y. Fan and H. Ma, A Nonlinear Control
Design for Power Systems, to appear, Autornatica.
131 Q. Lu and Y. Sun, Nonlinear Stabilizing Control of Multima-
chine Systems, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, PWRS-4, 1989.
p.236-241.
14) W. Mielczarski and A. Zajaczkowski, Nonlinear Controller
for Synchronous Generator, IFAC Nonlinear Control System
Design Symposium 89, Capri, Italy, 1989.
151 W. Mielczarski and A. Zajaczkowski, Nonlinear Stabilization
of Synchronous Generator, 11th IFAC World Congress, Tall-
inn, USSR, 1990.
161 A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems: An Introduction, (2nd
Edition), Spring-Verlag, New York, 1989.
171 A.R. Bergen, Power Systems Analysis, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1986.
181 M. Ilic and EM. Mak, A Two-Level Control Coordination in
Interconnected Power Systems, 28th CDC, Tampa, FL, De-
cember 1989.
191 M. Ilic, New Approaches to Voltage I Reactive Power Moni-
toring and Control. Engineering Foundation Workshop on
VoltGe Phenomenon, MO, September, 1988.
Y. Wang, D.J. Hill, L. Gao and R.H. Middleton, Transient
Stability Enhancement and Voltage Regulation of Power Sys-
tems, Tech Report EE9112, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia
2308,1991.
Y. Wang, D.J. Hill, R.H. Middleton and L. Gao, 'Ransient
Stabilization of Power Systems with Adaptive Control Laws,
Tech Report EE9094, Department of Electrical and Com-
puter Engineerin University of Newcastle, Australia 2308.
1990, submitted k r publication.
BIOGRAPHIES
Youyi Wang received the B. Eng. degree in control from Beijing
Universityof Science and Technology,in 1982, and the M. Eng. de-
gree in control from Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R. China, in
1984. From 1984 to 1986 he was a lecturer in the Department of
Automation in Tsinghua University. From 1987 to 1991, he was a
Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Newcastle, Australia. His current re-
search interests include adaptive control, nonlinear control, robust
control and power system control.
David J. Hill received the B.E. degree (Electrical Engineering) and
the B.Sc. degree (Mathematics) from the University of Queens-
land, Australia in 1972 and 1974 respective1 . In 1976 he received
the Ph.D. degree of Electrical Engineering gorn the University of
Newcastle, Australia. He is currently a Professor in the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of
Newcastle, occupying the Chair in Power Engineering. His re-
search interests are mainly in systems and control with emphasis
on stability issues. His current applied work consists mainly of
power system stabilizer design and condition monitoring.
Long Gao received his B.Eng. degree at Tsinghua University, Beij-
ing, P.R. China in 1955. Then he joined the Department of Auto-
mation in Tsinghua University. He is currentl a Professor. From
May 1989to August 1990 he was a visiting ProLssor in the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New-
castle, Australia. His current research interests are linear systems
theory, nonlinear system theory and power system control.
Richard H.Middleton obtained a B.Sc. (Physics), B.E. (Electrical
Engineering) and Ph.D. from the University of Newcastle, Austra-
lia. He is currentl a senior lecturer in the Department of Electrical
Engineering anJComputer Science at the University of New-
castle. He is coauthor of the book Digital Control and Estimation:
A Unified Approach Prentice Hall (1990). His interests include
Adaptive Control, Digital Control, Satellite Tracking systems, In-
dustrial Electronics, and Robotics.

Discussion
S. B. PANDEY. (New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Newark, New Jersey, U. S . A.)
The authors are to be congratulated for
applying Direct Feedback Linearization (DFL)
technique to design a non linear controller
for enhancing the transient stability and
voltage regulation of power system, by
rapidly increasing excitation and decreasing
the mechanical input power at the same time.
In the analysis, a fairly elaborate model was
considered for a speed governor-turbine but
the model used to represent an excitation
control system (Eq.7) is very elementary.
The state-of-the-art excitation control
system includes PI or PID feedback controls
and often includes power system stabilizers
(PSS). We are talking here several unknown
gain parameters and various time constants of
different units. This kind of modern
excitation control system is known to enhance
the both power system steady state and
transient stability limits significantly. The
discusser will appreciate authors' comments
on extending the DFL approach to design a
similar non-linear controller for a power
system which employs a fast-acting excitation
control system such as one described above.
Have authors tried such a case?
Manuscript received February 13, 1992.
Enhuan Zhou (University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SASK,
Canada) : The authors are to be congratulated on a very
interesting idea of designing excitation systems to improve power
system stability. The discussor would like to have the authors'
view on the following two questions :
It is stated in the paper that the power angle S(t) is frequently
unavailbe as a measured signal, but I , is readiiy measurable.
Ip the quadrature current is the projection of the machine
current on the q-axis. The discussor is wondering how I, can
be obtained without any knowledge of the position of the q-
axis or machine angle S(t).
It is assumed in the paper the working region of power
systems is Oo<6(t)<1800 in order to ensure & # O in
eqn(20). In the steady-state the assumption is reasonable
because generators in power systems are always outputting
positive active power. But in dynamic processes it is possible
the machine angle oscillates temporally to positions behind
the infinite bus or 6(t)<Oo. Therefore the assumption may be
violated in the dynamic processes.
The authors' comments on the above questions would be very
appreciated.
Pianuscript received February 21, 1992.
IAN A. HISKENS, The University of Newcastle, Australia:
We congratulate the authors on their very interesting analysis
and results. We have a question regarding the use of tlie estimate
of d(f) ,viz., &), in the feedback law v,l(f) , ;ISexplained i n
tion 4.2. Is the term (&) - 60) used as ari estimate o f tlie term
627
(S(l) - 60) ? To do so would asume that dtl was known exactly,
which is not the case. Perhaps it would he Iietter to use the term
(&I) - 8,)) , i.e., just the estimated change i i i ;Ingle from pre-
fault. The offset (bo - 60) introduced by this revised estimate
does not affect the post-fault equilibrium hecatise of the switch
to the voltage feedback control law ;IS equilibrium is ap-
proached.
Further. we would be interested in the authors' comments re-
garding the extension of their ideas to niultin~achinesystems.
In conclusion, the paper provides a clcver iiiiil stimulating con-
tribution to the design of better power system controls.
Manuscript received March 11, 1992.
YOUYI WANG, DAVID J. HILL, LONG GAO AND RI-
CHARD H. MIDDLETON The authors wish to thank the dis-
cussers for their interest in the paper and their valuable com-
ments.
I.A. Hiskens
The term (&-I60)
)in the control laws of Sections 4 , 6 is indeed
an estimate of the term d(t) - 60.Use of the term (&t) - bo) ,al-
lowing for uncertainty in 60,is a good suggestion for improve-
ment.
As for the multimachine case, this is the subject of current work.
The ideas of the paper appear promising for enhanced control
in large systems.
S.B. Pandey
Firstly, it should be pointed out that the Direct Feedback Linea-
rization technique is a general one. It can be applied to more
elaborate models such as one including more detail in the excita-
tion system. In fact, the further modelling could include exciter
dynamics, (linear) voltage regulation, stabiliser and excitation
limits. The linearizing control just becomes more complex.
However, the controllers in the paper are proposed to replace
the existing AVRPSS structure. The nonlinear controller in-
cludes a fast acting excitation control and damping action. Some
further work is needed to fully test the coordinated scheme in
a variety of situations.
E.Z. Zhou
1. Referring to the paper equation (9), since P, and If can
be measured, the quadrature axis current Iq can be calcu-
lated.
2. The problem of 6(t) passing through 0" and 180" points
is overcome by putting a saturation nonlinearity on the
control as included in Section 2. This was accounted for in
the simulations of Sections 4,6. Effectively this limits the
1
gain - in the controller and the linearization is lost
Ut)
near just these singular points. This should not upset the
Sec-
performance significantly.
Manuscript received May 26, 1992.