1
A Synthetic System for the Robustness
Assessment of Power System Stabilizers
J. C. R. Ferraz, Member, IEEE, N. Martins, Fellow, IEEE and G. N. Taranto, Member, IEEE
Abstract--This paper describes a method for the robustness
assessment of the generator-voltage regulator-stabilizer set of
individual power plants in large scale systems. This is carried out
using a 2-bus synthetic system, whose parameters are varied to
simulate the presence of electromechanical oscillations over a
wide range of frequencies. The method helps predicting the
generator-voltage regulator-stabilizer performance, when
submitted to electromechanical oscillations of different nature
(inter-area, local and intra-plant) in the actual multimachine
environment.
Index Terms--Power System Stabilizer, Small-Signal Stability,
Controller Robustness.
I. INTRODUCTION
R OBUSTNESS assessment of Power System Stabilizers
(PSS), to aid PSS tuning, may be carried out by
simulating their performance for numerous events and
probable system operation scenarios [1]. Robust control
methods are of limited use in large power system models [2, 3]
due to the computational burden imposed by the available
robust control design algorithms.
This paper describes a fairly simple method for assessing
the small-signal stability robustness of the generator-automatic
voltage regulator (AVR) and PSS set, which is expected to be
of practical value. A generating plant and associated controls
must have a robust performance over a wide range of
scenarios, events, and for electromechanical modes of
different nature. The proposed method involves the automatic
generation of a large set of conditions on the 2-bus synthetic
system that produce close to real-life electromechanical modes
of different frequencies. The phase shaping of the stabilizer is
obtained through use of the root locus departure angle
technique (e.g., the pole residues for the ∆ω/∆VREF transfer
function) [2], to cater for the different phase compensation
needs for the intra-plant, local and inter-area modes.
In the analysis of large-scale systems, it is good practice to
carry out a series of tests on the individual components and
controllers, in a preliminary phase, for bad data detection in
these very large dynamic data files, and identification of
inadequately designed (or tuned) controllers.
There is a set of data validation tests that may be carried
out on individual generators with associated controllers prior
to running small-signal studies of interconnected systems [4]:
1) Voltage reference step applied to AVR of a generator at
no-load;
J. C. R. Ferraz and N. Martins are with CEPEL – PO Box 68007, 21944-
970, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. (e-mail: jcferraz@ieee.org, nelson@cepel.br)
G. N. Taranto is with COPPE/UFRJ – PO Box 68564, 21945-970, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. (e-mail: tarang@coep.ufrj.br)
2) Speed reference step applied to the speed-governor
(GOV) of a generator supplying a local load, and operating in
isolated mode;
3) Voltage reference step applied to AVR of a generator,
equipped with AVR, PSS and GOV controls, and connected to
the infinite bus through either a low impedance (equal to the
step-up transformer impedance) or a high impedance (twice
the value of Xd’ or larger);
4) Mechanical reference step applied to the GOV of a
generator and associated controls, as in 3), to assess the
adverse transients to terminal voltage and reactive power
induced by the presence of the PSS [4];
5) Frequency response plot of the GEP transfer function of
the generator and AVR, prior and after PSS addition, to verify
whether the established frequency domain guidelines for PSS
design have not been infringed [5, 6, 7].
The synthetic test system method described in this paper,
should also be added to this set of tests on individual plants,
widening the spectrum of preliminary tests to data validation
and adequacy, besides allowing an assessment of controller
robustness and also indicating possible improvements to PSS
design.
II. SYNTHETIC SYSTEM
The synthetic system, pictured in Fig. 1, consists of a
generator injecting constant power S at constant power factor
(cosφ) into Bus #1, which has a shunt variable load (Psh and
Qsh). Bus #1 is connected through a variable impedance to an
infinite system (Bus #2), whose voltage magnitude is kept
constant at 1 pu. For brevity, and without compromising the
results and objectives of this paper, the series resistance (R12)
will be assumed always equal to zero.
Sφ V1 θ1 1 0o
R12 X12
#1 #2
Psh Qsh
Fig. 1. Synthetic system for PSS robustness assessment.
The frequency of the electromechanical mode in this
synthetic system is made to vary by changing the reactance
X12, becoming smaller as the line reactance X12 is raised.
When changing the reactance X12 there is an associated
change in the power flow through the transmission line. In
 2

order to maintain the generation unchanged (both active and The parameters a and b in equation (6) are determined from
reactive), the difference in the transmitted power through the the minimum and maximum values of X12 and of the angular
variable impedance line, must be absorbed by the variable load difference θ12 (Fig. 2), and are given by:
connected to Bus #1 (Psh and Qsh). Therefore, when the power ⎛ θ12
Max ⎞

[ ( )] ; b =
⎜ ⎟
transfer through the line is small, the load absorbs practically θ Max
− arcsin P1 X Min 1 ⎜ a
⎝
⎟
⎠ .
a= 12 12 e
all the generated power. On the other hand, for small reactance X 12Max (7)
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
values of the line, practically all the generated power is ln⎜⎜ ⎟ − ln⎜ ⎟
X Min ⎟ ⎜ X Max ⎟
transferred through the line and absorbed by the infinite bus, ⎝ 12 ⎠ ⎝ 12 ⎠
while the load at Bus #1 tends to zero.
By keeping constant the value of the injected generation θ12
θ12 = a ln(bX12)
and the machine terminal conditions, one ensures that the
machine limits for safe operation are not violated. The θMax
12
generator, associated controls, and the PSS may then have
their small signal stability performance assessed when facing
the different electromechanical frequencies produced by the
parameter changes in the synthetic system. Note that the
synthetic system has one independent parameter (X12) and
three dependent parameters (θ1, Psh and Qsh). Being comprised
of only two buses, the synthetic system has an analytic power
flow solution.
The robustness assessment of the generator and associated
θMin
controls relies on the analysis of the system eigenvalues 12

behavior as X12 is varied. Those cases where the adopted

values of X12 in the synthetic system produce poorly damped
XMin XMax X12
or unstable modes, point out the need for better tuning of the 12 12
generator controls, specially the PSS. Fig. 2. Function for angular difference θ12 = f(X12).
The process is started from specified values for generated Fig. 3 shows the active power changes in the line (P12) and
apparent power (S) and associated power factor (cosφ), and in the load (Psh), as a function of X12. The behavior of the
followed by the changes in the line reactance (X12). The set of reactive power is not shown for being analogous.
equations utilized are summarized below:
P
P1 = S cosφ ; Q1 = S sin φ . (1) P1 = Psh + P12
Furthermore: P1
P1 = Psh + P12 ; Q1 = Qsh + Q12 . (2)
Where:
V1V2 sin (θ 12 ) ; (V ) − V1V2 cos(θ 12 )
Q12 = 1
2

P12 = (3) Psh

X 12 X 12
The variable load at Bus #1 is computed such that the
P12
generated power remains unaltered and independent from the
value of X12. This is effected as shown in the following
equations.
Psh = P1 − P12 ; Q sh = Q1 − Q12 (4)
XMin XMax X12
Or: 12 12

Fig. 3. Active power changes in the line (P12) and in the load (Psh).
V1V2 sin (θ 12 ) ; (V ) − V1V2 cos(θ 12 ) .
2

Psh = S cos φ − Qsh = S sin φ − 1 (5)

X 12 X 12
The angle difference between buses (θ12 = θ1 - 0ο) must be
defined such that for small values of X12 the load Psh be small
and the power flow P12 be close to maximum. On the other
hand, for high values of X12, the load Psh is maximum while
the line power flow P12 is minimum and limited by the
maximum specified value of θ12. An obvious choice for a
function that suits the needs just described, is the logarithmic
function expressed in (6).
θ 12 = a ln (bX 12 ) (6)
Fig. 4 shows schematically how the system pole associated
with the generator electromechanical oscillation varies as the
reactance X12 is varied, together with the three other dependent
variables, in the presence and absence of a PSS. One of the
objectives of the described method is to verify whether the
available PSS, is capable of bringing the electromechanical
poles, of all frequencies, to lie within the acceptable range of
damping ratios ξ1 and ξ2. In summary, the PSS must be tuned
so that the generator contributes adequately to the damping of
electromechanical modes over the entire range of frequencies
of interest (0.15 Hz to 2 Hz).
 3

ξ2 ξ1 Imag 60

With PSS XMin 50

x 12
x

(degrees)
x 40

x
Without PSS

12
30

θ
x
x
20

x x
XMax
12
10
x x
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
X12 (pu)

Real Fig. 5. Line angle function [θ12 = f(X12)].

Fig. 4. Electromechanical pole for different values of X12.
15
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
III. TEST STUDIES
X12Max Electromechanical
12
The performance analysis of different PSSs is carried out in Mode
this section. The machine parameters utilized in the tutorial 0.64 10
10
example of this paper, and shown in Table 1, are typical of a Exciter
8
large hydro generator. A simple, first-order, AVR model is Mode X12Min

Imag
0.76
utilized, having a gain of 100 and a time constant of 50 ms. 6

Table 1. Generator data. Max

5 0.88
X12 4
MVA H (s) Xd (pu) Xq (pu) X′d (pu) X′q (pu) X′′d (pu) X′′q (pu)
Min
3,120 4.5 0.89 0.66 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.97 X12 2

Ra Xl (pu) T′do (s) T′′do (s) T′′qo (s)

0
0.0019 0.28 5.1 0.060 0.094
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Real (1/s)

Table 2 shows the MVA capacity of the hydro plant, the Fig. 6. System poles for different values X12 (from 0.1 pu to 25 pu).
constant-P and constant-Z parts of the load. The logarithmic Root Locus
15
function describing the angle θ12 changes with the line 0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14

reactance X12 is plotted in Fig. 5. 12

Table 2. Synthetic system data. 0.64 10
10
Generation Capacity P Q
(3,120 MVA) 2,808 MW 1,360 Mvar 8
0.76
Imag
Imag

Range of Variable X12 0.1pu – 25pu 6

Line Angle [θ12 = f(X12)] θ 12 = 7.763 ln (62.684 X 12 ) 5 0.88
4
Psh Qsh
Load Model 80 % constant-P 0.97 2
100 % constant-Z
20 % constant-Z
0

Fig. 6 shows the loci described by two system poles of
interest, as the line reactance X12 is varied from 0.1pu up to
25pu. The electromechanical mode of oscillation is poorly
damped or negatively damped for most values of line
reactance, except for low values of X12, which corresponds to
the highest frequencies of oscillation (e.g., frequencies of
intra-plant modes).
Fig. 7 presents the root-loci plots for ten different values of
X12 when each stabilizing transfer function (∆ω/∆VREF) is
closed through a feedback loop comprising a pure gain, with
no phase compensation. The blue arrows are the pole residues
of the transfer function (∆ω/∆VREF) associated with a fixed
value of X12, each one defining the departure angle of the root-
locus diagram.
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Real
Real(1/s)
Fig. 7. Root-loci for ten different values of X12 (between 0.1 pu and 25pu)
obtained with a direct gain feedback.
Fig. 8 shows an enlarged detail of Fig. 7, focusing on the
behavior of the electromechanical pole. One should note that
for low values of electromechanical oscillation frequency
(associated with higher values of X12) there is no need for
phase compensation in the stabilizing loop, since the departure
angle is already at 180o. However, for higher
electromechanical frequencies (lower values of X12), there is
need to phase advance this departure angle.
In summary, the analysis of Fig. 8 shows the need for phase
advance compensation for higher frequency electromechanical
modes (local and intra-plant), while the lower frequency,
 4

poorly (or negatively) damped inter-area modes, only require a poles related to intra-plant and exciter modes do not get their
direct gain in the stabilizing loop to increase the damping damping ratios unduly reduced. A second stabilizer design,
ratios of these poles, without significantly changing their PSS2 (see Table 4), whose phase advance blocks have center
imaginary parts. These PSS phase compensation needs for frequencies about 30 rad/s, is now assessed.
modes of different frequencies, identified from the inspection 15
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
of Fig. 8, are in agreement with the established guidelines for
PSS tuning. 12
Root Locus
12 0.64 10
0.16 0.08 10
0.25

(rad/s)
10 8
10
0.76

ImagImag
8 6
8
0.36 5 0.88
4
(rad/s)

6
6
ImagImag

0.48 2
0.97
4
4
0.62
0
0.78 2
2 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
0.94 Real
Real (1/s)

0 Fig. 9. Departure angles for the system without (red arrows)

and with the PSS1 (black arrows).
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Real
Real(1/s) Root Locus
16
0.48 0.34 0.22 0.12
Fig. 8. Detailed view of Fig. 7.
14
14
Four stabilizers will now have their small-signal 12
12 0.6
performances analyzed with the help of the synthetic system
10
method. The stabilizer PSS1 (Table 3), has one washout and 10
(rad/s)

two phase-lead blocks, providing a maximum phase advance 8 0.74

8
ImagImag

at 6.5 rad/s.
6
6
Table 3. Parameters for PSS1.
0.88 4
Frequency of Maximum 4
PSS1(s)
Phase Advance 0.96 2
2
2
⎛ 1 + 0.300s ⎞ ⎛ 3s ⎞
PSS 1 (s ) = (5) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ωMax = 6.5 rad/s 0
⎝ 1 + 0.075s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 3s ⎠ -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Real (1/s)
Real
Fig. 10. Root-loci diagrams obtained by increasing the PSS1 gain.
Fig. 9 shows the departure angles for the ten root-loci
Root Locus
diagrams (residues for the electromechanical poles of 15
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
(∆ω/∆VREF)) for the system without (red arrows) and with the
12
PSS1 (black arrows). One may note that the PSS1 phase
compensated residues are close to ideal (departure angles 0.64 10
10
about 180º) only for electromechanical modes with
(rad/s)

8
frequencies between 6 rad/s and 9 rad/s. 0.76
Imag

Fig. 10 presents a family of 10 root-loci diagrams for the 6

Imag

system with the PSS1 stabilizer. The root-loci trajectories 5 0.88

4
indicate that the damping ratios of the electromechanical
poles, whose frequencies lie above 10 rad/s, become worse as 0.97 2

the PSS1 gain is raised.

0
Fig. 11 shows the eigenvalue loci for the original system
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
(red curve) and with the PSS1 (blue curve) with a fixed gain of Real
Rea
(1/s)
5 pu/pu. Note that the damping ratio for the electromechanical Fig. 11. Original system (red) and system with PSS1 (blue) – K = 5pu/pu.
pole increases significantly for frequencies between 4 rad/s
and 6 rad/s, but remains unaltered for low frequencies (of the Table 4. Parameters for PSS2.
Frequency of Maximum
inter-area type) and becomes worse at higher frequencies (of PSS2(s)
Phase Advance
the intra-plant mode type). Note also that the exciter mode has
2
its damping much reduced with this 5 pu/pu gain (blue curve ⎛ 1 + 0.100s ⎞ ⎛ 3s ⎞
PSS 2 (s ) = (8) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟ ωMax = 31 rad/s
with the shape of a small semi-circle at the top of the figure). ⎝ 1 + 0.010 s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 3s ⎠
Fig. 11 indicates that the phase advance should be bigger
than that provided by the PSS1 at higher frequencies, so that
 5

Fig. 12 shows the departure angles for the same set of ten blocks with center frequencies about 30 rad/s and a phase-lag
root-loci (residues of transfer function (∆ω/∆VREF)) for the block which cancels out the phase advance at the lower
original system (red arrows) and with the PSS2 (black arrows). frequencies. Note that Fig. 8 showed that the departure angles
for the root-loci for pure gain feedbacks at lower frequencies
Root Locus
15
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
were about 180o, indicating there is no need for phase
compensation.
12
Fig. 15 shows the departure angles for the ten root-loci
10
0.64 10 diagrams (residues for the electromechanical pole of the set of
transfer functions (∆ω/∆VREF)) for the original system (red
(rad/s)

8
0.76 arrows) and with PSS3 (black arrows). The black arrow
Imag

6 magnitudes in Fig. 12 and Fig. 15 are the moduli of the

Imag

5 0.88 residues multiplied by PSS2(λ) and PSS3(λ), respectively. The

4
PSS3(λ) is seen to produce a larger gain and the right phase
0.97 2 compensation for the lower frequency modes. This fact may
be also verified from the analysis of Bode diagrams for these
0 stabilizers (Fig. 21).
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Real (1/s)
Real Root Locus
15
Fig. 12. Departure angles for the system without (red arrows) 0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
and with the PSS2 (black arrows).
12
Fig. 13 presents a family of 10 root-loci diagrams for the
system with the PSS2 stabilizer. The shapes of these root-loci 0.64 10
10
are different from those obtained with PSS1 (Fig. 10 and Fig.

(rad/s)
8
11), showing that the PSS2 stabilizer improves the damping 0.76
ratios for the electromechanical poles over the entire Imag
Imag 6
frequency range. Note, however, that between 1rad/s and
5 0.88
4 rad/s (frequencies which are typical of inter-area nodes), the 4
phase lead provided is excessive (Fig. 13), causing a reduction
2
in the frequency of the electromechanical mode, as the 0.97
stabilizer gain is increased.
0
Root Locus
15 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
Real (1/s)
Real
12
Fig. 14. Original system (red) and system with PSS2 (black) – K = 8 pu/pu.

0.64
Table 5. Parameters for PSS3.
10
10 Frequency of Maximum
PSS3(s)
Phase Advance
(rad/s)

8
0.76
Imag

2
⎛ 1 + 0.100s ⎞ ⎛ 1 + 0.250s ⎞ ⎛ 3s ⎞
6 PSS 3 (s ) = (30 ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟ ωMax = 34 rad/s
Imag

⎝ 1 + 0.010s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 1.000s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 3s ⎠
5 0.88
4
15
0.97 2 0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14

0 12

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 0.64
Real
Real
(1/s)
10
10
Fig. 13. Root-loci diagrams obtained by increasing the PSS2 gain.
(rad/s)

8
0.76
Imag

Fig. 14 shows the eigenvalue loci of the original system

6
Imag

(red curve) and after the installation of the PSS2 stabilizer

5 0.88
(black curve) with a fixed gain of 8 pu/pu. It can be seen there 4
is no destabilizing problems with the exciter mode and that the
damping ratio of the electromechanical mode is quite 0.97 2

adequate, except at the lower part of the spectrum: from

1 rad/s to 6 rad/s, approximately. 0

From the analysis of Fig. 14, one notes that a higher -8 -6 -4

Real
Real (1/s)
-2 0 2

performance stabilizer may be obtained, if the phase advance

Fig. 15. Departure angles for the system without (red arrows)
provided by PSS2 could be reduced at the lower part of the and with the PSS3 (black arrows).
frequency spectrum (between 1 rad/s and 4 rad/s).
Fig. 16 presents the family of ten root-loci diagrams,
A new stabilizer design, PSS3 (Table 5), with the desired
obtained as the gain of the PSS3 stabilizer is increased. Note
characteristics may be achieved with the use of two phase lead
 6

the departure angles for those root-locus plots starting at 15

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
14
7 rad/s and below, are about 180o as desired.
Fig. 17 shows the eigenvalue loci for the original system 12

(red curve) and with PSS3 (green curve) with a gain equal to
30pu/pu. Such gain is usually considered very high for PSSs 10
10

containing two phase-lead blocks. However, with the inclusion

(rad/s)
of the third block, which is a phase-lag block centered at a low 8

Imag
frequency, a 30 pu/pu gain becomes acceptable. One may note

Imag
6
there are no problems with exciter modes, and that the
damping ratios for the electromechanical poles are acceptable 5
4
over the whole frequency range (from 1 rad/s to 14 rad/s).
Fig. 18 allows comparing the performances of the three 2

stabilizers over the frequency range of interest. The PSS1

stabilizer (blue curve) does not provide adequate damping 0
−9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
over the required frequency range, and shows the undesirable Real
Real (1/s)
characteristic of destabilizing the exciter mode. The PSS2 Fig. 18. PSS performance comparison using the synthetic system
stabilizer (black curve) does not cause exciter mode problems (Without PSS: red / PSS1: blue / PSS2: black / PSS3: green).
but shows inadequate performance at lower frequencies. The Table 6. Parameters for PSS4.
PSS3 stabilizer (green curve) shows good performance over PSS4(s)
the entire range of frequencies of interest. ⎛1+ 0.100s ⎞ ⎛ 1 + 0.150s ⎞ ⎛ 1 + 0.200s ⎞ ⎛ 3s ⎞
Root Locus PSS 4 (s ) = (35) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟⋅⎜ ⎟
15 ⎝1 + 0.010s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 0.015s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 1.000s ⎠ ⎝ 1 + 3s ⎠
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
Frequency of Maximum Phase Advance ωMax = 29.5 rad/s
12

0.64
10
10 Fig. 19 shows the eigenvalue loci for the original system
with no PSS (red curve), PSS2 (black curve), PSS3 (green
(rad/s)

8
0.76 curve) and PSS4 (purple curve). It can be seen that PSS4
Imag

6 performs like PSS2 at higher frequencies and like PSS3 at

Imag

5 0.88 lower frequencies, as desired.

4
15
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
14
0.97 2

12
0

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 10
10
Real (1/s)
Real
(rad/s)

Fig. 16. Root-loci diagrams obtained by increasing the PSS3 gain. 8

Imag

Root Locus
Imag

15 6
0.5 0.36 0.24 0.12 14
5
4
12

0.64 2
10
10
(rad/s)

8 0
0.76
Imag

−9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2
Imag

5 0.88
0.97
0
-8 -6
Fig. 17. Original system (red) and system with PSS3 (grern) – K = 30pu/pu.
A close to optimal tuning of a stabilizer should have the
performance of the PSS2 stabilizer at higher frequencies and
the performance of the PSS3 stabilizer at lower frequencies.
An attempt to achieve a further improved design has lead to
the fourth stabilizer, PSS4 (Table 6), which has two phase-lead
blocks of different parameters and one phase-lag block.
6 Real
Real (1/s)
Fig. 19. PSS performance comparison using the synthetic system
4
(Without PSS: red / PSS2: black / PSS3: green / PSS4: purple).
2 Other stabilizer tunings could be analyzed, to better assess
the benefits of having either the third phase-compensation
block or the advantages of having unequal phase-lead blocks.
-4 -2 0 2 Other stabilizer structures and the use of different input
Real (1/s)
Real
variables, or multiple channels, etc. could also be assessed [6,
8, 9].
Fig. 20 and Fig. 21 show the Bode diagrams for the four
stabilizers assessed in this paper.
 7
Bode Diagram
60 few others, would be to make the constant impedance part of
40
the shunt load vary with the X12 value, so as to better reflect
the capability of a given generating plant to contribute to the
Magnitude (dB)

20
damping of inter-area modes through well-designed
0 PSS1 stabilizers.
PSS2
-20
PSS3 Another contribution of this paper is to bring new evidence
PSS4
to the discussion on the use of a third phase compensation
-40
135 block (phase-lag) to improve stabilizer performance for low
frequency (0.2 Hz), poorly damped, inter-area modes.
90
PSS gain tuning performed during commissioning tests is
Phase (deg)

45 ensured to be effective only for damping local oscillations.

0
PSS gain coordination among key power plants in
interconnected power systems, for proper damping of low
-45
10
-2 -1
10 10
0
10
1 2
10
3
10
4
10
frequency, inter-area modes, must be carried out through
Frequency (rad/sec) large-scale simulations and considering multiple scenarios [2,
Fig. 20. Bode diagram for the PSSs. 10].
Bode Diagram
60 V. REFERENCES
40 1. N. Martins, A. A. Barbosa, J. C. R. Ferraz, et al, “Retuning Stabilizers for
the North-South Brazilian Interconnection”. In: Proceedings of the
Magnitude (dB)

20 IEEE/PES Summer Meeting, Edmonton, Canada, 1999.

0 PSS1 2. CIGRE Task Force 38.02.16 – Impact of Interactions Among Power
PSS2
PSS3
System Controls. CIGRE Technical Brochure no. 166, Paris, August 2000.
-20
PSS4 3. G. E. Boukarim, S. Wang, J. H. Chow, G. N. Taranto and N. Martins, “A
-40 Comparison of Classical, Robust and Decentralized Control Designs for
135
Multiple Power Systems Stabilizers”, IEEE Transactions on Power
90
Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1287-1292, 2000.
Phase (deg)

4. J. C. R. Ferraz, N. Martins, N. Zeni Jr., J. M. C. Soares, G. N. Taranto,

45
0
-45
-1 0 1
10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec)
Fig. 21. Enlarged view of window in Fig. 20.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a method utilizing a 2-bus synthetic
system that allows the assessment of the small-signal stability
performance of the set Generator-AVR-PSS-GOV when
facing oscillation modes over the entire range of
electromechanical frequencies (from intra-plant to inter-area
modes). The synthetic system method varies the line reactance
connecting the generator to the infinite bus, and also the load
connected at the generator terminals, so that the generator
terminal conditions remain unchanged.
The method obtains plots for the eigenvalue loci produced
by changes in line reactance (usually from 0.1 to 25 pu, on
machine base) and three other dependent variables, in the
presence of different stabilizer designs that are being
compared. The obtained results may be effectively utilized in
the choice of more robust stabilizer tunings and also help in
the design of improved stabilizers.
Being computationally fast, the method will be valuable to
the dynamics and control engineer, when conducting large
system studies, by providing a ranking list on the several
hundred (or thousand) existing PSSs based on their small-
signal performances for the synthetic system tests.
Improvements can be made, at little cost, such as including
the generator step-up transformer, so as to better model the
AVR characteristics, and also to move the generator low-side
bus away from the shunt load. Another improvement, among a
“Adverse Increase in Generator Terminal Voltage and Reactive Power
Transients Caused by Power System Stabilizers”. In: Proceedings of
IEEE/PES Winter Meeting 2002, New York, USA, January 2002.
2
5. E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, “Applying Power System Stabilizers, Part
10 I, II and III”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
100, no. 6, pp. 3017-3046, 1981.
6. P. Kundur, Power System Control and Stability. 1 ed. USA, EPRI-Power
System Engineering Series McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994.
7. G. J. Rogers, “The Application of Power System Stabilizers to a Multi-
generator Plant”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
350-355, 2000.
8. J. M. C. Soares and N. Zeni Jr., “Power System Stabilizers for
Hydrogenerators: Analysis, Comparison and Field Implementation”,
Proceedings of the I SEPOPE, Rio de Janeiro, 1985.
9. I. Kamwa, R. Grondin and Y. Hebert, “Wide-Area Based Stabilizing
Control of Large Systems-A Decentralized/Hierarchical Approach”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 136-153, 2001.
10. M. J. Gibbard, D. J. Vowles and P. Pourbeik, “Interactions between, and
Effectiveness of, Power System Stabilizers and FACTS Device Stabilizers
in Multi-machine Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.
15, no. 2, pp. 748-755, 2000.
VI. BIOGRAPHIES
Julio Cesar Rezende Ferraz (M'92) B.Sc. (1997) degree in Electrical
Engineering from UFJF, Brazil, M.Sc. (1998) and D.Sc (2002) degrees from
COPPE/UFRJ, Brazil. Dr. Ferraz is with CEPEL since 1997 in the
development of methods and computer tools for power system analysis,
dynamics and control.
Nelson Martins (F'98) B.Sc. (1972) degree in Electrical Engineering
from UnB, Brazil, M.Sc. (1974) and Ph.D. (1978) degrees from UMIST,
England. Dr. Martins works at CEPEL since 1978 in the development of
methods and computer tools for power system analysis, dynamics and control.
He is chairman of the Power System Stability Controls Subcommittee, PSDP
Committee, IEEE/PES, for the period 2003-2007.
Glauco N. Taranto (M'96) B.Sc. (1988) degree in Electrical Engineering
from UERJ, Brazil, M.Sc. (1991) from PUC-RJ, Brazil and Ph.D. (1994) from
RPI, USA. He is currently an Associate Professor at the Electrical Engineering
Program at COPPE/UFRJ, Brazil, and works in the development of methods
and computer tools for power system analysis, dynamics and control.