See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287106012

PID AND NON-LINEAR CONTROLLERS FOR POWER HYDRAULIC TURBINES

Conference Paper · April 2000

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2589.0643

CITATIONS READS

0 106

3 authors, including:

Oscar Daniel Quiroga

Universidad Nacional del Litoral
56 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A comprehensive approach towards making process scheduling a solved problem View project

Gestao da inovaçao View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oscar Daniel Quiroga on 16 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PID AND NON-LINEAR CONTROLLERS FOR
POWER HYDRAULIC TURBINES

O. Quiroga *, C. Batlle ** and J. Riera ***

Av. Diagonal, 647 Planta 11; 08028 Barcelona; Spain

Institut d'Organització i Control de Sistemes Industrials*
Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada i Telemàtica**
Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial (CSIC)***
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
Email: oscar_quiroga@ieee.org, carles@mat.upc.es, riera@iri.upc.es

Abstract: A main obstacle to obtain a good performance of hydraulic power plants

governors arises from the fact that the dynamic of the plant is non-linear and may vary
strongly with the operating point. These problems have been tackled in the past by
tuning the PID controller’s parameters to give an acceptable response for all conditions
or by using Gain Scheduling controllers. In this paper alternative governors, combining
non-linear control techniques and PID features, are presented. Comparative studies,
where the new controllers are evaluated, show the advantages of this technique when
applied to these plants. Copyright © 2000 IFAC

Keywords: Hydroelectric systems, Speed control, Scheduling algorithm, Non-linear

control, Feedback linearization.

1. .INTRODUCTION mechanical (temporary droop) controllers, to full

The main function of a governor or controller of a
hydroelectric power plant is to regulate the turbine
speed and hence, the voltage frequency and the
produced active power. This requires a feedback of
the rotor speed of the turbine and the generated
electrical power in order to determine the appropriate
gate opening. A main difficulty to control this plant
arises from the fact that dynamics are non-linear and
may vary strongly with the operating point. Usually,
turbine governors are PID-based and their
implementation may include a wide diversity of
types: from pure mechanical controllers or electric-
This project has been partially funded by Spanish CICYT in the
frame of project TAP97-0969-C03-01
electronic controllers. Many authors, since the very
beginning of the study of hydroelectric plants, have
studied the design of PID controllers for these plants
considering linearized models. Among the authors
that have dealt with this problem in the last thirty
years it is worthwhile to mention: Undrill and
Woodward (1967); Ramey and Skooglund (1970);
IEEE Working Group (1992); Kundur (1994). All of
them present detailed analyses and efficient
solutions. The work of IEEE Standards (1988) is also
a relevant document as it presents a complete guide
for control of hydroelectric power plants with
different types of implementations including how to
interface the controller with the unit control system.
Some authors have made important contributions to
the optimisation of the PID parameters. One of the
most significant contributions is given by Wozniak
(1990), who proposes a graphical approximation to surge tank that takes into account the above
the tuning of the PI controllers. This method is mentioned effects can be taken from (IEEE Working
adequate to predict the optimal gains P and I by Group, 1992; Kundur, 1994). This model considers
considering four parameters of the hydroelectric the water column in the penstock as non-elastic. The
plant: time constants of the water column and of the variables that intervene are summarised in Table 3,
rotor inertia and the self-regulation constants of the while the main parameters are listed in Table 4.
turbine and the loading grid. Vournas and Daskalakis
(1993) present an optimisation procedure for PID • Dynamics of the penstock:
controllers maximising the stability margin of the
frequency control loop. Values obtained by this Hl = fp ⋅ U t
2
(1)
tuning technique are similar to those obtained by
using the classical formulas (Paynter, 1960). The dU t H 0 − H t − H l
work of Boireau (1994) suggests different solutions = (2)
to ensure turbine regulation and meet the various dt TWp
operating conditions of hydraulic units by using a
configurable PI controller. Other papers take into Ut = G ⋅ Ht (3)
account the non-linear behaviour of the plant and
present interesting control designs: Riera and
Cardoner (1992) propose a prototype of a speed and • Mechanical power:
power control system, where the controller has an
adaptive parameter algorithm with a Gain Scheduling
(
Pmechanical = A t ⋅ H t ⋅ U t − U NL ) (4)
structure. Two non-linear controllers for a hydraulic
plant supplying isolated loads are introduced. The • Dynamics of the gate servomotor:
design makes use of differential geometric
techniques based on the partial state feedback dG
linearization from (Marino and Tomei, 1995) as well Tg ⋅ +G =u (5)
dt
as two different PID structures. Moreover, complete
studies are performed comparing these new mixed
control algorithms to the classical PID and Gain • Equation of motion in the turbine:
Scheduling controllers. Comparisons are achieved by
d ωr
means of a cost function that takes into account not Pmechanical − Pload = 2 ⋅ H ⋅ + D ⋅ ωr (6)
only the output behaviour but also the control effort. dt
The paper has the following structure: part 2
describes the plant and introduces a model detailed The following figure represents a functional scheme
enough to represent adequately the plant’s behaviour. of the model.
Part 3 introduces two new structures of collaborative,
or mixed, control algorithms. Part 4 presents
comparative studies of these controllers taking into
account the cost function. Conclusions are presented
in the last part of the paper.

2. THE HIDRAULIC TURBINE:

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLANT

The accuracy of the hydraulic turbine model is

influenced by the considered characteristics of the
water and of the conduit that feed the turbine. These
characteristics include water inertia, water
compressibility and pipe wall elasticity of the
penstock. Hydroelectric turbines present a non-
minimal phase behaviour due to water inertia: this
means that a change in the gate opening produces an
initial change in the mechanical power which is
opposite to the one requested. The other effect is the
water compressibility that causes travelling waves of
pressure and is usually called water hammer.
2.1 Model for Hydraulic Turbines
A non-linear model of a hydraulic turbine with no
Fig. 1. Functional scheme of the turbine model.
Note the strong non-linearities of the system and
hence, the behaviour’s dependence on the operating
point. The frequency of a hydroelectric system
depends on the system’s active power balance. If a
change in the active power demand occurs, this
affects the power balance and hence, the velocity of
the turbine and the frequency of the synchronous
generator. The model only considers the case of a
hydraulic plant supplying isolated loads.
3.CONTROLLERS FOR HYDRAULIC TURBINES Gain Scheduling Controller. This system consists of
a PID controller where the gains Kp, Ki and Kd are
In order to design optimal controllers or compare the obtained by interpolating, or ‘scheduling’, the
performance of different control algorithms, it is optimised local values.
necessary to define a cost function. The proposed
cost function has three terms and is represented by:
3.2 Non-linear Controllers.
∂G
∫ ∫ ∫
tf tf tf
fcost = c1 ⋅ ωref − ωr ⋅ t ⋅ dt + c2 ⋅ Gd − G ⋅ t ⋅ dt + c3 ⋅ ⋅ t ⋅ dt (7)
ti ti ti ∂t
Standard results (Marino and Tomei, 1995) guarantee
The first component corresponds to the integral of that any non-linear system x! = f (x) + g (x) ⋅ u is
the absolute value of the difference between the locally partially state feedback linearizable with
speed reference and the measured rotor speed index r=1. According to this theorem there exists a
multiplied by the time. This term penalises the speed local diffeomorphism z = Φ (x ) with Φ (0 ) = 0 ,
error and its duration. The second and the third where in z-coordinates the non-linear system
components correspond to the control measured by becomes:
the gate movement. These two components penalise
those actions of the controller that can produce
 z! 1   L f φ1 
damage or collateral undesirable effects as water   =  
hammer or cavitation, physical wear or simply  z! 2   L f φ 2 + u 
excessive work in the gate actuator. Thus, these two
terms penalise the amplitude and the duration of the
manoeuvres. Using the feedback transformation u = −L f φ 2 + v ,
then:
Section 3.1 describes PID and Gain Scheduling
controllers while section 3.2 describes two non-linear  z! 1   L f φ1 (z ) 
  =  
controllers designed by using partial state feedback  z! 2   v 
linearization and either a PI or a PI-PD controller.
In the case of a hydroelectric plant with non-elastic
water column, the system state variables are x 1 = U t
3.1 PID Controllers.
and x 2 = G − G 0 . Therefore, the combination of
Fixed PID controllers. Figure 2 shows the standard equations (1), (2), (3) and (5) can be written together
PID controller of a hydraulic power plant, proposed as the non-linear system in R2:
by IEEE Working Group (1992), and Kundur (1994).
    2  
 1 ⋅  H0 −  fp +
1 ⋅x 
T
f (x) =  wp



 (
x 2 + G0 )
2  1 
   (8)
 x2 
 − 
 Tg 

 0 
g (x) =  
 (9)
1 Tg 

Fig. 2. PID Controller. where the local diffeomorphism is

 z1   φ1 (x)   x 1 
  =   =  
 
 z 2   φ 2 (x)   Tg ⋅ x 2 

Therefore, in this case,

u = −L f φ 2 + v = x 2 + v (10)
Fig. 3. General speed control scheme for the PID
controllers. Once the plant is partially linearized, control is
exerted by an outer loop with a linear controller, i.e.
A speed control scheme for a PID controller is PI or PI-PD. The resulting system is thus a
depicted in Figure 3. ‘collaborative’ or ‘mixed’ non-linear control system.
Two different controllers can be designed differing in
the PI or PI-PD structure. Figure 4 presents a first
design by using partial state feedback linearization
and a PI. This controller is called NL A. Having a
different structure of the PID controller, a second
design is presented in Figure 5 and is called NL B.
Both controllers can be applied in the general speed
control scheme of Figure 6.
NL A and NL B are adjusted according to the
minimal value of the cost function after applying a
step function on the disturbance Pload from 0.8 [pu] to
0.9 [pu]. This operating point corresponds to the
worst case for a fixed parameter controller of a
hydroelectric plant. Table 1 shows the values of the
parameters of the controllers PID, NL A and NL B
obtained after this adjustment. The meaning of the
parameters of the controllers is shown in Table 5.

Table 1 Parameters of controllers PID, NL A, NL B.

Contr. Kp Ki Kd Kp1 Rp R1 R2 fcost [pu]

PID 3 0.6 2.0 - 0 - - 0.3505
NL A 5 20 - - - 10 - 45.250
NL B 1.5 0.3 5 1 - - 2.5 0.2590
Fig. 4. Non-linear controller A (NL A).
The Gain Scheduling's parameters are adjusted for
each operating point according to the minimal value
of the cost function after applying a 0.1 step function
on the disturbance Pload. Table 2 shows the values of
the parameters of the Gain Scheduling controller for
each operating point.

Table 2 Parameter values for the Gain Scheduling

controller.

Operating Points Kp Ki Kd fcost [pu]

Pload: from 0.8 to 0.9 3.0 0.6 2.0 0.3505
Pload: from 0.7 to 0.8 2.8 0.6 1.5 0.3318
Fig. 5. Non-linear controller B (NL B). Pload: from 0.6 to 0.7 2.7 0.6 1.6 0.3210
Pload: from 0.5 to 0.6 2.6 0.6 1.7 0.3140
Pload: from 0.4 to 0.5 2.7 0.6 1.8 0.3130
Pload: from 0.3 to 0.4 2.7 0.6 1.9 0.3110
Pload: from 0.2 to 0.3 2.7 0.6 1.9 0.3071
Pload: from 0.1 to 0.2 2.6 0.6 1.8 0.3020
Pload: from 0.0 to 0.1 2.6 0.65 2.0 0.2970

Fig. 6. General speed control scheme for the

controllers NL A or NL B. 4.1 Comparison of Rotor Speed Behaviour.

Figures 7 to 10 show the rotor speed response for

4. COMPARATIVE STUDIES three different loads.
This section presents comparative studies of the Comparison of Rotor Speed for different loads: PID Controller

behaviour of four different controllers: PID with 1

c
fixed parameters, Gain Scheduling, NL A and NL B. a

The studies are done for different operating points 0.995

defined by the non-frequency-sensitive load Pload. c

b
a a: Pl 0.0 to 0.1
0.99
b: Pl 0.4 to 0.5
The first study corresponds to the comparison of the
w (pu)

c: P 0.8 to 0.9
l
r

rotor speed response to different load changes. The 0.985

second study corresponds to a comparison of the cost
function values, for these same four controllers. The a
0.98
values of the weight coefficients of the cost function b

(7) are chosen according to practical experience in c

hydroelectric plants (Riera and Cardoner, 1992) and 0.975

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
time (s)
correspond to the following values: c1=0.6, c2=0.2
and c3=0.2. The parameters of the controllers PID, Fig. 7. Comparison of rotor speed.
 Comparison of Rotor Speed for different loads: Gain Scheduling Cost Function vs. Non−frequency−sensitive Load: PID, Gain Scheduling and NL B
0.36

a
1

c a
0.34

0.995

0.32
c b

0.99 a: P 0.0 to 0.1

l
w (pu)

(pu)
a b: Pl 0.4 to 0.5
0.3
r

cost
c: Pl 0.8 to 0.9

f
a: PID
0.985 b: Gain Scheduling
c: NL B
0.28

a
0.98

b 0.26

c c
0.975
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0.24
time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Pload (pu)

Fig. 8. Comparison of rotor speed.

Fig. 11. Comparison of cost function for the
Comparison of Rotor Speed for different loads: Controller NL A controllers: PID, Gain Scheduling and NL B.
c
a
1.02
Moreover, Figure 11 shows that the cost function for
1 the PID and the Gain Scheduling controllers for the
0.9 [pu] load are coincident since the parameters of
0.98
both controllers are optimised in that operating point.
wr (pu)

0.96 a: P 0.0 to 0.1

l
For the remaining operating points the values of the
b: P 0.4 to 0.5
l
c: P 0.8 to 0.9
l
cost function of the PID controller are greater than
0.94
values of the Gain Scheduling since the parameters
0.92
of this controller are optimised for each operating
point. Cost function’s values in the case of the
a
0.9
c
controller NL B are the lowest for all operating
1000 1020 1040 1060
time (s)
1080 1100 1120 points. Values for the NL B controller are around a
20 % lower than the Gain Scheduling case. This
Fig. 9. Comparison of rotor speed. means that the controller NL B produces a good
dynamic behaviour with reduced wear in the gate
Comparison of Rotor Speed for different loads: Controller NL B servos. Moreover, with this controller the
1
hydroelectric system obtains the most homogeneous
0.998 response of the rotor speed.
0.996
c
0.994 b
a
0.992
5. CONCLUSIONS
wr (pu)

0.99 a: Pl 0.0 to 0.1

b: P 0.4 to 0.5
l
0.988 c: P 0.8 to 0.9
l
The control of speed, and power, of a hydroelectric
0.986
turbine with fixed parameters controller is, normally,
0.984 a
a compromise due to the plant’s dependence with the
0.982 b
operating point. Two non-linear controllers based on
0.98
c a partial state feedback linearization and a PID
100 102 104 106 108 110
time (s)
112 114 116 118 120
structure are presented. A realistic cost function,
which takes into account the speed error and the
Fig. 10. Comparison of rotor speed. control effort, is used to evaluate the controllers’
performance. Two comparative studies have been
Responses of Controller NL A, as Figure 9 shows, completed for the following controllers: fixed
are very poor. Controller NL B, on the other hand, parameters PID, Gain Scheduling, NL A and NL B.
presents a satisfactory behaviour. Moreover, the cost The first study includes a comparison of the rotor
function takes the lowest value for each operating speed behaviour for different load changes. The
point. second presents the comparison of the cost function
evaluated as a function of the operating point.
Controller NL B shows, in both cases, the best
4.2 Comparison of Cost Function Values. performance: its cost function has an average value
of a 20 per cent lower than the case of the Gain
Figure 11 shows the cost function for the controllers Scheduling. A collaborative structure of non-linear
PID, Gain Scheduling and NL B for different techniques and PID controllers proves to give very
operating points. good results.
 REFERENCES APPENDIX

Boireau, C. (1994). Standard or Customised Table 3 List of variables.

Configurable Governors. International Water
Power & Dam Construction, Nº 7, pp. 22-24. Variables Meaning
Hannett et al (1994). Field Tests to Validate Hydro Head in [pu] (t: turbine, l: loss, 0: reservoir).
Turbine-Governor Model Structure and H ( t ,l , 0 )
Parameters. IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Velocity of the water in the conduit or flow in
Vol.9, No.4, pp. 1744-1751. U(t)
[pu] (t: turbine).
IEEE Standards (1988). An American National Gate opening in [pu] (d: desired value, 0: initial
G ( d,0)
Standard. IEEE. Guide for Control of value).
Hydroelectric Power Plants. Power Generation u Control effort.
Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society. ω( ref ,r ) Speed [pu] (ref: reference, r: rotor).
IEEE Working Group (1992). Hydraulic Turbine and
Turbine Control Models for System Dynamic Pelectric Electric power in [pu]. Pelectric = Pload + D ⋅ ωr
Studies. IEEE Trans. On Power Systems, Vol.7,
No.1, pp. 167-179. Pload ≡ Pl Non-frequency-sensitive load.
Kundur, P. (1994). Power System Stability and
Control, Chapters 3, 9 and 11. Mc Graw-Hill, D ⋅ ωr Frequency-sensitive load.
New York.
Marino, R and Tomei, P (1995). Nonlinear Control Pmechanical Turbine mechanical power in [pu].
Design: Geometric, Adaptive and Robust,
Chapter 2. Prentice Hall, London.
Paynter, M. (1960). The Analog in Governor Design, Table 4 List of parameters and meaning.
I, a Restricted Problem. Palimpsest on the
Electronic Analogue Art printed by G. A. Para- Meaning Power Plant:
Philbrick Researches, Inc., Boston, MA, USA, St. Lawrence
meters (Hannett et al,
pp. 224-227. 1994)
Ramey and Skooglund, (1970). Detailed
Hydrogovernor Representation for System Twp Water starting time in
penstock in [s].
the Twp = 0.39
Stability Studies. IEEE Press: Stability of Large
Tp Pilot valve and servomotor time Tp=0.25
Electric Power Systems, pp. 121-127 (IEEE constant in [s].
Trans. On Power Apparatus and Systems,
Tg Main servo time constant in [s]. Tg=0.5
January 1970).
Riera, J. and Cardoner, R. (1992). Advanced fp Penstock head loss coefficient in f p = 0.01
Governor for Hydroelectric Turbines. IFAC [pu].
Symposium: Intelligent Components and At Turbine gain in [pu]. A t = 1.65
Instruments for Control Applications, pp. 473-
478. U NL No-load flow in [pu]. U NL = 0.184
Undrill and Woodward (1967). Nonlinear Hydro Inertia constant in [pu].
H H=2.72
Governing Model and Improved Calculation for
Determining Temporary Droop. IEEE Trans. D Load-damping constant in [pu]. D=0.5
On Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-
86, No. 4, pp. 443-452. Table 5 Meaning of the controllers’ parameters.
Vournas and Daskalakis (1993). Governor Tuning
and Regulating Capacity of Hydroelectric Units.
Parameters Meaning
IEEE WESCANEX 93. Communications,
Computers and Power in the Modern Kp,p1,i,d Gains of a PID or a PI-PD in [pu] (p and p1:
proportional, i: integral, d: derivative)
Environment Conference Proceedings, pp. 228-
233. Rp Temporary droop in [pu].
Wozniak (1990). A Graphical Approach to
R1,2 Feedback gains in [pu].
Hydrogenerator Governor Tuning. IEEE Trans.
On Energy Conversion, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 417-
c1,2,3 Weight coefficients of the cost function in [pu].
421.

View publication stats