IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No.

6 June 1981
APPLYING POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS PART I: GENERAL CONCEPTS
E.V. Larsen (Member) D.A. Swann (Member) General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York

3017

ABSTRACT
The general concepts associated with applying power system stabilizers utilizing shaft speed, ac bus frequency, and electrical power inputs are developed in this first part of a three-part paper. This lays the foundation for discussion of the tuning concepts and practical aspects of stabilizer application in Parts II and III. The characteristics of the "plant" through which the power system stabilizer must operate are discussed and the implications upon stabilizer tuning and performance A general approach for analyzing stabilizers are noted. utilizing an arbitrary input signal is described and applied to the frequency and electrical power input signals. INTRODUCTION

deals with the fundamental aspects of applying stabilizers with the alternative input signals, and represents an extension of the concepts presented in the The second part of paper by Concordia and deMello [2]. this paper discusses system performance criteria, develops tuning concepts which enable attainment of these criteria, and the relative performance attainable with practical stabilizer equipment utilizing the three basic input signals. The third part discusses the practical considerations of tuning equipment in the field and equipment design, including minimizing the effects of torsional destabilization, power system noise, and, when using electrical power as an input signal, mechanical power variations.
BASIC CONCEPTS The basic function of a power system stabilizer is extend stability limits by modulating generator excitation to provide damping to the oscillations of synchronous machine rotors relative to one another. These oscillations of concern typically occur in the frequency range of approximately 0.2 to 2.5 Hz, and insufficient damping of these oscillations may limit the ability to transmit power. To provide damping, the stabilizer must produce a component of electrical torque on the rotor which is in phase with speed variations. The implementation details differ, depending upon the stabilizer input signal employed. However, for any input signal the transfer function of the stabilizer must compensate for the gain and phase characteristics of the excitation system, the generator, and the power system, which collectively determine the transfer function from the stabilizer output to the component of electrical torque which can be modulated via excitation control. This transfer function, denoted GEP(s) in this paper, is strongly influenced by voltage regulator gain, This generator power level, and ac system strength. section discusses the general relationship of these parameters to GEP(s) and hence to stabilizer performto
ance.

Beginning in the late 1950's and early 1960's most of the new generating units added to electric utility systems were equipped with continuously-acting voltage regulators. As these units became a larger percentage of the generating capacity, it became apparent that the voltage regulator action had a detrimental impact upon the dynamic stability (or perhaps more properly steadystate stability) of the power system. Oscillations of small magnitude and low frequency often persisted for long periods of time and in some cases presented limitations on power transfer capability. Power system stabilizers were developed to aid in damping these oscillations via modulation of the generator excitation [1,2]. The art and science of applying power system stabilizers has developed considerably over the past ten to fifteen since the first widespread application to the years Western Systems of the United States. This development has involved the use of various tuning techniques and input signals, and learning to deal with practical problems such as noise and interaction with turbinegenerator shaft torsional modes of vibration.
The desire on the part of the authors' Company to provide stabilizing equipment which allows adjustment for good power system performance while overcoming the potential problems associated with noise and torsional destabilization has led to considerable research in this area in recent years, involving both analytical studies and field tests. In 1975, a torsional protective package was developed for application to stabilizers on large two-pole units [3]. The development of similar protection for four-pole units, with their inherently low torsional frequencies, has required much closer scrutiny of power system stabilizer applications. This the results of this research, with paper describes emphasis on the power system performance attainable with stabilizers utilizing each of the three input signals considered most feasible: shaft speed, ac bus freThese quency, and a combination of power and speed. results are presented in three parts: the first part

The block diagram in Figure 1 illustrates, in terms of a few basic small-signal transfer functions, the relationship between the applied torques on the turbine-generator shaft and the resulting generator rotor The and rotor angular displacement, 6. speed, w electricay torque may be considered to have two components, viz. (a) that which is produced by the power system stabilizer solely by modulation of generator flux, T ep and (b) that which results from all other

ATm

A8

A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE Power Generation Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 13-18, 1980.Mianuscript submitted March 14, 1980; made available for printing May 7, 1980.
80 SM 558-7
-1-

AE

FIGURE

STABILIZER WITH SPEED INPUT

SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM

3018

ing a large disturbance, higher gains may be required. Some utilities [4] set their voltage regulators with much higher transient gains, on the order of 200 pu Efd/pu et, to ensure maximum performance. With an excitation system having relatively little phase lag, such high gains will result in satisfactory voltage regulation at light generator loads, but will significantly decrease damping of rotor oscillations and may cause an instability which prevents full load operation even for relatively strong transmission systems. The remainder of this paper deals primarily with the more typical regulator transient gains in the neighborhood of 20 pu Efd/pu Et, although many of the conclusions also apply when employing high gain exciters.
where the voltage regulator loop frequency is lower than the oscillation frequency of concern, the gain of GEP(s) at the oscillation frequency can be approximated by its forward path, i.e.: - K EXC(ijw )II/W T GEP (j ) (2b)
crossover
w

For situations

rI
GEP (s) /
OF SINGLE MACHINE TO INFINITE

FIGURE 2 SIMPLIFIED MODEL

sources,

BUS

including shaft motion, T The functional relationship between speed and torque is shown for a stabilizer employing generator speed as an input signal. The contribution of torque due to the stabilizer path is given by:
AT
G

It is also assumed that 1/K T' is less than the cross3 do behind equation 2b are frequency. The assumptions usually valid for typical modern units. The gain is therefore proportional to the exciter gain and inversely proportional to the main generator open-circuit field time constant and the oscillation frequency. The gain is also proportional to the parameter K which repre2 flux sents the effect of a change in generator (E') on torque, and: q
over

1. 2.

Increases with generator loading. Increases as the ac system becomes stronger.

PSS (s) GEP(s)

A
=

P(s)

(1)

Hence, the gain in this portion of the loop is highest with the generator at full load and operating into the strongest ac system.
crossover frequency is higher than the oscillation frequency of concern, as it is in the case of very high regulator gain, the gain of GEP(s) is no longer proportional to regulator gain but is inversely proportional to the parameter as indicated by equation 2a. K represents the effect of E' on terminal voltage, which decreases as the ac systea becomes stronger and hence causes the gain of GEP(s) to further increase as

(In this case speed input is used for clarity; extension to other input signals will be discussed subsequently.) The transfer function GEP(s) represents the characteristics of the generator, the excitation system, and the power system. This transfer function can be approximated with the aid of Figure 2, representing a simplified model of a machine connected to a large power system through a transmission line as derived in Reference 2. Study of this figure reveals that the dynamic characteristics of GEP(s) are proportional to those of the closed loop voltage regulator when the generator speed is constant (AWG = 0), i.e.:
K

For situations

where the voltage regulator loop

K5

the system strength increases.

GEP(s)

K6

aEt
3E

Since the voltage regulator open-loop gain is proportional to K6, the crossover frequency decreases as the ac system becomes stronger. This influences stabilizer performance, as there will be more phase lag to
system. This effect is most pronounced with high voltage regulator gain since the crossover frequency is in the same range as the intermachine oscillations of
concern.
overcome with a strong ac system than with a weak ac

ref

This relationship forms the basis of stabilizer tuning procedures which involve measurement of the closed-loop voltage regulator characteristic to determine the phase compensation required of the stabilizer.
The variation of GEP(s) with exciter gain, generand ac system strength plays a dominant role in power system stabilizer tuning requirements and performance. The closed-loop voltage regulator response is primarily a function of the exciter characteristics and the ac system strength. Modern turbine-generators typically have a voltage regulator transient gain (i.e., the gain in the frequency range of intermachine oscillations, viz, 0.2 to 2.5 Hz) of approximately 20 pu Efd/pu 't, which results in a voltage regulator loop crossover at approximately 1 rad/sec with a nominal ac system [2]. Experience has indicated that this gain results in satisfactory operation over a fairly wide range of system conditions. However, to obtain full benefit from high ceiling exciters for stability followator loading,

In summary, the power system stabilizer must operate through the "plant" GEP(s) which is dependent upon the generator, the excitation system, and the power system. The basic characteristics of this plant which are significant to stabilizer applications are as fol-

lows:

1.

The phase characteristics of GEP(s) are nearly identical to the phase characteristics of the closed loop voltage regulator.

2.
3.

The gain of GEP(s) increases with generator load.

The gain of GEP(s) increases as the ac system becomes stronger. This effect is amplified with high gain voltage regulators.

3019
4.

For typical voltage regulator transient gains of the order of 20 pu Efd/pu &t' the gain of GEP(s) at the oscillation frequencies of concern is proportional to the regulator gain and inversely proportional to the main generator open-circuit time constant and the oscillation frequency. The phase lag of GEP(s) increases as the ac system becomes stronger. This has the greatest influence with high gain exciters, since the voltage regulator loop crossover frequency approaches that of the oscillation of concern. CHARACTERISTICS OF ALTERNATIVE INPUT SIGNALS-

Frequency Input
The use of ac bus frequency as a stabilizer input results in tuning procedures and performance characteristics somewhat different from those associated with speed input stabilizers. The primary difference is that the sensitivity of the frequency signal to rotor oscillations increases as the external transmission system becomes weaker, which tends to offset the reduction in gain from stabilizer output to electrical torque, GEP(s), resulting with weaker transmission systems. This effect can be understood by utilizing the input signal sensitivity factor concept developed in Appendix B. This factor represents the transfer function from speed to the stabilizer input signal, in this case ac bus frequency:

5.

The general frequency response characteristics of stabilizers utilizing alternative input signals are discussed in this section, together with the basic concepts governing the tuning aspects and performance capabilities. Speed input stabilizers are discussed first, followed by an extension to frequency and power input stabilizers.

sF (s)

af/awG

(4)

Speed Input
A power system stabilizer utilizing shaft speed as an input must compensate for the lags in GEP(s) to produce a component of torque in phase with speed changes so as to increase damping of the rotor oscillations, as detailed in Appendix A. An ideal stabilizer characteristic would therefore be inversely proportional to GEP(s), i.e.: Ideal PSS (s) = Dp55/GEP(s)

S (s) ranges from zero in the extreme case of a unit connected to an infinitely stiff system, to unity with the unit under open circuit conditions. Between these extremes, one approximation of S (s) would be to equate it to a voltage division between Fhe internal voltage of the machine and the voltage of the infinite bus, i.e.:
s
1\1

/[X

+ XGEN (s)]

(5)

(3a)

where DPS represents the desired damping contribution of the stabilizer (detailed in Appendix A). Such a stabilizer characteristic is impractical since perfect compensation for the lags of GEP(s) requires pure differentiation with its associated high gain at high frequencies. A practical speed stabilizer must utilize lead/lag stages set to compensate for phase lags in GEP(s) over the frequency range of interest. The gain must be attenuated at high frequencies to limit the impact of noise and minimize torsional interaction, and consequently low-pass and possibly band-reject [1] filters are required. A washout stage is included to prevent steady-state voltage offsets as system frequency changes.
Practical PSS (s)
=

This approximation is valid only for manual control, since, as described in Appendix B, there exists an additional path from speed to the input signal via the This effect can be included by voltage regulator. calculating the effective internal impedance of the generator with the voltage regulator and including this in equation 5. For typical voltage regulator gains, the effective impedance of the machine is approximately equal to the subtransient reactance over the frequency range of interest to stabilizer application.
The off-setting effect of this characteristic is illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the change in SF O Hz) calculated for a large fossil unit versus external system impedance, and the compound effect of the increase in sensitivity with decrease in gain through GEP(s) (the latter being proportional to the parameter K2 as previously indicated). The gain changes of K2 and S with external system reactance tend to off-set each other with the result that the net gain from generator speed (wG) to electrical torque (T ep) is reasonably constant for a wide range of system reactances. For very low values of system reactance, the gain is reduced. Hence, this analysis suggests that the gain of the stabilizer may be adjusted to obtain the best possible performance under weak ac transmission system conditions, where the contribution of the stabilizer is required most, without concern that the gain will be excessive and cause the stabilizer to become unstable under strong system conditions. In addition, the frequency signal is more sensitive to modes of oscillation between power plants or large areas than to modes involving only individual units, including those between units within a power plant. This follows since the frequency at an ac bus between units is near a node for the latter modes of oscillation, whereas it is largely responsive to modes wherein the units swing coherently. As a consequence, it appears to be possible to obtain greater damping contribution for modes of oscillation between plants or areas than would be obtainable with the speed input.

T
w

(l+sT1)(l+sT3)
(l+sT2)(l+sT4)
FILT(s)

s(l+Tws)

(3b)
As discussed in the previous section the stabilizer operate through GEP(s), the characteristics of which vary significantly with operating conditions. The gain increases as generator load increases, which is desirable since the stability problems for which the stabilizer is applied also increase with generator load. However, the gain is very high for strong ac systems where the stability problem is minimal, and decreases as the ac system becomes weaker. The latter effect causes the influence of a speed input stabilizer to decrease when the power system requires it most. In addition to the fact that gain increases as the system becomes stronger, the phase lag also increases. As a consequence, the stabilizer loop of Figure 1 is least stable under strong ac system conditions, and therefore these conditions establish the maximum permissible gain of the speed input stabilizer. Without adaptive gain control, the stabilizer gain can not be as high as desired under weak ac system conditions when the stabilizer contribution is needed most.
must

Power Input The use of accelerating power as an input signal to the power system stabilizer has recently received con-

3020
approach is to utilize the input signal sensitivity factor concept, i.e., treat electrical power changes as resulting from speed changes via the electric power system, rather than causing speed changes. This approach yields insight into the generic differences between power input and speed input stabilizers, particularly with regard to torsional interaction, as outlined in the following discussion. The input signal sensitivity factor for power is:

1.6

1.4

1.2

S (s) =
P

aP
w

wG

e =

a(TewG)
eWG

aTe
aw
+

(6a)

1.0

wb

Kle(s)
s

eo

(6b)

- wb Kle(s
.8
-

(1 +

S/W)) POw

(6c)

where

T,eX Pe,

and wG are all in per unit on a consistent base.

(D

.6

BUS
INPUT ACTOR SF

This input signal sensitivity factor is dominated by the first term of equation 6 for the low frequencies of concern, since the lowest value of Kle is approximately 0.5 p.u./radian (for weak transmission systems) and with maximum at 1.0 p.u. the break from the integral term Peo to the proporational term (w ) occurs at approximately one-half synchronous frequency, i.e., near 30 Hz. This
implies that electrical power and torque are equivalent with respect to stabilizer performance for most subsynchronous modes of oscillation. Since the input signal sensitivity factor for power has primarily an integral characteristic, with approximately 900 of phase lag in the frequency range of interest, it would appear that an additional 90 of phase lead would be required in the stabilizer. However, a non-minimum phase approach can be utilized with the power input stabilizer, i.e., a lag characteristic having 270 of phase shift can be used rather than a lead characteristic having 900 of phase shift. The advantage of this approach is that the lag characteristic yields a closed-loop interaction with shaft oscillations which exhibits a decreasing gain with frequency, as opposed to the increasing gain with frequency associated with the minimum-phase approach utilizing a lead characteristic. Thus, the torsional interaction characteristics of ideal minimum versus non-minimum phase stabilizers diverge at a rate of 40 db/decade as the torsional frequency increases, with equal interaction at the local mode of oscillation (assuming gains set for equal local mode performance). A discussion of non-minimum phase stabilizers is included in Appendix C. The phase lag of 270 can be obtained by inverting the electrical power signal and designing the stabilizer such that the net contribution of the stabilizer and GEP(s) produces 90Y of phase lag by an integral characteristic. With this criteria, an ideal stabilizer for power is defined by:
= - GEPSS Ideal PSSp(s) P sGEP (s)

.2

.2

.4 .6 TOTAL XE (P.U.)

.8

1.0

FIGURE 3 COMPENSATION OF GAIN BY FREQUE :NCY INPUT SENSITIVITY FACTOR

siderable attention due to its inherent low level of torsional interaction [5]. Practical di fficulties of eliminating, or at least minimizing, t]he effect of mechanical power changes appear to have bee.n overcome by utilizing a heavily filtered speed signLal [6] which approximately corrects for mechanical powe.r variations. The following analysis applies only to thLe closed loop characteristics of electrical power feedb ack; however, it must be recognized that a practical pouwer stabilizer requires some compensating device for mec hanical power variations. The most common approach to analyziing the power input stabilizer is to treat its input as tthe derivative of speed and apply the same concepts utili2zed in analyzing the speed input stabilizer. This appiroach leads to the conclusion that the performance charactteristics of a power input stabilizer are identical to th( Dse of a speed input stabilizer. This conclusion is vralid for the var: .jus power system modes of oscillatiLon where the shaft behaves as a rigid body (provided t-he mechanical power changes are compensated for so that tthe stabilizer input is a true measure of average acceleraiting power on the turbine-generator). For shaft torsiconal modes of vibration, however, the accelerating power on the generator rotor alone is considerably differ ent than the average accelerating power across the entiire shaft, and hence treating the stabilizer input signal as the derivative of generator speed is invalid. Ain alternative

(7)

Note that this result is the same as would be obtained by treating power as the derivative of speed, since inverting P and integrating would yield speed, and multiplying %y the ideal PSSw(s) from equation 3 would give equation 7.

3021
The frequency response of such a stabilizer is shown in Figure 4. At low frequencies, lag must be introduced to compensate for the low phase lag of GEP(s), while at higher frequencies the stabilizer must add phase lead to compensate for the secondary lags of both GEP(s) and the stabilizer. Extending the lag at low frequencies and the lead at high frequencies is impractical, because of noise at the high frequencies and because of potentially excessive voltage offsets for low frequency phenomena on the power system, including changes in mechanical power if it is not perfectly compensated to provide a pure accelerating power signal for the stabilizer. The low frequency gain is reduced by using a time constant rather than a pure integral, equivalent to the washout stage of speed input stabilizer. The combination of a small lead/lag stage and a lag at high frequencies provides a desirable declining gain with frequency while maintaining adequate phase near the highest local mode frequency. A practical power input stabilizer would therefore have the frequency response shown by the dashed line in Figure 4. lizer application which follow. The characteristics of the "plant" through which the power system stabilizer must operate i.e., the generator, exciter, and power system, denoted GEP(s), are such that the gain increases with generator loading and ac system strength. Also, the phase lag of the "plant" increases as the ac system becomes stronger. For stabilizers utilizing speed and power as inputs, these characteristics imply that the stabilizer must be tuned for the case of the strong ac system, and that the performance will decrease as the ac system becomes weaker. Utilizing ac bus frequency as an input, however, results in characteristics which diminish the effect of ac transmission strength on the stabilizer performance, and thereby allow tuning for the weak ac system condition. In addition, a frequency input stabilizer is less sensitive to modes of oscillation associated with individual units, and more sensitive to power swings between areas than either the speed or power input stabilizers.

100

I0

-c

Stabilizers utilizing power as an input can be designed with a non-minimum phase characteristic, effectively utilizing lag networks rather than the lead networks associated with the minimum phase characteristic utilized with speed or frequency input. This allows damping performance equivalent to a speed input stabilizer but with lower gain at high frequencies. In particular, the interaction with torsional modes of shaft vibration exhibits a declining gain versus frequency characteristic as opposed to the increasing gain with frequency associated with speed or frequency input stabilizers. While this non-minimum phase characteristic is less sensitive to high frequency noise and torsional interaction, it is sensitive to low frequency phenomena, such as changes in mechanical power, and power input stabilizers must therefore be provided with compensation for these variations. If this is done with washout stages, phase lead is introduced at low frequencies which is detrimental to stability of interarea swings.
REFERENCES

LJ
cr-

1)

F.R. Schleif, H.D. Hunkins, G.E. Martin, E.E. Hattan, "Excitation Control to Improve Powerline Stability", IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-87, June, 1968, pp. 1426-1434. C. Concordia, F.P. deMello, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control", IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-88, April 1969, pp.

2)
0.1
0.1

I0

w4 RAD/SEC)
FIGURE 4 POWER INPUT

316-329.

3)
IDEAL AND PRACTICAL

STABILIZER.

It should be noted that imperfect steady-state compensation for power changes would necessitate adding a washout stage, which is equivalent to a second washout stage in a speed input stabilizer. The resulting phase lead would be detrimental to the stabilizer performance since, as described in Appendix A, it introduces a desynchronizing component of torque. Interarea modes often have very little synchronizing torque due to relatively weak, heavily loaded ties, and adding a desynchronizing effect via a power system stabilizer can cause areas to lose synchronism following a relatively minor system disturbance under such conditions. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

R.A. Lawson, D.A. Swann, G.F. Wright,, "Minimization of Power System Stabilizer Torsional Interaction on Large Turbine-Generator", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97, January/February 1978, pp. 183-190.

4)

Kundur, D.C. Lee, H.M. Zein El-Din, "Power System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and On-Site Validation", Paper F80-227-9 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, February 1980.
P.

5)

J.P. Bayne, D.C. Lee, W. Watson, "A Power System Stabilizer Stabilizing Signal for Thermal Units Based on Derivation of Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans. Vol PAS-96, November/December 1977, pp.

1777-1783.

6)

The general concepts associated with applying power system stabilizers utilizing speed, frequency, or power input signals have been described in this part of a three-part paper, laying the foundation for discussion of the tuning concepts and practical aspects of stabi-

F.P. deMello, L.N. Mannett, J.M. Undrill, "Practical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans. Vol PAS-97, September/October 1978, pp. 1515-1522.

3022
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Initial Impact of PSS Upon Rotor Oscillation Eigenvalues

It is shown here that the eigenvalue nominally associated with the rotor oscillation mode of interest initially moves an amount proportional to stabilizer gain as the gain is increased from zero, and in a direction determined by the net phase of the stabilizer, excitation system, generator and power system. This concept is useful in understanding the relationship between the phase characteristics of the stabilizer path from speed to torque and performance of the power system with the stabilizer loop closed. We start with the eigenvalue expressed approximately as per equation Al, where it is assumed that the damping is light.

Analysis of Power System Stabilizer Application With an Arbitrary Input Signal

When using an input signal other than shaft speed for the power system stabilizer, two additional factors must be considered in the analysis. The first is the "input signal sensitivity factor" which represents the transfer function from shaft speed to the signal being used as a stabilizer input. This transfer function is in series with the stabilizer loop and thereby directly influences the performance. The second factor is the "stabilizer inner loop" which is formed by virtue of the stabilizer output having an effect upon its input signal independent of shaft speed, via flux changes in the generator. This is illustrated in Figure B1 which shows the stabilizer path from shaft speed to electrical torque with an arbitrary input signal X. This can be expressed mathematically as:

Dv
+
-

M = M

i- jw i i+

(Al)

Adding the power system stabilizer results in effective damping and synchronizing component contributions:

AX

SX(S)
)
=

AWG

FBX(s) AEpss
PSX(s) AX

(Bla)

AwG + FBx(s)

(Blb)

P(s) =

aT

ep due to adding PSS

(A2a)

X
w

aWG

EG pss
-

stabilizer input signal generator shaft speed stabilizer output signal

=

DpSS(wi)

iW.1 KpSS(Wi)

(A2b)

SX(S)
=

aM,

axG
ax

"input signal sensitivity factor"

BE pss

Including this contribution in the expression for the eigenvalue results in equation A3, and A4 represents the change expressed in terms of the damping and synchronizing contributions of the stabilizer.

FB (s) =

="input signal feedback factor"

The resulting contribution of the stabilizer path is therefore:

1L
Au. AWi

aI
=

PSS) (D+D 214

wb

(Ko+KPSS) 14

(A3)
(A4a)
(A4b)

Dp55(Wj)

P(S)

A\Tep/

G
-

Sx(s) PSSx(s) GEP(s)/[l

FBx(s) PSSx(s)] (B2)

2M KpSS(Wi) W

From equation A4, it is seen that the change in the real and imaginary components of the eigenvalue are proportional to the real and imaginary components of the' contribution of the stabilizer path, and hence the change in eigenvalue is related to this stabilizer contribution:

A. 1

= -

2iF

P(jw Piw~

(A5)

AWG
FIGURE BI STABILIZER LOOPS WITH ARBITRARY INPUT X
The impact of the stabilizer inner loop, which appears in the denominator term of equation B2, is a function of For the case of shaft speed the input signal chosen. input, the feedback term is zero and hence the inner loop has no effect. As an opposite extreme, utilizing terminal voltage for stabilization would result in a very large feedback term and a low sensitivity factor. For ac bus frequency as a stabilizer input, the feedback term is sufficiently small and, at least for analyzing the inpact of the stabilizer as its gain is increased from zero, the feedback term can be neglected, resulting in the approximation of equation B3.

Note that a zero phase characteristic for Pjw.) will cause the real part of the eigenvalue to increase in a negative direction, which implies positive damping. Phase lag in P(jw.) results in a positive synchronizing component (as per equation A2c) and an increase in frequency. Conversely, phase lead yields a negative synchronizing contribution and a decrease in frequency.

3023

P(s) ~

P'(s) =

Sx(s)

PSSx(s) GEP(s)

(C3)

Note that an additional zero at the origin is introduced into the loop when using power as opposed to speed

where P'(s) represents the forward part of the stabilizer path.

It should be noted that the input signal sensitivity factor is a function of the voltage regulator as well as power system conditions such as transmission line strength. This follows since the stabilizer input signal is sensitive to changes in the voltage error signal (in the same manner it is affected by stabilizer output signal), and the voltage is affected by shaft speed. This can be expressed mathematically as follows:

input.

APPENDIX C
Non-Minimum Phase Stabilizers
The objective of a power system stabilizer is to add damping to rotor oscillations, which is accomplished by modulating voltage regulator setpoint such that resulting torque changes are in phase with shaft speed. In conventional stabilizers lead networks are provided to compensate for the phase lags associated with the generator and excitation system (GEP(s) of Figure 1), resulting in a "minimum phase" control loop. An alternative approach is to add appropriate lag networks such that the net phase is -360 at the frequency of concern, resulting in a "non-minimum phase" control loop. Figure Cl gives an example where the 3600 phase lag is accomplished by:

Ae t =AE ref +tE pss -AE t B8t/BWG = - S Sx(s) = S (s) - SEM (s) FB(s)

(B4)
(B5)

(B6)

where SM, SEM = input signal sensitivity factors for X and Et, respectively, under manual control (i.e., voltage regulator gain = 0).

The input signal feedback factor (FBx(s)) represents the effect of a change in stabilizer output upon the input signal via flux changes in the generator, and hence includes the closed-loop voltage regulator characteristics.
To analyze the closed-loop performance of the power system with a stabilizer, it is useful to consider the stabilizer as closing a loop around a system which includes both the input signal feedback factor and the rotor. Based on Figure Bl, this can be expressed as:

P(s)

GEP(s) PSS w(s)

= -

Kw/s

(C1)

In this figure, all other contributions to torque have been lumped into the effective synchronizing constant K (s) defined in equati-on 6.

A8
ATn

Gx(s) = FBx(s) + GEP(s) R(s) SX(S)

where

(B7)

R(s) = -s/(MS
"

Kle(s) wb)
+ W.) _2a.s 3 IL

(B8a)
2

=- -

S/M(s

(B8b)

FIGURE Cl NON-MINIMUM PHASE SPEED INPUT STABILIZER

then

The open-loop transfer function of the system is

GHX(s)

Gx(s) PSSX(S) P'(s)/S xs) GEP(s)

(B9a)
(B9b)

= GxCs)

For speed input, hence:

FBw is zero and S w is unity,

Gw (s)

GEP(s) R(s)

(B1O)

For power input, FB can be determined by realizing that it represents the Peffect of stabilizer output signal upon power independent of shaft motion. Hence power and torque are equivalent and the feedback factor becomes:

path can be defined as R(s) as per equation B8, with the feedback path P(s) as per equation Cl. The system has a net of one open-loop pole at the origin, since one of the poles of the stabilizer path is cancelled by the zero of R(s). In addition, there exists a complex pair associated with rotor oscillations. Since the open loop gain is inverted in sign, when K is increased the complex poles will move further into the left-half plane and become more stable, but the pole at the origin will move towards the right-half plane and become unstable immediately. This is illustrated in Figure C2a.
Thus, to successfully implement a non-minimum phase stabilizer with speed input it is necessary to use a time constant at a low frequency rather than a pure integral characteristic, i.e.:

double-integral characteristic, as per equation Cl, an instability will result as soon as the gain is increased from zero. This can be understood by examining the nature of the control loop. From Figure Cl, the forward

With

speed

input

stabilizer yielding a pure

FB (s) p

BP BE e

aT
=

-pss

Epss

= =

GEP(s)

(Bll)

Using the power input signal sensitivity factoir from equation 5, together with equations B7, B8, an.d Ri1, results in:
G

P(s) = GEP(s) PSSw (s) ~= - K /s(w + s) w s

(C3)

(s)

= s

GEP(s) R(s)

(B12)

The pole at the origin has now been shifted into the left-half plane by w . This pole will still move towards the right-halt plane and eventually become unstable, but will permit some damping contribution to rotor oscillations as shown in Figure C2b.

3024
4

wtG
-Kw S2
Kinst :Q
-ws

= = = = =

generator shaft speed. generator

-KW

shaft

angular displace-

(s )S

El

generator internal generator field

voltage. voltage.

Kinst >0

Efd
Et

voltage.

generator terminal

(a)

(b)

Ef
t

Eref

voltage reference
-----

signal.
signal.

FIGURE C2 ROOT LOCt WITH NON-MINIMUM - PHASE SPEED INPUT STABILIZER

error

To analyze the characteristics of the power input stabilizer, the concepts developed in Appendix B for an arbitrary input signal are utilized. First, a development parallel to that used above for speed input is followed. Utilizing equations B2, Bll, and B3 yields the following for the stabilizer path with power input:

PSSX(S)
EXC (s)

= =

stabilizer with input X.

excitation system
60 Hz).
=

AEfd/A&t-

Wub

system base frequency (377 rad/sec @

stabilizer gain.
washout time constant.

P(s) =
=

Sp(s) PSSp (s) GEP(s)/[l P'(s)/[l - P'(s)/Sp(s)]

- GEP(s)

PSSp (s)]

(C4a) (C4b)

KS
Tw

To provide a non-minimum phase characteristic for low values of stabilizer gain, the forward part of the stabilizer path, P(s), is set to the double-integral characteristic of equation Cl, with S (s) from equation 6c assuming w = . Including the effect of the stabilizer inner 1Toop by substituting into equation C4b yields the following for the stabilizer contribution:

T1T 2T3sT4
FILT(s)
xe

lead/lag time constants.

filtering in stabilizer.
-reactance external to

GEN
pe

effective reactance of

generator. generator.

electrical power.
steady-state power level.
effective synchronizing coefficient, AT /36, including all sources other than stabilizer path.
wb

P(s)

= -

K/s[(K/K le(s) tu) + s)]

(C5)

p eo

Note that including the stabilizer inner loop has resulted in a stabilizer contribution which is actually an integral plus a time constant similar to equation C3. Unlike the breakpoint w introduced into the stabilizer with speed input, however, the breakpoint in equation C5 is inherently proportional to the gain of the stabilizer forward path, K, and hence suggests that the pole associated with this breakpoint will not become unstable as the gain is increased. This can be verified by determining the open-loop transfer function as per equation B9b with the ideal characteristic of equation Cl for P'(s), equation B12 for the system, and equation 6 for the input siganl sensitivity factor: GH (s)
=

K1 (s)
w

A.

-po
1

Kle(S)/Peo

eigenvalue associated with of rotor oscillation.

i- mode

th

W.

rotor oscillation frequency of mode.

th i-

ci.

"

-----

damping

------

R(s)K/w%

Kl(s)

(1 +

s/wtu)

(C6)

Dp55,Kp55
D ,K 0o 0
M

effective damping and synchronizing coefficients resulting from stabilizer path.

This ideal open-loop transfer function has less than 1800 of phase lag at low frequency, and hence the nonminimum phase characteristic can be implemented with power input without having the low frequency instability which is associated with a speed input non-minimum phase stabilizer. LIST OF SYMBOLS

damping and
cients.

synchronizing coeffi-

inertia of turbine-generator shaft.

FBX (s)
P

GEP.(s)
T T
e

=
=

stanilizer

/AE PSS

through which must operate.

=

'plant"

(s)

8X/8Ep55. Tpl/wG neglecting FBX(s). AT

=
=

input

signal

feedback

factor

Gx(s)

AX/E PSS including rotor motion.

generator electrical torque. component of T due solely to flux changes caused Cy Ep55.
sources

R(s)

WG/ATep
open-loop
transfer
function

ep

GHX(s)
The following

of

stabilizer control loop.

T eo

EPSS
Tm

of T due to all other (= T e - fep ). stabilizer output signal.

component

are defined in
K
=

[2]:
e q

K1

=
=

mechanical torque.

K5

e/m6 3Et/36
T

2
=

3T /WE

K3

ZE /REfd

aE /aEE q t

For Combined discussion

see page

3024

IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 6 June 1981
APPLYING POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS

3025

PART II:

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND TUNING CONCEPTS

E.V. Larsen (Member) D.A. Swann (Member) General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York

ABSTRACT
This part of a three-part paper deals first with the performance objectives of power system stabilizers in terms of the type of oscillations for which they are intended to provide damping, the operating conditions for which the requirement for stabilization is greatest, the need to accommodate multiple modes of oscillation, and the significance of interplant modes of oscillation. It next treats stabilizer tuning. General tuning guidelines are developed as well as variations required for different input signals. The operating conditions under which each type of stabilizer should be tuned are identified. The relationship between phase compensation tuning and root locus analysis is presented. Finally, the relative performance characteristics of the three types of stabilizers are examined for both small perturbations and large disturbances.

robust design meeting the system requirements. In addition, a relationship is established between desired performance and the phase compensation characteristics, laying the groundwork for a fairly straightforward field

tuning procedure outlined in Part III.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

"Dynamic"

or

"Steady-State" Stability Limits

INTRODUCTION
Tuning of supplementary excitation controls for stabilizing system modes of oscillation has been the subject of much research during the past 10 to 15 years. Two basic tuning techniques have been successfully utilized with power system stabilizer applications: phase compensation and root locus. Phase compensation consists of adjusting the stabilizer to compensate for the phase lags through the generator, excitation system, and power system such that the stabilizer path provides torque changes which are in phase with speed changes [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This is the most straightforward approach, easily understood and implemented in the field, and the most widely used. Synthesis by root locus involves shifting the eigenvalues associated with the power system modes of oscillation by adjusting the stabilizer pole and zero locations in the s-plane [7,8]. This approach gives additional insight to performance by working directly with the closed-loop characteristics of the system, as opposed to the open-loop nature of the phase compensation technique, but is more complicated to apply, particularly in the field. Independent of the technique utilized in tuning stabilizer equipment, it is necessary to recognize the nonlinear nature of power systems and that the objective of adding power system stabilizers is to extend power transfer limits by stabilizing system oscillations; adding damping is not an end in itself, but a means to extending power transfer limits. This part of a threepart paper addresses the performance characteristics of power system stabilizers with respect to extending power transfer stability limits for both remote generation and intertie situations. Both small and large disturbance aspects of performance are included, resulting in a definition of desired stabilizer performance to ensure a

Applying power system stabilizers can extend power transfer stability limits which are characterized by lightly damped or spontaneously growing oscillations in the 0.2 to 2.5 Hz frequency range. This is accomplished via excitation control to contribute damping to the system modes of oscillation. Consequently, it is the stabilizer's ability to enhance damping under the least stable conditions, i.e., the "performance conditions", which is important. Additional damping is primarily required under conditions of weak transmission and heavy load as occurs, for example, when attempting to transmit power over long transmission lines from remote generating plants or over relatively weak ties between systems. Contingencies, such as line outages or fuel shortages, often precipitate such conditions. Hence, systems which normally have adequate damping can often benefit from stabilizers during such abnormal conditions.
It is important to realize that the stabilizer is intended to provide damping for small excursions about a steady-state operating point, and not to enhance transient stability, i.e., the ability to recover from a severe disturbance. In fact, the stabilizer will often have a deleterious effect on transient stability by attempting to pull the generator field out of ceiling too early in response to a fault. The stabilizer output is generally limited to prevent serious impact on transient stability, but stabilizer tuning also has a significant impact upon system performance following a large disturbance, as will be discussed.

System Modes of Oscillation

The power system oscillations of concern to stability occur in the 0.2 to 2.5 Hz frequency range. These result when the rotors of machines, behaving as rigid bodies, oscillate with respect to one another using the electrical transmission path between them to exchange energy. There are many different modes in which such oscillations may occur, often simultaneously.
The first widespread use of power system stabilizers occurred when the U.S. West Coast utilities discovered that they were unable to fully load their 500 kV transmission lines connecting the Pacific Northwest and Southwest because of an oscillatory instability [1]. Troublesome oscillations resulted as a consequence of the aggregate of units at one end of the intertie oscillating against the aggregate of units at the other end. This has become known as an intertie or interarea mode of oscillation, and has been experienced in several systems [1,9,10,11]. The natural frequency of oscillation of intertie modes is typically in the range of 0.20 to 0.5 Hz. The use of power system stabilizers was extended to provide damping for oscillations which occur when remote generating units are connected to a relatively large power system through weak, essentially radial transmission lines [12,13]. This has become known as a local

80 SM 559-5

paper

recommended

and

approved

by

the

IEEE Power Generation Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Summer MIeeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 13-18, 1980.Manuscript submitted March 14, 1980; made available for printing May 7, 1980.

3026 mode of oscillation and its natural frequency is typically in the range of 0.8 to 1.8 Hz.
Between the frequency extremes of the intertie and local modes exist other modes commonly encountered in weakly connected systems [14]. These intrasystem modes result from oscillations between individual units within a system and tend to behave similar to local modes in that a large portion of the power oscillation is typically experienced by a few units. These modes will be treated as local modes in the discussion which follows.

Finally, it should be mentioned that if oscillations occur between units in the same plant it is a consequence of their controls interacting rather than power transfer stability limits. It is generally undesirable for a stabilizer to respond to these intraplant oscillations, typically ranging in frequency from 1.5 to 2.5 Hz, as this detracts from its ability to enhance transfer limits from the power plant. Some utilities have used average speed derived from multiple units in a single plant as an input to all stabilizers in the plant, thereby preventing the stabilizers from responding to intraplant oscillations [15], and summation of power has also been suggested. As described in Part I, ac bus frequency is inherently less sensitive to these intraplant modes than speed or power input.
Experience suggests that it is not unusual for a generating unit to participate in both local and intertie modes of oscillation. Power system stabilizers must therefore be able to accommodate both modes. Since a single unit or power plant is dominant in local modes, its stabilizer can have a very large impact on damping the oscillation. By contrast, a single unit experiences only a portion of the total magnitude of power oscillation in the intertie mode. Therefore, a power system stabilizer applied to a single unit can only contribute to the damping of an intertie mode in proportion to the power generation capacity of the unit relative to the total capacity of the area of which it is a part. As a consequence, a stabilizer should be designed to provide adequate local mode damping under all operating conditions, with particular attention to conditions of heavy load and weak transmission, and simultaneously to provide a high contribution to damping of intertie modes. These criteria ensure good performance for a wide range of power system contingencies.
TUNING CONCEPTS

a moderate to weak ac system, which fortunately also has the least phase lag. Hence, the "tuning condition" for speed and power input stabilizers is with full load and the strongest transmission system, but with a moderate to weak system for frequency input. The performance condition occurs with a weak transmission system which is different from the tuning condition for speed and power input stabilizers. Since the gain of the plant decreases as the system becomes weaker, when using speed or power the damping contribution for the strong system should be maximized so as to ensure best performance with a weakened system.

An example will be used to illustrate the combined use of phase compensation and root locus techniques to meet the above objective for a speed input stabilizer. The example is of a large fossil turbine-generator unit operated into a very strong system having a total of 20% external reactance', including step-up transformer. This represents a fairly extreme situation, because of the strong system and relatively light inertia associated with large fossil units. A high initial response excitation system is assumed, with a transient gain of 20 p.u. Efd /p.u. 8t As described in Part I, the speed input stabilizer consists of a washout stage, a double lead/lag stage, and a filter to attenuate high frequency components:
PSS (s) w
=

(l+sT1)(l+sT3) (l+sT2)(1+sT4)FILT(s) (l+sT 4) l+Tws (1+sTQ2

T Ts 1+T s

(2)

The filter FILT(s) is represented with a second order lag characteristic with complex roots at -17.5+j16 rad/ sec. This representation provides phase lag equivalent to that of the torsional band reject filter [16] up to about 3.5 Hz. To simplify illustration of the basic concepts, the washout time constant is set at 10 seconds, thereby having virtually no impact upon the local mode, and the lead/lag stages are set identically, each having a 10:1 spread between the lead and lag time constants. A parameter defined as the compensation center frequency, i.e.,
c =

1/2nJTVT2

410/2rT

(3)

Stabilizers must be tuned to provide the desired system performance under the condition which requires stabilization, typically weak systems with heavy power transfer, while at the same time being robust in that undesirable interactions are avoided for all system conditions. As described in Part I, the plant through which the stabilizer must operate consists of the generator, exciter, and power system:

adjustments.

is varied to show the impact of different stabilizer

Phase Compensation.

Figure 1 shows the variation with lead/lag center frequency on the compensated phase, i.e., the phase of the complete stabilizer path from speed to torque:

P(jw)

GEP(jw)PSS (jw)

P(w)/ (w)

(4)

GEP(s)
where

= AT

ep/AEps
=

(1)

GEP(s)
T
eP

the plant through which the stabilizer must operate.

Key points to observe from this figure are the phase at the local mode frequency of 1.6 Hz, 4 , and the frequency at which the phase passes through oo, fo 90.
As shown in Appendix A of Part I, the initial direction of eigenvalue migration as stabilizer gain is increased from zero is determined by the phase at the local mode frequency. For perfect compensation, i.e., L L= 0, pure positive damping will be applied and the will move directly into the left half plane eigenvalue with no change in frequency. If phase lag exists, the frequency will increase in proportion to the amount of damping increase, specifically

component of electrical torque due solely to stabilizer path.

stabilizer output signal.

pss

This plant has the highest gain and greatest phase lag under conditions of full load on the unit and the strongest transmission system. These conditions therefore represent the limiting case for achievable gain with a speed or power input stabilizer. With ac bus frequency as an input, the highest loop gain occurs with

AWL

= - tan

'As

(5)

where

WL
A

aL

= =

local mode frequency (rad/sfc) local mode decay rate (sec ) implies change due to stabilizer

For 0 = -450, frequency will increase at the same rate as damping, and for 0L = -90, no change in damping will take place, but frequency will increase. This basic concept is very useful in understanding the root locus.

3027 that an instability will develop at some value of gain. An optimum gain therefore exists at which the damping is maximum. The eigenvalues corresponding to this optimum condition for the three cases presented are shown on the root locus curves by squares. For Figure 2A, the optimum is chosen where the decay rate, i.e., -o = -real part of eigenvalue, of the least damped mode is maximized. For Figure 2B, the optimum is chosen where the damping ratio, i.e., the ratio of decay rate to frequency, associated with the so-called "exciter mode" [8], which is becoming less damped as gain increases, and the mode initially associated with local mode, which is becoming more damped as gain increases, are equal. More or less gain than this optimum would result in one root having a lower damping ratio. In Figure 2C, damping never increases, and a gain is chosen as the maximum before significant degrading of the existing damping occurs. Phase Compensation, Root Locus Relationship

0.5 0.7 FREQUENCY (Hz)

FIREI COMPENSATED PHASE FOR VARIOUS LEAD/LAG CENTER

FREQUENCIES (fc)

Root Locus

Root locus plots are shown in Figure 2 for three sets of stabilizer lead/lag adjustments. These plots represent the migration of the eigenvalues as stabilizer gain is increased from zero to infinity. Although several eigenvalues exist for the total system, only the dominant ones associated with stabilizer open-loop transfer function GH (s) (defined in Part I, Appendix B) The lightly damped eigenvalue near 10 are shown. rad/sec represents the local mode of oscillation (1.6 Hz). The eigenvalue which starts at -17.5+j16 rad/sec results from the filter equivalent in the stabilizer. and the In Figure 2A, the double pole at -20 sec double zero at -2 sec represent the lag and lead breaks, respectively. Only the upper half of the s-plane is shown; the lower half is a mirror image of the upper half. In root locus theory, the open loop system poles will migrate to the open loop system zeros as gain is increased from zero to infinity. Since there are six dominant poles and only two zeros, four of the poles must tend to infinity as gain is increased which implies

Of particular interest is the migration of the eigenvalue which started as the lightly damped local mode for Figures 2A and 2C. The phase compensation at the local mode frequency for the adjustments of 2A is -330, but -90 for case 2C. As gain increases, both experience an increase in frequency. The direction of motion at any point along the locus is governed approximately by the phase at the frequency which exists. This characteristic is strictly true only for zero damping, but is approximately correct when the root is significantly underdamped, i.e., u/w << 1.

In Figure 2C the phase lag is initially 900 and hence frequency increases with no change in damping. The phase lag increases with increasing frequency which changes the stabilizer contribution to a somewhat negative damping characteristic and hence the eigenvalue moves towards the right-half plane and eventually becomes unstable. In Figure 2A, the locus begins in primarily a positive damping direction, but eventually increases to where the phase passes through freauency -90 . The locus then continues with a pure increase in frequency, which is associated with an increase in the phase lag, thereby eventually causing a decrease in damping to a point of becoming unstable.

jw (r/s)

jw(r/s)

a, (sec-')

0' (sec-1)
(B)
z

-5
a

(sec'1)

(A) f I.OHz; T,/T2: T3/T4 .5/.05

FIGURE2 ROOT LOCI FOR TUNING EXAMPLE

fc- 3.4 Hz;TI/T2 T3/T4 -.15/.015

(C) fc 10Hz; T1/T2: T3/T4 -.05/.005

SPEED INPUT, STRONG SYSTEM, FULL LOAD

3028 Summary of Tuning Example

The significant parameters associated with each lead/lag setting are consolidated in Table I. These include phase compensation at the local mode frequency, $ 6 the frequency. at which the phase lag passes through 9h , f 9 o, the optimum gain, KOPT' the decay rate associated with the most lightly damped system mode with the optimum stabilizer gain, GOPT' the gain and frequency at which an instability occurs, KINS , f NST' respectively, and the gain of the stabilizer a a ypical intertie frequency of 0.4 Hz with the optimum stabilizer gain, KI.
Table I

TUNING WITH ALTERNATIVE INPUT SIGNALS Speed Input Stabilizers The system used in this and the following sections to establish the concepts of tuning the three basic types of stabilizers differs from the previous example case in that a four-pole turbine-generator is used. As with the previous example, the tuning is examined for the case with a strong transmission system of 20% reactance and full load on the generator since this represents the most restrictive case for speed inpuit stabiThe lead/lag spread of the stabilizer time lizers. constants was initially set at 10:1, the same as used in the previous analysis with the two-pole machine, and the lead time constants at 0.2 seconds (f = 2.5 Hz). The locus of dominant roots as a function of stabilizer gain are shown in Figure 3a. The local mode eigenvalue moves to the left and increases in damping while the root associated with the filtering in the stabilizer For becomes less stable and eventually goes unstable. this case, the optimum gain is about 30 and the instability gain is about 90. The wide spread between the loci of the exciter mode and local mode is indicative of excess stabilizer lead. Since the inertia and reactance of a four-pole machine are greater than for a two-pole machine, the local mode frequency is lower, other conditions being equal. Consequently, the required phase lead at local mode frequency is less than with a two-pole machine, and the lead/lag ratio can therefore be reduced. Figures 3b and 3c show the resulting root loci for different lead time constants, maintaining 6:1 spreads on both stages. The reduced phase lead of case 3b is close to optimum for local mode. Placing the lead time constants at higher frequencies results in even less phase lead and the local mode goes unstable rather than the exciter mode as shown in Figure 3c.
It is instructive to compare the selected gains for the three cases shown in Figure 3. Tabulated in Table the NST KH OKPTTlT3/ T2T4 representing PT' Ktreqdencies, and K I the gain at 0.4 Hz gain at 'high representing the gain at an intertie frequency. The table also shows the local mode eigenvalues, \-OCAL' corresponding to KOPT.'

SUMMARY OF TUNING EXAMPLE

(Hz)
1.0 2.0

fc

OPTP (sec -(
-3.5

KOPT KI
2.5 8 20

KL (deg)

f-900 KINST fINST

(Hz) (Hz)
2.75 3.30 3.55 3.50 1.60 7.5 25 120 130

5.0 10

3.4

-4.0 -4.8 -3.6 -0.8

40 35

3 11 23

42 36

-330 -290 -420 -590

65

2.9 3.3 3.7

-90

3.7 2.6

It is seen from this table that very good local mode damping can be obtained with a wide range of lead/lag settings, but decreases rapidly as the compensation center frequency becomes greater than 5 Hz. For compensation center frequencies up through 5 Hz, the best local mode damping occurs with a center frequency near 3.4 Hz. The highest gain at intertie frequencies, however, occurs with the higher compensation center frequency of 5 Hz. In general, the highest compensation center frequency which provides adequate local mode damping will yield the greatest contribution to intertie modes of oscillation. The last four parameters of Table I suggest the following guidelines for setting the lead/lag stages to achieve adequate local mode damping with maximum contribution to intertie modes of oscillation. Two basic criteria in terms of phase compensation
are:

1.

It is most important to maximize the bandwidth within which the phase lag remains less than 900. This is true even though less than perfect phase compensation results at the local mode frequency.

Table II COMPARISON OF SPEED INPUT STABILIZER TUNING

2.

The phase lag at the local mode frequency should be This can be improved somewhat less than about 45 by decreasing the washout time constant, but too low of a washout time constant will add phase lead and an associated desynchronizing effect to the intertie oscillations. In general, it is best to keep the washout time constant greater than one second.
.

Fig T1/T2,T3/T4
3a 3b

"LOCAL
-3.0+j 8.0
-3.5+j 8.5

OPT

KINST KH
90 60 150 3000 720 1800

KI
58
37 28

3c

.2/.02,.2/.02 .2/.033,.3/.05

.12/.02,.3/.033 -3.5+jll.5

30 20 50

The gain and frequency at which an instability occurs also provide an indication of appropriate lead/lag The relationship of these parameters to settings. performance are useful in root locus analysis and in field testing. 3. The frequency at which an instability occurs is highest for the best lead/lag settings. This is related to maximizing the bandwidth within which the phase lag remains less than 900.
The optimum gain for a particular lead/lag setting is consistently about one-third of the instability gain.

All designs give good damping for local mode, but the 6:1 lead/lag spread yields larger gain at intertie frequency per gain at high frequency, i.e., K /KH is larger. Optimum tuning might lie between cases Mb, and 3c with a trade-off required between high frequency gain and intertie damping contributions. Case 3b will be used for subsequent comparison with the performance of other types of stabilizers. Note that for all cases the optimum gain is about one-third of the instability gain, comparable to the previous example with a two-pole unit.
Power Input Stabilizer
As indicated in Part I, the interest in using accelerating power as a stabilizer input signal results from the inherently low level of torsional interaction due to its non-minimum phase characteristic. As a

4.

3029
jw (r/s)

(a) T1/T2 T3/T4

l7

j20

(b) T1 /T2 :.2/.033 T3/T4 :.3/05

jw((r/s)
j20
K INST

[-/
(-17.5+16)
j'5 5jl

IlO
7-

\
-/l

KOPT-20

uLJ U)
TC)

LL

j5

LJ i,

C-) :Ic C/' c

Z* \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~N

j5

-kgr
-5

-2.5 a(sec )

2.5

-5

-2.5 c(sec -I )

2.5

a(sec l )
UNIT LOAD P :.95, Q: O Xe : 0.2 p.u.

FIGURE 3

ROOT LOCI WITH SPEED

INPUT,

VARIOUS SETTINGS

consequence, a single time constant lag at 0.06 second is assumed to provide sufficient torsional attenuation for this example. The general frequency characteristics of a practical power input stabilizer are developed in Part I. Appropriate settings for this example were determined to be:

PSSp

= K

(1+.25s)(l+.15s) (1+.06s)

(6)

The lag/lead stage of .5/.25 seconds contributes the phase lag required at low local mode frequencies (weak
transmission systems) and the lead/ lag stage of .15/.05 seconds provides the phase lead required at high local mode frequencies (strong transmission systems).

Figure 4a shows the root locus plot when varying stabilizer gain while operating at the tuning condition of full load into a strong transmission sys-tem. These root locus curves are similar to the ones for a speed input stabilizer, with two exceptions. With the speed input stabilizer, complex roots at -17.5+j16 rad/sec represented the phase lag characteristics of torsional filtering, whereas with the power input stabilizer a single time constant lag of .06 sec. is used to represent torsional filtering. In addition, the use of power input yields an extra zero at the origin in the openloop transfer function, as described in Appendix B of Part 1. Because of these differences, the exciter mode of the power input stabilizer becomes unstable at a much higher frequency and there is much larger gain margin between optimal and instability gain than occurs with the speed input stabilizer.

jw ( r/s)

1i2O

,w ( r/s)

1i2O

j5

-20

-15

-10 a- (sec-1)

-5

a- (sec-I )

-10

FIGURE4 ROOT LOCI WITH POWER INPUT, STRONG AND WEAK SYSTEM

3030
To check the effectiveness of the stabilizer for the performance condition, a root locus was calculated with a weak transmission system as shown in Figure 4b. As expected, the gain established under strong transmission system conditions gives less than optimum, although adequate local mode damping under weak tranmission system conditions.

Frequency Input Stabilizer

The ac bus frequency input stabilizer has two major differences with respect to tuning. First, the frequency signal is less sensitive to intraplant oscillations than either speed or power. These modes have higher frequencies than the local mode of the power plant to the power system, and the phase lag of the stabilizer loop is therefore greater. Hence, with speed or power input these modes will become unstable and impose a limitation upon stabilizer performance. Secondly, as described in Part I, the sensitivity of the frequency signal to speed variations increases as the connected transmission system becomes weaker. This offsets the reduction in gain from voltage reference to electrical torque, GEP(s), due to a weaker transmission system. As a consequence, the frequency input stabilizer can be tuned for the best performance under weak transmission conditions where the stabilizer contribution is most required.

spread, i.e., T1T /T2T4, is 12:1 for the case in Figure 5a and 16:1 for tge case in Figure 5b. These compare to 36:1 to 100:1 with the speed input stabilizer. It will also be noted that the high frequency gain, KH, for the cases of Figures 5a and 5b is 360 and 432, respectively, which compares to a range of 720 to 3000 with the speed input stabilizer. The settings associated with the stabilizer of Figure 5a provide slightly better local mode improvement than those associated with Figure 5b, with lower high frequency gain, and therefore will be used for subsequent comparative analysis.

with a strong transmission system and about 8:1 for the power input stabilizer.

stabilizer, the gain margin between optimum and instability is about 1.5:1 for the weak transmission line case, as opposed to 3:1 for the speed input stabilizer

It should be noted that for the frequency input

PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Local Mode

Although these differences in tuning criteria will generally result in less high frequency gain for frequency input stabilizers than for speed input stabilizers, significant attenuation is still required at the torsional frequencies to prevent excessive torsional interaction. For purposes of the following analysis, the torsional filter equivalent is assumed to be that used for the speed input stabilizer.
Root locus plots varying gain with a frequency input stabilizer are shown in Figures 5a and 5b for two different sets of lead/lag combinations. A weak transmission system of 80% reactance is used. Comparatively small lead/lag spreads are needed to obtain phase compensation for the lower frequency of rotor oscillation associated with weak transmission systems. The total

The effect of various types of stabilizers on the dominant eigenvalues as the transmission system reactance is varied is shown in Figures 6a, b and c. The exciter mode and the local mode are shown with the addition of the lower frequency voltage regulation mode (around 1 rad/sec). All of these curves include as reference the local mode and voltage regulation mode variations without a power system stabilizer. It is apparent that the speed and power input stabilizers exhibit similar characteristics, with the power input stabilizer yielding more local mode damping (due to the lower phase lag associated with torsional filtering). For both speed and power input stabilizers,.the exciter mode becomes more stable as the system becomes weaker while the local mode becomes less stable. With the frequency input stabilizer the exciter mode becomes less stable as the transmission system weakens, as expected due to the increase in the input signal sensitivity factor, while the local mode damping is relatively insensitive to transmission system strength.

jw ( r/s ) Ji2O

(b)

T, /T2

T3 T4- .2/.05

.4/.I

jI5

ji lO

2.5

-(sec

UNIT LOAD P :.95 0: 0 Xe: .8p.u

o(secK' )

FIGURE 5 ROOT LOCI WITH TERMINAL FREQUENCY INPUT, DIFFERENT SETTINGS

jw(r/s)
Xe (Pu.) .6 . 1.2 s 2.

1 15

i wr/s) i'5
e.6 1.2 .2 Xe(p.u.)
X e(p.u.)

3031

iw (r/s) I jl5

jIO
.2

jIO
.2)

(A) SPEED INPUT T1/T2 =.2/.033

.6

.2 ?-

Ks = 20
-10

T3/T4 =.3/05

.61 wj5 1.2 \.2

0

(B) POWER INPUT T, /T2 = .15/.05 T3/T4 =.25/.5 Ks = 3

-10
C

VT4=.3/05
=

1.2 \ 0

30

a- (sec-1)

-5

(sec-I)

-5

-5

a(sec-I )

x-WITH STABILIZER

o- NO STABILIZER

UNIT LOAD: P =.95p.u., Q=O

FIGURE 6 ROOT LOCI VARYING SYSTEM REACTANCE Xe, DIFFERENT INPUT SIGNALS
Figure 6 indicates that the power input stabilizer provides the best overall local mode damping. The speed input stabilizer provides better local mode damping than the frequency input stabilizer for strong transmission systems, whereas the local mode damping for the frequency input stabilizer is superior to that of the speed input stabilizer for weak transmission systems. Note that all designs allow stable operation for a very large system impedance of 1.2 p.u. with full load from the unit. Our experience in analyzing and applying these tuning concepts with modern excitation systems indicates that stabilizers utilizing any of the input signals will prevent steady-state oscillatory instabilities from limiting power transfer for nearly any case which is otherwise possible, i.e., a case for which a load flow solution exists.
It is significant to note that the large improvement in local mode damping associated with the power input stabilizer is obtained at the expense of stability of the voltage regulation mode. This is indicative of the trade-off required between adding damping and maintaining adequate synchronizing capability via voltage regulation. As subsequently illustrated, this effect is most significant to system performance following a major disturbance.
type stabilizers on Unit 1 were nearly identical with respect to local mode as those obtained using the single machine when adjusted for apparent system reactance.

Root locus analysis of this system with the various

Thus,
were

the stabilizer settings previously established applied to this system. Eigenvalues calculated for the post fault system with the various stabilizer inputs are shown in Table III.

Table III EIGENVALUES WITH POST-FAULT SYSTEM Stabilizer

None

,Local
-0. 3+j5.9

xIntertie

-.030+j2.32
-.140+j2.33
-.213+j2.33
-.247+j2.33

Speed Frequency Power

-1.4+j6.3
-2. 2+j 8.7

-2.7+j 6.2

Interarea Mode
To explicitly evaluate the effect of the various types of stabilizers on damping of interarea modes of oscillation, a three machine system was simulated having both local and interarea modes of oscillation. The system, shown in Figure 7, was chosen to represent the addition of 1000 MVA nuclear unit (unit 1) to an area having a capacity of 10 GVA, connected with a weak intertie to another system of equal capacity. Each area is fully loaded serving its own load, with minimal flow over the intertie. A 3.5 per unit voltage response ratio high initial response excitation system is used on unit 1, with stabilizer output limits set to +10%. Units 2 and 3 represent area equivalents, simulated with speed input stabilizers having gains set to approximate the condition of 40% of the generating capacity in each area being equipped with these stabilizers. The performance is studied following a disturbance consisting of a 3-0 fault at the near end of the intertie which is cleared with the transmission line. Unit 1 sees an effective change in system reactance from about .4 to .6 pu between pre- and post-fault conditions.

These eigenvalues represent the oscillation decay associated with the various types of stabilizers after the system has recovered from the first few swings and entered the linear range of the excitation control system. For a single machine situation, where local mode is the only consideration, only recovery from the first swing need be considered since the stabilizer will always be acting correctly within its limits to aid In a multidamping of the resulting oscillations.

P2 = 9.0

PLI-86
ALL LOADS,REACTANCES ON UNIT FIGURE 7 3 MACHINE SYSTEM

BASE

3032 machine environment, however, more than the first swing may be critical, and. the nonlinear performance of the stabilizer becomes important. This will be apparent from the large signal performance analysis which follows.

:' +01

STABILIZER OUTPUT

CY)

The response of the system shown in Figure 7 to the fault is shown in Figure 8 for the case of no stabilizer on unit 1. The traces shown in Figure 8 are the speed differences between: (top) units 1 and 3 to indicate primarily the interarea oscillatiQns, and (bottom) the speed difference between .units 1 and 2 to indicate primarily the local mode of oscillation. Figures 9a, b, and c show the effect of adding the speed, frequency, and power input stabilizers, respectively, to unit 1 with the additional trace showing stabilizer output. It is apparent that a significant difference exists with regard to the magnitude of the second swing of the interarea mode. The speed input stabilizer does the best job of limiting the swing, followed by frequency, with the power inpiut stabilizer providing the poorest performance. Comparison with Table III indicates that this is exactly opposite to the ranking of performance based on damping of small signals. This is a significant observation, indicating that overly aggressive action with regard to higher frequency modes of oscillation, such as local modes and intermachine modes within a plant, will cause the stabilizer to saturate in response to these oscillations following a major disturbance and thereby allow the interarea swings to increase on the second swing. In this case, the second interarea swing is actually worse with the stabilizer having the greatest small-signal damping than without a stabilizer.

FIGURE 9A FAULT RESPONSE WITH SPEED INPUT

SPEED 1- SPEED 2
2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TIME IN SECONDS FIGURE 9B FAULT RESPONSE WITH FREQUENCY INPUT 3
4

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TIME IN SECONDS FIGURE 8 FAULT RESPONSE, NO STABILIZER ON UNIT 2 3 4 5

To further illustrate this phenomena., the tuning of the frequency input stabilizer was modified to produce less local mode damping. Eigenvalue comparisons of this stabilizer versus the one used for time response of Figure 9b are shown in Table IV.

FIGURE 9C FAULT RESPONSE-POWER INPUT

:zi

Table IV EIGENVALUES WITH POST-FAULT SYSTEM AND DIFFERENT FREQUENCY INPUT DESIGNS
Figure

wo3:
STABILIZER OUTPUT

KSTI/T2 T3/T4
30,.4/.2,.3/.05

"Local
-2.2+j 8..7

xIntertie
-.213+j2.33

9b
10

27,.4/.l,.2/.05

-l.7+j6.4

-.190+j2.32
SPEED - SPED E2

Although the small-signal performance in terms of damping is not as good with the modified stabilizer design, the response to the fault shown in Figure 10 indicates much improved performance by reducing the second swing of the intertie mode (which occurs at about 8 seconns.). This substantiates the above observation regarding the trade-off between small-signal damping and performance following a major system disturbance.

6 7 8. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 TIME IN SECONDS FIGURE 10 FAULT RESPONSE WITH FREQUENCY INPUT, SETTING MODIFIED FOR LESS SMALL SIGNAL DAMPING 4 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The objective of power system stabilizers is to extend stability limits on power, transfer by enhancing damping of system oscillations via generator excitation control. Lightly damped oscillations can limit power transfer under weak system conditions, associated with either remote generation transmitting power over long distances or relatively weak interties connecting large areas. Stabilizer performance must therefore be measured in terms of enhancing damping under these weak system conditions. This measure must include not only the small-signal damping contributions to all modes of system oscillation, but the impact upon system performance following large disturbances, when all jnodes of the system are excited simultaneously. Based upon this measure, it is shown that the most appropriate stabilizer tuning criteria is to provide an adequate amount of damping to local modes of oscillation and a high contribution to interarea modes of oscillation. Excess local mode damping is unnecessary and is often obtained at the expense of system performance following a large disturbance.

8.

3033 P. Kundur, D.C. Lee, H.M. Zein El-Din, "Power System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and On-Site Validation," Paper F80-227-9 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, February 1980.
D.L. Bauer, W.D. Buhr, S.S. Cogswell, D.B. Cory, G.B. Ostroski, D.A. Swanson, "Simulation of Low Frequency Undamped Oscillations in Large Power Systems," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-94 March/April 1975, pp. 207-213.

9.-

10.

O.W. Hanson, C.J. Goodwin, P.L. Dandeno, "Influence of Excitation and Speed Control Parameters in Stabilizing Intersystem Oscillations," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-87, May 1968, pp. 1306-1313.
K.E. Bollinger, R. Winsor, A. Campbell, "Frequency Response Methods for Tuning Stabilizers to Damp Out Tie-line Power Oscillations: Theory and Field-Test Results,t" IEEE Trans, Vol. PAS-98, September/ October 1979, pp. 1509-1515.
P.L. Dandeno, A.N. Karas, K.R. McClymont, W. Watson, "Effect of High Speed Rectifier Excitation Systems pn Generator Stability Limits," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-87, January 1968, pp. 190-201.

11.

Stabilizers utilizing inputs of speed, power, and frequency have been analyzed with respect to both tuning concepts and performance capabilities. Frequency has some inherent qualities which contribute to the desired performance criteria. However, any of these signals can be used to prevent oscillatory instabilities from limiting power transfer capability, at least to the point where other system considerations become limiting. Thus, the choice of input signal depends upon factors other than system performance alone.
The tuning concepts and performance criteria developed in this paper, including the relationship to phase compensation characteristics, provide the groundwork for a fairly straightforward field tuning procedure which is described in Part III.

12.

13.

S.T. Naumann, G.L. Landgren, R.J. Jovanovich, E.V. Larsen, D.A. Swann, "Underexcited Operation and Stability Tests at the Powerton Station," Proceedings of the American Power ConferenCe, 1979.
P.H. Beagles, E.V. Larsen, "Field Tests and Analytical Experience with Dynamic Stability of a Loosely Interconnected Power System," Paper A78 519-1, presented at IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, July 1978. F.R.

14.

15.

REFERENCES
1.

F.R. Schleif, J.H. White, "Damping for the Northwest-Southwest Tie Line Oscillations - An Analog Study," IEEE Trans, Vol. PAS-85, December 1966, pp.

Schleif, R.K. Feeley, W.H. Phillips, R.W. Torluemke, "A Power System Stabilizer Application with Local Mode Cancellation," IEEE Trans., Vol PAS-98, May/June 1979, pp. 1054-1060.
R.A. Lawson, D.A. Swann, G.F. Wright, "Minimization of Power System Stabilizer Torsional Interaction on Large Steam-Turbine-Generators," IEEE Trans., Vol PAS-97, January/February 1978, pp. 183-190.

16.

1239-1246.

2.

F.R. Schleif, G.E. Martin, R.R. Angell, "Damping of System Oscillations with a Hydrogenerating Unit,' IEEE Trans, Vol. PAS-86, April 1967, pp. 438-442. C. Concordia, F.P. de Mello, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control," IEEE Trans, Vol. PAS-88, April 1969, pp.

3.

For Combined discussion see page 3024

316-329.

4.

F.R. Schleif, H.D. Hunkins, E.E. Hattan, W.B. Gish, "Control of Rotating Exciters for Power System Damping: Pilot Applications and Experience," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-88, August 1969, pp. 1259-1266.
E.J. Warchol, F.R. Schleif, W.B. Gish, J.R. Church, "Alinement and Modeling of Hanford Excitation Control for System Damping," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-90, March/April 1971, pp. 714-724.

5.

6.

A.D. Gerhart, T. Hillesland, Jr., J.F. Luini, M.L. Rockfield, Jr., "Power System Stabilizer Field Testing and Digital Simulation", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-90, September/October 1971, pp. 2095-21Q0. K.E.

7.

Bollinger, A. Laha, R. Hamilton, T. Harras, "Power System Stabilizer Design Using Root Locus Methods," IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-94, September/ October 1975, pp. 1484-1488.

3034

IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 6 June 1981 APPLYING POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS PART III: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
D.A. Swann (Member) E.V. Larsen (Member) General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York

ABSTRACT
power

STABILIZER IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

As used in this paper, implementation of a power system stabilizer implies adjustment of its frequency characteristic and gain to produce the desired damping of system oscillations in the frequency range of 0.2 to 2.5 Hz. The transfer function of a generic power system stabilizer may be expressed as per equation (1):

The practical considerations associated with applying system stabilizers are addressed in this final part of the paper. Procedures are described whereby the tuning concepts developed in Part II may be implemented in the field. An approach is described for determining the "plant" characteristics for which Guidelines are prea stabilizer must compensate. sented for adjustment of stabilizer parameters, inclduing frequency- response, gain, and output limits. Techniques are described for verification of proper stabilizer set-up.
In addition to tuning, this part also deals with the potential for torsional interaction with the various types of stabilizers, viz. speed, frequency, and power/speed input signals, and the filtering required to alleviate diffi-culties. The effects of electrical noise from the power system on stabilizer performance is described, as is the susceptability of specific types of stabilizers and transducers to noise problems. For power input stabilizers, an approach for representing mechanical power variations and the consquences of an imprecise representation are discussed.

PSS

KS
KS

T
1
+

s
T

(1 +sT )(I sT2)(1 (1

+

+
+

sT3) sT4) FILT(s)

(1)

where

stabilizer gain sional filter transducer and

input

FILT(s)= combined transfer function of

signal

tor-

The stabilizer frequency characteristic is adjusted by It T T , and T varying the time constants T , T will be noted that the sta%il2zer transfer function includes the effect of both the input signal transducer and any filtering required to attenuate the stabilizer gain at turbine-generator shaft torsional frequencies. These effects, dictated by other considerations, must be considered in addition to the "plant" (as defined in Part I) for which the stabilizer must compensate.
A power system stabilizer can be most effectively applied if it is tuned with an understanding of the associated power system characteristics and the function to be performed by the stabilizer, as described in Parts I and II of this paper. A knowledge of the modes of power system oscillation to which the stabilizer is to provide damping establishes the range of frequencies Simple analytover which the stabilizer must operate. ical models, such as that of a single machine connected to an infinite bus, can be useful in determining the frequencies of local mode oscillations during the planning stage of a new plant. It is also desirable to establish the weakest power system conditions and associated loading for which stable operation is expected as the adequacy of the power system stabilizer application will be determined under these performance conditions. Since the limiting gain of some stabilizers, viz., those having input signals from speed or power, occurs with a strong transmission system, it is necessary to establish the strongest credible system as the "tuning condition" for these stabilizers. Experience suggests that designing a stabilizer for satisfactory operation with an external system reactance ranging from 20% to 80% on the unit rating will ensure robust performance.

INTRODUCTION
This portion of a three-part paper deals with practical aspects of applying power system stabilizers. Guidelines are presented for tuning the three types of stabilizers described in Part I, viz., utilizing speed, frequency, or power input, which enable the user to achieve satisfactory stabilizer performance with limited effort. These guidelines are based on field experience [1,2,3,], including that of others reported in the literature [4,5,6,7], and extensive analytical studies leading to- the concepts described in Parts I and II of this paper.

Realization of the system performance benefits available by applying power system stabilizers requires attention to such practical considerations as influence of the stabilizer on turbine-generator shaft torsional modes of vibration, the effects of power system noise and, for power input stabilizers, mechanical power variations. These concerns relate primarily to equipment design; the approaches taken to alleviate these

potential difficulties

are discussed.

IEEE Power Generatf'on Committee of the IEEE

80

SM

560-3

paper

recommended

and

approved by

the

Power

Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 13-18,

1980. Manuscript submitted March 14, 1980; made available for printing May 7, 1980.

Many power system stabilizers have been tuned with the aid of extensive analytical studies involving detailed models of the power system including the generators, exciters, stabilizers, and even the turbinegenerator torsional dynamics. While such studies can be very valuable in attaining the best possible stabilizer performance, satisfactory performance can usually be attained with less effort by following appropriate guidelines. Such guidelines are suggested by the analytical results presented in Parts I and II of this paper, and by experience in implementing many of these concepts in the field. These guidelines are described in the paragraphs which follow.

Performance Criteria

The stabilizer tuning yielding the best overall performance has been found to provide a local modt damping constant in the range of -1 to -2 seconds (i.e., oscillation decay time constants between 1 second and 0.5 second) for moderate to weak ac systems. Less damping results in quite oscillatory performance, but a stabilizer providing damping in excess of this tends to give poor performance for large system transients as it detracts too much from the voltage regulation function of the excitation system. To ensure damping over the broadest possible frequency range, and thereby minimize the effect of system changes on stabilizer performance, the stabilizer time constants T , TV T,, T3 and T should be set to compensate for tWe phase lag associated with the plant such that the net phase lag is:
1. 2.

3035 This measurement is often obtained by introducing sinusoidal signals into the voltage summing junction of the regulator and utilizing a transfer function analyzer to determine the gain and phase of the resulting terminal voltage variations with respect to the driving signal. Recently, techniques have been developed to utilize noise signals which are processed by digital computer based instrumentation to identify this transfer function [8]. Such techniques hold promise for simplifying field measurements of this type in the future.

Setting Time Constants

The stabilizer time constants are set to provide the desired phase compensation. It is desirable to have a slightly undercompensated system, as a phase lag of between 200 to 400 at the system oscillation frequencies will result in a component of electrical torque due to the stabilizer which is largely damping with some positive synchronizing. Note that perfect phase compensation implies zero phase lag for a speed or frequency input stabilizer, and 900 of lag for a power input stabilizer (as described in Part I). The stabilizer lead/lag stages must also compensate for the phase lag introduced by the transducer and torsional filtering. The frequency range over which the phase compensation is required depends on the stabilizer input signal employed. All stabilizers should be adjusted to produce some phase lag at the lowest frequency interarea mode of system oscillation, typically in the neighborhood of 0.2 to 0.5 Hz, since phase lead at these frequencies will cause the stabilizer to produce a desynchronizing component of torque. This may reduce interarea power transfer capability by having an adverse impact upon transient stability. For power and speed input stabilizers, which are equally sensitive to local modes and modes between units in a plant, the stabilizer compensation should extend to as high a frequency as possible, since destabilization of the higher frequency intra-plant modes will limit the stabilizer performance. The results presented in Part II indicate that stabilizer adAustment that produces a net phase lag of less than 90 up to 3 to 3.5 Hz will give good results. Limiting the phase lag at these higher frequencies is more important than obtaining perfect phase compensation at lower frequencies with speed and power input stabilizers. With a frequency input stabilizer, which is insensitive to the local modes of oscillation within the plant, it is not as important to compensate at high frequencies; the phase lag can normally be permitted to go through 900 in the frequency range of 1.5 to 2 Hz. This allows the stabilizer to be tuned with smaller ratios of lead/lag time constants and consequently less high frequency gain. The adjustment of the stabilizer time constants to produce proper compensation at a local mode frequency can be verified by a simple field test. The test involves the determination of points on a "root locus" by field measurement from which the proper action of the stabilizer may be deduced. The initial migration of the local mode eigenvalue, in terms of change in frequency and damping, can be determined by stimulating the local mode oscillation with zero stabilizer gain and again with a few low values of gain which cause a noticeable change in damping. The oscillations can be stimulated by step changes to the voltage regulator reference, line switching, or low level sinusoidal stimulation of the local mode by modulation of the voltage reference. A recording of the resulting oscillation will yield frequency and damping information; frequency by timing the length of a number of cycles, damping by sketching the decay envelope and plotting its magnitude versus time or cycles on a semi-log graph [1]. Modern techniques utilizing random noise signals with microcomputer based instrumentation are currently emerging, which will

Less than 90 possible.

for as broad a frequency range as

Between 00 and 450 from the lowest intertie mode frequency to the highest local mode frequency.

System Condition The stabilizer should be adjusted to give the above characteristic for the condition which represents the highest stabilizer loop gain and greatest phase lag. For all three types of stabilizers (i.e., speed input, frequency input, and power input), full load on the generator yields the highest loop gain. For speed and power input stabilizers, the strongest ac system presents the highest loop gain and greatest phase lag. For frequency input stabilizers, the highest loop gain occurs with the weakest ac transmission system, but as noted in Figure 3 of Part I, increases only slightly for external reactance greater than about 40 percent.
Plant Identification

The desired time constants of the stabilizer depend upon the phase characteristics of the open-loop transfer function of the plant, i.e., from stabilizer output to torque with constant rotor speed:

GEP(s)
where

= AT

ep/Epss

(2)
the plant through which stabilizer must operate.
due

GEP(s)
T
ep

the

component of electrical torque solely to stabilizer path (i.e., with constant rotor speed).
stabilizer output signal.

E
Since

pss

the rotor speed making measurements in transfer function from electrical torque will noted in Part I, GEP(s)

cannot be held constant while the field, measurement of the the stabilizer output signal to not yield GEP(s). However, as is proportional to the closedloop voltage regulator characteristic with constant rotor speed, and as shown in Appendix A, this transfer function is affected relatively little by shaft motion. The transfer function from voltage reference to terminal voltage therefore provides the best measure of the The data is generally required phase information. accurate for frequencies beyond the local mode resonance, which is the most critical frequency range when tuning the stabilizer to keep the net phase lag less than 900 to as high a frequency as possible. Interpolation from data points on either side of the resonance will yield a fairly good estimate of the phase of GEP(s) at the local mode frequency.

3036 likely

effective alternative for such These tests can be designed to be safe, and are easily performed and interpreted. The initial direction of eigenvalue motion should be to produce increased damping and a slightly higher freAs indicated in Part I, the quency of oscillation. direction of this eigenvalue migration in the s-plane is directly related to the compensated phase angle of the stabilizer loop. Thus, results of this test can be used to verify proper phase compensation at the local mode frequency.
very

prove to be a tests in the future.

Setting Gain

The desired stabilizer gain may be set based on the stabilizer gain which produces instability. The latter is obtained by a field test commonly referred to as the This test consists of gain margin test [1,2,4,6]. slowly increasing the stabilizer gain until an instability is observed. This instability is characterized by growing oscillations at a frequency greater than the local mode of oscillation at the plant, typically in the Stabilizer output and exciter field range of 2 to 4 Hz. voltage are the most sensitive signals from which to monitor the onset of instability. Once an instability is detected, the stabilizer is switched out of service. Reduction of the stabilizer output limits will minimize the potential disturbance level during this test, and contribute to a safe procedure. Figure 1 shows an example of exciter and speed signals as instability is reached in a gain margin test. It is seen that each time the gain is increased, particularly as the instability is approached, some oscillations are stimulated which initially grow, but then die away. These can be mistaken as the instability and result in a measure of instability gain lower than actual. This would, however, be conservative. During the gain setting tests, torsional oscillations in the stabilizer output signal should be monitored to ensure that the torsional filtering is performing properly.
As described in Part II, there is a relationship between the instability gain and the desired stabilizer gain. This relationship is dependent upon the high frequency filter characteristics and stabilizer input signal. With the high frequency filtering assumed in Part II, the desired gain is about one-third of the instability gain for speed input stabilizers, and about two-thirds of the instability gain for frequency input. This characteristic will generally be valid for most practical equipment utilizing speed or frequency input. However, the lower torsional filtering requirements associated with power input stabilizers allows a much higher gain before onset of an instability. The results of Part II showed an 8:1 ratio between instability and desired gain, but this will vary with the specific application.
The instability gain must be determined at the operating conditions causing the highest stabilizer loop As indicated previously, with the frequency input gain. stabilizer, highest loop gain occurs with a weak system condition, under which it may be undesirable to perform gain margin tests. However, the relative loop gain can be calculated as a function of system strength, similar to Figure 3 of Part I, with a simple model [9]. The system can then be tested under a fairly strong condition with the observed instability gain used in conjunction with this calculation to extrapolate to the instability gain which would occur with the weak system. This same approach can be followed should testing at full load prove difficult; tests can be performed at lighter loads with calculations used to extrapolate to full load.

An additional point should be made here regarding the gain margin of the frequency input stabilizer. The results presented in Part II suggest that optimum performance occurs at two-thirds of the instability gain under the tuning condition. Hence, only a 4 db (1.5:1) gain margin exists, as opposed to the 10 db (3:1) margin for optimum gain with a speed input, and which is typical of current industry practice. Conservative control system design practice of the system operators may therefore impose a restriction limiting performance with a frequency input stabilizer to less than optimum. However, optimum damping contribution with frequency input is nearly twice that with speed input for weak systems, so using a 10 db gain margin will result in performance at least as good as speed input stabilizers for the performance condition of weak systems.

SPE ED
rIp l%V M

.05%

FIGURE 1. GAIN MARGIN TEST

Setting Output Limits

The output of the stabilizer must be limited to prevent damping signals from saturating the excitation system and thereby defeating the voltage regulation function. This is of particular concern with excitation systems which have more dynamic range in the down direction than the up direction. In response to a fault on the power system, the exciter will initially go to ceiling, but on the rotor backswing the stabilizer will call for and receive from the excitation system more forcing in the down direction than was available in the up direction. The result is a lowering of the average terminal voltage following the first cycle of the system oscillation. This lower voltage will decrease power transfer limits between areas. This effect has been experienced in studies of large systems. In one particular case the first swing between two areas following a fault was stable, but local oscillations in the receiving area were very lightly damped. Addition of power system stabilizers to damp the local oscillations caused a reduction in the average voltage of the receiving system and the first swing between the areas then became unstable.
As a general guide, when the stabilizer output is driven to its limits at frequencies between 0.5 and 2 Hz, the excitation system response should be within its limits. This criteria should be met with full load on the unit and with a moderate to weak transmission system (X > 0.5 p.u.). e Summary of Field Implementation Procedure Power system stabilizer tuning begins with an understanding of the application. Field tests are performed to obtain the phase lag characterization of the "plant" (i.e., excitation system, generator, and power system) through which the stabilizer must operate. The best stabilizer damping characteristics over a broad range of system conditions are obtained by adjusting the

stabilizer time constants such that the net phase lag of the plant and stabilizer (including the stabilizer torsional filter and transducer) is between 00 and 450 over the frequency range from approximately 0.2 Hz to 1.5 Hz. The phase lag should be kept less than 90 up to approximately 2 Hz for frequency input stabilizers and 3.5 Hz for speed and power input stabilizers. The stabilizer thereby produces a positive synchronizing component of torque which reduces the tendency towards an adverse influence upon large transient performance.
The stabilizer gain for speed and frequency input stabilizers is established as a percentage of the instability gain. The latter is determined by use of the gain margin test in which the stabilizer gain is increased until instability is observed. This test is ideally performed at full load and with strong transmission conditions when using a speed or power input stabilizer; at full load and with moderate to weak transmission conditions when using a frequency input stabilizer. Calculations with simple models can be used to extrapolate from measurements at other test points to the lowest possible instability gain should testing under these ideal tuning conditions prove inconvenient. With a properly adjusted stabilizer, the local mode decay rate fhould typically be in the range of -1 to -2 seconds under moderate to weak system conditions, which should be checked by a final test to verify performance.

phase

3037 shift characteristics at low frequencies were close to the equivalent used in Part II for the torsional filtering, i.e.,

FILT(s) _ 570/(570 + 35s +

for frequencies below 3 Hz

(3)

Hence, attainment of the performance shown by the analytical results in Part II is ensured. The characteristic of equation 3 is also a good approximation of the filter for two-pole units described in [3].
Alternative Input Signals
The research leading to the torsional filter design for four-pole units involved consideration of speed, frequency, and a combination of power and speed as stabilizer input signals. The relative torsional interaction characteristics associated with each of these input signals is worth noting here.
Speed input stabilizers generally require the greatest amount of torsional attenuation. Although the filtering requirements could be minimized by positioning a speed sensor at an appropriate location on the turbine-generator shaft, for ease of installation it is desirable to utilize a speed pickup mounted at either end of the shaft, usually the front standard. The torsional mode-shapes of typical turbine-generators indicate that there is less torsional motion at the generator than at the ends of the shaft. As a consequence, the frequency input signal, which is comparable to a speed pickup on the generator rotor, typically has a lower torsional frequency content than a speed signal taken from the front standard or exciter. On some untts this can amount to a 20 db difference in torsional attenuation requirements. In addition, as noted in Part II, the tuning of a frequency input stabilizer need not accommodate the higher frequency local modes, including intraplant modes of oscillation, which results in approximately 8 db less torsional interaction than a speed input stabilizer having a pickup mounted on the generator shaft.

TORSIONAL INTERACTION The potential for interaction between'power system stabilizers and turbine-generator shaft torsional modes of vibration was observed by Ontario Hydro at their Lambton station [10], and subsequently by the authors' Company at Salt River Project's Navajo station [3]. Analysis has revealed that such interaction can occur on nearly all modern excitation systems as they have relatively high gain at high frequencies. A stabilizertorsional instability with a high response ratio excitation system may result in shaft damage, particularly at light generator loads where the inherent mechanical damping is small. Even if shaft damage does not occur, such an instability can cause saturation of the stabilizer output causing it to be ineffective, and possibly also cause saturation of the voltage regulator resulting in loss of synchronism and tripping the unit. It is imperative that stabilizers do not induce torsional instabilities.

The non-minimum phase characteristic which has been shown to characterize stabilizers using accelerating power as an input results in much lower torsional interaction than either the speed or frequency input stabilizers, which have minimum phase characteristics. This To ensure that a stabilizer does not induce tor- characteristic results in a stabilizer interaction with sional oscillations, torsional filtering schemes have torsional oscillations having a declining gain with been developed. Reference 3 describes a torsional band frequency at the rate of 20 db/decade for the ideal reject filter designed for two-pole turbine-generator power input stabilizer without filtering. By contrast, units utilizing front standard speed input, and similar the torsional interaction gain increases with frequency filters have been designed for four-pole units utilizing at the rate of 20 db/decade for the ideal minimum phase speed and frequency input stabilizers without filtering. frequency input. Assuming equivalent performance at a local mode freTwo basic criteria have been established for de- quency of 1 Hz, the torsional interaction for the power input stabilizer would be lower than for the speed or signing such a filter: 1. Ensure that the maximum possible change in damping frequency input stabilizer by 40 db at 10 Hz and by 52 of any torsional mode is less than some fraction of db at 20 Hz. Even with this advantage, however, utilizing a power input stabilizer with a high performance the inherent torsional damping. GENERREX* excitation system does not eliminate the need 2. Minimize the phase lag of the filter in the fre- for torsional filtering on four-pole turbine-generator quency range from 1 to 3 Hz to ensure the attain- units, due to the relatively low first torsional mode frequencies in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 Hz. ment of adequate system performance.
In meeting the first criteria, the stabilizer settings arrived at in Part II of this paper were utilized to establish the torsional interaction for a wide range of system operating conditions. These were compared to estimated inherent damping for those operating conditions and the filter attenuation requirements were established to provide a margin of safety in excess of 20 db. This attenuation was achieved for four-pole units utilizing' frequency input such that the filter An additional aspect of torsional interaction with power input stabilizers must be considered when using the method proposed by deMello [11] to compensate for variations in mechanical power. This method involves obtaining a measure of shaft speed and differentiating it to determine the true accelerating power, then subtracting electrical power to determine the mechanical contribution. Direct use of this technique is equiva-

Trademark of General Electric Company.

3038
2.
A

Pa

Aeref

Fast valve closure, as by relaying following a fault or for overspeed protection, on a unit will likely cause saturation of the stabilizer. The rapid reduction in power following valve closing will raise the voltage and could cause excessive voltages on the back swing. When the valves open again and load begins building up, a voltage reduction will be imposed on the system and, as was the case with the fast load pickup, could aggravate a stability problem.
A potential exists for interaction between the power system stabilizer and governor controls with fast acting governor systems.

NOTE:

ACCELERATING POWER Po - M s w Pm Pe APPROXIMATE MECH. POWER Pm (M s w + Pe) Fm(s) APPROXIMATE ACCEL. POWER P Pm- Pe
:

(A)

3.

(B)
(C)

FIGURE 2 POWER PLUS SPEED FUNCTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

lent to a minimum phase stabilizer with speed input and its associated torsional interaction characteristics. However, since the mechanical power component varies relatively slowly, the signal generated to simulate mechanical power can be filtered quite heavily. This implementation is illustrated in Figure 2, with the filtering of the mechanical power signal represented as F (s). With F (s) = 1, this stabilizer reduces to a speed input stabilizer as mentioned previously. With F (s) = 0, a power input stabilizer results having the torsional interaction characteristics described previously. Since, as described in Part I, the torsional interaction characteristics of the power and speed input are diverging at a rate of 40 db/decade with equivalent gain at the local mode frequency, the filtering required in the simulated mechanical power signal must have a second order lag characteristic for the power, speed combination stabilizer to have the same torsional interaction advantages associated with the accelerating power A double time constant low pass input stabilizer. filter with break frequencies between 5 and 10 rad/sec, i.e., near the local mode frequency, will attentuate the torsional interaction magnitude to approximately the Additional same level as with electrical power alone. filtering of the simulated mechanical signal alone is therefore of little value and increases the potential for difficulty with mechanical power variations..
EFFECT OF MECHANICAL POWER VARIATIONS

In addition to these transient effects, imperfect steady-state compensation for mechanical power will cause steady-state offsets in the stabilizer input signal, which must be corrected by utilizing an additional washout stage. As indicated in Part I, the additional phase lead associated with this washout stage may have a detrimental impact on interarea modes of oscillation. These concerns must be resolved when applying power input stabilizers. Some of them are strongly influenced by the nonlinear characteristics of the particular installation, and hence may require custom design. NOISE CONSIDERATIONS

Noise content of the power system stabilizer input signal can cause significant problems in applying equipment in certain locations. This is particularly true with plants located near large industrial loads such as arc furnaces. For minimum phase stabilizers which have a gain which increases with frequency, the noise is amplified considerably and can cause saturation of the stabilizer. In addition to "true" noise signals caused primarily by intermittent loads on the power system, there may also be "false" noise signals due to aliasing produced by sampling types of transducers. Front standard shaft speed from a multi-tooth wheel is relatively noise free, which is the reason it has been used in most applications. Use of electrical power, with its non-minimum phase characteristic and declining loop gain as a function of frequency, is likely to be relatively free of noise problems. As would be expected, ac bus frequency is the most sensitive signal with respect to power system noise. Large industrial loads can significantly distort the voltage waveform from which frequency is being sensed, causing zero-crossing types of transducers to give false indications and potentially prevent the stabilizer from improving system performance. In addition, these transducers have an aliasing problem. The best that a zero crossing transducer can do is to sample every half-cycle per phase, and hence experiences an aliasing effect with any signal above 60 Hz. The ac voltage signal will in general always have signals superimposed on it which are above 60 Hz due to normal system stimulations. This noise problem has prevented the use of frequency as an input in several locations in the experience of both the author's company and others [6,7].
Much of the noise content, particularly in the speed signal, is due to torsional oscillations. Hence, applying torsional filtering to minimize the torsional interaction with the stabilizer also helps considerably with respect to reducing the noise. This has been observed with all of our applications of the torsional band reject filter [3], and also by others [6,7].

Imperfect compensation of mechanical power variations with a power input stabilizer, including transient variation due to filtering of the simulated mechanical power signal, will result in some transient voltage offsets during fast mechanical power changes. Three situations are of concern:
1.
response of the governor on a unit to a sudden decline in system frequency will cause a rapid increase in the power output of the unit. This might occur as the result of the loss of another unit on the system or the loss of ties to an adjacent area. Stabilizer action may then cause a reduction in voltage which, in turn, may aggravate the system stability problem.

Rapid

3039

NO AC FILTER

WITH AC FILTERS

f (Hz) (A) SHAFT SPEED

f (Hz) (B) TERMINAL BUS FREQUENCY, NEW TRANSDUCER

2 3

f (Hz)

10

20 30 50

(C) TERMINAL BUS FREQUENCY, SINGLE PHASE ZERO-CROSSING DETECTOR

NOTE:

db REPRESENTS 1.0 P.U. RMS SHAFT OSCILLATION MAGNITUDE

FIGURE 3 SPECTRUM MEASUREMENTS AT WORST NOISE
LOCATION

In anticipation of using ac frequency as a stabilizer input, a new frequency transducer has been developed and tested at several locations, including that where the author's Company has experienced the most severe noise. Figure 3 shows frequency spectrums* as measured on signals taken from (a) shaft speed, (b) the new transducer, and (c) a zero crossing detector frequency transducer with and without 60 Hz bandpass filtering on the ac voltage (intended to minimize aliasing). As expected, the frequency signal is less sensitive to local and torsional modes of oscillation than the speed signal, but has more noise in the frequency range from 10 to 50 Hz. The new frequency transducer has considerably less noise than the zero crossing type, even when the latter is augmented by a filter.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The major practical considerations associated with applying power system stabilizers have been discussed. Basic guidelines for tuning stabilizer equipment in the field have been described, based upon field experience and the understanding gained from analyzing stabilizer performance over a wide range of system conditions. In particular, the relationship established in Part II between system performance and the phase compensation The procedure characteristics have been utilized. consists of two basic steps:
1.

Setting the stabilizer time constants to yield a phase compensation characteristic specified for best performance.

To examine the impact of this noise on power system stabilizer performance with the new frequency transducer, the time response of the stabilizer with the adjustments determined in Part II and torsional filtering discussed in the previous section were calculated from the frequency spectrum. Figure 4 shows that without the torsional filter, the stabilizer output consists largely of noise. With the torsional filter, the noise content is reduced dramatically leaving only the local mode of oscillation. Since these tests were taken at the location which was found to have the most severe noise characteristics, confidence is established that the frequency input stabilizer using the new transducer and torsional filtering will not suffer from limitations due to noise.

a)

Maximize frequency at which the compensated phase lag passes through 90 . (3 to 3.5 Hz for speed or power input, 2 Hz for frequency

input.)

b)
2.

Compensated phase lag at local mode frequency between 00 and 450, preferably near 200.

Setting the gain based upon a measurement of the gain which causes an instability in the stabilizer loop.

1.0

NO FILTER

WITH KFILTERj

Several testing techniques have been discussed, although a particular stabilizer application may require only a few of them. Utilization of digital computerbased instrumentation currently being introduced holds the potential for making stabilizer commissioning a relatively straightforward process in the future, with minimal need for system studies for each application. The major practical considerations associated with equipment design for successful stabilizer application have been discussed, viz., minimization of torsional interaction, the effects of power system noise, and, for power input stabilizers, mechanical power variations. Torsional filtering schemes have been developed by the author's Company which ensure a sufficient margin of safety for torsional interaction, while at the same time having minimum phase shift at low frequencies so that good stabilizer performance may be achieved. Although the power input stabilizer requires less torsional filtering than a stabilizer utilizing speed or frequency as an input, such stabilizers require additional cir-

I0.0
T IME ~ SEC

FIGURE 4 CALCULATED EFFECT OF TORSIONAL FILTER ON NOISE MEASURED AT WORST LOCATION FOR FREQUENCY INPUT PSS

3040 cuitry and input signals to compensate for the effects It is difficult to of mechanical power variations. compensate perfectly for mechanical power variations, and imperfect compensation introduces the potential for other system interactions. These must be resolved to ensure successful application of a power input stabilizer, and may require custom designs tailored to specific installations.
Noise on the power system can have an adverse effect on stabilizer performance. Some stabilizer types are more susceptible to noise problems than others. Historically the frequency input stabilizer using zero crossing detection to measure frequency has performed poorly in the presence of noise caused by large intermittent loads such as arc furnaces. However, a new frequency t-ransducer has been developed which promises to significantly reduce the impact of this noise on the measured frequency signal. Further, the filtering required to minimize torsional interaction also significantly reduces the effect of power system noise.

8)

G.S. Hope, S.T. Nichols, "Measurement of Transfer Functions of Power System Components Under Operating Conditions", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-96, Nov.! Dec. 1977, pp. 1798-1808.
C. Concordia, F.P. deMello, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control," IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-88, April 1969 pp.

9)

316-329.

10)

W. Watson, M.E. Coultes, "Static Exciter Stabilizing Signals on Large Generators - Mechanical Problems", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-92, Jan./Feb. 1973, pp. 205-212. F.P. deMello, L.N. Hannett, J.M. Undrill, "Practical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97, Sept./Oct. 1978, pp. 1515-1522. APPENDIX A - MEASUREMENT OF GEP(s)

11)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The analysis and field test work which forms the basis for the results presented in this paper involved contributions from several individuals, notably G.F. Wright of Large Steam Turbine-Generator Department, R.A. Lawson of Drive Systems Department, and M.L. Crenshaw, J.M. Cutler, D.H. Baker, and D.D. Durbak of Electric Utility Systems Engineering Department. In addition, excellent cooperation has been received from several utility companies, notably Consumers Power Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, The Montana Power Company, and Salt River Project in permitting tests to be conducted on their systems.
REFERENCES

1)

P.H. Beagles, E.V. Larsen, "Field Test and Analytical Experience with Dynamic Stability of a Loosely Interconnected Power System", Paper A 78 519-1 presented at IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, July 1978. S.T. Naumann, G.L. Landgren, R. Jovanovich, E.V. Larsen, D.A. Swann, "Underexcited Operation and Stability Tests at the Powerton Station", Proceedings of the American Power Conference, 1979. R.A. Lawson, D.A. Swann, G.F. Wright, "Minimization of Power System Stabilizer Torsional Interaction", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-97, Jan./ Feb. 1978, pp.

For tuning the power system stabilizer, it is desired to measure the transfer function GEP(s) from the stabilizer output signal (usually the same as the voltage setpoint) to the component of torque which can be controlled via excitation modulation, i.e., the torque change which would result from exciter modulation with rotor speed constant. In practice, it is impossible to hold the rotor speed constant and thus measuring the transfer function from the stabilizer output signal to electrical torque is not equivalent to measuring the desired transfer function, although it is related to that transfer function. As indicated in Part I, GEP(s) is proportional to the transfer function from voltage reference to terminal voltage for -constant rotor speed. Rotor motion has less influence on the latter transfer function than on the transfer function from reference signal to torque, and hence the voltage measurement provides the best measure of GEP(s).

2)

3)

ATm

183-190.

4)

Kundur, D.C. Lee, H.M. Zein El-Din, "Power System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and On-Site Validation", Paper F80-227-9 presented at IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, Feb. 1980.
P.

AET

5)

J.P. Bayne, D.C. Lee, W. Watson, "A Power System Stabilizer Stabilizing Signal for Thermal Units Based Upon Derivation of Accelerating Power", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-96, Nov./Dec. 1977, pp. 1777-1783.

6)

Schleif, R.K. Feeley, W.H. Phillips, R.W. Torluemke, "A Power System Stabilizer Application with Local Mode Cancellation", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-98, May/June, pp. 1054-1060.
F.R.
E.L. Busby, J.D. Hurley, F.W. Keay, C. Raczkowski, "Dynamic Stability Improvement at Monticello Station - Analytical Study and Field Tests", IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-98, May/June 1979, pp. 889-901.

FIGURE Al. SIMPLIFIED MODEL SINGLE MACHINE TO INFINITE BUS

The relationships can be understood with the aid of Figure Al. This figure represents a simplified model of a single machine to an infinite bus, similar to that used in Part I, which identifies the components of torque, terminal voltage, and the desired transfer function GEP(s). From this figure, the transfer functions to torque and voltage are obtained as:

7)

3041

ATe/AEPSS =(ATeo +Tep)/AEPSS

= GEP(s) Ms /[Ms +

(Ala)
K
le

wb

(s)]
+

(Alb)
K

22

1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I20
800T

2 =,GEP(s)[ /K _K hEt/ EPSS =GEP(s){K6/K2 K5 Wb/[Ms

AE /AE

(s)]j(A2)AES WbK(s)

400

PSS

where

inertia.

AEP/AEpss

K1 (s) = e

effective synchronizing torque coefficient, T including demagnetizing effects, amortisseur circuits, voltage regulator characteristics, and electrical loads.

e/86,

I -400 I -80 _ 1I200

-1I60o

GEP(j)

Wb

system radian frequency (377 rad/sec @ 60 Hz).

-200_,
0.01

Pt
K -5 in

=
=

DE /8E'

K* = 8T/8E'

0.02

0.05
q

0.1

0.2 FREQUENCY

8E t /86
1200 L

(a)

STRONG SYSTEM

(Hz)

0.5

1.0

2.0

5.0

10

Xe 0.2 p u1

*(Defined

[9])

of the excitation system, which obviously is correct. For a lightly damped local mode, Equation Alb would suggest that the transfer function from stabilizer output to torque is 1800 offset from the desired transfer function GEP(s) for frequencies up to the local
mode, with identical phase characteristics beyond the local mode frequency. However, the voltage regulator has a significant impact on the term K (s) and invalie dates this conclusion.

The denominator term of Equation Al represents the characteristic equation of the local mode of oscillation without the power system stabilizer, while the double lead term in the numerator implies that electrical torque cannot be changed in steady-state by modulation
CD

800
40

AEPSS
.

ATe

Oa
I

-80

GEN(jw)

I < 120 _
a-

1600

-2000

From Equation A2, it can be seen that the transfer function from stabilizer output to terminal voltage will be proportional to GEP(s) for the case where K is zero. This gain represents the effect of rotor ang.e changes on terminal voltage, which has the following characteristics:

-240
0.01

0.02

0.05

FIGURE A2. PHASE CHARACTERISTICS OF MEASURABLE VS DESIRED TRANSFER FUNCTIONS CALCULATED FOR IOOOMVA FOSSIL UNIT

0.5 P. (b) WEAKSYSTEM (Xe 0.6p.u.)

0.

0.2

2.0

5.0

1.

With no load on the generator, K.5 is positive and approaches zero as the transmission system becomes weaker and finally becomes an open circuit. Under load, K is positive for strong systems but passes throug? zero and becomes negative as the transmission system becomes weaker. It is therefore possible to find an operating condition where K 5 is zero and hence the measure from stabilizer output to terminal voltage is proportional to the desired transfer function. Typically, the effect is small under the conditions where the transfer function must be measured.

2.

Figures A2a and b show a comparison of the phase versus frequency characteristics for the transfer functions froth stabilizer output to torque and voltage, and in addition show the desired transfer function GEP(s). These are calculated characteristics for a large fossil unit connected to a strong (A2a) and weak (A2b) system. It can be seen that the measure of voltage is a good approximation for the strong system over the entire frequency range, while the measure of torque is considerably different than the desired transfer function for frequencies below the local mode. For the weak system, the measure of voltage becomes less accurate below the local mode frequency, but is very close beyond the resonance.

3042 Combined Discussion 1, 2, 3 C. Concordia (Consulting Engineer, Venice, Florida): The function of a Power System Stabilizer (PSS) is to provide more positive damping in order to improve stability in those cases when negative damping determines the stability limit. (As it often does when high-response generator voltage regulators are used.dl1) Since the PSS operates through the voltage regulator and excitation system as well as the generator field, which at the frequencies of interest have an appreciable phase lag; since the object is to produce a damping torque, or a variation of torque roughly in phase with generating-unit speed; since this is accomplished by controlling the field flux; and since it is always easier to produce a phase lag rather than a phase lead; it would seem that the ideal signal would be acceleration, which always leads speed by 900, rather than speed itself. Thus, electrical active power (measured in the direction of rotation), which is an approximation to electrical torque, which in turn is an approximation to accelerating torque and thus to acceleration itself, would seem to be a better signal than speed, which might be, and has often been, considered as the obvious one. This argument is even more persuasive when one considers older voltage regulating systems, where some phase advance may be required even with the "accelerating" power signal. (Of course, in these cases the voltage regulation does not produce so much negative damping anyway.) This argument has led me to prefer power as the signal right from the beginning, in spite of its drawbacks. If one insists on using a signal that looks more like speed, it has long been appreciated (and the authors have strongly confirmed) that frequency has the great advantage over speed, that it behaves more or less like speed for the oscillation modes of most interest, but is greatly attenuated for higher-frequency modes corresponding to oscillations between nearby generators. Since these modes are usually not subjected to so much negative damping because of the smaller voltage regulator response, and in addition may have appreciable positive amortisseur damping, the PSS is not likely to be needed for them. Thus, the PSS design is made easier by the smaller range for which it must function effectively. In view of these considerations, I have never understood why speed seems to have been chosen in so many cases for the PSS input. Either power or frequency would be better. (I and my coauthor may be accused of having advocated speed in the authors' reference 2 of Part I (reference 3 of Part II and reference 9 of Part III); but, at least for my own part, this was not at all intended, and in fact, was specifically disclaimed in the paper.) This has been said without regard to the possible effect of the PSS on generating-unit torsional oscillations. When this problem came to light, it became evident that, with a speed-fed PSS, about as much effort had to be expended to ensure that the PSS did not do the wrong thing in the higher-frequency torsional range as to ensure effective operation in the intended range of usefulness. To me, this seemed finally to have given the speed signal the coup-de-grace. It became apparent that there are many speeds, and it is not always easy to find that any particular one is appropriate. It is true that filters have been applied, but this added further complication to a device that is often itself regarded as a complication by operators. In comparing the two remaining signals, power and frequency, we must point out that power also has the ability to be summed for nearby generators (easily in the case of generators in the same power stations, but not generally so easily as frequency). Also, we believe that frequency will require some signal filtering that will aggravate the already 90 phase penalty that it suffers relative to power. On the other hand, use of electrical power may require some (very approximate) signal of mechanical input power. (Incidentally, we feel that the power-input PSS will require a washout, since a perfect steady-state compensation for power change is not conceivable to us, but we do not share the authors' fear that the desynchronizing effect may have to be serious or even appreciable. In our opinion, the authors PSSp example, equation 6, Part II, should have included an appropriate washout to be more realistic.)
In summary, we are in general agreement with the authors that speed is not as appropriate as frequency or power, but do not lean as much toward frequency as they seem to do. It depends on what are the critical problems in each case. For rather low frequency oscillations between relatively large areas, frequency may be best, but when torsional oscillations may be a problem power may be best (even though it may be found advisable to use a "station" power rather than a "unit" power.) The application of the PSS has so far been a long and fairly complicated procedure, and this has been a handicap to its general use. Since electric power systems are very rarely well damped, a standardized and simply-applied PSS, with no attempt made to optimize performance, but with its output comfortably within a range to give moderate aid to both damping and synchronizing torque, would be extremely welcome. We look forward to that day, and in the meantime, welcome the present paper, which by its thorough analysis and explanations of all aspects, makes the application more rational. I hope I can regard it as a necessary first step towards such a "standard" PSS. Following are comments on a few specific points: 1) Regarding the frequency range of concern, we should regard 2.5 Hz as unnecessarily large, as it is difficult to imagine the voltage regulators producing a net negative damping at such a high frequency. 2) We should like to endorse fully, and emphasize, the remarks deploring the use of unnecessarily large voltage-regulator gain. 3) We do not believe that any sensible engineer would conclude that the performance of a power-input stabilizer is identical to that of a speed-input stabilizer. First, it does not require phase lead in its transfer function. (It would never be designed as might be implied by equation 7 of Part I, i.e., starting with the speed signal, and then integrating!) Second, it is precisely because it does not take so much notice of the torsional oscillations that it is better. (Incidentally, we feel that the argument leading to the rather roundabout way of arriving at the conclusion that power can be treated as the derivative of speed after all is completely unnecessary. We have always found it best to follow the flow of physical action in deciding how to control any process. In fact, changes in power do cause changes in speed, which in turn cause changes in angle, which in turn modify the power. But this last is a feedback mechanism. From a dynamic point of view, it is power that determines angle, not the other way about.) 4) We cannot agree with the authors statement that the PSS is not intended to enhance transient stability. It was precisely to improve transient stability that the PSS was first studied and later widely used by the West Coast utilities. Although there are some cases where transmission lines (usually tie lines) have been loaded so severly that spontaneous oscillations have appeared, the more common case is that these oscillations only appear after a fault has tripped out a major line and so weakened the system, thus making the prefault system transiently unstable. Also, the PSS was not "extended" to the case of radial transmission. For example, we believe the Canadian Peace River application (which incidentally used power) antedated the U.S. West Coast applications. 5) For the frequency-input PSS the desired gain is stated to be twothirds of the "instability" gain. This seems dangerously close, especially from the viewpoint of determining the setting from a single system test of the instability limit.

REFERENCE

11] C. Concordia, Steady-State Stability of Synchronous Machines as Affected by Voltage Regulator Characteristics, AIEE Trans., Vol. 63, 1944, pp. 215-220, 490.
Manuscript received July 24, 1980.

E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, Applying Power System Stabilizers, Pt. I: General Concepts, this issue, pp. 2999-3006 . 2 E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, Applying Power System Stabilizers, Pt. II: Performance Objectives and Tuning Concepts, this issue, pp. 3007-3015 . 3 E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann, Applying Power System Stabilizers, Pt. III: Practical Considerations, this issue, PP.3016-3028-

F. P de Mello and J. M. Undrill (Power Technologies Inc., Schenectady, NY): The authors are to be congratulated on the preparation of an excellent discussion of stabilization through excitation control. Although there are a few points of emphasis with which we take issue as noted further, this three part paper makes a significant contribution on the subject, covering the many aspects to be considered in stabilizer application and, more importantly, relating cause and effect through a searching analysis of the basic process and controls.

3043

In Part I, under "basic concepts," several observations are made on the gain of GEP(s) as function of ac system strength, generator loading, excitation system gain and bandwidth, and generator open circuit field time constant. Whereas the statements by themselves are essentially correct, they can be taken out of context and cause concerns with factors that appear tangential to the main problem. As developed in the de Mello-Condordia paper (Ref.2), the basic premise was that the voltage regulator loop (flux loop) should be adjusted to yield a well-damped closed loop response, and it was pointed out that the criterion for regulator tuning is the open-circuit closed loop performance. A good adjustment under open-circuit (K, = 1.0, K6 = 1.0) would guarantee a more damped performance for the flux loop under load. Voltage regulator transient gain should be proportional to T'do. A recommendation of Ke = 25 p.u. was made for a machine with a T'do of 6 sec. This yields a crossover under open circuit of about 4 rads/sec, and perhaps 2 rads/sec under load as compared with 1 rad/sec given by the authors for a nominal ac system. Variations in T'do should be offset by corresponding variations in voltage regulator gain (a T'do of 10 sec should call for a Ke = 40). It is therefore helpful to reduce the number of independent parameters to those that are not susceptible to logical compensating adjustment. The fact that GEP(s) increases with generator loading is fortunate because the negative damping effect due to voltage regulator action does generally increase with load, and it is therefore proper that GEP(s) have the greatest effect for conditions where stabilization is most needed. Proper stabilizer design should make provisions for disconnecting the signal at sustained power levels below 30 to 50%o load. The point was also made that GEP(s) increases with ac system strength. This is only partly true since the gain in question is affected by the lower bandwidth of the flux loop for small values of K6, and the fact that, with increased ac system strength, the angle-speed loop oscillation frequency increases. Also, the need for additional damping through supplementary stabilization disappears for the case of strong ac systems (K, is small or even positive) hence the main concern is not that the stabilization be properly phased for maximum effect under these conditions but merely that it not be harmful. The authors correctly point out that the use of terminal frequency has a compensating effect on the net gain of singal to torque as a function of system strength. This endorses approaches where the frequency of a voltage synthesized from terminal conditions (et + jix) is used as the signal rather than shaft speed (Ref. 1). With the value of X =Xq, one can obtain a voltage which closely follows the rotor angle and, with smaller values or even negative values for X, the voltage could be made to represent any point between the rotor and the infinite bus. The advantage of sensing frequency, whether of terminal voltage or internal voltage, is also that it filters out torsional modes. While much emphasis is given to the need for higher gain of the signal as the system strength decreases, our experience has been that changes in system strength cause changes in the oscillation mode of concern. The higher the system reactance, the lower is the oscillation frequency and, at these lower oscillation frequencies, the strength (gain) of the signal should naturally be lower for the desired effect. This was illustrated in Figures 12 and 13 of Reference 2. The discussion of power input stabilizers in Part I appears unnecessarily complicated and misleading. Equations 6a to 6c make use of the relation, P = wY, which is universally true at all perturbation frequencies and mixes this with the relation STe/8d = Kle which is approximate and then only at low perturbation frequencies. Specifically, this relationship is not valid in the bandwidth of shaft torsional modes, the stability of which is a key factor raised by the authors in the selection of stabilizer inputs. The result of proper analysis of the torque/angle and torque/speed sensitivity in the broader bandwidth yields terms with sum and difference frequencies, (wo + wO and (wo- wD, and 8 Te/8 d is not a scalar but rather is a complicated transfer function that can yield positive or negative damping depending on the perturbation frequency and network characteristics.(3,4) The Heffron and Philips model used in Ref. (2) was never intended for analysis of interactions with torsional modes. If torsional mode damping is to be discussed, the modeling level which is the subject of this paper is entirely inadequate. In the authors' discussion of the power plus speed functional implementation (Ref. 5), the problem of shaft torsional interaction is again brought up. We would emphasize that in any such implementation, our intent is to use an inferential speed signal measured in such a way as to be insensitive to torsional effect. This measure, along with the reduced bandwidth needed in this scheme for the rate of change of speed, should minimize the possibility of interaction problems with shaft modes.

REFERENCES

70M62-PWR. 2. F. P. de Mello and C. Concordia, "Concepts of Synchronous Machine Stability as Affected by Excitation Control," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-88, April 1969, pp. 316-329. 3. J. M. Undrill and T. E. Kostyniak, "Subsynchronous Oscillations: Part I, Comprehensive Stability Analysis," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95, pp. 1446-1455. 4. J. M. Undrill and F. P. de Mello, "Subsynchronous Oscillations: Part II, Shaft System Dynamic Interactions," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-95, pp. 1456-1464. 5. F. P. de Mello, L. N. Hannett and J. M. Undrill, "Practical Approaches to Supplementary Stabilizing from Accelerating Power," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-97, Sept./Oct. 1978, pp. 1515-1522.

1. F. P. de Mello, "The Effects of Control," tutorial paper on "Modern Concepts of Power System Dynamics," IEEE Tutorial

Manuscript received July 24, 1980.

D. C. Lee, P.

Kundur, and H. M. Zein El-Din (Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Canada): The authors have done an excellent job of bringing together information from many sources and providing an in depth look at the application of several types of power system stabilizers. As the authors have pointed out, in Ontario Hydro we have generally used high excitation transient gain of the order 200 pu Efd/pu Etref.

dynamic instability. While we are not in favour of universal use of TGR, we have justified its application in specific cases. We have used TGR on a hydraulic unit equipped with a thyristor exciter. The other units in the station have slow rotating exciters and we found it necessary to use TGR with the thyristor exciter to ensure dynamic stability in the event of loss of the stabilizer signal. High transient performance was not a requirement at this station and there was no provision for regulator transfer in the event of loss of stabilizing signal. We have also recommended the use of TGR in one situation where a unit must operate into both very high and extremely low impedance systems [B]. With a low regulator transient gain in the neighborhood of 20 pu Efd/pu Etref, stabilizer output limits of 0.1 pu Etref used by the authors could be restrictive for high frequency excursions where Et can not respond. In our applications with nearly 10 times higher regulator gain, we use a positive limit of about 0.2 pu to ensure maximum contribution of the stabilizer. This is complemented by a terminal voltage limiter which prevents the terminal voltage from exceeding a set level. On the negative side, a stabilizer output limit of 0.05 to 0.1 pu is used. This allows sufficient control range while reducing the probability of a unit trip for failure of a stabilizer component driving the output signal to the negative limit. We would suggest that the power based stabilizer configuration used for the example in this paper is not directly comparable with the speed based stabilizer considered. The power based stabilizer transfer function, given by equation 6 of part II, can be manipulated to a speed based stabilizer of the form:
K

We use power system stabilizers almost exclusively to damp machinesystem (local) modes and in our system we do not have a conflict between the requirements of local and inter-area modes. Our investigations show that the use of transient gain reduction (TGR) does not contribute to any significant improvements to the damping of local, exciter and torsional modes [A]. Reduction of transient exciter gain is usually unacceptable due to transient stability considerations. We allow for a stabilizer out of service condition by designing the system to automatically transfer to either a manual control or an alternate regulator in case of stabilizer failure. Even without this feature, loss of stabilizer on one unit at a plant with several units would not lead to

0.5s (1+0.25s) (1+0.5s) (1+0.5s) (1+0.05s) (1+0. 06s) Of particular significance is the effective 0.5s "washout". The low value of this time constant may be a contributing factor to the stability of the low frequency voltage regulator mode and the cause of the poor showing of this system in the transient comparison tests. The effect of mechanical power variation in the system shown in Figure 2 of part III can be mitigated to the extent desired by suitable choice of Em(s). In the limiting case, this could be a full blown torsional

filter. In practice, universal filters can be chosen which will allow very

3044

fast mechanical power change with minimal terminal voltage disturbance and no governor interaction. Could the authors elaborate on their concern for torsional interaction with power input stabilizer when applied to four-pole units. We have a similar stabilizer in operation on our 750 MW, 1800 RPM nuclear units equipped with thyristor exciters. For these units the lowest torsional frequency is 9 Hz and the local mode frequency is about 0.8 Hz. Our experience shows that with thyristor exciters there is no need to use torsional filters for stabilizers using accelerating power as input even for four-pole units. Is there anything inherent with the GENERREX excitation system that causes this concern?

REFERENCE

[A] F. Blaser, "Improved Stabilizer Signal for Smooth Active Power

Transmission", Brown Boveri Review, Vol. 67, No. 3, 1980.
Manuscript received August 7, 1980.

REFERENCES
A. P. Kundur, D. C. Lee, H. M. Zein El-Din, Closure of "Power System Stabilizers for Thermal Units: Analytical Techniques and On-site Validation", paper no. F80227-9, presented at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting, New York, NY, Feb. 3-8, 1980. B. D. C. Lee, P. Kundur, H. M. Zein El-Din, discussion of M. Mobarak, D. H. Thorne and E. Hill, "Contrast of Power System Stabilizer Performance on Hydro and Thermal Units", paper no. F 79 659-4, IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, July 15-20, 1979
Manuscript received July 29, 1980.

P. Bonanomi and R. Bertschi (Brown Boveri & Co. Ltd., Baden Switzerland): The authors have presented an interesting and useful analysis of the many aspects of applying power system stablizers. The discussors wish to add a few comments on the choice of the input signals. A question is also raised as to a practical aspect in tuning the

stabilizer. The paper contains a collection of interesting arguments concerning the adequacy of the different input signals for the stabilizer. Each choice of one such signal is shown to have its own advantages and drawbacks. Considering the same arguments, the discussors feel that a combined feedback of power and frequency or power and speed provides better results [A]. This case has not been considered in the paper. One of the main disadvantages in using power feedback alone is that the required integrating characteristic (lag/lead) causes adverse effects in case of mechanical power variations. This troublesome lag/lead term is not necessary when an additional frequency signal is used, thus reducing the detrimental effect to a great extent. The combined use of power and frequency also eliminates the need for differential terms (lead/lag) in the frequency or speed feedback, which attenuates the noise problems due to high gains at high frequencies. The authors of the paper did not deal with the combined use of two feedback signals in their paper, and may have some comments which would be most appreciated. When power feedback is used alone, the detrimental influence of the PSS during mechanical power variations may be reduced by an alternative signal connection. The improvement is obtained by inserting the PSS signal after the AVR compensator instead of the input summing point. The integrating characteristic of the AVR compensator is thus bypassed. Damping values are the same when the transfer function is adjusted properly. Did the authors make any tests with this circuit arrangement? As to the tuning of the PSS, we see some advantage in partitioning the transfer function into two parts with individually adjustable gain values, permitting adjustment of gain and phase. This form of transfer function lends itself to the use of the so-called "Domain Separation" method of optimization, which yields the optimum gain values, the attainable damping, the sensitivity of gain variations upon damping and a check on the stability of the so-called exciter mode at very moderate computer costs. Do the authors have any comments to this tuning method? Optimal damping of electromechanical oscillations is a well accepted criterion for tuning a stabilizer. This performance goal may result in high stabilizer gains, however, which is regarded as a drawback by some utilities. The high gains may indeed produce unnecessary deviations in the excitation voltage which give rise to fluctuations in the terminal voltage. In steady state situations where stability is not really critical the gains may be reduced for smoother voltage control. This suggests a kind of adaptive tuning of the stabilizer gains. The question remains open, however, as to how much effort is justified in trying to avoid these voltage fluctuations. The discussors would be pleased to know the authors opinion on this matter.

J. A. Pinnello and S. T. Naumann, (Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL): The authors are to be congratulated on this paper and the two companion papers which give a most comprehensive presentation of the theory and application of power system stabilizers. The series of papers is a valuable reference for anyone working in this area. The following discussion gives some of our experience in applying stabilizers to several large units on our system. The papers give a clear explanation of the tradeoffs involved in obtaining satisfactory performance for local mode, interarea and large disturbance considerations. In conducting transient stability studies with the stabilizer simulated, we have noticed some degradation due to the stabilizer as the authors caution. In addition, actual line dropping tests showed a slower rise in the generator field voltage when the stabilizer was in service. The author's detailed comparison of three alternative stabilizer input signals is a most welcome contribution. Some years ago in our first stabilizer application, we encountered severe noise problems using ac frequency from a zero crossing transducer and settled for a speed signal. In our most recent application, which has given trouble free performance for about three years, we also used a speed signal, since a suitable frequency transducer was not available at the time. The authors make an interesting statement in Part I of this series of papers, when discussing the characteristics of the speed input signal. Since the stabilizer loop is least stable under strong system conditions, this limits the gain of the stabilizer. However, higher gains are desirable under weak transmission system conditions. As the authors stated, this problem could be solved with adaptive gain control. At our Powerton Station, we have installed an adaptive control system on the underexcited reactive ampere limiter (URAL) to fully utilize the reactive capability of the machine under strong system conditions [1]. Could the authors comment on the feasibility of such a system applied to a speed input signal power system stabilizer having two gain settings (one for the strong system and another for the weak system). REFERENCE

[1] G. L. Landgren, "Extended Use of Generator Reactive Capability

By A. Dual Underexcitation Limiter", Paper F79-725-3, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, pp. 1381-1385, July/Aug. 1980

Manuscript received July 21, 1980.

E. V. Larsen and D. A. Swann: We thank the discussors for their kind remarks and for raising several technical points, which we will attempt to clarify in our closure. To the comments of Messrs. de Mello and Undrill regarding voltage regulator crossover frequency, our experience has been that the voltage regulator eigenvalue lies between I and 2 rad/sec with the machine connected to the transmission network. With a transient gain of 20 per unit, this is consistent with the comments made by the discussors. We might also note that in Ontario Hydro's discussion of de Mello and Condordia's paper (Reference 2 of Part 1), their experience with very high regulator gains on a fast excitation system gave no voltage regulator loop instabilities. The criterion for determining voltage regulator gain on fast-acting excitation systems has not necessarily been the damping of the voltage regulator loop under open-circuit conditions, but rather to minimize the negative damping introduced by the voltage regulator action with the machine operating at full load into a weak transmission system, without a stabilizer. The gain of 20 per unit commonly used on today's excitation systems originated from the voltage regulator criterion proposed by de Mello and Concordia, but has been retained because of the impact of voltage regulator action on oscillatory mode stability limits. We question the need to disconnect the stabilizer below 30 to 50% load as proposed by de Mello and Undrill, since, even though it may not be needed for system stability, it will not do any harm since GEP(s), and hence the stabilizer loop gain, is reduced under this condition. The variation of GEP(s) with system strength is a crucial point in designing

3045
stabilizers. For oscillation frequencies beyond the voltage regulator bandwidth, the variation in GEP is due only to variations in K2, which increases with system strength. Below the crossover frequency of the voltage regulator, it is further amplified by a reduction in K6 as the system becomes stronger. As was emhasized in the paper, there exists a "tuning condition" for the stabilizer under which one must be sure no undesirable interactions exist and which therefore determines the maximum gain of the stabilizer. The "performance condition" under which the stabilizer must provide damping is not necessarily the same as the tuning condition. For speed and power input stabilizers, the tuning condition is with a strong ac transmission system since this gives the highest loop gain, whereas the performance condition is with a weak transmission system where the impact of the stabilizer is attenuated due to a reduction in GEP(s). This is illustrated in Figures 4 and 6 of Part 2 of the paper. We did consider the use of a compensated frequency signal synthesized from terminal conditions, as proposed by de Mello and Undrill. While this certainly gives more flexibility in designing a stabilizer to add damping to a specific mode, we found that the use of terminal frequency or frequency from the high side of the generator step-up transformer gives a reasonably good compromise between the disadvantages of generator shaft speed resulting from compensating with X = XQ, and the reduction in performance arising from sensing a signal too far out in the system. We disagree with de Mello and Undrill's comments regarding the "filtering" of torsional modes when using frequency input. It is true that a frequency-based stabilizer requires less torsional filtering than a speed-based device, but for the torsional interaction phenomenon, ac bus frequency can be considered as primarily proportional to the speed of the generator shaft. The proportionality constant used for filter design depends on the worst case situation; for terminal frequency, the worst case would be with a weak external transmission system since this yields the strongest coupling to generator shaft speed, with Af 0.8 ACOG. For a synthesized signal obtained from terminal conditions, compensating for the subtransient reactance yields Af A(OG in the torsional frequency range. Compensation for the quadrature-axis reactance XQ will yield a coupling factor greater than unity for strong transmission systems and hence more torsi6nal interaction than using generator shaft speed. The benefits gained with respect to torsional filtering requirements by utilizing a frequency signal is twofold: 1) The generator shaft speed generally has less torsional motion than either the front or rear standard positions, and 2) because of the self-compensating nature with respect to transmission strength, tuning of the frequency input stabilizer yields a lower bandwidth than a speed input stabilizer having equivalent response in the performance condition. Both Concordia and de Mello commented on our discussion of power input stabilizers in Part 1. In this discussion, we were trying to provide a theory for stabilizer application based on an equivalent damping path from speed to torque. Such a theory allows for analysis of both electromechanical oscillations and torsional interaction. In hindsight, however, this is probably not the best way to present the concepts. We offer the following comments in clarification. For analysis of the interaction of the stabilizer with system modes of oscillation below a few Hz, Equations Cl and C2 are applicable. The stabilizer design follows that of the speed input stabilizer design, taking advantage of the inherent 900 phase lead indicated by Equation C2, once a measure of mechanical power has been obtained to satisfy Equation Cl.
accel
Pn
e

(C1)

(C2) s 2HwG For analysis of torsional interaction, however, the correct accelerating power experienced by the generator mass must be used, as per Equation C3.
(C3) Pe for this The assumptions behind Equations Cl and C2 are invalid situation, and the more comprehensive theory must be utilized to analyze the effective damping path from speed back through torque caused by the stabilizer. This analysis method requires that one consider a speed change being the initiating event (even though it is caused by a disturbance elsewhere which finally causes the speed change), and a torque change caused by the stabilizer resulting from the speed change. We agree with de Mello and Undrill that a Te! a is not a scalar, and point that they missed the indicated functional dependency of Kle(s) on frequency. This is intended to be a transfer function having a similar

paccel

@G[KTG()T

eG)

KGE(EG

meaning as K, in the Heffron-Philips model, but evaluated with a generator and transmission model valid for the phenomenon being investigated. With an appropriate model, the value of Kle(s) in the torsional frequency range is slightly different than the steady-state value, but it is still close to being a scalar and has roughly the same functional dependence on loading and system reactance as does the steady-state value. It is therefore an effective tool for presenting concepts, even though evaluation of torsional filtering requirements for particular application is best done with eignevalue analysis with a program such as MANSTAB [Cl] having a system representation valid in the torsional frequency range. Messrs. Lee, Kundur, and Zein-EI-Din make a good point by showing the equivalent speed-based stabilizer for the power-based stabilizer design used in Part 2 of the paper. The first lag term of 0.5 seconds in the power-based stabilizer design turns into a 0.5 second washout in a speed-based design. The discussors suggest that this low washout time constant could give enough desynchronizing effects to cause a poor performance of the power-based stabilizer in a large-signal application. We would add that our choice of time constants at .25 and .5 seconds was based on optimizing the performance for the power-based stabilizer for a weak transmission system. Thus, our point regarding the potential detrimental impact of excessive damping contribution remains valid. Nearly all the discussors commented on the use of additional signals to compensate for mechanical power. The basis for the observations of Messrs. Bonanomi and Bertschi lie in the concept developed by de Mello (Reference 11 of Part 3). As we indicated in Part 3 of the paper, an optimum value of filtering of the mechanical power signal exists, beyond which the torsional interaction due to the power path itself becomes dominant. In addition, the mechanical power filter design must take into account fast valve action. Messrs. Lee, et all. indicate that they have achieved such a filter design for their units. Dr. Concordia also points out the need for a washout to mitigate the impact of an inperfect steady-state compensation for mechanical power, which we also addressed in Part 3 as a practical consideration. As previously noted, this would be equivalent to adding a second washout to a speedbased stabilizer and hence, the time constant must be greater than about three seconds so that it does not cause additional desynchronizing effects from the stabilizer. Messrs. Lee, et al. raised a question about torsional interaction with four-pole turbine-generator units having a GENERREX* excitation system. For the low frequency torsional modes of concern with the four-pole unit, i.e., from about 6 to 8 Hz, the torsional interaction with a GENERREX system, either compound power source or potential power source, is roughly the same as that due to a bus-fed excitation system having the same wide-bandwidth control. Our conclusions are based on a conservative estimate of inherent mechanical damping and assuming generator shaft speed was used as an input signal. Ontario Hydro's practice of utilizing a speed pickup at a node of the first torsional mode would significantly reduce or- eliminate this filtering requirement. We would caution, however, that use of a combined front and read standard signal to provide mode 1 cancellation, as opposed to a mechanical measurement at the torsional node, carries with it a risk of torsional instability should one of the speed signals be lost. Dr. Concordia is obviously not in favor of high voltage regulator gains, even though the experience of Ontario Hydro appears to have been quite satisfactory. We would only comment that the Research Department of Ontario Hydro has been extremely active in all aspects of stabilizer applications, and have implemented controls which utilize their excitation systems to the utmost for stability enhancement. This has been done in conjunction with extensive studies specific to their system. This is somewhat unique in the electric utility industry, and for general application moderate gain in both the voltage regulator and power system stabilizer is perhaps the best philosophy, leading to Dr. Concordia's hope for a "standard" power system stabilizer. As indicated by Messrs. Lee, et al. power system stabilizer output limits can have a significant impact on performance following a major disturbance. Setting the negative limit to a smaller value than the positive limit is an excellent idea. As long as there is some takeover regulator and/or protection for excessive generator flux, we see no practical need to place an upper bound on the value of the positive limit. Messrs. Bonanomi and Bertschi raised the issue of steady-state voltage fluctuations due to stabilizer action, which arise from their design criterion of optimal damping for electromechanical oscillations. We feel a more appropriate design criterion is to provide adequate
*

Trademark of General Electric Company

3046

damping so that oscillatory instabilities are prevented, recognizing that the primary function of the excitation system is to regulate terminal voltage and not to damp electromechanical oscillations. Our experience has been that this criterion does not lead to excessive voltage fluctuations. We are aware of one situation, however, reported in Reference 11 of Part 2, where a single unit was utilized to damp tie-line power for a large area. In such a situation, voltage fluctuations were of concern and a tradeoff between desired damping and voltage regulation was required. The adverse impact of voltage fluctuations is primarily subjective, unless load tap changers of voltage regulating distribution transformers are exercised, in which case it could have a significant impact on equipment. Our experience has been that, as long as the stabilizer does not try to do more than its fair share of system damping, voltage fluctuations are not a significant problem. Messrs. Bonanomi and Bertschi also discuss use of individual gain and phase adjustments in tuning the stabilizer on the computer. Utilizing lead/lag circuits to provide phase shifting, the gain and phase can be specified only at one particular frequency, and we presume this is what they refer to. The tuning procedure indicated by the results presented in Part 2 consist of first adjusting the lead/lag settings to obtain an appropriate phase shift versus frequency characteristic, then to determine gain based upon a root locus calculation or a gain margin test in the field. This method provides insight into the characteristics of the particular application, and computer costs are negligible, particularly in comparison to setting up the equipment in the field. With respect to connecting a power system stabilizer downstream of the voltage regulator summing junction, we feel that there would be absolutely no difference in transient performance providing the excitation system and stabilizer remain within the limits. Such a connection would have different performance for large disturbances where nonlinear effects come in and there may be some advantage for this situation. We have already discussed Dr. Concordia's points 2 and 3. To his first point, we chose a value of 2.5 Hz assuming that some of the local modes in the area may have been increased in frequency by addition of stabilizers on other units. Such would be the case for a plant having a strong intermachine mode and a speed-based stabilizer on one of the units. In addition, introduction of a stabilizer even on a single unit increases the frequency of the local mode oscillation or introduces a higher frequency exciter mode. For speed- and frequency-based stabilizers, it is always the highest frequency mode which limits the obtainable gain. His point number 4 arises from differing interpretations of the term "transient" stability. Our use was with respect to the first swing, whether it be of the local mode or of an area mode, whereas Dr. Concordia interprets the transient to consist of everything between the two steady-state conditions. Thus, we should have distinguished between "first swing" stability and "oscillatory" stability. To his fifth point, we agree that only a 4 db gain margin for the optimum damping with a frequency-based stabilizer may be less than desirable for conservative control system design practices, to which we commented in Part 3 of the paper. However, utilizing the same 10 db gain margin with frequency as would be used with speed, will result in identical performance for the weak transmission system condition; a higher gain will give bet-

ter performance than would be possible with a speed-based stabilizer. An additional comment is warranted on the use of gain margin as a design criterion. With a power-based stabilizer, or with speed- or frequency-based stabilizers having no torsional filtering requirements, optimum damping occurs with gain margins in excess of 14 db, and varies considerably between different applications. For these situations, it is best tocalculate the gain to achieve a desired damping contribution as per Equation A5 of Part 1, rather than determining the instability gain and backing off a specified amount. Dr. Concordia feels that either frequency or power offer the best choices for a power system stabilizer input signal. While Messrs. Pinnello and Naumann point out that adaptive gain control can be used to make a speed-based stabilizer be sensitive only to the modes of concern, this function exists inherently when using frequency as an input signal. Although the power-based stabilizer is still more sensitive to the local modes relative to system modes than the frequency-based stabilizer, it has the advantages of requiring little torsional filtering and a high gain margin. Frequency input has an advantage in reliability since it requires only the terminal voltage signal, which is always available in the voltage regulator cubicle and is required for automatic voltage regulation anyway. Power input requires a measure of stator current and some measure of shaft speed, either directly via a transducer or by synthesis from current and voltage. In addition, to make a power-based stabilizer sensitive only to the system modes of concern, it would be required to obtain power signals from several other locations to sum them. Design of the filtering (Fm(s)) required on the synthesized mechanical power signal requires consideration for fast valving action, which would involve a large number of nonlinear simulations including a valid representation of the boiler and turbine controls. The potential problems which may occur with a frequency input stabilizer are: 1) insufficient gain margin leading to an instability in the 2 to 3 Hz region, or 2) insufficient torsional filtering leading to a torsional instability. Either of these can be tested readily when the equipment is commissioned. On the other hand, the potential problems associated with using a power-based stabilizer include excessive damping contribution for a weak transmission system and excessive filtering in the synthesized mechanical signal path. The potential adverse consequences would show up only following a major system disturbance and it would be difficult or impossible to verify the design adequacy based on simple field tests. The publication of this three-part paper culminates many years experience. Our intent was to thoroughly document the current state-ofart on power system stabilizer applications to provide a basis for further advancements. Judging from the discussor's comments, this objective appears to have been achieved.

REFE1RENCE

[Cl]

E. V. Larsen, W. W. Price, "MANSTAB/POSSIM Power System Dynamic Analysis Programs...", IEEE PICA Proceedings, 1977, pp. 350-359. Manuscript received February 17, 1980.