1

A New Fuzzy Logic Power System Stabilizer Performances

M. Dobrescu, Non Member, and I. Kamwa, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract-- This paper describes the performances of a new power system stabilizer, the Fuzzy Logic PSS (FLPSS). It is basically a PID (proportional-integral-derivative) type FLPSS with adjustable gains added outside in order to keep a simple structure. The FLPSS uses the generator speed deviation as primary input from which the accelerating power is derived as a secondary input. In order to validate the FLPSS, it has been compared with two reference stabilizers, the IEEE PSS4B and IEEE PSS2B from the IEEE Std 421.5. Conclusions are supported by a range of small and large signal analyses, performed on a four machine two areas test system (with two configurations). Index Terms-- Electromechanical modes, fuzzy logic, large signal stability, power system stabilizer, small signal stability.

either due to switching actions in the short term or system enhancements in the long term. With the conventional fixed-parameters stabilizers, the gains and other parameters may not ideally suit the entire spectrum of operation. The main objective of PSS is to insure system stability and good performances for all operating conditions and network configurations. Nowadays, with the development in digital technology, it has become possible to develop and implement new controllers based on modern and more sophisticated synthesis techniques. Indeed, controllers based on robust optimal control, adaptive control, artificial intelligence are being developed. Among these methods, fuzzy logic is particularly attractive because it does not require a mathematical system model to be controlled. It is, therefore, well-suited when the system to be controlled is complex, nonlinear and difficult to model. This powerful tool was used in different fields of application including, recently, power systems dynamic performance. The Fuzzy Logic PSS concept was derived to provide an original and efficient solution to this wide range modes damping problem. The core of the paper is divided in three sections, one to describe the FLPSS itself, a second one to bring some results based on small signal stability simulations and a third one to present some large signal stability results. In order to emphasize the FLPSS performances we will compare this novel fuzzy logic PSS results with two reference stabilizers results: the IEEE PSS2B [7] and IEEE PSS4B [1]. The IEEE PSS2B is an integral of generator accelerating power using a three-stage lead-lag transfer function while the IEEE PSS4B is built on a flexible multi-band transfer function structure to provide more degrees-of-freedom for achieving a robust PSS tuning over a wide frequency range. Both of them are included in the new IEEE Std-421.5 [2]. These IEEE PSS have the same external inputs (speed and electrical power deviations). Those models and parameters are presented in the Appendix. The reference system data and contingencies analysis, the PSS structures and settings used in this paper were implemented in Matlab/SimPowerSystems software [8]. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE FLPSS

I. INTRODUCTION N the context of modern interconnected electrical networks, power systems stabilizers are considered an essential control mean to improve stability and transmission capacity. Extensive network interconnections tend to introduce new electromechanical modes of oscillation between electrically coherent power plants or areas. When large electrical areas are involved, corresponding inter-area modes may be as low as 0.2 Hz. However, inter-machines oscillations inside a given power plant may reach frequencies as high as 4.0 Hz when machine inertia are small and exciter gains are high. Power system stabilizers are facing such a wide range of oscillating modes that they must ideally damp efficiently. Most power system stabilizers in use in electric power systems are derived from the classical linear control theory. This theory is based on a linear model of a fixed power system configuration. In other words, a fixed-parameters power system stabilizer, called a conventional PSS is optimum for one set of operating conditions and may not be as effective for drastically different set of operating conditions and/or network configurations. Indeed, power systems are nonlinear systems and their operation is basically of a stochastic nature. Therefore, system configuration is dynamic with frequent topological changes

M. Dobrescu and I. Kamwa are with Hydro-Qubec, IREQ, 1800 Boul. Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, Quebec, Canada, J3X 1S1 (e-mail: dobrescu.manuela@ireq.ca, kamwa.innocent@ireq.ca)

The FLPSS model is shown in Fig.1. As for a conventional PSS, the FLPSS comprises three main blocks, the filters

(WO), the fuzzy logic controller (FLC) and the limiter. One adjustable limiter (0.15) is provided for the FLPSS output. The filters WO are two washout filters with time constants of Tw=10 seconds. It is, as we can see, a PID (proportional-integralderivative) type stabilizer [6] which uses the speed deviation of the machine as primary input. The core of the FLPSS is a fuzzy logic controller (FLC). Gains have been added outside the FLC, on the one hand, to normalize input variables of the fuzzy logic controller and, on the other hand, to achieve the PID function. Let's note that the addition of these gains outside fuzzy logic controller permits to keep a simple structure. The FLC uses the speed and the acceleration power deviations as inputs, the latter being derived from the speed.
WO Kw Pa 2Hs Kp FLC Ks1

The output variable is classified by triangular fuzzy membership functions: BN (Big Negative) = [ -1.0 -0.51 -0.439], MN(Medium Negative)= [-0.515 -0.439 -0.302], LN(Low Negative)= [-0.439 -0.302 0.0], BZ (Big Zero) = [-0.302 0.0 0.302], LZ(Low Zero)= [-0.0015 0.0 0.0015], LP(Low Positive)=[0.0 0.302 0.439], MP(Medium Positive)= [0.302 0.439 0.515], BP(Big Positive)= [0.439 0.515 1.0]. The output signal was obtained using the following principles: - If the speed deviation is important, but tends to decrease, then the control must be moderated. In other words, when the machine decelerates, even though the speed is important, the system is capable, by itself, to return to steady state. - If the speed deviation is weak, but tends to increase, then the control must be significant. In this case, it means that, if the machine accelerates, the control must permit to reverse the situation. The inference mechanism of the FLC is represented by a 7x7 decision table. The entire set of rules (49 if-then rules) is presented in Table I.
TABLE I. FLPSS DECISION TABLE w/ Pa BN MN LN Z LP MP BP

PD

VS

s-1

Ks2

PI
Fig.1. PID type FLPSS model

In what follows, we will describe how the FLPSS has been synthesised. In a first place, we are going to show how the fuzzy logic controller was realised from concepts of fuzzy logic [5]. Thereafter, we will present the tuning gains methodology. A. Fuzzy logic controller The design process of the fuzzy logic controller may be split into five steps: the selection of control variables, the membership function definition, the rule creation, the fuzzy inference and the defuzzification strategy. The fuzzy inference method is minimum-maximum type (Mamdani). The defuzzification strategy used is the fuzzy centroid method. The two input variables membership functions have been chosen identical because of the normalization achieved on the physical variables. The normalization is important because it allows the controller to associate an equitable weight to each of the rules and, therefore, to calculate correctly the stability signal. Each of the input variables is classified by seven trapezoidal fuzzy membership functions. The following fuzzy sets were chosen: BN(Big Negative)= [-5.0 1.0 0.2 0.1], MN(Medium Negative)= [-1.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.2], LN(Low Negative)= [-1.0 -0.1 -0.03 1.0], Z(Zero)= [-1.0 -0.03 0.03 1.0], LP(Low Positive)=[-1.0 -0.03 0.1 1.0], MP(Medium Positive)= [-0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0] and BP(Big Positive)= [-0.1 0.2 1.0 5.0].

BP BZ LP MP BP BP BP BP

MP LN BZ LP MP MP BP BP

LP MN LN BZ LP LP MP BP

Z MN MN LN LZ LP MP MP

LN BN MN LN LN BZ LP MP

MN BN BN MN MN LN BZ LP

BN BN BN BN BN MN LN BZ

B. Tuning FLPSS gains strategy The FLPSS was obtained by combining the fuzzy logic controller with proportional-derivative action (FL-PD) and the fuzzy logic controller with proportional-integral action (FLPI). The gains of the proportional, derivative and integral actions of the FLPSS are given by the following relations:
K PR = Ks 2 F {Kp} + Ks1 F {Kw} K INT = Ks 2 F {Kw} K DER = Ks1 F {Kp}

(1)

Vs PID = K PR + K INT dt + K DER Pa

In (1) we used the following notations: KPR is the proportional action gain. KINT is the integral action gain. KDER is the derivative action gain. The F{} term represents the fuzzy operation.

For obtaining the gains Kw, Kp, Ks1 and Ks2 a three steps method has been used. This consists in adjusting only one parameter at a time and is designed with the following steps: 1. Normalize input variables (the adjustment of Kw and Kp gains). 2. Tune the FL-PD control first without using PI control. 3. Keep input gains Kw and Kp unchanged after adding FLPI control. Adjust the output gains Ks1 and Ks2 in FL-PI (proportional-integral) and FL-PD (proportionalderivative) branches to obtain a good result. At the end, the following values were obtained for the FLPSS gains: Kp=0.55, Kw=50*Kp, Ks1=1.2 and Ks2=0.12. III. RESULTS BASED ON SIMULATIONS We will start comparing the three PSS using a four machine two areas system called in this paper the Kundur test system [3-4]. In its basic symmetrical configuration, this system is available in the Matlab/SimPowerSystems software [8] as a demonstration. Despite its small size, it mimics very closely the behavior of typical systems in actual operation. We have implemented the stabilizers: FLPSS (described in previous section), IEEE PSS2B and IEEE PSS4B (described in Appendix) on all generating units (G1, G2, G3 and G4). The Kundur test system, shown in Fig.2, consists of two fully symmetrical areas linked together by two 230 kV lines of 220 km length. Each area is equipped with two identical round rotor generators rated 20kV/900MVA. The synchronous machines have identical parameters, except for inertia which is H = 6.5s for generators in area 1 and H = 6.175s for generators in area 2. Thermal plants having identical speed regulators are further assumed at all locations, in addition to fast static exciters with a 200 gain. The reference load-flow with generator G2 considered as the swing bus is such that all generators are producing about 700 MW each. Two stressed scenarios were considered with respectively, two tie-lines at a 413 MW transfer level (K2L) and a single tie-line at a 353 MW transfer level (K1L). The loads are assumed everywhere as constant impedance load models. The area 1 and area 2 loads are 967 MW and 1767 MW respectively. The load voltage profile was improved by installing 187 Mvar more capacitors in each area.

A. Small signal analysis Small-signal analysis provides a mean to compare the damping of the different system modes. The values were obtained with no stabilizer at either site first and then with FLPSS, IEEE PSS4B and IEEE PSS2B in closed-loop at the four generators in Fig.2. In order to identify the open-loop system, a finite impulse (1% from reference voltage Vref for 0.2 seconds) is injected in turn into each of the four machines while recording the output response signals. The linear MIMO model is constructed from a modal analysis of these time responses [9]. It allows the dominant modes to be identified. To better understand the results, we have completed the small signal analysis by providing in Table II and Table III the modal performance of the three PSS on a single tie-line system (K1L) and on two tie-lines system (K2L). This four machines two areas system has a strong inter-area mode.
TABLE II. PSS DAMPING ON A SINGLE TIE LINE SYSTEM
Mode

Interarea Local area 1 Local area 2

Open Loop Hz 0.44 -0.015 1.10 1.15 0.12 0.095

FLPSS Hz 0.37 0.26 0.83 0.86

0.59 0.61

IEEE PSS4B Hz 0.33 0.37 1.87 1.99 0.5 0.45

IEEE PSS2B Hz 0.46 0.19 1.04 1.07 0.33 0.32

TABLE III. PSS DAMPING ON A TWO TIE LINES SYSTEM Mode Interarea Local area 1 Local area 2 Open Loop Hz 0.64 -0.026 1.13 1.16 0.096 0.092 FLPSS Hz 0.55 0.19 0.83 0.86
0.6 0.65

IEEE PSS4B Hz 0.52 0.31 1.92 1.99 0.47 0.45

IEEE PSS2B Hz 0.62 0.1 1.06 1.07 0.32 0.33

For the single tie line system K1L inter-area frequency is 0.44Hz without PSS and for the two tie lines system K2L inter-area frequency is 0.64 without PSS. The closed loop inter-area frequency is quite different for FLPSS and PSS4B (Table II and II). The damping performance of the FLPSS is compared in Table II and Table III against the IEEE PSS4B and IEEE PSS2B for these two systems. The IEEE4B PSS is clearly the best for the inter-area modes. However, for the two local modes the better damping is obtained with FLPSS. This good performances hold at both week (K1L) and strong (K2L) systems. To illustrate the basic differences between these stabilizers, a frequency response plot is shown on Fig.3 to compare FLPSS settings with IEEE stabilizers (PSS4B and PSS2B type).

Fig. 2. Four Machine Two-Areas Kundur test system

Test A results illustrating the FLPSS performances are shown in Fig.4. While all candidate devices perform well on a two tie-line system, the FLPSS outperform the PSS4B and PSS2B.

Fig. 3. Frequency response of the three PSS type

As shown in Fig.3, in the interest frequency range [0.1 Hz 4 Hz], the FLPSS, IEEE PSS2B and the IEEE PSS4B don't present phase delay. Otherwise, it appears that, compared to the other stabilisers, the FLPSS gain varies little between 0.04 Hz and 0.3 Hz. In this frequency interval the gain of the FLPSS is located around 15p.u. However, beyond 1Hz, the gain of the FLPSS increases quickly to reach 75p.u. around 4 Hz. To this frequency, the other stabilisers gains are 55p.u. (PSS4B) and 60p.u.(PSS2B). As a general observation, it is interesting to mention that the IEEE PSS4B frequency response is well balanced at both ends of the spectrum, limiting the gain on the high side and phase lead on the low side. On the other hand, IEEE PSS2B phase in the interval [0.01Hz 0.04Hz] is too large. B. Large signal analysis We have implemented the FLPSS described in previous sections on G1, G2, G3 and G4 (as in the small signal analysis), in order to analyze its behavior following large contingencies (Table IV). Two scenarios were considered respectively, two tie-lines system (K2L) with a 413 MW transfer power and a single tieline system (K1L) with a 353 MW transfer power. The contingencies applied to Kundur test system are presented in table IV.
TABLE IV. LARGE SIGNAL TESTS ON THE KUNDUR TEST SYSTEM TEST A B
SYSTEM

Fig. 4. Test A: Inter-area angle shift, speed deviation and G1 terminal voltage of the K2L system

Test B results are shown in Fig.5. We can see that when the K1L test system is in closed-loop with the PSS2B, it lost the stability. The two other stabilizers (FLPSS and PSS4B) succeeded in consolidating the network. For this contingency, we can say that the FLPSS and the PSS4B have broadly comparable performances.

CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION 15 cycles 3 short-circuit at bus 8 cleared with one tie-line outage (line 7-9); 12 cycles 3 short-circuit at bus 1 (near G1) normally cleared with no equipment outage; 9 cycles 3 short-circuit at bus 1 (near G1) normally cleared with no equipment outage; Fig. 5: Test B: Inter-area angle shift, speed deviation and terminal voltage (G1) of the K1L system

K2L system K1L system K2L system

The FLPSS performances are exposed by comparing analysis with reference PSS: PSS2B and PSS4B. A severe fault was applied at the middle of the tie lines, followed by one tie-line outage (test A, Table IV).

Test C results are shown in Fig. 6. The K2L test system is less oscillating with the PSS4B and the FLPSS. We also note that the speed excursions are less pronounced with the FLPSS, allowing the steady state to be reached more quickly.

To complete this study, Test E results are shown in Fig.8. In the case of a mechanical power negative ramp applied to the generator G1, the PSS4B has better performances than the other two stabilizers. On this type of event, the least powerful stabilizer is the PSS2B because its stability signal is subject to very low frequency oscillations, a probable side-effect of its excessive phase lead below 0.04Hz.

Fig. 6. Test C: Inter-area angle shift, speed deviation and G1 terminal voltage of the K2L system

C. Others important tests Two other interesting contingencies for assessing PSS behavior under mechanical power disturbances are described Table V. In particular, Test D (Table V) results are shown in Fig.7. The initial crest of the speed obtained with the FLPSS, is smaller than with the two other stabilizers. Meanwhile, the terminal voltage is not degraded too much which is a welcome property. We also note that the FLPSS permits to reach the steady state faster. This said, Fig.7 also shows that the PSS2B and PSS4B PSS have an equally acceptable performance for this Test D.
TABLE V. OTHERS TESTS ON THE KUNDUR SYSTEM TEST D.
SYSTEM

Fig. 8: Test E: PSS output signal, speed deviation and G1 Electrical power of the K2L system

IV. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, fuzzy logic was used to synthesize a power system stabilizer in order to maintain the stability of the power system over a wide operating range. The results obtained in simulations are promising. Indeed, they showed that the Fuzzy Logic based PSS satisfies two essential properties in the control system field: good robustness and good damping performance. It is important to emphasize that in this study no robust control technique was explicitly used. It demonstrates the potential and efficiency of fuzzy logic in the power grid control field. Two modern PSS, the IEEE PSS2B and IEEE PSS4B have been used in order to validate the new FLPSS concept. V. APPENDIX A. IEEE PSS4B
TABLE VI. PSS4B PARAMETERS High Intermediate Low Frequency Frequency Frequency Band Band Band KB=20.0 KI=40.0 KH=160.0 KL1=66.0 KI1=66.0 KH1=66.0 KL2=66.0 KI2=66.0 KH2=66.0 TL1=0.4843 TI1=0.0969 TH1=0.0101 TL2=0.5812 TI2=0.1162 TH2=0.0121 TL7=0.5812 TI7=0.1162 TH7=0.0121 TL8=0.6974 TI8=0.1395 TH8=0.0145 VLmax=0.6 VImax=0.6 VHmax=0.6 VLmin=-0.6 VImin=-0.6 VHmin=-0.6 KL11=1; KI11=1; KH11=1; VST=0.15

CONTINGENCY DESCRIPTION Finite impulse (10% from reference mechanical power (Pref) for 1 second) applied on a single unit (G4) Mechanical power negative ramp (1p.u./minute for 6 seconds) on a single unit (G1)

K1L system

K2L system

Fig. 7: Test D: PSS output signal, speed deviation and G4 terminal voltage of the K1L system

VI. REFERENCES
[1] R. Grondin, I. Kamwa, G. Trudel, L. Grin-Lajoie, J. Taborda, Modeling and Closed-Loop Validation of a New PSS Concept, The Multi-Band PSS, Presented at the 2003 IEEE/PES General Meeting, Panel Session on New PSS Technologies, Toronto, Canada IEEE Standard 421.5, IEEE Recommended Practice for Excitation Systems Models for Power System Stability Studies, August 1992. M. Klein, G.J. Rogers, S. Moorty, P. Kundur, Analytical Investigation of Factors Influencing Power System Stabilizers Performance, IEEE Trans. on Energy Conv., 7(3), Sept. 1992, pp.382-390. P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1994. C. C.Lee, Fuzzy Logic in Control Systems : Fuzzy Logic Controller, Part I and II, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404-435, 1990. H. X. Li, H. B. Gatland, Enhanced Methods of Fuzzy Logic Control, IEEE transactions on systems, man and cybernetics, pp.331-336, 1995. N. Martins, A.A. Barbosa, J.C.R. Ferraz, M.G. dos Santos, A.L.B. Bergamo, C.S. Yung, V.R. Oliveira, N.J.P. Macedo, "Retuning Stabilizers for the North-South Brazilian Interconnection, " IEEE PES Summer Meeting, 18-22 July 1999 , Vol. 1, pp. 5867. MATLAB SimPowerSystem Software (version 6.5.1, 2004), MathWorks, www.mathworks.com/products/simpower/ I. Kamwa, L. Grin-Lajoie, "State-Space Identification-Towards MIMO Models for Modal Analysis and Optimization of Bulk Power Systems," IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, 15(1), Feb. 2000, pp. 326-335.

[2] [3]

[4] [5]

[6] [7]

Fig.9: PSS4B

[8] [9]

B. IEEE PSS2B

VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Manuela Dobrescu received a B.Eng. (1989) in Electrical Engineering from Craiova University, Romania and a M.Sc.(2003) from cole Polytechnique, Montreal University, Canada. In 1989, she joined RENEL-Romania, where she was involved in the control and protection field for power plant generators and high voltage stations. Twelve years later, she joined Hydro-Qubec Research Institute, where she is now involved as a Researcher in the field of power system dynamics. Innocent Kamwa (S'83, M'88, SM98) received a PhD in electrical engineering from Laval University, Qubec, Canada, 1988, after graduating in 1984 at the same university. Since then, he has been with the Hydro-Qubec Research Institute, where he is at present a Principal Researcher with interests broadly in bulk system dynamic performance. Since 1990, he has held an associate professor position in Electrical Engineering at Laval University where five students have completed their PhD under his supervision. A member of CIGR, Dr. Kamwa is a recipient of the 1998 and 2003 IEEE PES Prize Paper Awards and is currently serving on the System Dynamic Performance Committee AdCom.

PSS = Ks1

Tw s T1 s + 1 T3 s + 1 T5 s + 1 Tw s + 1 T2 s + 1 T4 s + 1 T6 s + 1
Fig.10: PSS2B TABLE VII. PSS2B PARAMETERS

PSS2B parameters Tw1(2,3) Tw4 T8 T9 M N Ks2 Ks3 10.0 100 0.50 0.10 5 1 0.99 1.0

Function PSS parameters Ks1 Tw T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 VST 20.0 3 0.12 0.012 0.12 0.012 0.25 0.75 0.15